New Covenant

Ghosts, the human brain, and circular reasoning

From the Thumb, a scary little post pointing us to a Newsweek article titled, The Ghosts We Think We See: Normal brain functions, such as seeing patterns, make us more likely to believe in the supernatural. From the article,

Chief among those normal processes is our neurons' habit of filling in the blanks. The brain takes messy, incomplete input and turns it into a meaningful, complete picture.

...

The mind also tends to impute consciousness to inanimate objects (ever yell at a balky computer?). This leads us to believe that natural phenomena are "purposeful, caused by agents with sentient minds," says Hood, whose book "The Supernatural Sense" is due next year. It's only a short step to thinking that " 'things that go bump in the night' are the result of some spirit or agent," not branches brushing against your drainpipe.

Of course, the Thumb immediately attacks the ID angle, but they make this interesting point:

An important point made in the article is that the tendency to see patters that aren't there or to impart consciousness to things that aren't conscious is a normal outcome of the way the human brain functions, due in large part to having to deal with incomplete sensory input. A couple of important lesson to draw from this (to me anyway) is that, first of all, rigorous empirical testing is necessary in science precisely because everyday perception can be so badly misleading. And secondly, the brain's wiring can make it very difficult for people to disabuse themselves of supernatural beliefs...

Okay. So our Halloween point to be made is that the wiring of the human brain can lead us to see things that aren't there (so they say). In other words, the wiring of the human brain is giving us faulty (on their account) information. Yet, how have we become aware of the fact that the wiring of the human brain gives us false information? By virtue of that same wiring of the human brain, that's how.

So, if our wiring is faulty, why should we believe anything it tells us?

Science, once again, disproves creationism

From ScienceDaily,

Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.

But this research once again demonstrates how selection -- whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man -- is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet.

The critical research in question? That of humans breeding dogs.

Yes, the demonstrable evidence that natural process evolution is, in fact, the driving force behind life (including the creation of life) on planet Earth, can be summarized in the before and after photograph below.

Is it any wonder they have to resort to legal gyrations to insure that their message, and their message alone, is heard?

Reality Sunset Marina

A small marina, adjacent to the Morro Bay State Park, in Morro Bay.

The first weekend of October, near sunset, we took a walk along a spit opposite the docks (see Google Maps). The air was cool, and calm. And it really was about as peaceful as the image shows.

- image © 2007 A. R. Lopez

On same-sex mating, genetic wiring, and ped0phi1es

From ScienceDaily, in the article Evidence Of Same-sex Mating In Nature, we're told of a study which demonstrated,

...that same-sex mating transpires in nature.

But don't go rushing off to the zoo in the hopes of seeing same-sex mating between, say, elephants. Nope. The study had to do with Cryptococcus neoformans, which is a pathogenic fungus.

Also from ScienceDaily, the article Same-sex Attraction Is Genetically Wired In Nematode's Brain, which states,

University of Utah biologists genetically manipulated nematode worms so the animals were attracted to worms of the same sex -- part of a study that shows sexual orientation is wired in the creatures' brains.

Of course, one has to wonder just what implications such genetic manipulation could have for the human brain.

From the article,

"We cannot say what this means for human sexual orientation, but it raises the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain(.) ...Humans are subject to evolutionary forces just like worms. It seems possible that if sexual orientation is genetically wired in worms, it would be in people too. Humans have free will, so the picture is more complicated in people." (Professor Erik Jorgensen, scientific director of the Brain Institute at the University of Utah)

Herein lies the crossroads that science cannot avoid - that of genetic wiring and free will - of determinism and morality. Consider that, if it is possible to genetically wire an individual to be predisposed to one particular sex, does that ultimately invalidate the notion of free will? Would it be reasonable to conclude that homosexuality is reducible to one's genetic wiring?

Again, from ScienceDaily, the article Are Some Men Predisposed To Ped0phi1ia?. In it, we read,

Further research is necessary, but this finding re-enforces evidence that ped0phi1ia has a biological cause, possibly related to brain development before birth.

However, the researcher cautions,

This research does not mean that ped0phi1es are not criminally responsible for their behavior," said Dr. James Cantor, CAMH Psychologist and lead researcher on the study, "but the discovery of biological markers for ped0phi1ia has important implications for future study and possibly treatment.

Again, we're at an impasse of sorts. If humans are subject to evolutionary forces (just like worms), and if our dispositions are ultimately reducible to our genetic wiring, then how is it possible to declare something like ped0phi1ia to be morally (and criminally) wrong?

Says who?

R.C. Sproul podcasting daily?

What's that!? What's that!?

Could it be?

Is R.C. Sproul podcasting on a daily basis now?

Check Ligonier Ministries, and their podcast link.

On comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany: Whoopi's ignorance

From HotAir.

Given that PBS just aired Ken Burns' The War, it is really astounding that Whoopi spews such "it's them and not us!" nonsense.

Science Saturday: How to construct a strawman

From the Panda's Thumb, a link to a cartoon which demonstrates how to construct a strawman.

Coming up next... how conservative school boards propose the teaching of a flat-earth (to be quickly followed by a curriculum on the existence of Jolly Old St. Nick!).

What if we win?

Poll of Afghans: More occupation, please

In a public opinion poll of Afghans conducted by Environics Research on behalf of The Globe and Mail, the CBC and La Presse, respondents expressed optimism about the future, strong support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and appreciation for the work being done by NATO countries in improving security…

According to the survey, conducted in person across the country between Sept. 17 and 24 with a representative sample of 1,578 men and women, 60 per cent said that the presence of foreigners in the country was a good thing. Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing, while 22 per cent said it was equally good and bad…  (emphasis added)

Bin Laden Sounds the Call of Defeat in Iraq

This new message from OBL is the second signal since early September that OBL smells and fears strategic defeat in Iraq. Look at Walid Phare's September 10 post about the September 8 video, in which he noted "unease among wider circles of the usually sympathetic commentators" and "a chaos unseen before" on jihadist websites, in reaction to his 9/11 commemoration video. Quoting Walid: "So the first reason behind the tape was a pressing need to show The Commander in command, to underline that the struggle continues." The quotes released thus far from this new audio include no boasts about America's weakness, as were made by his henchman Zawahiri in his tape on January 5 of this year. Instead, OBL whines about laziness and division in the ranks. Leaders on the road to victory never issue such demoralizing warnings.

This tape is the best confirmation of the crack-up on al-Qaida in Iraq, as reported here over the past month by Evan Kohlmann, and of the strategic turn of events in the Sunni triangle since the increase in U.S. troops and change in tactics. It's a desperate warning of defeat by a hidden, scared leader who senses that the basket into which he put many of his eggs has almost slipped irretrievably from his fingers.  (emphasis added)

California's wildfires the result of global climate change

From ScienceDaily,

The catastrophic fires that are sweeping Southern California are consistent with what climate change models have been predicting for years, experts say, and they may be just a prelude to many more such events in the future -- as vegetation grows heavier than usual and then ignites during prolonged drought periods.

...

In the future, catastrophic fires such as those going on now in California may simply be a normal part of the landscape

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated,

One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming.

Well... do you think that because southern California is located in a semi-arid region that, just maybe, it might have something to do with the likelihood of wildfires? And... do you think that because southern California is in the middle of its worst recorded drought ever that, just maybe, it might have something to do with the severity of the wildfires? And... do you think that because southern California has seasonal, dry, sometimes hurricane-force winds (i.e., Santa Ana Winds) that, just maybe, it might have something to do with the out-of-control nature of the wildfires? And... do you think that because of the single digit humidity levels (due to the winds) that, just maybe, it might fuel the ferociousness of the wildfires?

Given that many of these fires were started by human action (e.g., arson, downed power lines, construction), just how is it that they are the result of global warming, much less indicative of global climate change?

Securing the safety of the Secretary of State

How is it that a nutroot from Code Pink is allowed to get so close to our Secretary of State?

Check the video of the encounter here.

Besides perverting the notion of free speech, the security implications are scary. What if, instead of some two-bit protester, it was an al-Qaeda operative? I hope a serious look is taken at current security procedures (because of this).

What if we win in Iraq?

What if we win in Iraq?

Ten months after the announcement of the new counterterrorism strategy in Iraq -- often misleadingly referred to as "The Surge" -- and four months after the last combat brigade was positioned and major operations against al Qaeda and the Shia extremist groups began in mid-June, the US military can point to real results in the security field. Violence has dropped in Iraq, and dropped significantly.

If the next year produces demonstrable results in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, will it affect how the GOP Presidential candidates play their cards? In my opinion, other than Ron Paul, their strategy remains the same. Of the Democrat candidates, who might benefit from such a victory? My bet is that only Hillary stands to benefit.

Halloween's a coming... time to dress your girl like a tramp

From a recent Party America mailer. Just the right kind of kid's costume to get your little girl acclimated to the world that awaits her.

On Columbia, Hitler, & WWII

So, the Columbia Dean would have, hypothetically speaking, invited Hitler to speak at Columbia. All in the interest of reasoned and civil debate, I suppose.

After recently watching the PBS series The War, I'm pretty much left speechless at the ignorance displayed by Dean Coatsworth. If this is an example of the prestige of an Ivy-League school, count me as unimpressed.

Frugal Friday: tips & tricks

Typically, our family will treat Friday as Frie-day, and our dinner will consist of some sort of fast-food (e.g., burgers & fries). However, for our meals during the rest of the week, we try to follow this simple rule:  Avoid the use of pre-packaged "convenience" food mixes (e.g., Hamburger Helper, bagged salads).

By preparing the meals from stock items you have control over how healthy your meal is, how cost efficient your meal is, and how tasty your meal is. You also have a golden opportunity to engage in family time as the children (and even the husband) can lend assistance in the meal's preparation. Family traditions can be passed on through something as simple as a favorite dish.

The meals prepared do not have to be elaborate productions, and steps can be taken to save time. For instance, while freshly made tomato sauce is a wonderful sensation to the taste buds, most times we simply grab the canned variety. However, we rarely (read: never) use bottled varieties of, say, spaghetti sauce. Yuck! Why pay the extra cost for something that is so easily made (and better tasting) with a few simple spices?

In 'Convenience' Foods Save Little Time For Working Families At Dinner, at ScienceDaily, there are some telling results from a study done on dinner preparation habits of 32 working families in the Los Angeles region. From the article,

"People actually spend quite a fair amount of time cooking, but they're incorporating a lot of so-called convenience foods. Some people are just grabbing food kits off store shelves and adding water."

...

Surprisingly, dinner didn't get on the table any faster in homes that favored convenience foods...

In fact, families saved only when it came to the amount of hands-on time spent preparing dishes -- and the savings were relatively modest. Families with an extensive reliance on convenience foods saved an average of 10 to 12 minutes over families with more limited reliance on such products. Home-cooked meals required an average of 34 minutes of hands-on time.

...

Not surprisingly, mothers tended to wear the apron. Of observed dinners, 80 percent were made by mothers, and this was the case even when fathers were already home from work and theoretically available to pitch in.

...To the distress of CELF researchers, children didn't help much either. "It makes me sad when I think of people not having this experience," Ochs said. "You lose family and regional traditions."

Jimmy Carter: America's ultra-right war mongering element, & Iran's "protective devices"

Jimmy Carter, the "do nothing" President of the '70s, tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer how he would handle the Iran crisis. Note: not the Iran crisis during his presidency, in which he ended up doing nothing, but the current Iran crisis, in which he recommends that we do nothing. This is his response to dealing with the "ultra-right-wing war-mongering element in our country." He does note, after making such a bigoted statement, that the element he referred to is in the "minority". So, why mention them, Jimmy?

Referring to the American hostages in Tehran, taken and held under his presidency, he notes how he continued to talk with Iran regarding their fate (except, of course, for his failed rescue attempt). Interesting how, when one looks back, the hostages were released just as Ronald Reagan took office. That says something about how "do nothing" Carter was viewed as compared with "war-monger" Reagan.

Yet, in Carter's world, we are the aggressors. We are the ones who have driven the terrorist to attack us. We are the ones causing Iran to build, what he refers to as "protective devices", and what the rest of us refer to as nuclear weapons. At the Belmont Club, we have a couple of examples of just what terror is. In No Exit, we read,

But there is a strange tendency, especially among those who would otherwise claim that America is everywhere declining, to ascribe to it an indirect omnipotence. Everything is America's fault. Is the climate changing? Are people in Gaza starving? Is there no help for those being killed in Darfur? Are the Ayatollahs beating up on student demonstrators? Look no further for the cause. It's all America's fault. It's always America's fault.

And in How Terror Works,

In the terrorist universe resistance to terror is met by more terror; like a drug which must be administered in ever-larger quantities to keep working; like alcohol used on a drunk to make him forget he's a drunk. It's a Ponzi scheme with intimidation used in place of money.

I'll say one thing about Jimmy Carter: at least he was president then, and not now.

Infant believers and their infant leaders

Phil Steiger, at Every Thought Captive, posts on infant believers... and infant pastors. He cautions that we,

...should not confuse jargon-laden with wise and mature. Being a disciple is about following Christ through the real world, not acting at church.

He then offers an excellent definition of the office of pastor:

By very definition of the calling and office, pastors must be people who resist the rising tide of Christian infancy. They are the ones God has called to lead people through their relationships with Christ; through their struggles in seeing the world the way God wants us to see it; through their wanderings in and out of Scripture; through their stuttering attempts at prayer and devotion; through their journeys as souls infinitely precious to God.

Yet, in their zeal to reach the lost, many pastors are forsaking their calling towards guiding their flock. They are, essentially, evangelists. There's nothing wrong with being an evangelist; it's just categorically different than being a pastor.

At FutureAG, a blog dedicated to giving Assemblies of God ministers a forum to discuss the future of the Assemblies of God, there was a recent post asking pastors to comment on what cool and innovative sermon series they may be doing. The discussion in the comments has gotten a bit heated as some (myself included although, to clarify, I am not a minister) have noted that what many young pastors refer to as cool and innovative sermons tend to simply mimic secular, media-driven entertainment projects. One anonymous pastor wrote,

It is my goal and mission as a pastor to seek and save the lost.

I find that a very interesting statement - given that it seems to be the job of the Holy Spirit to drawing souls to Christ, not to mention that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength. Even the Great Commission, which many seem to rely on as their sole marching orders, mandates that we make disciples - not seek and save the lost.

Another pastor wrote,

I have made up my mind that I don't care anymore what "Christians" think. I don't care what music they like. I don't care if they want "more worship," "deeper teaching," or what have you. They can go by the latest Gaither CD and read their good ol' KJV. I told our church this Sunday I look forward to the day that we have more hell-bound sinners in the seats looking for Christ than Christians looking to criticize.

My, my. Such cynically hateful words for those scare-quoted "Christians" that want, of all things, to strive for deeper worship and teaching.

Yet, this is not a surprising outcome when one bases their understanding of their pastoral calling to be that of a soul-saver. When the saving of souls essentially becomes the greatest commandment we're left with decision-based salvation; and when we're left with decision-based salvation we fall victim to developing cool and innovative approaches to getting non-Christians into church and getting them to "make a decision" for Christ. We forgo the lengthy process of explaining what a life commitment to Christ is in place of getting that quick decision.

Has it not occurred to these young pastors that Peter, in his sermon after Pentecost, essentially told his listeners that they were sinners in need of repentance? Do they not realize that in the entire book of Acts, which chronicles the birth of the Christian church, not once is the message "God loves you" preached? (it was, essentially, "you need to repent") Will they be surprised to learn that, in Acts 17, Paul states that God commands everyone to repentance? (no enticing message there)

I wonder... why the need for cool and innovative series at all? Is God's Word not enough? Did He leave something out? Did He forget to give us the outlines for exciting and relevant sermon series?

Perhaps Paul's words, to Timothy, are appropriate here:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

- 2 Timothy 3:14-17 ESV

Tidbits...

The Devil didn't make me do it.

From ScienceDaily,

As human beings, we have limited resources to control ourselves, and all acts of control draw from this same source. Therefore, when using this resource in one domain, for example, keeping to a diet, we are more likely to run out of this resource in a different domain, like studying hard. Once these resources are exhausted, our ability to control ourselves is diminished. In this depleted state, the dieter is more likely to eat chocolate, the student to watch TV, and the politician to accept a bribe.

...

Not only does it cost an arm and a leg to go to college, it seems to now also cost your brain.

From Suzanne Fields,

Many graduates leave college with less knowledge of American history, government, foreign affairs and economics than when they entered as freshmen.

... The test was not loaded with tricks or esoteric questions. Given multiple choices, a majority could not say where they could find the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self evident." Several thought it was from "The Communist Manifesto." At many of these schools there is no requirement for even one course in American history.

...

Tolerant, liberal atheism, on display.

From Telic Thoughts (way back in June), a quote from P.Z. Myers,

I do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant.

...

Altruism as a means to species survival. This must explain why some people choose to give their lives to save others (yet, who hard-wired the brain?).

From If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural,

The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

Benny Hinn, and his like

From SmartChristian (last month), a link to a post at Verum Serum titled, Benny Hinn Understudy Almost As Bad (if not Worse) than the Original.

This piggybacks, sort of, on my post Slain in the Spirit: or not.

And, over at Church Matters, Jonathan Leeman posts on the false teacher Hananiah, in Jeremiah 28.

Human sacrifice: cultural expression or moral wrong?

In light of recent Columbus Day celebrations, including those designed to denigrate the appearance of Europeans on the continents of North and South America, it is interesting to note the moral laws held by some Native American peoples. In Inca Children Were Fattened-up Before Sacrifice, Hair Samples Show, at ScienceDaily, we read,

Hair samples from naturally preserved child mummies discovered at the world's highest archaeological site in the Andes have provided a startling insight into the lives of the children chosen for sacrifice. Researchers funded by the Wellcome Trust used DNA and stable isotope analysis to show how children as young as 6-years old were "fattened up" and taken on a pilgrimage to their death.

Any notion that the Native Americans were, as a whole, a peace-loving people, living in harmony with nature, simply does not fit with what one finds in history. Simply put, the Native Americans were also sons of Adam, fallen human beings, in need of redemption.

From the report,

"It looks to us as though the children were led up to the summit shrine in the culmination of a year-long rite, drugged and then left to succumb to exposure," says co-author Dr Timothy Taylor, also of the University of Bradford. "Although some may wish to view these grim deaths within the context of indigenous belief systems, we should not forget that the Inca were imperialists too, and the treatment of such peasant children may have served to instill fear and facilitate social control over remote mountain areas."

In a world of moral relativism, we simply look upon the mummified remains of a 15 year-old girl, fattened up and sacrificed, and comment that human sacrifice has occurred throughout human history. In a world of moral truths, we say that the practice was, and still is, wrong.

Science Saturday: even when it's not science

Natural process evolutionists will typically proclaim that their intent is to promote science, and that religion, especially in the form of creationism, has no place in the science classroom. Indeed, the Dover decision was based on the notion that ID is simply another form of creationism.

Yet, one does not have to look very far to find natural process evolutionist scientists sometimes having a difficult time preaching simply science. At Aetiology, we find the little ditty, Women are still chattel, Film at 11. Scientist Tara Smith, despite having a blog header which states,

Discussing causes, origins, evolution, and implications of disease and other phenomena

has posted above mentioned entry under the scientific category of "wtf?". Yeah, try finding that in the latest peer-reviewed journals.

What seems to have irked scientist Smith is the fact that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has a major in homemaking. No, I'm not making this up: a natural process evolutionary scientist is upset with a Baptist theological seminary all because of a non-science related major they offer. What, you may ask, is the issue that scientist Smith has with such an undertaking? Well, as she puts it,

So you have here a lot of women who admittedly sometimes resent their husbands, feel they need to keep their mouths shut, surrender their own happiness, and it doesn't even matter what they think about it, because they claim "the Bible says so." And this, of course, is the formula for a marriage "so harmonious, other women will ask how they manage." Yeah, I bet they'll ask that, but not for the reason Mrs.-Paige-Patterson-I-have-no-identity-of-my-own-anymore thinks they will. I should also note that I think it's great if a woman (or a man) chooses to stay at home with the kids while their partner works, but the way it's done here--out of expectation, coercion, and fear--I have no respect whatsoever for.

On the seminary's website, we find the following statement regarding their women's studies program,

We here at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary want to encourage women to prepare themselves for ministries in their homes, churches, and communities. As you consider how to equip yourself, choose from a variety of programs what is appropriate for your own diverse interests and unique giftedness within the boundaries of biblical priorities. In the programs at Southwestern women are introduced to the marketplace of ideas, including both complementarian and egalitarian positions, and they are thoroughly equipped to give an articulate and well reasoned evangelical response to the feministic ideology of the age.

Scientist Smith certainly has every right to her opinion, and to respect (or not respect) other people's beliefs. Yet, despite her apparent ignorance of the notion of self-sacrifice, much less the self-less aspects of the Christian faith, her self-righteous, intolerant attitude seems, at the very least, a bit incongruous with the liberal, tolerant notions she otherwise claims to hold.

Not to leave us wondering as to why she posted this entry, though, she states,

Oh, and why is this relevant to a science discussion? Well, lookie at one reason they want women to stay at home:

"We're equipping them to do home-schooling."

And you can bet it won't be to teach those kids evolution...

(ellipsis in original, for all you ellipsis police out there)

Ah, yes. The tolerance of natural process evolutionary thought at work once again. If you really are a  betting scientist, Dr. Smith, then please make the wager with me or, say, Theology Mom. As I've stated before, my wife and I will be teaching natural process evolution in our homeschool environment. You see, we aren't afraid of presenting ideas counter to our worldview and, as such, do not have to resort to performing legal gyrations in order to censor books and ideas from our classrooms. Theology Mom, as well, has made it clear she intends to present the naturalistic theory of evolution within the sacred walls of her homeschool. And I would wager that other homeschoolers, such as my friends Wendy, Bonnie, Dana, and Ilona, have a similar approach.

Once again, I wonder, just what is it that the natural process evolutionists are so afraid of?

So ends today's non-science Science Saturday.