New Covenant

Vote for Real-Science-4-Kids

A wonderful home school science education curriculum, Real-Science-4-Kids, needs your vote!

It's part of About.com's Best Homeschool Science award.

Links for Friday, 24 February 2012

NASA thinking about an Earth-Moon-Libration Point 2
Well it's not quite Space 1999, but pretty cool nonetheless,

NASA is pressing forward on assessing the value of a "human-tended waypoint" near the far side of the moon — one that would embrace international partnerships as well as commercial and academic participation, SPACE.com has learned.

According to a Feb. 3 memo from William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, a team is being formed to develop a cohesive plan for exploring a spot in space known as the Earth-moon libration point 2 (EML-2).

###

Do you know what a Mainframe is? Well, NASA just shut down their last one

###

Even more Geek News:  Photos of Mars Landers from Mars orbit

###

Abe Lincoln (on a penny) to be used as a quick size comparison indicator on the next Mars Rover

###

NASA taking stock of Eart's melting land ice
From the 2003-2010 observations,

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

Yikes! That's very unsettling news.

Yet, another report headlines us to the news that Earth's Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought. An excerpt (emphasis added),

Nearly 230 billion tons of ice is melting into the ocean from glaciers, ice caps, and mountaintops annually—which is actually less than previous estimates, according to new research by scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Further in the US News report researcher John Wahr states (wisely, in my opinion),

"Even with an eight-year estimate, it's not clear how far into the future you can project," he says. "A lot of people want to predict into the end of the century, but I think it's too dangerous to do that … We don't have enough info to know what'll happen. There's some ebb and flow to these things."

Indeed, if anyone ever wants to sell you something now based on a prediction of what will happen 100 years from now, you'd better grab hold of your wallet (I think Michael Crichton said that). From the NASA news release, after they've admitted the same as the US News report, it reads,

One unexpected study result from GRACE was that the estimated ice loss from high Asian mountain ranges like the Himalaya, the Pamir and the Tien Shan was only about 4 billion tons of ice annually. Some previous ground-based estimates of ice loss in these high Asian mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons annually.

Ouch!

Imagine if you had some remodeling work done on your home and the contractor estimated it would cost $50,000 but the final bill came in at only $4,000? Well, of course you'd be ecstatic, but wouldn't you also be wondering why the contractor was so inept? Or what if a stockbroker claimed an investment would return $50,000 but it only came back with $4,000?

Yet we're supposed to based governmental subsidies, regulations, etc., all on long-range "scientific" esitmates that, quite frankly, are "dangerous" to do.

 

Links for Saturday, 21 January 2012

Plugged In, and Trippin'! Literally
Study finds injuries increase with the frequency of headphone use,

Serious injuries sustained by pedestrians while listening to headphones have more than tripled in six years, according to a new study published this week in the journal Injury Prevention.

###

Hey, let's bring some MERCURY into our homes!
From the Jerusalem Post,

...from this point onward, only incandescent bulbs of 60 watts and less will be retailed. This limits our choice – like it or not – to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), those squiggly, coiled bulbs initially hailed by environmentalists as saving as much as 50 percent of energy consumption, while lasting eight times longer. In truth, some CFLs malfunction far more quickly than advertised and they remain expensive.

...

There’s more. Each CFL contains small quantities of mercury and other toxins. If a bulb breaks at home, its fragments are dangerous to bare skin and need special handling and cleaning up. Even vacuum cleaners won’t do because they might spread the contamination.

###

Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God?

###

Homeschooled students in university science classes: strengths, and weaknesses
The points from this university science professor (HT: Old-Earth Creation Homeschool) echo my own observations and thoughts. From the post,

Desirable characteristics:

1. They are independent learners and do a great job of taking initiative and being responsible for learning. They don't have to be "spoon fed" as many students do. This gives them an advantage at two specific points in their education; early in college and in graduate education.

2. They handle classroom social situations (interactions with their peers and professors) very well. In general, my homeschooled students are a pleasure to have in class. They greet me when the enter the class, initiate conversations when appropriate, and they don't hesitate to ask good questions. Most of my students do none of these.

3. They are serious about their education and that's very obvious in their attitude, preparedness, and grades.

Areas where homeschooled students can improve:

1. They come to college less prepared in the sciences than their schooled counterparts - sometimes far less prepared. This can be especially troublesome for pre-professional students who need to maintain a high grade point average from the very beginning.

2. They come to college without sufficient test-taking experience, particularly with timed tests. Many homeschooled students have a high level of anxiety when it comes to taking timed tests.

3. Many homeschooled students have problems meeting deadlines and have to adjust to that in college. That adjustment time in their freshman year can be costly in terms of the way it affects their grades.

###

The face of a Post-Christian Europe?
Rest assured, while Christian churches continue to close, the Church will not disappear (until it's time to leave).

Links for Tuesday, 16 August 2011

Be Prepared
An online link to first aid manuals (PDF formats), many of which were designed for use on naval vessels, or while in remote locations. Good source of preparedness for a natural or manmade disaster.

###

Illegal Aliens are... Illegal?
A couple of months old, but still amusing (or scary). From her own lips,

We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy... the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all.

###

Geek News
The Bionic Eye gets closer to reality.

###

Geek News # 2
1,235 exosolar planets.

Japan, and God

It seems that after any disaster, particularly one that is natural, such as a hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami, the question of "where is / was God?" comes up. Indeed, in the recent interview of Rob Bell, and his unorthodox, albeit heretical views on the doctrine of Hell, the MSNBC interviewer, Martin Bashir opened his segment with,

Which of these is true? Either, God is all powerful but he doesn't care about the people of Japan and, therefore, their suffering; or, He does care about the people of Japan, but he's not all powerful. Which one is it?

Aside from the fact that the questions reflect a false dichotomy - if the God of the Bible is being referenced, then neither question is true - one must still come to grips with how God is addressed in times of great pain.

Suffice it to say that God is God and we are his creation. If one, at the outset, does not believe, or at least understand that basic point, then one will have a difficult, if not impossible time accepting the conclusions that follow.

I do find it interesting, however, that it is in times of great human suffering that agnostics and atheists tend to raise up the question of God. I'm reminded of the story of Bertrand Russell, and his famous question posed to Christians, regarding what they would say of God's existence at the bed of a dying child. And then I recall the rebuttal to Russell, posed by William Lane Craig, regarding what the atheist would say to that same child. "Tough luck"? "That's the way it goes"?

In like manner, whenever anyone questions God after a natural disaster, would it not be prudent to ask the individual how they propose to explain the suffering, strictly in terms of naturalism? Wouldn't it be fair to inquire how they propose to deal with the very real heartache, all in terms of the laws of physics? If they ask "where is your loving God?", could we not ask "do your books on plate tectonics bring you comfort?"

You see, despite the apparent quandary that the question of God seems to pose, it ultimately exposes the vacuous wasteland which atheists must inhabit, if they are to remain true to their worldview. Yes, the answers to suffering, provided by the Christian worldview, may leave one feeling unsatisfied, grieving, and shattered - but they do not leave one without hope. And hope is the basis for which assurance exists, an assurance which rests not on sight but on faith - faith grounded in knowledge, which prevails against the feelings attempting to rip us apart from the one who is our God.

As such, the Christian response, in times of tragedy, must be one of love. Ater all, God is God, and we are his creation.

Geisler, Dembski, Strobel, and more - Saturday 11/6 in southern California

For those in southern California, check out the Apologetics Conference at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, tomorrow (Saturday) at 8 a.m. Some of those speaking, throughout the day, include: Ergun Caner, William Dembski, Norm Geisler, and Lee Strobel. Best of all, the event is FREE!

Not in southern California? There is supposed to be a live stream of the conference at this link.

More Info:

• Conference website
• Conference schedule (PDF)

Stephen Meyer & William Dembski, tonight in southern California

For those in southern California, check out the Apologetics Conference at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, tonight at 6 p.m. On tap for the evening are Steve Collins, Stephen Meyer, and William Dembski. Best of all, the event is FREE!

Not in southern California? There is supposed to be a live stream of the conference at this link.

More Info:

• Conference website
• Conference schedule (PDF)

Links for Tuesday, 28 September 2010

All things are better in Koine! And my friend Joe Carter should get a kick out of the shot of Biola's infamous hippie Jesus mural.

###

Bad News / Good News The Bad News? 49% of Protestants think Mormons are Christians. The Good News? Those same Protestants are looking forward to having a whole lot of fun at church this coming Sunday.

###

Mexico tosses us a red herring From CNN,

Violence in the United States is not related to illegal Mexican immigrants, but violence in Mexico is connected to vast shipments of weapons from the United States, Mexico's foreign minister told CNN Thursday. Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa pointed to efforts by Mexico to stop the flow of weapons, the great majority of which come from the United States. "Since 2006," she said in a wide-ranging interview with CNN's editorial board in New York City, "the Mexican government has seized over 85,000 weapons in Mexico." She noted that it's not just "regular weapons," but also machine guns, grenades and other high-power arms. Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, pointed out last year there were at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.

I'd venture to say that the chances are slim to none that one could purchase machine guns, grenades, or other [related] high-power arms, in any of those 6,600 gun shops.

###

With either choice, your system's gonna get cleaned out Evidently, people would prefer to have a colonoscopy vs. cleaning out their computer's registry.

###

The FBI chooses Glock Contract award at close to $1 million, for 2,900+ Glock 23 .40SW handguns.

###

Lucky Break: significant good fortune or opportunity What do you do, if you're committed to naturalism, and you're faced with the fact that your very existence hinged on at least 10 highly improbable events of the past? Well, the rational, neo-Darwinistic logical conclusion must surely be that we were really, really, really, really, really lucky! For those who can actually put 2 + 2 together, the folks at Reasons to Believe have been discussing the design aspects of our universe, for quite some time.

Links for Saturday, 25 September 2010

Self Defense for a Bear Attack If it was me, I'd leave the summer squash for the crockpot, and utilize something that has the word "magnum" associated with it.

###

Geek News of the Week Images of Aurora on Saturn's South Pole.

###

The S.L.E.D. Test as an argument against abortion Whenever I discuss the topic of abortion with a person who is pro-abortion, it's amazing to see the lack of clarity and reason in their position. Truth be told, when unpacked to its core features, their position is without rational basis. Scott Klusendorf, formerly from Stand to Reason, discusses the S.L.E.D. Test, what it is, and how to rationally apply it to demonstrate that the unborn are valuable as human beings.

###

Funny

###

Obama think $1.00 will cover the purchase of 4 apples And, yes, the media didn't handle it like they did when Dubya was around.

###

The 1% Solution? Bono's One Foundation only manages to direct a little over 1% of what it receives to the needy? Ouch! Maybe the Obama administration should consider a takeover?

###

Power to the People! The last best hope...

Ken Ham continues to grind an axe with the AG over Genesis

or, How a fallible human can claim infallibility

In Young Earth Creation: a Sad Day for Unwavering Dogmatism, I wrote about the recent blog post, by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, which took the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination to task for a change in their position on the Genesis 1 & 2 creation accounts (a position change in which they essentially allow for an Old Earth Creation (OEC) interpretation).

A later blog post by Ham (HT: Ron's Bloviating) responds to a response by the AG. Unfortunately, in Assemblies of God responds... but What Does It Really Mean?, Ham continues to confuse the issues, as well as displaying inconsistencies with his approach.

Yet what is it, exactly, that is so disconcerting to Ham? I would submit, based on his blog posts, that he has the following issues:

1) He fears time... that is, a universe that is billions of years old. Presumably, this fear is fueled by two major points: a) he contends that the idea the universe is millions of years old is not found in the Bible and, b) a universe that is millions of years old opens up the door to theories involving natural process evolution. From his post,

However, if a person allows for “various theories” about creation, then those “various theories” include gap theory, theistic evolution, progressive creation, framework hypothesis, day age, and so on.  All of these beliefs have one common element. All of the theories attempt to reconcile millions of years into the Bible, and require a person to exalt man’s ideas above Scripture, for the idea of millions of years comes from man’s faulty interpretation of the universe.  “Millions of years” is just not in Scripture.

and the reason he fears time is because,

2) He believes one can understand Scripture without relying on, or being affected by, any external influences. As such, he believes that a "natural reading" of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 result in an interpretation of 6 24 hour "literal" days of creation. From his post,

If a person is not influenced by any ideas outside of Scripture, that person would not take Genesis in any other way than as it is written—six literal days of creation, strict genealogies (that do not allow for millions of years), death coming after sin, animals vegetarian originally, man made from dust and woman from his side, global Flood, etc.

and because he believes one can understand Scripture uncontaminated by outside influences,

3) He believes that, due to man's fallible state, any ideas derived by man are correspondingly fallible and, as such, cannot have authority over the Word of God. From his first post,

The AOG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.

And from his current post,

All of the theories attempt to reconcile millions of years into the Bible, and require a person to exalt man’s ideas above Scripture, for the idea of millions of years comes from man’s faulty interpretation of the universe.

Let's take a look at these issues.

Young Earth Creation: A Sad Day for Unwavering Dogmatism

Ken Ham, staunch Young Earth Creationist, has recently written a blog post highlighting a recent position change taken by the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination (HT: Ron's Bloviating). Ham takes issue with the AG for revising their earlier held position, sympathetic to a Young Earth position, for that of one which allows for Old Earth belief as well. For the record, I have grown up in the AG denomination and have been partial to the Old Earth Creation model, despite their earlier stance, since I was in elementary school (the 1960s). In A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination, Ham writes,

The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc)

Of particular concern, to Ham, is the statement by the AG,

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation.

evidently because he connects such reasoning as equivalent to succumbing to the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he tempted Eve to doubt God's Word. By comparing a 1977 statement, from the AG, Ham contrasts a previous belief that a "natural reading" of the Genesis 1 creation account results in an understanding that the account refers to consecutive 24 hour solar days. His concern seems to be that any acceptance of data, from scientific research, that points towards a billions of years old universe, is tantamount to the doubting of God's Word, which he understands - nay, demands - to state otherwise. Ham writes,

The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.

I applaud Ham's concern, which is ultimately driven by a desire to keep Christians from falling prey to worldly wisdom, yet I seriously question the dogmatic stance he has taken. He posits that a Young Earth interpretation of the creation accounts, found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, is the only viable interpretation allowed. Such a position has neither a theological, historical, or scientific grounding.

While this blog post is, by no means, an attempt to exhaustively answer the Young Earth / Old Earth debate, I do want to make a few concise points.

In discussing this subject, with Young Earth proponents, I've sometimes been told that the Young Earth position is held because "it's what the Bible says". The obvious conclusion, from such a position, is that the Old Earth interpretation is NOT what the Bible says. I wonder if Young Earthers, who make such a statement, are really aware of implications of what they're proposing? Do they really think that some of their fellow Christians are not aware of what they happen to be reading in God's Word? I also wonder how consistent Young Earthers are with their "natural reading" of "what the Bible says" argument? If they wish to be consistent, then surely they must think that God has wings, that Jesus' had nails driven through his hands, that it's the Sun that revolves around the Earth*, that the mustard seed is the smallest plant seed on earth, and that the value of Pi is equal to the integer 3. But, of course, I would imagine that for those references they would argue that the meaning found in text involves intent and context - context which includes culture, language, genre, etc. Try as they might, they cannot get around the fact that the Genesis creation accounts have not been dogmatically held, through Christendom, to mean that God created the cosmos in 6 24 hour solar days, nor that one is mandated to translate the Hebrew text as such. It's my conclusion that they are incorrect in stating that their interpretation is the "natural reading" of "what the Bible says". 

Another point in which Ham slips up, in my opinion, is his accusation that the belief the universe is billions of years old correlates with a belief in natural process evolution. To his credit, he does not accuse Old Earthers of categorically believing in natural process evolution, but merely states that the Old Earth position "opens the door" to such belief. Still, I take issue with such a proposition, for it demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the Old Earth position as well as the natural process evolutionary position. The Old Earth interpretation attempts to harmonize not only the multiple creation accounts found in the Bible (including and beyond the two major ones found in Genesis), but our understanding of the physical realm as well. If the data points towards a universe billions of years old, and if we can harmonize the data with what we read in the Bible, then it is irrelevant whether or not the natural process evolutionary model also accepts a billions of years old universe. Also, as research continues, the complexity of our natural realm is becoming more evident: from the minute structure of DNA to the makeup of the universe itself. As we discover that advanced life requires this specified complexity, and as we understand that specified complexity is highly improbable, by chance, we begin to understand how improbable our existence is - from a purely natural point of view. Truth is, billions of years is appearing to be not enough time for advanced life to arise through natural means.

It seems to me that many in the Young Earth camp dismiss scientific research too easily. At best, they simply recognize man's fallibility and apply that fallibility to our interpretation of the natural realm; at worst, they assume some grand conspiracy, in the scientific community, dedicated to the undermining of all religious belief. I will spend zero time discussing the latter option, as I believe it to be nonsense and as I believe that Ham holds to the former option.

I wonder, at what point do I, as a fallible human, disregard the ideas of other fallible humans? Do I refuse to board an airliner simply because it was designed by fallible humans who, obviously, have fallible ideas about aeronautical engineering? Do I take the stairs, when visiting a high-rise building, because the elevator was designed by fallible humans with fallible ideas of structural engineering? How many Young Earthers have ever taken an over-the-counter medication? Since such medication was developed by fallible humans with fallible ideas regarding chemistry, I must conclude that Ken Ham does not take any over-the-counter medication. Speaking of fallible ideas - how about the idea of how we read, and understand, text? I think that we believe, however fallibly, that we are able to see, and then read text, due to the physical action of light photons bouncing off of a page of text, being received and processed by our eyes, through the lens, retina, and optic nerve, with the resulting electrical impulses then being interpreted by our brain. The whole notion of understanding God's written Word is dependent on a physical process.

You see, the problem with discounting scientific research is that one ends up having to pick and choose which scientific research they will believe in. While we don't have an exhaustive understanding of the physical realm, we do have some understanding of it and - this is important - our level of understanding grows as we continue to do more research. So, whereas the scientific community in the 1800s thought that the universe had always existed, Albert Einstein threw them on their heads by proposing (with scientific backup), in the early 1900s, that the universe was finite and actually began to exist. It is indeed very interesting that this notion of a beginning was already found in God's Word.

In the years since Einstein, the ideas of general and special relativity have been refined, through continued experimenting and testing, and as our understanding of cosmology grew. Likewise, in the years since the Wright brothers, we've moved from airplanes built out of wood and fabric, capable of carrying only one person, to jet powered airliners which transport hundreds of people thousands of miles at a time. Is there a chance that as we gain a better understanding of the physical realm the ideas of general and special relativity, as well as those of aeronautical engineering, will be overturned? Certainly. As stated earlier, we don't have a complete understanding of the entire cosmos. However, and this is how the process of progressive understanding works, as continued research builds cumulative support for a particular theory, the more reliable such a theory becomes in explaining the natural realm.

Unfortunately, for the Young Earth camp, they have no credible scientific data which can support a universe of 6,000 - 10,000 years in age. And, to make matters worse, further research in multiple, unrelated disciplines, continues to support an old age for the universe. The Old Earth model is certainly not without paradoxes or weak points, yet one should consider its many strengths before dismissing it out of hand.

Kudos to the Assemblies of God for revising their position on the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2.

* a natural reading obvious conclusion, if the Earth truly does not move (and a conclusion that the church had to revise due to an eventual better understanding of the physical realm).

Christian astronomers, and the age of the universe

What do Evangelical Christian astronomers think about the age of the universe? Billions of years old, or merely thousands?

Danny Faulkner, a Young Earth Creationist, and Hugh Ross, an Old Earth Creationist, have debated the issue in the past. Recently, a group of Evangelical Christian astronomers, mutually agreed to by both Faulkner and Ross, reviewed the arguments presented by them. Their conclusion was that the weight of evidence clearly indicates a universe that is billions of years old.

You can read their statement at this website.

Warming up to cooler climate changes over colder times of warmer weather

Colder means warmer when global warming becomes climate change except when more hurricanes result in less hurricanes before a dip in temperature preceded by a warm few years and less snow on an Olympic downhill run sixty years after record heat waves.

Oh bother!

Fumento tells us all about climate vs. weather regardless of who happens to be doing the claiming (and he links to an interesting page which tracks EVERYTHING that global warming is affecting).

Global Warming means less snow... except when it doesn't

Global Warming - oops - I mean... Climate Change, is being blamed for the recent snowstorms pummeling the East. Yet, courtesy of HotAir, it was only a few years ago that Global Warming - man - I mean Climate Change, was touted as the cause of less snow.

Missing the bigger picture

An interesting conversation took place, recently, at First Thoughts. Joe Carter wrote A Walk to the Moon, and Stephen Barr responded. And then, there were the 150+ comments.

The topic is Intelligent Design.

Now, rather than attempt to re-hash the arguments and discussions at these posts, I'd rather comment on what I consider to be the limited field all those involved seem to playing in. I've watched,  and participated, in this debate for several years now, and one thing I've noticed is how predictable the paths of argumentation are. E.g., Intelligent Design (ID) is simply the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), ID is God of the gaps, Methodological Naturalism (MN) is science of the gaps, MN cannot produce increasing information, the fossil record provides evidence for MN, the fossil record provides evidence for ID, implied design is just that - implied. The debate can, believe me, go on and on.

Yet I can't help but wonder if most of those involved in such debates are somehow missing the bigger picture. Consider that many of those involved are engaged in work in the sciences, or perhaps scholars, etc. Since the topic is, essentially, design, how many of those involved are intimately familiar with the design process? And, by "design", I'm not necessarily referring to artistic design, although that too can be discussed in this context. What I'm referring to, by use of the word "design", is more akin to engineering design - that which occurs when one is designing and building a mechanical component of some sort.

In the world outside of science and academia, the act of engineering design is readily seen in many areas. One example is the design of an oil refinery. The basic process involved in an oil refinery is that a product comes in (crude oil) and a product, or several products, goes out (refined fuels).  However, to get from the "in" to the "out" requires a multitude of apparatus such as pumps, air coolers, specialized refining vessels, rotating equipment, pipeways, steel structures, electrical transformers, control instruments, electrical wiring, foundations, etc. Each of these individual units are either custom designed, or are selected based on design parameters.

The term I just used, "design parameters", doesn't seem to come up much in ID / MN debates, yet no design project in the world would go forward were it not for design parameters. Design parameters are specifications which engineers and designers use to guide the type of design they come up with. These parameters essentially dictate the end result. An oil refinery project may have unique design parameters based on a variety of factors. For example, design and construction projects must be funded and, if cash flows are limited, the design and execution of the project may also be limited (a parameter)). The upstream product, what goes "in" to the refinery, may be of a certain quality or type that then dictates the type of refining equipment to be designed. The desired output product will dictate the type of process to be designed. The geographical location of a project will dictate the physical layout of the design. At the micro level, specific pieces of equipment may be designed based on availability, or even client preference. And, it should be noted, these design factors follow through into the actual construction of the equipment and refinery.

So, how does this apply to the ID / MN debate?

As we discover more about the biological realm, we find more complexity, both integrated and, as some would argue, irreducible. Regardless of whether or not the complexity is irreducible, though, the point is that we find structures and systems that exhibit the characteristics of design. As Joe Carter pointed out, this characteristic is essentially accepted by both camps (Intelligent Design vs. Bind Watchmaker Design). That fact alone, in my opinion, mandates that design principles and methodologies, in the world outside of academia, be addressed as to how they relate, or don't relate, to biological systems.

Despite the overwhelming prevalence of evolutionary teaching, in the U.S., over the past 50 years, the general population still has a difficult time accepting it as fact. Academia claims that such results simply justify the need for more education. Yet could it be that the general population simply sees something that the academics don't? Could it be that the general population has the common sense ability to correlate complex biological (and natural) systems with human designed systems?

Could it be academia that is missing the bigger picture?

When I began work, out of university, a joke was told to me about a Ph.D. graduate who had landed his first job at an engineering firm. After orientation, he was taken to his work station, introduced to his fellow co-workers, and then given a broom. "What's this for?", he asks. "We need the storeroom swept up," responds his boss. "But," the Ph.D. employee replies, "I've got a Ph.D.!" His boss thinks for a moment, and then says, "Oh, yes. I forgot." His boss then takes the broom from him and, as he sweeps back and forth, says, "This is how you sweep."

It seems to me that too many individuals in the ID / MN debate brush off references to human design as being non-applicable. Yet if design is what is being discussed, whether it is Intelligent Design or Blind Watchmaker Design, then we had better be about educating ourselves in how design occurs.

[In my opinion, Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross, at Reasons to Believe, are pioneering an approach to ID that attempts to incorporate human design processes.]

Dawkins, Creationists, and books

I don't think they [creationists] read books anyway, except for one book. It's aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution...

So says Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, in a Salon interview.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I'm a creationist (of the Old Earth variety) and, while I don't consider myself well read, I have read The Origin of Species, Finding Darwin's God, Tower of Babel, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, Rare Earth, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and A Brief History of Time, just to name a few books from the non-creationist book bin.

It can't be this easy.

Confessions of a self-indulgent culture

Do you have an NEO (i.e., Near Earth Object) impact written into your insurance policy?

From NASA's Near Earth Object website:

No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them.

When naked apes, endowed with the imago Dei, turn their backs on God, they fear for their lives...

image courtesy of NASA

Apollo 11 memorabilia

It was 40 years ago, today, that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon.

Wechoosethemoon.org is providing a virtual recreation and NASA has a dedicated website for the anniversary.

I still recall watching the fuzzy, black-and-white images on a small television set, with Walter Cronkite providing a running commentary. Having followed the space program through Gemini (too young to really remember Mercury), I was enthralled by the prospect of humans actually walking on and exploring the Moon. At the time I would collect newspaper clippings, magazine articles, photos, etc., all related to NASA's space program.

Over the years since, many of the data I collected has gone by the wayside. However, in rummaging through what memorabilia I have kept, I've run across the following...

 

I had an envelope, complete with a first day of issue stamp on it, sent to me.

My Uncle, who worked at NASA in Houston, had a friend on the USS Hornet, the aircraft carrier designated to recover the Apollo 11 astronauts (and capsule). He had his friend send me an envelope with special cancellation stamp and postmark.

Additional memorabilia, including newspaper headlines and magazine covers...

Cutting out Spurgeon's words: accidental or intentional?

Here's an interesting post from Beyond Creationism regarding how Answers in Genesis (AIG) apparently edited out some text from a Charles H. Spurgeon sermon, ostensibly to exclude Spurgeon's positive reference to an Old Earth Creation scenario.

Spurgeon's original text in question is:

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.”

And here is what AIG posted:

"In Ge 1:2, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation."

Rather than me highlighting the excluded text, simply look for the sentence, in the original, which contains the phrase "millions of years".

Says Beyond Creation,

Spurgeon's sermon has been sanitized for the AiG audience. Apparently, the reality of Spurgeon as an old-earth creationist is too much for AiG to allow the viewing public to know about. They even rewrote a portion at the end to change Spurgeon's statement that "the Creator gave up the world to confusion" to make it appear that Spurgeon said merely that "the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation." And presto! The editors turned Spurgeon into a young-earth creationist, even though he said no such thing.

After initially posting their cleansed version of Spurgeon's sermon, AIG did post the excluded text, in a note, with the following explanation,

Bracketed text removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age issue. –Editor

Lucky for us, it would seem, at least AIG understands the age issue.

John Holzmann, provides a more in-depth analysis of the fancy editing that appears to have taken place at AIG.

Truly cool

Astronomers capture first images of new planets, per CNN,