Score one for the Catholics…

So, Tony sent me this link from FOX News…ironically… Apparently, an astronomer from the Vatican has said that Intelligent Design has no place alongside evolution in the science classroom. He’s the highest-ranking Catholic to make such a statement.

a). FOX News finally put out some useful information that isn’t conservative in nature.
b). The Catholics apparently aren’t completely incompetent in leadership as previously believed
c). Now, we just need to get the Catholics to admit that open communion and women in the clergy are alright and we’ll be making some progress…

Hey, it’s a step in the right direction, right?

Good vs Evil

You know, I tend to try avoiding preaching when I post on here…as in, trying to talk about Christianity as a religion in any way, shape or form…yet, the subject does enter into my opinions on things like teaching Intelligent Design in our public (non-Christian) schools. Therefore, let me digress from “the norm” a bit…and in light of that, let me quickly propose my definition of a “good Christian:”

One who believes not only that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that He gave His life for us, but also that this person lives their life as an example of what God envisions for His people.

If you have an addendum to that statement, please post a comment. Personally, I think it’s the latter part of that definition that gives people some contention, since many of us tend to disagree as to what “God envisions for His people.”

I, therefore, wish to put forth a statement from someone I consider to be a “bad Christian:”

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover (Pennsylvania): if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

This statement is not an example of what a “good Christian” would say, for obvious reasons. A good Christian does not wish ill will upon others. As the Bible dictates, Jesus was all about living his life and being an example of what we should be doing, even though that may be difficult. At no point in my recollection of the Bible (and I could be wrong…and I’ll correct this if proved otherwise…) does Jesus ever wish God’s wrath upon anyone. Note: the statement written above does not explicitly express “ill-will,” but I think it’s implied…again, perhaps I’m wrong on that…

Pat Robertson, you are indeed a terrible Christian and a very bad example of what Christians are taught and seeking to accomplish. You are, however, doing an incredible job of putting lies in the heads of non-Christians who now, due to your innate stupidity, have no good reason to change their minds about the religion. Good job, you worthless, lying, bastard.

…oh, Pastafarianism…

So, Dr. Zassenhaus is teaching right now in my lecture class about basic Mendelian genetics. He told us earlier this week that he was making a presentation today in reference to Intelligent Design and Evolution, so I’ve been looking forward to this all week because I haven’t heard much discussion amongst Ph.D. scientists that I know and the sources I’ve read through discussing the subject rarely consult pure molecular biologists and biochemists…and I came away from the presentation with a few interesting points…

First of all, Zassenhaus began the discussion talking about the Kreb’s Cycle. For those who don’t remember, this is a pathway in mitochondria (an organelle in our cells) that converts relatively simple carbon chains into other forms, generating ATP, which is the “currency” that creates energy in our bodies. Since it is a cycle, the products begin in one state, are converted to another state, and are then returned to their original state to start the cycle once again. One of the classic Intelligent Design arguments is that this process is not reducible; one cannot remove a part of this cycle and still have it function, leading them to suppose that an intelligent creator must have created this pathway. The process couldn’t have simply “appeared” on its own, already functioning.

The problem with this assumption, as Zassenhaus further enumerated, is in the fundamental argument for Intelligent Design: that life is too complex to have just happened. The argument, as he states, is the classic “Watchmaker Analogy,” such that if you are walking in a field and see a watch, you know that it didn’t simply appear, but that someone had to make it. The problem is that all of Intelligent Design arguments stem from that one analogy. There is no evidence besides it. The one scientific study he could find that tried finding true evidence was carried out by a mathmetician (Dembski) who said that the chances of such a thing appearing is something like 10^-170 (that’s one time in 1,000,000[continue to 169 “0”s…]), which is unbelievably small…bordering on impossible…

As Zassenhaus concluded, these probabilities outline a huge flaw in the thinking: where Intelligent Design advocates believe such a pathway just sprung into existence, and was created by someone else, biologists for years have viewed the formation of proteins/enzymes/etc. differently, as individual subunits that are added on and removed to provide a different function that wasn’t there originally. Therefore, those statistics don’t apply to the way we know biology to work. Sure, it says that such a thing as the Kreb’s Cycle appearing out of a soup of random amino acids is really small…but the chances of a different protein forming out of that soup is very possible, and then that protein adding on other parts of different proteins is also possible…slowly adding together to form the pathway we know as the Kreb’s Cycle.

In short (’cause I wasn’t, overall…), the moral is: Intelligent Design advocates have yet to produce true, testable, scientific evidence beyond the flawed probability studies. Is Intelligent Design still possible? Of course it is! But, as Zassenhaus said, teaching it alongside Evolution on equal footing as a viable scientific theory is, quite simply, nuts. In that room of 20+ Ph.Ds., there were none that defended Intelligent Design in the way it has been portrayed as a science. They all believe it should be relegated to a philosophy class, not the science classroom. Unfortunately, the “powers that be” refuse to listen to the scientific community on what should be taught and what shouldn’t be.

Figures…

So, in that vein, can anyone give me evidence to the contrary that isn’t based on “evidence by analogy?” I know that Andy S. already gave me information on another theory…hehehehe…

Stoopid the Pat Robertson…

“Brooke…well, I checked the news tonight…Pat Robertson wasn’t killed…”
— Andy Linsenbardt

So yeah, this guy has been pissing me off lately… First of all, John Stewart (“The Daily Show”) did a little news bit (click on the “Prayback Time” link on this page) showing Robertson on “The 700 Club” praying that more Supreme Court justices are “removed” from office so that more conservative forces can take over…saying that the Supreme Court justices as they stand today are the “number one threat to America today.” Secondly, I was watching “Today” on NBC this morning and they mention that Robertson yesterday called for the assassination of the Venezuelan president because he’s looking to allow Communism into his country.

The actual quote:

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

Seriously…what the heck… The man was praying for the deaths, ailment or retirement of Supreme Court justices on national television. This doesn’t really send a good message about prayer, no? …and suggesting that we knock off someone in another country that is (currently) not even threatening ours? Is he going to call for the assassinations of the leaders in India and China because they are Hindu/Buddhist instead of Christian? Obviously they’re terrible people because they don’t believe the same things we do, I guess… Good thing Pat Robertson is around to make these suggestions. I don’t know what we’d do without him around.

Here’s a great site about him… 😉

A link, poker table, and AoE II

So yeah, in the same vein as all the evolution posts from the past week or so, Andy S. sent me this link…which is rather amusing… 😛 It’s an open letter to the Kansas state school board…and is very, very sarcastic…

I approve whole-heartedly… 😉

In other news, I think I’m going to wait to build my poker table until I’ve paid some more bills and get my paycheck next week… I haven’t quite decided whether to build a table-top (i.e. fit it on top of our card table) or build an actual table (you can buy folding legs at Home Depot for, like, $20…). I think I’d be happier with a separate table, but we’ll see…

…in other news, I am getting in practice for our AoE II playing this weekend…I can take on a single “hard”-rated computer character and win…sometimes it takes me awhile, though… Back in my prime, I would take on 2 “hardest”-rated computers…but that was Sophomore year…been awhile……

sigh…

Yup, they’ve done it…the conservatives are at it again… This time, they’re in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), of which I am a member, and they are approving a measure to continue supporting a ban on homosexual clergy members

Here’s the quote that really got me out of this whole article:

“Louis Hesse of the Eastern Washington-Idaho Synod said those arguing for gay ordination had not made a convincing theological or scientific argument on why they were right. ‘The case has not been made. I’ve heard a lot of talk about the Gospel here today and I’m beginning to wonder if I’m in the right church,’ Hesse said. ‘A Gospel of full acceptance, accepting everyone the way they are, what does that say about sinfulness?'”

…an intriguing question, actually… What does it say about sinfulness? What does one classify as a “sin?” How far are we, as Christians, supposed to allow folks to go as far as what is considered “acceptable?” What is “acceptable,” anyway? And who decided this?

Personally, I’m somewhat ashamed of this, being a member of the ELCA, although unfortunately this seems to be the direction of many “liberal” churches and denominations in today’s world. I don’t really see why, though… The Bible doesn’t really say anything about gays, unless you’re speaking completely literally…and we all know that taking the Bible completely literally is somewhat dangerous (i.e. Adam was made of mud…seriously, people…or that women should be submissive to their husbands…or that women shouldn’t be leaders in the church…). Here is one link (quite biased, I realize, but brings up a few verses that seem to mention homosexuality). …and as that article points out, the word “homosexual” is a combination of Greek and Latin, therefore meaning that the original Bible translation could not have possibly used that word…as there was no such word in the original language of the Bible (i.e. Greek).

Sooooooooooooooo…what the heck… There are Catholic priests who have done way worse than many homosexuals… Why are we worried about them leading our churches? Because they have different values than “the rest of us?” Because they don’t believe in God the same way?” Nope. Because they’re different. Because they can’t be understood by those who have been attending church for years. Because the same people who oppose homosexuality as being “abnormal” also think that contemporary Christian music is just as “abnormal.” Because the people filling the coffers every Sunday morning won’t tolerate it, therefore we can’t minister to them the same way as everyone else.

Know what? I’m just as worthy to go to Heaven as any of them. Honestly, there are many of them who live better, less sinful lives than I ever will. But that doesn’t matter for many, unfortunately. But…”we just want to set a good example for the church-goers and their children!” How about setting a better example: one of tolerance. One of having people to live their lives without murder, stealing, adultery, idolotry…and the other Ten Commandments…the ones that don’t say anything at all about homosexuality. How about setting an example instead of telling everyone else how to live their lives, since telling them doesn’t work as well… Living by example works quite a bit better, and this intolerance of people who are “different” from those in control sends a message to young people that it’s okay to segregate, to say that it’s alright to say that some people are more worthy than others to act in certain capacities in our churches, governments, etc.

Sure, homosexuals are allowed and “welcomed” in the church, according to the Presiding Bishop. Doesn’t sound like they’re very welcomed to me, though… Sounds like their presence is allowed, but not necessarily “welcomed.”

Depressing, indeed…

Fascinating…

So yeah, as a few of you have noticed, there’s actually been a good and lengthy discussion on my “Lee Strobel is an Idiot” posting on August 3rd, which I find rather fascinating. I’m very much enjoying the stimulating conversation that’s going on there between very diverse people with different backgrounds and understanding. I hope it continues since I’m learning a decent amount from it!

…which brings me to another subject… I’ve been thinking recently about why all these articles and such are coming up about Intelligent Design Theory versus Evolution, or more importantly, why I seem to be making a relatively big deal about it. Yesterday, I noticed that this week’s Time Magazine is publishing a few articles on the subject and even has it on the cover for the week. I guess it represents a crossroads in my life, perhaps. I’ve been going to church for many years; I’m already entrenched at one in St. Louis where I get to play drums every week (score… ;-)). But at the same time, I’m continuing with my graduate school education. I now have a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry and in Biology, so I’ve lived and breathed science for the past 5 years (if not longer), while at the same time attending the Wesley House regularly and hearing the “other side” of the story. I don’t know that I’m making decisions or life plans or anything around this “crossroads,” yet I think I am making progress toward the “truth,” or however close to it one can get.

The ID vs Evolution debate is a difficult one that will never be fully completed. I posted an article yesterday that is written by a proponent of the ID side of things. I don’t agree with a few things out of his article, but I do agree that the problem needs to be resolved with healthy debate, much like we are doing in the “Lee Strobel” posting. There are severe problems with the way ID is presented to young school kids. On the other hand, Evolution is still a theory (although, a very well-supported one…) and should be treated as such. Neither is truly “right” as they are being taught today. I guess more time is needed to come to a clear consensus. The issue needs good, healthy discussion before anyone will waver and listen to the other side’s argument…and I certainly find myself leaning toward one side, unable to listen to the other.

The problem is: which one?

Lee Strobel is an idiot

So, I mentioned awhile back that I’m reading “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, who also wrote such books as “The Case for Faith” and “The Case for Christ,” two very popular books on the college scene in such “black and white” groups as CCF and Campus Crusade…

Anyway, so I saw this book at Barnes and Noble and couldn’t help but buy it since it was that trendy author writing about two things I’m interested in: God and science. Thus far (and, granted, I’m only 80 pgs into it…), the book is worthless. Strobel uses “evidence” out of non-evidence. For example:

“The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform no function until all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So natural selection cannot help you build such systems; it can only preserve them once they’ve been built. And it’s virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap by mere chance to create the whole system at once.” — pg 79

Why not?! The chances of being struck by lightening once, surviving, and then getting struck again in the exact same location as before isn’t likely, but it’s still possible. How do you know it isn’t possible? And now to the whole “evidence by non-evidence” point:

“This is not an argument from ignorance…we’re not inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information. We infer design because all those theories fail and we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information – namely, intelligence. Personally, I find this to be a very strong argument indeed.” — pg 78

Oh really! All those theories fail? Do you know how science works, Mr. Strobel? You know there is no such thing as “proof” in science? That’s because any evidence can come along and change the way we we all see the world. You assume that since we don’t understand a few facets of the world around us, we must assume that “intelligence” as we know it must be involved. We thought the world was flat until we found evidence to support that it’s round. We thought the universe revolved around Earth until we found that Earth revolves around a star…that is one of infinite stars in the rest of the universe. The “intelligence” you’re talking about is human intelligence. God is all-knowing, thereby presenting an entirely different type of intelligence from what we have experienced. Frankly, Mr. Strobel, you don’t know anything about science if this is the “evidence” you’re presenting. You shouldn’t be writing books about things you apparently know nothing about.

The point of all this is: humans understand absolutely nothing about the “known” universe. We don’t know how God works. We don’t know how it was all done. To quote the common phrase, “we don’t know jack.” How can we assume to know how it all works? Isn’t it possible that there are other universes parallel to our own that have completely different physics to our own? How about another planet out there that has beings built out of neon rather than carbon? Or perhaps even that on some planet on some distant galaxy, a milk cow won an election against someone looking strangely like George W. Bush. Frankly, we don’t know. I can’t prove that these things aren’t happening because, well, because it can’t be proven.

Much like Strobel can’t prove anything he’s putting forth in his book. Know why? Well, because “evidence by non-evidence” isn’t evidence at all. It’s ignorance.

God vs Evolution

“There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton’s universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein’s revisions. There are gaps in Einstein’s universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.”
— Charles Krauthammer, Time Magazine, August 8, 2005

I posted another essay posted in the “Articles” section above…check it out…

There seem to have been more than a few articles about this subject over the past few weeks. There’s a show that’s going to be on the History Channel on August 7th called “Ape to Man: The Evolution of Evolution,” indicating that interest in the subject is still as strong as ever.

We talked about teaching intelligent design (……creationism…) in our public schools in my Evolutionary Thought class this past semester and came to the conclusion, much like anyone who knows anything about science, that it’s a dumb idea. It’s one thing to teach it in a Catholic high school, but to teach it in our public schools is entirely wrong. What happened to a separation of church and state?

Anyway, it’s a good essay…check it out…

w00t to Galileo…

“Science tells you how the heavens go, and the Bible tells you how to go to heaven.”
— Galileo

…therefore…stop trying to have each one explain the other… 😛