What is Man?

I read an interesting quote by Adam Savage, of Mythbuster’s fame. He said the following in a Popular Mechanics podcast:

Like I said, the newspapers talking about evolution versus creationism is very much an attack on science as a type of religion—believing that the scientific method is some type of religious belief. And it’s not! That kind of attack absolutely is damaging science exploration across the whole country. I do think that’s a significant problem. And until we can get our head out of the sand and realize that science isn’t about truth—…

While Adam is a proponent of molecules-to-man evolution, he makes a couple of good points in this quote. He says that the scientific method isn’t “some type of religious belief.” He’s right, too. The scientific method (which is limited to operational science and cannot operate experientially in the area of origins) is a tool. Even so, religious belief does factor into the scientific method.  Religious belief is the bias that inherently determines how one interprets the results of the scientific method. These results can provide evidence for vastly different presumptions, whether they be of supernatural creation or or evolutionary naturalism. The problem is that evolutionary naturalism is a religion, a dogma as faith based as any religion. Consider this statement that the famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky quoted in The American Biology Teacher journal: “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” Or Michael Dini of Texas Tech University, who refused to give letters of recommendation to students who would not verbally proclaim factuality of evolution. Which brings one to the second part of Adam’s quote.

The second part of the quote, “science isn’t about truth,” is likewise correct. This doesn’t make science useless; far from it!The results of scientific endeavors have greatly benefited the quality of our lives. The point of facts is that scientists don’t know everything, and therefore science deals in theories, both weak and strong, but never in facts, and no matter how strong a theory is, it is always subject to change. Consider the following exchange:

Naturalist: Creation is not science because a creationist’s views were set by the Bible and, therefore, are not subject to change.

Creationist: The reason scientific theories change is because we don’t know everything, isn’t it? We don’t have all the evidence.

Naturalist: Yes, that’s right.

Creationist:But, we will never know everything.

Naturalist: That’s true.

Creationist: We will always continue to find new evidence.

Naturalist: Quite correct.

Creationist: That means we can’t be sure about anything.

Naturalist: Right.

Creationist: That means we can’t be sure about evolution.

Naturalist: Oh, no! Evolution is a fact!

The fact is that science and the scientific method cannot confirm our origins for either creationist or evolutionary naturalist. All it can do affirm what we already believe. For the Christian, that belief is based on the authority of the scriptures and the eye witness account of creation contained therein. For an evolutionary naturalist, there is only the belief that no supernatural force exists… for science does not tell truth.

During research a for a project I’m working on, I ran across the blog of a woman who had recently become an atheist. Her joy at this recent “conversion” illustrates in crystal clarity the true philosophy of atheism.

I finally and irrevocably cast out the pretend demon god that controlled my mind. I am discovering life without the surveillance cameras that were implanted in my brain at a very young age. For in him, I NO LONGER live and move and have my being. I AM FREE!

My brain belongs to me!

For the first time in my life; my heart, mind, thoughts, acts, vision, passion, strength, weakness, virtue, failure, limits and talent all belong to me.

TO ME!

It is all mine!

MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE!

This strikes a chord with me because, in the past, I pondered becoming an atheist for the same reasons that this lady expresses. It just seemed like freedom. I could do everything I ever wanted to do. I could create that long term art project I’ve always wanted to do. I could sleep in on Sundays. I could stay in the military. All the things that I put aside for the sake of the World After this World, I could pick up again. No more evangelizing, no more Bible reading, no more quiet time, no more scripture memorization, no more restrictive moral compass. I could engage in baser behavior, curse, look at pornography, watch any movie I wanted, all without guilt.

Interestingly, there were a couple of caveats. I would have to become more crafty and conniving… I new that in a world where I was in control, everyone else was too, and my idea of morality might not apply to anyone else. Why be meek when the best way to get what you want is to force it? If everyone else played that game, I’d have to play it as well. The other point was that I never actually thought about not believing in God, I merely wanted to de-personalize him, reduce him to something abstract and unknowable. He could exist as long as he didn’t tell me what to do. [Some might say that this qualifies my thoughts as agnostic and not atheistic, but since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of  a supreme being, I do not believe that a philosophically viable form of atheism that pure is attainable.]   

For me, the ultimate end of atheism was to be my own god, deciding for myself what was right and wrong, good for me or bad for me. In Genesis 3:1,5 we see this desire expressed by the serpent: “He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden? For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God…’"

But here is the problem.

“You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God… I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:13-15)

It just doesn’t work forever. If you manage to get everything you want, it’s still so temporary. I’m halfway to decay. And after that, what? I had a professor tell me once, “I hope that if there’s a good place, I go to it, and if there’s a bad place, I don’t, but I don’t think there’s anything after death.” I’m not satisfied with a purposeless, self-gratifying existence, one dominated by “MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE,” for (hopefully) 75 years or so, and then nothing. But even worse, if the biblical God is a reality, the grave is the beginning of eternity. For those who reject Jesus Christ, a never-forever life, all to one’s self, for those who accept His Gift, an ever-forever life, all to Him.

I’ve got Windows 7 Pro on my older desktop PC. It installed with only one hitch. The Linksys WMP54G PCI wireless network adaptor doesn’t work on 64bit Windows 7, at least not using the drivers on the Linksys website. I hooked up my Verizon MiFi card, waited for the drivers to auto-install, and got online. Windows immediately installed drivers for the card and I was go. The desktop is an older AMD Athlon 64 4200 with 2 gigs of RAM and a nVidia 6800gt. It runs fine. Interestingly enough, I installed the upgrade version over Windows 7 RC1 with no activation problems. It was the student copy digital download which I burned after converting to ISO. 

I’ve ordered a 160 gig, 2.5” 5400 rpm drive for Christina’s laptop. It’s 20% faster, has 4x the cache, and 2x the space. I’ll put her old 80 gig XP drive in my external enclosure and use a hack to do a clean install. This way, I don’t have to worry about losing her data, and if she’s not happy with the Windows 7 experience, I can just pop her old HD back in.

On Wednesday Wired magazine published an article about the World Science Festival. The article highlighted an appearance by string theory expert Brian Greene and entertainer Alan Alda. In the interview, Alda said the following:

One of the things I like with science is that it’s based on uncertainty, on never quite knowing, and gaining a little glimmer of understanding every time.

I liked this quote, though I suspect the meaning I see in it might not reflect what the speaker intended.

The reason that I mention this quote is an article on the Science Discovery website that details a paper published this week in the Journal of Morphology. 

From the article:

“It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.

"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight." However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs.

The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.

“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.

It concludes:

Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree. Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about," Ruben said. "But now there are more asterisks all the time. That’s part of the process of science."

I highlighted those sentences in the last block quote because of Brian Greene’s statement in the Wired article:

Greene: We try never to preach that science comes from on high and should be taken uncritically. Feel free to mull over every morsel, ask questions, and spit it back out if it doesn’t make sense.

Wired.com: What about those places, such as young earth creationism, where some people just will not accept something for which all the evidence points in one direction?

Greene: However well-intentioned your goals, you’re never going to bring everybody into the fold. And that’s okay. There are people in whom there’s no willingness for rational thought and evidence-based thinking to dictate what they believe to be true.

In other words, it’s ok to take science critically as long as you come to the same conclusion as the rest of “the fold.” That doesn’t sound like science “based on uncertainty, on never quite knowing.” As for the rejection of evidence? According to Ruben, this problem isn’t just limited to “young earth creationism.” It’s also endemic to the very institutions that are tasked with feeding the public with with science information.

I’ll close with this nugget from PBS courtesy of National Geographic, two of the largest shepherds of public science knowledge:

Notice the title, “Path to Birds” and the “timeline.” But the subtext includes the following oxymoronic statement: “This family tree is not a chronological progression.”

Go figure.

My brother Nathan, who is both a redneck and a very clever person, told me this joke:

A redneck from Georgia walked into a bank in New York City and asked for the loan officer. He told the loan officer that he was going to Bakersfield on business for two weeks and needed to borrow $5,000 and that he was not a depositor of the bank. The loan officer told him that the bank would need some form of security for the loan, so the Redneck handed over the keys to a new Ferrari. The car was parked on the street in front of the bank. The Redneck produced the title and everything checked out. The loan officer agreed to hold the car as collateral for the loan and apologized for having to charge 12% interest.

After the redneck left, the bank’s president and its officers all enjoyed a good laugh at the redneck from the south for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drove the Ferrari into the bank’s underground garage and parked it.

Two weeks later, the redneck returned, repaid the $5,000 and the interest of $23.07. The loan officer said, “Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we found that you are a multimillionaire. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”

The Georgia redneck replied, “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there in perfect condition when I return?”

Yesterday mom called me to look at her computer. At first it seemed like an easy fix. A window kept popping up on the screen at random intervals. I figured it was a stuck key. After checking up on the internet I found out that the particular window popping up, “arrange favorites,” was activated by CTRL-B in Internet Explorer. I asked mom and she said that it was also randomly bolding letters in MS Word, also activated by CTRL-B. Well, that had me scratching my head… I have never seen two buttons stick like that at the same time. Mom also said her Lenovo had been doing this for some time, but last night it started doing it constantly,to the point where IE was unusable.

I pulled off the keys and cleaned under them, though at this point I suspected it was something hardware related. That didn’t fix it, so I figured I’d go for broke and pulled off the keyboard completely and disconnected it from the motherboard. It STILL did it. So now I tried the software side of thing. Safe mode: still doing it. Virus and ad-ware scan, nada. I decided to see if there were keyboard drivers on Lenovo’s website and while I did this, mom’s computer stopped having random key-presses. I set my tablet down and her computer started doing it again. WHAT in the WORLD?!!! I started moving the laptop around to see if there was something loose, disconnecting peripherals, etc. Still doing it. I propped my computer back up in front of hers. The key presses stopped. Hmm. I started looking around and I saw this strange clear green electronic device on the table. It had a couple of infrared emitters and a tiny red LED. I moved it away from the laptop and the problem stopped.

I suddenly remembered that the Lenovo Y510 has an infrared port in front. To test my theory, I got a remote from the living room and and aimed at the laptop. “Arrange Favorites” popped up. Whoa! I looked this up today on Lenovo’s website and apparently even some bright incandescent lights can cause it. The port interprets infrared noise as keystrokes. The synopsis: While mom was in the living room, the remotes would occasionally get a good bounce and hit the infrared port. The green thing was a personnel tracker the hospital uses. She accidentally brought it hope, and when she set it on the table next to her laptop in the kitchen it had line of sight to her infrared port. Every time it transmitted, it activated CTRL-B. How wacky is that?

I was trying to figure out how to embed flash video on my blog and I got sidetracked while trying to convert YouTube clips… I needed software that would download flash from YouTube, let me cut it, and then export it as either flash (.flv) or other formats, like .avi for Facebook.

Well, I found this really nifty free software called “Any Video Converter.” The neat thing about it that it converts to just about any format. There’s a pro version that’s the most comprehensive, it will even convert to .3gp, which a lot of cell phones use, but the free version does everything I need. Hey JC, there’s a MAC version too.

Screenshot:

I’m not sure if I should be ashamed for shamelessly promoting a brand, but I just tried a new flavor of Doritos and I really like them. They are called Tacos at Midnight. I am pretty sure, with the “Late Night” designation and the neon styling, that the idea of Taco Bell is being evoked. And rightly so, because these Doritos are blatantly Taco Bell flavored. I’m serious, they taste like a Taco Supreme. If you are interested, I found them at Wal-Mart. 

Found a neat tutorial at justintadlock.com that shows how to use custom fields to add images to posts. I modified the instructions a bit for my needs, so that a nifty icon is inserted into the beginning of all “single.php” posts. When I set my custom key, “Thumbnail Class” to a value of “invisible,” the icon is assigned a CSS class with the property “display: none.” This tells the icon to load in the html source code but not to show up and not to take up space. So it’s there, but doesn’t render on the screen at all.

So what’s the point then? Well, when I past a link for a single blog post into Facebook, the Facebook script sees the invisible icon in the html source code and uses it as a thumbnail. It makes the Facebook post look cool and also is much more eye-catching.

Update: I figured out an easier way, though a bit more kludgy.

<img style="display: none;" src="/path/image.jpg">

Stupid simple. Just paste this in the source code of your post.

I got a piece of literature in the mail today from Radio Bible Class. RBC was started in 1938 by Dr. M. R. De Haan, then continued by his son Richard De Haan in 1965, and in 2006 his grandson, Mart De Haan took over. Mart has a blog called “Been Thinking About” and the literature I received was taken from a four-part series of posts written in that blog during October of 2008.

I’d like to point out that I like RBC Ministries and that “Our Daily Bread” has been a real blessing to me. I’m not addressing the ministry as a whole, just this particular article. 

The literature was titled “Emerging Churches.” In it, Mart points out the pros and cons of the emergent movement. He closes with a plea:

Whether in emerging or traditional evangelical churches, all of us have our blind spots. Only when we are willing to listen to one another, and to come to terms with the downside of our own way of “doing church,” will we have the humility and spiritual sobriety we need to work for, rather than against, the body of Christ we share.

I agree that different churches have different ways of “doing church,” but I don’t want to fall into the trap of making excuses for bad doctrine, either. Mart uses the Seven Churches of Revelation 2 and 3 as an example of church issues and after citing their various problems, he states:

In each case, the Lord encouraged them to look at Him, as a way of seeing themselves, and then work to come to terms with the problems that were threatening their ability to represent Him.

But what if the seven churches had been doing the equivalent of writing books, posting Internet articles, and adding to the rumor mill about the problems of the other “six.” What if they had been calling attention to the failures of one another as if there were not serious issues with themselves?

So it is today.

Mart writes in a blog comment on his post that “the ‘elders’ who are doing the confronting and correcting need to do so with the attitudes of Christ…” But a reading of Revelation  two and three will indicate just what the attitude of Christ really was when doctrine was corrupted:

Revelation 2:14-16 – But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 2:24 – Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.

Revelation 3:19 – As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

In his defense, Mart does say that “if someone within any church, either traditional evangelical or emerging, denies that the Bible is the Word of God or that Jesus, who died and rose for us, is the only way to God, they are denying foundational truths of following Jesus and need to be confronted in the appropriate manner.” On the individual level, if you know someone struggling with or questioning core biblical truths, a loving and measured response will go a long way toward resolving their problem. But a response in needed.

Jude 3 – Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Last note: While doing a little searching, I found an Christian research organization that charges RBC with allowing references of books written by proponents  of “contemplative spirituality” to be placed in RBC’s publications. Lighthouse Trails Research defines “contemplative spirituality” as:

A belief system that uses ancient mystical practices to induce altered states of consciousness (the silence) and is rooted in mysticism and the occult but often wrapped in Christian terminology. The premise of contemplative spirituality is pantheistic (God is all) and panentheistic (God is in all).

You can find the article here.