Can I Get My Science With a Side of Agnosticism?‏

Scientist Daniel B. Botkin reflects on the growing number of assertions of certitude amongst certain scientists and the science fetishists as to what their god can do...

"I was one of many scientists on several panels in the 1970s who reviewed the results from the Viking Landers on Mars, the ones that were supposed to conduct experiments that would help determine whether there was or wasn't life on that planet. I don't remember anybody on those panels talking in terms of absolute certainty. Instead, the discussions were about what the evidence did and did not suggest, and what might be disprovable from them and from future landers.

I was also one of a small number of scientists—mainly ecologists, climatologists and meteorologists—who in the 1970s became concerned about the possibility of a human-induced global warming, based on then-new measurements. It seemed to be an important scientific problem, both as part of the beginning of a new science of global ecology and as a potentially major practical problem that nations would have to deal with. It did not seem to be something that should or would rise above standard science and become something that one had to choose sides in. But that's what has happened...

It is helpful to go back to the work of the Wright brothers, whose invention of a true heavier-than-air flying machine was one kind of precursor to the Mars Landers. They basically invented aeronautical science and engineering, developed methods to test their hypotheses, and carefully worked their way through a combination of theory and experimentation. The plane that flew at Kill Devil Hill, a North Carolina dune, did not come out of true believers or absolute assertions, but out of good science and technological development.

Let us hope that discussions about global warming can be more like the debates between those two brothers than between those who absolutely, completely agree with Paul Krugman and those who absolutely, completely disagree with him. How about a little agnosticism in our scientific assertions—and even, as with Richard Feynman, a little sense of humor so that we can laugh at our errors and move on? We should all remember that Feynman also said, "If you think that science is certain—well that's just an error on your part."

A good starting point in dialogues between strict materialists and theists would be the recognition that scientists work with unproven assumptions and to deny that flies in the face of reality.

D'Souza: 'Why We Need Earthquakes'

During my recent debate with Justin Vacula, he brought up the problem of so-called 'natural evil', asking why natural disasters occur. Insofar as the example of earthquakes occurring that Justin brought up, I linked an article quoting the director of the German Space Research Centre Institute of Planetary Research and chairman of European Space Agency’s scientific advisory committee, Tilman Spohn. Spohn notes ...

"It is an idea growing in popularity among planetary scientists. Says Spohn, “plate tectonics replenishes the nutrition that primitive life could live on. Imagine a top surface that is depleted of the nutrition needed for bacterial life. It needs to be replenished, and plate tectonics is a method of achieving this.”

Spohn found that the further he delved into the issue, the more important plate tectonics seemed to be for life. For example, it is believed that life developed by moving from the ocean to the kind of strong and stable rock formations that are the result of tectonic action. Plate tectonics is also involved in the generation of a magnetic field by convection of Earth’s partially molten core. This magnetic field protects life on Earth by deflecting the solar wind. Not only would an unimpeded solar wind erode our planet’s atmosphere, but it also carries highly energetic particles that could damage DNA.

Another factor is the recycling of carbon, which is needed to stabilize the temperature here on Earth. Spohn explains, “plate tectonics is known to recycle carbon that is washed out of the atmosphere and digested by bacteria in the soil into the interior of the planet from where it can be outcast through volcanic activity. Now, if you have a planet without plate tectonics, you may have parts of this cycle, but it is broken because you do not have the recycling link.”

It has also been speculated that the lack of tectonic action on Venus contributed to its runaway greenhouse effect, which resulted in the immense temperatures it has today."

I personally thought using so-called 'natural evil' as an argument against the existance of God to be absurd, and on a couple of different levels. Last night while surfing the net, I came across this article by Dinesh D'Souza (above) which deals with another objection that skeptics might raise. D'Souza quotes "Rare Earth, a 2003 book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee that traces the myriad conditions required for life to exist on any planet. In a sense, the authors—an eminent paleontologist and an astronomer at the University of Washington in Seattle—are discussing the "anthropic principle," which specifies the degree to which our planet appears fine-tuned for complex life." D'Souza goes on to note...

"Why didn't God devise a world that didn't require plate tectonics and consequently one that wouldn't have to put up with earthquakes?" In other words, surely God could have made a universe that operated according to a different set of laws.

Ward and Brownlee's answer to this is as simple as it is devastating. Such a world could have produced life, but it surely could not have produced creatures like us. Science tells us that our world has all the necessary conditions for species like Homo sapiens to survive and endure.

Our planet requires oxygen and a warming sun and water in order for us to live here, and we appreciate this, even though we recognize that people can get sunstroke and drown in the ocean. So, too, it seems that plate tectonics are, as Ward and Brownlee put it, a "central requirement for life" as we know it.

This is not to suggest, as the scientist and philosopher Leibniz once argued, that ours is the best of all possible worlds. But ours may be the best of all feasible worlds, at least as viewed from a human perspective."

So there you have it, earthquakes are necessary for life. It also appears that hurricanes serve a purpose too. Gravity occurs through natural processes and bad things can concievably come about because gravity exists, but nobody is going around arguing that the planet would be better off without gravity.

The important thing to keep in mind, as philosopher Peter Kreeft once mentioned, is to be there for people when bad things occur in their lives. To be Christ for them as God's love shines through us as we comfort them in their time of need and despair.

Ward: 'Religion answers the factual questions science neglects'

There's an excellent article in today's Guardian regarding the faux 'war' between science and religion. You can click here for the entire article, but here's a brief snippet...

"A huge number of factual claims are not scientifically testable. Many historical and autobiographical claims, for instance, are not repeatable, not publicly observable now or in future, and are not subsumable under any general law. We know that rational answers to many historical questions depend on general philosophical views, moral views, personal experience and judgment. There are no history laboratories. Much history, like much religion, is evidence-based, but the evidence is not scientifically tractable...

Claims that the cosmos is created do not "trespass onto" scientific territory. They are factual claims in which scientific investigators are not, as such, interested. Scientific facts are, of course, relevant to many religious claims. But not all facts are scientific facts – the claim that I was in Oxford last night, unseen by anyone, will occur in no scientific paper, but it is a hard fact. So it is with the miracles of Jesus, with the creation of the cosmos and with its end. The interesting question is not whether religion is compatible with science, but whether there are important factual questions – and some important non-factual questions, too, such as moral ones – with which the physical sciences do not usually deal. The answer seems pretty obvious, without trying to manufacture sharp and artificial distinctions between "hows" and "whys"."

Rick Perry is decidedly NOT 'anti-science'

After reading some articles on the subject, I'm coming to the conclusion that Texas governor and GOP presidential canditate Rick Perry has been unfairly catagorized as being 'anti-science' and also 'anti-intellectual'. . In fact, Yahoonews.com is reporting...

"While Perry's private beliefs in creationism have not affected the way science is taught in Texas public schools, they are widely shared by Americans. According to a recent Fox News Poll, roughly 45 percent of respondents accept the Biblical account of creation as the explanation of life on Earth, while 21 percent hold to evolution as the explanation, and 27 percent believe both explanations have validity.


This result is illustrative of the fact that America is a deeply religious country. Furthermore the dichotomy between religious faith and scientific reality has not been entirely reconciled in the minds of most people. In any event the Fox News Poll suggests Perry's beliefs are more in line with what most Americans believe. But, if what is taught in Texas public schools is any indication, a President Perry is not likely to impose the teaching of creationism in America.

On the subject of NASA and space exploration, Perry is on far more solid ground than President Obama. On the occasion of the final mission of the space shuttle, Perry issued a statement criticizing Obama's space policy and what he regards as the administration's abrogation of America's leadership in space.


Perry's view that the Obama administration has gutted NASA's plans for space exploration is widely held by Americans. The abandonment of the moon, which has a wealth of natural resources and is relatively accessible, has been criticized by a number of scientists and other space experts. Here again Perry seems to have science, as well as common sense, on his side, while it is the Obama administration that is pursuing ideology."

In addition to space exploration, Perry is also, according to lifesitenews.com, Perry has been active in setting up stem-cell research initiatives in Texas as well..

" Perry wrote the Texas Medical Board that he wanted Texas to “become the world’s leader in the research and use of adult stem cells” and that the board should consider when they write their new rules on stem cell treatments “the revolutionary potential that adult stem cell research and therapies have on our nation’s health, quality of life and economy.”

According to the Tribune, Perry called on state leaders to invest in adult stem cell companies in his 2009 State of the State address, and that same year he awarded grants totaling $7.5 million to adult stem cell pioneers Texas A&M Health Science Center Institute of Regenerative Medicine and America Stem Cell through Texas’s Emerging Technology Fund.

The governor has also advocated banning human cloning, and has pledged to veto any measure that would provide state funds for embryonic stem cell research."

So if somebody pipes up about Rick Perry being 'anti-science', be sure and hit them up with the FACTS being that a little balance is in order here on this particular topic.

Science by Flash Mob

Ann Coulter enlightens us as to how a reasonable person can doubt Darwinian evolution. Apparently it took up a great deal of space in her 2007 book Godless: The Church of Liberalism....

"Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin's time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once -- complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell's tiny flagellum and cilium.

Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum (above) -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible."

I've always been fascinated by the arguments raised by mathematicians insofar as the probability of macroevolution having ever occurred. Perhaps that is why I link mathemataicians like William Dembski and One thing you will never hear mentioned by a True Believer in the Cult of Darwin are the findings of the mathematicians that participated in the Wistar Institute Symposium.

Uh-oh

That's the thing about living in the SE United States. California has it's earthquakes, the midwest it's cyclones and here we have hurricanes. At least with hurricanes, they don't exactly sneak up on you and occur out of a clear, blue sky, there's usually few days of advance warning/chaos/fretting. According to the Weather Channel, Hurricane Irene is set to make landfall in Florida overnight Thursday into Friday morning as a category 2 (or possibly 3) hurricane with winds up to 100 mph. I survived the bookend hurricanes of Katrina and Wilma in 2005 and it wasn't pretty. Hopefully, this will track out to sea, but you never know.

In their typical state of permanent positivism, the local Christian radio station here had locals call in to relate their good hurricane stories of years past. I know that can seem like an oxymoron, but two people actually did have such stories.

• One young mother called in to say that following one of the hurricanes the electricity was out over wide expanses of Florida. She recalled going outside with her family and staring up at the night sky with them and enjoying the view. You see, there is so much ambient light here across the region that often times you can't make out the stars in the sky or at best, very few of them like Polaris.
  
  



• One man spoke of being outside after a hurricane and preparing pancakes on his barbeque grill because it was his only means of cooking for his family. Then all of a sudden, these people who lived all around him but never really communicated with, known as "neighbors" began to show up in his driveway. He said actually had long, enjoyable conversations with them and he probably never would have gotten to know them had the hurricane not passed by.

Blogging might be spotty over the next few days, but if something really catches my eye, I'll be sure and try to post it.

(Mathematician) Lennox: ' If I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, am I denying the authority of Scripture? '

It's the very precise, yet fundamental question that Oxford mathematician John Lennox asks. Here's a blurb from his new book...

"What did the writer of Genesis mean by ‘the first day’? Is it a literal week or a series of time periods? If I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, am I denying the authority of Scripture? In response to the continuing controversy over the interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis, John Lennox proposes a succinct method of reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. With examples from history, a brief but thorough exploration of the major interpretations, and a look into the particular significance of the creation of human beings, Lennox suggests that Christians can heed modern scientific knowledge while staying faithful to the biblical narrative. He moves beyond a simple response to the controversy, insisting that Genesis teaches us far more about the God of Jesus Christ and about God’s intention for creation than it does about the age of the earth. With this book, Lennox offers a careful yet accessible introduction to a scientifically-savvy, theologically-astute, and Scripturally faithful interpretation of Genesis."

I cannot count on both hands the number of times that conversations with skeptics eventually devolved into the finer points concerning Young Earth Creationism. I am of the opinion that the Hebrew word yom that appears in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis can be translated as a non-specific time period. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Why is Estonia Beating us in Oil Shale Development?

As to why Estonia is beating the United states in Oil Shale Production, I think the answer comes down to political will to get the job done. Lincoln Brown lays out for us how advanced their process is...

"A company in Estonia is mining a 9 foot high seam of oil shale. From that seam the company has created a plant that is producing something on the order 25 thousand barrels of oil per day. And while environmentalists would tell you that it uses up that most precious of resources: water, water is not used at all in the extraction process. In fact the drier the shale the better. So much for the myth of water going down the proverbial dry hole. Additionally, the Estonian plant meets the exacting air quality requirements of the European Union, which is no small feat in this day and age.

But is it useable? Well, unless the laws of physics in Estonia vary wildly from those in the United States, the Magic Eight Ball seems to say YES. The country of Estonia has a total of eight power plants running off of oil shale. Six of those are in operation and two are in the process of being refurbished. Construction is underway on a new power plant that will generate 600 megawatts of electricity when it goes online.

Impressive numbers? Yes. But a drop in the bucket when you consider that the seam of oil shale in my part of the world is not nine feet high but 70 feet. Consider the possibilities."

Perhaps we could learn something from the Estonians in so far as extracting energy from this abundant resource. There comes a time when, even if energy prices gradually lower over time, that we have to develope our own resources due to instability in the parts of the world where OPEC extracts their oil.

Reading the Bible Promotes Science

It's from a study done by baylor University so it HAS to be Science!

"What daily practice may help American Christians become more concerned about issues of poverty, conservation and civil liberties?

Reading the Bible.

The answer may come as a surprise to those locked into viewing religious practices in ideological boxes. However, a new study by Baylor University researcher Aaron Franzen found frequent Bible reading predicted greater support for issues ranging from the compatibility of science and religion to more humane treatment of criminals.

The study, one of the first to examine the social consequences of reading Scripture, reveals the effects of Bible reading appear to transcend conservative-liberal boundaries.

Thus, even as opposition to same-sex marriage and legalized abortion tends to increase with more time spent with the Bible, so does the number of people who say it is important to actively seek social and economic justice, Franzen found."

There goes the entire "Bible reading is for mindless lemmings" mischaracterization. Can we now expect atheists to pick up the Good Book in order to reinforce their fetish for science? I'm not holding my breath people.

Creation Science to the Rescue in Japan

It seems that in the wake of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, that one company is taking quite literally what God is said to have instructed Noah...

" ISE Industry of Japan has designed something not seen in 4400 years: a lifeboat for the land. The designer took his inspiration from Noah’s Ark, and gave specific credit to God as the Best Naval Architect that ever was...

ISE Industry used Noah’s Ark as the model for their largest rescue vessel. That vessel is not nearly as large as the original Noah’s Ark. But its proportions are very close to Noah’s proportions..

This is the most spectacular instance on record of an industrialist using insight from the Bible record to develop a product. (ISE has taken 20 orders thus far for its various models.) One of the most common criticisms of creation theory is that it has yielded no practical scientific insight or invention. That criticism is no longer valid."

Should anyone like to check out a great article on the Noahic Flood, just click here.