"Main"

ScienceArchives

July 11, 2005

Tolkien, Naturalism and Calvinism

Link to us and you, too, can get "discovered" (once people discover us!).  Browsing through the stats, I found Wittingshire, co-authored by a husband and wife.  Amanda explains how LOTR came to be the theme of their blog, offering up Tolkien's own explanation of the ring of power as what led them to define it as  philosophical materialism (a.k.a. naturalism, which is the belief that the natural/physical/tangible world is all that exists, i.e. no spiritual world).  Read the post to see her argument and then come back to comment on this conclusion:

Did you catch that? Materialism (also known as naturalism) denies the existence of free will; that is, it takes away freedom. It says your will doesn't exist, that everything you do--every song or poem you write, every good deed you perform, every cruelty you inflict--is not a choice or a creative act, but is simply the inevitable result of causes over which you have no control.

Materialism says you are nothing but a puppet.

While I totally agree with her point about materialism, what struck me was how much this sounded like Calvinism (minus the God aspect, which I know is huge).  This is one reason I haven't fully embraced the Reformed view, though I lean toward it more than any other.  I keep having the sense that all theological explanations about God's sovereignty and our free will (or lack thereof) are incomplete and that the tension between those concepts will be dissolved when we shed this earthly existence.  C.S. Lewis helps me out here (it's only fitting to mention him in the same post with fellow inkling Tolkien):

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think... How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that. ~from A Grief Observed

(I googled for that quote and it ended up taking me to my own blog -- I love it when that happens!)

August 2, 2005

Show Me Some ID

I decided to google my old friend Jed with whom I co-taught a worldview class (using James Sire's The Universe Next Door) to undergrads at UC Berkeley when I was getting my masters in journalism. When I knew him, he was living at Westminster House but planning to move into Phillip Johnson's basement. That would be Phillip E. Johnson (not Phillip R. Johnson, a.k.a. pyromaniac)., law professsor at Boalt and proponent of Intelligent Design (ID). Because of Jed, I was able to interview Phil, landing me my first feature in the San Francisco Chronicle. (ironically, that led to me getting an internship at the Chron and cancelling my plan to live at Westminster for the summer after graduation)

Anyway, it turns out that Jed and Phil are still friends and allies. Jed is now a professor of biophysics and is making a name for himself in the ID movement. I found this out because the skeptics/atheists are starting to criticize him on their ID bashing blogs. Early next year, Intervarsity Press will be publishing A Man For This Season: The Phillip Johnson Celebration Volume, edited by William Dembski and my friend Jed Macosko. It looks like a must for anyone interested in ID and worldview studies, which should be all Christians.

Jed and I are now back in touch (ah, the power of the internet), and after he checked out what we're doing here, he made a nomination for an Intellectuelle representative of the ID sector: Denyse O'Leary of Post-Darwinist. But the mother (father?) of all ID blogs (which I'll be adding to the brotherhoods blogroll) seems to be ID the Future.

August 13, 2005

Going in circles...

A friend posted a link to this short but scathing letter to the editor by Donald Macleod to the Glasgow-based Herald. It's called "Always something more basic than evolution," and I bet you can guess what it is about. I'm not well-versed in evolutionary dialectics, but I do know some sweet presuppositional action when I see it. Those of a similar mind will laugh (or grimace) upon comparing it with the editorial letter that follows, as well: according to its author, evolution passes the test hands down while ID fails it miserably. What's the test, you ask? Apparently infallible scientific verifiability, whose verifiability is verified by...?

I'll likely be scarce around here for a few days, as I'm moving into college next week to start my freshman year. So I'll see you guys later - for now I've got to run and take my third trip in three days to Bed, Bath & Beyond...

August 28, 2005

Concealed Estrus, or Why Is The Ovulation of Human Females Hidden?

There once was a thing, ovulation,
Necessary for human creation.
But it cannot be seen, and what does this mean?
Is there a Christian explanation?

One interesting thing about visiting California is once again seeing the Los Angeles Times. Then lo and behold, in the opinion page the other day, I found an article on the fascinating subject of concealed estrus, or hidden ovulation is human females. Of course, this article is written from an evolutionary perspective, and the evolutionists are perplexed as to why human females, as opposed to almost all other mammalians, have a fertile cycle that cannot be overtly detected by others. Some possible reasons for this, according to evolutionists, are:

"Maybe concealed ovulation is a biological ploy to keep men around. After all, if our great-great-grandfathers didn't know when our great-great-grandmothers were ovulating, they might have been more likely to stick close to home, thereby minimizing the likelihood that some gallivanting neighbor — instead of themselves — would give rise to the next generation."

"Or maybe the evolutionary pressure worked in the opposite direction, and instead of generating monogamy, concealed ovulation began as a way to give prehistoric women greater flexibility in their reproductive choices. If men knew when women were ovulating, they might have guarded them closely only during those times."

"Or maybe the evolutionary pressure to conceal ovulation is a strategy to keep such reproductively relevant information hidden from other females, especially dominant ones who might interfere with a subordinate's reproduction."

(Before I move on to why concealed estrus makes perfect sense from the Christian perspective, I want to say how odd it is, while usually denying a Creator God, evolutionists speak of "forces" like "Biological Ploy" and "Evolutionary Pressure" as if they were a Creator with conscious power to mold the direction of humanity's future. R.C. Sproul often makes this same observation about "Chance", noting how often it seems to be spoken of as if it has causal power within itself.)

Anyway, hidden ovulation is not a mystery at all if you take as your presupposition the Christian ethic of sexuality. If people are created to form lifelong monogamous bonds, it would defeat that purpose if women's bodies somehow sent out a signal to every man that they were "ready and willing". That a woman's most fertile time is not obvious also makes sense in light of the fact that for people, the sexual relationship is about more than reproduction.

Another thing that separates us from other mammalians is the fact that we can use our sexuality in a sinful way. Our sexual desire is in part based on a "chemistry" between people that has nothing to do with the most beneficial time for reproduction. This is usually one factor we use when determining who we will choose for our spouse. But in a fallen world, this chemistry that draws us to our mate can also draw us away from him. In the animal kingdom there is no such thing as infidelity.

While it is true that there are not extremely overt signs of human female fertility, there are indications that can be seen privately, and it is a pity that, as the article points out, most women are not even aware of their own ovulation. This would help relieve the problem of some cases of female infertility, as well as unwanted pregnancies (this is not meant to be a moral discussion of birth control). Understanding the female cycle can also help married couples avoid the common problem of him being interested and her not, because, although it is more subtle than the chimpanzee's pink bottom, women do tend to have more interest in that side of life when they are fertile, and knowing that can help both partners be more understanding in this area.

There are also external manifestations...meaning that most of us gals look prettier during the fertile period! I can actually look at pictures of myself from years past and tell where I was in my cycle at that time. And on an Intellectuelle note, many women also find that mid-cycle, their brainpower is significantly increased. I would love to do an informal study to see whether female bloggers produce their best entries during the estrogen-dominant time.

One of the themes of The times article was the fact that there is still much that science can't explain. There is also much that we Christians cannot understand about ourselves and the world around us. Sometimes, I think, Christians allow themselves to be intimidated by the voice of science, and it is important to remember that all of us, believer and non-believer alike, are finite and fallen in our understanding, and are faced with the creation and purposes of One Who is Infinite and Holy. I think that is is comforting, though, that we believers have the Infinite-Personal God to trust in our ignorance, rather than the impersonal universe in whom many believe, but no one can trust.

October 21, 2005

Putting All Our Eggs in One Basket: Cloning Project Manipulates Women

The Pacific Fertility Center of San Francisco intends to recruit women to donate eggs for cloning and embryonic stem cell research for the South Korea-based World Stem Cell Foundation, which announced this week that it is opening a satellite operation in the San Francisco Bay area.

According to the Fertility Center's Dr. Philip Chenette, "women are fascinated by by the chance to help." Of course they are interested in the chance to help. The alternative response to the request would be "no, I'm not interested in helping people who are dying of diseases that research might prove to benefit."

Cloning and embryonic stem cell research depends upon the willingness of women to risk their own health and even their lives in order to produce eggs for research that they are told will help save lives (while, obviously, destroying lives - another issue for another blog entry). What real choice does a woman have to say "no" to such a request? The liberal side of our culture says that a woman has a right to make choices about her own body, but that real choices are often obscured by oppression, coercion, and power-mongering. Doesn't anyone else see how this project is exactly that and amounts to a pure objectification of women? The feminist outcry is barely a whisper at this point.

January 14, 2006

Egg in the Face

On Thursday of last week (January 12), my colleague Joe Carter and myself provided testimony at an Illinois committee hearing. As proponents of a bill to ban the funding of human cloning in Illinois, our testimony focused on how human cloning will exploit women, especially poor and minorities, in that it is her eggs that are necessary to the pursuit of human cloning.

The Human Services Committee of the Illinois General Assembly seemed completely uninterested in the facts. Sometime after Joe and I finished giving our testimony, the chairman began a comment with "You people..." as he went on to complain that people like us - I guess conservative, white people - shouldn't be worrying ourselves about the exploitation of the poor and minority communities...apparently that's forbidden territory. And at some point after that outrageous remark, the chairman attempted to describe the goal of human cloning, describing embryonic stem cell research as somehow creating a clone and injecting it into a person's spine (as one example he had for treatment.) Finally, a witness who offered testimony for the opposition of this bill insisted that eggs are not needed for human cloning, that we can get all we need from left over embryos at fertility clinics. Apparently she doesn't know that those aren't cloned embryos in frozen storage at fertility clinics. It's a shame that this level of intellect is attempting to play a role of leadership at an organization called Protestants for the Common Good...but then, perhaps, that's all they have.

An interesting quote I found today is egg in the face of Illinois' liberal political establishment: "You cannot clone an embryo without an egg and you cannot get eggs without a clinic." This, from Newcastle University Professor Michael Whitaker, dean of research at its faculty of medical sciences.

March 11, 2007

(Think)links: Don’t mess with Mother Nature, or other thing that aren’t your business

Jared at Thinklings links to a post about people who ask, “When Are You Having Another One?” He considers the appropriateness of such a question. Many good issues raised in the comments, about levels of formality and involvement during interpersonal communication and how one might determine what’s appropriate.

It’s amazing what people say about one’s family size, even if well-meaning. After I gave birth to my daughter, the anesthesiologist said, “Now you’ve got a nice family,” or something like that. As if now that we’d had a girl after two boys, we were “done.” (Whether we actually are or not is beside the point.) When I conceived my daughter after a miscarriage, my OB (whom otherwise I liked) commented, “You must really like it (having kids).” Sheesh.

**********

De at Thinklings links to a post by Scot McKnight and this quote about Rhythm-less Lives:

We are breaking down rhythms — night isn’t night anymore; we have lights that make “day” last longer. The agricultural calendar no longer obtains: we expect all foods to be in season all year long.

What happens to rhythmless lives? Our question for the day.

Well, never mind strawberries in March and miracles of tungsten (or halogen); consider the new birth-control pill, Seasonique:

SEASONIQUE™ works with your body just like a traditional monthly pill. You can feel comfortable with SEASONIQUE™ (emphasis added) because it offers:
  • The same 99% effectiveness, when taken as directed
  • The same hormones
  • The same once-daily routine
  • And quarterly periods. Yep, four per year! Wouldn't that be great?!

    Ack!!

    Comfort here pertains to: effectiveness against pregnancy, familiarity with the hormones used in the monthly Pill, and routine. Seasonique “works with your body”...sure, as does just about every other chemical you might put into it, for good or ill. “Good” or “ill” being defined by what you want from it, I guess.

    Monthly menstruation may not be a woman’s favorite thing, but good grief. Why not slow the orbit of the moon, or the rotation of the earth? (If they keep pushing Daylight Savings Time back, they just might.) When does fact become fiction, or fiction fact, and how far can we alter certain rhythms before the music stops? (see C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man)

    ‘K, I’m off to eat my fake blueberry-particle bagel with a glass of quasi-orange juice after downing my meal-in-a-pill (daily vitamin) while I visit with my friend who’s bottle-feeding the baby she conceived via artificial insemination and delivered via scheduled C-section...

    *sigh*

    (note: I am not so earthy-veggie or crunchy or whatever that I have a problem with invention, intervention, or alteration of every "natural" thing. I think there is proper use and place for most every one of these. But proper use is determined by the rhythm you're dancing to...)

    June 21, 2007

    The faith of Isaac Newton

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
    His discoveries founded much of modern science, but few know about his writings, which were made available to the public for the first time this week in Jerusalem. Included are calculations pertaining to the apocalypse, details on Jewish temple practice, and financial records, among other things.

    "The Newton papers", said Yemima Ben-Menahem, one of the exhibit's curators,

    also complicate the idea that science is diametrically opposed to religion. "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world," she said.

    November 5, 2007

    Biotechnology and the Human Good: Book Review

    As human life and dignity continues to face unrelenting assault from the influences of secularism in our culture, I am thankful to know that this book is available. Biotechnology and the Human Good brings biotechnology where it belongs - in the realm of worldview and philosophy.

    Biotechnology and the Human Good (BHG) is coauthored by experts in the field of bioethics: C. Ben Mitchell, Edmund Pellegrino, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John F. Kilner, and Scott Rae. BHG provides discussion on the philosophical framework that structures the dominant worldviews in the bioethics arena: Christian theism, Philosophical Naturalism and Environmentalist Biocentrism. It then moves into a discussion on human dignity in relationship to biotechnology, considering various views in light of the critical assessment criteria comprehensiveness, consistency, and credibility. Comprehensiveness addresses the application of the concept of human dignity, that it "covers all people to whom the term appropriately applies." (p. 65). Consistency refers to the concept of human dignity being able to "withstand the critiques it levels at other approaches." (p. 65). Credibility speaks to the plausibility of the concept, that it "accords with what we know about the present and what we hope about the future." (p. 65).

    Near the end of the book there lists presuppositions for engagement. They are:

    1. We must begin with the affirmation of a creator of everything. 2. We also affirm that the biblical account is the best guide to understanding the nature, problems, and ends of human life. 3. As all human beings-regardless of age or level of development, health, disability, or status-are God's imagers, each is worthy of respect and protection. 4. Human beings are also distinct from human tissues. 5. Human beings were created for community and communion, with God and with one another. 6. The fundamental problem of humankind is not physical or mental inadequacy, but sin.
    Finally, I want to share this quote from chapter seven as I believe it addresses a larger problem.
    The challenges presented by advancing technologies, particularly biotechnologies, are growing almost exponentially. Yet...we are theologically ill equipped to address these challenges wither individually or collectively. One of the major deficiencies lies in the fact that theology has too often become an arcane, academic discipline. We have forgotten...the Puritans, who understood that for theology to have meaning, it must permeate every aspect of life...The theological community must take up the issues we raise in this book and lift its sights from its own intradisciplinary conversations to an interdisciplinary engagement with medicine, philosophy, law, science, industry, and the lay community. For only in the context of a robust, practical theology of living can a workable theology of technology and biotechnology be developed.
    As members of the Christian community, I see that we are barely having the conversation about biotechnology or bioethics in general in an intradisciplinary manner. As members of the Church, we need to educate and equip believers on these issues so that they are prepared to give an answer when they least expect they will need one. This is an excellent resource for the Church and for college/seminary students as they consider how to minister in contemporary culture.

    Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C.
    ISBN: 1589011384