Howdy Everybody;
My dad was a welder, and he definitely had his own way about him.
Once, when my oldest boy was somewhat less than two years old, I had reason to walk down to my dad's shop to talk to him about something or other. I was carrying Richard, because the ground and debris down there wouldn't be safe for a child.
I was standing there talking to dad while he was working on a truck for somebody. The body was off the truck, and it looked like maybe the frame of a pulp-wood truck, being a dually on the back and kind of a long frame on it.
Anyhow, he was trying to get the gas tank off the frame. It was on the inside of the frame, bolted through the frame with a big nut on the outside. He was working on it with a box-end wrench, and not having much luck. While we were talking, he throws down the wrench and reaches around and puts on his cutting goggles. Then he picks up his torch and ignites it.
I said, "Dad? Are you planning on cutting that bolt off that gas tank there?" and he said "Yes, why?".
I said "Wait a minute."
And I carried Richard out away from the shop, about 50 or 60 feet away in the driveway. I turned around, and shouted at him, "OK - Go ahead!".
He looked at me; and he looked at his torch; and he looked at this gas tank. Then he cut off the torch, took his goggles off, and went and got a cold chisel to cut the nut off.
It's amazing he lived long enough to have children, much less grand-children.
-Pop
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Examine the Evidence!
Howdy, Friends!
It is important to make decisions and select belief systems based on as much factual information as you can get your brain around. The facts are your guide to understanding what is around you.
Apply critical thought, and do the research required to understand the subject at hand. For instance, take the age of the earth. Many Christian fundamentalists think the earth is only a few thousands of years old. They base this on conclusions drawn by theologians without any science involved at all. This is, however, a belief, a wish, and is not supported by observed fact. To disagree with mainstream science about such a topic (which says that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old) is not reasonable. (Remember, the church was also absolutely convinced (wrongly) that the sun rotated around the earth, to the point of executing people who studied the subject and came to have a different view.)
If a person is going to have an informed opinion on the subject of the age of the earth, he should take the time to study where the 4.54 billion year figure came from. Study the methods of measurement used. Look at the consensus view among geologists who study this subject for a living. Get into it deeply enough that you understand the basis for that view. If you find dissenting views, study them to see if they have any scientific basis (in this case, I haven't seen any). Do all this before you commit to a decision. Then, if you really are convinced that all those scientists are, every one of them, wrong, you are prepared to argue your case. But it is far more likely that you will come to accept the general view of the age of the earth, if you pursue this honestly. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this view.
Please note also that there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the long age of the earth - it is possible without straining to reconcile everything in the Bible with observed scientific fact. Or at least, I have found it to be so.
Somebody, somewhere, is going to say, "What about miracles?". Now, Biblical miracles are, individually, one of two things - either they are exercises of unfamiliar phenomena that do not contradict the physical laws of the universe, or they are the real McCoy - God himself reaching into our universe and changing things. And, guess what? True science does not have an opinion about miracles. Because they are, lets admit it, pretty difficult to study.
So, science is incapable of ruling out miracles. Good thing, because I choose to believe in miracles. Some scientists will refuse to believe in them, and that's their call - but if they are honest as scientists, they will admit that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of miracles or God.
Science is like a flashlight in your hand, in a huge dark cavern. Whatever can be illuminated with the flashlight of science is well lit, and can be examined and learned about. Wherever the flashlight can't reach, or isn't pointed at, is unknown. Science is a good tool for learning about the universe, but it cannot ever rule out the existence of things outside it's reach. Such as the existence of God.
By the same token, any belief in God has to tolerate the findings of science, unless it can be shown, using scientific methods, that the prevailing scientific view is wrong.
This is because the methods employed by science do work effectively. Any hypothesis or theory put forth by science is subject to change or removal by the addition of new facts which alter the original view. Therefore, dissenting views can be expressed - if you can back them up with observation and fact. And, in God's universe, when all is said and done, science will illuminate God's creation with the light of truth.
Until next time -
Pop
It is important to make decisions and select belief systems based on as much factual information as you can get your brain around. The facts are your guide to understanding what is around you.
Apply critical thought, and do the research required to understand the subject at hand. For instance, take the age of the earth. Many Christian fundamentalists think the earth is only a few thousands of years old. They base this on conclusions drawn by theologians without any science involved at all. This is, however, a belief, a wish, and is not supported by observed fact. To disagree with mainstream science about such a topic (which says that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old) is not reasonable. (Remember, the church was also absolutely convinced (wrongly) that the sun rotated around the earth, to the point of executing people who studied the subject and came to have a different view.)
If a person is going to have an informed opinion on the subject of the age of the earth, he should take the time to study where the 4.54 billion year figure came from. Study the methods of measurement used. Look at the consensus view among geologists who study this subject for a living. Get into it deeply enough that you understand the basis for that view. If you find dissenting views, study them to see if they have any scientific basis (in this case, I haven't seen any). Do all this before you commit to a decision. Then, if you really are convinced that all those scientists are, every one of them, wrong, you are prepared to argue your case. But it is far more likely that you will come to accept the general view of the age of the earth, if you pursue this honestly. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this view.
Please note also that there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the long age of the earth - it is possible without straining to reconcile everything in the Bible with observed scientific fact. Or at least, I have found it to be so.
Somebody, somewhere, is going to say, "What about miracles?". Now, Biblical miracles are, individually, one of two things - either they are exercises of unfamiliar phenomena that do not contradict the physical laws of the universe, or they are the real McCoy - God himself reaching into our universe and changing things. And, guess what? True science does not have an opinion about miracles. Because they are, lets admit it, pretty difficult to study.
So, science is incapable of ruling out miracles. Good thing, because I choose to believe in miracles. Some scientists will refuse to believe in them, and that's their call - but if they are honest as scientists, they will admit that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of miracles or God.
Science is like a flashlight in your hand, in a huge dark cavern. Whatever can be illuminated with the flashlight of science is well lit, and can be examined and learned about. Wherever the flashlight can't reach, or isn't pointed at, is unknown. Science is a good tool for learning about the universe, but it cannot ever rule out the existence of things outside it's reach. Such as the existence of God.
By the same token, any belief in God has to tolerate the findings of science, unless it can be shown, using scientific methods, that the prevailing scientific view is wrong.
This is because the methods employed by science do work effectively. Any hypothesis or theory put forth by science is subject to change or removal by the addition of new facts which alter the original view. Therefore, dissenting views can be expressed - if you can back them up with observation and fact. And, in God's universe, when all is said and done, science will illuminate God's creation with the light of truth.
Until next time -
Pop
Friday, June 29, 2007
Changes in the Way the World Works
Hi, Everybody!
I've been thinking again. Watch out.
We are actually witnessing the beginning of a change in the way the world works. I haven't seen anyone else make this connection, but then it may be obvious to everybody but me.
Historically, there have been two major types of human organization on Earth. The first type is described by the concept of the nation. It has the following characteristics:
1. It is geographically fixed, with borders that normally do not move. You can find these borders on a map.
2. It is a group of people with a common goal to protect the nation in which they live, as an extension of self-defense. This is called nationalism, and in an individual is called patriotism.
3. Historically almost all wars were fought between these nations, up until about 20 years ago. These wars have generally been about either resources (including territory) or about ideology of government.
The second type of organization transcends national borders. They may have members in many countries. They have the following characteristics:
1. The organization has no fixed borders.
2. Members of these groups have an allegiance to the organization which sometimes exceeds the individual's allegiance to the country in which they live.
3. Most such organizations share some sort of belief system, or at least philosophy.
There are three major subspecies of this transnational type of organization. They are:
1. Terrorist organizations, such as Al Quaida
2. Regular religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church
3. Major international corporations, such as Exxon or Microsoft
Historically, transnational organizations have influenced national governments by political or financial leverage (such as is wielded by the Catholic Church or Microsoft).
However, we are now witnessing the manifestation of militant activist or terrorist transnational organizations which do and will continue to play a major part in the political life of the planet. These groups exert influence through force of arms, propaganda and outright control of certain conventional governments. They are extra-legal in the sense that, as an organization, they are not bound by the laws of any country; although their individual members are nominally bound by local law.
This 'paradigm shift' is radically changing the way politics works, as well as the way war is waged. As we have seen, conventional warfare works well against nations, but not so well when the enemy doesn't have borders. Different strategies will have to evolve. A nation fighting these borderless organizations is like a man swatting bees. You can swat a few, but it is very difficult to get them all. Note that these transnationals even have representation in our government (through their members who are in our government, or who vote), as well as directly controlling certain other governments, so even our internal political scene is affected. This is why unlimited (legal or illegal) immigration is such a bad idea.
It's similar to the mental shift that was a result of the American Revolution. Up until then, armies lined up in neat rows to shoot at each other. The colonists, on the other hand, shot from behind trees and rocks. The British thought this was not 'cricket', but they had to change the way they did things to accommodate this new tactic. Fortunately for us they didn't change their tactics until after the American Revolution was settled.
I don't know how this is going to play out, but the variety of different viewpoints present in our population, bolstered by legal and illegal immigration, and liberalism vs conservatism, is playing a part in it. It wasn't like this when I was a kid, but by the time I was in high school the near-universal disgust with the Vietnam War was causing the concept of patriotism to fall out of favor at that time. It became acceptable for a US citizen to criticize the US publicly. Up until that time, it was just 'understood' that the US was the best anywhere (still true) and almost nobody questioned it. The loss of consistency in a belief in the basic wholesomeness of our country leaves the door wide open for the growth of transnational terrorist organizations within our borders.
We're all in for a wild ride - you young people more than me. Good luck.
-Pop
I've been thinking again. Watch out.
We are actually witnessing the beginning of a change in the way the world works. I haven't seen anyone else make this connection, but then it may be obvious to everybody but me.
Historically, there have been two major types of human organization on Earth. The first type is described by the concept of the nation. It has the following characteristics:
1. It is geographically fixed, with borders that normally do not move. You can find these borders on a map.
2. It is a group of people with a common goal to protect the nation in which they live, as an extension of self-defense. This is called nationalism, and in an individual is called patriotism.
3. Historically almost all wars were fought between these nations, up until about 20 years ago. These wars have generally been about either resources (including territory) or about ideology of government.
The second type of organization transcends national borders. They may have members in many countries. They have the following characteristics:
1. The organization has no fixed borders.
2. Members of these groups have an allegiance to the organization which sometimes exceeds the individual's allegiance to the country in which they live.
3. Most such organizations share some sort of belief system, or at least philosophy.
There are three major subspecies of this transnational type of organization. They are:
1. Terrorist organizations, such as Al Quaida
2. Regular religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church
3. Major international corporations, such as Exxon or Microsoft
Historically, transnational organizations have influenced national governments by political or financial leverage (such as is wielded by the Catholic Church or Microsoft).
However, we are now witnessing the manifestation of militant activist or terrorist transnational organizations which do and will continue to play a major part in the political life of the planet. These groups exert influence through force of arms, propaganda and outright control of certain conventional governments. They are extra-legal in the sense that, as an organization, they are not bound by the laws of any country; although their individual members are nominally bound by local law.
This 'paradigm shift' is radically changing the way politics works, as well as the way war is waged. As we have seen, conventional warfare works well against nations, but not so well when the enemy doesn't have borders. Different strategies will have to evolve. A nation fighting these borderless organizations is like a man swatting bees. You can swat a few, but it is very difficult to get them all. Note that these transnationals even have representation in our government (through their members who are in our government, or who vote), as well as directly controlling certain other governments, so even our internal political scene is affected. This is why unlimited (legal or illegal) immigration is such a bad idea.
It's similar to the mental shift that was a result of the American Revolution. Up until then, armies lined up in neat rows to shoot at each other. The colonists, on the other hand, shot from behind trees and rocks. The British thought this was not 'cricket', but they had to change the way they did things to accommodate this new tactic. Fortunately for us they didn't change their tactics until after the American Revolution was settled.
I don't know how this is going to play out, but the variety of different viewpoints present in our population, bolstered by legal and illegal immigration, and liberalism vs conservatism, is playing a part in it. It wasn't like this when I was a kid, but by the time I was in high school the near-universal disgust with the Vietnam War was causing the concept of patriotism to fall out of favor at that time. It became acceptable for a US citizen to criticize the US publicly. Up until that time, it was just 'understood' that the US was the best anywhere (still true) and almost nobody questioned it. The loss of consistency in a belief in the basic wholesomeness of our country leaves the door wide open for the growth of transnational terrorist organizations within our borders.
We're all in for a wild ride - you young people more than me. Good luck.
-Pop
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Are All Politicians Corrupt?
Howdy, everybody;
Are all politicians corrupt? Probably not, but it does seem to be hard to find those that aren't. The Democrats, notably Pelosi and others, won the last mid-term election partly on the basis of Republican corruption. Their platform was 'end the war' and 'clean up corruption in congress'. Now it is obvious that the Democrats are just as bad or worse than the Republicans.
Pelosi wants special privileges regarding air travel for members of congress, to be paid by taxpayers. In some case military transport where none was required before, and in other cases adult children of members of congress - all paid by the taxpayer. Why are these people suddenly privileged? Don't these members of congress make enough money to buy their own tickets?
More important is the issue of earmarks in the process of creating bills in congress. The Democrats made a lot of noise about cleaning up earmarks, which are basically funding for pet projects of individual congress-critters that are tacked on to another more major piece of legislation, so that it gets passed along with the main bill in order to get anything done at all. This has been going on for a long time, and is a practice that should be outright abolished, as far as I am concerned. Instead of doing what they promised at mid-term, now the Democrats are making moves to not only protect earmarks, but to make it more difficult to prevent individual earmarks from being in the final bill. Basically they are trying to remove the right to debate individual earmarks before the bill goes to vote. Good grief! Besides that, Pelosi wants to rename earmarks to help hide them! How stupid does she think we are? It didn't take the Democrats long to get greedy.
Those are just two of many issues that I've come across in my reading. To be fair, I must state that I generally vote Republican even though I am not a member of that party. But I've about had it with the two-faced performance of the Democrats in the short time they've been in office. Besides being ineffectual - something like 108 days to pass a war funding bill because of playing politics - they say what they think you want to hear, then do whatever they want. And they think we're too stupid to notice!
I'm tired of the dishonesty in our government.
The nice thing about being an American is that we get to make up our own minds about this kind of thing. So far. But we do need to pay attention to what the congress-critters are doing, or that may not be true forever.
-Pop
Are all politicians corrupt? Probably not, but it does seem to be hard to find those that aren't. The Democrats, notably Pelosi and others, won the last mid-term election partly on the basis of Republican corruption. Their platform was 'end the war' and 'clean up corruption in congress'. Now it is obvious that the Democrats are just as bad or worse than the Republicans.
Pelosi wants special privileges regarding air travel for members of congress, to be paid by taxpayers. In some case military transport where none was required before, and in other cases adult children of members of congress - all paid by the taxpayer. Why are these people suddenly privileged? Don't these members of congress make enough money to buy their own tickets?
More important is the issue of earmarks in the process of creating bills in congress. The Democrats made a lot of noise about cleaning up earmarks, which are basically funding for pet projects of individual congress-critters that are tacked on to another more major piece of legislation, so that it gets passed along with the main bill in order to get anything done at all. This has been going on for a long time, and is a practice that should be outright abolished, as far as I am concerned. Instead of doing what they promised at mid-term, now the Democrats are making moves to not only protect earmarks, but to make it more difficult to prevent individual earmarks from being in the final bill. Basically they are trying to remove the right to debate individual earmarks before the bill goes to vote. Good grief! Besides that, Pelosi wants to rename earmarks to help hide them! How stupid does she think we are? It didn't take the Democrats long to get greedy.
Those are just two of many issues that I've come across in my reading. To be fair, I must state that I generally vote Republican even though I am not a member of that party. But I've about had it with the two-faced performance of the Democrats in the short time they've been in office. Besides being ineffectual - something like 108 days to pass a war funding bill because of playing politics - they say what they think you want to hear, then do whatever they want. And they think we're too stupid to notice!
I'm tired of the dishonesty in our government.
The nice thing about being an American is that we get to make up our own minds about this kind of thing. So far. But we do need to pay attention to what the congress-critters are doing, or that may not be true forever.
-Pop
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Rainbows and Rain
Howdy, Everybody;
Day before yesterday, my wife and I saw a double rainbow! We were in the local Walmart parking lot. The primary rainbow was a full rainbow, and the secondary was a really bright 1/8 of the arc on the right side, and for a moment or two very faint arc on the left side as well. The left side of the secondary faded quickly, but the right was bright for quite a while.
That's probably the second or maybe third double rainbow I've ever seen, so I thought it was notable. There are things in the universe worth marveling over, even if we do know how they are created.
Yesterday, we had weird rain. We were sitting on the front porch enjoying the evening, facing out towards the highway. It began a very light rain - on a patch of our yard to the left, maybe 50 feet across. No rain to the right, no rain to the far left - just this patch. The weird thing about it was that it was stable for maybe five minutes. I've never seen in do that before, although once when I was a kid, it was raining on one side of the house and not the other. But just to rain in one spot for five minutes or so - remarkable!
I wonder what's next?
-Pop
Day before yesterday, my wife and I saw a double rainbow! We were in the local Walmart parking lot. The primary rainbow was a full rainbow, and the secondary was a really bright 1/8 of the arc on the right side, and for a moment or two very faint arc on the left side as well. The left side of the secondary faded quickly, but the right was bright for quite a while.
That's probably the second or maybe third double rainbow I've ever seen, so I thought it was notable. There are things in the universe worth marveling over, even if we do know how they are created.
Yesterday, we had weird rain. We were sitting on the front porch enjoying the evening, facing out towards the highway. It began a very light rain - on a patch of our yard to the left, maybe 50 feet across. No rain to the right, no rain to the far left - just this patch. The weird thing about it was that it was stable for maybe five minutes. I've never seen in do that before, although once when I was a kid, it was raining on one side of the house and not the other. But just to rain in one spot for five minutes or so - remarkable!
I wonder what's next?
-Pop
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Belief Systems, Science, Evolution, Critical Thinking, and the Bible
Howdy, everybody;
I think everyone can agree that any rational belief system must be based insofar as possible on verifiable fact, although possibly not limited to it. If you have a belief system that actually contradicts the truth, you are in serious trouble. In fact, this is the primary yardstick used to measure insanity.
Of course, having a belief system that is based on truth does not guarantee your safety (or popularity) if the majority of people around you do not share your beliefs. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, by the church, for his belief that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. His viewpoint was dismissed out of hand by the religious leaders of his time, because they did not bother to examine the facts on which his belief was based. Had they done so, and worked out a solution as the modern day church has done, our science would probably be several hundred years advanced at this point. Of course we know now by direct observation that Bruno (as well as earlier astronomers) was correct.
My point here is that the truth, or verifiable fact, is the best tool available for exploring the universe around you and trying to understand it. Science is a system for discovering the truth (fact) with high confidence. The standard procedure in science is: a hypothesis is made; experiments are made to test the hypothesis; if verified, it becomes a theory; if disproved, it is discarded.
A lot of people throw around the word "Theory" without knowing the precise definition. In this article I use the word "theory" in it's precise definition as related to science. Sadly, most of the public, much of the media, and even some "scientists" do not use it correctly. In common (inprecise) use, the word theory is used as a synonym for hypothesis. Not in this article. The reason I am stressing this is that most people do not realize how much testing goes in to a hypothesis before it becomes a theory.
Any scientific theory has passed every test, and every attempt to disprove it has failed. A theory has a lot going for it: it has been subject to sustained efforts to prove it is wrong - and those efforts have failed. That doesn't guarantee it is absolute truth, because it may be disproved later by new information or tests; but at the moment, it is the truth as understood by science. A theory is NOT just an opinion expressed by a scientist. A theory has stood in the face of every test anyone has conceived to apply to it, without fail. In common use, people say theory when they mean hypothesis - but in the world of science, theory means a concept that has been tested and found to be true for all known cases.
Those tests mentioned above are why you sometimes hear about a theory being changed. Sometimes, new information makes some part of a theory invalid, but a change or two is made and it becomes valid again. At this point, the theory goes back through the testing phase just as when it was a hypothesis. So science is a dynamic process which is self correcting and always changing based on new knowledge.
As it happens, I am a Christian. I am also strongly science oriented. And I do not believe that it is possible that there is any conflict between observed reality and the Bible. If there is, either my facts are wrong, or I have misinterpreted the Bible. I have yet to find any observable, provable fact which actually contradicts the Bible. It's true that there are many things in the Bible which cannot be proved (or disproved) by science. That's OK. That's where the faith part comes in. But nothing I have seen in my studies has invalidated the Bible. If you think about it, that is a very strong statement for the truth of the Bible. But by the same token, bear in mind that the Bible is very much subject to interpretation - as is science.
It is necessary to reconcile observed reality and religious beliefs. Let's face it - something's got to give. If you know something is true for a fact, and you believe something that conflicts with the fact, the belief has to be adjusted or discarded. Any other solution is not rational.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (evolution) has been subject to attempts to disprove it for many, many years, and so far it has not been disproved. This theory says that species evolve over time by natural selection; that is, say, a mutation occurs in an individual. If it is a useful mutation, and benefits the individual, that individual may pass it on to any children; but if it is not a useful mutation, it causes the individual to tend not to survive long enough to reproduce. This process, over long periods of time, produces change within a species, and in fact can produce new species. Note that evolution is observable in everyday life - it is the process by which dogs and horses (and many other critters) are bred.
There is another way to look at evolution that is not so widely known. It is called Theistic Evolution. This is the idea that the theory of evolution is correct in it's observable effects, but rather than random processes causing mutations and change, these things are directly controlled by God. Or alternatively, God set in motion the process of evolution because He knew it would produce the desired results. One of the interesting things about this is that the observable process is exactly the same as conventional evolution. To a dispassionate observer, the observed events of the process are identical.
This idea allows a person to reconcile this theory with a belief in God and the Bible. But since God wants our belief in Him to be based on faith, He set it up in such a way that the observable facts can be explained with Him or without Him - so each of us has to decide whether to believe in Him. This is the free choice aspect of Salvation in the Bible. Not only do you get to choose whether you want to be saved and have a personal relation with Jesus, but God set up the whole universe in such a way that you can't have that decision taken away from you by obvious facts to turn you one way or the other.
The individual is free to choose either viewpoint. The Bible says that God made us. It certainly appears that this is the way He did it. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure He will sort me out later.
There are many other areas similar to this in science and the Bible where there is apparent conflict until you look deeper. For instance, I am struck by the apparent similarities between cosmology (the Big Bang Theory) and the book of Genesis. Even the multi-verse brane hypothesis is pretty interesting in this context. But that would be the subject of another discussion.
So it appears I have gone to some trouble to reconcile my beliefs in Jesus and the Bible and the universe as understood by science. I don't want to abandon either. Science is a valuable tool for understanding, which is very reliable; and my belief in Jesus is central to my happiness in this life (and the next one).
John 14:6 (NIV) says, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This shows that Jesus placed a very high premium on truth, so much so that He actually identifies Himself with it. Science is useful for discovering the universe around us, which was created by God and Jesus - this is a very valid, rational way to explore the universe.
We must be unflinching in our search for truth. It takes us where it takes us. But Jesus will be there, waiting for us, when we find Him. After all, He's the Truth.
-Pop
I think everyone can agree that any rational belief system must be based insofar as possible on verifiable fact, although possibly not limited to it. If you have a belief system that actually contradicts the truth, you are in serious trouble. In fact, this is the primary yardstick used to measure insanity.
Of course, having a belief system that is based on truth does not guarantee your safety (or popularity) if the majority of people around you do not share your beliefs. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, by the church, for his belief that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. His viewpoint was dismissed out of hand by the religious leaders of his time, because they did not bother to examine the facts on which his belief was based. Had they done so, and worked out a solution as the modern day church has done, our science would probably be several hundred years advanced at this point. Of course we know now by direct observation that Bruno (as well as earlier astronomers) was correct.
My point here is that the truth, or verifiable fact, is the best tool available for exploring the universe around you and trying to understand it. Science is a system for discovering the truth (fact) with high confidence. The standard procedure in science is: a hypothesis is made; experiments are made to test the hypothesis; if verified, it becomes a theory; if disproved, it is discarded.
A lot of people throw around the word "Theory" without knowing the precise definition. In this article I use the word "theory" in it's precise definition as related to science. Sadly, most of the public, much of the media, and even some "scientists" do not use it correctly. In common (inprecise) use, the word theory is used as a synonym for hypothesis. Not in this article. The reason I am stressing this is that most people do not realize how much testing goes in to a hypothesis before it becomes a theory.
Any scientific theory has passed every test, and every attempt to disprove it has failed. A theory has a lot going for it: it has been subject to sustained efforts to prove it is wrong - and those efforts have failed. That doesn't guarantee it is absolute truth, because it may be disproved later by new information or tests; but at the moment, it is the truth as understood by science. A theory is NOT just an opinion expressed by a scientist. A theory has stood in the face of every test anyone has conceived to apply to it, without fail. In common use, people say theory when they mean hypothesis - but in the world of science, theory means a concept that has been tested and found to be true for all known cases.
Those tests mentioned above are why you sometimes hear about a theory being changed. Sometimes, new information makes some part of a theory invalid, but a change or two is made and it becomes valid again. At this point, the theory goes back through the testing phase just as when it was a hypothesis. So science is a dynamic process which is self correcting and always changing based on new knowledge.
As it happens, I am a Christian. I am also strongly science oriented. And I do not believe that it is possible that there is any conflict between observed reality and the Bible. If there is, either my facts are wrong, or I have misinterpreted the Bible. I have yet to find any observable, provable fact which actually contradicts the Bible. It's true that there are many things in the Bible which cannot be proved (or disproved) by science. That's OK. That's where the faith part comes in. But nothing I have seen in my studies has invalidated the Bible. If you think about it, that is a very strong statement for the truth of the Bible. But by the same token, bear in mind that the Bible is very much subject to interpretation - as is science.
It is necessary to reconcile observed reality and religious beliefs. Let's face it - something's got to give. If you know something is true for a fact, and you believe something that conflicts with the fact, the belief has to be adjusted or discarded. Any other solution is not rational.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (evolution) has been subject to attempts to disprove it for many, many years, and so far it has not been disproved. This theory says that species evolve over time by natural selection; that is, say, a mutation occurs in an individual. If it is a useful mutation, and benefits the individual, that individual may pass it on to any children; but if it is not a useful mutation, it causes the individual to tend not to survive long enough to reproduce. This process, over long periods of time, produces change within a species, and in fact can produce new species. Note that evolution is observable in everyday life - it is the process by which dogs and horses (and many other critters) are bred.
There is another way to look at evolution that is not so widely known. It is called Theistic Evolution. This is the idea that the theory of evolution is correct in it's observable effects, but rather than random processes causing mutations and change, these things are directly controlled by God. Or alternatively, God set in motion the process of evolution because He knew it would produce the desired results. One of the interesting things about this is that the observable process is exactly the same as conventional evolution. To a dispassionate observer, the observed events of the process are identical.
This idea allows a person to reconcile this theory with a belief in God and the Bible. But since God wants our belief in Him to be based on faith, He set it up in such a way that the observable facts can be explained with Him or without Him - so each of us has to decide whether to believe in Him. This is the free choice aspect of Salvation in the Bible. Not only do you get to choose whether you want to be saved and have a personal relation with Jesus, but God set up the whole universe in such a way that you can't have that decision taken away from you by obvious facts to turn you one way or the other.
The individual is free to choose either viewpoint. The Bible says that God made us. It certainly appears that this is the way He did it. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure He will sort me out later.
There are many other areas similar to this in science and the Bible where there is apparent conflict until you look deeper. For instance, I am struck by the apparent similarities between cosmology (the Big Bang Theory) and the book of Genesis. Even the multi-verse brane hypothesis is pretty interesting in this context. But that would be the subject of another discussion.
So it appears I have gone to some trouble to reconcile my beliefs in Jesus and the Bible and the universe as understood by science. I don't want to abandon either. Science is a valuable tool for understanding, which is very reliable; and my belief in Jesus is central to my happiness in this life (and the next one).
John 14:6 (NIV) says, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This shows that Jesus placed a very high premium on truth, so much so that He actually identifies Himself with it. Science is useful for discovering the universe around us, which was created by God and Jesus - this is a very valid, rational way to explore the universe.
We must be unflinching in our search for truth. It takes us where it takes us. But Jesus will be there, waiting for us, when we find Him. After all, He's the Truth.
-Pop
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Gun Free Zones
Howdy, friends;
Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.
Briefly stated, there are two camps:
One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.
The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.
I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.
If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.
What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.
What do you folks think?
-Pop
Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.
Briefly stated, there are two camps:
One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.
The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.
I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.
If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.
What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.
What do you folks think?
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
