The New York Times > Science > Gray Matter and Sexes: A Scientific Gray Area

There is something I don't understand about this debate. Let say, just for the sake of argument, that science can prove that men, in general, are better than women at some well defined branch of science. What does that mean? Should we therefore assume that a woman who is making strides in that branch should be denied advancement? Does that mean that all men are better qualified than all women at the science? I sure doubt that!

I guess the problem is that we (as a part of the human race) tend not to treat people with uniform respect, but we treat them based on our expectations of them. This is, of course, wrong, but it's what we do. So if some branch of science lowers our expectations on an identifiable class of humans, we treat them with lowered expectations. Shame on us.

Finally, get this quote (from the Times article):

A century ago, the French scientist Gustav Le Bon pointed to the smaller brains of women - closer in size to gorillas', he said - and said that explained the "fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason" in women.

I wonder if he was married, and what his wife had to say about this!

Intelligent design comes to science class

Here we go again. The news media is framing the debate the same way it was framed in the Scopes trial, that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution must be an idiot. The scopes trial focused on a literal interpretation of the bible, which might make the world only about 10,000 or so years old. God can do whatever he likes, but if he only created the world 10,000 years ago, he certainly hid the creation by planting lot's of scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'm skeptical about the Intelligent Design science too, although I remain open-minded. We do use such rules to tell if bone fragments were worked into tools (i.e., there were the result of intelligent design), or merely abused in the process of eating. I think it would be hard to look at, say, DNA, and prove that it had an intelligent design. To teach intelligent design would require a solid underpinning of what exactly intelligent design means. This would be a fascinating field to study, but it is highly theoretical. And finally, while God may have left some incontrovertible evidence of His hand for us to find, He might not have. (I expect this to be come a part of the debate soon. Remember Stephan Hawkings' quote "... how much choice did God really have in creation." I believe that God had all the choice he wanted.)

So what's the problem? Weakness in the Intelligent Design theory doesn't make evolution any more than a theory. See my post from last Friday. Forcing the teaching of Intelligent Design is probably the wrong attack. I much prefer the label idea, and the choosing of books that teach evolution as a theory, and a theory with many problems.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

This is pretty cool. If you have ever seen the catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), you would be impressed by it's sheer size, if nothing else. Once you start reading it though, you can't help but notice the huge number of references. One might be tempted to follow them, but how?

Well this site provides the how! The references are active links, and bible verses have full translation links. So for those of you who have doubts about the Church, spend some time here and put your money where your mouth is. The spend covers what Catholicism really is, and links to the scriptures and early church fathers to back it up.

Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers

Here is a huge impediment to faith and reason. The stickers in questions stated: "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered". Now what is wrong with this? Is any faith required?

No, in fact the sticker stated that the the student should approach the subject with a critical mind. Exactly the kind of mind that makes a good scientist! So what's the problem. Faith, of course, but faith as it's improperly applied to science. The faith in this case is the faith in the theory of evolution.

"Theory?" you say? Yes. Theory. Let's compare it to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is pretty well accepted as fact, yet scientists continue to run experiments to prove it. In fact, there are no known issues with relativity, but it is still a theory.

On to evolution. Has any successful experiment ever been run? No. We have not ever observed an animal evolve. What about the bones? Intriguing yes, and the theory of evolution, at least on the surface, would seem to explain them. But has anyone ever found bones or fossils of an intermediate species that was able to reproduce with both its lower and upper species. No. It's a theory still. We have observed some sub-species specialize, as in color, plumage, and size, but they could always inter-breed. That is, a dog is still a dog. A Chitzu could still, at least technically, impregnate a Great Dane (although the reverse sound dangerous).

It should be taught as a theory. Not doing so deprives students of wonderful connections to the scientific method. Consider the connections to probability (i.e., what is the probability that a species might evolve), the ramifications of time (given the probabilities, how long would evolution have taken), and implication to infer (if there wasn't enough time, then what conditions must have existed to speed up evolution). But when we teach evolution as fact, the questioning is done. Now to my mind, the questions are good. That evolution is fact sounds like a sort of dogma, and one requiring much faith.

"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."

Whoops. I think Manely doesn't really understand what dogma is.

The New York Times: Health Care? Ask Cuba

Feynman insists that an intelligent man must always doubt his knowledge. This opinion by Kristof (email nicholas@nytimes.com) chastises the US for having infant mortality worse than Cuba and China; and uses it to justify more government spending (presumably federal, based on his examples).

He never doubts their numbers though; he seemed almost glad to see that they were better than ours. Doesn't anybody think that they intended them to be better than ours? Would you want to tell Castro that the infant mortality rate was worse than the US's? Would you want to report that your hospital's rate was worse?

BTW, I wonder if any of those infant mortality numbers included abortions.

brightMystery: Impacting the culture, or impacted by the culture?

The following was an extended note to brightMystery's note from today.

The church on Earth is the Body of Christ. It ought to do what Jesus would do. Now Jesus, while he was with in Human Form, was an Institution unto Himself. How? He was an organized life form. He had to eat, drink, exercise, and, well, eliminate waste. (Fortunately St. Helena never found any divine waste, or someone would venerate it!)
We do venerate the Body of Christ, but not the organization of Christ. So the Church (read: Body of Christ) must be an institution. But it is what it does that matters. Institutions bring out the worst in people (perhaps this is analogous to the waste...) and we shouldn't expect the church as institution to be transcendent.
As far as relevance though, see 1Cor 9:19-22 '...I have become all things to all, to save at least some.' This was an act of charity on Paul's part. So the church is 'in the world, but not of the world.' But he never compromised. He didn't take up with the temple prostitutes in Corinth, although that was what everybody else did. We are never relevant when we sin, although it might really endear us to those in most need of help.

blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs

I received a random comment from Hidden Nook who recommended I add a link to Blogs 4 God. That was a nice tip, and I thank him for it. I already received a comment from RT on a previous note.

Tsunami simulation an inexact science

Even knowing undersea floor, it's tough developing wave-effect maps for S.F. Bay

So here is a possible answer to why God allows such things as tsunamis to happen. Nations must work together and trust each other to protect against such disasters. But see the following:

"But there's another, more strategic reason. Some nations, especially those in politically tense regions, hesitate to reveal such coastal topographic data. They fear that such data could be exploited by enemy navies, particularly submarines, whose sonar guidance systems tend to be confused in the noisy acoustic environment of coastlines. "

I thinks it is dangerous, and usually foolish, to pretend to know the mind of God. But when you come across something like this (i.e. work together, or else) you are probably getting a taste of Divine Thinking.

Does this make America, whose sonar systems are unequaled, culpable? Perhaps, but it is also the lack of trust between nations that is at fault too.

The Black Death: Bubonic Plague

This is biblical suffering. One third of western world (about 25 million people at the time), virtually indiscriminate in who was chosen. Contrast this to the tsunami deaths.

Armageddon Online

Here's a fun site. While the author is trying to be a bit of an alarmist (which is like being a little bit pregnant), the basic facts are correct. A mega-tsunami, possibly kicked of by a Canary Island eruption, an asteroid impact, or a super volcano (like all of Yellowstone Park) would actually be devastating.

Although there are different weights we can put on them. The tsunami would be coastal only, and while millions would die, would it compare to the millions killed by Hitler and Stalin, or the Black Plague? I think that no tsunami, no matter how big, could be considered the biblical Armageddon. Why? Most people on earth will be left alive, and it will only effect coastal regions. It will be horrible, but far too local. An asteroid impact or mega volcano could be much more widespread.

Why would the loving God of the New Testament do such a thing? This is an old question, and unquestionably one of the most difficult. I think that a Christian's belief in eternal life is the answer though; if we really have eternal life, than God's view of an individual's death might be like our view of pulling a splinter - painful but necessary, and inconsequential in the long run.

www. am i really going to heaven. com

I usually get into my blog by opening it, and Blogger knows it is me and allows me to edit directly. This also allows me to check out what Google ads show up. This one showed up today under the title "Once Saved Always Saved". It actually is a challenge to that common protestant position, but from a truly biblical perspective. I ran through much of the site quickly, and didn't notice any errors. It lays down the challenge of living the ten commandments, and correctly informs the reader that what we are to do if follow the commandments, not to get to heaven, but out of love for God. Certainly true enough.

What is missing is the reality that 1) no one can live up to the ten commandments (although we should try nonetheless), and 2) we get to heaven though God's mercy and Jesus' intervention.

So take a look at this site, but recognize that you can only follow the decalog with God's grace (that is, try to follow the ten commandments, but ask for, and be receptive to, Gods help; "...lead me not into temptation"). Then realize that your entry into heaven is through the Passion of the Christ (see the movie to get an appreciation of this).

The New York Times > Science > God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap

Here we have proof. Scientists, except for the one who claims to be Christian, hold all people with beliefs other than theirs to be fools. And most of them believe that there is no God. They express that in various ways, and offer reasons for their belief, but their atheism is also a belief system, just like the Judeo/Christian system rests on faith.

The difference between the two though, is that the atheists don't believe they believe, even when asked if they would explain what they believed. If this seems convoluted, then read what these leading scientists wrote, and see if it isn't convoluted.

ExChristian

I really don't want to give this guy any air-time, but I think that it is the existence of sites like this that begs Christians to get more active on the net. I found this while looking for my own site on Google, so clearly people find these sites by accident.

Reading his story, he recounts all the bad things that Christians did to him. This clearly shows that what we do (our works) are more important that what we believe (our faith). Or rather, our works are testament to our faith. We can beat our breast, fast, and make noise about our faith, but when we treat others badly, we do harm to the body of Christ.

So those of you out there who are Christian, pray for Dave VanAllen. I wouldn't send him anything, just pray for him.

Catholic Ragemonkey

Three Catholic priests with a Blog. This is pretty cool, as it lets you see what a priest is thinking. Interestingly (but not surprisingly) it seems pretty human. Fr. Hamilton is troubled by his inability to keep his thoughts in the Christmas Season... he's worrying about Ash Wednesday already.

Also, get the name: Ragemonkey. I couldn't figure that one out!

Hopefully, one of these fellow will add a link to my Blog from theirs.

The Catholic "Revert"

Here is a fellow who was "raised Catholic" but recently converted... to Catholicism! Apparently C.S. Lewis had a lot to do with that. Read about his struggles on his Blog.