Results tagged “science”

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary, born as a baby, grew up and lived a perfect life, served his disciples in an earthly ministry, performed miracles to demonstrate his power and authority over creation, and chose to die on the cross to serve as a substitute and ransom for the sins who trust him. We believe he rose again from the grace to finally prove both his power to overturn death and to give us a glimpse of the ultimate resurrection to come. If you can’t affirm all those things as stated in the Bible you are not, in the judgement of Jesus and the disciples’ writings, a Christian.

Yet, many who believe all that then look at the Old Testament and immediately back pedal away from reading the first few chapters in the straightforward way they’ve been recognized for centuries. They do this backpedaling because they’ve been taught by secular humanists who do not accept God as a premise that the Universe looks to them to be billions of years old, that the fossil record shows life on earth to be millions of years old, and that the science knows these things with enough certitude that it’s foolish to think anything else.

They take this view that has excluded spiritual things a priori and combine it with their Christianity and come up with something that is neither scientific nor biblical. I cannot understand how one can accept the miracles and resurrection of Christ and admit that the Universe is ultimately a creation of God, yet can’t swallow the straightforward, clear language of Genesis about creation.

Regardless of what you believe, this is a trustworthy fact: All observations must be interpreted. An observation will always be known and believed and explained according to the assumptions of the observer, not the other way around. Therefore, if you presume that the biblical account of creation is correct, your observations will be interpreted and understood within that framework. On the other hand, if you ignorant of or presume that the biblical account of creation is irrelevant to your interpretation, you will come up with something entirely different.

The compromise position between these two positions of old earth creation and theistic evolution is simply confusing to me. It just doesn’t work.

There is a popular scientific hypothesis right now that has taken on extreme political and religious overtones in the last few years. I am, of course, speaking of the current obsession with climate change and global warming, particularly humanity's hand in these issues. However, I don't put much stock in the evidence to support the hypothesis that climate change over the past few years has been the direct (or even indirect) result of human interference with the atmosphere. I find that, after examining the evidence, I must side with the unconvinced against the so-called "consensus of scientists" that Al Gore has referred to regarding this hypothesis. Furthermore, I believe the current political and religious fervor that have glommed onto this theory demonstrate three forms of hubris that make it difficult for many of these proponents to think objectively on the subject.

Statement of Hubris #1: Humanity can manipulate climate. If we consider the small weather events that happen every day on earth we find that the amount of energy involved in some of the minor events to be well-beyond what humans are able to produce across the entire planet. In face, we use these forces to capture very small amounts of the power via wind turbines and hydroelectric dams. These human machines capture a minuscule portion of the energy produced by the earth's weather to power entire cities.

The claim is that very small changes in the chemical make-up of the atmosphere can yield huge differences in climate because of the massiveness of the system and that humans are making such changes. However, this doesn't really fly in the face of facts. Many natural disasters actual alter the chemical make-up in greater quantities than humanity does and yet the climate does not change very greatly. The sun has been closely linked to changes in climatic conditions here on Earth and on Mars with greater accuracy than many of the simulations run by the computers.

In short, I find that the hypotheses of climate change being lifted up here appeals to our sense of greatness and achievement in a perverse sort of way. We humans are really powerful, like gods. We are so great, we can destroy the earth just by releasing a few chemicals into the oceans and atmosphere. This is a sick kind of pride.

Statement of Hubris #2: Humanity knows how the climate works. This is a flat lie. I've been very careful to refer to humanity's influence in climate change as a hypothesis because that is all it is. We don't yet have a proper scientific framework for even handling the climate to any certain degree. In order for science to work properly you must first be able to create a testable hypothesis and then run repeatable tests that either help to validate that hypothesis or not. For example, one such hypothesis for climate change is that the massive hurricane Katrina was just a precursor for things to come because climate change would cause greater and greater weather disturbances as more energy was held in the system. Yet, the past two summers have not shown this hypothesis to be accurate.

Even so, this is still far to broad a hypothesis to be truly scientific. Science is about eliminating superfluous variables through precise and systematic procedures. Medical science has found double-blind clinical trials to be very useful in providing accurate tests for finding if a particular drug is useful for treating a particular disease. Chemistry uses controlled lab experiments to repeatedly attempt to provide explanations for how chemicals form and release bonds. Every branch of science develops procedures that when followed create reproducible results that either validate or invalidate a particular hypothesis.

Climatology finds much of its basis in computer models based upon other sciences, but the computer models aren't experiments of the real system. They merely predict what will happen if the climatologists hypothesis is correct. It doesn't prove anything scientific regarding reality. In fact, these models leave out huge amounts of important data because there are certain measurements that are difficult to take. For example, one of the most important greenhouse gases is water vapor, but there's no current way to measure water vapor amounts globally. Until there's a way for climatology to really test hypotheses on a scale that is reproducible and useful, climatology has no real support for the hypothesis for human factors in climate change.

When textbook writers summarize scientific research, they tend to say things like "X goes here and Y goes there." Yet, what the scientist actually said was more complicated, "X usually went here even though a statistically insignificant amount didn't in our experiments and same for Y." We don't know if those statistically insignificant things are truly just caused by extra insignificant variables we couldn't control or actually significant factors that we aren't aware of yet. That's why science is never finished, but textbooks give the false indication of the subject being closed. Yet, how often have standing theories been thrown out to be replaced by new and more accurate ones? It happens all the time.

This is an example of humans thinking that because they have answered some questions that we as humans know everything or at least everything important. Pride. In reality, we should realize that every question answered produces three more questions we don't know. Humility. Those questions might have very important answers that could change everything that came before.

Statement of Hubris #3: Humans are worth saving. This is the one that starts to get me laughing. The same people who get upset that humans are harming the earth are either the same folks or those causing a different group to panic and figure out how to save ourselves from this disaster. Part of the rhetoric is that humans need to take action to solve this problem before it destroys our economy, kills millions of people, or completely wipes humanity from the face of the Earth.

My laughing quickly turns cynical because this is the most significant factor in all of this. Politicians and wealthy men across the globe stand to gain a great deal if we listen to this rhetoric. Scientists are corrupted by a desire for influence as well. By controlling what we can buy or by providing new products that we must buy (e.g., taxes to pay for carbon credits), these powerful men can place themselves in a position to be the money handlers.

I've often heard the proponents of climate change theory attacking opponents by claiming that studies countering their view point were funded by corporations trying to save themselves against the truth. That may be. Yet, I can say the same thing about state funded institutions. Anyone who things that
state money is free from the same kind of corruption is completely fooling themselves. Anyone with half a brain knows governments are corrupt, but these people would like to indicate that only corporate funding is corrupt and that government money is pure. Hah. Politicians who desire more power for themselves control the delivery of this money just like corporate tycoons who desire more power for themselves control the delivery of private grants.

We have to go by the facts as they are found and try and discern which are right despite these corrupting influences on all sides.

Back to the point, humanity thinks very highly of itself when we think that we are really worth saving. Spiritually, I believe that humanity is precious because every man and woman is created in the image of God, but physically humanity is completely worthless because every one of us has rejected God despite the goodness of his plan for our lives. We'd rather have our own way than the best way. As such, Christ came to save everyone that would believe in him and his sacrifice for our sin. We each must pay the price of physical death once because of our sin, but that is the only price left to pay for those that believe in Christ. Therefore, as far as humanity is concerned physically, we can all die and the Earth won't be worse without us.

Of course, I don't believe humanity will die because of global climate change that we caused and I don't believe the evidence exists yet to properly support any hypothesis of the sort. Yet, people, in in their redoubtable pride, will continue pushing this hypothesis up as if it were fact to support our pride in power, knowledge, and self-importance until some other event, activity, or hypothesis takes up our fancy to help us do it again in a different form.

I hesitate to put this topic on my blog because it causes such a strong reaction by most folks. In fact, the discussion generally provokes a pretty strong reaction from me. This is why I really want to carefully treat the topic from my point of view without trolling
. As such, I just want to state my position from various perspectives and summarize what I believe.

First, let me define what I'm talking about to be clear. Abortion is the action of destroying or purposely rendering a human embryo or fetus inviable. I consider all forms of abortion as homicide. Just to be clear: homicide is not necessarily criminal. Our legal system, for example, incorporates the ancient concept of "justified homicide." Justified homicide is the termination of a human life under mitigating circumstances. For example, the most obvious case happens when someone threatens you with a gun in your home and you kill them. The law is carried out such that this action is not considered criminal.

The debate about abortion falls into several arenas that frequently get confused. There is the criminal, social, and political aspects of the discussion, which is concerned with whether or not government or some part of society is responsible for taking action in a given circumstance. There is the moral and ethical arena whereby you state that an action is objectively right or wrong (morality) or helpful or harmful to society, yourself, or some other class (ethics). There is the scientific and medical arena concerned with the actual nature of the action itself. I'd like to consider each of these aspects in the reverse order they are given here.

Science of Abortion

The medical science related to genetics and life forms one leg of the foundation of my ethical argument against the practice of abortion. The second leg of that foundation is that human life is sacred and should be protected, which is a moral and ethical argument I will consider in detail later. If life is sacred, then an important question is: when does an individual human life form? If life is not sacred, then it doesn't really matter if you are taking a life way anyway, so the point is moot.

I believe the answer to the question as to when life begins is answered medically without doubt. At which point does a person become an individual? When that person becomes genetically distinct: conception. At the point at which an individual sperm joins with the egg and their DNA combine to form a single whole, an individual exists, the potential becomes actual. I'd be willing to debate this point, but I can't think of another possible juncture where you can say a new individual exists. All other changes to an embryo or fetus or merely changes of degree, not changes of nature.

One might also suggest that the individual is formed when the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. Yet, that doesn't really fly because the uterus merely acts as a feeding mechanism. Just because the embryo fails to survive because it doesn't start gathering food from the mother doesn't mean it was never a person. One might as well say that an infant was never an individual human because it failed to crawl to and suckle from it's mother's breasts on its own.

One might suggest that the individual is formed when it starts feeling or thinking or becomes a recognizable animal form or some other measure. The difficulty is that it isn't possible to define a moment or point of time at which such things happen. Furthermore, you can take away these things without necessarily losing individuality. Does a person cease to be an individual life form if she becomes paralyzed and without sensation? What if he stops thinking? A person can still act and be an individual in a completely catatonic state. Some humans are badly disfigured, but it doesn't remove the fact that they are human.

One might also suggestion that the individual is formed when it could survive out of the womb. However, this becomes difficult to measure. Records are set on a fairly regular basis for younger and younger premature infant survival. I don't see any reason why medical technology couldn't be developed to allow an embryo to develop completely outside of a mother's womb. In fact, it could even happen in my life time. Who knows?

One might state that an individual is only possible at the moment of birth or at some point after birth. However, what's special about the infant leaving the womb? There's nothing magically different between a fetus and an infant at full term except that one is in the mother's womb and the other is not. One might even say that individuality doesn't come until later as the child's complex psychological personality begins to form. Yet, this reasoning suffers from the same difficulty as the earlier arguments about feeling, thinking, or recognizable form.

I simply cannot think of any other moment where an individual is formed other than conception. That doesn't mean there isn't some other point, but as far as I can understand the medical process, conception is the only point where an individual life can be said to start.

If life is sacred and life begins at conception, then the definition of homicide definitely applies to an embryo that is terminated by a pill or through an abortion performed by a doctor. Again, this doesn't necessitate that such an act is criminal, just that such an act is the taking of a human life: homicide.

This basis is the reason for which I cannot accept the argument that this is about a "woman's body." It is, in fact, about a woman's body and the infant's body. As an illustration, if two men are trying to go opposite ways through a doorway and neither is willing to give up to let the other through, it's about each man's body causing hardship for the other. One would not say that one man would be justified in killing the other just so he could get the other out of his way.

Morality and Ethics of Abortion

My morality is based upon the teaching of the Bible as well as I understand it. My ethics are based upon that moral foundation as much as possible because I don't believe a complete ethic can be derived from nothing. (In fact, the definition of "derivation" requires that one assume some basic principles.) On the other hand, I can still appeal to common sense and what's good for society and individuals to help bolster my ethical and moral positions.

As I mentioned before, I believe human life is sacred. Let me define what I mean. Something that is sacred is something regarded with great respect and reverence. Something that is sacred must not be destroyed or damaged without justification. Without such justification, destructive action against a sacred object is wrong.

Personally, I believe human life is sacred because this is a common theme in the Bible. However, if I cast aside the Biblical basis, I believe there is still a strong argument for the sacredness of human life. The basis for that statement is simply this, is it alright to take another person's life for any (or no) reason at all? Is it okay to kill someone because you feel like it? Is it okay just because you wanted to? Is it okay to kill someone because you can?

I don't think I've met anyone of any creed, belief, or unbelief that thinks it is justifiable to kill for no reason or any reason at all. I certainly hope I've never met anyone like that. Therefore, nearly everyone believes human life to be sacred even if individuals have no religious faith behind such a belief. I use the word "sacred", but I don't mean that in a necessarily religious way.

If human life is sacred and life begins at conception, then any individual between conception and birth (those subject to abortion) are sacred and must not be destroyed (aborted) without justification. Again, this doesn't mean that the unjustified destruction of an embryo or fetus is criminal. Abortion is homicide. Homicide might be justifiable. Whether it is justifiable or not it might not be criminal.

Another possible fuzzy area presents itself, however. How much justification is required to abort an unattached embryo? An embryo attached to the uterus? A fetus? An infant? A toddler? A child? An adolescent? An adult? A senior? It is possible that different amounts or different kinds of justifications might be possible. Each stage of life might have it's own criteria and certainly each stage of life presents a different set of circumstances. For example, if you kill an adult threatening you with a weapon in your own home, that's generally considered justified. However, if you kill a toddler that threatens you with a weapon, you will not be considered justified under any circumstances I can imagine.

This is, in my opinion the very crux of the matter. Abortion is homicide, but what suffices as justification for this form of homicide? This answer is much more difficult to discern. Does risk to a mother's health justify abortion to save the mother's life? Does psychological risk justify abortion? Just because the father of the unborn individual raped the mother to form the individual is abortion justified? Is the mental health or intelligence of the mother factor into such a justification?

It is my opinion that these are the questions we need to focus on as a society rather than fighting this as an epic one-way-or-the-other battle. What suffices as justified homicide when it comes to abortion? Can abortion be justified as is the case with the homicide of an adult? Or is abortion always unjustified as is homicide involving a toddler? Is abortion justified when the parents of the individual are especially underprivileged (or even over-privileged)? Is abortion justified when the individual is found in utero to be susceptible to or affected by disease? Is abortion justified if the mother is taking medication that happens to destroy or render the embryo inviable? These questions should be considered rather than making this the monolithic issue of: Abortion-for-or-against.

My answer: I view abortion as permanently unjustifiable. I can find nothing in the Bible that suggests that taking a child's life to save the mother is justified. In the case of rape of the mother, there are instances of such an act but the infant not aborted (yes, abortions were possible in ancient times and the practice of justified infanticide was also a common practice in many non-semitic cultures). I don't find anything justifying abortion in any of the above questions in the Bible either.

Again, this doesn't mean that all abortion must be criminal. It is possible for me (or even general society) to consider a particular abortion wrong, but for the law to allow such an abortion to proceed without any criminal ramifications. In fact, it's even possible for an action to be ethically justified but considered criminal. To illustrate the point, take the face mask penalty of football. Whether the face mask was intentional (unjustified) or clearly accidental (justifiable) doesn't matter. It's so important to protect players from neck injury that any contact of one player's hands to another player's face mask is an automatic penalty. The same is possible in law.

Politics of Abortion

Therefore, the second half of this question is to decide when abortion homicide is committed, is such an act criminal? Currently, the laws are generally written such that no criminal charges can be brought against either the doctor performing nor the patient receiving an abortion for any reason or at any time during pregnancy up to the point of birth. I will qualify that previous statement by saying that some criminal prosecution is possible under certain circumstances. For example, some states forbid abortions to be given to minors without the consent of their parent or guardian. In such a case, it's not the abortion itself that's considered criminal, but that a medical procedure was carried out without the consent of the individuals in charge of the minor.

The libertarian view on the subject is that the government should not intervene and it is up to the individual to make up their mind on such a decision. Therefore, they believe government should not intervene regardless of the moral or ethical issues involved. It's simply none of the government's business.

This is one of the points at which I disagree strongly with libertarians. In my view, since I consider human life sacred and to undoubtedly start at conception, this is equivalent to saying that a parent is legally free of criminal consideration for killing their own child until that child is no longer under the guardianship of the parent. Such a view diminishes the sacredness of human life and reduces human life to the same level as personal property. If an infant, toddler, or adolescent is to be protected under the law, I do not see a difference as to whether the individual is within or without the womb. I see no reason why a pre-born individual should be considered with any less protection.

Conclusion

I feel pretty strongly about this, but I've worked very hard to present an objective view of the topic. I've purposely avoided any emotional imagery or other tactics in presenting my view and any point presented here is open for comment by any person visiting my site. However, if a troll or poster comes in using emotional imagery or misleading argumentation, you can expect to have your comment deleted. Disagreement is welcome; irrational and emotional argumentation about any aspect from any position is not.

Cheers.

A common theme I find in many of my science fiction books is the search for longevity. This search comes in different forms. It can be in the form of individual longevity or in longevity of the human species and it's descendants. Usually, the search for longevity includes both. However, both are so foolishly short-sighted.

The real hope seems to be to search for a way to turn death itself backwards and keep it from happening. Failing that, the goal seems to be to establish a life of experience that isn't so pathetically short. Perhaps man can someday actually watch the birth, life, and death of a star. If we can't get this, then perhaps man itself can fight to live and make a difference on the Universe rather than existing for the teeniest expanse of time compared the billions of years the universe has existed for. And yet, all of this is pathetic when highlighted against the facts.

On the positive side of the ledger it shows that humanity is full of vitality and that many do not wish to see that life end. This view, at least, seems to recognize that there is something special about life itself and that to risk it ending arbitrarily or without some kind of fight is a kind of sacrilege. However, this recognition seems misplaced. It's almost a religious belief that somehow mankind should be preserved.

Yet, what is there that is special about life that isn't special about minerals or plasma or any other natural phenomenon? If all is a natural pheneomenon then there is no purpose to living or not living, to existing as an animal or a mineral. Existence itself has no purpose. All you can really say is that you might as well enjoy your existence if you can.

Do good deeds if that makes you happy. Work on discovering new facts about the Universe and make youself wise. Find a mate and procreate. Be a hedonist and serve every selfish desire you can contrive. Wallow in misery and despair and pain. Do anything at all or nothing. All of these fates have the same meaning: nothing.

As Solomon said 30 centuries ago, "Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2) If you ever have an interest in it, this main has explored many ways of passing the time on earth and he found all of them meaningless. He tried wisdom, pleasures, insanity, work, oppression, friendlessness, advancement, and riches. His conclusion is that anything other than working to honor God is meaningless. My conclusion is the same.

If a way is contrived for man to live forever, to make the body strong enough to resist any damage, to make it last and repair itself perfectly forever, then what? Eventually, the Universe will become a uniform temperature across all the expanse of the universe at just above absolutely zero—according to current science. It might collapse and reform. It might do so forever. But why live? Just to experience life forever and ever? Sooner or later, the mind will grow tired and undo the work to preserve the body or simply go eternally mad. Who wants that fate?

If we make the human race last a bit longer even, to what use? What can humanity do if lasts thousands or millions or billions of years that it hasn't done already? Perhaps we can achieve some kind of utopia? Okay, suppose we do. We create a perfect society where everyone lives in harmony with everyone else despite diversity, perhaps because we've created our invincible bodies and know that we can't harm each other even if it comes to violence. What then? What's the reason? What purpose? Just to live and experience everything for the rest of eternity? This again leads to become tired and madness. Sooner or later, this life will grow dull and we will destroy ourselves or go mad.

However, I cannot express any faith in humanity's longevity. I do not believe it will last forever despite any and all efforts to the contrary. I, like Solomon, believe in this from Ecclesiastes 12:

13Now all has been heard;     here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments,     for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God will bring every deed into judgment,     including every hidden thing,     whether it is good or evil.

Man exists for a higher purpose, for a reason. To fear God and to keep his commands. To believe otherwise is to believe that life is meaningless. If that were my only reason, that would be enough. That is not my only reason, but that's another blog.

Okay, by my belief, I don't see any point to prolonging the life of humanity. If God created the universe, as I believe He did, we aren't going to impress Him if we live a long time. He's a long-liver already. All will prove is that we want to be like Him, but if we were created in His image, as I believe we are, we are already like Him. I also believe that the life after death is the real life and that it will be eternal, so prolonging life now is just a way of putting off the real life. Why would I want that? I'm not going to put myself to death to get there faster, but I'm not (totally) afraid to face death when it comes for me. It will come, I might as well live my life with that realization.

Similarly, why bother extending life of the race by making sure we are spread across the solar system, the galaxy, and the rest of the universe? We could then survive world or galaxy ending events as a race, but why do we want to? This serves no purpose I can discern in God's order.

I do not believe that man will ever really extend itself beyond this tiny ball of earth. Looking at current world events, I even doubt that Western Civilization's flirtation with atheism and secularism will last longer than the rest of the smaller blips on history's radar. In fact, I'm guessing that Western Civilization itself has already passed it's peak and will soon be absorbed into a civilization that may not even now exist or is now only a small segment of this world's population. With its passing, the desire to colonize the moon and other planets will probably lose much of its current fervor—some of that fervor has already waned since in the last few decades. I believe the emphasis on science and technology itself will probably be seen as a passing phase as the strong emphasis on the arts passed a few centuries ago.

Fortunately, my hopes for civilization and life do not hinge on such things. I am a technologist and a scientist, but those are just ways of paying the bills. I may, from time to time, be passionate about those things and the best way of pursuing them, but I put my faith in God. God's rule is eternal and continues forever. I will serve him and I yearn for the next life where I will be able to look upon my Creator's face. That will be a life of longevity with meaning and worth living.

Cheers.