Pleochroism

Check out this story:

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

Does it surprise you that atheists get mad at God?  In fact, atheists and agnostics report being mad at God at greater rates than believers. How can you be mad at something, or someone, you don’t believe exists.

Well, it doesn’t surprise me. I believe that atheists and agnostics believe in God, or maybe more accurately ‘a higher power’, they just won’t, or can’t, admit it to themselves. In the fall I read the book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller. Keller’s contention, and mine, is that atheists and agnostics, in fact all humans, live their lives as if there is good and bad, right and wrong, as if there is purpose and meaning to life. We are all living our lives as if there is a God. Consider the following quote from Keller’s book.

“We all live as if it is better to seek peace instead of war, to tell the truth instead of lying, to care and nurture rather than destroy. We believe that these choices are not pointless, that it matters which way we choose to live. Yet if the Cosmic Bench is truly empty, then “who sez” that one choice is better than the others?……Once we realize this situation there are two options. One is that we can simply refuse to think out the implications of all this. We can hold on to our intellectual belief in an empty Bench and yet live as if our choices are meaningful and as if there is a difference between love and cruelty. Why would we do that? A cynic might say that this is a way of “having one’s cake and eating it, too.” That is, you get the benefit of having a God without the cost of following him. But there is no integrity in that. The other option is to recognize that you do know there is a God. You could accept the fact that you live as if beauty and love have meaning, as if there is meaning in life, as if human beings have inherent dignity—all because you know God exists. It is dishonest to live as if he is there and yet fail to acknowledge the one who has given you all these gifts.”

Evolutionary psychologists would say that this belief in meaning and right and wrong are evolved traits. But for what benefit?

Read Full Post »

If a car hadn’t happened to come by it is likely that the body would never had been found. On a lonely stretch of highway about 5 miles outside of Materia, California a body was found. He was approximately 30 years old. It looked like he had been dead for only a few hours. If it had been any longer the coyotes would have been feeding on the body. Junior Investigator Ken Hawkins of the Cause of Death Division of the Materia Bureau of Investigation hated the night shift. Most “deaths of unknown cause” occurred during the night. The KBI had conducted numerous studies to determine the reason for this discrepancy. These studies had yielded many theories but no conclusive results. The investigators on the day shift often make fun of the night shift investigators because they have to work much harder. Ken’s investigations always started with one question to answer: Was it “naturally random” or was it “accidentally random”? “Well, it clearly wasn’t naturally random,” he said to himself. Ken could see a knife sticking out of the man’s back. About that time Senior Investigator Richard Filler drove up.
“It’s an accidentally random death,” Ken said to Richard as he walked up.
“Great.” Richard said somberly. Naturally random deaths, such as a heart attack or cancer, required very little paperwork and most of that was done by the Medical Examiner. Accidentally random deaths, however, required much more paperwork. As investigators they are required to construct stories to explain all accidentally random deaths. Ken was a rookie in the bureau and was not very good at writing accidentally random death stories.
“Well, we might as well get started,” Richard said as he bent over the body. Ken pulled out a pad and pen and started writing as Richard spoke. “The knife is embedded about 3 inches between the 5th and 6th ribs.”
“Do you think falling on a knife would cause it to embed that far?” Ken questioned.
“Don’t get ahead of yourself.” Ken added. “Let’s collect the data before we construct stories.”
“Okay, okay.” Ken said sullenly.
Richard once again bent over the body. “He has a nasty gash on the back of his head. Let’s see if we can figure out who this is.” He rolls the body on its side in order to look in the back pocket. As he does he observes a wallet on the ground under the body. He opens it and looks inside.
“His driver’s license says Rea Son. He has a Materia address.” Richard showed the address to Ken.
“That’s on the other side of town.” Ken observed as he writes the address in his pad.
Richard continued to look through the wallet. “This guy was broke. No money in his wallet. And no credit cards either.”
“Why was he way out here without money or credit cards?” Ken asked.
“I have no idea.”
“How did this guy get out here? There is no car and no keys in his pocket. Maybe he was walking from Materia to Intentio.” Ken motions toward the town of Intentio. Rich gives him a disapproving look. “I know. I know. First the data and then the stories.”
“Let’s widen the data collection area,” Richard suggested. Ken walked along the side of road toward Materia while Richard walked toward Intentio. Both looked down as they walked. A few minutes later they met back at the body.
“What did you see?” Richard asked.
“There are a set of fresh footprints on the side of road which show someone walking from the direction of Materia. They end here at the body.”
“They must be the Mr. Son’s,” Richard concluded.
“No. The footprints are much larger, maybe a size eleven. Mr. Son’s shoe size can’t be more than a nine.” Ken said triumphantly.
“Interesting. It’s like Mr. Son vanished out of thin air.”
“In addition, there are tire tracks indicating a car stopped right here.” Ken indicated an area about 10 feet from the body. “What did you find in the other direction?”
“There are a set of tracks going away from this area. And by the looks of the rubber left on the road the car left in a hurry.”
Ken thought about this for a moment and added “By the way, I talked to the driver who called this in. On his way out of Materia traveling to Intentio he saw a guy hitchhiking. He thought it was close to this area. He noticed the body on his way back to Materia.”
“Okay rookie, do we have everything we need?” Richard asked.
Ken looked around at the scene. “I think so.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard went straight for the coffee machine. His consumption of coffee doubled when he started working nights. He also was twice as cranky, he thought.
“Can you grab me a bottled water?” Ken called from across the room. Richard decided long ago that he couldn’t trust an investigator that drank bottled water. The water from the tap was perfectly good, wasn’t it? He probably didn’t eat doughnuts either.
“Sure.” Richard said dourly. On his way back to his desk Richard grabbed a doughnut from another investigator’s desk.
“Hey, that’s mine!” Someone called from across the room.
“Don’t be selfish, Gene!” Richard called back.
Richard winked at Ken as he handed him his bottled water and took a bite of the doughnut. “Okay, so where are we?” Ken was already pouring over their notes. “The Medical Examiner did not find any evidence that Mr. Rea Son died naturally random. Thus, he must have died randomly by accident. He was found on the side of the road with a knife in his back. His wallet was found next to him with no money or credit cards. There were tire tracks coming to the site of the death and leaving the site. No keys were found on him. There was a hitchhiker observed prior to the incident but was not observed after the incident.”
Richard mulled over this information. There were many stories that could explain these data. The challenge was determining the right story, what must have happened. Since no one observed the death they must make conclusions based on the data. Sometimes he wondered why they worked so hard to determine the cause of an accidentally random death such as this. It was important to prove that it was just random, wasn’t it? There wasn’t a lot that could be done about naturally random deaths, but maybe accidentally random deaths could be prevented. Some idiots doubt that some deaths were not random. The CDD performs an important service to society by showing random deaths are indeed random. By determining the right story Richard and Ken will prove the death was random and thus also prove that all deaths are random. “Okay, have you come up with a story to fit the data? And don’t give me a long story. Your stories are just so…just so…excessive.”
“How about this one.” Ken opened his laptop and typed on the keyboard. An investigator with a laptop, Richard scoffed. Ken reads from his laptop. “Mr. Son was interested in getting some exercise and walked from his house to the location we found him. By chance he found a knife on the side of the road. Mr. Son thought the knife was desirable and that he would benefit from having it. While he was inspecting the knife he tripped and dropped it. He and the knife fell to the ground and by chance the knife stuck in his back and he died of internal bleeding.” Ken looked up from the laptop and waited for the grilling he knew was coming. The questions came quickly.
“What makes you think he walked?”
“He had tennis shoes on.”
“What makes you think he found the knife?”
“Why would someone carry a knife on a walk?”
“Why did he trip?”
“There was a rock observed at the scene.”
“How do you know he was inspecting the knife?”
“What else would he do if he found a knife on the side of the road?”
“How do you know the knife stuck in his back as he fell?”
“I originally thought that it happened while he was using the knife to scratch his back, but scratching would have been done at an angle. The knife wound was mostly straight in.”
Richard paused. The rookie was getting better. “What about the car tracks?”
“A driver may have seen it happen and pulled off the road, but then decided he didn’t want to get involved and drove off.”
“Why was his wallet out of his pocket?”
“It fell out.”
“Why did he not have credit cards in his wallet?”
“Maybe he was a Dave Ramsey disciple…or he left them at home.” Ken smiled with pride. He was sure that he was finally going to get one of his stories published.
While Richard was thinking of another question to ask, a voice from a desk nearby said, “You have got to be kidding.”
Richard and Ken looked over to see two of their fellow investigators, Mike Gonzales and Bill Dooley.
“Don’t start!” Richard scoffed at them.
Bill did not heed Richard’s warning. “The death of Rea Son is obviously not random. And it clearly not an accident. I can’t believe that you don’t see what the evidence shows. Clearly, Mr. Son was driving out of Materia when he saw a hitchhiker. He pulls off the road to offer the man a ride. The hitchhiker hits Mr. Son on the back of the head and stabs him in the back. The man then takes the victims money, credit cards, and keys. He steals his car and leaves Mr. Son dead on the side of the road.”
“He is not a victim. And that story is not possible.” Ken retorted loudly.
“Why? Because of Ordinance 1859? It explains some deaths but it cannot explain all deaths…like Mr. Son’s death.” Mike continued. “Have you asked the victim’s wife whether her husband left the house by car or on foot? Surely you can calculate that it would have taken several hours for the victim to walk from his house on the other side of town. Have you checked to see if credit cards in Mr. Son’s name have been used in the last few hours? The evidence just doesn’t support an accidentally random death explanation.” When Mike said “accidentally random” he said it mockingly.
“But Ordinance 1859…..”
“Ordinance 1859 is a joke.” Bill cut Ken off.
Several years ago California passed Ordinance 1859 entitled Limiting Cause of Death Explanations. Ordinance 1859 limited official explanations for the cause of death to either “naturally random” or “accidentally random” and prohibited murder or any other purposeful causes as an explanation for death. The law affirmed the goodness in all men and was based on a belief that men and women were not capable of causing purposeful death on another human being. Ordinance 1859 became very popular among government and law enforcement agencies and it soon became law in all 50 states. It had a significant effect on the way law enforcement was organized and conducted its work. For example, homicide divisions became cause of death divisions and detectives became investigators. While Ordinance 1859 was very popular among investigators it was not well accepted by the general public. As such, the CDD was inundated with claims of murders that were witnessed by the public. Government officials believed that these “witnessings” were superstitious and there became a great distrust of the government for the public and of the public for the government. The situation got so bad that state governments passed Ordinance 17315 which required education curriculum developers to remove any mention of purposeful death from primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. This required significant alteration of history curriculums so that there was no mention of war. Government officials believed that through education the public would be won over, however, surveys have repeatedly indicated that Ordinance 17315 has had no effect on public acceptance of Ordinance 1859. While the public rejected Ordinance 1859 surveys have indicated that a majority of investigators are supporters of Ordinance 1859. However, it is rumored that many investigators don’t think the ordinance is right but are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs.
“No, you’re both idiots. I can’t believe you call yourselves investigators.” Richard called after Bill and Mike as they walked away. Richard and Ken are supporters of Ordinance 1859 but have slightly different perspectives. Richard is a “true believer.” He firmly believes in the goodness of man and is fully convinced that all deaths are random. As a result he has little patience for doubters such as Mike and Bill. Ken has taken a slightly different position. He is not sure about the goodness of man but he fully stands behind Ordinance 1859 and believes it is the only way to investigate deaths. The CDD has tried to fire Bill and Mike several times but their seniority has protected them. But as a result of their superstitious beliefs they are only assigned naturally random deaths to investigate and are never given an accidentally random death. Only accidentally random deaths require the publication of a story and they are not allowed to publish stories since their stories would not be consistent with Ordinance 1859. Often Mike and Bill will express their opinion on accidentally random deaths as they did tonight. This usually resulted in name-calling and personal attacks from Richard, Ken, and others.
“Let’s get back to work.” Ken said.
Richard’s face had been a bright red but slowly changed back to its normal color as his anger subsided. “I can’t believe those guys. They must have been abused by their parents.”
Ken started laughing out loud even though it was clear that Richard was being serious. “So, what do you think of my story?”
“I know you would like to publish this story but it just doesn’t add up. Rea Son could not have walked from his house to the place of his death in the time allotted.” Richard said confidently as if he was the one who thought of it. “Rea Son left his house in his car and was traveling from Materia to Intentio when he saw one of his friends walking along the side of the road. This was the hitchhiker the witness saw. Mr. Son pulled off the road and began speaking to his friend. His friend explained that he had fallen on hard times and had to start walking to the factory where he works outside of town. Mr. Son felt sorry for him and gave him his car.”
“What about the wallet?” Ken asked inquisitively.
“Remember, he was on hard times. He gave his friend money to help him out.”
“And the credit cards?”
“I think you were right about Mr. Son being a Ramsey disciple.” Ken beamed at this admission.
Richard continued. “Mr. Son’s friend drove off and as Mr. Son started to put his wallet back in his pocket he dropped it on the ground. As he was bending over to pick it up,” Richard bent over to illustrate, “a knife fell out of the sky and penetrated Mr. Son between his fifth and six rib.”
“What!?” Ken exclaimed.
“You see, my little Padawan, I checked the flight pattern of airlines at the time of death. There was a passenger airline passing overhead precisely at that time. In addition, I checked the FAA statistics which state that objects fall from airliners in flight on an average of three times per year.”
“Wow. That’s a lot.”
“I also calculated the velocity an object would attain if it fell from an airliner. This velocity is sufficient to cause the extent of penetration we observed at the death scene. Thus, this shows conclusively that a knife fell from an airliner passing overhead and killed Mr. Son. This story explains the tire tracks, the wallet, the knife, and the hitchhiker.” Richard leaned back in his chair, a look of self-congratulations on his face.
“Should we try to find Mr. Son’s friend?” Ken asked.
“Why? It will only confirm what we already know.” Richard said smugly.

Read Full Post »

Intelligent Design Theory (or IDT) states simply that there is evidence of design in the natural world. IDT claims real design and not just apparent design. Real design requires the action of a designer. Stated as such, IDT is a “point of agreement among positions” (Ross et al., Journal of Geoscience Education, 53:319-323, 2005) including Young Earth Creationism (God created the universe and life in six 24-hr days) and Old Earth Creationism (God created universe and life in six long “days”). It also includes the position that there is detectable design in cosmology (the Anthropic Principle and the Big Bang) but not in biology (or only in the origin of life but not in subsequent biological evolution). This position has been referred to as Theistic Evolution. In all these positions the designer is God. However, broadly defined, IDT does not only include positions where the designer is God. Panspermia and Raelianism claim the designer of life on Earth are extraterrestrial beings. IDT is in direct opposition to naturalistic evolution including atheism or ontological naturalism. But IDT is also in opposition to the claim that God exists but that God’s design activity is undetectable to us. This has been called methodological naturalism. IDT is a powerful argument against all forms of naturalism. Particularly convincing are evidences of design in cosmology (see Privileged Planet), the origin of life (see The Mystery of Life’s Origin), information theory (see No Free Lunch), and irreducible complexity (see Darwin’s Black Box). I started reading about the intersection of science and theology 30 years ago. Sadly there was very little information available to read. However, in the last 15 years there has been a plethora of good books and articles published.

The public face of IDT is the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Most of the authors of books that promote IDT are Fellows at the Discovery Institute. I am mostly pleased with the way the Discovery Institute has led the effort to promote IDT. However, I have one major complaint: they define IDT too narrowly. The Discovery Institute defines IDT as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Defined like this, one must accept that there is evidence of design in both cosmology and biology. While I personally am convinced that the evidence of design in cosmology and biology is thoroughly convincing, some (such as Francis Collins) are not convinced of detectable design in biology. The Discovery Institute has created a tent that is big enough for Young Earth and Old Earth, common descent and not common descent, believer and non-believer — but their tent is not big enough for theistic evolutionists. I am probably missing something.

Read Full Post »

Science is the acquisition of knowledge through systematic study of the natural world. Theology is the study of God and religious faith. Are science and theology friends, enemies, or strangers? This is a very important question and affects how one views the myriad of issues related to science and theology. The first question that needs to be answered is whether science and theology intersect at all. If science and theology do not interact they are strangers. This can be viewed as two nonintersecting circles.



This has been called the independence model. This model says that science and theology occupy completely separate domains of knowledge that do not interact. Stephen J. Gould popularized this model as NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria. Gould reasoned that when science and theology stay within their respective domains they can coexist peacefully. Then in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences published Science and Creationism that stated that “Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.” The independence model has been criticized by both the religious and atheist alike and it will find no support in this blog. The independence model is a cheap attempt to marginalize theology. It is disingenuous. The NAS is looking for a way not to offend the vast majority of the public that believes in God but does not believe that the natural world is an accident.

In order for science and theology to be friends or enemies they must intersect. One can view the interaction as two intersecting circles.

There are elements of science that do not directly involve our study of God.

There are elements of theology that do not directly involve the study of the natural world.

But if science and theology are friends or enemies they interact in some areas.

What are we to make to these areas of intersection? Some say that there can only be conflict in this area of intersection. This would mean that science and theology are enemies. Enemies hate one another. They are in conflict. Are science and theology in conflict? Well, sometimes…but always? Of course not. The conflict thesis was popularized in the 19th Century but has for the most part fallen out of favor among philosophers of science. The attitudes that contributed to the formation of the conflict thesis remain however. It does not help that the religious establishment (whatever that means) is hesitant to incorporate new scientific discoveries into current biblical interpretation.

I think science and theology are friends. There are many areas of agreement between science and theology. This is science apologetics. [More on this in future posts.] But there are also some areas of apparent conflict. [More on this in the future as well.] What is often forgotten is that there is interpretation needed in both science and theology. Science requires interpretation of data from the physical world. Biblical theology requires interpretation of the Bible. Romans 1 says that we learn about the nature of God from the natural world. Thus, if God speaks to us through the Bible and He tells us about Himself through the natural world, and if God cannot lie (a given), then any conflict at the intersection of science and theology must be APPARENT conflict. Apparent conflict means that there is either a misinterpretation of scientific data or a misinterpretation of the Bible…or both.

Yes…science and theology ARE friends. But sometimes friends don’t see eye to eye. Sometimes friends argue. Sometimes the arguments get loud. But friends work out their differences through respect and dialogue.

Read Full Post »

My position on Darwinian evolutionary theory has evolved. I learned Darwin’s theory in my high school and undergraduate education. I never thought of evolutionary theory in terms of “believing” evolution or not. It was a matter of evidence. I dutifully learned the evidence supporting Darwin’s theory and it seemed reasonable to me. I had no reason to doubt the evidence or the way the evidence was presented. However, my worldview would not allow me to accept naturalistic evolution, that is, all evolutionary changes were due to purposeless natural processes. The more I learned about the complexity of nature, the more I was convinced that there was purpose in the natural sciences. These two seemingly contrary positions lived in separate mental domains for several years of active scientific research. My research was not on the front lines of evolutionary theory, in fact, my research in lung disease did not depend on evolutionary theory in any way. In the mid-80’s a friend gave me Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This book caused my understanding of Darwinian evolution and my worldview to intersect (“collide” might be a better word).  I found the evidence in his book convincing and the evidence supporting the gradualism proposed by neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory no longer reasonable. I wondered why I was not taught these criticisms. Thus I evolved into an informed skeptic and found that there were many more skeptical scientists than I had realized.

But where was my skepticism taking me? The history of life on the Earth clearly shows increasing complexity through time (evolution). In addition, I have never found Young Earth Creationism convincing because, in my opinion, there simply is no scientific evidence to support that position. I had always been taught that good scientists follow the evidence. For example, I have read part or all of Kenneth Miller’s books and writings as well as Michael Behe’s books and writings. Their positions are similar in some ways. Both believe in the existence of a Supreme Designer. Both are convinced of the evidence for common descent. The difference is that Behe contends that there is empirical evidence in the natural world for design, while Miller contends there is no such evidence. While some may think these two positions are separated by a great chasm, I think they are separated by an evidentiary divide. Despite arguments over the philosophical and theological differences of their positions this evidentiary divide is scientific. Scientists discuss and argue the evidence because that is what scientists do.

However, it is unfortunate that this conflict between scientists has produced a battlefield that includes the education of children. A majority of the scientific community, or at least a majority of the vocal members of the scientific community, advocates a central place for neo-Darwinism in K-12 education. I believe that most of our K-12 students are not equipped to understand the competing theories, complex arguments, and speculative extrapolations regarding the origins of the first cells, macroevolutionary changes and the emergence of biological novelties. These discussions should be minimized in K-12 education. However, we should include instruction in natural selection, adaptation and microevolution because these topics have important applications in microbiology, ecology, medicine and genetics.

While I believe teaching the speculative and controversial elements of evolutionary theory are inappropriate at the K-12 level, it is essential at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Discussing evidence on all sides of a controversy develops critical thinking skills that are essential in higher education. I don’t understand the position of some that students should not hear the evidences on all sides of this controversy. In addition, I often hear the argument that teleological discussions have no place in undergraduate science classrooms. I do not agree. We cannot ignore the intersection of science and theology, just as we cannot ignore the intersection of science and ethics, or science and politics, or science and economics.  Educational research has indicated that we need more interdisciplinary discussion in our classes, not less. When I teach about stem cells in biology class I do not hesitate to discuss the ethical, political and social issues as they relate to stem cells, even though these are nonscientific discussions. I include these discussions in my class because it is good undergraduate education to explore all sides of an issue from an interdisciplinary perspective, not because I want to express a particular political or religious point of view.

A 2008 poll indicated that a vast majority of Americans believe in some sort of Supreme Being. We simply cannot avoid meaningful discussion by claiming that science and theology occupy completely separate domains of knowledge (more on this in a future post).  It is also disingenuous to claim that there is no controversy. We need to discuss these issues openly and disagree respectfully. The religious community needs to change the way it views science and the scientific community needs to change the way it views theology. I believe change will come…. gradually.

Read Full Post »

Welcome to Pleochroism: Perspectives on Science and Theology! Pleochroism is a property of certain crystals in which different colors are seen when the crystal is viewed from different directions. This blog is an attempt to discuss different perspectives on science and theology. I am a college Dean at a relatively new public college and thus VERY busy. I am committed to posting at least one article on the first of every month. This blog is named pleochroism because I believe there is value in looking at things from multiple perspectives. The topics discussed in this blog elicit strong emotions. Please do not comment unless you can be courteous.

Read Full Post »