Lesson in World History

I have been working my way through Modern Times by Paul Johnson. As always, history is a great teacher. I have two examples of this.

1. Whenever I watch the local evening news (for the record, I never watch the national news), the death toll in Iraq is almost always mentioned. Usually it is reported that 8-10 people died that day, and about once per week someone from Colorado dies. Since the beginning of the war, I have been against this practice of daily death-toll reports. This is not because I don’t care about the people who die fighting, or because I am a pro-war zealot (in reality, I have mixed feelings about it and therefore do not have an “opinion” per se). I am against it because there is no comparison made to it. This is where history comes in. Johnson relates staggering numbers of deaths in and around WWII. Tens of millions of people died unnatural deaths during this time. “By December 1941 Hitler had about 8,700,000 Jews under his rule. Of these he had by early 1945 murdered at least 5,800,000…” (p. 415 in Johnson). Six million people were systematically exterminated at an average of roughly 4,800 per day for over three years—and that was just one man’s contribution to the death toll. When we bow to the tyranny of the present, 10 soldiers’ deaths per day sounds like an atrocity. In comparison to 4,800 civilians’ deaths per day, we see things could be almost infinitely worse. Again, I do not wish to belittle the memory of those who have died, but given the history of wars, Iraq is not that bad of one.

2. I have also noticed that a lot of people think President Bush is not very smart (yes, I know, I’m quite observant). In fact, I came across this quote about the President yesterday: “He [is] seen as well-meaning, intellectually limited, ignorant, inarticulate…” This quote, however, is from Johnson, p. 461, and he is describing President Eisenhower. Eisenhower himself promoted this myth for a variety of reasons. In reality, he was “a man of keen political intelligence and penetration…When he spoke of such matters seriously and in a protected official circle, insights of a high order flashed out time after time…” “He often pretended ignorance [at press conferences]…to avoid giving answers which plain English could not conceal…” (pp. 462-3) I am not suggesting that Bush is pulling an “Eisenhower”, but I have thought for a long time that people generally underestimate the President, which is based primarily on two factors: 1) the perceived popularity that comes with bashing the President, and 2) he fumbles his words often while speaking. I am not defending Bush, his war plan, or what he ate last night; I am just saying that history suggests that he might not be as dumb as everyone takes him for.

I am not a very political person, and I am not pro-war or a Bushophile. If anything, I am only trying to live out another of my maxims: If a majority of people are doing it, then there must be some problem with it.

Diversity is only skin-deep, but idiocy is to the bone

We had a good discussion in our Bible study last night. Out of that, some good thoughts on race and diversity were mentioned; I would like to discuss a few of them.

1. What is diversity, anyway? Society tries to tell us conflicting ideas about this. On the one hand, we are supposed to treat each other equally, irrespective of race, class, etc. On the other hand, we are not allowed to forget even for an instant a person's race, class, etc. This tension has led to a ridiculous reality. We are supposed to treat each other like equals, but the moment we try to do so, frivolous charges of racism and bigotry abound. For instance, there is the United Negro College Fund. What if there were a United White College Fund? How about the National Association for the Advancement of White People? I'm not advocating the creation of these groups, but are we not going against Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech? He wanted people to be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Imagine a white person saying that today to a crowd of white people. Double standard, anyone?

2. Why is diversity only skin-deep? If a black man and a white man grow up as neighbors in Detroit, I would tend to think that they had more in common with each other than the white man in Detroit would have with a white man from South Africa. Is it not the height of superficiality to suppose that every person of the same color is exactly the same? In our Bible study, for example, we are all Caucasian, but we are certainly not a homogeneous unit. My good friend in the study thinks differently than me on many important issues, and his life experience is vastly different than mine--but the amount of melanin in our skin is roughly the same. Does that mean that we are not diverse from one another? Hardly.

3. Certain people profit from racism and discrimination and do not want them to end. Have you ever thought about what people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do for a living? They profit from victimization. Whenever someone performs a racist act, these two men (I only single them out because they are well-known examples) run to the nearest camera. They get national exposure from people hurting one another in specific ways. What if racism and discrimination ended today? You would find Jackson and Sharpton in the unemployment line tomorrow, no doubt claiming they themselves were now victims of discrimination. In the same way, the media sensationalize the news (including episodes like the recent Don Imus fiasco) because that attracts an audience. These people do not want bad things to end; on the contrary, they propagate and sensationalize them for profit.

I know a discussion of this sort is somewhat taboo, but these societal problems will not go away if we just ignore them long enough. What if we started to treat each person as if he or she had real worth as an individual, regardless of any personal characteristics? We need to combat the reigning ideology of diversity both with argument and counter-cultural action.

A Word on Intelligence

I thought I would take a moment to remind everyone what Intelligent Design is, and what it is not. I recently read some material on the Internet about ID, and the usual mischaracterizations were present. So let's review, shall we? I will enumerate.

1. ID is the scientific movement that believes certain organisms cannot have come to their present state via naturalistic evolutionary forces. These organisms have or contain irreducibly complex or specifically complex traits. Inference to the best explanation would lead a person to conclude, in ID's view, that such traits were designed.

2. While ID's main proponents are Christians, ID does not name the Intelligence of which it speaks as YHWH. Any person who believes in a personal god (personality being a prerequisite for creativity) could adhere to ID in theory.

3. ID is not a "god of the gaps" theory. Either life evolved naturally, or it was created supernaturally. I know of no tertium quid. (Theistic evolution contains a contradiction--evolutionary theory rules out any divine activity a priori.) When examining irreducibly or specifically complex organisms or traits, then, one must conclude that they either evolved or were created. Evolution has not yet been able to come up with a good explanation of how such complexity has arisen. ID has posited a reasonable explanation based on observation. Therefore, the inference to the best explanation would be that the organisms or traits in question were created.

4. "ID is creationism in disguise." This is perhaps my favorite misconception, because the proponent of this proposition unwittingly confesses to his or her own ignorance by attempting to point out the ignorance of others. I have read a fair bit of ID literature, and I have not come across a single reference to Genesis 1-3, stated or implicit. (Dembski does mention his faith in Intelligent Design; if he quotes Genesis as well, then I have missed it and apologize.) It is true that ID does complement creationism, but ID does not necessarily lead to creationism, and there is no evidence for the claim that these two "isms" are the same. (As an aside, usually when I hear this statement made, it is an exercise in question-begging, thus giving credence to my argument.)

5. "ID is not science." Up until about 1850, most scientists were men of faith. Then, as a result of views first formed during the Enlightenment, a dichotomy emerged. Science withdrew itself from anything to do with faith, the supernatural, God, etc, by erecting an artificial--though infinite--barrier between fact and value. Therefore, any idea that references an intelligent agent outside of human beings is labeled "unscientific" from the outset. This is, of course, a huge hurdle to the development of new ideas and the progression of scientific thought. Think of it this way: If a divine hand really is involved with the goings on of life on earth, then science has been fundamentally wrong for over 150 years. This little exercise alone should make it abundantly clear that science and religion need not be completely separate. Science needs religion to provide its very foundation, or at least to offer a healthy critique of it. Back to the main point, though. ID is testable because scientists can compare known designed items (outboard motors, arrowheads, writing, etc) to items found in nature. Therefore a scientist can test and validate certain hypotheses related to design. Therefore, ID can follow the scientific method and should be correctly labeled as a scientific theory.

I could go on, but this covers most of the basics. Please do your best to avoid some of the pitfalls I have mentioned should you ever find yourself in an evolution-vs.-ID debate (especially if you are debating me).

What's Wrong with the World?

G.K. Chesterton was once asked to write an essay for the London Times on the topic of "What's Wrong with the World?" His submission was as follows:

Dear Sirs:
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton

Victoria's Secret Response.

Well, I have received a response from the email I sent yesterday to Victoria's Secret. I must admit, they do respond quickly.

Dear Valued Client,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Victoria's Secret Stores window
displays.

Victoria's Secret understands and respects the opinions of others about
what may be judged to be fashionable. We continually evaluate important
input from our clients and want to thank you for your time and
suggestions.

Thank you for your interest in Victoria's Secret.

I can already feel how valued I am. The question now is, do I send a letter to the store in question, or do I let it go?

Victoria's Secret Letter.

I wanted to post an email I sent to Victoria's Secret's website today:

Dear Sir or Ma’am:

I was in Southwest Plaza Mall in Littleton, Colorado, this afternoon, and I happened to pass by your store. I noticed a large poster of a completely naked woman was on display inside. Thankfully, she was concealing the more private parts of her body. I was wondering what piece of merchandise this model was advertising, especially since she was not wearing any clothing.

This picture was risque and obviously meant to be alluring. It was, in my opinion, soft-core pornography, and I am concerned that it is being displayed in public in your store, where any young children who pass by can see it plainly--even if they do not enter the store. I wholeheartedly disapprove of the use of this picture (or any like it) in any of your stores, and I will not be making any purchases in your store as long as this type of image is portrayed there. I understand that as a lingerie retailer, you would want to have pictures of women in your product. Although I often do not agree with the manner in which you take these pictures, I understand the business aspect of such decisions. To descend to displaying naked women (not nude, for there is no art being done here), however, crosses the line of respectable business in every way. I urge you to remove all such pictures from your stores and catalogues.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Some of you may think I am being a bit prudish on this. I am not. I don't appreciate being bombarded by eight-foot-high pornographic pictures while trying to find Waldenbooks. And I especially don't appreciate the fact that teenage guys are seeing it. It's hard enough for a teenage guy to deal with his own urges. He doesn't need any "help" from seductive pictures that a blind man could see from outer space.

I don't want to be some renegade moral crusader on this, but this is ridiculous. I would urge anybody who reads this not to buy any product from Victoria's Secret as long as these types of pictures are being shown there. And I think I will walk on the other side of the mall from now on.

If I get a response, I will post it here.

Time for a quick post.

I noticed something about myself this morning. I thought that I had successfully shed my American skin on this one, but it looks like I was wrong. It happened while I was doing some work at my computer. I was transferring some files from one folder to another, except the shared drive on which I was working is located in Germany, and I am in the US. Thus, it was taking considerable time to move even one file. Now by considerable I mean about ten seconds, and that was frustratingly slow. Ten seconds!

Last night my wife and I watched Nova on PBS. Some archaeologists were looking for the remains of the lighthouse at Alexandria. They discovered tons (literally) of sculpted rock, including various parts of statues of Ptolemy and his wife that originally were 40 feet tall. (They likely stood at the entrance to the lighthouse.) I can't even imagine the amount of time and work sculpting those statues would require, and I get impatient when my file transfer takes ten seconds! I doubt I would have the discipline and dedication to do for a day what ancient masons did for a lifetime. Imagine if I had to carve this post into a rock, or use a stylus on a clay tablet, instead of instantly typing it. (I would choose my words more carefully and use fewer of them, that's for sure!)

Maybe that is why I like books so much. Like colossi, they are tangible, and they require discipline and take time to finish. They are not instantly gratifying--they require reflection (at least the books I read). They make you slow down. Yes, I still suffer from the typical American culture--NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!!!!! I still get frustrated when my computer takes ten seconds to do something it would have taken an ancient scribe hours to do. I think, though, that my books are helping me to realize (albeit slowly) that everything does not have to be instant. I don't have to speed in my car. I don't need to be in a hurry. I can wait ten seconds for my computer to finish what it's doing.

I bet Ptolemy would have told me to chill out.

Exclusivity in the Bible.

The more I read the Old Testament, the more I realize that Jesus was right when he said that He was the only way to the Father. To all those who hold that all religions eventually get to God, I have a challenge for you: Read the Pentateuch.

The Exodus story alone will dispel the “all religions are one” myth for any intelligent reader. God comes down to the mountain and gives Moses tablet after tablet after tablet of laws that Israel must follow. Try to sit down and read them all—the task is perhaps as equally arduous as attempting to abide by them. If you can actually get through them all, the question that necessarily nags at you is, Good lord, how could anybody follow all of these laws? This is exactly the point. Nobody can, which is why God institutes the blood sacrifice. Now, animals are a temporary sacrifice. Just take a look at all of the animals that had to be sacrificed, and you’ll wonder if the Israelites had any livestock left at all. The only permanent sacrifice for breaking a holy God’s perfect law would be a holy, perfect sacrifice. Amazingly enough, Jesus comes along. Here is a holy, perfect man who gives up his life…“as a ransom for many.” He becomes the permanent blood sacrifice, and he “seals the deal” by breaking the seal on his own tomb—from the inside.

The biblical metanarrative lays it out plainly. We have all transgressed the law of God, and Jesus’ death is our only means to God. This is the defining feature of Christianity. No other religion makes this claim. It is exclusive and narrow, two traits that are not very popular at present. I don’t care about what’s popular, however; I care about the truth.

You can decide whether or not to believe Christianity’s claims, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that all religions are basically the same. The Bible doesn’t give you that alternative.

I apologize that there is nothing new and revolutionary here, but what is here can give you a new and revolutionized life.

A Pleasant Evening with Charles

I was reading through The Origin of Species last night, and Darwin surprised me. Unlike many caught up in the debate on evolution, Darwin was by no means acerbic or polemic in his arguments. At least from The Origin of Species, I get the impression that were he alive today, he would be a genuinely nice guy who would want to engage in a real, substantial debate about his theory. For instance, in his conclusion (ch. 14) he says,

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force.

While he does not find objections ultimately valid, he at least does not dismiss them out of hand.

As a whole, though, I found a few things lacking with his argument. For one, consider the following, also from chapter 14.

It is, no doubt, extremely difficult even to conjecture by what gradations many structures have been perfected, more especially amongst broken and failing groups of organic beings; but we see so many strange gradations in nature, as is proclaimed by the canon, `Natura non facit saltum [Nature makes no leap],' that we ought to be extremely cautious in saying that any organ or instinct, or any whole being, could not have arrived at its present state by many graduated steps.

This seems to be a summation of his logic, which can be expressed in the following manner: We cannot rule out the possibility that natural selection did not cause the evolution of all species from one or a few species, so therefore this is what happened. In other words, Darwin has turned the table. Before him, the basic assumption was divine creation. After him, it becomes natural selection. The logic underpinning his view, however, is extremely weak, and it is my guess that it came about due to his views on God and the problem of evil.

Second, he does not account for the origin of the originator of species. For instance:

I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction…Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

With his theory, he can trace back all life to roughly ten progenitors. He hypothesizes that those ten, in turn, likely descended from a single ancestor, though unlike his previous logic, he is quick to point out that this argument is also very weak. Example two (from ch. 6):

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated…

Here he is talking about the evolution of the eye, which was one of the main arguments against him at the time. But notice something from these two examples: He cannot and does not even want to account for the origin of life itself. (Notice, however, his metaphor of "breathing life into" the first being, which is an ironic reference to the Creation story of Genesis.) He is happy to leave his theory where it is--common descent from one or a few life forms whose very existence is not important to explain.

Darwinism has come a long way since 1859, perhaps going further than Darwin himself would have wanted. Yet no Darwinist will seriously challenge the weak logical foundation of the theory (it might have happened, so it did). Also, after 150 years, no one has been able to put a satisfactory answer to the origin of life, an answer that is very important but Darwin saw no use for in his book.

Ultimately, I think if Darwin could see the blind dogmatism and extremism that can happen on both sides of his theory, he would shake his head and wonder what happened.

(I apologize for not having page numbers for The Origin of Species references. I don't have access to the book right now; I had to rely on an e-copy.)

Record no more...

Congratulations to my former college teammate T. Jay Sanderson for shattering my old school record in the outdoor 5000m. He clocked 14:26.79 to break my old record by 36 seconds (15:02.52, set in May of 2003). He also will likely qualify for NCAA Div. II nationals with this performance. He is already a multiple-time All-American, and is a much, much better runner than I ever was.

If you are interested, you can read a small article about this here.

My Line of Despair

I have been reading through Francis Schaeffer's Trilogy for the first time the past month or so. Unlike most books, I find that I can't read it quickly. I read a few pages or chapters slowly and deliberately, and then I have to put it down and attempt to digest the content therein.

To be honest, his line of despair has been causing me to despair. The basic ideology of "modern modern man" disturbs me, not because I think it is bad philosophy, but because it leads to death. The question that continually hangs over my head as I read Schaeffer is how do I reach these people? They know they are dead; they don't know that they were once alive. They have abandoned the idea of objective meaning, and the only way they can regain it is to give up their autonomy, which their pride demands they keep at all costs. The task before me seems unsurmountable.

This is how I was feeling when I came across this section of Leviticus 26 two days ago:

If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out…you will chase your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword; five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall before you by the sword. So I will turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm My covenant with you...Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you. I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt so that you would not be their slaves, and I broke the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect.

There are many other sections of scripture that say essentially the same thing, but this one caught my eye. Perhaps it is because it wasn't familiar to me. The emboldened text is what really stuck in my mind. Five people defeating 100 in battle? 100 defeating 10,000? If you want unsurmountable odds, here it is. But if I am faithful to God, He will walk with me. He is the God who surmounts the unsurmountable. Maybe there is hope for "modern modern man" and for me.

The Wonders of Leviticus.

I was slogging through Leviticus the other day, and there it was. Right in the middle of a bunch of Jewish laws from thousands of years ago. It got me to think.

Imagine you are a part of the Exodus all those years ago. You've just witnessed some amazing things. Plagues of all kinds, parting seas, pillars of fire. All of the other people of the land have idols--worthless, mute idols that have never done anything. And now, for the first time, a true God, YHWH, acts on your behalf and speaks to your leader, Moses. And what does YHWH tell you? A bunch of laws. But this is great news! No longer do you have to wonder and worry about how to please the gods. YHWH God has laid out a system for you--you know what to do, what not to do, and when to do or not do those things. Unlike those idols of wood and stone, you always know where you stand with Him! Then it hits you. You stand condemned. Break any one of these 600+ laws, and you have transgressed the God who destroyed Egypt, your old captor whom you thought was invincible. Fear grips you. And then, right in the middle of His law (as if this were the apex of the law, its whole point), there it is. The word of YHWH:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. (Lev 17:11)

There is life in blood! Break the law of YHWH, and end up like Pharaoh's soldiers: dead. But a sacrifice of blood gives you new life! How grateful you are to YHWH, that by His grace He has shown you your death and given you new life! Thank YHWH for the blood sacrifice!

Man vs. Nature

Today, I offer another critique of naturalism.

I find it odd that those who would demote humans to the status of evolved animals would still engage in such anthropocentrism. What do I mean, you say? According to naturalistic science, humans, apes, monkeys, horses, dogs, beavers, amoeba and Simon Cowell each evolved from other lower organisms, which evolved from other lower organisms, and so on, back to the primordial soup. We all have common ancestry. We are all animals. Humans are just smarter, although that point may be debatable. If this is the case, then we are faced with the artificial dichotomy of Man vs. Nature.

In other words, if humans are just the next step up the evolutionary ladder, it follows that humans are just another part of nature. Therefore, anything we do or make is part of nature. No one accuses a beaver of destroying the environment when it builds a dam and changes the flow of the river. Yet when humans come along and build a strip mall, environmentalists come out of the woodwork (it's a pun!) proclaiming that we are destroying nature! Following naturalism's logic to its conclusion, we should say instead that nature destroyed nature, which makes little sense. For another example, consider New York City. Humans, which are a part of nature, built buildings, streets and sidewalks out of elements they found in nature (metal, rock, wood, sand, etc). Therefore, NYC is part of nature.

Yet no one thinks this way. Our cities are not part of nature; we are not just glorified animals. We all act as if we are connected to nature, yet at the same time above it. Is that not why people go camping and hiking? We all like to relax and enjoy nature, but only for so long. Then we must go back to our homes, where we have some control over nature. This is the way humans are.

I read a book about this once. It has a very famous first line: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It's almost like the author gets it...