Global warming takes another hit

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that cautions us to think clearly about global warming issues. The author of the article, Bret Stephens, looks at a popular book called Freakonomics, which came out in 2005. Its authors, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, had a lengthy chapter on global warming where they discussed former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold and some of his ideas. Global warming fanatics were not happy with this book, says Stephens, because its authors did not appear to be sold on the hysteria surrounding global warming.

Now these two men are out with a second book, SuperFreakonomics, and the results are the same. Al Gore, a former Clinton official name Joe Romm, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lash out at this book for its supposedly bad reporting as well as its lack of enthusiasm for global warming. Actually, Levitt and Dubner are considered careful researchers. In addition, Stephens says they do acknowledge temperatures have risen a little over one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. But here's where they part company with the global warming hysteria. They note that sea levels will probably not rise more than 18 inches over the next 90 years, which is less than the normal variation of tides along most coastlines. They say "changes in carbon-dioxide levels don't necessarily mirror human activity." My favorite quotation is from Mr. Myhrvold when he says Al Gore's scary scenarios "don't have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame."

Stephens indicates SuperFreakonomics also challenges the current climate-change craziness in other ways. For example, the authors say climatologists show a herd mentality by matching one another's forecasts. In addition, like everyone else, they respond to the economic reality of research funding. Money is available for those who can claim the greatest problems lie ahead of us. The two authors also point out that huge problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Think of world hunger -- it was solved not by population control but by developing better strains of rice and wheat. So maybe, they suggest, we can tackle global warming with a variety of cheap fixes rather than destroying the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations. They even say we may want to do nothing until the state of technology gets better and can tackle the problem with better solutions.

As you might expect, global warming fanatics hate these ideas. They are interested in controlling huge economies, gaining vast new powers in the process. Stephens quotes Newsweek's Stefan Theil as support: "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Remember how people said it's important to follow the money? Well, here's another good example.

Books like Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are important. They cause us to slow down and truly think rather than being carried along with our emotions. Before we destroy our economy, let’s consider the evidence carefully.

"Awesome God" and the school

This is a story from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group which seeks to preserve religious liberties in this country.

Four years ago in New Jersey an eight-year-old girl named Olivia wanted to sing her favorite song, “Awesome God,” in a school talent show. However, the teacher told her the lyrics were too religious and that, therefore, the school would not allow it. The mother spoke to the school board to support her daughter’s choice, but again the song was turned down. The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter stating that nothing in the United States Constitution prohibits a person from expressing his/her religious faith on government property. The school rejected this letter.

The mother said to the author, "If you are a Christian -- if you're a person of faith -- you do not leave your faith at the school door. You are who you are. And you take it through every aspect of your life. And for somebody to shut you down, or tell you that you can't be the person that you are -- that's not what God created us to be." As a result, the family turned to their only remaining option, a lawsuit.

The case came before a judge on the very day of the talent show. The judge asked why Olivia could not sing the song. The attorney for the school district said that the girl was attempting to proselytize through the words of the song. The judge then asked if it was OK if the girl sang “Amazing Grace”, to which the attorney replied that it would be fine.

Things got interesting at this point. The judge began to recite the first verse of “Amazing Grace” and asked how this song was not proselytizing but the other song was. There was no response from the school’s attorney. The judge went on to recite a verse of another Christian song called “Put Your Hand in the Hand.” He asked the attorney if this song also proselytized. The attorney at this point was completely flustered. The judge concluded that, despite his personal conviction that the school’s case was unsubstantiated, he could not grant a preliminary injunction since it raised constitutional issues too complex for quick resolution. So, unfortunately, Olivia was not able to sing the song at the talent show that evening.

A year and a half later, a federal judge ruled in favor of Olivia. Just as any other child in any other American public school, she would be free to present Christian themes in a talent show. That ruling has since enabled The Alliance Defense Fund to win several other similar free-speech cases for other students around the country.

How did the New Jersey school handle the result of this decision? School officials have not allowed a talent show since the decision came down. What a shame and what stupidity.

The Alliance Defense Fund is there for all of us. Please consider reading their material or supporting them-- you can reach them at telladf.org.

Interesting poll results

A new poll from Parade magazine has some interesting findings regarding the spirituality of America.

In some ways the news is good. About 70 percent of Americans believe in God, nearly 80 percent pray, and 3/4 believe parents need to give their children a religious upbringing. In addition, only five percent don't believe in God.

But as far as I'm concerned, much of it is bad news. About half say they rarely or never attend worship services, and over one-fourth say they don't practice any kind of religion at all. Many put themselves in a new category -- "spiritual but not religious." This is pretty fuzzy thinking, which is echoed in other findings of the poll. For example, only 12 percent say their own religion is the only true faith while 59 percent said all religions are valid. How is that possible? For example, one says Jesus is the Messiah while another says he is not. Both of them cannot be correct. Only 40 percent said the reason they picked their faith is because it is the source of truth. Why are the rest selecting thier faith--it "feels" right? it's convenient? it requires very little commitment? Nearly 60 percent said religion and politics should not mix at all.

What does all this suggest? People have bought into relativism big time. Truth is not as important as it was at one time. Instead, people are selecting their religious beliefs for fuzzy, emotional reasons. It bothers me that a majority believe religion and politics should not be mixed. Tell that to the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the thousands of other political leaders who have invoked the name of God while working in the political arena. A worldview will follow an individual into politics; there's no way to separate the two. Either a religious outlook on life or a secular outlook on life will inform the political leader, and from what I've seen of secular leaders (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, to name a few), I'll take my chances with an individual whose religion plays an important role in his/her life.

The Horrors of North Korea

I came across this story in World magazine. It's hard to read things like this, but we must in order to see the face of evil. We can't pretend that meetings, peace accords, treaties, or speeches at the U.N. will cause such evil to disappear. It's there, it's real, and we need to be vigilant.



Soon Ok Lee has recently published her memoir entitled Eyes of the Tailless Animals. It chronicles six years she spent in a North Korean labor camp. If there was any doubt about the horrors of a godless society, this book will dispel it quickly.

She was born into a life of privilege in North Korea. Only one god was allowed there, and it was Kim Il Sung, father of today's dictator. She was arrested for refusing to give a bureaucrat more clothing than he was allotted.

Life in prison was a horror story. She was greeted with the words, "you are not a human being anymore." This is where the title comes in -- she was a "tailless animal." Although not a Christian believer at the time, she met an increasing number of women sentenced for their Christian belief, or as the supervisors called them, "superstition believers." Every month these women were placed in the yard in front of all the prisoners and asked to deny their belief. When they refused, they were given the hardest work possible. One Christian slipped and fell into a large feces tank. The guard told everyone to let her die, but four others ignored the command and jumped in to save her. No official even tried to get the women out, so all five died. The author later found out that the four who jumped in to save the woman were also Christians.

Eventually she escaped with her son to China, thanks to people of faith. They ended up in South Korea, where an inspector debriefing them handed them the Bible and started singing "Amazing Grace." She remembered the song because her mother and some of her friends used to close the front door to her house and sing that same song.

It's hard for us living today in America to imagine such hellish circumstances. I would hope that you might consider joining groups such as Open Doors or Voice of the Martyrs because they will tell you similar stories from around the world and what you can do about these precious people who stand up to tyranny.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

OK, I know this is old news. But I came across two statements that capture in a few words the frustration I have felt over this issue. See if you agree.

John Podhoretz of Commentary:

The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization's highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than "the indispensable nation," as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

Dennis Prager (radio talk show host):

Thanks to Barack Obama, America is for the first time aligning its values with those of "the majority of the world's population." If you think the world's population has had better values than America, that it has made societies that are more open, free, and tolerant than American society, and that it has fought for others' liberty more than America has, you should be delighted.

Last of four parts--summary of Signature in the Cell

Here is the last part of my summary of Dr. Stephen Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell. It's a bit daunting, but he has so much good info on recent discoveries that indicate a designer behind all life. The other three parts are available here in case you want to catch up.

Another complaint about intelligent design is that it does not qualify as a scientific theory by definition. Scientific theories, according to this complaint, must explain events or phenomena by reference to natural laws alone. Science must not assume there are any seen or unseen powers that interfere with the normal working of material objects. Meyer rejects this by saying the activity of a designing intelligence does not necessarily break or violate the laws of nature. He says it is the same style of explanation as other historical scientific theories in which events are explained primarily by reference to prior events. Those who say ID does not qualify as a scientific theory generally argue that it invokes an unobservable entity, it is not testable, it does not explain by reference to natural law, it makes no predictions, it is not falsifiable, it cites no mechanisms, and it is not tentative. But Meyer indicates that many scientific theories infer unobservable entities, causes, and events. For example, there are theories of chemical evolution and the existence of many transitional intermediate forms of life. Both of these are unobservable. Historical sciences commonly use indirect methods of testing as they weigh competing unobservable events to determine which one has the greatest explanatory power. The theory of intelligent design is subject to empirical testing and refutation. Many times scientists say that a theory must explain all phenomena by reference to purely material causes, but Meyer wonders why science should be defined that way. Scientists in the past have not always restricted themselves to naturalistic hypotheses. Today many scientific fields currently suggest intelligent causes as scientific explanations – consider archeology, anthropology, forensics, astrobiology.

Meyer spends time refuting the idea that intelligent design is religion. Religions usually involve various formal structures, practices and ritualistic observances, but these are all missing in ID. In addition, it does not offer a comprehensive system of belief about the intelligence behind the design of the universe. The theory of intelligent design does not affirm any sectarian doctrines. Of course this theory has religious and metaphysical implications, but these are not grounds for dismissing it. Intelligent design is not the only idea that has metaphysical or religious implications. Consider Darwinism – it has significant metaphysical and religious implications as well. Scientific theories should be evaluated on the evidence rather than the implications they may have. Antony Flew, a well-known atheistic philosopher who has now become a proponent of intelligent design, insists that we should “follow the evidence wherever it leads.” Meyer argues that the motivations of the people behind the theories should not invalidate them either because it is not the motivation that determines the merits of the idea; it’s the quality of the arguments and the relevance of the evidence marshaled in support of that theory.

Meyer ends his book by explaining why this issue matters. The scientific case for intelligent design poses a serious challenge to the materialistic worldview so dominant today in the West. Materialism may seem liberating, but it has proven “profoundly and literally dispiriting.” It suggests we have no purpose in life, we are all accidents, nothing lasts beyond the grave, everything will be gone as the universe spins down to heat death. On the other hand, intelligent design says that the ultimate cause of life is personal, suggesting there is something beyond this life.

I spent a long time going through Signature in the Cell because I like wrestling with interesting concepts. I was only able to scratch the surface of the book’s content in this summary, but my goal was to pass along the main points I got and to arouse your curiosity to know more about this fascinating field of study.

Signature in the Cell--part 3

Here's the third part of my summary of Dr. Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell. Check the previous two blogs for the earlier part of the book.


Meyer then presents a positive case for intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life. He begins by saying there is no other adequate explanation as to the cause. Secondly, he claims there is experimental evidence to back up intelligent design as a cause. Here he mentions experiments that try to simulate prebiotic conditions; they “invariably generate biologically irrelevant substances.” In addition he says intelligent design is the only known cause of specified information. He concludes that ID provides the “best, most causally adequate explanation of the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life on earth.” He considers other forms of specified information, such as radio signals, books, hieroglyphics, and indicates that they always arise from an intelligent source, a mind rather than a strictly material process. In addition, Meyer refers to a groundbreaking book on design detection by William Dembski – The Design Inference. This book claims that we can detect the prior activity of other minds by the effects they leave behind, namely complexity and specification. His example is Mount Rushmore – the shapes etched in the rock face demonstrate intelligence behind them because they are complex and specific to four particular American presidents. Dembski’s theory applies to the cell’s information-processing system as well as to DNA itself. Even “junk DNA” has now been found to perform many important functions.

The last part of Meyer’s book defends the theory of intelligent design against various popular objections to it. Some complain that the case for intelligent design constitutes an argument from inference. But Meyer says that is not true. We already know from experience that intelligent agents do produce systems rich in information. This is an inference to the best explanation based upon our best available knowledge rather than an argument from ignorance. Another complaint about the design inference says, “If an intelligence designed the information in DNA, then who designed the designer?” He found it odd that anyone would argue it was illegitimate to infer that an intelligence played a role in the origin of an event unless we could also give a complete explanation of the nature and origin of that intelligence. It does not negate a causal explanation of one event to point out that the cause of that event may also invite a causal explanation. For example, nobody needs to “explain who designed the builders of Stonehenge or how they otherwise came into being to infer that this complex and specified structure was clearly the work of intelligent agents.”

A third complaint about ID is that it is simply religion masquerading as science. Critics say the theory is not testable and, therefore, neither rigorous nor scientific. But Meyer says different scientists and philosophers of science cannot agree about what the scientific method is, so how do they decide what does and does not qualify as science? He rebuts the critics in several ways. First, he says the case for intelligent design is based on empirical evidence, not religious dogma – information in the cell, irreducible complexity of molecular machines, the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics. In addition, advocates of intelligent design use established scientific methods, especially the method of multiple competing hypotheses. For another thing, ID is testable by comparing its explanatory power to that of competing theories. As an example, Meyer refers to junk DNA. Neo-Darwinism says this is an accumulation of nonfunctional DNA through mutational trial and error while ID proponents claim that there must be some biological function in this so-called “junk.” It turns out that recent discoveries indicate this type of DNA performs a diversity of important biological functions. To further bolster the idea that ID is scientific, Meyer goes on to say the case for ID exemplifies historical scientific reasoning, it addresses a specific question in evolutionary biology (how did the appearance of design in living systems arise?), and it is supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Signature in the Cell--Part 2

I am continuing a summary of the information in Dr. Stephen Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell.You can read the previous blog entry to see the first part of my report on this important book.


Meyer follows this with an examination of what scientists in the past had thought about biological origins and how they investigated these questions. He found it interesting that Watson and Crick were not doing experiments in labs, but that didn't mean they were not doing science. Instead, they built models based on data they acquired from other sources, like scientific journals, other scientists, and other laboratories. In this way they were much like current advocates of intelligent design, who have been accused of not doing science. A brief story is revealing -- when Meyer asked Fred Hoyle, a famous astronomer, about whether he thought the information stored in DNA might point to an intelligent source, his reply was, "That would certainly make life a lot easier to explain." Meyer goes on to explain that modern science was specifically inspired by the idea that the universe is the product of a rational mind and that humans could understand it. He says historical scientists reasoned from clues back to causes, conferring unseen facts/events/causes in the past from clues or facts in the present. Based on this, he asks what causes now in operation produce digital code or specified information? Intelligent design must qualify as a possible scientific explanation for the origin of biological information because we know that intelligent agents produce specific information.

For the next 150 pages Meyer examines the competing explanations for the origin of biological information. He starts by examining the possibility that chance produced this information. Most people who advocate chance assume that life could not originate without biological information first arising in some form, which means they must explain where the DNA information came from or how proteins might have arisen directly without DNA. Many origin-of-life scientists realize how difficult it is to generate specified biological information by chance alone in the limited time earth has been around. But it's even more difficult than this -- building a living cell not only requires specified information, but it also requires a vast amount of information. For example, the simplest cell requires nearly 500 proteins and nearly 600,000 bases of DNA to assemble these proteins. One experiment in the late 1980s indicated the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several known proteins by chance was about one chance in 10 to the 63rd power (it's about like picking one atom out of all the atoms in the universe). Another problem with chance was the discovery of the lack of a favorable prebiotic soup on primitive earth. A biophysicist at San Francisco State University named Dean Kenyon came up with another explanation for the origin of biological information -- self-organization., in which life might have arisen through a series of chemical transformations in which more complex chemical structures arose from simpler ones. However, one of his students asked him if his model could explain the origin of the information in DNA, and Kenyon realized that it could not. Probably the most popular theory now of how life began (apart from intelligent design) focuses on RNA molecules; the premise is that RNA performed both as proteins and DNA. But there are huge problems with this theory -- RNA is easy to destroy, it makes a poor substitute for proteins, and it doesn't explain the origin of genetic information. It's no wonder that Francis Crick said, "... in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."