Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Back at It!

    If you’ve wondered where I’ve been, see this post on my Threads blog. I’m back at posting again!

  • Florida and Academic Freedom Follies

    The Florida Citizens for Science blog has a post summing up the current situation with creationist bills in the Florida legislature. FCFS communication director Brandon Haught shows how the bill in the Florida Senate is essentially taken directly from the Discovery Institute’s web site.

    What is the purpose of these bills? Academic freedom is not generally considered an issue in public high schools. Curriculum is closely controlled. Supposing someone who was opposed to so-called creation science chooses to use this academic freedom to thoroughly analyze, and of course vigorously refute that position. This would be as an alternative to what is currently mandated–clear teaching of the theory of evolution in its proper scientific place. Would these folks be equally happy with that?

    Fundamentally, these laws are simply a case of people who do not understand the material trying to replace well-supported work done by experts in the subject. But there is something further. I suspect that creationists will be almost as happy if the bills are defeated. Then they can yell loudly about how “academic freedom” was defeated, and point to it as a case of “Darwinist” suppression.

    It seems there is nothing these folks won’t do to avoid having to actually do the hard work of science. Their expertise at this avoidance perhaps was learned in childhood, when they were avoiding learning things like the meaning of “theory” in science.

  • Parsimony of Miracle Assumptions: Matthew 21:1-7

    Or I might title this “Was Jesus a Horse Thieving Magician?”

    I learned this story so long ago I don’t remember just when it was, but I got a Sunday School version that left me with the impression that because Jesus was God, either he knew everything, or his father revealed to him the location of the donkey, and the words to use so that the disciples could get away with it. Probably the divinity of Jesus and his command shone through his disciples, thus preventing their arrest as horse (or donkey) thieves.

    This left a glow in my mind until I thought about the story some more later. I’ve observed this same interpretation in debates online. Someone objects to the story on the basis that Jesus is supposed to be sinless, so how could he steal a donkey? (Or perhaps merely borrow one without permission.) Sadly, in the most recent case I observed, the next comment from the defender of Christianity (non-professional variety) was that Jesus could take the donkey because he was God, and after all owned everything. So who was the owner to object?

    While it’s true that in Christian theology Jesus is God, and God owns everything. But if you think about it a bit, such an argument could make the sinlessness of Jesus pretty meaningless. Why was he sinless? Well, anything he did could be justified by the fact that he was God.

    Now real Christian apologists will generally regard this as a particularly weak stab at Christianity, though I would have to say that I take seriously those objections that objectors take seriously, even though it sometimes requires effort. There is, however, no reason to get stuck on this one.

    There is no need to justify donkey stealing. Let’s go back to the start, sticking with only the version in Matthew 21. There is simply no suggestion of a miracle, such as miraculous knowledge of the donkey’s location. There is no suggestion that divinity needed to flash forth to make the story work. It is simply told bare bones. So supposing this is a modern scene, and you’re walking down a road with someone, and he says, “Go over to that farm you can see off to the left, and you’ll find a horse tied to a tree. Untie it, and bring it here. If anyone asks, say, ‘His owner needs him.’”

    Would you assume that your walking partner had received a vision, or that he knew there was a horse normally tied up there, or perhaps had some valid reason to know there was one tied up there now? Would you assume that he was asking you to participate in a bold act of horse theft, or that he had the appropriate rights to use the animal? I suspect our first assumption would be that the person had naturally acquired information, and that unless he was some kind of criminal, that he was not choosing this casual means to launch a life of crime.

    So why do we assume that Jesus did otherwise? We know he fed the 5,000, but we don’t assume that he miraculously produced every breakfast. We assume he’s sinless, so why would we assume an explanation here that opens him up to the charge of theft?

    Imagine this story instead. The day before, Jesus was going through that village, and a follower there offered him the donkey for his use. He told the man that he didn’t need the donkey that day, but would call for it later, and they agree where it would be. When he was ready to use it, Jesus used this purely mundane information to call for a donkey to which he had every right. And that is hardly the only possible set of assumptions that works with the story.

    So why didn’t Matthew fill in a few more blanks for us? First, I doubt he thought anyone would make the assumption that Jesus was stealing the donkey. Second, Matthew is trying to present Jesus as king, and telling the story in this bare bones way leaves open the impression of a sovereign requisitioning what he needed to accomplish his mission.

    Most objections to scripture result more from what we say about scripture than from what scripture says itself. Don’t get stuck with unnecessary assumptions, even if they sound miraculous and holy.

  • Why Anti-Evolution Lies?

    Earlier I blogged about Dr. Steve Matheson’s use of the term “folk-science” to deal with some creationist writing about science. in that post I struggled with that term, and how to distinguish lies from differences of opinion, viewpoint, and simple ignorance.

    Well, Dr. Matheson is now dealing with some material he outright calls lies. This starts with When it’s not just a disagreement, and continues with Talking trash about “junk DNA”: lies about “function” (part II). I don’t know nearly enough to get involved in this argument, though Matheson’s articles are straightforward and I think I understand the logic.

    The thing that I can follow is that the statements of science are being misrepresented. This was one of the things that started me away from young earth creationism. While I could not always understand the reasons that young earthers were wrong about science, it was often quite easy to simply compare what evolutionists wrote about the subject, and what creationists claimed they wrote and to find out that they did not match.

    But I wax long-winded as usual, and I only have a simple point. Since the representation of the mainstream science position is false, and is easily demonstrated to be false, why use it? Would it not be logical to exclude easily disconfirmed material from your argument? I would suggest that if they could make their argument whilst correctly representing the mainstream science, they would. The fact that they resort to these types of misrepresentation suggests that they don’t have alternatives.

    I have long had respect for Reasons to Believe, even while disagreeing with their position. Reading this series is suggesting that my own ignorance allowed me to give them the benefit of the doubt. Consider the weakness of a theory if you cannot support it without obvious misstatements of the opposing postion.

  • A Difference in Agendas – John 11:1-16

    I noticed a theme in this passage that I think is important. If you look at the response of the disciples when Jesus proposes to go to Bethany (v. 7-8). They believe it’s too dangerous to go there. It appears to me that for the two days that Jesus delayed, the disciples assumed that he was not going to Judea because of the danger.

    It doesn’t say that explicitly at the beginning of the chapter, but since that is their immediate reaction when Jesus says he is going, I suspect they spent those two days in relief that Jesus had chosen not to go to Lazarus, even though he was sick.

    But when Jesus announces that he will go to Bethany, the disciples suddenly realize that Jesus is not on their program. He has a kingdom agenda. He is going to do the thing that brings glory to God. Ultimately, this trip is dangerous–so dangerous that it leads to the cross.

    The question for each one of us is this: When we come to that fork in the road, which agenda is first for us: personal safety or advancing the kingdom?

  • Health Care Must be Produced

    I read this article on CQPolitics.com that deals with some of the issues of handling health care costs, and also suggests to me that my feeling may be right that the types of savings claimed by the candidates as part of their health care programs may be much more complicated to attain than they would have us believe.

    There’s a fundamental qualitative difference between saying that someone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and saying that someone has the right to free health care. While there are costs for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, once won, they impact very broadly. In the case of medical care, someone has to produce the care, in fact, many someones. There are physicians who spend huge amounts on their training and go into massive amounts of debt for the privilege of treating us. Drug companies do make profits, but they also must expend a great deal of time and energy on research and development. Those who produce medical equipment again have huge investments. Then we turn around and say that everyone has a right to their services.

    Now those who have been around this blog for some time may want to remind me that I have called for universal health care, and this post sounds like I’m arguing against it. But I hope you’ll also recall that I have mentioned the contradiction. The problem is simply this: We’re not going to deny people treatment at the emergency room door. What happens as a result? We do cover those least able to pay but in one of the most expensive and least effective ways possible.

    Since we’re going to spend money here–and as a Christian I believe I should do what I can to see that these people are cared for–the question is how are we going to do so more effectively. The article I cited at the beginning lists a number of excellent points. I’m not going to try to reiterate them or argue with them. I confess that I am finding the details confusing, and I don’t think I’m that easily confused.

    Here’s the direction my thinking is going. I think we need to define basic medical care that will be universal, and provide the necessary subsidies for that care, possibly through a type of credit on taxes. Then we need to leave the more advanced and experimental care ideas in private hands to be developed over time. As a technique becomes ready for the mainstream, we could change the boundaries of basic medical care.

    I believe Nurse Practitioners are one way into the future. I often wonder how people from non-medical families do it. I can call my wife, sister, mother, all RNs, or my brother the cardiologist, and say, “Here are my symptoms, do I need to go see the doctor?” Generally the answer is no. A little sensible care at home and I’m up and running again. Just consider this: Friday was probably the most miserable day I’ve ever experienced in terms of illness, and today I’m sitting here typing, no visit to the doctor involved.

    People are concerned with lawsuits, but that is something that could be managed legally as well. Preventative care would be important and could be pursued through more accessible primary care.

    But health care plans that simply deal with distributing care won’t provide a long term answer. We need to keep in mind how good health care is produced, and what any new plan will do to that production. Medical practitioners are not merely distributors of an existing good, like water. They are producers, and if we want them to produce we’ll need to deal fairly with them as well.

  • Enabling Media Bias

    Walter Shorenstein is decrying media bias in favor of Barack Obama. The only surprising thing here, in my view, is that someone felt they needed to write a memo–and I favor Obama myself. The question is just how media bias works, and what the bias is.

    First, while I think there is a natural tendency to bias a story in favor of one’s own political views, and journalists tend to be more liberal than the overall population (I believe), I think the strongest bias in the media is towards the unusual and the exciting. What do the most people want to watch and hear about. For example, I suspect that many people who may well not vote for Barack Obama have been more interested in how he will perform. Here’s where Hillary Clinton’s experience and time in the public view works against her. We know more about her than about Obama. If she wins, though it’s historic, it’s what was expected originally. Obama, on the other hand, is unexpected.

    But second, I think there is a simple fact about media coverage that enables media bias. There are very few actual facts reported in the media. What actually happens is that we get claims, followed by hour after hour of analysis by different experts. Sometimes the position of these “experts” is entirely predictable; they are the spin doctors for the campaigns or parties. At other times they are more unpredictable, because they are from political science professors or unaligned political consultants.

    There is time to actually examine and analyze facts, but that time is instead taken up by getting more and more opinions. Why is this? Well, this comes down to my big objection to what I would call “practical postmodernism.” This is the view that all ideas are more or less equal, they are just part of someone’s story, and the way to be properly unbiased is to make sure that every opinion gets expressed.

    This results in a rudderless program, free of actual analysis, while filled with reams of apparent analysis. Now there are many things I can say about this, but my key point today is that this approach to journalism allows media bias to occur and to be concealed under the veneer of the balanced approach. Consider the headlines about various polls, for example. Is 46-44 a slight lead for candidate A, or is it a statistical tie. If the next day it’s 45-45 is candidate B moving up on candidate A, or is it statistically insignificant. (Statistically both are within the margin of error and one would best regard them both as a tie. There isn’t necessarily any trend here.) But what viewers want, and the media wants to supply is news, and that means they have to spin it in the direction of change.

    I would prefer more reporting of facts, and there are plenty of those missing. I’ve been researching health care plans, for example, and while there is a great deal to read, very little of it is in the mainstream media. Media outlets could do the voters a great favor by researching the numbers in those health care plans and seeing whether there’s any likelihood that the projected savings can occur and asking what will happen to things like experimental treatments, for example. I admit that in my part-time look at this I’ve failed to make heads or tails of it all. I just continue to have this feeling that the claimed savings are, to put it mildly, optimistic.

    I’d prefer to see media representatives admit their bias and report what they believe to be true. Then it’s out on the table, and I have a better basis for analyzing their statements. I’d prefer more experts producing information and analysis, and less expressing generalized opinions. In other words, I think we’d be better off with journalists researching what they believe to be facts, reporting those facts, and get our balance either by reading or watching other journalists, or by analyzing those facts for ourselves.

    The implied standard of media fairness seems to be whether each candidate or “side” gets a similar amount of time and attention. I think that if a candidate commits a whopper, that candidate ought to get disproportionately negative coverage, and vice-versa. I think most of us are aware that the idea of an unbiased media is an illusion. It’s an impossible dream. Let the fact wars begin instead.

    I can’t end a post like this without reference to two sites that are perhaps the strongest contrary evidence, Politifact.com and Factcheck.org, who seem to be managing to be the most unbiased folks I’ve encountered, and are doing fact checks. I do think that we need something like what they do, only that goes a little deeper, but they are providing a valuable service to the public, and I present them as evidence that maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it can be done. Note, however, that in doing their job, they definitely run contrary to the “all ideas are equal” camp.

  • Piper on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

    Adrian Warnock has posted a substantial quote from John Piper on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe that Piper’s illustration–which I think is excellent–is in accord with my view that this experience can happen more than once.

  • Respecting Elders and Adjudicating Church Property

    [Note: I’m fighting the flu, which is why I didn’t post at all yesterday. I’m up to reading again today, and found a few things to comment on.]

    Peter Kirk posts on the church congregation of which J. I. Packer is a member, which has voted to leave its diocese and join the southern cone. This is not in my denomination, but it is becoming a more and more common issue as various denominations turn leftward, and conservative congregations try to leave their denomination.

    There are two issues that concern me a great deal. The first is about the treatment of J. I. Packer. Now you don’t have to read more than a few posts to realize that I’m not very near J. I. Packer on the theological map. But I think those of us who are moderate to liberal in persuasion need to make sure that we treat people who disagree with us with a certain degree of respect. I am open to correction on this, but I fail to see where Dr. Packer has done anything to warrant this type of treatment. It appears to just be an attempt to silence him, and probably not a very effective one at that.

    But second, this reminds me of a number of cases in this country in which property issues have landed churches in court. Now I don’t see that happening here in this particular case, but in many cases here in the United States, congregations are winding up in court over church property. There is very little value, I think, if a denomination keeps a piece of property, but loses the members.

    When the dust has settled, and when we all stand before the great judgment seat of Christ, I don’t want to be the one who took a congregation to court over property issues. I can see some technical justification, but I think with Paul that we should say “It would be better to let yourselves be cheated and robbed” (1 Corinthians 6:7 CEV).

    Where we have to separate in terms of congregations and denominations, we should all be able to agree to make a maximum effort to do so in a Christ-like manner, at least as much as is possible when disuniting. (Christ-like schism? Is that possible? Maybe it’s the flu!)

    From a Christian point of view this treatment of Dr. Packer seems to come from the same angle. It looks like a rather unChrist-like attempt to score points because someone annoys you. Liberals should be in favor of openness. More importantly, Christians should treat one another with respect, and treat an elder with due respect. This looks like scoring cheap points.

    Update: Can I use the illness excuse again? I somehow missed the fact that there is a property issue in this case. So it is more precisely an example of the issue I’m talking about here.

  • Totally Restored (I Presume!)

    Everything should be back in place now. I found some additional glitches, including several posts with zeroed out dates (that puts them in 1969, which is miraculous!), but I think things are working again.