womanatwell

IC--Irreducibly Connected

2012-02-05T07:30:00.024-05:00

The Indiana Senate passed a bill, SB 89, to allow the instruction of Creationism into the classroom. The Discovery Institute, which is the foremost think tank for Intelligent Design Theory (sometimes known as ID), condemns the bill as bad science and bad education. They think evolution should be taught, but also that persons should be allowed to bring up flaws in the theory. The Creation in question is probably that called Young Earth Creationism, in which some people believe God created the Earth around 6 to 14 thousand years ago.

I disagree with the Discovery Institute. I think we should have long ago come to the realization there are irreconcilable differences between Americans when it comes to our various religions (or lack thereof) and science.

Though the Discovery Institute has been the victim of abuse by the leaders of today's scientific community, they are willing to heap abuse on an even more vilified group, the Young Earth Creationists. They may not intend to be demeaning, and perhaps are even trying to help. But they are not very farsighted if this is the plan.

Our country is based on freedom of religion. We are getting far afield, acting as though we believe it was founded on scientific political correctness. Please remember, not all scientific theories are right. Albert Einstein at one time believed the universe had been infinite, without a beginning. He even fudged a calculation to make his math fit his theory. But he was proven wrong by astronomers, primarily Edwin Hubble, who confirmed that the Universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning, now called the Big Bang. Why is this a lesson that never seems to sink in?

If the Discovery Institute had been around when Einstein theorized the Universe was infinite, are they saying children had to be taught that's the way it is because Albert Einstein said so? This is when the children's believed the Universe had not been infinite, but they would be faced by authority figures who taught something against their own faith. And then later Einstein was proven wrong. Are we to say evolution is right, except it's OK to question it? The people at the Design Institute are themselves pandering to the politically correct scientific culture. If evolution is only one of various theories, it should be presented as such and the beliefs of others should be acknowledged from the start.

Though I talk here of whether a theory is correct, it is a separate but even more important matter that some Americans believe it is correct. As long as the religion of the person includes creationism, it is a matter of freedom of religion. Catholic bishops are recently incensed over an attempt by the government to impose insurance rulings on Church institutions. They say it goes against religious freedom. But where are they when the government has walked all over other denominations in demanding that evolution and only evolution be taught in the nation's public schools?

The Discovery Institute often presents the argument that the Supreme Court has already decided that Creationism is to be kept from the classroom. But there are hundreds of thousands of people marching every year in Washington DC to reverse the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade in which abortion has been made legal. Writers from the Discovery Institute grouse regularly over the decision of US District Judge John Jones in the Dover, PA, trial but hold as unchangeable the Supreme Court decision. Maybe they have their reasons in their own agendas. They regularly talk about the Old Earth and fossils of millions of years old. Perhaps they are unwilling to stretch their abilities in order to consider others with different points of view, such as Young Earth Creationists.

"Irreducible complexity" is a phrase coined by one of Intelligent Design's proponents, Michael Behe. It is time to recognize that many people's belief systems are irreducibly connected to science. Faith forms our biology theories as it forms our laws and political systems. Some unabashedly start right from their Sacred Text and go from there. This is something the laws must reconcile, and not just collapse under the pressure of anti-religion groups who claim this teaching would be unconstitutional. The government enforces anti-religious views on students in the classroom--those whose mothers are unable to home-school them, that is. This is a large part of our population which is treated thus.

I know that to bring Creation Science into the classroom would be messy. People don't like it when they have to cope with other people's conceptions of truth. For example, those who believe in evolution don't want to think about design. But who are the intelligent ones? The persons who can understand only one point of view, or those who can see a variety of possibilities? Isn't that what scientific exploration is about?

Contraception vs. Abortion

2012-01-25T08:22:00.060-05:00

The US bishops are fighting a mandate right now by the government to make them allow for contraceptives in their employee's insurance coverage. That is about preventive health care and I don't want to address that issue here. Plenty of others are--it is all over the news. But I am concerned about the whole attitude of the magisteria about contraception which feeds into this battle.

I'd like to say a little about barrier contraception, which would include the condom, diaphragm and perhaps both together, Natural Family Planning (NFP) type of birth control which is the one and only the Church approves, and abortive type contraceptives.

The NFP is apparently as effective as many other forms of birth control when used correctly. NFP does not use barriers or pills, but counts on female cycles, with daily checks of temperature and other physiology. However, it absolutely requires abstinence at certain times in a woman's monthly cycle, such as perhaps, if a woman is irregular, on one’s honeymoon.

Artificial contraceptives are supposedly the reason for sex outside of marriage. Does it occur to anyone that NFP could be used outside of marriage? It’s like the often heard, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Human beings are the ones that sin, not the birth control method. Yet I truly doubt if NFP is used much outside marriage, even though it would be virtually without cost. That might give us an idea of its convenience.

Studies have come out that say about 98% of Catholic sexually active women use contraceptives other than NFP. At my church and at a class at my college, the people who taught NFP had at least 5 children. They perhaps wanted large families, but I'd rather be taught by a couple who was married 30 years and had zero or one child that they could confirm they planned for. People are busy these days, and perfection, as you need with the NFP method, can be hard to come by.

There are issues for the Church magisteria to legitimately decide, but in my opinion they could be doing a better role in leadership here. They have allowed that some family planning is OK (hence the NFP). Still, their tone is begrudging, and elsewhere the teachings give the impression of pressure to keep having children whether you can cope with them or not.

If bishops would go back to the drawing board and make more of a distinction between barrier contraceptives and abortive ones, they would show their understanding toward women who find NFP an unwieldy choice. These are the very women who spend hours of their time working for the Church institutions in question, such as hospitals and universities, yet are supposed to also let every sexual encounter be an occasion for another huge responsibility. Perhaps both women and men faithful would more seriously consider the bishop's teachings in the Church's fight against abortion if the authority felt greater sensitivity toward their flocks. Yes, children are wonderful, and many couples deeply want as many as they can naturally have. But some couples have limits, and those limits seem to be remembered one minute and forgotten the next. The women especially are judged when they are different than others. Some women do not feel the call to bear many children and it seems as unfair to pressure them to have them as it would be to pressure those who want children to not have them. I realize there are complications when it comes to unnatural methods of either prevention or inducement of pregnancy and we need to discuss them. But if modern science is used to prevent miscarriage, then I think it is not unreasonable it should be allowed for prevention of pregnancy.

The Church does not force individuals to become priests (although at one time that may have been true). Young men are asked to discern their calling directly from God, not from the bishops. So it should be recognized about all of us. It is not logical for us to think that even the bishops know each gift for every person in their diocese and how they may best be used.

More than to careers or parenthood, God calls all Christians to be evangelists. Many feel they evangelize by a "regular" job or by guiding their children, but there are other paths. The Church may be concerned about the number of souls being born, but these days, children born to Catholics do not automatically become Christians. They must be directly evangelized, and more and more, re-evangelized. The culture has led many away from faith, and it takes effort on all our parts to work against that tide. Some women may become evangelists in a way other than physical parenthood, and not just in convents. Though God's command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, priests and nuns do not feel compelled to do so. There are other considerations, and I believe decisions about reproduction for a married couple are similarly nuanced.

Unfortunately, the contraceptives are often defended by groups that desire abortion also. These persons, both male and female, I believe have similar tunnel vision but in a different direction. The Church has said life begins at conception, and I agree. The profound dignity the Lord gives to life is worthy of our greatest respect. We are in deep trouble not only in our country, but more importantly in our Church. It is vital to be concerned whether contraceptives actually prevent conception or abort a fertilized egg. There are disagreements what the pill does in this regard. With all our modern science, we should be able to find out whether abortion may occur. If any pill causes abortion, it should not be used by Christians. But we must remember we have a pluralistic society and not everyone agrees when life starts. Some Christians do not even think abortion is termination of human life, and so it is important to convince people that life begins at conception, such as they do with ultrasounds on fetuses, rather than denigrate aborters.

I am not talking about a political-type compromise of contraception vs. abortion. However, if this were a political issue it would be obvious that this is the answer: barrier contraception is acceptable, abortion isn’t. But we are talking about getting to what is right, and I think the same answer applies. We use modern science to make medicines such as we use to prevent miscarriage, and the Church has recognized there can be a limit to resources so that family planning is necessary. To deny that barrier contraception is acceptable is to risk, or should I say continue, insensitivity to people's real lives. There may be many root causes for Christian women who either use contraceptives or have abortions. I've certainly seen a broad spectrum of speculation on why it is happening, and we need to communicate with each other within our faith. The Church took way too long to change its attitude over slavery. It took (and is still taking) the leadership way too long to take action against sexual predators. And it is taking way too long for the leadership to treat women equally.

The diaphragm is not as convenient as the pill, but perhaps if women demanded better methods of barrier contraceptives, they would come about. Yes, there may be some extramarital sex with contraceptives, but my guess is that most of the large percentages of sexually active Catholic women who use contraceptives are trying to deal with the many demands made upon them and the challenges they want to meet successfully. Modern science has brought about contraceptives as they are now. In my opinion, by saying women can't use them at all and that every sex act must be open to reproduction, the Church tried to mandate behavior in a way that drove many women away from the Church itself rather than help them cope with real life. We must be respectful of all life. The divide between what bishops are saying and millions of Catholic women are doing does not go unnoticed by the general public. That is a detriment to our unity and witness, both of which are critical to evangelization.

Joe Paterno, 1926-2012

2012-01-23T14:04:00.011-05:00

Now that former Penn State coach Joe Paterno passed away (1-22-2012), I want to add a few thoughts to the ones I've given right after the scandal at Penn State broke out in November of last year (see links to my posts in the Sunday Snippets post here). This involved sexual molestation charges against a former assistant coach who was still using Penn State facilities but had resigned several years earlier. A witness told Joe about it, who then told his boss, the athletic director. However, nothing happened for nine years, and when the details finally broke in the media, the public was furious. In the end, the University president, the athletic director and Joe Paterno were all fired from their jobs.

Many think Joe was treated badly by the University Board, citing all the good he had done, not only in winning football games, but contributing money and encouraging education. But others agreed with the Board's actions.

Paterno had offered to retire at the end of the season. At the time, I felt Paterno should be fired, but after thinking about it, perhaps the board should have come to him. They might have said, retire immediately, not at the end of the season, and we won't fire you. The transition would not have been perfect, but it might have acknowledged all the good Joe had done in the past. No one would have forgotten why Joe left when he did.

Paterno himself had said about the scandal that he wished he had done more. In his last interview, he said he didn't know what to do about the situation. I believe that, and hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. Life can be complicated, and often we try to get away with things by ignoring them. Sometimes that works (we don't get in trouble, that is), and sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately, other people may be getting hurt by our inaction.

The main point is that people can be very highly regarded, and even for good reason. They may raise a great deal of funds for good causes, and influence young people for good. Yet they are not perfect. No person on Earth, no matter how great his or her acts, has been perfect except One. Joe couldn't earn his way to heaven, nor can I. Romans 3:27 says, What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. (New American Bible, USCCB website).

We have been redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ so that if we believe in Him, we may enter His kingdom. That puts us on the same field, but we're not just playing a game.

New Secretary General

2012-01-20T08:39:00.028-05:00

On the Vatican News, there was an announcement about a new Secretary-General for the Southern African Bishop's Conference. Her name is Sister Hermenegild Makoro. She talked about all the work women do for the church and how the bishops there have seen it and recognized it. It is very good to know they have appreciated the work of women in the Church and are showing it in a significant way.

Sister Makoro said she thinks there are two other women Secretary-Generals of Bishop's Conferences: one in the Nordic countries and another in New Zealand. Though three in the world is not a lot, it is a high post and we can only hope there will be more on the way.

Now I'm one of those Catholics who think we should not restrict priests to men. I know it is supposed to be for theological reasons. But is it possible some theology, like some science, is rationalized? (For the rationalization of multi-universe theory by scientists, see my previous post about Stephen Hawking's birthday.)

I have read that the understanding by some theologians of the choice of 12 men for apostles was that it symbolized the 12 tribes of Israel. Isn't there possible symbolism in that before the grave, the 12 men who stood for the tribes of Israel also represented the Law God gave to Moses?

But after the grave, when Jesus arose from the dead, He showed Himself first to women. Before, there was the Law, and Israel considered itself the only people of God. But after Christ's victory, all humanity could potentially be part of God's kingdom. As Paul told us, we could not overcome sin with the Law: 19 Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God, 20 since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. (Romans 3:19,20, New American Bible, Revised Edition from the USSCB website). It is through Christ we are saved. Paul summarizes in 1 Corinthians 15: 57 But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (NAB).

Maybe I rationalize theology too. I can not help but think men want to keep power-making decisions to themselves. But in equality theology, men and women would have equal stature and work together, and in fact be servants of each other, as Christ has said we should. In fact, He has said that if we want to lead, we should serve.

Yet I do think there have been sincere wishes to see the people of Church produce souls for God, meaning, in effect, women stay home and have children. I want to always put Christ first, and to hold evangelization ahead of women issues in the Church. But we must all strive to live as Christ wants us, and we continue to need to sort out what that entails. We must remember that these days, children born to Catholics do not automatically become believers in God. And of course, we want to bring those who were not born in the Church to come to know Jesus. Our popes have called for a New Evangelization and all of us need to work together for the greater cause. Perhaps some women are meant to be full-time evangelists, and not only as nuns. We should have the freedom to follow what we discern as our call. It seems that is between the individual and God.

In Galatians 3, 26-28, Paul says, 26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (NAB).

It took Christians a while to realize persons did not have to be Jewish to be Christian. It took a longer time for them to come to grips with the fact that slavery was wrong. Christ told us to follow Him. How should women be treated?

Sister Hermenegild Makoro was already doing the work of the Church. I'm sure she is a humble and worthy servant, and I am so glad the bishops there have recognized that. May we all recognize each other's worth in our efforts to bring Christ to the world.

Stephen Hawking's Birthday

2012-01-19T10:33:00.010-05:00

The physicist Stephen Hawking celebrated his 70th birthday on January 8, 2012. It was a momentous occasion, since he has a disease with which many who have it do not live to this age. He is a distinguished professor and scientist, and his party was more of a symposium by other noted physicists. He wasn’t even there, but had a recording played of his thoughts. Then, as these scientists presented their discoveries, they brought him conclusions which he did not want to hear as noted in “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event” (New Scientist, January 11, 2012).

Physicists are known to change their minds from meeting to meeting, and the implications of the presenters are bound to be eventually argued. But whatever happens in the future, this was a milestone in the thinking of scientists who either believed or wanted to believe a multi-universe was inevitable, including Stephen Hawking. I understand he said as much on a recent PBS show about the universe (Stephen Hawking's Universe), although I admit I did not see the show.

The reason many physicists want to think or say this is true is because they know the chance for life starting by natural means in this universe are so enormously improbable that multi-verses were their only explanation. If there were infinite universes, at least one could come up with the necessary combinations of molecules to form life.

But now several scientists have published papers that analyze the various means by which multi-verses could exist or come about. A good description is here at Uncommon Descent. All of them need a beginning. According to this new view, there is no infinite universe or multi-verse.

It is significant that one of the physicists present was Alan Guth, well known for his inflationary theory of the universe in which the Big Bang was followed by a period of extremely large inflation. For years, he had been trying to calculate the probability of production of multi-verses from quantum fluctuations. But how can you use probability to figure something that destroys the significance of probability? He was listed as an author on one of the papers which now admits that the universe had a beginning.

Many of our disciplines, including quantum physics, thermodynamics and chemistry (mass action law) rely on probabilities. Max Planck discovered quantum physics by using the probability of energy radiating from various wavelengths of light. If probabilities mean nothing in this universe, then science itself is out the window.

Many are concerned that if we think of life and the universe as created, it will stop science. That is faulty logic. There are many things to be discovered about biology, the Earth, and stars. The more the better! There are enough things to give us awe for the rest of our days, and much work needed to dispel disease, hunger and war. This is plenty to fulfill our scientific quests. But it is not quite enough to fulfill our hearts. Where that emptiness has been, some persons let fear of the lack of total knowledge take over. They don’t realize belief and love of God is the only way to give them true contentment in this life.

There are other reasons for the denial of creation. It goes hand in hand with the denial of God's existence. Many humans stubbornly cling to the desire to be their own rulers, refusing to answer to a higher power. This is not new or restricted to scientists. It's just that scientists as a whole seem to be able to guide culture, especially these days, to accept their conclusions. Scientists must be right, right?

No, Stephen Hawking, a very smart and famous physicist, is being challenged by other very smart physicists. The lesson for others is to not let scientists as a group fool you into thinking they know it all. They often speculate in the way they want things to go, then call it fact.

Think now about origin of life and evolution.

Hope for Unity

2012-01-18T07:20:00.013-05:00

I said in my last post I would blog on Sunday mornings and talk about some of the things I thinking about putting in the book I am writing. But I remember my husband saying a long time ago that it is better not to talk too much about your writing--just write or it won't get done. I will try to take his advice, but that leaves other topics I am not putting in my book, at least for the time being.

I said I would talk about things that make me angry. After thinking about it, I realized that was not probably a good way of putting it, so I'm not waiting for Sunday to type a correction. The word "angry" itself starts a feeling of alienation which is the opposite of what I want to do. I want to help others see the love and truth of God, and the non-believing world is often sceptical about Christ because of the bad behavior of Christians. It seems it is not a good approach to tell them all they are doing wrong, or at least telling them in an aggressive way. I realize Christians can't completely overlook what we think is sinful, but we can try to be consistently loving. This will of course be a challenge for me, and I assume is for most of us.

John Paul II among others have said it is not only necessary to evangelize, but to re-evangelize. This means we need to help Catholics and other Christians to regain the zeal for Christ. Then there is the case of people who are very zealous about religion but have different ideas of it than we do. Therefore, there are many different kinds of people out there we should reach out to for a meeting of minds. Many of us would love to see Christian unity. To my surprise, I found Pope Benedict XVI just began the annual week for prayer for Christian Unity.

It's amazing how emotional we can get when we simply disagree with someone. They might not be physically threatening, yet their thinking in a certain way sets us off. But perhaps we perceive they do threaten us in our livelihoods, as in class struggles, or personal freedom, as in certain Church laws. I've talked about my thoughts on God's creative power, and I would like to cover other things as well. Though I don't like to argue, believe it or not, I think we should deal with diverse controversial topics such as evolution, contraception and women's' ordination. With all these subjects, I'd much rather discuss and try to get to the best answer than to be disdained or feel the same against someone else. We don't want the disagreements splitting us apart. Perhaps it is naive to hope for resolutions, but isn't that what all our writing and speaking is about? We express our views and I hope listen to others.

We have our work ahead of us to understand as well as promote Christianity. I will pray and continually try to increase my love of Christ and fellow humans within myself.

Unto Others Here

2012-01-15T06:31:00.017-05:00

It's a Sunday morning. We'd been lucky with the weather so far this winter, but looks like we've gotten about a foot in the last 3 days. Time to get out the snowblower and roof-scraper. Oh, well. It will give us some excercise this afternoon after church and dinner.

I always think I have something to write on my blog during the week, but don't get to it. So I decided to try to leave Sunday morning for that when I get on the internet and look around for news and comics, but don't feel like working on my current book. So I'll see if it works out. I want to put things in my books that I feel strongly about, but maybe it would be good to work out some thoughts as I try to get the right tone. Mostly I get angry about some of the things going on in our Church and country, and I don't want my books to be angry. I want my books to be a means for people to move forward. I know what I think is right makes others angry. We've somehow got to move past that, but it sure isn't easy.

I was at a friend's place last night and her daughter was showing me her facebook page. She also had made a page for her mother. They said neither of them added much to their pages and my friend said she tells everyone there to either e-mail or call her. Is it me, or is that not worth making the page in the first place? I'm not on facebook. I like my blog, but if I am ever to get a book published, I may be there. That is a big IF anyway.

Which reminds me that I have taken my book, Unto Others, off the right-hand column of my blog. Please disregard previous posts that say it is there. I still want to offer it free, but I might try to get it published, and if I do, it will problaby be completely taken off the blog. That may be a long time in the future, or it may never happen. In the case it isn't published, I still want to have it available, but then again still want to keep trying to get my book published. I hope you can follow what I'm saying. Anyway, you are free to read it as long as the link is here. The book I am writing now, which has yet to be named, I do not plan to self-publish. I will look for a publisher for it. That again could take a very long time or never happen, but as of this writing I do not plan to self-publish another book. I'm not much of a marketer and have found I just can't sell them on my own. I hope someday you will see my new books in print.

To get to the Google Doc (pdf) version, click here: Unto Others. As I've said before, it is "An Exceptional Read."

From womanatwell

May Peace and Love be Ours

2011-12-17T18:30:00.005-05:00

It's been snowing lightly all day, and we have our first real layer of snow on the ground. Now it's dark, but Christmas light decorations from surrounding neighbors shine their various shapes and give enough illumination for us to see the snow. It's a peaceful, pretty scene.

We are blessed in many ways, and pray for blessings for others. Though our house is small, it is nice and warm. We have had a good dinner and trust we will have plenty to eat for our Christmas holiday meal. We live in a relatively safe place in the world.

We Christians have a wonderful, loving God. I pray we may be pleasing to Him, to work as much as we can through our hurts and divisions to be the followers He wants us to be.

I pray we may have a peaceful, content, loving Christmas.

The Woman at the Well

2011-12-11T14:01:00.007-05:00

As you might realize from the name of the blog, one of my favorite Bible stories is the woman at the well in John 4. Jesus came upon a Samaritan woman who was drawing water from a well and asked her for some. She was shocked, because for a Jewish man to be talking with a Samaritan woman was doubly unthinkable. Jews did not talk with Samaritans and there was a religious restriction against men talking with women. Beyond that, she had had 5 husbands, which Christ knew and told her so. Yet, Christ was willing to engage her. He probably spoke with both gentleness and authority. He told her the water He shall give would satisfy so that she would never again be thirsty. How could she not be both awestruck and curious?

He announced to her that He was the Messiah Jews were waiting for. She understood and went to her people. How did the townspeople see the woman who had lived with so many men and even a sixth one now? It must have been something of God's miracle that at least some of them listened to her at all. Yet Jesus Christ allowed her to be one of his first evangelists, and many of the townspeople were saved through following her call to come and hear Him. They did listen to Him and believed.

There is disdain for what some call "Cafeteria Catholics," that they pick and choose rules of the Church instead of "towing the line." It seems even though we each are supposed to have different gifts to give to the Church, somehow we are to fit in one mold. Naturally, some doctrines are non-negotiable in the Church. But it seems some of the problems come when individual persons are not seen as respectable in their own desires or interpretations of what God is calling them to do.

Some don't want people to be too different from them, or they might have to stretch their interior understandings to try to meet other people half-way in trying to see their side of things. This takes time and effort. It's much easier to tell other people to conform.

It's no wonder many of the Jewish leaders of the time didn't like Jesus. Though He said he did not come to abolish the Law, there were many times He did not conform to what they expected. Even His disciples, who loved Him, were often baffled. In the John 4 story, they were amazed when they came upon Him talking with this Samaritan woman.

The people and the leadership of our Church I'm sure are trying to do the right things. But sometimes we have to stop and consider that more discernment on certain points may be needed. We in fact do that with Church Councils and things do slowly change. So let's, instead of calling people "Cafeteria Catholics," engage in the deeper issues of where we think differences and change may be valid and encourage development rather than peer pressure to fit in a rigid mold.

Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival 12/11/11

2011-12-10T08:49:00.012-05:00

Welcome! It's been a while since I've checked out Catholic Carnival or had a link to it. I'm glad to see so many bloggers taking advantage of the connection. I've decided to try to write a book again, and since I don't multi-task too well, my blogging has become very limited.

However, the recent events of the Penn State scandal have caused me to reflect on the blog about certain aspects of it, especially since I went to that school. I thought I would share them. Links are in the posts of the accusations of sexual misconduct against the former assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky. As most of you probably know, these led to the firing of long-time coach Joe Paterno. It is not unlike the struggle that those in the Catholic Church continue to suffer even when they have nothing to do with the alleged or proven cases of sexual abuse. To be both Catholic and a Penn State alumnus is a double dose of shock. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Animal Science from there.

Sad, Not Mad

A Terrible Time

The Victims

Changing Story

Penn State Alienation

The link to the Catholic Carnival host site is here at This, That and the Other Thing. To get to the Sunday Snippets post, click here.

May you all have a blessed holiday season.

Mind Changing

2011-12-10T06:51:00.010-05:00

Well, leave it to a woman to change her mind. I had decided to leave comments open, but after seeing some pretty filthy language languish on comments from another blog, I've decided to go back to moderating. I don't get many comments anyway. It's just the principle of the thing. (Sorry if I sound whiny. I know it's unfair to expect comments when I'm not blogging much or commenting on other blogs. I'd like to post more, but I'm working on writing another book and, unlike many others, find it hard to do both.)

Bad language is everywhere, and it bothers me even to read books or watch TV shows that have it. Unfortunately, I sometimes still do that or I'd hardly have any entertainment available. Nevertheless, I'm trying to move away from all entertainment with foul language, and I don't use it myself. I don't want it bouncing around in my brain being ready for use at any moment. I neither use it in my conversation or my writing. I try to read Christian writers, but I like mysteries and have a limited number of "favorite" authors. Anyway, I heartily invite anyone reading my blog to comment, but I sincerely hope you can do it without swearing.

The significance of "damn" and "hell" are scary to someone who fears God. Some say "fear" in this sense is just a word to mean respect, and I agree that is one of the aspects. But I also think there is real potential for separation from God after death, and that should bring fear to any heart.

I'm not saying I have been perfect by any means. But now I am trying to follow God the best I can. I believe that using pure speech is one of the ways to do that.

Penn State Alienation

2011-12-03T05:25:00.014-05:00

While suffering through the Penn State mess, I reflect on the problems of institutions of "higher" learning. I know I can't begin to imagine what it takes to keep a university going on the scale of this one. Yet I have had experience on the Internet and with a few colleges and their personnel when it comes to making presentations about Intelligent Design theory (ID). Though grinding their teeth to make themselves accept one presentation at a religion-science seminar, they wanted to hear no more. Some had been polite, others not so much.

I admit I'm not an expert on genetic research which goes at so fast a rate that few can keep up with all of it. Yet design seems obvious even at very basic levels. At my presentation, no one questioned the science. It was the theology, in my opinion, which made some uncomfortable.

Our institutions have become embarrassed about simple Christianity. Religion is still OK if presented in far-out Far Eastern terms, such as blending of consciousness and the universe. It's OK to talk about materialistic evolution where nature's laws are all that is needed to create everyone and everything. It's OK to study the Testaments as mythic historical stories. But let anyone talk about even the possibility of the God of the Bible directly creating the world, he or she is avoided like the plague.

I have written about changing my point of view from ID to Creationism, because even ID adherents have problems about admitting the theory has anything to do with religion. It is about science, they say, even though individuals may have their own religious views. Science appears to be the "higher" part of the institutions to which we refer. Higher, they seem to hold it, than God Himself.

We all know the research at colleges and universities has had great impact on our world. But not all they do is so momentous or good. Last summer, Penn State scientists came out with a theory that aliens may attack Earth to stop us from killing ourselves through global warming. I think I saw that in a movie somewhere which is where they probably got the idea. So-called scientists can have any theory imaginable (the multi-universe theory is another example), but just approach a student group about the design in nature and you are cut off cold.

Perhaps this "Alien Theory" is to shore up scepticism which is due to a continuing scandal. One of Penn State's professors, Michael Mann, has been accused of doctoring data to prove dangerous, presumably man-made, global warming exists. The release of e-mails between him and other scientists a few years ago has been supplemented by more recent ones. Huge amounts of money are involved in grants for research in this area. I'm no expert, but I read some of the e-mails and they don't look innocent to me. Human nature is the same whether it be in scientists or Wall Street traders (and it can be good or bad in both).

How does one get back to what is morally right? Even preachers have their problems, but if they are in church for the right reason, they know they are sinners and they need the Foundation, yes--Jesus Christ, to get them back on the right path. He is what the leaders of Penn State and any institution need in order to have the wisdom and courage to make the right decisions.

Philosophers try to root moral answers based strictly in human reason, and it doesn't work. Why should a sexual predator worry about whether he is hurting someone else? What makes the other's feelings more important than his own? Why should a scientist care more about accurate data than millions of dollars he gets for his research project? It's not what Aristotle or Plato said thousands of years ago, or what human beings alone can make of their thoughts now.

What really matters is what God says. He speaks through His Word and His works. That is, through the Bible and the beautiful design of nature. Though not everyone will be willing to listen, institutions of higher learning would do well to study them both in the way they are meant to be.

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-21T08:23:00.003-05:00

I've been writing about Penn State lately, so I thought it would be appropriate to add that I was sorry to hear of Joe Paterno's lung cancer. I hope he can overcome the disease. He and his family have had a topsy-turvy life in the last few months and I wish them well.

I pray for everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. I hope we can all be renewed by appreciating our wondrous blessings in this country despite all our problems. May we also have increased efforts to love and share as the Christmas season comes upon us.

Changing Story

2011-11-17T07:08:00.008-05:00

I recently wrote a post, among others, which described some of the Penn State scandal that is being discussed far & wide. At that time, Mike McQueary, an assistant coach who said he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually molest a young boy, had not said, publicly or to a Grand Jury, that he contacted police after he saw it. Many people assumed he did not contact police, but now he says he did. Police are denying they have any reports of it.

It's easy to jump to conclusions when a Grand Jury report is presented to the public with such explosive implications. Many have called for McQueary's firing, and I agree. McQueary now says he acted in the right way at the time and reported the issue to police and Joe Paterno. For Paterno's part, it was upon him to investigate whether the accusations were true or false. We can imagine how difficult that would be for Joe after working with Sandusky all that time, but Paterno was a leader and needed to do what leaders must do. But as for McQueary, was he bound to do more?

If he did indeed do those things he now says he did, either the Grand Jury report is lacking completeness or the police were the culprits. It will probably take time, an unfolding of events, a legal process, for truth, or as close as we can get to truth, to come out. It is human to react emotionally in the first comprehension of a terrible disclosure, as I and others did. But we eventually must overcome the emotions to give others a hearing.

If McQueary was a worker in some less-visible job, it would be easier for him to keep it until the necessary time went by. Even then, he may have trouble with fellow workers. But unfortunately he is in a very visible place, one which may be unnerving to the students and other who work with him even if he is legally innocent. But that is not all. Being legally innocent still doesn't explain why he didn't follow up on why Sandusky wasn't being arrested, when nothing seemed to be happening. Maybe the police and Paterno weren't responding, if that is what was going on. Yet he still had the news media and police of higher jurisdictions with whom to appeal.

Though my emotions are more level and I realize he was in a terrible situation, I think that unless McQueary continued to seek police investigation in a way we don't know about, he should resign as coach of Penn State football or be let go by the administrators. It is not to say he can't repent of his failings to the Lord, because we all have to do that, and work on where his life may turn to do good. But we all must take sin very seriously. Life is not a game.

The Victims

2011-11-12T08:09:00.014-05:00

I've had a few posts where I wrote about the Penn State scandal. I graduated from there and am very saddened by the whole sordid affair. However, though I've expressed ideas about guilt and sin, I need to also talk about the victims. I happen to have met two adult persons who were molested by family members in childhood. They are not related to me or each other, and I don't know them well. But I know enough to realize they are still dealing with their trauma. One struggles with very severe psychological symptoms which come and go. The other acted out in anti-authoritarian ways in early life, and though coming to a more mature way of handling problems, still acutely feels the personal violation.

An assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, is alleged to have sexually accosted a minor on the premises of Penn State. Another coach alleges to have seen him and reported it to Joe Paterno. Paterno reported it to another superior, and up the line. But throughout, supposedly no one called the police or any other regulatory agency.

A lawyer for one of the alleged victims of retired assistant coach Jerry Sandusky said they were worried about a backlash, since Joe Paterno was fired over the controversy. For one thing, Penn State students rioted after the announcement that he was fired after a 46-year career as head coach of the football team there. Probably some bloggers and others backed Paterno, against the University's decision to let him go, to go on with his job or at least finish out the season.

Though I'm talking in ideal terms here, victims of sexual abuse should not have to worry about further victimization. Society and the people in power need to take a stand for them, even if others are not sensitive enough to realize the abused take the priority over prestige, money and the ever-encompasing sports culture. Governors and trustees must see the victims' worth even if they themselves have been de-sensitized to it. I think the trustees did the right thing in terminating Joe Paterno and the University President. They should also have fired Mike McQueary, another assistant coach and the man who allegedly saw Sandusky in the act. (He says he saw it. Why would McQueary say he saw it if he didn't? But if for some twisted reason he lied about seeing it, that would mean he lied to a Grand Jury in which case he should still be fired.)

We have a long way to go to know what to best do for children and adult victims of abuse, or even to find out who they are. People obviously lie to cover their deeds and even if we want to know, we are not all detectives. We could probably all benefit from lessons on how to spot them, because not all assistant coaches, priests or boy or girl scout leaders are abusers. Let us all hope, though, that if we see someone sexually molested with our own eyes, we will get out our phones and call 911.

Working on Comments

2011-11-12T07:09:00.009-05:00

I just got a surprise by looking at comments in my blog "published comments" section. There are comments there I've never seen. I had it set up that comments be automatically sent for moderation to my husband's blog and mine by e-mail, but our e-mail address changed a while ago and I just figured out I changed the e-mail address setting on his blog but not mine.

I still don't see the comments on my blog even though the settings say they are published. So if you sent a comment that was meant for my blog and it didn't come through, I'm sorry for the problem. Though I'm not an expert, I will try to correct the situation to make sure the comments come through in the future. I'm very thankful for your notes and interest.

I've decided to allow comments without moderation and see how it works out. I'll also change the comments from a pop-up box to a list under the post. I think I can still delete messages this way and I reserve the right to do so with any I deem inappropriate. I hope we will all try, even in emotional issues, to find ways to communicate and come to better understandings.

A Terrible Time

2011-11-09T17:58:00.007-05:00

I've been brooding over the Penn State mess, since for one thing I am reminded of it whenever I turn on the TV for news. It's Wednesday evening, and Joe Paterno says he will resign at the end of the season. Much will happen in the next few days, and more heads will probably roll.

I do pray for any victims of aggression that may be suffering at this time. I don't know what is true as far as the allegations, but I can pray to God to help and heal anyone who needs it.

I graduated from Penn State, and also from University of Pennsylvania. Today I happened on a speech given by Archbishop Charles Chaput, who is outspoken about the right to life and was just moved to Philadelphia, which has had its own problems with sex scandal in Church schools. His speech is found here, and it is worth reading.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, these quotes are very worth your while:

The University of Pennsylvania’s motto is Leges sine moribus vanae. It means “Laws without morals are useless.” All law has moral content. It’s an expression of what we “ought” to do. Therefore law teaches as well as regulates. Law always involves the imposition of somebody’s judgments about morality on everyone else. That’s the nature of law. But I think the meaning of Penn’s motto goes deeper than just trying to translate beliefs into legislation. Good laws can help make a nation more human; more just; more noble. But ultimately even good laws are useless if they govern a people who, by their choices, make themselves venal and callous, foolish and self-absorbed.

And:

The deepest kind of revolution never comes from violence. Even politics, important as it is, is a poor tool for changing human hearts. Nations change when people change. And people change through the witness of other people—people like each of you reading this. You make the future. You build it stone by stone with the choices you make. So choose life. Defend its dignity and witness its meaning and hope to others. And if you do, you’ll discover in your own life what it means to be fully human.

We all are faced with difficult decisions. We must ask ourselves what is most important. I am often upset by the way women are treated in the Church, and I wish the Bishops would find in their hearts to value us more. But it is not all about women, it is about all of us. It is not all about life on Earth, it's also about life in Heaven.

It's a double whammy to be associated with Penn State and the Catholic Church if there is any guilt by association. But that's the thing--we are all guilty of sin. Some seems more disgusting because it attacks children on an obscene level. But if life starts at conception, what about abortion? What about the pill if it kills an otherwise healthy embryo? What about in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic screening for imperfections in which embryos are discarded? Though it is not wrong to be scandalized by the sins of others, we must also pray our eyes be opened to our own.

Mississippi just voted against person-hood starting at conception. This is the first time I've been informed that life is based on votes. I've heard some were concerned about repercussions associated with medicine and IVF. If an embryo is life, there should be no question about side issues. They should revolve around the embryo's person-hood.

This is a terrible time for many. But we do have a Leader who was perfect on Earth and is able to guide us through the murky darkness. We must keep our eyes on Him, keep praying, keep hoping. It is the only way to get clean and clear. He is the only way to the Light.

Sad, Not Mad

2011-11-06T07:53:00.009-05:00

I am a Penn State grad, and as you may know, a story came out this week about a possible cover-up over alleged sexual predator charges against Jerry Sandusky. He was the football team's defensive coordinator at Penn State for a long time, and then left to run a camp. You can read a story about it here in the NY Times, though it is in virtually all papers this morning.

Part of the outrage that is bound to emerge would concern the supposed integrity that Penn State's coach, Joe Paterno, has espoused over the years. Though Penn State has had troubled players like most teams, Paterno emphasized academic achievement and character as part of his program.

No matter the outcome of this affair, unfortunately in this world there are many things to be outraged about. The seemingly unending revelations about priests sexually molesting their young charges, the cover-up by bishops, the unwillingness of the higher-ups to clear up and clear out the victimizers.

Now German Bishops are caught red-handed in a scandal wherein a Catholic-owned book publishing business has been found to sell pornographic material.

In a way I'd like to bask in holier-than-thou vindictiveness toward the male-dominated Church authority. I feel they are unfair to women, and if women had the equality in the Church they should, these things would not get out of hand as much as they do. But, women have their sins as well as men, and my own shows in the very vindictiveness I here confess.

These crimes and alleged crimes still must be revealed, purged, and payed for in whatever way is best. But I believe it is important for all of us to take the path that many before us have summarized simply as "hate the sin, love the sinner." As simple as it is said it is vastly beyond difficult to do. Yet it is our job as Christians to lead others to Christ, whether others are non-believers or believers who have somehow gotten themselves entangled in horrible things.

There's an interesting column at Uncommon Descent in which a radio-cast of Frank Turek asks why atheists are so angry (if you are so-inclined, you can hear the audio and read comments to it here). The context of Uncommon Descent is that biology displays evidence of design, but they have gotten off the subject here. My own conclusion in this context is that atheists, non-Darwinists, Darwinists, IDists and Christians all seem capable of hurling insults at each other. I believe it is true in other contexts as well, such as male authority in the Church. In my opinion, it is human to be angry with those who disagree with us, and my own blog shows past entries where I blew my cool. What Christians should remember, is that our purpose is not to pull all stops just to win an argument, but remember that each person with whom we are engaging is one we want to help experience the love and holiness of Jesus Christ, just as we want that for ourselves. I think to do this we need to ask God's grace and strength. He is merciful, and I believe He has already helped me. I pray he continues to do so.

Free Again

2011-10-16T08:12:00.002-04:00

Well, I had a job for a while, but it was paid by a grant that lasted about 5 months, so I'm on the street again. Fortunately, not literally, but without a job anyway. I have written two books which I self-published, and I got an idea for another one, so I am working on that now. I guess writers never give up hope, and maybe someday I can publish this if all goes well. The other two I self-published because of a variety of factors. My husband also wrote a historical novel which he self-published. But neither of us are marketers, and though we sold some, we have gone that route often enough for now.

One of my self-published books, Unto Others, is free from this website. You will find it free on the right column in .pdf file format. It is a mystery set in West Michigan. It's also available in a few libraries in my area, which makes me happy that people are at least reading it.

Faith First

2011-10-02T06:44:00.010-04:00

This past week a certain cartoon mentioned evolution and how it is supposedly the basis of all understanding of biology. The cartoonist is wrong. One of the foundations of biology is the biological cell and we find more of how its amazing structure works every day. It is truly irreducibly complex, as the people who promote Intelligent Design Theory say. Another, more important, foundation for biology is that God created it.

The cartoon is part of the cultural world at work. A prevailing cultural idea is that science rules. Or in a variation of the preceding, science gurus say if you must have faith at all, it should be separate from scientific inquiry. I'm becoming more and more confirmed in my belief that faith comes before science.

Persons who espouse Intelligent Design Theory (ID) say that religion has nothing to do with their work. They look only at the science, and design can be determined in a scientific way. This may be true, but there is a philosophical problem at the core. If certain (many) scientists refuse to allow the possibility that some things such as the biological cell may have been created supernaturally, the scientists will never give up looking for a totally material cause. Then the ID people have no chance of sharing their ideas in the scientific community. This, in fact, is what is happening and ID people seem to be unaware that their position of leaving religion out leads to just as much frustration as it would be to state their faith.

The ID people say that "anyone" or "anything" could have designed life. They do this to emphasize that science alone can prove that random movements of chemicals will not form into the complex systems that form the biological cell. They also are accused of saying this to try to sneak Creation into the classroom. This is another subject and I've already talked about it, so I won't belabor it much more in my blog. But if we believe God created, then we have the right to believe inside the classroom as well as outside it. I grieve for the wrongs done to the ideals of freedom of religion in this country and for the citizens who suffer because of it.

If you have the faith that God did it, that "anyone" is not just "anyone." It's better to just come out and state your faith. Not all ID people are Christian, and some even think the cell may have been made by aliens. But for Christians, we believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen. At least those who call themselves Creationists are willing to state their creeds.

That's why faith is first. Many if not most people who don't believe in God will not even give the benefit of the possibility that life was formed by anything but totally material, random means. I give credit to ID people in that their science is very good, and some people actually eventually see the logic and realize that neo-Darwinistic (totally materialistic and random) evolution is a very poor substitute. But for the rest that refuse to see, there is a gap that won't be bridged by science alone. They will always be looking for the material explanation, and they will always be either disappointed or kidding themselves. For Christians, why not say where they believe life comes from? Then the others may finally come to the real Truth.

Penn State Blues

2011-09-10T21:03:00.003-04:00

I'm sitting here Sept. 10 watching University of Michigan playing almost as dismally as Penn State did this afternoon. My husband got his engineering degree at Michigan and I got my animal science degree at Penn State. My mother, who is a die-hard PSU fan and has a great sense of humor, said she wanted to phone Joe Paterno and ask if he ever heard of sacking the other team's quarterback. Apparently she felt they had opportunities they never took. I told her that's something you would see on an Internet sports board. So, instead of that I'll put it on my blog. She's pretty safe since I don't get much traffic anyway.

In a large change of subject, my prayers go to all who will be at 9/11 services tomorrow. May you be safe, and may your grief be replaced with the peace of God which passes all understanding.

Studies in Heaven?

2011-09-02T10:59:00.008-04:00

When I first started this blog, I said there were three things I am especially interested in. They were: 1) Latin America and the Spanish language; 2) women's rights, especially in the church, and; 3) creationism and ID theory.

I find that as time goes on, my interests have shifted almost primarily to the third, as it concerns biology, evolution and creation. That has probably been reflected in the number of entries devoted to this subject from early on.

Biology is so fascinating that I can't tear myself from it even when I try. Of course, biology is crucial in understanding things like medicine and even psychology. But I am not involved in these endeavors and my interest is mainly from a perspective of being awed by God's abilities.

But sometimes I wonder, will biology be relevant in heaven? Will God reveal the history of his creative steps on Earth to us? Paul had said that our bodies will be different after death, and one wonders to what extent that will be. There is description in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 15 about this. Will we no longer care how long it took for our bodies to be formed on Earth or even how they work here?

I suppose those who have devoted their lives to study of these subjects may have hold-overs in heaven. They'd like to finally find out about confusing fossils, or which biological characteristics may have developed on their own and which had been affected directly by God. And perhaps with increased understanding we may be able to follow more of the systems of biology and see how it all works together. The earthly body is so remarkable that it would make good subject matter even in heaven.

The above Bible chapter is a powerful one in that at the end, Paul says we should stand firm and work for the Lord. God gives victory over death through Jesus Christ. As far as a person's interests go, this should be the priority, an organizing factor for which all other interests fall in their rightful place. It can be a little hard for each of us to discern how to do this best, but it is what I will try to do from now on.

Personal Evolution

2011-07-20T08:39:00.006-04:00

For the last few weeks I've had the time to catch up on my favorite blogs, Evolution News and Views and Darwin's God. I've learned about new discoveries concerning what used to be called "Junk DNA." The evolutionists told us these inter-gene regions were worthless leftovers from evolution. But now scientists are finding that these "pseudo-genes" do a lot of regulation of genes and other cell metabolism. Doctors believe they might be very important in future medical treatments for things like cancer suppression.

But those who are intent on proving total materialistic evolution (totally by chance) keep on coming up with arguments you wouldn't believe if you didn't see them. I won't go into all of them now. Follow the links to the blogs above if you are interested in details. I myself feel I am ready to move on in many ways from the evolution arguments.

Still, I pray for the people who devote their talents and dedication to the truth. I also pray for those who have been in the neo-Darwinian mindset for many years. It's easy to see why they would be--they are taught it in school and many scientists say it is true. But I believed neo-Darwian evolution myself until I started really thinking about it. I read a book by I. L. Cohen called Darwin was Wrong. It affected me greatly, but it wasn't enough. I had to be honest in my own heart. I had to be willing to think a different way, and that is not easy. That is what I ask people who have their doubts in this evolution debate to do.

I don't know how much more I will write about this subject. I have put much time into pictures and explanations, but there are many other things to explore. I think God's creation is absolutely fabulous and I marvel over it. When scientists ask what they should do about miracles, my answer is a resounding, "Praise the Lord!"

Keeping in Touch

2011-07-02T09:13:00.004-04:00

I have a few reasons for posting today. It's been a while since I've posted, so I thought I'd just say hi. So, hi there.

I wondered if I'd be closed down if I didn't post at least once in a while, so that is my second reason for posting.

The third is that there is getting to be so much evidence for design in nature that I've wondered if there are people out there that are finally realizing there might be something to the design arguments. If there is anyone who would like a sincere discussion, I'd be happy to engage. I'm not talking about know-it-all put-downs from either side. You know what I mean.

A very interesting book review of Jonathan Well's new book, The Myth of Junk DNA, can be found at The Procrustean blog. I've never seen this blog before, but I followed links from Evolution News and Views. That and Darwin's God blog by Cornelius Hunter are my favorite places to keep up on the design theories. Since I've gotten a job, I haven't put as much time into the debate as I used to. Actually, I haven't been as busy in my job as I thought I would, but it could change at any time. So I've been working on my house and getting ready for summer company. But I digress.

I don't agree with the theology of what I understand as the official Intelligent Design line. They say the designer has intelligence, but that is as far as they want to go (even though it is inevitable that they be asked who the designer is). I am a Creationist and say that I believe God created life. I can't go to church in the morning and proclaim I believe God created all things seen and unseen and in the afternoon go to an Intelligent Design workshop and agree that the designer could be anybody.

I'm not on social networks and realize I'm doing an obscure blog. But, I'm someone to talk with about what might be on your mind about this whole evolution/design/creation debate that is going on in our country and Europe and probably the whole world to some extent. If you find me and are interested, drop me a line.

Slow to Post

2011-03-26T10:54:00.003-04:00

As I have said before, I found a job and will now be working. This will keep me busy and I will probably not be posting very much in my blog anymore, at least for a while. I blogged a lot about science and how I think it demonstrates creation. I still enjoy reading other websites that talk about these issues, and the links to some of them are in my blog here on the right column. Also from there you can still download the book and booklets. If you are interested, you can go to the archives and see what I have written about proteins and other amazing biological structures. So, even though I won't be writing much, I hope you will still enjoy my blog.

Got a Job

2011-02-12T08:48:00.003-05:00

I finally got a job after about 7 months of looking. I won't go into details because I'm getting ready for work. It has been a long time since I formally worked--about 18 years believe it or not. I wanted to write, which I did, and I was a housewife and I volunteered in various agencies and on committees. I kept quite busy and was like retired people who are so busy they wondered how they ever found time for their job.

But now it is my turn. I'm a little nervous, but it feels so good to have found a job.

Happy New Year 2011

2011-01-01T10:46:00.003-05:00

We wish everyone a Happy New Year 2011.

Today is Jan. 1, so we have many Bowl games to watch--Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, the Rose Bowl. Too bad the ones we are interested in all come at once. But, at least we get to see them in our home.

We have many blessings (and I'm not just talking about watching Bowl Games). However, there are challenges too. I'm still looking for a job.

This New Year's Day I praise the Lord, for He is the amazing Creator. His imagination and innovation are spectacular. I pray all persons will realize this.

I pray for evangelists, that they may get the message out about Jesus Christ our Savior. He is the True God and came to Earth to die for our sins so that we could have salvation. He asks we repent of our sins and believe in Him.

I pray for the Christians in Egypt who were attacked at New Year's Mass.

It is a challenging yet beautiful world. May we make the most of what God has given us.

Children of God

2010-10-10T18:07:00.003-04:00

I was at an immigration reform meeting yesterday (Oct 9), and there was a short service before the speeches. We had the back and forth readings of the leader and the congregation, and the gist of the readings were that people should be treated with dignity even in foreign lands. The immigration situation is a mess, and I have sympathy on both sides of the issue. I think that the claims of immigrants that the jobs they take are not wanted by anyone else must be a bit of an exaggeration. Since I've been looking for work, I know how bad it is out there to find a job.

Yet, the people of Latin America have extremely little, and they become desperated enough to try anything for survival for themselves and their families. I've been to see their living situations, so I know that end of it. In a perfect world we would all try to share fairly, but the unfortunate thing is that this is not a perfect world. There is crime in places where there could otherwise be people living peacefully. There are too many resources used by a small number of people. We are all familiar with the problems.

The point I want to make, though, is that in that small service we had, the last line was about all of us being Children of God. It was the kind of thing that you read because you are just reading along and haven't read through the thing before to see if you agree with everything that it says. But it bothers me afterward, because I didn't agree.

I have heard that expression used many times, but I don't know of anyplace it occurs in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert, so maybe someone could point it out. But I do know where it says that is not true. Read the first Chapter of John. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Further down, you will see that the world was made through this Word. Then further still, the Word came to the world, but the world did not recognize Him. Though the world was made through Him, it did not receive Him. But to those who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to be called children of God.

This is what I believe. The other religions have creeds that are different than Christians. They do not accept Christ as Lord. This is not something we can ignore and make all things inclusive. This is something we each need to think out for ourselves and remember that much as we'd like other things like immigration reform, first things need to be first.

And next time, I'm going to be a lot more careful what I read out loud in any service.

Slow Blogging

2010-09-14T10:47:00.003-04:00

Maybe the number of blogs would prove me wrong, but from what I read it seems everything is happening on Facebook anymore these days. I have not set up a Facebook page and can't imagine ever doing it. I'm not fast enough, or don't have the endurance, or whatever it takes to keep track of what everyone is communicating all at once. I have even found the blogging to be a little heavy duty when it comes to trying to keep up with other blogging sites. When I make a comment I watch for answers, and that takes time, along with all the new posts at the sites. Now that I'm trying to go back to work, I don't know if I can continue.

I want to relate here, though, one of the insights I had in coming to believe only Jesus is the Lord. Many modern minds seem to spurn the belief that only one religion can be true. But in reading the Bible you will see that the Apostles were convinced that only Jesus was the true Lord and the way to salvation. I asked myself, why would it change? What would make the Truth of that time any different now? And the answer is, it wouldn't change. Jesus Christ is still Lord. He is still the only way to salvation and a life in heaven.

It seems very simple, but in this complicated day and age, the message gets mixed. Though I'm not on Facebook, I pray for all evangelists, and I hope that this message comes through.

To Keep On

2010-08-28T16:08:00.004-04:00

I talked about love and joy and peace last post, and how these blessings are deep within a Christian. However, I want to make note that in hard times, it seems we can lose track of the blessings we have, even within us. In fact, inspiration seems to be needed on a regular basis, and therefore we may have to keep reminding ourselves or be reminded.

If this sounds like a mystery, it is. I have faith God provides spiritual gifts, but I seek His word for solace, and sometimes inspiration comes from unexpected sources.

The point I'm trying to make is when we are in despair from very tough times or when we see other Christians who seem to lose connection, we can't judge. But I'm urging everyone to hang on and seek God for He is good, and He can keep us going on Earth until the time comes for us to meet Him in Heaven.

Joy and Love and Hope

2010-08-14T14:21:00.007-04:00

A writer is supposed to be good at description, but I can have trouble with this on a personal level. I have a lot of science in my blog. I had learned science in school, but after college lost faith. Although scientific fact does not necessarily render a person unfeeling, there was to me a big part missing. I also had church training, but it was in my head and not in my heart. Eventually I believe the Lord Jesus Christ rescued me from despair and hopelessness. Deep down, believing in Jesus has made a true difference in the joy, love and hope I feel. I would never give Him up, I would never exchange this for anything I had before.

This does not mean I don't have problems. But believing in the Lord has given me an added dimension to your life which helps me through when I could never do that on my own.

I've never been very outgoing, and what's in my heart does not get out nearly as much as I'd like to others. I'd like to get across the wonder and light of being Christian. I think most Christians feel that motivation.

One can accept the Lord and then go through spiritual trials. It comes from internal doubts, which can try to take away that deep hope and love and joy. Christ reassures us. He is the way, the truth and the life. He will bring us to Heaven if we believe in Him. Nothing makes me want to leave Him. Two of the reasons I feel this way are because I think He is true and because the love and joy and hope are deeper than whatever fear or doubt I have. Church teaching tells us that faith, hope and love are gifts of the Spirit. They are wonderful and give me strength.

I want to tell everyone of this deep love and joy and hope. Jesus Christ can give you life and light.

I believe in Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. I want to be with God and His people forever. I hope you will too.

Sunday Catholic Carnival

2010-08-08T06:12:00.002-04:00

It's been a while since I connected with the Sunday Snippets--a Catholic Carnival at RAnn's This That and the Other Thing. I wanted to let people know I am offering my book, Unto Others, absolutely free as an Adobe.pdf file on Google Docs. Just click the link and give it some time to download. I hope there are some of you that will find my book worth the time to read. It is a Catholic-based mystery, so if you like mysteries, please give it a try. Of course, anyone can read it, so tell your friends!

I know RAnn reads many many books, and mine may not stand up as well as I hope against all the other authors out there. She has said she does not go for self-published books and not for mysteries. There are reasons some of us do not choose to try to get ours published. I'm a very slow writer and could not promise a publisher a series. I don't even know if I'll write another book. But the themes in this one were important to me and I want to get them out to whomever I can. I hope you will find it thought-provoking and the mystery challenging.

I invite you to the rest of my blog here. Thanks much!

Unto Others!

2010-08-04T08:52:00.008-04:00

I'm very excited to say my fiction mystery book, Unto Others, is available absolutely free on a Google Docs Adobe.pdf file! It is a Catholic-based book which I very much hope you will enjoy. Of course, non-Catholics can read it too. I have self-published this book on a small scale and have had good feedback. Just click on the picture to get to it. The Adobe can be read on acrobat reader, which is available free if you don't already have it. I believe the book file can also be downloaded and saved on your own computer so you don't have to be connected to the internet the whole time. You out there probably know more about this than I do.

The book is over 250 pages long, so the .pdf format takes a few minutes to download. I have found it best to wait until it says "done" in the bottom left corner before trying to do anything with it. You can zoom in to the size you are comfortable with, but that may take a little time also. The pages may appear cut off at first or blurry. I've found it just takes patience for it all to download and then it works OK. I hope it is worth the time it takes for you, because I do think the book has important messages and yet is an intriguing mystery. In fact, I hope you will tell your friends about it, especially those who enjoy mysteries!

Back to Christianity

2010-08-04T07:32:00.009-04:00

I talked in the last post about evangelism and how I always want it to be first in my life. Somehow I got back into the subject of evolution and what different viewpoints of evolution can mean to a person's faith.

I guess I keep talking about science because I was one of the students in college, a long time ago, who got sucked into eventually believing everything is made by chance from matter and energy, and that there is no God at all needed to make our universe and everything that is in it.

Though I think that is obviously a wrong argument today, my way back did not start through reason. It was because I was emotionally miserable. I had some difficult life situations as we all do, and I saw nothing to give me hope in this life, much less in any next one.

Fortunately I had been brought up with a Christian training. Certain events took place in my life that showed me how rich Christian love can be. Though it seems I myself decided to try to go back to the beliefs once more, I think Christ was rescuing me. I found myself healing and renewed. And the same goes for problems since then. I can be scared from life's tribulations, but I feel the Lord will pull me through.

My beliefs also meant I could accept God as creator of life, which made more sense than chance. It also meant that love has meaning and morals have meaning. That especially has a profound influence on our lives and uplifts our spirits when we experience it. It builds up instead of tearing down.

The more I tried to believe, the more I really believed. I believe God exists, and I believe Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, part of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Christian creeds proclaim that we believe God made all that is seen and unseen.

It seems that faith and reason interweave. As I've said before, if we think at all, we can't help but reason. But this reasoning may be right or it may be wrong. I believe true faith, which is a mystery, gives us the underpinning for right reason. We can stand strong in faith when others attack it because Jesus Christ provides the foundation for us.

Open to Comments

2010-08-03T18:39:00.005-04:00

For a while I closed my blog to comments because I took some time off from it. I like to keep track of them if I have any comments in order to answer back. I have made some comments on other blogs, but these have not generated comments here. I know I have focused a great deal on a subject which has not been of general interest, namely biological Creationism. (I think its potential is much greater than realized and could be a great evangelization tool.)

I have opened the blog to comments now, but will probably not have many new posts. I think I may be entering a new phase of life where I will be working outside the house, so I will not have the time as I did the past few years to enter posts. If you are interested, please look at past posts and topics. This blog has been helpful to me, among other things, in learning and expressing the amazing creation we have from the Lord, and for that it has been good.

Evangelism First

2010-08-01T13:00:00.013-04:00

My husband and I had a nice vacation to visit relatives and now that I'm back I want to put together a positive-minded post.

I have been writing regularly in my blog for several years, and wrote a mystery book and several booklets. However, I had been feeling frustrated and at a stand-still with the resistance of persons against the idea of direct supernatural creation of life by God. I don't want my writing to be all about the negative interactions I have had. I truly admire creation and enjoy learning about it. I've written about it in those terms, not just in antagonism to those who don't agree. I had given some talks and debated with persons on the Internet (on a small scale). Some has been positive and successful. But then I got into negative debate, enough to discourage me about future success. So I took some time off and do feel better about things in general.

I hope to always serve the Lord as the priority of my life. We all have various gifts and can serve in different ways. I'm not very outgoing, yet I'd like to evangelize. I think of what I can do to tell someone about Christ by something I do or write. This includes prayer for those who are out in the field, doing the living work of telling the Good News.

I think those of us who talk about Creation care about how God is perceived. Those who insist on theistic evolution (indirect creation and evolution of life) worry that atheists will reject what they think is ignorant of knowledge (even if this perception is incorrect). Those who believe in direct supernatural creation believe the discussion of it in the classroom will bring students' imaginations closer to the possibilities of God's touch and then God Himself. Young-Earth Creationists are concerned about Scriptural Truth and that people will not be turned away from them.

The theistic evolutionists also are afraid that science will suffer if we say about unknown aspects of life that "God did it." Yet we can keep on discovering life as it is, and seek knowledge for medicine and the like under the auspices of systems biology. This is what many researchers are already doing with their computer analyses of genes, proteins and other cell processes. They don't have to know how or whether something evolved to see how it works now. In fact, wrong speculation about evolution can mislead theory, such as the case of thinking that all non-coding DNA was "junk DNA." This has proven false and slowed down research in this area for many years. We need the clear theory-neutral facts, and if researchers want to speculate on theory, they should do so in clearly marked separate sections of their paper.

Christians should want to put our solidarity in Christ at the forefront, then work out our other concerns with each other. Though science is important, evangelism for Jesus Christ is much moreso. The body lasts only so long in this world, no matter how well our medicine works. The everlasting life of the soul is our more important concern. Consider the verses of Paul in 2 Corinthians when he says in 5:4, "While we live in our present tent we groan; we are weighed down because we...wish to have the heavenly tent envelop us." Now, I very well know we want to treat children for cancer and have them live to their full earthly life-span, but Paul appreciated the greater power of God. Paul said in v. 6, "He has fashioned us for this very thing..."

I want to serve the Lord in the forefront in my life.

Christian Neighbors

2010-07-13T08:40:00.007-04:00

I'm very happy to add another free booklet to my blog. It's called Christian Neighbors, and is only 8 pages long. It gives the very basics of Christianity, and I encourage anyone who is curious to read it. I think it can also be used as an evangelization tool for those who are not experienced but may know someone, like their own neighbor, to whom they would like to introduce Christianity. We often would like to tell them what we believe but find it difficult to do so. Some might find this booklet simplistic, but if we can read what we believe in a very simple way, it seems it would help us get started. Of course, an invitation to our church is in order after the initial introduction. This booklet is simple enough for a child but is important in its content for everyone. It should at least get people thinking about evangelism and if there is something more complex you would like, you could consider Heaven's Passport, which is a 20-page booklet you can also print out right here from this blog.

Next on my list is getting my book on a Google document, if indeed that is possible. I am so glad Google is now offering us pdf files which we can share. Though I'm not up on the latest book-reading software, I imagine pdf can be used or converted on many gadgets. At the very least, it will work on a laptop. What I don't know is if Google docs handle files this big. It may take a while since I've got some other things to look into right now.

I hope you are all having a good summer.

Creation Science for Biology

2010-07-12T11:36:00.003-04:00

I'm very pleased to announce that my new booklet, Creation Science for Biology, is now on my website. It is similar in some ways to my previous booklet, Faith, Science and Intelligent Design. But I found my theology was too different from the Intelligent Design Advocates who repeated that the Designer of life "could be anybody." Though I know they have their reasons for putting their description of design in nature this way, some of them are Christian. I feel the Christian should not equivocate about design and creation, and state openly and clearly about the Creator. There is only One choice for us, and that is God. We state this in our creeds, such as you can see written out in the booklet.

I hope you will make use of this booklet and learn from it, as from the one further down on the right column called Heaven's Passport. This has factual information about Jesus Christ with references. This booklet also can be easily read online or printed out. (On my printer, I set for booklet and 2-sided printing. Sometimes printers tell you the wrong way to put it back in, so unfortunately you may have to re-do it if you get the second side upside-down. You may want to start with a 2-sided draft.)

Just the Facts

2010-07-09T10:13:00.013-04:00

I remember watching Dragnet as a kid. I loved Jack Webb, and of course Harry Morgan is one of Muskegon's own. The famous line "Just the Facts, Ma'am" came from the the way witnesses and other involved persons would get off the track, wasting the time of investigators.

There are many researchers, scientists and teachers who are brilliant and have done a great deal for the world by their discoveries in medicine and the like. This is certainly not to be taken for granted.

But, however important scientific progress is in this life, there is another life to come that is even more important. This is because it lasts longer, has to do with the state that our souls will be in, and relates to the God who made us in the first place. We just can't forget about that in our fear of disease or hunger in this world.

Evolution is a very tricky subject. Though we look for patterns in biology to learn how to manipulate problems, these patterns are present whether they came from evolution or elsewhere. The idea of evolution as something that helps find the patterns is not necessarily true. In fact, it has delayed some progress in the past because things that are present were not expected. We need a proper analysis of what we find in DNA, protein and other parts of the cell at the present time instead of insisting on evolution as past, present and future answers to all our questions.

There is a great paper by Douglas Axe in the first issue of BIO-complexity about the "Search Problem" also known as "Sparse Search." This shows the vast number of amino acid combinations that do not have function as compared to those which do. Axe is a researcher that has devoted his time to studying proteins, the cell machinery that take on specific shapes for specific jobs. This is a great article to read about facts of biology. You can get the pdf article from the abstract here. There is no answer for this problem of how the cell formed with so many non-functional proteins around to get in the way of working ones (or, in the case of DNA, nonfunctional sequences of codes). Some are nearly the same, but many are very different. Axe answers the challenges I've heard to this problem.

Scientists are frustrated when some of us say there may never be an answer as to how life began. They say just because we don't know now doesn't mean we'll never know. That could be true, but it is time for them to admit that we don't know the whole story of evolution at present. That is the proper analysis for now. Evolution, along with origin of life, is in the same state. You can't insist that something is a fact, when the facts, even though they may answer a few things, do not answer all the questions.

While we are on facts, many philosophers are telling us that we can know God by facts. This is an accepted argument made by Aquinas, but we have only to look around us and see many thinking people who do not believe in God. The problem is that facts in this world are very complicated things. In the Bible, Paul said that we can know God through the things which are made (cf. Rom 1:20). But, did Paul know the composition of rocks? Did he understand electromagnetic radiation? He was awed by the stars, but did not understand what made them glow. There is something that is deeper than facts going on here. I think God made us to understand creation and design, and we can acknowledge it to Him or not. Paul also said that men did not glorify God but their hearts were darkened (cf. Rom. 1:21). This is where today's philosophy is falling short in insisting on philosophical materialism alone. This is because that is what seems most "logical" to them. They can't let go because it threatens their conception of facts. But God can do as He sees fit, and if He made life directly by Supernatural means, the facts will point in that direction. This is the logic they are missing and unfortunately it leads to keeping out those who see it from being able to join in the discussion (at least the classroom discussion). As to Christians who insist on theological evolution, where God makes everything indirectly, they may be misled by these materialists. At least they see the design of the universe and magnify the Lord.

Facts, as we see, can be very helpful, but our minds are affected by attitudes and misconceptions. It may be impossible for individuals to start with "just the facts," which is why fair discourse is so important.

Our Great Hope

2010-05-25T09:47:00.007-04:00

In this blog I had given an emphasis to Intelligent Design Theory (ID), as you can see from the post topics at right. But mostly the point from those is that you can see design from nature. What I have repeated in the blog and a booklet about ID that I had written was that for Christians, not just anyone can be the designer, as the ID people often say. For a Christian, the logical conclusion is that God was the designer.

I don't know if the term "design" really helps the situation. Creation Science advocates have said all along that God supernaturally created the creatures, including humans. So, I feel I want to change my viewpoint to Creation Science, oriented to biology. Now, Creation Scientists often believe that the Earth is only thousands of years old, instead of the billions that most scientists advocate. They are known as Young Earth Creationists. I don't know how old the Earth is and, though I think there can be much research done there, I find enough to do with trying to keep up with biology.

There are many people who are already involved with Creation Science, so I don't know how much I'll take up the struggle for understanding this aspect of God's work from now on. This re-orientation will take a little time to get used to. I want to see what is out there in the way of books from the Creation Science rather than Intelligent Design point of view. Often writers start out on one project and end up on another. I don't know where I will go from here.

Last winter, I had wanted to write a book about proteins for the layperson in order to give them some idea of the amazing world inside our bodies. I know it is being studied in science classes, but a lot of adults have missed out on the explosion of new discoveries in the last few decades.

But, there are several things which have happened to change my mind about doing a book, at least in the way I had planned. One is that I had met great resistance to the idea that completely materialistic, naturalistic evolution of species may not be providing the answers we have expected ever since Charles Darwin's theory became so widely accepted. I not only wanted to write about proteins but teach students from the angle of direct supernatural design/creation. I contacted many schools and groups, but was mostly turned down, even though I have degrees in animal science and veterinary medicine. For many years religious people resisted Darwin's idea of slight changes and natural selection for the differences we see in animals. Now the extreme is at the other end, where any ideas of direct supernatural creation are resisted very strongly (though they say it is OK to believe God made creation if He designed it all to happen before the Big Bang). I have been disappointed in the lack of fairness I expected from people to be willing to hear the other points of view.

But I found another problem coming from a fault of my own. I admit not only disappointment but anger at them for making the culture so inhospitable for the Christian message for the next generation. Though I tried not to show my anger to others, I know how I have felt.

It is humbling to know our own faults. The effort we take to look at them helps us realize how unpleasing we ourselves sometimes are. I was actually feeling a hopelessness in my life from these events. Yet I went through reflection and prayer and know there are some things that always brings me back to hope. One of the greatest is the fact that Jesus Christ, God's own Son, came to Earth, lived a perfect life, and died for my sins. He rose on the third day and ascended to Heaven. He told us that if we believe in Him, we will have everlasting life and love with Him.

That gives me hope indeed.

Protein Wonders

2010-03-04T06:00:00.004-05:00

The only problem with showing people the wonders of proteins is to know where to start. There is such a variety of amazing molecules, it boggles the mind. These pictures are seen in magazines and on the Internet, but some places are especially good, I think, for learning about them. I'll assume I'm speaking to a beginner, but this applies for anyone.

When I was in college, I learned about physiology, but a lot of it had to do with which hormone was floating to which organ. In vet school, we were concerned about disease and medicine. There was not the access to microbiological structures as there is now. But, one of the things they taught us there was how to teach ourselves. They knew science and medicine would keep changing and we had to be able to keep up. In my case, it was "catch up," since I had been away from practicing for a while.

But now I enjoy looking at the proteins and reading about their structures and functions. The proteins form parts of larger structures. Sometimes there are many duplicates of the same protein within the whole mechanism.

There are many links and one database can lead to another. I have spent a few years on this blog, learning about them and putting together different descriptions. I invite you to look around. I think it is set up well because I have links to certain basic points. Some are inside my own website and some connect to others.

The "cell" is the basic unit of our bodies. Humans have about 100 trillion cells. Proteins are one of the working components of our cells. The pictures here are of one amazing set of proteins, ATP Synthase and the machinery that copies the DNA code to make proteins, RNA Polymerase. You can go to the links and read my description. ATP Synthase is an energy-storing machine. Don't worry if you can't understand all the terms or what I've said. Enjoy the wonders of them. Eventually, if you are interested and keep working on it, you'll understand more. You can also click on the pictures here to get a better look.

One of my favorite sites is the RCSB Protein Data Bank Molecule of the Month by David Goodsell. The RCSB stands for Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics. That sounds complicated, but the descriptions and pictures in Molecule of the Month are meant for a general audience. You can go there to get a good idea of the amazing variety of proteins and how they work. The proteins are listed alphabetically in the link I have given, but you can make your way around by going to the home page and the current one if you like. That is pictured prominently there.

Many sites have help manuals. I hope you enjoy learning about them.

Design v. Non-design

2010-02-23T06:00:00.007-05:00

Most people are familiar with atoms. They have a center made of positive and neutral particles, called the nucleus, with a cloud of negative electrons encircling it. It is amazing to me that the number of these particles make such a big difference in the way the atoms combine with each other to make the huge variety of things we see in the world, including the world itself. These atoms move in a zigzag way which we call "random" and they combine with each other depending on their qualities, but also where they happen to be near each other "by chance."

Many people assume that randomness is the same as non-design, and order is the same as design. I do not believe this is correct, and I think it causes some confusion when we talk about design in nature, especially what we see in biological systems. I want to explain what I mean.

As I said before, the random movement of atoms is important for certain things. It helps mix the molecules in our atmosphere so we can breathe. Imagine walking into a pocket of air that has no oxygen. Where would we run to find it? Without random movements, we couldn't have mixtures of liquids with two or more things. They would otherwise stay separated, like water and oil but worse.

Therefore, if God made everything, the random movements of the atoms were also part of the design. Randomness is not opposite design. Genesis 1:2 tells us (New American Bible, USCCB): the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Leaving aside the word "waters," the opposite of design seems to be a dark abyss--nothingness or the void. Perhaps "waters" is metaphorical. That goes along with our Nicene Creed in which we say we believe God is the Creator of all things seen and unseen.

It is a feature of Intelligent Design Theory to see design in the workings of DNA and proteins in the cell. The trouble is, they compare it to randomness, when this is also design. So they are not proving design, just the discrepancy between biological and non-biological formations. Now this discrepancy is important, but it does not define design. That is why faith is really more important than science. If you believe, it sets the groundwork for studying the rest of God's creation.

Random Cont.

2010-02-16T06:00:00.011-05:00

The fact that atoms and molecules make random movements in gas and liquid affects how they interact. There is a theory called the "Collision Theory" which describes the interaction of molecules to form various substances. It is not hard to visualize, as shown in the picture. The random movements are accounted for in the calculations, related to the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics as discussed in the previous post. It's not necessary to know all the mathematics to understand that atom and molecule interaction is random in nature. And, as the caption of the picture notes, the concentrations of the atoms can affect how much they interact. A higher temperature can affect the movements so that more particles collide when they are hotter, but higher temperature does not give more order to the movements. The properties of the atoms and molecules can affect how they interact, but as we procede we can see how we can narrow down our focus so that we can eliminate some of the factors which would make it impossible to figure.

For example, the pre-life ocean and atmosphere may have changed from the way was at the very start of things to what it is now. We may never know what the beginning concentrations of various atoms and molecules were. This limits our knowledge in certain ways. We don't know how many carbon atoms were available to interact with hydrogen atoms. But there are ways to theorize about these things, and many scientists for years have been trying to figure out how molecules could form into life.

Just recently a new paper came out saying that it doesn't look good for pre-life replication and biological-type behavior of atoms and molecules. This is what I've been saying--that chemistry rules at this level, while biologists were trying to impose biological laws on chemistry. They are not the same. The new research is described by Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute here, and an abstract of the article is here.

The randomness we are talking about here is what we usually mean with the term "chance." We are talking about nature and not the supernatural. Now there are laws that govern the planets, such as gravity, but gravity is not going to make atoms form into proteins. Atoms of different elements have different chemical properties, such as charges and types of bonds between them. I will get into that more next time.

And, we can still apply probabilities in some cases. We know what the cell has now, so we can look at what needed to take place to get us to the present composition. That, also, I will address in the future. I hope you will read the Axe article and the abstract through the links I have supplied above.

Randomness

2010-02-09T06:00:00.002-05:00

I am working on a book about evolution and Creation. I'd like to coordinate my blogs with the book and I am just starting. I may find eventually I want to change things, but I hope to at least make some progress this way.

It might seem strange to start a book about evolution with Brownian (random) motion of atoms, but that is what I am thinking of doing. A major problem we face in understanding evolution is in the concepts of chance and randomness, design and non-design, and agency and non-agency. We can add to the problem when philosophy becomes involved, because this discipline uses the terms "necessity" and "contingency." These terms are sometimes used in place of non-random and random. I think it is important to stay as simple as we can, which is hard enough. I'd like to talk about the physical description of random. If you think in the way of philosophical terms, I'd like you to drop that for a while.

In 1827, the botanist Robert Brown noticed pollen particles floating in water under a microscope, or so the story goes. They showed a jiggling type of motion, neither sitting still nor moving in a smooth path (something like the blue line in the picture here).

At the time, scientists did not even know if separate atoms existed. Some thought they did, but others didn't, and they were not proven.

Scientists came to speculate that we could use these random movements to understand physical phenomena. Though we could not see the atoms, we could guess that they were each separate and had movement in various directions. This is what Albert Einstein did in a famous 1905 paper, Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement, to prove the existence of atoms. Then, to complete the cycle, we could take all of the atoms as a whole, using the probabilities of each of them put together to even better understand their movements. This is what Ludwig Boltzmann and James Clerk Maxwell did. They worked out what is called the "Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, which describes velocity of gas atoms or molecules in terms of statistical, probabilistic distributions."

I'll go further in talking about atoms and the categories of design I mentioned above next time, but I want to make the point about physical "randomness" here. Atoms have internal thermal energies that make them move in these zigzag patterns which we can't even theoretically predict. These are inherently random. What's more, we have found with quantum physics that particles within atoms, such as electrons, are not determined to exact positions and momentums by measurements, but have probabilities of being at certain places.

Perhaps the concept of "random" is difficult for us because we want to be in control, and to know all the answers. Humans do amazing things and they constantly strive to do more. That is a wonderful thing--look at all we have done and the diseases we have cured. But our drive must not be so strong that we can no longer find humility.

Catholic Creationism

2010-02-02T06:00:00.007-05:00

Many cringe when the word "Creationism" comes in the same sentence as science. We have learned to separate the two, but the separation is uneasy, and underlying problems are coming to the surface.

When I started thinking about writing a book about evolution, I considered myself an advocate of Intelligent Design Theory. I still admire the efforts the advocates have made on behalf of science. They have pointed out deficiencies in mainstream biology, especially concerning the theory of evolution. I will describe Intelligent Design Theory in the book and use many of the same arguments they do.

But there are some significant differences between my own point of view and that of Intelligent Design Theory. The ID advocates seem to assume they compare design and non-design in science. When you believe God made everything, that does not work. Many people confuse complexity vs. randomness with design vs. non-design, but randomness has its own design and purpose. That is one idea that will be difficult to understand, but worth the trouble it takes.

To start, Genesis says there was a void before God created anything. So the void is opposite design, not randomness.

The atmosphere is filled with different atoms and light molecules. These light molecules move around and knock into each other in the form of gasses. Also, in liquids, water molecules move around and allow other elements to move around in them. We have all seen dye dropped into water and break apart to diffuse through the water.

If there was not random movement of molecules, many things wouldn't work. Early scientists realized that gasses move through space and containers in a way that pressure, temperature and volume could be affected. The gasses could do work such as movement of a steam engine when they were heated sufficiently. And in liquids, we can wash dishes because dish-washing liquid does not stay in one place in the water.

If we believe that God made everything, we can accept that random movement of molecules is one part of the whole design. The question is, then, how do we tell biological systems are also designed? The answer lies at least partly in the fact that the physical and chemical laws that work with random molecules and the way they interact do not put biological systems together by themselves.

I cannot keep up with all the specific arguments which evolutionists and IDists continue to wrangle about. There are experts in specific fields from both sides, and all you have to do is follow a few of the ID websites to learn of the battles. I am trying to keep my own book as straightforward and simple as I can, yet try to show the remarkable world of cell biology. Throughout all, the focus is on Creationism and how Catholics as well as other Christians can best deal with the scientific and religious tensions now arising.

We may ask, why bother? There are many reasons. If parents teach their children God made the world, yet teachers and professors constantly push total materialistic evolution instead of creation, the child will tend to choose one over the other instead of integrating. I think this is what has happened in our country over the last century, to the point where life is not seriously viewed as sacred. It may be one of the main contributions to the mindset which allows for abortion and illicit behavior. Even worse, some have a deep-seated distrust of whether there even is a God. If nature can do the work, why is God necessary?

Unfortunately, the secular message comes from many former or so-called Christian Institutions. We must think about our beliefs and stand where we must.

One Person's Evolution

2010-01-26T06:00:00.004-05:00

I am starting to work on my book. I'm not working with an editor yet. I'm just gathering information and ideas. I am thinking my introduction may include something about myself. Since I wrote something out, I'll put it here:

When I read Michael Behe's first book, Darwin's Black Box (Touchstone, 1996), it was my introduction into Intelligent Design Theory. I was immediately taken by the fresh look at biology, and it made much sense. He talked about the concept of Irreducible Complexity to describe microbiological systems that all interact with each other. Without each part, the system loses its function. Then he asked how these complicated systems could evolve by the small steps that Darwinian evolution predicted. Charles Darwin had introduced that concept many years ago (in 1859) in his famous book, The Origin of Species. Starting with something very simple, Darwin said, the animal kingdom developed over time and became more complex.

After that, I gathered and read all I could about Intelligent Design Theory (ID). I have a science background (BS in animal science from Penn State and veterinary medicine degree from University of Penna.). I also earned a certificate in theology (Aquinas College, Grand Rapids). I had thought of applying for a master's degree in theology, but the programs I looked at had nothing to say about ID, and so I continued to study on my own. I remembered one professor at vet school had said their main focus was to teach us to teach ourselves. They figured they couldn't cover everything in four years, and they inspired us for life-long learning.

At first I thought of myself as an ID proponent, but started seeing their approach as different from my own. I recently realized that my stance does not quite fit into their movement, although I still truly admire some of the breakthroughs they have made and keep making. They are second to none when it comes to pointing out certain faulty thinking in today's biology scene. My blog reflects my enthusiasm for ID. But I think the Intelligent Design approach also has its faults, which I hope to clarify as I go along.

When I was in veterinary school, I liked physiology better than medicine but didn't want to work in a laboratory. I practiced for a while in various aspects of the field, but was discontent to the point where I stopped. I worked and volunteered in social justice concerns for our church and community for quite a few years. I joined a writing group with my husband and wrote a few fiction books (self-published on a very small scale). And then I started blogging.

I have written about various subjects, but I keep coming back to the issue of biological evolution and whether or where it truly has scientific evidence. I've actually written quite a bit already about that in my blog. I work to inform people of the complexity of life. I'm pretty slow but I'm persistent.

I've wondered many times in the past what my life plan actually is, but for some of us it doesn't fall into place so easily. Though plans can change over the years, I always ask God to guide mine as much as He will. It's been a very interesting journey.

Comparitive Genetics

2010-01-19T08:13:00.002-05:00

There have been several long comment lists to posts about evolution at the First Thoughts blog of the magazine, First Things. I was happy to be able to contribute some comments. The first post is called "A Walk to the Moon" by Joe Carter. Then Dr. Stephen Barr presented more opinion in a subsequent post on First Thoughts blog called, "Re: A Walk to the Moon." Many have been related to evolution and the new discoveries being found in comparative genomics.

I had followed many of the ID arguments in the pages of First Things when Cardinal Christoph Schonborn and Dr. Stephen Barr were first exchanging their thoughts about design in nature. Cardinal Schonborn had written a letter, "Finding Design in Nature," in the New York Times on July 7, 2005. I also had read the letters to the editor at the time and in some of the years following.

The exciting part about the new genomics is that it allows us to compare organisms at the level of the gene. Eugene Koonin, director of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has been writing for the past few years about the discoveries being made. One of the most startling discoveries is this, from "The Biological Big Bang Model for the major transitions in evolution" (Biology Direct, 2007 2:21):

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

Why has this discovery not been heralded from the rooftops? With any transition of understanding, it takes time. It took hundreds of years for the whole of humanity to assimilate and accept the change of view that Copernicus brought about. The switch from an Earth-centered solar system to sun-centered involved religious as well as scientific understandings. Also, science is complicated and not everyone can or will take the time to study the specific underlying mechanisms. On the other hand, today we have almost instantaneous communication and educational systems in place. I hope people will soon realize the implications.

Koonin himself is oriented toward describing all phenomena in terms of scientific materialism. Therefore he proposes a "Big Bang" model for these unexplained transitions in life. It includes very fast evolution mechanisms. However, slow evolution is hard enough to explain, much less fast evolution. He says it all when he starts his speculations with "I propose..."

Since one lifetime does not last hundreds of years, we can't wait that long to make our own decisions about whether we think science shows us there is a God. Scientific knowledge changes, but God has given us other ways to know about Himself. He has revealed Himself through His Word. The majesty of the universe suggests there is much more going on than just ourselves and our own accomplishments.

Yet sometimes we discover things that really do point the way to Him. When we see these things, it is nice to share them with others and help them understand. I hope I have been doing that here and that I can continue. After all, He is a Master beyond any master craftsman.

Negative Attitude

2010-01-12T06:00:00.009-05:00

My previous post featured a review by David B. Hart in First Things magazine. He criticized Intelligent Design Theory (ID) as something that "can never be logically demonstrated." ID states that life is too complex to have happened by the physical and chemical laws alone. It may be that one experiment does not disprove total materialistic evolution of life. But when one after another yield negative results, one must put together the pieces.

In an example of a pre-life experiment, the scientist David Deamer dumped pre-biotic molecules into hot volcanic pools which were supposed to form higher and more plentiful molecules of life. His experiment showed that they did not only fail for form more, but disappeared themselves. This is from a UC Santa Cruz article from April 3, 2006 about his findings:

In June 2005, he [Deamer] led a team of scientists, including Russian geologist Vladimir Kompanichenko, to the Kamchatka region in eastern Russia, an area abounding in pools of water heated and sterilized by constant volcanic activity. Deamer carried with him a version of the "primordial soup"--a mixture of compounds like those a meteorite could have delivered to the early Earth, including a fatty acid, amino acids, phosphate, glycerol, and the building blocks of nucleic acids. Finding a promising-looking boiling pool on the flanks of an active volcano, he poured the mixture in and then took samples from the pool at various intervals for analysis back in the lab at UCSC.

The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began. Later, Deamer repeated the same experiment at Lassen Volcanic National Park in northern California, with the same negative result.

Now, would Hart say that this is not science, since the results were negative? How would you disprove anything if negative findings did not count?

To disprove (total materialistic) evolution is to prove something else is going on.

There are discussions about Hart's review at First Things "A Walk to the Moon." and "Re: A Walk to the Moon." Be prepared--it garnered over 200 comments.

First Things of 2010

2010-01-05T06:00:00.011-05:00

Denyse O'Leary is a Catholic, Canadian writer who supports Intelligent Design Theory. She posts on William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, and has lately been posing questions for commenters in contest form. In Contest 19, O'Leary has described a book review by David B. Hart in the magazine First Things. It is in the Jan. 2010 issue (no. 199) which I think will not be online for a few weeks until the Feb. issue comes out (I haven't followed FT lately but that's the way it sounds on the home page). The review is of Richard Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth, about nature and evolution. This is the section of the review she quotes:

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.

The reviewer apparantly has not considered mathematical probabilities, chemical laws and physical distributions of random atoms and molecules. He has taken the word of two major biology scientists. However, we have seen an inkling from the Climate-gate scandal that scientists have their own agendas and can (allegedly) bend the facts their way, helped especially by computer-shuffled statistics. One of the problems in evolutionary biology is that scientists for years have ignored these mathematical probabilities and physical and chemical laws when it comes to origin and evolution of life. They live in an insular world where there is the assumption, not the proof, of evolution. That is why the word "evolution" constantly appears in the journals. It is time for them to answer to this non-scientific behavior.

An important article by David Abel has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling that says scientific journals should no longer publish articles that propose speculations that are exceedingly implausible. If the chance of random formation of biologically sufficient molecules for a working system (like the bacterial flagellum) is less than one in all the quantum transitions a 14-year-old universe has ever experienced, any speculation that does not seriously answer that improbability should not be published. People usually accept the conclusions of scientists. What if they are false?

I hope in my posts to come, as in past ones, to help people understand. If we are not educated by others, we must educate ourselves. When scientists work harder at keeping facts from us than supplying them, we must ask why. This is especially sad when educators are involved, as in our public and university systems.

Merry & Happy

2009-12-15T06:00:00.011-05:00

I know I'm early with the holiday greeting, but I'm late everywhere else. I had this idea that when I started working on my book, the blog would coordinate beautifully with what I would be doing. Well, I was wrong.

For one thing, December always seems the busiest month of our year. It even vies with the summer months which always go by so swiftly. And for another, my research includes time-consuming reading and is not at the writing stage yet. Perhaps by 2010 it will start falling into more of a rhythm of reading and writing.

Thinking back over the blog, I expected from the start to write about varied subjects, not just Intelligent Design Theory (ID). It took me a long while to get to those topics, and when I did I found myself distracted and wanting to return to ID. I've surprised myself that my main focus continues to be ID. So, I'm basically planning to keep to ID and related subjects from now on. (Maybe in this case I'll change. Well, I won't try to predict 5 years down the road.)

So, have a great holiday season and I will see you back here in the year 2010! Imagine that!

Bad Climate

2009-12-08T06:00:00.007-05:00

There was a hacking of the Climatic Research Unit in November that has got the world looking. If the e-mails and other recent circumstances surrounding them truly represent the involved scientists--there and at other eminent research facilities--these people have a disregard for truth and actually plot against anyone who disagrees with them.

I have not previously commented about the climate-change controversies. I think we must be concerned about pollution, although some forms of it are worse than others. However at Uncommon Descent, William Dembski's blog, it has been an ongoing topic. Many there feel the scientific evidence for global warming has been lacking. They notice in climate scientists an attitude similar to that held by Darwinians--that there can be no questioning of their theories. In the climate case, the cost to humanity is in the trillions of dollars, not to mention time and effort wasted if the warming is not even true (apparently some data is showing global cooling).

It is unfortunate that all those who want to promote the Intelligent Design concept seem to be victims of similar mindsets concerning Darwinian evolution. There may be no questioning, and if the data do not fit Darwinian evolution, the data is ignored. The same holds for the mindset of the media. They promote the Darwinian agenda, and hold back the facts that obviously refute it. This is one reason why the Internet and independent agencies are so important.

~~~~~~~

Image link here.

New ID Link

2009-12-01T06:00:00.003-05:00

I've found another ID blog that discusses the latest breakthroughs in physiology research. It is Darwin's God by Cornelius Hunter, and I will put it on my links in the right column.

Perhaps the ID people sound a little repetitive. That can be good, as I've said before (ha ha). For most people, complex science does not stick the first time. When I am confronted with something I've never seen and/or don't understand, I take in as much as I can. I let my brain play with it, and usually some questions come to mind. Often there will be terms I've never heard. What does this word mean? There are wonderful tools on the Internet for finding out. Though Wikipedia may not be 100% accurate, the language is fairly understandable and it has links to other terms, so you can keep following it until you connect with something you can relate to. It also has pictures in many of its entries, a big help when it comes to DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. When you have a chance to look for further and more accurate information, there's the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which even provides a section with textbooks of biology, microbiology, statistical evaluations, etc. Then there's always your local library, with real people called reference librarians who are happy to help you.

You may even want to go to a talk or take a class about Intelligent Design Theory. The more experts there are in the field, the more of these that will be available. They can help you learn the facts of science that you don't normally hear from regular scientists, especially as they are quoted in the media. Some facts just don't come to light in our culture and you have to dig for them.

Intelligent Design Theory is controversial, and people should become informed about controversial issues. Don't be afraid of facts. You don't have to take a test each time you try to learn something new. The world is fascinating, and the more you learn, the more you will want to know.

The Wrong Dance

2009-11-24T06:00:00.012-05:00

In a previous post, I talked about the Supreme Court decision concerning a slave named Dred Scott. It is known as Dred Scott v. Sandford from 1857. Scott claimed:

his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation. Scott's lawyers argued the same for Scott's wife, and further claimed that Eliza Scott's birth on a steamboat between a free state and a free territory had made her free upon birth.

Scott lost and the results can be read at the Wikipedia link above. Among them is the ruling that African-Americans could not ever be considered US citizens (since overruled by the 14th Amendment).

The ruling in this case is so bad that at first it deflects consideration of the argument. Scott's lawyers worked within the confines of the mindset of the day. Laws allowing slavery in some states were accepted, and in others they were not. The argument "danced" around these laws. The thinking was that because Scott resided in free territories for a time, he should be emancipated.

But this argument was wrong. Scott should have been freed from slavery because no one should have been a slave in the first place.

I think the same can be said for the situation in US classrooms and the way the theory of evolution is handled. We are making the wrong arguments and dancing the wrong dance. Though atheists may have their rights in the classroom, so do believers. No child should be made to answer to a government institution against his or her religious beliefs. The Intelligent Design movement tries to dance around the rules against teaching creationism in the classroom by saying it is OK to teach evolution as the working theory but we should be allowed to look at the weaknesses of it. Instead they should demand that Darwinian Evolution Theory not be forced upon children at all.

Though many scientists want Darwinian evolution to be their working theory, that does not mean they should enforce it upon others. Some scientific theories impinge on the religious beliefs of others. American scientists and educators may not want to trouble themselves with thinking of others, but they live in a country with many different kinds of religions and they need to face that fact. There are soldiers willing to die for the right of freedom in this country, and many of these soldiers have beliefs that are contrary to philosophical materialists. When one thinks of the toll taken by the efforts to correct the scourge of slavery, it is asking little of educators to make the effort to teach scientific methods in a way that does not impinge on individual beliefs. For believers, science is the study of designed entities.

The ID people should realize that for a believer, design doesn't have to be proven. It is already understood that God made everything. Science itself can be defined as the study of designed, created entities. Science is how we learn about these entities.

A Creationist is someone who believes God created the world--not just someone who thinks He did it exactly 10,000 years ago. It is time to claim back the word "Creationist" for all believers and to unite for what is right.

Of course, Creationists need to respect the rights of others. There has got to be some way we can work this out.

Oceana Fund-Raiser

2009-11-10T06:00:00.009-05:00

My husband and I have only once gone to a Craft Fair to try to sell books. It was a long time ago and held at a Catholic Church yearly dinner. Tom had made wooden toys, which sold fairly well. As I remember, the book sales did not go as well. The good news is that our local history museum has been a dependable source for book sales for my local historian husband. He wrote a novel set in our town in the olden days of the lumbering era, called Sawdust Fires.

I'm not a historian, although I appreciate history much more after being married to Tom. I set my fictional books in the present. My most recent, Unto Others, is in Orchard County, Michigan. This is a fictional name for Oceana County, which is just north of the one in which we live. (Unto Others is the book on the right in the picture.)

I worked in Oceana County for a time, and I found it a very beautiful place. It is on the shores of Lake Michigan, and has dune-filled beaches. It also has orchards further inland which are protected by the Lake in the spring (the trees are kept from budding too early and freezing by the lake water effect).

The towns of Oceana County are small, and the opportunities for selling my book there are rather few. Still, I'd like to give people a chance to buy a mystery book set in their own countryside (though all the names are fictional and not meant to portray any real persons). Then I found out about a Craft Fair that is going to be held at the Oceana Medical Care Facility, at 701 East Main Street. A map for the place can be seen here.

The contact person told me they had 300 people come last year. I have already reserved a spot for myself. I have always enjoyed going to the town and I look forward to my second Craft Fair sales experience. I'll be there November 20th, between 7:00 am (for early birds!) and 3:00 pm. Since that is next Friday, I'll leave this post up for another week to advertise. If you are anywhere near Hart at that time, come on over!

Anniversary Flowers

2009-11-03T06:00:00.006-05:00

It is an anniversary year for Charles Darwin. He was born 200 years ago this past February, and November is the 150th year since his book, Origin of Species, was published.

It is an anniversary year for me, too, although in a very different vein. I had wandered away from my childhood religion, Christianity, until January 1989.

I had been influenced by the atheism of the scientific scene, not just at my college but in the culture. In these mindsets, Darwin has played a great part. He sought to explain all of life by material, natural means, excluding all necessity for God. Also, I went through some personal traumatic experiences and did not believe a God would allow that much pain.

But, I was miserable without God, too. Atheism surely gave no comfort. And, though Christianity didn't always make sense, atheism made less sense.

I then met my future husband. He is a wonderful man and brought me to his Catholic Church. It exuded a warmth and acceptance I had not experienced before. This was also true at a Christian organization with which I volunteered and eventually became employed for a time. I came back to my original faith, which I appreciated at a different level than I did as a child. I realized that pain need not be permanent. It can be healed through God's love. Pain teaches us the divisions between good and evil and helps us appreciate that on the other hand, life itself is a wonderful blessing.

I have one Christmas cactus which has coral-color flowers and I like it very much. But I also wanted one with pink flowers, though I didn't want to spend the money. Then last Christmas my mother gave me a little one someone had given to her. It had about 3 branches and no flowers. I said I'd like it and have been looking forward to seeing the color. I thought I'd have to wait until Christmas to find out.

But now both my Christmas cactuses are blooming early this year! And the little one is pink!

Christmas cactuses are like anniversary flowers. They are special in that they bloom at the time of wonderful celebration every year--the time of our Savior's birth. And I celebrate the year, twenty years ago, when I returned to the Lord through faith in Jesus Christ.

Learn from Mistakes

2009-10-27T06:00:00.003-04:00

Recently I wrote about Fr. Robert Spitzer, a priest and physicist who is trying to bring science and religion together. He was in a conference at the John Paul II Center for the New Evangelization in Denver, CO, reported by the Catholic News Agency here. The point in my previous post was that not everyone believes in God even though they know the science.

But, Fr. Spitzer makes a different point which is just as important. Not everyone knows the science. One should at least have the chance to make up one's own mind about whether DNA, proteins, the cell, life itself could have come about by chance, and that is not happening. Amazingly in this day and age, science is being censored.

I had a very nice presentation last week about Intelligent Design Theory to about 50 persons. These people heard privileged information. They heard the numbers for the improbabilities of the origins of life. They heard what high school and even college students don't. And even Christian college students don't hear the facts though they point to God!

These students will have to seek out their own facts. And they can find them. The internet will have them. There are books (also censored!) that have them. The latest, bound to be great book about them is Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell. This is very readable for anyone who has the desire and patience to try to learn.

Many Christians the scientific community do not seem to want to admit that God may have created life directly. They are embarrassed by the history of the Galileo affair, where the Church denied for centuries the centrality of the Sun in our Solar System. They forget that the ancient scientific community put the Earth in the center just as well as the Church. The Church reacted against this scientific novelty as well as their own ideas of doctrine.

The Church, which includes all Christians, must learn from mistakes, not inhibit learning. To stifle facts is to deny that reason and faith go hand in hand.

Catholic Snippets 091025

2009-10-25T08:14:00.007-04:00

Once a Week

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including the entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: free-clipart.net .

Once a Week

2009-10-20T06:00:00.008-04:00

It has been over one and one half years since I started this blog. I had a lot on my mind and I laid it out twice a week since then with only a few weeks off here and there for vacation. I took a week off last week and I am now going to "downsize" to one post per week on Tuesdays.

The experience has been fun and very much a learning one. I appreciate professional writers much more than I did. I feel I've written many of my posts in haste, and did not express them as clearly as I should have. I now know some of the challenges of putting ideas forth and getting facts right. Even with only two posts a week, I put in a lot of time for research. Yet I think my own posts give new ideas and fresh outlooks.

Blogging is a very important tool in our world now for the regular guy to be able to express him/her-self, previously often rejected by commercial publishers who think primarily of the bottom line. Ironically, it's the thinking of profit that motivates these publishers to market sucessfully, which I don't. So the limitations in blogging are not so much from expression but of being heard by more than a few people. But I know from the comments I've received that I've had the opportunity to share, and I'm very happy for that.

Now I'd like to use some of the research I've been doing for a book on Intelligent Design Theory. Though I'll probably use some of the things I've already written, it will be in a more organized, compact form. Though I've self-published a few fiction books I've written, I'd like to submit this one to a commercial publisher. I know I could not distribute any book like this very widely on my own. I know it's hard to get published in the industry, but it doesn't happen if you don't try.

Blogging is a wonderful way to express frustrations and offer suggestions that might make a difference. I am thankful for the opportunity and hope to continue. Once a week, that is, one week at a time.

Moore's Capitalism

2009-10-09T06:00:00.013-04:00

We went and saw Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, over the weekend. His website is here and gives quite a bit of news about the movie. The main premise is that most of Americans (99%) have been robbed by the richest Americans (1%). This, he portrays, has been mostly by corporate greed and not only evasion of taxes by the wealthy but by theft of taxpayer money through last year's government bailout.

Moore is probably right about many things, but as an AP article relates, he could have improved his movie by giving a wider, more nuanced picture. For one thing, he wants Americans to protest and even rebel against financial institutions, but a great many Americans are tied to these, not only through corporate America in employment but in their retirement funds. An estimated 50 million have 401(k)'s. In some ways, they want these companies to gain, gain, gain. How can they rebel?

Another example of a simplified idea is that of people being "hypnotized" into believing that Capitalism is good. The hypnotizers are the rich who have made it, making the others think it is OK because they themselves may someday be rich. But Moore claims the rich never intended to share. This strikes one as a conspiracy theory, and Capitalism in actuality seems much more individualistic. Moore is correct in pointing unashamedly to the sin of greed (he even interviews priests). But anyone who lusts for money and the power it gives them has the same problem. The rich are only the ones who actually made it (although perhaps have unique skills which should be used for the greater good).

At least Moore is willing to bring these problems into the open. Americans have been victimized, there is no doubt. The pictures of blighted neighborhoods are very sad, and one wonders how we could have sunk so low. And yet, laborers have struggled throughout history, being slaves, serfs, peasants, and eventually workers at the whims of industrialists known as robber barons, such as John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Greed seems to be a sad part of human nature.

Moore does make a point about our attitudes concerning Capitalism. Too many people, and as far as I can tell this includes many Christians, hold this economic system so important that they put it before God's ways, or at least appear that way. Certain TV money talk-show hosts come to mind as an example. Christ has said we can't serve both God and money (see Matthew 6 at USCCB). Thus, I think, we get to the deeper nature of what is wrong. The bigger priority is not in rebelling to get a bigger piece of the pie, but in making God's way first in our lives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I won't be posting next week because I have to prepare for a speaking engagement concerning Intelligent Design Theory. I've also just started volunteering again for English as a Second Language, and that will involve preparation and meeting time. That's the beauty of a blog--we can make our own rules. Hope to meet you here again in a few weeks!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image from http://www.free-clipart.net/ .

Proof of God

2009-10-06T06:00:00.005-04:00

I've been writing about the progress of science and how it has replaced some of the ideas of the ancient philosophers. Yet the Church believes God is accessible to humans through reason. That is still true, but I think science is changing the details of how He is found through reason. Aristotle thought the universe was eternal. Now there is evidence of a Big Bang, which means there was a beginning to the universe. Aristotle promoted the idea of spontaneous generation, in which living things continually arise from non-living. Louis Pasteur in the 1800's proved that life now comes only from other life.

Our new findings of cell complexity and specificity point to a Creator. Anyone who knows the details of the cell and the vast numbers involved in the improbability that it would form by chance should surely recognize that only an intelligence could make such a thing.

A recent article from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports a conference at the John Paul II Center for the New Evangelization in Denver, CO. Fr. Robert Spitzer brings the latest in cosmology to religious people to show how science and theology can fit together. He speaks about the amazing fine-tuning of the universe, and how in many ways it may not have formed the way it has.

Yet, at the bottom of the CNA article about Fr. Spitzer are comments which various persons have left, and they show that these commenters do not accept what Fr. Spitzer is saying. They give alternate theories which include infinite universes, so that ours is nothing special. They mock the priest's reasoning. This mindset is common in our day and is very telling. The point I have been trying to make in the last few posts is that proof of God in scientific terms does not get to the very bottom of belief. The Apostle Paul wrote of the problems even in his day,

20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

From: Romans 1, USCCB webpage of NAB.

The people to whom Paul refers made false idols from wood and stone and worshipped them. In our day the falsehood is in a mindset that puts materialism as the base of being and scientific research as the only answer to life's questions. Yet Paul's words are as true today as they were then when it comes to the rejection of God by some people. It is interesting that Paul states in verse 21, "although they knew Him." We may think that disbelief comes from not knowing, but Paul does not think so. There is something else going on, and the word "vain" describes their reasoning. Eventually, their minds were darkened, and things went downhill from there.

As I said in a previous post, faith is a gift from God. It is a precious gift, and I believe He gives Christians important roles in the process of bringing more persons to Himself. Some people have come to faith by perceiving the wonders of nature, and that is fine. But I don't think the wonders of nature are going to convince everyone. In that case, Christians can pray for unbelievers and share what Christ has done for us in our lives and our hearts. God has many facets, and we should try to learn more about them ourselves as we help others understand.

Classical Greek

2009-10-02T06:00:00.006-04:00

The Greeks are considered the fountain of Western thought. They believed, even before Socrates, that all things were composed of Four Elements: Air, Water, Fire and Earth. Aristotle added a fifth essence called Aether (pronounced ether), which he thought made up the heavenly realms. Actually, the Eastern philosophers came up with systems not so different from this and can be compared here (right column).

As early as the Middle Ages people started experimenting with various substances. Around the year 800, a Middle Eastern alchemist known as Geber (Latinized version of Jabir) discovered the separate elements of sulfur and mercury. In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev presented a table of known elements which showed they have certain repeating properties. This "Periodic Table" is still used to classify elements. It starts with Hydrogen, which has one proton and one electron, and as of June 2009 includes 117 elements. Other elements include carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.

Therefore, we have a replacement of Aristotle's elements with those we know today through scientific research. I've also read that Aristotle believed one could discover science through logic, not experiment. The example I read a long time ago was that he proclaimed how many teeth a horse has without looking into the horse's mouth. Later someone actually counted them and found Aristotle was wrong. I don't have a reference for this story and it may be a fable, but it does illustrate the general idea.

Though Aristotle knew about magnetism, Hans Christian Orsted in 1820 realized magnetism could be generated by an electrical charge flowing through wire. This eventually led, through others, to the understanding of electromagnetic radiation. This energy is one of the basic forces of the universe, along with gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The understanding of natural physical forces has replaced, in the opinion of many, the understanding of causes as Aristotle described it in his theory of Universals. (A universal is a quality which exists in itself that is seen in physical things, for example, "red-ness" of red things and "human-ness" of humans.) Aristotle said there were "Potentials" of existence which a First Mover would have had to put in motion in order to get something to exist in matter and form.

There is an interesting article on "Theodicy" on the New Advent website in their 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia. This older version of the encyclopedia can be very helpful in historical matters and general definitions. Theodicy is the attempt to prove God through natural means. The link if you'd like to read it yourself is here.

Can Man Understand?

2009-09-29T06:00:00.014-04:00

Can the human being really understand God? The verse from the Bible that comes to mind is from Isaiah, Chapter 55 (NAB at USCCB):

8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9
As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

This is not to say we shouldn't try to understand God in some way. It is not right to shrug our shoulders and say that if we can't know Him we might as well move on to some other interest (science, for example). We have to juggle a little, and not let a concept either dominate us or be immediately rejected. Pope John Paul II wrote a very interesting encyclical called Fides et Ratio. He describes the interaction between faith and reason, and it is well worth reading.

I've been reading Church history about the reaction of the magisterium concerning evolutionary theory. Though I started in Darwin's time, the relation of science and philosophy to Christianity actually goes much further back and I'm becoming increasingly aware of its relevance to my interests. So I'll just give a very general overview here.

When philosophy began in the West, some 600 years before Christ, it was an attempt to understand things in terms of reason, not mysticism or mythology. It therefore included the study of nature which we now consider science. The first Greek philosopher was Thales of Miletus who lived around 600 BC. The famous Greek philosophers followed in this order: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who died in 322 BC. Aristotle worked out a "Natural Philosophy" in which the natural world was defined in terms of movement (in rather complicated interactions of place and time) .

Greek philosophy became known to scholars throughout the ancient world. It did not take very long after Christianity spread for someone to try to combine the understanding of Christ with this Greek thought. Frederick Copleston, in A History of Philosophy, Vol. 2, lists Marcianus Aristides as one of the first to do so in about 140 AD. Then came Justin Martyr who used philosophy even more openly, and Clement of Alexandria, a scholar who lived in Alexandria, Egypt between 150 and 215 AD. He headed a school for teaching Christian theologians known as the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Pope John Paul considered St. Augustine, who elaborated on Plato's philosophy about 400 AD, to be the first to truly produce the "first great synthesis of philosophy and theology" (Fides et Ratio, sec. 40).

St. Thomas Aquinas combined Aristotle with Christian understanding in the 13th Century. Others disagreed with their speculations, and there has been wrangling throughout history on the importance of reason in contrast with faith. In particular, a monk named William of Ockham placed more emphasis on faith than intellect in order to know God (as I understand it). Ockham, though, seems these days to have the reputation of cutting away faith altogether in favor of science, in which case he is misunderstood. He was concerned that Aquinas, in his effort to incorporate what Aristotle called Universals, limited the free will of God. (Universals were supposedly essences of things which existed outside physical things, such as "red-ness" for all things that look red.) If God could only create according to Universals, Ockham felt He would be limited in choice.

Well, philosophers and theologians have wrangled for centuries about God and our relationship to Him and how we understand Him. Of course, with the scientific revolution, people have wondered more and more if we could "cut away" God altogether and be left with nothing but the material world. Many indeed have done just that in their personal worldviews. But now biology is showing that some things cannot be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, at least as we know them now.

Many think that physics and chemistry will never be able to explain the codes of DNA, and how the DNA is arranged in ways that resemble the computer systems created by human intelligence. Many, however, believe scientific research will eventually be able to explain everything.

This, in a very condensed version, is where we stand now.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 090927

2009-09-26T19:42:00.007-04:00

Friday -- More of faith and philosophy.

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: free-clipart.net .

Faith OR Reason?

2009-09-25T06:00:00.009-04:00

I talked in the last post about Catholic philosophy and modern science. When persons claim that faith has more to do with belief than reason, they are often accused of being "fideists." Some people seem to claim (in so many words) that if you have faith in God without studying philosophy, your belief is not adequate. That claim in itself is unreasonable.

People come to God in many ways. There are masses of faithful who live and die never having studied philosophy. These people can have as real a relationship with God as professors. Yet, others take the journey to God by means of reason. They may not have an emotional conversion experience, yet they convert all the same. There is a sense, though, in which the stress on philosophy can lessen the importance of relationship, and that is a mistake. We need some balance of both heart and head.

Faith is a mystery, a word which probably makes philosophy professors shudder. Yet the Bible gives us some beautiful passages about it to get us on track. One is Ephesians 2:8 (taken from the USCCB webpage of the New American Bible):

8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9
it is not from works, so no one may boast.

This means, for one thing, we need to get rid of all pride in order to believe well. God gave us intellect, and we are to use it. But we are so susceptible to making pronouncements that put us above others, we must be very careful. The focus is always on God Himself.

Another verse is from John 6:29:

28
So they said to him, "What can we do to accomplish the
works of God?"
29
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent."

These verses may seem contradictory, but I don't think they are. God teaches us by varying the approach. Unfortunately, we grab onto one idea or the other, then fight about it with others. I think the passages when contemplated together may mean that our work is at least in part reason because everyone thinks, but while you think, don't forget mystery. To give examples, if you simply as a child accepted Jesus as soon as your parents or priest told you about Him, perhaps it was because you trusted these authority figures, and perhaps an element of faith which is beyond our understanding also had a part. In fact, that part may be a factor in the learned professor's conversion though s/he is unaware of it. Yet to follow historical philosophical thought, to question and reach your own conclusion that God exists is certainly a help in strengthening that faith.

Modern science does not completely understand consciousness, even though they have learned much about the brain. My belief is that neither consciousness nor the soul will ever be understood completely by human beings. There will always be mystery, and for that reason we need faith.

Philosophy 101

2009-09-22T06:00:00.022-04:00

They say life is what you do when you are planning something else. That happens with blogs, also. I had started reading about the history of the Church response to evolutionary theory and wanted to post about it, but got sidetracked. I hope to get to that subject, but while reading one of my favorite Intelligent Design (ID) websites, I read a post by Michael Egnor on Evolution News and Views relating to philosophy.

Now, my expertise in philosophy is at the 101 level, but a lot of philosophy has been flying around in evolutionary circles, and I'm sure not everyone who speaks about it is an expert. So, I'll give my own opinion.

I won't go into the details of Michael Egnor's post, but he recommends a book about philosophy which addresses the New Atheist arguments. The book is The Last Superstition, by Edward Feser. The New Atheists are people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett who are contemporary authors with various backgrounds. They argue that today's science has replaced religion and traditional religious (Catholic) philosophy such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who built his own system on that of Aristotle (the Greek philosopher).

The main point of Feser's book, to make a sweeping generalization, is that Aristotle worked out a philosophy that claimed to prove that change can happen in this world, but ultimately depends on an Unchanged Changer. And Aquinas built on Aristotle's work. as can be found in his five proofs of God, one of which depends on an Unmoved Mover.

Feser explains that today's scientific mindset tries to ignore Aristotle's metaphysics (which investigates the properties of reality), and yet unconsciously uses it. For example, the New Atheists tell us that scientific experiment is the only way to understand reality, yet they take for granted the reasoning behind experimentation--that one thing is caused by another. In other words, they are missing a certain concept in their understanding. They take an alternative philosophy in which there are no Universals in the sense Aristotle means. (Universals are essences of things that occur in the world, for example, "red-ness" for things that are red and "human-ness" for humans.)

Feser makes very interesting arguments, but I have thought in my limited study of philosophy that he and other philosophers like him are also missing at least one fundamental concept. They talk about Aristotle's philosophy of change, where there has to be, by logic, something (or someone) that is First and causes change. But a person would still have believe that there is a source of change other than physical energy and matter to get to that point.

The equation above is for Gibbs free energy and it is important because it is used to calculate physical / chemical change. It comes to us courtesy of J.W. Gibbs, who is pictured at top right and lived from 1839-1903. The triangle is the symbol I learned in high school to designate change (the Greek letter delta). The G is called Gibbs free energy, the H is enthalpy, or the tendency of things to change from a higher state of energy to lower (such as water falls from a higher to lower state in a waterfall). T is temperature and S is entropy--the tendency of things to become more disordered. When you plug in the values for each situation you evaluate, you can tell whether a physical change, such as a chemical reaction, will happen or not (if Gibbs free energy is negative, it will happen).

If I understand Feser correctly, he would say it is a Prime Mover that causes change, at least the first in a long line. If we don't accept that, our reasoning is faulty. But I think that most scientists, especially materialistic ones (those who think the world consists only of matter and energy which are interchangeable through Einstein's equation E=mc^2), would look at the Gibbs equation and say it explains what causes change. This can go all the way back to the Big Bang (BB), that explosion being caused by a great concentration of energy, and even before the BB. To them, there is nothing sacred in the BB as far as the formation of the universe goes. It could be that energy forces and mass continue to alternate in various proportions endlessly (and in fact, this is what they think). Both Aristotle the philosopher and Gibbs the scientist assumed that change comes from a cause.

One either believes our universe is made of only mass and energy, or one believes there is a God. Feser does a good job in showing the ridiculous logical consequences of a materialistic mindset, but I don't think he fully gets to the bottom of what causes it. Though the materialist's reason may be faulty on some level, in my opinion the deeper problem is lack of faith.

Faith is a mystery, and I will talk more about it (I hope) next post.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 090920

2009-09-20T06:00:00.005-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing to direct you to their latest writings. (If you take this link to RAnn, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries include:

Tuesday -- A new movie is out about the Cambrian Explosion, a point in the fossil record where many animals appear fully formed.

Friday -- A new look for my blog!

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: free-clipart.net .

New Look

2009-09-17T07:18:00.010-04:00

Well, I made the plunge and changed the look of my blog. It's still the same template, but has a little color. I hope it's still readable enough. I like white as a background, but if the color is light enough you can still read the print pretty well. I formatted the type for this entry to make it just a little darker than the regular type but will probably mostly use the regular.

I took a picture from our city's bike trail along Muskegon Lake. This lake empties into Lake Michigan through a channel, and the bike trail follows it on the south side the whole way from the east end to the Great Lake (you can see the Muskegon Lake from the trail about half the time). They just completed this trail a few years ago. You can take another branch of the trail and go east about 25 miles. Michigan has quite a few bike trails along old rail-road beds that are beautiful to see.

Since I've been spending time with my blog layout, I won't get into any subject too deeply today. (I went through ALL the templates, then came back to the first, just a different color. Plus, I had to crop the picture a few times to get it right.) I've been reading some history on the Church magisterium and their reactions to the scientific community concerning evolution. It's quite interesting and I hope to write about it next week.

Cambrian Explosion

2009-09-15T06:00:00.015-04:00

There is a new video out from Illustra Media, the same people who made Unraveling the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet. It is called Darwin's Dilemma and is about the Cambrian Explosion, a geological period in which many original forms of animals appeared fully formed in the fossil record. I've never copied a video to my blog, and I don't know 1) how to do it and 2) whether it is within the Upload Terms of Google to do it with commercial previews. So, I'll just show you the above picture which is on their website and link to the video here, where you can see the trailer for Darwin's Dilemma.

The Cambrian Explosion, when so many full-fledged animals without intermediates started appearing, is estimated at about 530 million years ago. When you compare the graphs of what Darwin expected for fossil development and what has actually been found, it looks like this graph from the Veritas Forum:

Darwin predicted a gradual appearance of simple forms in the fossil record which would diversify and become more complex (graph on left). Instead, you have the abrupt appearance of many complex forms at one time.

I look forward to seeing this film. I haven't seen Illustra Media's other films since I felt I've read a great deal concerning their subjects, but this one is a little different because it contains information about fossils over the entire Earth. I know something about fossils, but could use more education on them. What I've heard about this film makes me look forward to seeing it.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 090913

2009-09-13T05:33:00.002-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing to direct you to their latest writings. (If you take this link to RAnn, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries include:

Tuesday -- A miracle on our block.

Friday -- New pictures of Hubble Space Telescope.

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: http://www.free-clipart.net

Hubble Renewed

2009-09-09T13:53:00.008-04:00

Psalm 19 (1-3)

For the director of music. A psalm of David.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language

where their voice is not heard.

New pictures have been released from the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope. There are many things that are amazing about God's Creation, but one we can't miss is His immense range. He has made atoms and stars, He conceived of electrons and galaxies.

The observable universe is about 10^25 miles long (a 1 with 25 zero's).

There are about 10^23 atoms (a 1 with 23 zero's after it) in a chemical mole. (A mole has mass approximately equal to the substance's molecular/atomic weight in grams, for example, less than 1/2 ounce of Carbon.)

And here we are, right in the middle of it all.

Miracles Happen!

2009-09-08T06:01:00.002-04:00

We had some excitement this week on our block. A news truck was across the street on Friday, and later our neighbor came and told us that several of them had gone fishing to our near-by lake the evening before and had taken the kids with them (the neighbors have two grown children living with them along with their grand kids.) They had a one-year-old girl strapped in a stroller with them on a wooden dock. Then a two-year-old pushed the stroller into the water. The stroller sank about 10 feet. The men there tried to dive for the stroller and couldn't get to it. One of the women immediately called 911 and the firemen came within a few minutes. One of the firemen dove for the child and was able to bring her up. They used CPR and then took her to a children's hospital.

When our neighbor came Friday afternoon, he said the baby was probably under for about 10 minutes. He came again in the evening and said she had water in the lungs. But they were able to bring her home Saturday, and she looked just fine! She was walking and wasn't even on any medication! Isn't that amazing?

I know they talk about suspended animation when someone is submerged in cold water, but this sure looks like a miracle to me!

Catholic Sunday Snippets 090906

2009-09-06T07:24:00.003-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing to direct you to their latest writings. (If you take this link to RAnn, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries include:

Tuesday -- Francis Collins was named head of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which has done work that discredits Darwin's theory of evolution.

Friday -- President Manuel Zelaya was forcibly ousted from Honduras a few weeks ago.

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: http://www.free-clipart.net

Honduras Coup

2009-09-04T06:00:00.009-04:00

There was a coup in Honduras a few weeks ago that is still playing out. President Manuel Zalaya was escorted from his presidential residence and out of the country. The Organization of American States (OAS) unanimously condemned the coup. (Not everyone is calling it a coup, but what else is it when a president is forcibly removed from the country?)

Zalaya was a rich land-owner and when he first came to office was supportive of his kind. But eventually he changed his outlook, and he became more concerned of the needs of the poor.

The per capita income of Honduras is estimated to be $2600 (from Encyclopedia of the Nations, Honduras). This is $50 per week, but is an average, so the higher incomes would push this down even more for the poor. When we were in El Salvador five years ago, workers were trying to get $2.00 a day wages. I imagine there are Hondurans working for $1.00 a day.

Zelaya was trying to get the popular opinion on whether to change the law concerning presidential term limits. The referendum was up for vote the day he was removed from the country. The persons involved said the referendum was illegal, but it was only a popular opinion poll, at least for the moment. I don't know the in's and out's of Honduran law, but it seems the best way to change a law in a democracy is to let the people decide.

There have been varying reports of the local Catholic response to the coup. Some priests have supported him and are undergoing harassment, as told here at the Catholic News Service. The Honduran bishops, headed by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, seemed to back the coup, also reported by CNS. They claim an increase in class hatred since Zelaya came to office.

When Christ said, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me" (Matt. 26:11 NAB), he sure had that right. One wonders how on Earth we haven't figured out how to share yet. But of course, this is the result of sin on all sides.

In struggling with this problem, the Church has declared a "Preferential Option for the Poor." John Paul II said:

While an examination of conscience can be disconcerting, it may also be invigorating. Pope Paul VI offered some insights: "It is not just a question of eliminating hunger and reducing poverty. It is not just a question of fighting wretched conditions, though this is an urgent and necessary task. It involves building a human community where everyone can live truly human lives, free from discrimination. . . . free from servitude to others or to natural forces which they cannot yet control satisfactorily. . . . Each person must examine his or her conscience, which sounds a new call in our times" (quoted here at the USCCB website).

The whole of our individualistic attitudes must change in order to be molded into community. Unfortunately, being realistic, not everyone is willing to do this. The Christian community of Acts 4 is sadly beyond our reach when considering all living persons, many of whom are not even Christians or just nominally so. The question is, where do real Christians (the ones who seriously try to follow Jesus Christ) go from here?

Koonin and Collins

2009-09-01T06:00:00.007-04:00

Eugene Koonin is a senior investigator at NCBI, the National Center for Biotechnology Information. NCBI is under the National Institutes of Health at Bethesda, MD. Koonin's main research area is genomics. He heads a research group there that has been analyzing genes and comparing them between species.

It is interesting that Francis Collins, highlighted in my last post, has become the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under which NCBI operates. He was appointed to the post by President Obama in July and confirmed this month. This is the very place that work has been done in disproving Collins' hypothesis of naturalistic, materialist evolution.

Once scientists knew how to evaluate the contents of the gene, as Collins did with humans, researchers worked on various species to determine their specific makeups. The genes are made of molecules which make various patterns. The molecules of DNA are all the same between different species but the patterns are all different . (Pictures of the molecules can be seen here.) There are many species in our world--some estimate 50 million or so. These are subdivided from larger groups, such as animals and plants.

The researchers used organism species from various subgroups to compare genes. Even within bacteria, there are various subgroups and species. Then there is another large group of one-celled organisms called Archaea (are-KEY-ah). These were thought to be relatives of bacteria, but are so different as to now form their own domain. Within Archaea there are subgroups and species also.

The researchers have found amazing results. These are reported by Koonin and Yuri Wolf in a paper which I have linked with before called, "Genomics of Bacteria and Archaea," published in Nucleic Acids Research in October 2008 (online). All the species are showing unique genes. The majority of their genes are shared with only one or a few other species. There is no smooth increase from simple to complex, as Darwin predicted.

Some wonder, with so many species in the world and so few (comparatively) checked, whether the others will fill in "gaps." There are several reasons not to expect this. For one, Koonin states in the paper that their selection is across enough diversity that the sample is enough to talk about general principles of genetics.

A second reason is that mathematically, the random motion of molecules and rate of chance switches of DNA molecules within an organism do not jive with the diversity of the findings. The proteins which DNA produces do not match enough between organisms to agree with neo-Darwinism.

The Earth cannot have supported over 10^50 (that's 10 to the 50th power) organisms in the approximately 3.5 billion years of biological life. We know that because of the volume of water on the Earth. That is a limit in which random mutation would have to work to get from one species to another with smooth, small steps predicted in evolution. With the diversity of genes now found, the gap could not be filled with neo-Darwinian, chance changes. The probabilities are just too low.

A third reason to think the gaps will not be filled is that even higher organisms are found to have unique genes. There is reason to believe unique genes will continue to be discovered as more species are sequenced.

I wonder how Francis Collins, who insists on materialistic evolution, will handle the results of the very organization of which he is now in charge. Collins accepts the Anthropic Principle, which in at least one of its versions states the universe is fine-tuned in order for life to exist. Yet we need a Biologic Anthropic Principle to state that the complexity of the cell can only be explained by a supernatural designer and creator. I hope someday Collins realizes this need.

~~~~~~

Yuri Wolf, co-author of the paper mentioned here, is a member of Koonin's research group at NCBI.

Image links: Koonin ; Wolf .

Catholic Sunday Snippets 090830

2009-08-30T07:06:00.003-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing to direct you to their latest writings. (If you take this link to RAnn, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries are about 2 men named Francis:

Tuesday -- Francis Bacon, originator of the modern scientific method.

Friday -- Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and recently named head of NIH.

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: http://www.free-clipart.net

Nature's Abilities

2009-08-28T06:00:00.009-04:00

In my last post I had a picture of Francis Bacon, the originator of our modern scientific method. Now I have another Francis, Dr. Collins, who led the Genome Project which made known the entire makeup of human genes. He is an esteemed scientist and deserves a great deal of credit for making the human genome available to all persons. In contrast, several companies were trying to discover the makeup at the same time and wanted to get commercial patents for it! (This is unimaginable and yet they wanted to own the human genome!)

Dr. Collins also did work on disease related to genes, and made significant contributions in this way. He is a Christian, and has written a book about his conversion called The Language of God. It is hard to go up against what he says, and yet no one is perfect. The Intelligent Design community is at odds with him because he believes that biological life and evolution occurred entirely without direct supervision from God. At the same time he thinks the universe, with its fine-tuning, is the result of God's handiwork. The term for people who believe in evolution with God in the background is "Theistic Evolutionist."

One might ask, why quibble? Well, hopefully these differences are not enough to set Christian upon Christian. But there are a few problems. First, the people like Collins who believe God did not touch biology supernaturally end up acting as if it is already proven He didn't. It is not.

Secondly, they teach children as if it is already proven He didn't. That is wrong both morally and in a scientific sense. Science is about evaluating what we know and interpreting it correctly. Morally, they convince children in a dishonest way what they want them to believe instead of telling them the truth.

Third, Theistic Evolutionists deride those who have other ideas. Instead of having both views as possibilities, they exclude the one they don't like. It is all right to have a hypothesis, such as neo-Darwinian materialistic evolution, but unless it is proven, you need to make room for other hypotheses. These people don't. They are disdainful of ID advocates because they fear that ID will destroy incentive to learn more. That is wrong and unfair. Research will continue as long as man has curiosity, which will be always.

It is only fair that ID people should allow for the materialistic view. It is not a matter here of what you think is scientifically correct. It is a matter of respect for other people's opinions and beliefs. If educators want to teach children materialistic evolution, they should teach ID right alongside it. Right now, the facts point to, if not already prove, Intelligent Design of biological life and evolution. (To see some of these facts, go through my ID posts under "Topics at Blog" in the right column.) Then, for believers, it would follow that God supernaturally intervened.

At one discussion about evolution that I attended, a man said he likes to enjoy the creativity of nature. I've seen that sentiment at the BioLogos Foundation website established by Francis Collins. They look at the cell's complexity and imagine nature to have made it. To me, that is like a man who goes away to work during the day, and his wife cleans, buys groceries, does laundry, takes care of the kids. Then she makes a meal that is on the table when the husband returns. He says, "Isn't nature wonderful, that it can put this meal on the table and take care of all the household needs?" Or even, "Honey, I know you somehow had a hand in this, but isn't nature impressive?"

Does God feel unappreciated? Perhaps no more than people whose work is ignored.

Cultural Intelligentsia

2009-08-25T06:00:00.009-04:00

On this past Weekend Edition at NPR, I was listening to Scott Simon interviewing a Jesuit author, James Martin, S.J. Martin is the culture editor at America magazine and has written about humor as it relates to religious persons. I won't go into a lot of detail of the conversation. (The transcript of the interview is here.) However, at one point Martin and Simon were discussing prejudice against Catholics, and Simon used the term, "popular intelligencia culture" to describe the mindset of the people who feel free to make derogatory statements against Catholics. (Wikipedia spells it Intelligentsia. The term signifies the social group of intellectuals and those related, such as teachers.)

In another website, Evolution News and Views, Michael Egnor describes the people at the New York Times who fired Ben Stein because of his support of Intelligent Design and others like them. He uses the term "scientific materialism" to demonstrate the idea of the modern understanding of reason. Persons who hold this especially claim that science has replaced religion and to believe in God is to be ignorant. And they make no effort to respect any other point of view.

I am interested in these terms, because I think they describe a whole group with a certain mode of thinking. Perhaps the terms can be further developed, but I think the idea is clear enough.

Now, what does that have to do with Francis Bacon, who is pictured here? He lived in England from 1561-1626 and was the scientist and philosopher who introduced the modern scientific methodology. However, his own method of induction and experimentation for science should not be interpreted as making God obsolete. It is very interesting to note that Bacon himself believed in God. From Wikipedia (link above) you can read:

Regarding faith, in De augmentis, he writes that "the more discordant, therefore, and incredible, the divine mystery is, the more honour is shown to God in believing it, and the nobler is the victory of faith." He writes in "The Essays: Of Atheism" that "a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

Bacon was right about needing a new approach to the development of science compared with that of the Middle Ages. He said:

"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world."

Bacon was fighting the notion at that time that magic and/or alchemy could produce gold out of any other material. What is ironic is that people today have replaced their pre-conceived notions in a way that is just as wrong as it was in the middle ages. To assume that biology has developed by blind material forces alone keeps a person from being open-minded enough to evaluate facts correctly. At this time, there are no physical or chemical laws which can explain the existence of biological life. Those are the facts. But the opinions, that God does not exist and therefore could not have any supernatural hand in biology, keep some away from the possibility of true knowledge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Francis_Bacon_2.jpg

Catholic Sunday Snippets

2009-08-23T06:32:00.004-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing to direct you to their latest writings. (If you take this link to RAnn, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries include:

Tuesday -- My 2 cents on health care reform.

Friday -- Ben Stein is fired from the NY Times because of his support of Intelligent Design.

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit: http://www.free-clipart.net

Ben Stein Removed

2009-08-21T06:00:00.008-04:00

Ben Stein was recently let go from the New York Times as a columnist. He credits several reasons. One was his tendency to criticize Obama policies. The other was his role in the pro-Intelligent Design movie, Expelled. At the American Spectator he says:

Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me. But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously.

See article here.

This is the type of hostility there is in the cultural wars. I saw a Gallup poll recently that said only 14% of Americans believe that God had nothing to do with evolution. The rest believe He either created us directly or guided the process. But, as I thought at the time I saw the poll, those 14% have an inordinate grip of power over education and media.

That is our challenge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons, Bensteinol.jpg , work of US gov.

Catholic Sunday Snippets

2009-08-16T06:00:00.008-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing to direct you to their latest writings. (If you take this link to RAnn, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries include:

Tuesday -- A Vatican-based survey of religious sisters in US is under way.

Friday -- Drifting back to Intelligent Design Theory.

If you are visiting from RAnn, you can see my entire blog, including both entries above, by hitting the “home” link at the bottom of this post. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Happy blogging!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image credit: http://www.free-clipart.net/

Design Drifting

2009-08-14T06:00:00.009-04:00

After a few months of taking a vacation from Intelligent Design Theory (ID), I feel myself drifting back. This spring I needed some time away from ID. I was a little burned out and felt I was at the point where further study would take on a higher degree of technical knowledge, such as computer programming. But, I slowly learn more as I read more, and I'm resolved to enjoy it as I go and not expect myself to ever comprehend it all. I don't think any human ever can, or even all of us put together, which says much for the genius of our God.

I've just read Stephen Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell. I knew this would be a much-discussed book, so I couldn't leave it alone. I gave a review of it here. He talked quite a bit about Information Theory, since that is what is being used to evaluate DNA and its products. I had read about Information Theory a long time ago, with the writings of Hubert Yockey, a physicist who evaluated proteins in that way. But it was a new concept for me then and I was still more interested in the continual amazing discoveries in biology. Now as I see more papers coming out on Information Theory as it relates to biology, I'd like to learn more about it.

The person considered the founder of this discipline is Claude Shannon. He is a fascinating person and you can read about him here at Wikipedia. I was surprised to learn he was born in Michigan. He went to University of Michigan and then on to MIT. His master's degree paper is considered one of the most important in history. It sets up the theoretical basis for the digital computer.

And yet, this is not the total of Shannon's work. Information theory is above and beyond that which he worked out in his master's paper. It relates information to uncertainty, which in turn relates to probabilities. It works with communication channels and the sending of information over electrical systems.

I did well in high school and college math classes, but I studied biology before the days that this kind of mathematical application to genetics was widely known or taught. Fortunately, my husband is a retired engineer and has been a big help in my efforts. However, after I started Shannon's seminal article, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication," from the Bell System Technical Journal, V27, July and Oct. 1948, I realized lot of it is over my head. I read it anyway. Roger Penrose, an award-winning mathematical physicist, has said we should read through mathematics even if we don't understand it, because we can still get a feel for what's going on. I did that with two of his books and learned quite a bit about quantum physics even though there was much I did not get.

And so I'll be reading more about ID and of course commenting sometimes about it here. It is too fascinating to ignore, that is for sure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image credit: statue of Claude Shannon at University of Michigan campus, from flickr by hyperboreal, some rights reserved.

Sisters Surveyed

2009-08-11T06:00:00.017-04:00

There is a Vatican-ordered review of American Catholic women religious going on now. Catholic News Service reports that a questionnaire has been given to religious orders to describe their activities. One general question concerns the doctrine and teaching of women religious.

One factor in this questioning is the demand of women to be ordained. There are some outspoken nuns who speak about ordination. The clash is inevitable for those women who think it is wrong that there is no ordination of women in the Catholic Church. But clouding this subject is whether women religious are staying on track with other doctrine.

Unfortunately in my experience, in writings and teachings, many religious women are drifting off, often to universalism where it doesn't matter in their opinion what people believe. To them, God loves everyone, and everyone will get to heaven. How we would get along with Hitler and Stalin and those who don't repent, I don't know. However, I find this mindset to be true with writings of male religious also. And I'm sure there are many religious women who are deeply committed to orthodox Christianity. I don't want to go onto details of this now, but I write of these themes in my book, Unto Others. (My book is a mystery and so I hope entertaining, but takes on themes of today's Catholic Church and life in general.)

In the frustration of being treated as second-hand Church members, some women may get off the track altogether. However, being treated unfairly is not an excuse to leave one's faith. For one, we expect hardships in this life.

Even more importantly, we find dignity for women emanating from the Scripture. For example, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female" (Galatians 3:28, NIV). We are all equal in Christ.

Concerning the issue of "Jew or Gentile," the original Apostles already knew (after some discussion and visions) that Christ's sacrifice was made for all, and that any person can accept the salvation He gives.

The slavery issue took longer to sort out. Even Popes were divided. While some condemned it, others didn't. Among the facts given in Wikipedia under Christianity and Slavery:

The papacy itself increasingly hardened its attitude. The 7th century Pope Martin I condemned unjust slavery, but in doing so implicitly suggested that he believed a just slavery to exist. In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law, by Pope Gregory IX [80][81], who had also introduced the Inquisition, trials for witchcraft, and the judicial presumption of guilt (rather than presumption of innocence). Roughly a century later, Gregory's namesake, Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[82].

and,

In 1917, one hundred and ten years after the official abolition of the slave trade in most of the rest of the world, the Papacy finally abolished the Canon Law support for the slave trade.

Today we finally know how wrong slavery is. Why is the "male-female" problem so stubborn?

I have written about prejudice in the last few posts. Prejudice is subtle and though I think it is a temptation, it is often one we are not even aware we have given into. There are all kinds of reasons not to be fair. A person needs prayer and deep soul-searching to come to the right place.

Yes, Christ chose 12 Apostles, but He also had many women helping him. Women were with Christ at the cross and He first appeared to women when He arose from the dead. Would Jesus deny women the dignity of being ordained Deacons? I really doubt it. Would He ask that any other sacrament of the church be given to men and not women? No.

Slaves and others fought for the end of slavery. Though it may be a divisive issue with the Church, we must do what is right. Women are speaking out because we must, but we must not stray from the Truth. We pray for all eyes and hearts to be opened.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 20090809

2009-08-09T15:27:00.010-04:00

It’s time again for Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival. This is a group of Catholic bloggers who list links each week to direct you to their latest writings at RAnn’s blog, This That and the Other Thing. (If you take this link there, you may have to scroll down until you see "Sunday Snippets—A Catholic Carnival.")

I usually post early on Tuesday and Friday. This week my entries were both continuations of the discussion about Supreme Court Judges and human nature. Click links for:

Tuesday

Friday

Thanks a lot for joining me. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column.

To see my entire blog, including both entries above, hit the “home” link at the bottom of this post.

Happy blogging!

Twists and Turns

2009-08-07T06:00:00.003-04:00

Since I've been on the subject of Courts and Judges, I would like to say a few more things about them. First, congratulations to Sonia Sotomayor for being confirmed as the first Hispanic person on the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the last post I quoted from the Supreme Court decision concerning Dred Scott which I will repeat here (in parentheses).

(A classic case is the Dred Scott decision which I discussed in a previous post. The court refused to grant Scott, an African-American, freedom from slavery for which he had sued in 1857. You can read the Wikipedia account here. One of the conclusions of the Supreme Court in the case, called Scott v. Sandford, was:

Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.

Obviously, this is an interpretation of the Declaration of Independence which today we know is outright wrong. Yet here it is in a decision by the US Supreme Court. Needless to say, it did not stand the test of time.)

To claim that this decision is from the Declaration of Independence is quite a stretch. There are probably experts on these things that follow the thinking of the judges involved. However, it must have taken some major twisting on their part to get this conclusion from

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And consider the case of Roe v. Wade, which you can read about here. Several Supreme Court justices interpreted the Constitution by saying a woman has a right to abortion because of privacy. That's like saying a husband has a right to kill his wife (or vice versa) if it is in the privacy of their own home. Thoughts take twists and turns when they are made to justify one's own agenda.

There may be many motivations for the Roe v. Wade decision. The judges may have sympathy for women who do not have the means to support a child, or were coerced into sex, etc. But though it is certainly praiseworthy to have sympathy, there are more factors in finding the answer to what is best.

It is interesting that the Declaration of Independence speaks of the Creator. The Creator does give us rights. The Creator can, if we seek Him, give us right judgment.

Unfortunately, it makes others nervous when Christians seek God's help. It is a common thing for the Christian to ask God's guidance. We want to do what is best. We pray and then do the best we can. We hope God will be helping us along.

Striving for Perfection

2009-08-04T06:00:00.008-04:00

I commented on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in a recent post. I said it was inevitable that judges bring their own background and biases into the decisions they make. Whether the Supreme Court justices follow existing laws or use the constitution directly in making decisions, there can be mistakes made due to prejudice and human failings.

A classic case is the Dred Scott decision which I discussed in a previous post. The court refused to grant Scott, an African-American, freedom from slavery for which he had sued in 1857. You can read the Wikipedia account here. One of the conclusions of the Supreme Court in the case, called Scott v. Sandford, was:

Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.

And consider the case of Roe v. Wade, which you can read about here. The laws of the state in which lower court judgment was made were deemed inadequate by the court. Several Supreme Court justices then interpreted the Constitution in a way that many do not believe valid. They gave women the right to abort their pregnancies. This was in 1973.

In our day we believe ourselves enlightened. But prejudice can be subtle. People in the pre-Civil War days would not have believed themselves flawed in their judgments either. Some people today do not seem to realize their own prejudices. If Sotomayor is prejudice, two wrongs do not make a right. But I think she is at least aware that prejudice still exists, and that is where her "wise Latina woman" comments come from (where she compared her own experiences to those of a white male).

There are probably volumes of books on why prejudice exists. I believe it is a temptation which we fall into because it makes us feel superior and it often gives us an excuse to take away physical things from others. It is therefore at least in part a spiritual problem, and only Jesus Christ can truly set us straight when it comes to our souls.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 2009/08/02

2009-08-02T06:00:00.019-04:00

Tuesday -- Part 2 of my review of Pope Paul VI’s 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi.

Friday -- Reflections on a mass given for my husband’s high school reunion class.

Thanks a lot for joining me. You can get back to RAnn at any point by clicking “Catholic Sunday Snippets” under LINKS in the right column. To see my entire blog, including both entries above, hit the “home” link at the bottom of this post.

Happy blogging!

Striving for Understanding

2009-07-31T06:00:00.019-04:00

My husband celebrated his 50th high school graduation anniversary with a reunion this past weekend. On Saturday evening, the class enjoyed dining and dancing and more importantly, reminiscing. (My 40th, BTW, is next year).

Sunday morning we gathered for a mass given by one of the class members who became a priest, Fr. Mike. We do not belong to his Church, but it is near our home and we attended with many of the other class members. I thought the homily was particularly good, and so I'll repeat the gist of it here.

Fr. Mike taught from one of Sunday's readings. (There are daily Bible readings at the USCCB [US Catholic Conference of Bishops] website here, which allows us to follow the Church's setup for readings online throughout the year.) The one which Fr. Mike taught from on July 26 is:

Brothers and sisters: I, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

This is from the Letter of Paul to the Ephesians, 4:1-6, from the New American Bible.

Paul's requests seem simple enough. There is not a lot to interpret to wiggle one's way out of the message. Yet how hard to do!

The priest's point was a little different from the letter: that we have expectations of perfection for others (parents for children, children for parents, priests for parishioners and vice versa, etc.), but of course are not perfect ourselves. However, this does not diminish the need to strive for perfection for ourselves and desire it for others. If we don't try for the mountaintop, we'll never get out of the valleys.

This is quite a balancing act. Others do things which are hurtful. Even more complicated is the situation where each of us think we are doing right, yet disagree on how to do it. Our world is full of these situations, including politics and religion. Taking aside the personal gain which politicians may seek, I think they honestly believe their own party's economic policies, for example, are better for the whole country in the long run than that of the other party.

In the past when I disagreed with what someone else was saying, I often said to myself, "It's a matter of common sense." But the more I thought about it, I realized what we all need is God's wisdom. Only He knows the best way. Often opposing sides both have some things right and some wrong.

When I face someone with whom I disagree, I have found that the best I can do is explain my side and then pray for understanding for both of us. Sometimes one can't help carrying anger over divisions, but this goes a long way in correcting that. I have to be willing to learn as much as I want the other person to learn. I believe God is the true teacher. And I have experienced some true breakthroughs on both on my side and theirs which I believe have been divinely guided.

What Paul in Ephesians was saying is that we are to bear with one another, which calls for patience and long-suffering. What our priest added was that we can do so and still seek perfection. We need wisdom to see our flaws and patience and strength to make our world better through love, all of which is only possible by God's grace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Image credit (50th): http://www.myshopangel.com/clip_art_anniversary.htm

Evangelii Nuntiandi 2

2009-07-28T06:00:00.003-04:00

Last post I commented on Pope Paul VI's 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization in the Modern World). As I said at the end, he commented on economic matters as pertaining to the Church. The 1970's were a turbulent time in the developing world. People were becoming restless for justice, and Liberation Theology was spreading. This point of view followed Marxism to some degree. It taught that the struggle against poverty may sometimes have to take the form of physical action against upper classes. Unfortunately, some of this philosophy led to armed conflict, as in the case of several Central American countries with disastrous results.

In this encyclical, Paul makes clear that the Church has been and continues to be a force in human development. In Section 29, he says, "But evangelization would not be complete if it did not take account of the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of man's concrete life, both personal and social." And in Section 31, "Between evangelization and human advancement--development and liberation--there are in fact profound links."

However, he continues "We must not ignore the fact that many, even generous Christians who are sensitive to the dramatic questions involved in the problem of liberation, in their wish to commit the Church to liberation effort are frequently tempted to reduce her mission to the dimensions of a simply temporal project" (Section 32).

Though the small groups which comprise Liberation Theology often study the Bible, they do it with an agenda of seeking a theological basis for political revolution. We may all have some pre-conceived ideas of what Christ did and said, but we need to keep our eyes open and hearts humble to gain the true wisdom that is available to us through the Bible and Church teachings.

The Pope continues in Section 32 to explain that if the Church were interested only in temporal matters, the objective would not be unique and the ideology could be molded into the political fashion of the day or be subject to temporal power as easily as governments can be. The Church has a unique mission, and that is to proclaim the Gospel.

The encyclical goes on to describe various roles of persons in the Church, such as bishop and priest, religious and lay persons and how they relate to evangelization. An interesting theme throughout the encyclical is that the people of the Church itself need constant evangelization.

My husband and I belong to a writing group. We read some of our writing out loud to the rest of the group so we can hear their critques and opinions. It can be helpful to get reactions from others, but the comments are not always on the mark. One lady reacts to most of my reading in a standard way--she says I am preaching to the choir. Of course, our Christian writing can often have the tendency to get heavy-handed, but on the other hand, Christians themselves like to think about God and enjoy when the same message is employed in different ways. I found this encyclical to reinforce the fact that we need to keep repeating the message, sometimes to each other. Then all believers can take that message to others.

I enjoyed re-reading this encyclical on evangelization in the modern world. It faces temporal reality, but points us to the reality of things beyond.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 2009/07/26

2009-07-26T07:13:00.005-04:00

Each week a group of Catholic bloggers lists some of their latest entries from the link at RAnn's This That and the Other Thing. My links to this week's posts are:

A commentary on the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and Part 1 of my review of Pope Paul VI's 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi.

To get back to this post from the above entries, just hit the "back" key of your navigator. To return to RAnn's blog home from any post, you can use the "Catholic Sunday Snippets" under "links" in the right column.

If are visiting for Sunday Snippets and you want to get to the womanatwell blog home, where you can see the above post(s) together with the rest of the blog, hit the home key at the bottom of this post.

Happy blogging!

Evangelii Nuntiandi

2009-07-24T06:00:00.004-04:00

Since reading Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, I've been wanting to re-read Pope Paul VI's 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi. Benedict's third encyclical is in large part about the relationships between human charity and world economics. Pope Paul's focuses on evangelization.

Paul makes note that the encyclical is released 10 years after the closing of the Second Vatican Council and one year after the Third General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which had been devoted to evangelization.

Pope Paul begins,

1. There is no doubt that the effort to proclaim the Gospel to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity (Sec.1).

The encyclical elaborates on this theme. What I didn't remember from reading before was that the bishops were looking to the Pope at that time for a "fresh forward impulse" for a "new period of evangelization" (Sec. 2). The Pope explores what has happened in our day to the "hidden energy of the Good News." This is still a question with which our Church continues to grapple, and so the encyclical is worthwhile reading for all of us.

Paul makes no bones about the importance of evangelization:

Such an exhortation seems to us to be of capital importance, for the presentation of the Gospel message is not an optional contribution for the Church. It is the duty incumbent on her by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a question of people's salvation. It is the beauty of the Revelation that it represents. It brings with it a wisdom that is not of this world (Sec. 5).

Certainly belief in that urgency is a factor in the energy we put into evangelization. Another factor, says Paul, is the constant need for the Church itself to be evangelized:

The Church is an evangelizer, but she begins by being evangelized herself. She is the community of believers, the community of hope lived and communicated, the community of brotherly love, and she needs to listen unceasingly to what she must believe, to her reasons for hoping, to the new commandment of love. She is the People of God immersed in the world, and often tempted by idols, and she always needs to hear the proclamation of the "mighty works of God"[41] which converted her to the Lord; she always needs to be called together afresh by Him and reunited. In brief, this means that she has a constant need of being evangelized, if she wishes to retain freshness, vigor and strength in order to proclaim the Gospel (Sec. 15).

The Pope talks about living a good life in order to witness as a Christian (Sec. 21). However, he said evangelization is not complete without the proclamation of the name of Jesus Christ, and explanation that He came to offer salvation to all. It is upon each of us to accept that, be converted and in turn proclaim that Good News to others (Sec. 22).

Interestingly, Pope Paul also felt compelled to address economic problems in his letter. The bishops, especially of the Third World, even then were seeking support from the Church for the oppressed peoples of the underdeveloped countries, many of them Catholic. I will pick up discussion of the encyclical at this point in the next post.

Sonia Sotomayor

2009-07-21T06:00:00.006-04:00

The congressional hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have just finished. You probably never want to hear the phrase "wise Latina woman" again, but I'm afraid I'm going to hash it one more time.

Sotomayor spoke the phrase a few years ago, apparently to Latino students she was trying to inspire. She said that a Latina woman with her personal experiences may make wiser decisions than a white man without those experiences. This caused apoplexy to certain white men in media and Congress when she was nominated for the Supreme Court. These men cried, "reverse racism," but became the poster boys for the very insensitivity of which she spoke.

Most of them opined that if the statement were reversed, that if they had said white men could do better than Latina women in a job such as a judge, they'd be condemned in the press. They may be now, but they forget that for most of the last 500 years in this hemisphere, the prevailing opinion was that white men were superior not just to Latina women but any minority person. Why should we not expect racial differences when we have treated people of other races differently?

Also, please don't tell me that a person's outlook, whether they are conservative or liberal, doesn't affect their judgements. Why do we care what president is in office? One reason is because of the judicial nominees. It's extremely obvious that over time, conservatives will make different decisions than liberals that affect government, businesses, and all our lives including right to life.

It is also upsetting the congress should focus on this statement when they themselves refuse to make fair immigration laws. Perhaps the maintenance crews in the Capitol building should install mirrors in the restrooms. Certain Congressmen could see the real face of discrimination.

With Sonia Sotomayor, maybe Latino people will receive a little more fairness from this country. It's been a long time coming.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 2009/07/19

2009-07-19T07:00:00.002-04:00

Each week a group of Catholic bloggers lists some of their latest blogs from the link at RAnn's This That and the Other Thing. My links this week are:

Part 2 and Part 3 of my review of Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate.

To get back to this post from the above entries, just hit the "back" key of your navigator. To return to RAnn's blog home from any post, you can use the "Catholic Sunday Snippets" under "links" in the right column.

If are visiting for Sunday Snippets and you want to get to the womanatwell blog home, where you can see both the above posts together with previous posts of this blog, hit the home key at the bottom of this post.

Happy blogging!

Caritas in Veritate 3

2009-07-17T06:00:00.014-04:00

In Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, he elaborates on many aspects of world-wide economy. (My first installment of the review is here and the second is here.) The Pope is timely in the treatment of globalization and the recent economic crisis. In the last post, I had mentioned the current movements in Latin America of socialism and Liberation Theology. Some see the US as moving toward socialism in aspects such as health care.

The Pope warns against socialism, yet he advocates regulation at all levels in a world-wide economic system. One reason is that in globalization, wealth has become more an international pooling of individual business and financial institutions instead of previous status of rich vs. poor countries. Under international rules enforced by such agencies as the United Nations, he envisions private business working in tandem with non-profit agencies and socially-focused businesses. Benedict uses the term "principle of gratuitousness" to describe his overall vision. He wants every human to recognize "they are made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension." The alternative, he says, is when man believes he is self-sufficient and can control economic and social systems by his own power. This leads to an attitude that the economy must be isolated from religious morality, which in turn goes down a destructive path (section 34).

Along with the sweeping changes at the top of the economic hierarchy, Benedict encourages subsidiarity, the inclusion of all levels of persons involved such as the workers and other interested local parties. He believes they should all participate in decision-making.

I think the major point Pope Benedict wants to make is that God is the ultimate giver of goods, and if we don't understand the spiritual dimension of human life, we will never have full development, either economically or personally. Also, charity should be a part of all we do, not just alms-giving.

As I said in the second part of this review, this encyclical is in part an anniversary tribute to Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Populorum Progressio. Pope Paul denounced the accumulation of riches to the few and declared that all persons should share in the Earth's bounty. That was in 1967, and though the encyclical may have increased awareness and perhaps guided some to be more socially active, it did not prevent the present economic mess. One can only wonder if Benedict's encyclical will do better. Pope Benedict at least makes the effort to tell what he thinks should be done, but one gets the feeling he speaks to the upper classes and leaves the poor to wait for them to respond. This is where Liberation Theology has its appeal to the poor: that they have a mode of action of their own. They get together in communities, read the Bible and discuss their immediate problems and what they can do about them. It is more practical on their level, though the problem with it, as the Pope has said, is that the leaders of the movement can tend to be Marxist in tone. That leads to a class separation of its own (poor trying to topple rich), which is as unhelpful as the self-imposed economic separation by the rich from the poor.

Since Pope Benedict doesn't like Liberation Theology, it seems he needs to come up with a more practical way for subsidiarity to take root, encouraging the Church more specifically than he does in his encyclical. I have heard there are small group movements in churches, but there none in my own and no official encouragement that I know of. Parish groups don't have to be based in Liberation Theology. They can be based in subsidiarity and spirituality as the Pope says we should all be. Maybe there are already meetings between rich and poor on a regular basis somewhere, but perhaps Bishops are in a position to personally lead individuals from different backgrounds to come together and make long-term commitments to each other. These groups could (and should) include the element of evangelization as an even greater purpose.

There is too much history of greed in our world to expect it to stop, even when denounced in an encyclical. The Pope is the head of the Church, not counselor for the United Nations. He needs to direct all Catholics to do what we can as soon as we can.

There are other aspects of the encyclical, such as environment and right to life issues. Eventually I hope to comment on these subjects, in reference to the encyclical and/or otherwise.

Caritas in Veritate 2

2009-07-14T06:00:00.009-04:00

I recently posted about Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth). He talks about love and care for others, but stresses that the only way toward a truly fair society is by following the True God. It is God who makes us fully human, and He who can provide what we need. All other attempts rely on human power, which is insufficient. He says, "God is the guarantor of man's true development" (section 29).

The Pope's encyclical is in part a slightly overdue 40th anniversary tribute to Pope Paul VI's 1967 encyclical, Popularium Progresso. This is in the tradition of giving tribute to the famous social encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum. You can read more about that if you are interested at Wikipedia here. Several encyclicals followed at intervals to commemorate its significance.

In Popularium Progresso Paul VI had also talked about the revelance of God's Truth for social development. Benedict XVI reiterates some of what was already said, but points out that the change in world economics through globalization calls for a fresh look and evaluation of the social situation.

In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII in 1891 addressed the wretched conditions of laborers in the industrial revolution. Paul VI expressed that the economy should serve everyone, not just a concentration of rich and powerful.

As I said before, socialist leader Hugo Chavez of Venezuela presented President Obama with Eduardo Galeano's book, Open Veins of Latin America (NY: Monthly Review Press, 1973). Galeano extensively described African and American slavery. One short passage in his book I found very interesting. In 1562, a Captain John Hawkins had smuggled some Africans out of Portuguese Guinea. Queen Elizabeth, sovereign of England at the time, called it a detestable act and believed he would be struck down by heaven itself. However, when he told her he had exchanged the slaves for sugar, pearls and other items from the New World, she "became his business partner (p.80)."

This is a good example for several reasons. First, it shows that people even in that time knew slavery was not right. People may have culturally accepted slavery more easily in times past, but our consciences can always speak to us clearly. Secondly, it highlights the problem we have even now, that material goods can all too easily turn us into oppressing agents.

Though most sovereigns no longer rule with great power, businesses, governments and financial institutions are still taking advantage of the land and workers. The Pope has gone to the Middle East to plea for peace, and talks with President Obama about life issues, but does he meet with those who monopolize businesses in Latin America and pay workers $1.00 a day? Perhaps he does, for he greets heads of states and talks with many persons. However, we do not see this in the media and the impact does not seem to be as great. Perhaps now that the Vatican is hooking up to the world by Internet, we will get more benefit from social teaching. I know the Pope has talked about materialism and so it is getting through on some level. Indeed, the encyclical says that new thinking and organization should go into ways to guarantee the human rights of food, water and life itself.

Economic oppression is what Pope Benedict has to address if he is going to criticize socialism and liberation theology. Latin America is already awash in both movements. States are taking over private businesses. I am not advocating the state confiscation of private businesses, but I am saying that because many people do not know how to curb their greed, they are facing some consequences. And if the Pope doesn't like the liberation theology agenda, he must supply the bishops and parishioners with one he does like, that effectively helps workers, business owners, financiers, etc. to somehow work together.

I totally agree that we need God to set things straight. Unfortunately, God is not on the minds of those bent on making money at all costs. The problem for the Church is how to best follow God when we face the evil of those who put Him, at best, in second place.

I have not finished the encyclical but will try to get it done this week and make final comments Friday.

Catholic Sunday Snippets 2009/07/12

2009-07-12T06:00:00.001-04:00

Each week a group of Catholic bloggers lists some of their latest blogs from the link at RAnn's This That and the Other Thing. My links this week are:

Review of Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell, sure to be a classic in Intelligent Design Theory

Introduction to discussion of Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth).

To get back to this post from the above entries, just hit the "back" key of your navigator. To return to RAnn's blog home from any post, you can use the "Catholic Sunday Snippets" under "links" in the right column. Hit the home key at the bottom of this post to get to the womanatwell blog home, where you can see both the above posts together with previous posts of this blog.

Caritas in Veritate

2009-07-10T06:00:00.006-04:00

At the fifth annual Summit of the Americas, held this past April in Trinidad and Tobago, Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, and President Obama exchanged handshakes. Chavez, who is promoting socialism throughout Latin America, handed the president a book when they met as a gift. It is called, Open Veins of Latin America, by the journalist Eduardo Galeano.

The book apparently shot up to #2 on Amazon's best-seller list after this gift was given. I got it from inter-library loan, but it had been on hold and took a while to get here. I've started it and have read about 1/3. It is definitely an eye-opener, and one cannot help but be moved by the suffering of people in the Central and South Americas since the time of the Spanish Conquest. Economic conquerers have taken these lands by force, induced slave to near-slave labor and drained the lands of their value ever since.

Now, I do not believe that life was perfect for the indigenous people before the entrance of Europeans. There was much war, depletion of land and human sacrifice. But as a Christian, I am horrified by the way these people were treated by supposedly Christian lands (at the time) such as Spain, and alongside the development of the Catholic Church. The book is an endless litany of mal-treatment of populations for the sake of land to be used for sugar, rubber, coffee, etc. and minerals for military and other uses for the US and Europe. This includes the slave trade which brought many persons from Africa to also be exploited.Of course, individual barrons may not have had the faith, but they were ruled by sovereigns who should have known better.

I know when the Americas were first inhabited by Europeans 1492, it was a different time when slavery was more culturally accepted, but this 500-year history has been and still is pitiful. More recently, the Church as become active in Latin America with Liberation Theology as an attempt to help the people. Though the Pope may not approve of the theology behind this movement, there is a need to do something substantial for the poor.

Interestingly, the Pope has released a new encyclical which does address these types of issues. It's called Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), and there is a video at the National Catholic Register in which he introduces it with these words:

Today I wish to reflect on my encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. Some 40 years after Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio, it too addresses social themes vital to the well-being of humanity and reminds us that authentic renewal of both individuals and society requires living by Christ’s truth in love which stands at the heart of the Church’s social teaching.
The encyclical does not aim to provide technical solutions to today’s social problems but instead focuses on the principles indispensable for human development. Most important among these is human life itself, the center of all true progress. Additionally, it speaks of the right to religious freedom as a part of human development, it warns against unbounded hope in technology alone, and it underlines the need for upright men and women attentive to the common good in both politics and the business world.
In regard to matters of particular urgency affecting the word today, the encyclical addresses a wide range of issues and calls for decisive action to promote food security and agricultural development, as well as respect for the environment and for the rule of law.
Stressed is the need for politicians, economists, producers and consumers alike to ensure that ethics shapes economics so that profit alone does not regulate the world of business.
Dear friends: Humanity is a single family where every development program if it is to be integral must consider the spiritual growth of human persons and the driving force of charity in truth.
Let us pray for all those who serve in politics and the management of economies, and, in particular, let us pray for the heads of state gathering in Italy for the G8 Summit. May their decisions promote true development, especially for the world’s poor. Thank you.

I hope to read the encyclical soon and comment on it. It can be found at the Vatican website here.

Meyer's Signature

2009-07-08T14:54:00.005-04:00

We are back from vacation to Ohio and Baltimore, MD. We had a nice time visiting relatives and friends. It’s good to be back.

While we were away, Stephen Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell, came out. I bought it and have read it. I know I said I am moving onto other subjects beside Intelligent Design Theory, but this book will probably be one of the classics of ID and I want to make some comments about it. It is long (about 500 pages), but very readable and includes many previous points made about ID. Meyer goes through the history of discoveries made in biology. He provides pictures of the important elements of the cell that lead to the conclusions of the theory and is very readable. Therefore, it is a very good book to read if you want to learn about the theory.

This book is closely related to the work of another ID proponent, William Dembski, but Meyer does it in a much more understandable manner than Dembski did in his book, The Design Inference. Meyer focuses on the code of DNA and the origin of the cell, a good strategy. He demonstrates the fact that this code is incompatible with the laws of physics and chemistry as we now know them. He analyzes DNA by way of Information Theory, a mathematical approach to communication channels shown by Claude Shannon in the late 1940’s. Meyer modifies this theory to reveal functional information in the cell. He shows that the recent discoveries about DNA point to computer program-like actions, such as operators acting on other areas of gene code in a hierarchy. These operators have been found in the parts of DNA that were previously thought to be "junk." Meyer points out that the only way we know that computer-like programming can be formed is by design by an intelligent agent.

I think Meyer’s book is very exciting. However, one problem is his insistence that ID Theory has nothing to do with religion. He is only partially right. It is correct that a person does not have to be religious to see that the code of DNA is better understood as a conveyor of information than an accident of evolution. However, Meyer wants to compartmentalize that understanding to allow for further scientific questioning but not the questions which come from philosophical logic. Though he says the theory is not a “science-stopper” as critics claim, he wants us to stop short of asking who the designer is. This is not a fair, or even possible, rule. Any theory should and does bring on the logical next questions. If only intelligence could create DNA, and humans were not around at the time, who had this intelligence? The only alternatives are God, aliens, or some other “force.” And when a person is a believer, the answer is ultimately God.

So, Meyer wants non-ID proponents to see his side, but does not see theirs. This is one of the main problems with the ID movement today. The thing is, in my opinion, the ID Theory is scientifically correct. If the non-ID people refuse to accept it, as is currently the case on the grounds that it is “not science,” they will never really understand the origin of the cell. For a long time people have wanted to keep religion out of scientific thinking. This separation goes back to the time when alchemy and myth detracted from science. But keeping the Whole Truth out of science is now showing itself to also be a hindrance to understanding. The factual evidence points to the major possibility that God supernaturally created the cell on Earth.

Many people today want to keep reason concerning nature (natural philosophy) and that concerning religion (theology) separate. But when Thomas Aquinas tried to prove the existence of God from material things (Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 3), he went from one domain to another. The discoveries about the cell lead us on the same path.

Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival 6

2009-06-21T08:25:00.009-04:00

I am cross-linking with RAnn's blog, This That and the Other Thing, for Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival in which she lists links to individual posts from other Catholic blogs. This week's post from my own blog is a list from the US Bishops' statement concerning economic principles.

On her blog, RAnn reads and reviews religion-related books, both fiction and non-fiction and sometimes fills us in on her personal life. Her blog home is here and in the right column under "Catholic Sunday Snippets." If you have come from there, and to anyone else for that matter, welcome to my blog! You can visit (or return to) the weekly Sunday Snippets post of RAnn's blog here. She lists links to individual posts from other Catholic blogs.

Feel free to look around my blog. If you are visiting from the Catholic Carnival, hit the "Home" link at the bottom of this post to get to the main blog. If you are interested in Intelligent Design Theory, click the ID link in the right column under "Topics."

Economic Principles

2009-06-16T06:00:00.004-04:00

My husband and I will be visiting with relatives for the next two weeks, so I won't be posting. Feel free to look around my blog. If you are visiting from the Catholic Carnival, hit the "Home" link at the bottom of this post to get to the main blog. If you are interested in Intelligent Design Theory, click the ID link in the right column under "Topics."

Recently I've talked briefly about problems with US health care and immigration reform. I thought I'd add here a bishop's statement, "A Catholic Framework for Economic Life" that is on the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) website. It's found through links from their economic teaching page. They used various sources to write this list of principles, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and their pastoral letter of 1986, Economic Justice for All.

Here is the introduction and list:

As followers of Jesus Christ and participants in a powerful economy, Catholics in the United States are called to work for greater economic justice in the face of persistent poverty, growing income-gaps, and increasing discussion of economic issues in the United States and around the world. We urge Catholics to use the following ethical framework for economic life as principles for reflection, criteria for judgment and directions for action. These principles are drawn directly from Catholic teaching on economic life.

1. The economy exists for the person, not the person for the economy.
2. All economic life should be shaped by moral principles. Economic choices and institutions must be judged by how they protect or undermine the life and dignity of the human person, support the family and serve the common good.
3. A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring.
4. All people have a right to life and to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, safe environment, economic security.)
5. All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages and benefits, to decent working conditions as well as to organize and join unions or other associations.
6. All people, to the extent they are able, have a corresponding duty to work, a responsibility to provide the needs of their families and an obligation to contribute to the broader society.
7. In economic life, free markets have both cleat advantages and limits; government has essential responsibilities and limitations; voluntary groups have irreplaceable roles, but cannot substitute for the proper working of the market and the just policies of the state.
8. Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life.
9. Workers, owners, managers, stockholders and consumers are moral agents in economic life. By our choices, initiative, creativity and investment, we enhance or diminish economic opportunity, community life and social justice.
10. The global economy has moral dimensions and human consequences. Decisions on investment, trade, aid and development should protect human life and promote human rights, especially for those most in need wherever they might live on this globe.

It is not a perfect world, and not everyone will live by these guidelines. But Catholics are a significant part of the population and can have a real impact on others. Of course, many already try to follow these principles. Let us pray for wisdom and right judgment in our economic affairs.

Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival 5

2009-06-14T06:00:00.003-04:00

Time again for Sunday Snippets. I am linking to RAnn's blog for Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival in which she lists links to individual posts from other Catholic blogs. On her blog, This That and the Other Thing, she reads and reviews religion-related books, both fiction and non-fiction and sometimes fills us in on her personal life. Her blog is here and the connection to the most recent Sunday Snippets is here.