Open and shut

I haven't watched Ben Stein's Expelled as yet. Although I disagree with the fundamental premise of the entire movie, I'll probably watch it when the DVD is available at our local library. I do think it's necessary, every so often, to hear the arguments presented by those who are diametrically opposed to our own strongly held point of view. In case you have any doubts about my position, repeat after me:

Intelligent design is not science.

Next year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. There will be many events planned, but one of these stands out, in my opinion. The organizers claim it's a milestone in the developing relationship between church and science, and that it will be "...an example of how to hold an open discussion without overtones. "

The organizer of the conference? The Pontifical Council for Culture at the Vatican.

As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Musical Monday: Future drama

One-hit wonders are a fascinating phenomenon in the music world....and have, doubtless, given rise to many "where are they now?" shows, websites, and blog entries. This song, despite its apocalyptic tone, asks some valid questions.

By extension, I often wonder what the future holds for world religions. What will become of Christianity in the year 2525? It will probably not resemble much of what we have today, but will the core remain? Will Islam take over the world, as some are predicting? Will humanity decide that it doesn't need religion anymore?

So many questions...like Zager and Evans:

Yin and yang

I am, for the most part, a rationalist. That qualifier troubles many scientists--how can you be anything less than 100% of a rationalist? I must admit that what I enjoy most about science is the rigor and discipline of the scientific method as much as the discoveries that it generates. As strange as it may seem now, there was a point in my career where I was enthralled by that most elegant language of all--abstract algebra--and actually devoured books on quantum mechanics. I guess my future in geekdom was assured from an early age.

Faith, by definition, is irrational. It cannot rest on quantifiable, empirical data. There are attempts to use some scientific principles in explaining certain facets of faith (hence, my interest in apologetics), but they can get pushed to the extreme, as in the case of intelligent design being touted as a branch of science.

I don't have any problems with my faith coexisting with science--in fact, each is often strengthened by the other. As Einstein said:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Much has been made of Einstein's belief in God, or lack thereof. If you're curious, check out God and Science. It's an interesting site overall, whether you're mildly curious about apologetics or passionately committed to studying it.

An imperfect creation?

This week, the journal Science had a thought-provoking editorial to mark the upcoming 25th anniversary (May 20) of a landmark paper's publication: the discovery of HIV as the causative agent of AIDS. The online version of the editorial requires registration, but here's a report from CBC News.

When I was in graduate school, my research project focused on a very small part of the HIV-1 puzzle. I remember at that time, several years after the Science paper was published, there was a small but vocal band of scientists who claimed HIV-1 did not cause AIDS. The group was led by Peter Duesberg, who has since been convinced by the evidence, but there are still a few holdouts today.

The Science editorial discusses the failure of attempts to provide an anti-HIV vaccine, but remains optimistic that this is the best solution. I'm not so sure that a vaccine is the best option for several reasons, but clearly a lot of research is focused on those efforts. And those efforts represent hope to a lot of HIV-infected people.

In the past 25 years, as the virus has evolved, so too has public reaction to the disease. I've seen reactions ranging from calling it a plague intended to wipe out sinners to sincere questioning of why God would create such a terrible form of life. That last question is one that we tend to ask on various levels, about many aspects of this world we inhabit. Why would a perfect God create an imperfect world?

It's easy enough to see that there are many ways in which we humans contribute to the world's imperfections, from our destruction of the environment to the excesses of Western medicine. However, there are some questions that I don't think we can answer with any degree of certainty. In a perfect creation, would there be room for humanity as we know it?

Musical Monday: God with us

I was thinking of taking a blogging break, since I haven't had much time lately for either reading or writing. I was also informed that my posts have been somewhat negative lately.

So, to counteract both points, here is a powerful and uplifting song from one of my favorite bands: God with Us by MercyMe. (The link to the video is posted, since embedding is disabled).

Biblical bias

I've been reading Exodus recently. I've always enjoyed the drama and the story, but this book (along with others of the Torah that deal with details of the law) seems to reinforce my somewhat unorthodox view of Biblical authorship: although divinely inspired, the books were written and edited by humans. Therefore, they are subject to human influence and bias.

In the case of Exodus, it's easy to see how editors (a popular theory suggests that Ezra had a lot to do with several books in the Torah) have woven their own material into the main story. For example, take the description of how the tabernacle was to be built in Chapter 25:

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering. You are to receive the offering for me from each man whose heart prompts him to give. 3 These are the offerings you are to receive from them: gold, silver and bronze; 4 blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen; goat hair; 5 ram skins dyed red and hides of sea cows; acacia wood; 6 olive oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 7 and onyx stones and other gems to be mounted on the ephod and breastpiece.

8 "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.

10 "Have them make a chest of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.

17 "Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

There's a lot more, so I encourage you to refer back to the entire chapter if you don't remember it. I have a hard time believing that God could be so vain as to surround himself with gold furnishings, or so small (figuratively) that he could be contained in a box.

Much of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy seems to have been written with one goal in mind: the consolidation of power among the priestly class. There's still a lot of text that seems both inspired and inspirational, but it's clear that later editors had been pretty busy.

In a nutshell, I guess I'm not a Biblical literalist :)