Threads from Henry’s Web

If I went around my neighborhood asking friends and neighbors just what evolutionary biology was all about, then went and found an evolutionary biologist and asked him to defend the comments of all the “evolutionists” in my neighborhood, I think he would be justly annoyed. He would probably tell me that these people didn’t understand the details of the field and in fact that most of them didn’t understand the broad outlines. He would certainly define terms differently than they did.

Suppose, in turn, that I chastise him for using eccentric terminology and not understanding the real issues involved in the field because, after all, this is the way that regular people, folks who haven’t been to university and studied such stuff, understand the terms. How dare he refuse to defend their viewpoint? After all, one must defend this activity as it is actually understood out there among the masses.

Pretty stupid of me, no? Well, that’s a slightly exaggerated version of how I felt upon reading the post Saving Religion from the Religion Scholars. What is a “religion scholar” anyhow? Can I start referring to evolutionary biologists as “science scholars”? Probably not. I’d get accused of failing to comprehend the many and various disciplines involved, the terminology used, and the interests and perspectives.

I’m not here to defend the particular “religion scholar” referred to in the post (nor to attack him, for that matter). That’s not the major issue. I would point out that I could always find one biologist who says really dumb things (I think Answers in Genesis and Reasons to Believe could provide me with a couple), and declare as a result that we should rescue science from scientists in general.

The simple fact is that religion is not a single entity, the study of religion is not a single field, and the arguments against one sort of religion are not effective as arguments against another sort. You may want to make it so for convenience, but it really doesn’t work. I don’t get worried when an atheist chooses to argue against someone else’s beliefs and then demand that I defend them. I simply shrug and move on to more productive pursuits.

Now most atheists with whom I have interacted have taken the time to hear what I’m saying, just as I try to take the time to hear what they’re saying. It should shock nobody to discover that not every atheist has the same set of beliefs, and not every person who has some religious beliefs shares the same set.

It should similarly come as no surprise that those who spend their time studying one scholarly discipline that is part of the broad field we call religion will have specific vocabulary and ways of talking about the subject that those who are not specialists don’t share.

To use myself as an example, I am often called a “theologian” by laypeople. I’m not a theologian. I don’t claim this, as some think, because I don’t like theology, but because I am not trained as a theologian, and haven’t researched or taught in that broad set of disciplines grouped under “theology.” My actual training is in Biblical and cognate languages, a field which requires no religious commitment, just a scholarly one. My actual work, to the extent I’m involved in religion, is popularizing, but that still doesn’t make me a theologian.

Within Biblical studies and theology there are again many subfields. Just as I am annoyed when a “scientist”–a physicist, for example (with reference to nobody in particular)–claims to speak authoritatively regarding biology, I am annoyed if someone whose training is in pastoral ministry claims to speak authoritatively on issues of Hebrew grammar. Each person will have some knowledge of other fields, but we must each be careful.

Thus nobody speaks for religion, and it’s even less likely that anyone could than it is for science in general. If we are to have dialog on these issues, then we will have to take the time to find out the specific nuances of our opponents’ views. If those hardliners on either side of the issue don’t want to do so, that is their loss.

(Note: James McGrath has also blogged on this issue.)

There’s at least one benefit to regularly reading certain blogs, and that is that you get comfortable with the topics on which you trust that particular blogger. It’s impossible to check everything or to read even a tiny fraction of the books I’d like to read, so this is very helpful.

One of the blogging voices that I have come to trust on religion and writing about religion is James McGrath of Exploring our Matrix, and he has just reviewed James A. Herrick’s book Scientific Mythologies. That’s a book that would quite possibly make it to my reading list, and indeed many of the things in the review show that it’s a topic I would appreciate. Yet the result of reading the view is that I won’t be bothering too soon.

The review itself, however, is well worth reading. Words like “myth” and “mythology” get thrown around quite loosely, and McGrath cites quite a few examples of this from the book he is reviewing.

All of which is my very long winded way of telling you to go and check out his review.

One problem for creationists has been the lack of publications in peer-reviewed journals. In a typical attempt to bypass reality with labels, Answers in Genesis has duly produced a “peer-reviewed journal,” the Answers Research Journal.

A major problem, of course, is that “peer-reviewed” tends to imply more than simply that there is a panel that reviews submissions. One can quite easily gather a panel of one’s family and friends and get them to “review” what one has written. Those who have tangled with the process of publication knows the difference between friendly and agreeable reviewers, and those not selected such as to favor your cause.

In addition, peer-reviewed journals are generally associated with some center of the academic activity in question or some professional society that supports it. Thus publication in peer-reviewed journals also implies a level of acceptance in the community involved in that particular type of research. Other members of that community read the articles in such journals and might even cite them in their work.

Of course, peer review could also result in censorship and elimination of good ideas that are out of the mainstream, but might become mainstream later. In that one point reside the hopes and dreams of intelligent design (ID) advocates everywhere. “Our day will come,” they say, “And you will all realize how right we were.” That view might have had some validity a few decades ago, but today if you have a truly good paper it will be very hard to suppress. Get it on the internet and someone or other will see it. If it’s of such good quality that it “shifts the paradigm,” then you’ll be able to show up all those stuffy peer reviewers.

The creation of a “special” journal for a “special” group of researchers who aren’t acceptable to the broader scientific community doesn’t respond to the underlying problem. What it does is provide creationist debaters who are facing the general public with some ammunition, “smart PR bullets” if you please, targeted at those who don’t really understand the issues. “No peer-reviewed papers? I have five citations here, all from Answers Research Journal. See! It’s peer reviewed. It says so right here.”

Once the PR point is scored, who cares what science is accomplished? I note the interesting line in the requirements for papers, mixed in with a bunch of format requirements:

Papers should be no more than 10,000 words long. Color diagrams, figures, and photographs are encouraged. Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins. Papers should be submitted in a plain text, single-spaced Word or RTF file. Formatting should be kept to an absolute minimum. Do not embed graphics, tables, figures, or photographs in the text, but supply them in separate files, along with captions. [emphasis mine]

Translation: Take that you scientists! You don’t want creationist papers? We don’t take any evolutionist papers, nor papers from folks who believe that the earth is old. We have our conclusions pre-ordained!

One obvious thing that young earth creationists seem to miss is that not assuming that the earth is 6,000 years old is not the same type of bias as assuming it is. The age of the earth is not an assumption, rather it is the result of considerable research which one can review, challenge, and correct if one wants to.

In the meantime, Answers in Genesis is also producing some “semi-technical” research. ERV reviews some of this over at the Panda’s Thumb and it doesn’t come out so well. She does a much better job and goes into greater detail than I possibly could. It is, after all, in her field.

But I could help mentioning a couple of little problems with logic. Consider this paragraph:

Antibiotic resistance is certainly an example of change, but it is hardly a fact of macroevolution (bacteria remain bacteria). Creation microbiologist, Dr. Kevin Anderson, states that such variation in bacteria is beneficial for their survival outcome in a clinical environment, but not a beneficial mutation. Anderson (2005) goes on to demonstrate how some “fitness” cost is often associated with mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A biological cost does occur in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating macroevolution. [all emphasis mine]

Look at the first bolded portion: “Bacteria remain bacteria”? When are these people going to bring some sort of focus to the idea of a “kind”? The only definition I can see is that if one thing changed into another while somebody was watching they must be the same kind, otherwise not.

Consider the second bolded portion. Here we are told that a mutation might be beneficial in a clinical environment, but it’s not a “beneficial mutation.” What would make it a beneficial mutation? I would suggest that the fact that more of the bacteria survive in a “clinical environment” than would otherwise is beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria involved. You see, they don’t live in this other theoretical environment, the non-clinical environment with which they are apparently supposed to be concerned.

Is there some sort of ideal environment where bacteria should want to live and where they should desire to be most fit to live. “Unfortunately we have to survive here in this clinical environment,” say the bacterial philosophers, “but the mutation that allows us to do so isn’t really beneficial, because it doesn’t prepare us for our real home in a non-clinical environment.”

So then we come to the conclusion of the paragraph where we’re told that because this other loss of functionality occurs, this can’t possibly be used as a case of macroevolution. I’d like to know what that has to do with the case at hand. In the clinical environment, you know, the one where the bacteria with antibiotic resistance have to live, it is a beneficial mutation.

Go read ERV’s entire post at the Panda’s Thumb.

I’d like someone to explain to me how dogs can become sworn officers. I imagine a lot from my dog’s expressions and attitudes, but I’m at a loss on this one.

In his WorldNetDaily column (HT: Dispatches), Chuck Norris is recommending a reduction in the size of congress. He likes the word “proportional” but doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend it.

He quotes the part of the constitution from article I section 2:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . .

But he apparently fails to read the entire thing, which (as amended) notes that:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. . . . (Quoted from the 14th amendment which amends the text of the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 2)

He says:

If you’ve ever heard the saying, “Too many cooks in the kitchen,” then you know how I feel about Congress.

But then later he says:

I don’t only think there are too many cooks in Congress’ kitchen nowadays, but the numbers are stacked in discriminatory ways.

Perhaps instead of pushing for Bible teaching in public schools, he should go for better math and reading, and undertake some remediation himself.

I don’t have the most positive view of our local newspaper, the Pensacola News Journal, but I normally show this by not reading it. I get local news from other sources, and national news from some of the national internet sources. I do check specific stories on a fairly regular basis and often have my attitude reinforced.

Such was the result of checking the News-Journal for reports of the July 14 game between the Pensacola Pelicans and the El Paso Diablos. Now note that I admit to being biased, since my stepson was pitching.

But consider this from the Pelican’s own site, under the headline Pels Win Behind Webb’s Gem:

Pelican’s starter, John Webb would go the distance as the Pensacola Pelicans (4-10) defeated the El Paso Diablos (7-6) by a score of 4-1. Webb pitched nine strong innings allowing only one run on three hits while striking out six in the first nine inning complete game by a Pelicans pitcher this season.

So what about the News-Journal? I can’t find their online story. Occasionally I know they don’t link from the sports page, but I’ve checked that along with the Pelicans page, and there’s nothing there. I discovered one problem in finding it in search, however, when I read the print story. They don’t mention pitching. It appears that the first complete game of the season by a Pelicans pitcher is not important, and that somehow the win was done entirely by offense.

Not only that, they don’t mention defense, which included a number of exceptional plays that helped John keep it down to one run. One catch by center fielder at the wall certainly prevented at least a triple. John himself was part of three plays that were unusual for a pitcher including a double play.

To be honest, it doesn’t sound like any sort of bias to me. Rather, I think the story must have been written by someone who didn’t really care about the game or take the time to think out a decent story that covered the major facts. Listing the hits and who made them does not a story make.

End of complaint, I’m sure you’ll be glad to hear.

It was a great game to watch, especially for the parents of one of the players. The team seemed excited and energized. Even though they lost last night in the next game, I think there is some new crispness in their defensive play. Hopefully they will be able to improve their hitting with runners in scoring position. They’re making a lot of good hits and doing some good base running, but it’s just not coming up at the right time to make the runs.

They’re up against the Diablos again tonight, and I look forward to a great game.

I usually manage to post something here every day, but yesterday was one of those exceptions. What was going on?

Well, aside from a busy day on the computer side of my business, which is part time, but tends to run in spurts, I was working with my wife, and my stepson John Webb (pitcher for the Pensacola Pelicans) on a project to bring children under treatment for life threatening or very long term treatment out for a night of fun.

We work with Sacred Heart Hospital, specifically the child life program to raise money through the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament and through other things as they crop up.

What cropped up this time was an opportunity to auction one of John’s jerseys, signed of course, which went for a substantial amount of money–no, not what a major leaguer would draw, but much more than we expect here in the independent leagues. As a result, John was able to rent one of the “beach suites” at the ballpark, which gives the children an air conditioned place to retreat to if they need it, but also provides a good view of the game.

Since the catering was donated by Jerry’s Cajun Cafe, a good deal of money from the sale will go to other projects for the child life program. Reward Jerry’s by heading out there for lunch or dinner–you’ll reward yourself with a good meal as well.

The Pelicans went out of their way as well to make the time fun for the children, inviting them to be involved in various contests, allowing two to be bat boys, and generally checking up on comfort.

Thanks to the Pelicans official photographer there will be pictures. I’ll post a more detailed report later over on the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter Blog. At the moment, the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament and related activities are sponsored by Pacesetters, but this will all soon become a separate foundation.

The incident in which a university student took a communion wafer from a Catholic church instead of eating it has stirred up an incredible amount of controversy. For background I’m going to link to just three posts, which in turn will allow you to find all the information you want on the incident and probably more.

These are:

• Fundamentalists Come in All Kinds, which is one that I consider a quite balanced reaction.
• From the same blog Reactions to PZ Myers and the Catholic League, which I include for the many links it provides.
• Finally Crackergate from Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog, which strikes me as a very balanced response from the atheist side of the spectrum.

Those posts and the related links should give you a chance to discover what you want to know.

There is one particular point I want to comment on myself, however, and that is the confusion of arguments appropriate for free speech as opposed to appropriate speech. What I mean by that distinction is the difference between actions that should be legally sanctioned, and that one might restrain oneself from taking.

I’m a pretty extreme advocate of free speech. I’m opposed to campaign finance laws because I see them as infringing on free speech. I think pornography should be legal with the exception of child pornography involving exploitation of children. I think it should be quite legal to insult, vilify, and ridicule. I’m opposed to speech codes in most circumstances. (Private property and gatherings are an obvious exception, where people choose to come together under particular rules.)

At the same time I restrain myself from much of that speech, and there is a good deal that I believe to be legal that I will not listen to or watch, nor will I facilitate its appearance in any way. That includes the majority of what’s classified as pornography. (I restrict this to “majority” because some people have some incredibly wide definitions of pornography. I will watch an ‘R’ rated movie, for example.) I don’t like excessive use of profanity, and make it my aim not to use such language myself.

But I believe that there must be a difference between what I think is a good idea, and what is legal. That is a difference that is essential to a free, and thereby diverse, society. I like to restrain myself from certain types of insults to whole groups of people. In some cases I do so because I believe that such insults are simply not true. Most general insults (”all Muslims are violent”, “all Christians are bigots”, “all gays and lesbians are promiscuous”) are not true in the first place, and thus truthfulness alone is enough reason not to use them. Others involve simple courtesy.

Now let me relate this to the issue of the communion wafers and the reaction to them. I feel this one personally because though I’m not Catholic, I am a fairly high church Methodist who holds to a “real presence” view of the Eucharist. In other words I am one of those people who thinks that something happens when the minister blesses the elements of the Eucharist, and I hold those elements sacred. I don’t believe in transubstantiation (though I should note that many comments have indicated an incorrect understanding of that doctrine) but rather that Jesus is especially present through the Holy Spirit. I believe they should be treated with respect, just as other sacred symbols.

I’m not particularly offended by people who disagree with me on this, but I am offended at the idea of desecration. Let me distinguish a few gradations here. Speech indicating that my view of the Eucharist is stupid is inoffensive. If you don’t believe what I believe, you’ll find my belief silly at best, and my desire to protect some bread and juice as a bit ridiculous. I’m OK with that. A college student grabbing a wafer is a college prank. It’s a little nasty, but the reaction has been way over the top. College students will do silly things. I know I did. (Note here that a Catholic will almost certainly see this act as a more serious thing than I do based on our respective theologies and traditions.)

Trying to get some communion wafers so as to especially desecrate them is something I find offensive. It diminishes the stature of the person proposing it in my eyes. Presumably that person will not care about that, but it’s important to understand my position. I have no problem associating with and cooperating in many areas with someone who despises my religion. There is a level of action regarding that contempt that will make such friendly relations difficult.

I want to add one note. At least in my tradition, the fact that bread was made for communion is not the critical issue, so if you “score” the bread before it’s blessed, it would be a simple property crime, and one on an item of very small value. So in order to commit the desired blasphemy and insult, one would need to get bread that had already been blessed, which could get into some interesting legal issues. Just how much can you disrupt a church service without meriting a “disturbing the peace” charge or some such thing. I really don’t know and hope I don’t have to figure it out.

Now my point here is that I have found some behavior that is insulting to me, something I find very inappropriate and even reprehensible. I can argue why I feel that way, but many other people will not agree with me. Should I be protected from such an insult?

In a word, No! Barring some action stepping across legal lines in some other area (theft, actually disturbing the peace as opposed to existing where someone would prefer you don’t, violence done to an actual person) I believe the law should permit me to be insulted in this way. The wafer may be the body of Christ to me, but it’s a cracker to the law. The result is much worse if the law starts to recognize something spiritual.

So what is my own actual reaction? “PZ, I think that was quite rude.” That pretty much covers it. And I don’t want that opinion of mine to have the backing of law.

[And just to be clear these e-mails to PZ are both rude and illegal, and those who make such threats should face the full weight of the law.]

Allan Bevere has posted the latest Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup. I wanted to do more than a brief link to thank him for his efforts.

Do you think of these roundups as the parenthetical part of my title would suggest? I can tell you from having done the Christian Carnival as well as various selections from the Moderate Christian Blogroll that they take some time, thought, and effort.

Yes, but what good are they? All I can tell you is what they do for me. I have 108 feeds in my bloglines account. Given that about half a dozen of those are blogs to which I contribute and I just want to watch, that means around an even hundred that I’m following. I actually read the headlines for all of those, though I only read a scattering of stories. I often clip posts and then end up deleting them when they get too old. Once I’ve done that, I’m pretty much done!

The roundups and carnivals introduce me to new blogs, new writers, and new topics. For example, the MBWR this week listed Richard Heyduck’s post Two Big Mistakes and rated it one of the two best in the Methodist blogosphere. I quite agree. I’m going to link to it from the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter and try to get our membership to discuss the topic a bit.

I’ve found numerous blogs in this way, and so I thank the folks who make such things possible.

In several recent posts I’ve been referring to the relationship between scripture and evolution, and particularly how I moved from young earth creationism toward theistic evolution not because I studied evolution and became convinced, but because I studied Genesis and became convinced it was not narrative history.

At the same time I’m looking at bit at theodicy, specifically the question of how a God who employs violent means (or at least appears to do so) can also be seen as a good God. This also requires one to look in some perhaps disturbing ways at how we interpret scripture. For example, if I take the Genesis flood to be literal history and also as a direct action of God, then I have a level of violence in God’s behavior towards humans that is much harder to explain, in my view, than the mass extinctions that occurred millions of years ago, or than the ongoing struggle for survival in the natural world.

Why is it so difficult to take a new look at scripture and to decide to take some things in some way other than as a factual historical account or as a transfer of data?

In my own experience I would list fear first. This fear is of two types. There is one’s own fear that in the process of looking at scripture in a different way, one may become separated from one’s community and support structure. I remember sitting down in Hebrew class and encountering some of the classical problems in the way we understand scripture. What was around the next corner?

One’s own fear of losing one’s anchor is bolstered and validated by the fear of one’s family and friends back at home. When I was still in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I thought this was a feature of smaller, more isolated denominations. Now that I am a member of a United Methodist congregation I have come to realize that this is nearly universal. Even in conservative evangelical churches that are sending their young people to conservative evangelical schools there is a tension between the way they have been raised and what they might learn in seminary.

The fact that some young people come back from seminary quite thoroughly altered, and not always to the good, simply feeds into this fear. I would suggest that we look at this differently, however. Might it be possible that less young people would lose their moorings in their community, if that community prepared those young people to joyfully undertake a voyage of discovery rather than repeatedly trying to make those moorings more secure?

Let me illustrate from my programming experience. I recall an early effort written in C, in which I had had a serious bug in a function. I worked on the code but found nothing that I thought should cause the problem. When I tested it again, however, it started to work. There was something in what I had done that had fixed the problem without me knowing it. For some time I was afraid to tinker with that function, because I was afraid that I would break whatever unknown thing I had unknowingly fixed!

I use words built on “unknown” intentionally. Part of the problem we have here is that preachers and teachers do not talk enough about how interpretation is accomplished. To many young people about to leave for college or seminary, Biblical interpretation is a black box. They have read a number of texts and they know how they are supposed to apply, but they aren’t all that sure why. The good thing about the black box is that it is acceptable to their friends and relatives.

At seminary, a professor may ask them to take the black box apart, i.e. to make it no longer be a black box. The professor may suggest applying a different black box just to get the students to start asking what’s inside. There are many tricks of the trade for getting students to think.

I think that there is a fear here on the other side–the fear of pastors that their parishioners won’t sit still to learn what went into interpretation, or that they will choose to get rid of a pastor so irreverent as to tinker with the nuts and bolts of Biblical interpretation. That’s why so frequently even in pulpits held by preachers who are skilled in historical-critical methodologies, we never hear the method, even if it has been applied in preparing the sermon. The results, such as sources, dating of documents, forms, and so forth are presented as the products of another black box.

These black box results are often presented with great confidence, and become, to the parishioners, the true meaning of scripture. When someone else gets different results form the black box, for example dates for Mark that vary from 45 - 85 CE, that’s disturbing, and people begin to wonder if seminary ruined the pastor.

It’s not that easy to solve, because it would require us to spend a little more time dealing with the nuts and bolts and a bit less time merely exhorting congregations to live more precisely according to the interpretations they have always held.

But there would be a major benefit. When you know what goes into creating a new interpretation, you also know how to argue against something that doesn’t make sense, and so instead of a journey into the unknown without a map, you can explore with reasonable confidence, always knowing that there are some landmarks, and if the landmarks run out, you know how to survey the territory.