Eclipse Elation

A tiny “cookie slice” of bright sunlight slowly crept across the moon’s surface as I began writing this post. The early morning total lunar eclipse of October 8, 2014, had completed its totality phase. The moon had passed out of the total shadow cast into space by the earth. The moon was returning to full illumination as the celestial bodies revolved through space and repositioned themselves from a nearly straight line. My wife later described the increasingly illuminated moon as “a lemon slice.” Still later, the full moon set in the west while still partially obscured by Earth’s umbral shadow. The lunar eclipse setting in the western horizon while the sun rose in the east was a natural spectacle of extraordinary beauty we shall not soon forget.

This lunar eclipse is the second of four closely spaced lunar eclipses in two years. These special lunar eclipses are known as “blood” moons for reasons not entirely clear. Every total lunar eclipse, however, has a dull reddish hue owing to sunlight bending around the thin earth atmosphere and falling on the moon’s surface. The series concludes in September 2015. It is called a “tetrad” and will not recur for another 18 years. Other eclipses, both lunar and solar, occur periodically. North American observers may look forward to a once-in-a-lifetime total solar eclipse visible across Middle America on August 21, 2017, upstaging even the spectacular lunar eclipse of October 2014. That rare eclipse will be visible by a much smaller population and is not part of the current tetrad. Eighty-five total lunar eclipses occur in this century. Total lunar eclipses are visible by people on half of the Earth’s surface.

Calculated precision of times, locations, duration of eclipses, and other details are known with incredible accuracy centuries in advance. This is testimony to the computational skills of scientists. It is also testimony to the orderliness of our universe and the Creator who set all things in place. 

Even as the eclipse was still in progress, I checked a National Geographic website for detailed information about this eclipse. Their reader comment section was already filling with enthusiastic remarks from the public. One responder stated, “(The lunar eclipse)…ties me into something ancient and profound within the universe and our world’s relationship with it.” I share that reader’s fervor, recalling many outdoor experiences at night when the moon, planets, and stars manifest the glory of God.

While observing this morning’s eclipse before the initial rays of daylight began lightening the sky, I was able to view Jupiter with its tiny moons and Andromeda galaxy, two million light years distant. The galaxy was faintly visible as a tiny “fuzzy patch” near the constellation of Cassiopeia. While searching with my binoculars for Andromeda, I was reminded that humanity has staked a claim to exploring a small portion of this cosmos: an earth satellite slowly crossed my binocular’s field of vision. I was able to follow its steady, dim light for several minutes as it headed north to south. Perhaps it was a U. S. Polar Orbiting Weather Satellite or a polar-orbiting satellite from another country.

Speaking of astronomical events occurring at precisely predicted times, I was reminded of an early morning, live astronomy observation event I offered my students in 1997. The opportunity took place long before the sun rose. Students were obliged to rise at about 5:00 AM and arrive at our school’s soccer field by 5:30 AM. The event was optional. Not all of my students were interested in losing sleep to see Mercury and Venus rise. Those who did were treated to a memorable event I dubbed “A Moment of Worship.” Here is a link to my post of October 25, 2008:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/moment-of-worship.html 

My post from December 21, 2010 addressed the topic of eclipses, especially lunar eclipses. This article fits with today’s event:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2010/12/blue-marble.html

   

  

  

Garden Predators

Last week’s photograph of our 2-year old granddaughter went far beyond the usual smiling photo sent to grandparents through the modern miracle of the smartphone. Our creative photographer-son managed to snap a shot of Juliana intently inspecting a large praying mantis at close range. Apart from its fascinating appearance, the capabilities of this insect in the scheme of the garden environment is almost beyond belief. In every neighborhood are millions of diverse creatures filling roles of both predator and prey. A catalog of predator/prey relationships may enrich our knowledge of not only our gardens and many of the creatures which inhabit them, but also of the ecology of every corner of our environment.

Some observers may shrink back from the mantis with its threatening weaponry. Others, including most children, find such critters a source of fascination. Their folded forelimbs are reminiscent of a prayer-like posture. If the mantis could actually pray, he may ask for grasshoppers, crickets, wasps, or even other creatures several times his size. Tenodera sinensis is an aggressive carnivore, a common mantis species with a voracious appetite and hunting skills to match. He quietly approaches his prey and snatches it in his serrated forelegs in a sudden eye-blink thrust. Holding the prey securely, the mantis immediately begins to devour his meal.

When I was young I recollect imprisoning a praying mantis in a large jar replete with a few stalks. I supplied my new pet with several grasshoppers which shortly vanished. They became mantis meals. A study of food resources of the living things around us reveals the interdependence of various creatures for nourishment. Directly or indirectly, living things depend on other living things for food. This dependence often amounts to direct predation. Psalm 104:21 indicates that God’s plan for created predators involved providing food for each other: “The young lions roar and seek their food from God.” The Creator has authored the beauty of ecological interdependence; these insects sometimes provide food for other predators.

Returning to our description of tenodera sinensis, we must point out that the physical structure of this mantis is beautiful beyond belief. Its jointed appendages and the overall purposeful construction of its body, including its flying capability, its unique ability to turn its head up to 180 degrees and spot prey up to 20 meters distant using an incredible compound eye system, and its ability to slice up its food with its efficient mandibles—this is merely the beginning of wonders. The beauty of its wing structure and coloration may be an afterthought for young boys more fascinated with the mantis analogy to the activity of soldiers in warfare.

As a believer in intelligent design, I cannot fathom how an evolutionist could dismiss even one unequivocal example of intelligent design in the natural world. We cite the design of tenodera sinensis as an example. Our brief description in the paragraphs above does scant justice to the information personally gained by reading an entire encyclopedic entry on this order of insects. There are about 2000 other species of mantids in 15 families of this insect order worldwide.

Finally, I watched the reaction of Juliana’s brother as he played with the plastic ladder truck he received for his first birthday. In several years he might wonder whether such a complex ladder truck could assemble itself. My suspicion tells me that in a few short years my grandson may be able to understand the ladder truck did not self-assemble. An intelligent designer at the ladder truck factory designed the physical features of the toy in addition to the functional aspects of what it may accomplish. Such analogies do not possess formal scientific proof but the intuitive lesson is powerful and difficult to avoid.

When these grandchildren are even older, perhaps when they are early teenagers, they may understand, in context, verses like Isaiah 66:2 with instruction from their parents: “Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being,” declares the LORD (NIV). Parents and grandparents should pray to have a mentoring role in the deeper discoveries of their children.

       

    

Restrictive Science

One of the most troubling phenomena with respect to the Design Inference and the Design Hypothesis, popularly referred to as ID, is the science community’s adamant insistence that neither intelligent design nor supernatural creation hypotheses are “scientific.” This pronouncement has obscured important possible discoveries. What really happened to produce an orderly world? What are the causes for effects we observe in the natural world? Is apparent design merely an illusion? More important, does finding an answer to these and similar questions impact our personal worldview and aid our search for meaningful truth?

To address the proposal that ID and creationism are not scientific, we begin with a positive question: “What is science and what is considered scientific?” These questions have many answers. Science is multidimensional and not easy to define. Broadly, science is knowledge. Most would agree that knowledge involves collecting facts and information about the world around us. We attempt to understand the facts and information we acquire. Humans observe the orderliness of our environment. We long to explain the orderliness and comprehend its meaning. Predictions about future events spring from our observations. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are derived from our understanding of the facts and information gained. As we describe our discoveries we recognize the process of science discovery is foundational to the discoveries themselves.

We wonder why science is so difficult to define. Students study science from earliest grades. It is likely that mathematics, language, and history are far easier to define. Most people have a concept of what science is, albeit the concept of science is multifaceted. Were laypersons challenged to define science we speculate many may stumble at the seemingly simple assignment.

Ample commentary exists on what science is. One could study brief comments or entire volumes on the question. In most articles on the nature of science, one caveat is stressed by science professionals: Science investigates only natural phenomena, never supernatural phenomena. This “rule of the game” is inviolable. Intelligent Design, if the designer is the God of the Bible, is a religious claim. Most adherents of ID would agree, but they may not agree that the claims of Intelligent Design are unscientific. They concur that ID’s claims are not all experimentally testable, but design is strongly supported by empirical observational testability. 

This inviolable caveat is defended staunchly by naturalistic evolutionary scientists and theistic evolutionists alike. Adherence to natural explanations is virtually a religion in the naturalistic community of scientists, even when the impression of design overwhelms the observational process. Ken Miller, a theistic evolutionist from Brown University, voices a hopeful tune. Miller has stated God could be responsible for the first living cells or the sudden appearance of unique animals in the Cambrian Explosion. Supernatural causes are always possible but they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret. Attributing an event to the supernatural, Miller says, we can investigate it no further, he says, using the methods of science. In contrast, our blog has a broader view of the scope of science. 

Many commentators would voice their support of the principle that scientists study not only what is natural, but also what is real. Scientists are not in unanimous agreement about a single scientific method to discover reality. The principle of methodological naturalism (MN) supports the proposition that scientists study only the natural world. Methodological naturalists agree that religious concepts are thereby insulated from scientific study. Herein is a serious error of scientists making this claim. Some scientists, even atheistic scientists, are coming to the conclusion that there is no fundamental barrier preventing science from testing supernatural claims. Charles Peirce, famous science philosopher of a century ago, proposed abductive reasoning—inference to the best explanation. Abductive reasoning is a mainstay of scientific method. It is a natural and instinctive process, suggesting fruitful new scientific investigations. Inference is central to science methodology. It must not be overshadowed by the proposition that science may not investigate supernatural claims.

An analogy may serve to illustrate our point. Our court trial system relies on legal rules for determining truth, falsehood, guilt, and innocence. Occasionally the court determines that certain evidence is inadmissible owing to a legal technicality. Apart from valid reasons for some technicalities, we may agree that some cases end in an errant verdict. Legal rules supersede discovery of truth or reality. In the case of the “trial” of ID in the science community courtroom, we search for God’s wisdom in establishing the “rules of the game” for scientific research projects. Likewise, we ask for wisdom in discovering what is real and true, not simply what is natural.   

        

    

Science and Faith Interdigitation

Interdigitation signals the interlocking of concepts like the interlocking fingers of two hands. When the term is used for the relationship of science and faith we might envision a mutually supportive relationship between them. Sadly, some see science and faith in a warfare relationship. Our blog is themed to focus on the harmony of scientific discoveries and Christian faith. Contemporary observers, however, do not commonly perceive science and faith in a complementary relationship. In our society theistic topics are considered to reside in a different category of reality, often lower on the pecking order of importance.

Many acknowledge our lives are increasingly impacted by the discoveries of science. Several writers have used the term “interdigitate” when expressing the faith/science relationship, but most people would acknowledge that science has achieved a more exalted position in our secularized society. In many subject areas, science enjoys a “legal” shield borne of the public perception that science is a factual, sure thing while faith is worthy as a personal, subjective, and devotional project.

Our mundane existence centers on how we enhance our ability to cope with life successfully. We work to sustain our successful existence in myriad roles—in work, in family and social relationships, and in pursuit of personal interests, comfort, health, and happiness. When our lives are described in this manner, life seems reasonably simple. Faith and science both impact our existence to one degree or another. The question concerning how they “interdigitate” does not have an easy resolution.

Some people stumble in their effort to achieve “successful existence” as described above. The achievements of science are heavily utilized in our quest. Applied science has wonderfully enriched our quality of life in terms of comfort, convenience, health, and nutrition. But science technologies may produce stress, overload, imbalance and distortion as well as benefit. Lately some journalists such as Bill O’Reilly on Fox News have highlighted ubiquitous science-enabled technology such as cell phones and internet. Among young people, in particular, these technological wonders may produce alarmingly out-of-balance, distorted lifestyles.

These modern phenomena have impacted the course of our lifestyles and cultural experience only in the last several decades. Like it or not, our personal, spiritual dimension is heavily impacted both positively and negatively. Retired people look back one or two generations with incredulity, even shock and disbelief. In terms of the effects of this complex technological, cultural, and political evolution, the question occurs whether the trajectory of our society has spun out of control. The science which enables cell phone and internet dependence may impact the quality of our personal faith. These technologies afford information access and entertainment unimagined a generation or two ago but they also serve to distract us and reorient our traditional value system.

Science and faith have interdigitated in various ways throughout the recent era of technological, cultural, and political ferment. The two spheres are often perceived as merely co-existing. Andy Crouch of Christianity Today has characterized the relationship as “integrative, not disjunctive.” This is an idealized view. Increasingly, the magisteria of science and religion have been forcibly separated. In our personal lives, the relationship between science and faith, however, is tangible. 

The NOMA principle articulated by Stephen J. Gould in 1997 dominates our societal thinking. In NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria) Gould proposed a respectful but independent relationship between the magisteria. In truth, however, secular science professionals willingly maintain a well-defined dichotomy between science and faith. The authority of science has been ascendant while faith may be on the wane. In view of our societal obeisance to burgeoning technology, the relationship issue is worthy of our attention as it affects our behavior and Christian worldview.

      

Denigrating Design

Intelligent Design and creationism have been relegated to non-science by the majority of the world science establishment. The perception of ID and creationism publicly suffer from this relegation. These concepts are assigned to a place of low esteem during discussions on origins. Church members frequently refer to the topic of origins in connection with their studies of the biblical Genesis account. Those groups consider themselves creationists. According to scripture, the world and its living things, including man, originated in a transcendent miracle. In contrast, secular world scientific discussions on origins only permit naturalistic explanations of phenomena in the natural world. When evidence indicates a possible miraculous origin, scientists beg the question—only a naturalistic explanation is permitted.

William Paley in 1802 penned a famous work entitled, “Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.” Paley’s work is frequently cited as an early expression of belief in the Intelligent Design concept as well as a devotional statement of worship. Historically, many theistic writers have recognized design in the natural world as an expression of God’s handiwork producing order and grandeur. Only in the last two or three decades has ID been more actively proposed as a formal concept to recognize the work of a Designer-God along with the more traditional theological concept of Creator-God. In early legal challenges brought by citizens opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools, the first formal mention of intelligent design occurred in 1997 in a case from Louisiana. In Dover, Pennsylvania, the term received frequent mention from a ruling judge in 2005.

Intelligent design and creationism have both acquired a bad name among the science community, purportedly because they are not scientific concepts. The ideas are raised in connection with cause and effect explanations. Naturalistic scientists desire to offer their explanations of phenomena in the natural world without introducing the concept of God or religion. When education authorities are challenged concerning the teaching of evolution, their legal teams proclaim that ID or creationism are “not science.” Rather, the lawyers claim ID and creationism are “religion.” Evolutionists win such cases on the strength of the constitutional “separation of church and state” principle. The science profession has succeeded in painting creationism and intelligent design with the brush of “non-science.” In the past few decades there have been a number of notable court cases where the “separation of church and state” model has transcended recognition of evidence for supernatural events in the world of nature.

Discovery Institute’s websites describe intelligent design as “a scientific theory.” The establishment science community rejects this claim because as a whole, they reject the proposition that a divine hand acts in the world of nature. Discovery Institute elaborates on scientific theory. The scientific method is defined as follows: A four-step process involving observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. Intelligent design produces complex and specified information (CSI). Not everyone has exactly the same view of science methods. Discovery Institute claims a scientific theory should elevate traditional scientific method over naturalistic philosophy. 

We must analyze our beliefs about the interface between objective truth and personal philosophy. If we assign undue importance to definitions of science and science philosophy, we may be bypassing the truth concerning physical causality. What are the causes of what we observe in the natural world? Did God design? Did God create? In any case, we ask if observed phenomena are natural or supernatural? The Creator has given us ability to discover truth about his actions.    

  

    

Brain: Causes, Effects, and Design

Basic knowledge of the human brain is an appropriate launch point for a discussion of the currently popular concept of intelligent design. The brain is the control center of an elaborate living system. Knowledge of its anatomy and function are merely introductory to an in-depth understanding and appreciation of the design of the brain. Consider as an example the knowledge possessed by a young man or woman when considering the purchase of their first automobile. The prospective first time buyer knows the appearance he or she wants in the car. Next, awareness of how the car will perform becomes paramount. Unless the young person was mentored by a knowledgeable auto mechanic, most first time car owners are concerned about little else than the car’s appearance and how it will satisfy transportation needs.

Knowledge of the thousands of individual physical components of an automobile combined with familiarity of how the vehicle operates is a preliminary step in our automotive knowledge. Likewise, diagrams of the brain along with a general description of the brain as the body’s control center serves as an introductory account of the intelligently designed brain.

Internet search engines help us place the wondrous functioning ability of the brain and its design in perspective. The ExtremeTech website tells us, “The brain is a deviously complex biological computing device that even the fastest supercomputers in the world fail to emulate…..Using the NEST software framework, the team…succeeded in creating an artificial neural network of 1.73 billion nerve cells connected by 10.4 trillion synapses. While impressive, this is only a fraction of the neurons every human brain contains. Scientists believe we carry 80-100 billion nerve cells, or about as many stars as there are in the Milky Way.”

A Science channel article claims, “Humans can integrate information from many different variables and stimuli, and they can learn by experience, observation, and experimentation…..The things that make humans truly unique (emotion, empathy, self awareness, ambition) are beyond the capacity of computers.”

Stephen Smith, professor of molecular and cellular physiology, says the new images revealed the brain to be vastly more intricate than we had ever imagined: “One synapse (a junction between two nerve cells across which impulses pass by diffusion of a chemical neurotransmitter) by itself, is more like a microprocessor - with both memory storage and information processing elements - than a mere on/off switch. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on earth.”

Fruitful investigations of brain anatomy and function—both the what and the how—may be found in many fine AP biology textbooks. One example is Biology by Campbell and Reece—over 1200 pages. This resource deals extensively with multiple life science topics. This highly rated textbook handles the topic of naturalistic evolution as a presupposition to explain changes in every biological entity since life first appeared on earth. This means every living thing on earth has descended from a common ancestor through an evolutionary process, they intone.

The complexity of the natural world has long been cited as evidence of intelligent design. This term has not been formally promoted until the last quarter century. In  that time proponents such as William Dembski, who popularized “specified” complexity, and Stephen C. Meyer, who specializes in the origin of biological information, have risen to prominence in the movement.

In science, the issue of causes and effects has always been vital. As we study the human brain, one must ask, what is the cause for the incredible specified complexity of the brain? And what is the source of information by which information responsible for the appearance of the human brain arose along the timeline of bio-history from our purported first common ancestor until now?

Naturalist scientists obscure the importance of such questions as the naturalistic science community has difficulty answering them. Subjective intuition suggests to intelligent design theorists that the effect of the brain as a “deviously complex biological computing device” and the brain as “vastly more intricate than we had ever imagined” cannot be attributed to a naturalistic, natural selection-driven cause.

Many intelligent design theorists attempt to shield themselves from criticism in the scientific world by failing to identify the identity of the Designer - aka the Cause. They fear that to identify the Judeo-Christian God as the source of (1) specified complexity, and the source of (2) new biological information, insulates them from the accusation that ID is a creationist concept. Yes, actually, it is. We live with the reality that the science profession, especially the bio-science profession, has successfully established that theists and scientists may not cross each other’s borders. The naturalistic world view has declared victory in this border dispute. The close sibling relationship of creationism and intelligent design has been relegated to the status of distant relative. I recommend this post for related reading:

http://jasscience.blogspot.com/2011/08/secularization-of-science.html

   

  

  

  

    

ID by Design

Our recent blog study of physical sound and human hearing is one of many subjects to inspire confidence that God intelligently designed the physical properties of sound energy as well as the human auditory sensory system. Our understanding of the production of compressions and rarefactions of air molecules is matched by fascination at our bodily ability to detect such sound impulses, interpret them, and react to the sound stimulus. Remaining sensory contact with our surroundings extends to vision, chemical senses of odor and taste, pressure detection, and sense of balance colorfully termed equilibrioception.

For this post we have chosen the topic of living things to highlight our discussion of intelligent design. ID is a relatively new concept. Cosmologist Fred Hoyle claimed in 1982 that, “…biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.” Some modern ID enthusiasts claim identity with such statements as their own. Hoyle, nevertheless, was an atheist who held some unusual beliefs such as panspermia—the belief that life originated from outer space.

Preceding Hoyle’s statement were utterances of scientist/philosopher Michael Polanyi. In 1970, shortly after the cracking of the DNA code, Polanyi anticipated the principles of intelligent design in several statements contained in a submission to PSCS, the journal of the American Scientific Association (ASA). He argued that the information in DNA could not be reduced to physics and chemistry. The statement seemed to reference a guiding intelligence operating in the design of material matter.

Three scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen jointly published The Mystery of Life’s Origin in 1984. Later Thaxton used the term “intelligent design” in an attempt to give the concept an empirical foundation. 

In the 1990s the Intelligent Design movement became more mainstream. Several of the notable players were Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Stephen C. Meyer. All are prominent authors in the landscape of ID. For their efforts they have endured heavy bombardments from skeptics in both naturalist and theistic evolutionist camps. The exchanges between evolutionists and advocates of ID are often extensive and sometimes laced with derision. The foregoing brief discussion is obviously incomplete.

Intelligent design is a simple concept, as explained in this brief excerpt from a CSC (Center for Science and Culture) link. CSC is a program of Discovery Institute:

Intelligent Design refers to a scientific research program, as well as a community of scientists, philosophers, and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection….

The term intelligent design has burst upon the scene only in the last 25 years. Prior to the popularization of ID, theistic creationism was the primary counterbalance for naturalistic evolution. Young people may not recall when ID was not part of our lexicon. There is still confusion concerning the difference between creationism and intelligent design as these terms have been defined.

As we examine biological systems and read descriptive resources about them, intelligent design as defined above in the CSC passage is an easier concept to grasp than creationism. In our recent posts on sound and hearing, for example, the design conclusion seems unavoidable and compelling. We reason that the sensory system of audition from the outer, middle, and inner ear, the remarkable transduction of mechanical sound impulses to digital electrical action potentials prior to their arrival at the cerebral cortex, and finally the brain’s ability to translate the signals and interpret them for our conscious use—the conclusion that an intelligent agent designed the system is virtually impossible to deny!

No person alive today is the observer of past accomplished divine acts of creation, but we are able to physically observe thousands of intelligent design features which powerfully bespeak the work of the God of Creation. The message of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is reinforced by our observations.