The Gum Tree for 2007 September 26

or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only. --Book of Mormon, Alma 30:40. We are in the midst of what Thomas S. Kuhn has described as a scientific revolution, which has been occuring within the past 5 years in the study of genetics. Because evolutionary biologist are have been struggling to pigeonhole the genetic code into Darwinian theory, they have assumed that a massive amount of genetic information contained in DNA was so-called "junk DNA." since you would need a massive amount of mistakes and random errors in order to arrive at the complexity that is the design of the human body. Now, the more we learn the more Darwinian Theory looks like monkey science. We are finding out fascinating things about the "code of life" (term coined by James Watson--the discoverer of the Genetic Code). That 99% of 'junk' DNA which was once thought of as a vestigial organ of evolution has been shown to provide manifold functions which we are uncovering every day. The complexity is simply awe-inspiring, but for the Evolutionary Biologist, it may be a bit depressing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny the inference that there is some kind of design intrinsic to life as we know it. A design would reject outright Evolutionary theory since evolutionary theory claims, at best, 'non-directed' accumulation of complexity at the most macroscopic level (species/traits selection) and absolute random accumulation of complexity at the most basic level (Molecular or Genetic). For those of us who saw the Movie Contact, scientist are like those SETI researchers who have received a message from space, which when decoded reveals the intricate plans to build a spaceship. As a scientist, I cannot infer the source of the message, but as a man who is tethered on the balance of doubt and faith; I have reasonable, but not certain grounds for belief in a God of creation. Evolutionary biologist may, through ideology, reject a primeval intelligent designer, but the evidences are clear; there is more to our existence than what we currently know or understand. Those who reject any intelligence higher than man's, have no proof and are operating under the delusion of materialistic ideology; the opiate for the self-absorbed man. Even if they reject revelation, which is the source of all eternal truth; their false faith cannot even be sustained by the rational proofs all around them. That is why the prideful atheist actually takes a greater leap-of-faith (albeit a false leap) than any small step which a humble follower of Christ is asked to make.

On the topic of Ideology and Science, a public policy think tank has recently published an interesting Global Warming primer which is easy to read, understand, and fair in its presentation; although I would have liked to see more references. Nevertheless, a good perspective and digest of so-called Global Warming theory.

Bill O'Reilly was having a conversation about race relations with Juan Williams yesterday on his radio program. CNN picked up that story and took his comments totally out of context. They can be found here at CNN. Worse yet, it completely misses the point of what Bill was saying, and even claimed Bill was affirming something that he specifically criticized: namely that stereotypes are unhealthy, especially comming in the form of MTV rappers who dress and walk around like clowns and exploit just about every bad minority stereotype there is (e.g. the violent, misogynistic, lazy, unintelligent minority). A commentor for CNN even went on to criticize Bill for criticizing that kind of stereotyping of black culture--amazing! To hear the whole conversation in which Bill and Juan were talking about race relations, go here to Bill O'Reilly's website. The response by Juan Williams to CNN's intellectual dishonesty can be found here, and he is livid. Tomorrow, I hear that Bill is going to have Al Sharpton on his program to talk more about it. I think Al will help give more context to the 'incident in question.' There is a failure to address certain pathological parts of culture; including black culture (i.e. rappers, and the detrimental influence they are, especially for young black men). Of course I am an equal-opportunity social critic who doesn't spare parts of white culture, for example, evangelical christians who exclude others, are sectarian, and who fail to properly train the minds of their children (let's face it, plenty of slavery and Jim Crow's proponents and those 'cheerleaders' who protested the integration of Southern schools were evangelical 'christians'). That social criticism could also be leveled against the Lohan, Spears, Hilton unholy stereotypical triad of dysfunctional young women. In any case, I think it is unproductive to be blind to the harmful effects of any culture simply because a political movement's powerbase is based upon parts of that culture. That is one reason why I may never enter politics.