Category: Science and Religion

“But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away”. This is a quote from Martin Luther in the early 16th century. Superstitions abounded during this time, including the widespread belief that the devil caused gastro-intestinal disorders. It’s a very funny quote – if you don’t think it’s funny then I would question whether you are still above ground.

I am a proud Martin Luther geek, and a friend bought me “The Wit of Martin Luther” by Eric Gritsch. It is full of the most unabashed writings of Martin Luther. He had a sharp tongue with a sharp sense of humour that might be compared to a mix between Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin.

But in all fairness, here is the complete excerpt that the quote comes from:

“I am of a different mind ten times in the course of a day. But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away. When he tempts me with silly sins I say, “Devil, yesterday I broke wind too. Have you written it down on your list?” …I remind myself of the forgiveness of sin and of Christ and I remind Satan of the abomination of the pope. This abomination is so great that I am of good cheer and rejoice, and I confess that the abomination of the papacy after the time of Christ is a great consolation in me.”

– Martin Luther

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. His most recent book is “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”

Scientist Francis Collins has stated publicly that he believes in God, specifically Christianity and Jesus Christ – and also states “evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true”.

As a lead on the Human Genome Project he has a detailed understanding of DNA and scientific protocol. Yet this intellectual also states a belief in God, assumably the Trinity of Christianity.

In my not so humble opinion we need more people like this. It is a good thing to have learned professionals that back the progress of science, have a commitment to their faith – and can have both without tearing down the other. Many of you know my personal “little red wagon” is the Evolution-Creation debates and how absolutely Neanderthal it is to read most Creationist arguments – makes about as much sense as the Salem witch trials or putting Galileo under house arrest. But here we have someone on the forefront of scientific research who also declares their faith loud and clear.

I like that. It’s a good thing. He makes me proud to be American, proud to be a Christian, and proud to be a human.

Article Excerpt:

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Read the full Scientist Collins Believes in God CNN article.

“If we evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?”

Recently a devout “creationist” joined one of my creation discussion forums with the proclaimed intention of finally unravelling the lie of “evolutionists”. After a full week of factless drivel I encouraged him to begin discussions on specific topics. I was very surprised that his first pick was “If we evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?”

The reasons were laid out – and here’s a simplified nutshell for you: First of all species still living are referred to as “extant”, which means still living. Second, the question is similiar to “If my cousins and I have the same great great great great great grandparents, why do I still have cousins?” or “If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?” Thirdly, evolution does not say we evolved from apes – Evolution states that apes and humans have a common ancestor.

The widely accepted website for evolution information is TalkOrigins.org – they have extensive archives, answers to all creationist debate points I have ever heard brought up, and the answer to this specific statement can be found here: Why Are Apes Still Alive?

Now I can understand a creationist not trusting information from talkorigins.org – after all it is essentially the “enemy” website with nothing but scientific answers to creationist debate points. I would say that to my knowledge if you are a creationist, spend a good chunk of time reading talkorigins.org and do not come away with some ideas changed – it would be fairly apparent there was no intended interest in learning.

But the problem lies here: Not only has this argument been long answered by “evolutionists” – it has now even been deprecated by the holy grail of creationist websites – AnswersInGenesis.org – Just as talkorigins.org is the widely accepted reference point for evolution information, answersingenesis.org is the widely accepted reference point for creationist information and debate points.

I have spent many hours on both websites and have come to my own conclusions based on the information presented.

Please go to the Answers In Genesis Creation Arguments Not To Use list to read it for yourself. Many of the arguments on this list I have had to suffer through in the past, with the ones stating the arguments saying I was blind to the truth and sometimes “blinded by Satan”. If your OWN TEAM says not to use an argument, then that should be pause for thought.

But the bigger point is, I have seen time and time again where the argument is not dropped until shown that the premiere creationist website says specifically the argument is flawed. The second biggest argument on the list of what NOT to use by creationists in debate is that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed. Again, I hear this time and time again – and when I bring up that the argument is deprecated and people can view it for themselves on their own creationist website; it seems few do.

The hesitation to look at the information clearly for what it is, and instead creating camps of “enemies” to be refuted – is a major red flag that should be examined. If you make claims that the scientific community as a whole is a coup bent on some mastermind plot – it is most likely you have adopted this belief as blanket protection for something you don’t want to look at openly.

Certainly that’s a choice individuals can make. But don’t think for a second that it is science.

FURTHER READING

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504505.htmÂ

Excerpt:

LONDON (CNS) — The theory of evolution, rather than negating the need for God, helps believers understand that God’s relationship to the universe is that of a nurturing parent, said Jesuit Father George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.

But there is a “nagging fear in the church” that evolution is incompatible with a divinely planned universe and this fear has historically created “murky waters” in the church’s relationship to science, he said in an Aug. 6 article in The Tablet, an independent Catholic weekly newspaper published in London.

The power of prayer. Is it real? Does it work? Am I instantly banished to hell for asking the question?

There was a prayer study several years back that claimed to prove that intercessory prayer works. Please note the word “intercessory”, which is a prayer done on someone else’s behalf. This is an important distinction, as the subject itself is a difficult one, if not impossible, to subject to scientific study because of the immense variables. Long story short, that first study was shown later to have actually proved that intercessory prayer had NEGATIVE affects, not positive. This came out later in the peer review process of the study, which concluded that the results had been skewed to arrive at a pre-determined outcome that the results did not support (which is of course contrary to the entire scientific process).

What I find interesting is that when those initial prayer study results were released, they were heralded on the internet as proof of the power of prayer. But yet a couple years later when it was shown the study results had been a fraud, THAT fact was mysteriously silent. I have heard that prayer study mentioned many times in church circles as proof of the power of prayer, but when I bring up the fact that the study had since been shown to be false the normal response is “Well, what does science know anyway.” This is a classic form of positive attribution. Positive attribution is where we have a predetermined belief, and we only see what supports that belief instead of the whole of information around us. It is a normal human condition, and one that we all fall prey to in one form or another.

At the same time another prayer study was in process. It was a more in depth study over a ten year period. The results of this study were much anticipated and you can read about it in the New York Times Prayer Study article. In short, the study showed that intercessory prayer actually had negative results on those with life threatening illnesses.

Three points to emphasize:

1. This study was done specifically on INTERCESSORY PRAYER, not on “prayer” as a whole.
2. This study is fairly recent and still needs to go through a healthy peer review process for validation.
3. Even the head of the Skeptic’s Society, Michael Shermer, has pointed out the many pitfalls and variables that make doing a definitive study on the subject of prayer very improbable.

But yet even knowing all of this there is the side of faith and the Christian walk that has a very different perspective. I like reading, and I like having all the information. But when you are in a crunch, it can be very empowering to know that people are praying for you. In fact, it can be the single element to give you the personal strength to carry on. Is the prayer actually working, or is it just the fact that you know they are praying for you?

I have a small group that prays for me on a regular basis. They are my Prayer Warriors. In my darkest times they were some of the few that stood by my side. Their specialty is prayer – it’s what they do, it’s what they whole heartedly believe in. When I need to pierce the veil to break through and challenge myself, they are the ones I turn to.

I had the experience today where in passing I shared a fairly significant event with one of them. They were very excited and shared with me their specific prayer from a week ago. It was very specific, no Nostradamus-style vagueness in it. And it timed with a specific event that occurred within a week after their prayers.

Is this positive attribution on my part? Maybe I’m just seeing what I want to see. I guess I go back to one of my favorite statements: “I do not believe in prayer, and am constantly amazed at how well it works.” Being a skeptic does not change my reverence for the things I do not understand, or diminish my amazement at the experience of the walk of faith.

My whole post can be condensed to this: You may know what you know and know it well. But when you come across a dark time in your walk, where will you turn? Who’s arms will embrace you when all have left your side? Remember those in prayer when you are strong, so they can remember you when the roles are reversed.

Thank you to my Prayer Warriors. You are my most prized gift.

“Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return”

What is Lent and why do people “give things up for Lent”. Is it that they just want to be depressing? Hare are some answers to the tradition of Lent and it’s purpose in the church calendar.

Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent. The early church determined that the Lenten period of fasting and renewal should correspond to Christ’s fasting (Matt. 4:2), and by counting forty days back from Easter (excluding Sundays, which remain “feast” days), arrived at the Wednesday seven weeks before Easter.

At one time Lent was primarily viewed as a period during which converts prepared for baptism on Easter Sunday, but later the season became a general time of penitence and renewal for all Christians. And Ash Wednesday became the day that marked the beginning of the Lenten renewal.

Ashes have a long history in biblical and church traditions. In Scripture ashes (dust) symbolize frailty or death (Gen. 18:27), sadness or mourning (Esther 4:3), judgment (Lam. 3:16) and repentance (Jon. 3:6). Some traditions also have considered ash a purifying or cleansing agent.

All these images are caught up in the church’s use of ashes as a symbol appropriate for Lent. In Christ’s passion we see God’s judgment on evil; in our penitence we express sorrow and repentance for our sins; in our rededication we show that we are purified and renewed.

The ash used in Ash Wednesday worship services is usually the ashes from the palm leaves of the previous year’s Palm Sunday celebration. Mixed with water or oil, the ash is carried in a small dish; as the minister goes from person to person, he dips his thumb in the ash and makes a cross on each forehead (“imposition”). And to each person he says, “Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return,” or “Repent, and believe the gospel.”

The cleansing motif of ashes is reiterated in the psalm reading that follows: “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin” (Ps. 51:2). And the ultimate outcome for the penitent child of God is reflected in the closing prayer: “…that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy, so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy…” (Book of Common Prayer).

Relative size planet images are clickable for full size view

The last few months I’ve received an increase of urban legend emails. The downside is the people sending them to me don’t realize they are urban legends. Usually they are sent from people wishing to do good in the world. Just a note that if an email includes a phrase similiar to “forward this to all of your friends” then it is suspect and should be checked. This particular one I’ve seen before, but it only took four seconds on google to check it’s validity. Google.com – it should be your best friend if it isn’t already.

When I receive an email like this I always remember back to several years ago. A friend sent me an email and said I had to forward it in order to receive a free Disney vacation from Bill Gates or something like that. Of course, the email said the sender had an attorney look at it and “it’s really true”. At the time I emailed my friend to let them know it wasn’t true and they got very mad at me. I think they wrote me back and said something like “Fine. I was trying to be nice. Me and my family will be going to Disneyworld, suit yourself.” Well folks, they never got a free trip to Disneyworld and they still don’t talk to me because of my response. So maybe I should have learned a lesson back then.

What irritates me about this particular email is it’s incorrect quoting of the Koran. It then uses that false quoting of the Koran to insinuate a prophecy for the current conflict between the US and the Middle East. If you want to make these tie-ins, please at least quote scriptures correctly. Please check your sources. It’s easy and it’s free.

Info on the latest one received can be found here:

http://www.all-lies.com/legends/religion/koran.shtml

The link above will give you the background on this….well…… lie.

The email circular starts with a listing of many biblical events which are said to have taken place in Iraq. Then the email continues with the following:

BEGIN EMAIL CIRCULAR

Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible. No other nation, except Israel , has more history and prophecy associated with it than Iraq .

And also, This is something to think about: Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages…

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11 ) – For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

I BETTER NOT HEAR OF ANYONE BREAKING THIS ONE OR SEE IT DELETED.

This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting in Iraq . Pass it on to everyone and pray. Something good will happen to you tonight at 11:11 PM. This is not a joke. someone will either call you or will talk to you online and say that they love you. Do not break this chain. Send this to 13 people in the next 15 minutes. Go.

You may have heard the rumor that the National Park Service staff at the Grand Canyon is instructed to refrain from telling visitors how old the Grand Canyon is. The reason stated was that they did not want to offend creationists who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. A 6,000 year old Earth is in contradiction to the current understanding of mainstream science. As it turns out, it is NOT true that the staff is instructed to say this.

Read how Skeptic Magazine was duped by the Grand Canyon story. Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine offers a detailed blow by blow account of how the story got printed and it’s quick fallout. In a nutshell he got duped by the PEER organization and is pretty steamed about it. (Article link is at the beginning of this paragraph.)

A statement from the now deprecated article read:

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

Peer review is the backbone of the scientific process. And it was Skeptic Magazine’s own readers who called it’s staff on the misinformation about the Park Service stance on this issue.

Here is a detailed response from Dave Barna on current protocol for National Park Service staff working at the Grand Canyon. He also provides an explanation as to why this rumor might have started. . Thank you Mr. Burna for addressing this issue with a detailed response.

RESPONSE FROM CHIEF OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in NPS Director’s Order # 6 and requires that the interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon. If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer.

The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a creationism view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are
photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternate view of the canyon’s origin).

The park’s bookstore contains scores of text that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the “creationism” text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, it is not our place to censure alternate beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternate beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom.

It is not our place to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternate views exist, but we teach the scientific method for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC

Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina # 129)