God and the Big Bang

In his excellent new book, Return of the God Hypothesis, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer argues that three developments in science over the past seventy years or so, give powerful support to the belief that the universe and life are the product of an intelligent, personal agent, i.e. God.

The three developments are 1) the strong evidence that the universe had a beginning, 2) the astonishing degree of fine-tuning of the parameters, forces, constants and initial conditions of the universe which make it a suitable habitation for life, and 3) the enormous amounts of information encoded in every living cell.

Taking just the first of these, if the universe did have a beginning then it must have had a cause. That cause must itself be something that transcends the universe since if it were part of the universe then the universe would've caused itself, which is absurd.

Since a beginning of the universe entails that all the space, time, matter, energy and physical laws that exist in our universe today came into being in the finite past, whatever caused these must itself be non-spatial, non-temporal and immaterial. It must be the source of all the energy and physical laws which exist. It must also be incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful.

In other words, a beginning to the universe is strong evidence for the existence of God.

If one holds to the view called naturalism, however, one would not expect the universe to have had a beginning because naturalism holds that the universe is all there is. There's nothing outside the universe that could bring it into being.

The fact that, on naturalism, a beginning to the universe is both unexpected and unwelcome is one chief reason why so many naturalistic scientists resisted the evidence for the Big Bang until that evidence became overwhelming in the 1960s, and it's what seems to motivate some scientists today to find some alternative explanation that would enable them to avoid a cosmic beginning.

Meyer talks about it in this brief video:

Meyer puts the word "before" in quotes in the video because time comes into existence when the universe does. Thus, since "before" is a temporal preposition it technically makes no sense to talk about what existed "before" the Big Bang since there was no time and no "before."

Anyone who has an interest in the intersection of science and theology will find Meyer's book a very rewarding read. It's thoroughly researched, winsomely written and cogently argued. Put it on your summer reading list. You can order it from my favorite bookshop Hearts and Minds Bookstore.

The Epidemic Myth

On a recent VP post I mentioned that the notion that there's an epidemic of killing of unarmed black men by racist white police is a myth, that in fact, more unarmed white men are killed by police than are unarmed black men. To flesh this out a bit here are some stats from the Washington Post.

The following data only reflects deaths by shooting. I could find no racial breakdown on deaths by other means such as chokeholds, tasers, etc. The data should also be seen against the backdrop of the fact that approximately 1000 people are fatally shot by police each year so the number of unarmed men, both black and white, killed by police is a very small percentage:

• In 2015 36 unarmed blacks were killed by police compared to 31 whites, but since then the number of shootings of both unarmed men and women has dropped and the ratio of black to white has reversed.
• In 2016, police killed 22 unarmed whites and 19 unarmed blacks.
• In 2017, 30 unarmed whites were killed compared with 20 unarmed blacks.
• In 2018 police had killed 18 unarmed people by May of that year, with 10 whites and seven blacks among them.
• In 2019 there were 19 unarmed white persons killed and 9 unarmed black victims.

Yet if one were to take to our media seriously one would think that not only were the numbers of unarmed men killed by police much higher, one would also think that unarmed black men were being massacred in far greater numbers than unarmed whites.

One response to the inconvenient fact that police kill more unarmed white men than they do unarmed black men is that blacks only make up 13% of the population. When the demographic difference is factored in, we're told, blacks are actually killed at more than twice the rate of unarmed whites.

The disparity is cited as evidence of police racism and it would certainly be persuasive were the circumstances surrounding these deaths similar, but they're not.

Most hostile interactions and confrontations between police and civilians occur in communities where crime, particularly violent crime, is highest. There are about 7,300 black homicide victims nationwide each year, not to mention the rates of other violent criminal acts. According to black author Voddie Beacham in his book Fault Lines, a National Academy of Sciences study found that when race-specific violence is considered the disparities between white and black victimhood disappears or is reversed.

An article at The Manhattan Institute states that,

Much of modern policing is driven by crime data and community demands for help. The African American community tends to be policed more heavily because that is where people are disproportionately hurt by violent street crime.

In New York City in 2018, 73% of shooting victims were Black, though Black residents comprise only 24% of the city’s population. Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department. (italics mine)

Where and when police are significantly more likely to encounter violent people it's no surprise that there will be more lethal confrontations. Moreover, just because an unarmed man is shot by police it doesn't follow that the shooting was unjustified. Again, from The Washington Post:

A review of the shootings of unarmed people shows that officers were reported to be under physical attack in about 40 percent of the cases. The remaining 60 percent involved a variety of circumstances, including individuals’ making provocative movements or verbal threats (31 percent) or fleeing, or being shot unintentionally or in undetermined circumstances, according to a review of news reports and video of the incidents

. Clearly, some killings of unarmed men by police are unjustified - Eric Garner, Philando Castile and George Floyd come to mind - but the notion perpetuated by our media that there's an epidemic of unarmed black men being killed by police is simply false.

Retiring Infinity

MIT physics professor John Brockman advances a surprising, perhaps even heretical, thesis: The idea of infinity should be retired from physics. Why? Because it causes too many problems. Here's an excerpt from his lede:

The assumption that something truly infinite exists in nature underlies every physics course I’ve ever taught at MIT—and, indeed, all of modern physics. But it’s an untested assumption, which begs the question: Is it actually true?

There are in fact two separate assumptions: “infinitely big” and “infinitely small.” By infinitely big, I mean that space can have infinite volume, that time can continue forever, and that there can be infinitely many physical objects. By infinitely small, I mean the continuum—the idea that even a liter of space contains an infinite number of points, that space can be stretched out indefinitely without anything bad happening, and that there are quantities in nature that can vary continuously.

The two assumptions are closely related, because inflation, the most popular explanation of our Big Bang, can create an infinite volume by stretching continuous space indefinitely.

The theory of inflation has been spectacularly successful and is a leading contender for a Nobel Prize. It explains how a subatomic speck of matter transformed into a massive Big Bang, creating a huge, flat, uniform universe, with tiny density fluctuations that eventually grew into today’s galaxies and cosmic large-scale structure—all in beautiful agreement with precision measurements from experiments such as the Planck and the BICEP2 experiments.

But by predicting that space isn’t just big but truly infinite, inflation has also brought about the so-called measure problem, which I view as the greatest crisis facing modern physics.

Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this. When we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity.

The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts there will be infinitely many copies of you, far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome; and despite years of teeth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities.

So, strictly speaking, we physicists can no longer predict anything at all!

This means that today’s best theories need a major shakeup by retiring an incorrect assumption. Which one? Here’s my prime suspect: ∞.

Brockman goes on to discuss this problem and to cite mathematicians who dismissed the idea that an actual infinite could exist.

Philosophers, or at least some of them, have long disdained the idea of infinities because of the paradoxes to which they lead. For example, Hilbert's Hotel, the brainchild of mathematician David Hilbert who imagined a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, leads to the paradox that even if every room was occupied there'd still be an infinite number of rooms available.

You could have an infinite number of rooms occupied and an infinite number unoccupied in the same hotel:

One consequence of removing infinity from the physicist's tool box is that it also removes an objection to one of the most famous families of arguments for the existence of a creator of the universe. The arguments are collectively called the Cosmological argument and one version, put simply, goes something like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. Nothing causes itself to exist.
3. The universe is not infinite and therefore began to exist.
4. Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.

With the addition of a few more premises it can be shown that the cause is very much like the God of traditional theism, but that's a discussion for another time. The point here is that an objection to this argument is the claim that premise 3. is a false assumption.

It's been more difficult to sustain this objection, of course, since the 1960s when Big Bang cosmogeny was pretty much confirmed, but there have nevertheless been attempts to deflect the force of the above argument by insisting that there have been an infinite number of big bangs in the history of the universe which has been oscillating between phases of expansion and collapse forever.

Of course, if the universe has been banging on forever we never could have arrived at the present bang. It'd be like trying to climb out of an infinitely deep hole.

Infinity is also employed against the argument for God from the fine-tuning of the universe. The argument here is that even though it seems astronomically improbable that a universe like ours, suitable for human life, should exist solely by random chance, nevertheless, given that there are an infinite number of different universes (at least hypothetically) every possible universe must exist. Thus, ours exists.

In other words, infinity has been an escape hatch for those who wish to avoid the conclusion that the universe is a product of a transcendent creator. By invoking it they've been able to justify, at least to themselves, their refusal to accept the conclusion of arguments such as the above.

It's interesting, then, to read a prominent physicist calling for the retirement of the concept.

Honoring Our Heroes

Memorial Day was originally established to honor those who lost their lives in service to our country in time of war, but it's appropriate on this day to remember not only the sacrifice of those who never came home, but also the sacrifices and character of men like those described in these accounts from the war in Iraq:

A massive truck bomb had turned much of the Fort Lewis soldiers’ outpost to rubble. One of their own lay dying and many others wounded. Some 50 al-Qaida fighters were attacking from several directions with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. It was obvious that the insurgents had come to drive the platoon of Stryker brigade troops out of Combat Outpost Tampa, a four-story concrete building overlooking a major highway through western Mosul, Iraq.

“It crossed my mind that that might be what they were going to try to do,” recalled Staff Sgt. Robert Bernsten, one of 40 soldiers at the outpost that day. “But I wasn’t going to let that happen, and looking around I could tell nobody else in 2nd platoon was going to let that happen, either.”

He and 10 other soldiers from the same unit – the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment – would later be decorated for their valor on this day of reckoning, Dec. 29, 2004. Three were awarded the Silver Star, the Army’s third-highest award for heroism in combat. When you combine those medals with two other Silver Star recipients involved in different engagements, the battalion known as “Deuce Four” stands in elite company. The Army doesn’t track the number of medals per unit, but officials said there could be few, if any, other battalions in the Iraq war to have so many soldiers awarded the Silver Star.

“I think this is a great representation of our organization,” said the 1-24’s top enlisted soldier, Command Sgt. Maj. Robert Prosser, after a battalion award ceremony late last month at Fort Lewis. “There are so many that need to be recognized. … There were so many acts of heroism and valor.”

The fight for COP Tampa came as Deuce Four was just two months into its year-long mission in west Mosul. The battalion is part of Fort Lewis’ second Stryker brigade. In the preceding weeks, insurgents had grown bolder in their attacks in the city of 2 million. Just eight days earlier, a suicide bomber made his way into a U.S. chow hall and killed 22 people, including two from Deuce Four.

The battalion took over the four-story building overlooking the busy highway and set up COP Tampa after coming under fire from insurgents holed up there. The troops hoped to stem the daily roadside bombings of U.S. forces along the highway, called route Tampa. Looking back, the Dec. 29 battle was a turning point in the weeks leading up to Iraq’s historic first democratic election.

The enemy “threw everything they had into this,” Bernsten said. “And you know in the end, they lost quite a few guys compared to the damage they could do to us. “They didn’t quit after that, but they definitely might have realized they were up against something a little bit tougher than they originally thought.”

The battle for COP Tampa was actually two fights – one at the outpost, and the other on the highway about a half-mile south.

About 3:20 p.m., a large cargo truck packed with 50 South African artillery rounds and propane tanks barreled down the highway toward the outpost, according to battalion accounts.

Pfc. Oscar Sanchez, on guard duty in the building, opened fire on the truck, killing the driver and causing the explosives to detonate about 75 feet short of the building. Sanchez, 19, was fatally wounded in the blast. Commanders last month presented his family with a Bronze Star for valor and said he surely saved lives. The enormous truck bomb might have destroyed the building had the driver been able to reach the ground-floor garages.

As it was, the enormous explosion damaged three Strykers parked at the outpost and wounded 17 of the 40 or so soldiers there, two of them critically.

Bernsten was in a room upstairs. “It threw me. It physically threw me. I opened my eyes and I’m laying on the floor a good 6 feet from where I was standing a split second ago,” he said. “There was nothing but black smoke filling the building.” People were yelling for each other, trying to find out if everyone was OK.

“It seemed like it was about a minute, and then all of a sudden it just opened up from everywhere. Them shooting at us. Us shooting at them,” Bernsten said. The fight would rage for the next two hours. Battalion leaders said videotape and documents recovered later showed it was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq fighters. They were firing from rooftops, from street corners, from cars, Bernsten said.

Eventually, Deuce Four soldiers started to run low on ammunition. Bernsten, a squad leader, led a team of soldiers out into the open, through heavy fire, to retrieve more from the damaged Strykers. “We went to the closest vehicle first and grabbed as much ammo as we could, and got it upstairs and started to distribute it,” he said. “When you hand a guy a magazine and they’re putting the one you just handed them into their weapon, you realize they’re getting pretty low. So we knew we had to go back out there for more.”

He didn’t necessarily notice there were rounds zipping past as he and the others ran the 100 feet or so to the Strykers. “All you could see was the back of the Stryker you were trying to get to.”

Another fight raged down route Tampa, where a convoy of six Strykers, including the battalion commander’s, had rolled right into a field of hastily set roadside bombs. The bombs hadn’t been there just five minutes earlier, when the convoy had passed by going the other way after a visit to the combat outpost. It was an ambush set up to attack whatever units would come to the aid of COP Tampa.

Just as soldiers in the lead vehicle radioed the others that there were bombs in the road, the second Stryker was hit by a suicide car bomber. Staff Sgt. Eddieboy Mesa, who was inside, said the blast tore off the slat armor cage and equipment from the right side of the vehicle, and destroyed its tires and axles and the grenade launcher mounted on top. But no soldiers were seriously injured.

Insurgents opened fire from the west and north of the highway. Stryker crewmen used their .50-caliber machine guns and grenade launchers to destroy a second car bomb and two of the bombs rigged in the roadway. Three of the six Strykers pressed on to COP Tampa to join the fight.

One, led by battalion operations officer Maj. Mark Bieger, loaded up the critically wounded and raced back onto the highway through the patch of still-unstable roadside bombs. It traveled unescorted the four miles or so to a combat support hospital. Bieger and his men are credited with saving the lives of two soldiers.

Then he and his men turned around and rejoined the fight on the highway. Bieger was one of those later awarded the Silver Star. Meantime, it was left to the soldiers still on the road to defend the heavily damaged Stryker and clear the route of the remaining five bombs.

Staff Sgt. Wesley Holt and Sgt. Joseph Martin rigged up some explosives and went, under fire, from bomb to bomb to prepare them for demolition. They had no idea whether an insurgent was watching nearby, waiting to detonate the bombs. Typically, this was the kind of situation where infantry soldiers would call in the ordnance experts. But there was no time, Holt said.

“You could see the IEDs right out in the road. I knew it was going to be up to us to do it,” Holt said. “Other units couldn’t push through. The colonel didn’t want to send any more vehicles through the kill zone until we could clear the route.” And so they prepared their charges under the cover of the Strykers, then ran out to the bombs, maybe 50 yards apart. The two men needed about 30 seconds to rig each one as incoming fire struck around them.

“You could hear it [enemy fire] going, but where they were landing I don’t know,” Holt said. “You concentrate on the main thing that’s in front of you.” He and Martin later received Silver Stars.

The route clear, three other Deuce Four platoons moved out into the neighborhoods and F/A-18 fighter jets made more than a dozen runs to attack enemy positions with missiles and cannon fire. “It was loud, but it was a pretty joyous sound,” Bernsten said. “You know that once that’s happened, you have the upper hand in such a big way. It’s like the cavalry just arrived, like in the movies.”

Other soldiers eventually received Bronze Stars for their actions that day, too.

Sgt. Christopher Manikowski and Sgt. Brandon Huff pulled wounded comrades from their damaged Strykers and carried them over open ground, under fire, to the relative safety of the building.

Sgt. Nicholas Furfari and Spc. Dennis Burke crawled out onto the building’s rubbled balcony under heavy fire to retrieve weapons and ammunition left there after the truck blast.

Also decorated with Bronze Stars for their valor on Dec. 29 were Lt. Jeremy Rockwell and Spc. Steven Sosa. U.S. commanders say they killed at least 25 insurgents. Deuce Four left the outpost unmanned for about three hours that night, long enough for engineers to determine whether it was safe to re-enter. Troops were back on duty by morning, said battalion commander Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla.

In the next 10 months, insurgents would continue to attack Deuce Four troops in west Mosul with snipers, roadside bombs and suicide car bombs. But never again would they mass and attempt such a complex attack.

Heroics on two other days earned Silver Stars for Deuce Four.

It was Aug. 19, and Sgt. Major Robert Prosser’s commander, Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla, had been shot down in front of him. Bullets hit the ground and walls around him. Prosser charged under fire into a shop, not knowing how many enemy fighters were inside. There was one, and Prosser shot him four times in the chest, then threw down his empty rifle and fought hand-to-hand with the man.

The insurgent pulled Prosser’s helmet over his eyes. Prosser got his hands onto the insurgent’s throat, but couldn’t get a firm grip because it was slick with blood.

Unable to reach his sidearm or his knife, and without the support of any other American soldiers Prosser nonetheless disarmed and subdued the insurgent by delivering a series of powerful blows to the insurgent’s head, rendering the man unconscious.

Another Silver Star recipient, Staff Sgt. Shannon Kay, received the award for his actions on Dec. 11, 2004. He helped save the lives of seven members of his squad after they were attacked by a suicide bomber and insurgents with rockets and mortars at a traffic checkpoint.

He and others used fire extinguishers to save their burning Stryker vehicle and killed at least eight enemy fighters. Throughout the fight, Kay refused medical attention despite being wounded in four places.

For men like these and the millions of others whose courage and sacrifice have for two hundred and fifty years enabled the rest of us to live in relative freedom and security, we should all thank God.

Perpetuating the Myth

Friday's Wall Street Journal featured an op-ed by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Donna Brazile. Brazile's column was a condemnation of anti-semitic bigotry in which she compares anti-semitism to the sort of prejudice blacks have faced in this country.

In the course of her essay she says this:

As a black woman, I’ve experienced plenty of discrimination, though far less than my ancestors suffered. And in the past year I’ve watched the same videos and read the same accounts that millions of people around the world have seen—images of police killing unarmed black people in American cities.

I cried over these horrific killings, as I cried for the victims gunned down at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston.

There are a couple of things about this passage that are problematic, but one of them is that she, perhaps inadvertently, perpetuates the myth that unarmed black people are uniquely victimized by white police. Despite the strenuous efforts on the part of the left/liberal media, politicians and celebrities to convince us that this is so, it simply isn't.

In his book Fault Lines, black pastor Voddie Baucham cites several examples of prominent individuals and media reinforcing the myth:

NBA player Lebron James: "We're [black men] literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our home."

The New York Times quoting a protest organizer: "I'm just as likely to die from a cop as I am from COVID."

A Washington Post headline: "Police Killing Black People Is a Pandemic, Too."

The media also reinforces this myth every time they use the phrase "unarmed black man." NPR for instance, used the phrase 82 times in 2020 when reporting on the deaths of black men at the hands of whites. The phrase was used 65 times in the 187 days after Ahmand Arbery was killed in Georgia by two white men (who were not police officers).

In that same 187 day period the phrase "unarmed white man" was not used once even though 11 unarmed white men were killed by police during that stretch.

We hear a lot about the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile and other innocent victims of police brutality, mistakes or incompetence. But when the victim is black and the officer is white the killing is automatically imputed to racism.

Baucham points out, however, that for every case like those mentioned in the previous sentence there are numerous similar cases which never make it onto the evening news. For example, Tony Timpa's case is much like George Floyd's but we never heard about it. Timpa was white.

Tamir Rice was shot and killed because the police thought that a toy gun he brandished was real. It was a national story because Rice was young and black, but in 2016 the Washington Post reported that over a two year span police killed 86 people under similar circumstances, 54 of whom were white and 19 of whom were black.

Baucham describes similar circumstances with regard to almost all of the killings that have achieved notoriety in recent years. Yet the myth persists. Baucham writes:

In a recent man-on-the-street interview conducted by Prager University, three young black men were asked how many unarmed black men the police killed in 2019. "About a thousand," said one. "At least a thousand," said the second. The third estimated "Fourteen hundred." When asked how many unarmed white men were killed by police that same year, their answers ranged from four to fourteen.

The young men were astonished to learn that only nineteen white men and nine black men had been killed by police in 2019....

I suspect a lot of others would be surprised, too, given how disgracefully tendentious and pernicious our news reporting on these incidents has been.

The Demise of Literature

Those readers who've attended college, or who've been involved in academia for a while may have noticed that enrollment in Humanities disciplines in general and English in particular have plummeted in recent decades.

Mark Bauerlein at First Things has an interesting essay on why he thinks this has happened. He writes:

Today’s job market is beyond depressing. Openings in English dropped by 55 percent between 2007–08 and 2017–18—from 1,826 listings to 828—and undergraduate demand for the services of the lucky few who obtain a job continues to decline. From 2011 to 2017, the number of English bachelor’s degrees fell by more than 20 percent.

In the sixties, the opposite was happening....The number of institutions of higher education climbed from 2,008 to 2,525 during the same period. Mass hiring of professors took place, with the number of instructors increasing from 281,506 in 1959–60 to 551,000 in 1969–70.

English was a major beneficiary of the growth. In 1959–60, 20,128 graduates earned bachelor’s degrees in English; ten years later, the number had nearly tripled, to 56,410. One year after that, the number of English majors earning a four-year degree hit 63,914—one out of every thirteen students....General education requirements typically included semesters of freshman composition, foreign language, Western Civilization, and a separate literature course, making literary studies a centerpiece of everyone’s formation.

But then disaster struck. Teachers of literature became enamored of French deconstructionism and theorists like Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault:

The popularity of English was a luxury enabling American disciples to be almost mischievous in their admiration of the difficulty of the new theorists. Derrida’s dense dialectical presentation in Of Grammatology wasn’t going to make many wavering sophomores decide to major in English or French. Foucault’s treatment of torture and prison wouldn’t lead parents and alumni to become donors.

Their vocabulary reduced the audience for academic criticism. American undergraduates couldn’t understand it, but so what? The obscurity wouldn’t be a problem as long as resources and students were pouring in. If classes were full, the American scholars who embraced the new theorists could welcome a foreign discourse steeped in Hegel, Freud, Heidegger, and European linguists that only a few sub-sub-specialists had mastered.

Why bother with reader-friendly prose if research funds and outlets are plentiful?

But the indulgence in a form of literary criticism that no one could understand had a baneful effect on student enrollment. Bauerlein cites a typical passage from the work of one deconstructionist:

A choice must then be made: either to place all texts in a demonstrative oscillation, equalizing them under the scrutiny of an in-different science, forcing them to rejoin, inductively, the Copy from which we will then make them derive; or else to restore each text, not to its individuality, but to its function, making it cohere, even before we talk about it, by the infinite paradigm of difference, subjecting it from the outset to a basic typology, to an evaluation.

Such gibberish turned students off. As Bauerlein notes: Students majored in English because they’d read Shakespeare in a freshman course or Hemingway on their own and found in these and other works satisfying reflections of themselves and their lives. They identified with Odysseus and Nick Adams, and they wanted their classes to help them refine their enthusiasm and appreciation for works of literature.

But deconstructionism forced students to ignore the skill of the author and the truth the author sought to convey and focus instead on the authors' "center":

Derrida pushed a radical skepticism that targeted the very idea of core meaning, original intention, or truth in or behind or before or under the work itself....Claims to true interpretation, Derrida said, rested upon a “center,” something outside the work that explained constituents of it—an author’s psychology, his religion, his class relations, and so on.

Race and gender were soon to be included. Interpreting and appreciating the writing itself was secondary to the status of the writer. Everything must be interpreted in light of that status and that interpretation was open-ended. The interpreter or reader never arrived at any final conclusions:

This embrace of the heroic role of the endless interpreter swept everyone away. The search for the central truth of a literary work was over. The rehearsal of the forever-deferred and “problematized” truth of the work took its place. No more truth, only “reading.”

This model was never going to attract very many American sophomores, who thrill to literature for its love and hate, intrigue and action, conflict and lyricism. It did not impress the literary reading public, either, the individuals who had season tickets to local theaters and subscribed to the Book-of-the-Month Club.

Sophomores today who want teachers who will teach them that Faulkner has special insight into the human psyche and that Pope’s couplets are the height of verbal refinement won’t easily find them. When I finished graduate school in 1988, those kinds of evaluations were already off the table. Theory had made everyone cannier, or so we thought.

You had to be careful not to “privilege” literature. You did not permit yourself overt enthusiasm for great novels or poems. You submitted “texts” to analysis—you “performed” a “reading.”

A well-written novel was no longer considered a work of art in itself. It was only important in light of what it said about the author's "center." This may be of interest to sociologists and psychologists, but many lovers of literature found it sterile, arcane and disappointing.

In any case, there's more to Bauerlein's essay at the link.

Not being in the field of literature myself I can't say whether Bauerlein's analysis of the decline of English as an academic discipline is correct or not, but it's certainly interesting and seems plausible. I would add, though, that the dearth of career opportunities in which a degree in deconstructive literary criticism is helpful is doubtless also a factor in the decline of the number of students who choose to major in English.

Terminal Lucidity

A fascinating article at Mind Matters addresses a phenomenon known as terminal lucidity. It happens that a small number of patients with dementia or some other cognitive impairment, patients who have lived, sometimes for years, in a mental fog will suddenly become lucid for minutes, hours or even days before their deaths.

One well-known case was that of Anna Katharina Ehmer (1895–1922) who, due to mental disabilities, lived in a psychiatric institution in Germany for most of her life.

… [She had] allegedly never spoken a single word during her life. Yet, she was reported to have sung dying songs for a half hour before she died. The case was reported by the head of this institution and by its chief physician....

In a 2018 article, Zaron Burnett III recounts that no one was expecting that: “The doctors and hospital staff who witnessed Anna’s concertina for death were rendered speechless themselves; some sobbed in bewilderment; others felt they’d witnessed a miracle of the soul.”

The Mind Matters article goes on to note studies that have found that,

....out of the 227 dementia patients tracked, approximately 10 percent exhibited terminal lucidity. From his literature review, Nahm has reported that approximately 84 percent of people who experience terminal lucidity will die within a week, with 42 percent dying the same day.

Another case involved a 91-year-old woman who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease for 15 years:

The woman had long been unresponsive and showed no signs of recognizing her daughter or anyone for the previous five years. One evening, she started a normal conversation with her daughter. She talked about her fear of death, difficulties she had with the church and family members, and then died a few hours later.

There's much more on this phenomenon at the link, but here are four interesting points the article makes:

• Terminal lucidity occurs for atheists and believers at the same rate.
• Terminally lucid persons tend to focus on “reminiscing, preparations, last wishes, body concerns, such as hunger or thirst, as well as an awareness of their impending death.”
• Sometimes, that last burst of lucidity is a disappointment for friends and family who sometimes believe that a miracle of healing has occurred when in fact death soon follows.
• There's no known physical or medical explanation for the phenomenon.

Evidently, there's no change in the physical health of the brain when a person experiences this flash of awareness and cognitive ability. Does this suggest that the physical, material brain isn't the complete explanation for our cognition?

Might we also have an immaterial mind that works in tandem with the brain but at physical death is able to disconnect itself from it?

As research on terminal lucidity and related phenomena like post- or near-death out-of-the-body experiences continues to mount perhaps the evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind will continue to grow as well.

If it does then the conviction that our physical death is not the end of our existence will certainly be reinforced.

Unconscionable Horror

As has been well-publicized, corporations like Nike and the NBA are cozy with Communist China and stars like LeBron James refuse to criticize the Chinese government that is a cash cow for his employers and himself.

Not too long ago our liberal media, which never sees any evil on the left, was deriding anyone who had the temerity to suggest that the Chinese were responsible for the Covid virus and culpable for the deaths of the 3.5 million people who've since died in the worldwide pandemic. It's racist, we've been told, to calumniate the good folks in Beijing.

Well, Elle Reynolds at The Federalist must be a racist because she publicizes the contents of a newly released book written by Sayragul Sautybay and journalist Alexandra Cavelius (The title is: The Chief Witness: Escape From China’s Modern-Day Concentration Camps) and what she writes is not at all flattering to Xi Jinping and his minions.

Sautybay was held in a state-run concentration camp in Xinjiang province where she witnessed the horrors perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims in China.

Despite having been forced to sign a pledge that she would never, on pain of execution, speak of the things she witnessed, after being released from the camp in 2018 she managed to escape China, and has been actively trying ever since to rouse the conscience of the liberal Western media which would much prefer to focus their attentions upon the nefarious Donald Trump and the January 6th riot at the Capitol.

Reynolds comments on Sautybay's book:

According to satellite photos from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the number of camps had reached 380 by September 2020. Sauytbay was forced to work as a teacher at one of them.

The screams coming from the black room [a torture chamber at her camp] “sounded like the raw cries of a dying animal,” she says. “The second you hear them, you know what kind of agony that person is experiencing.”

She recalls seeing chains on the walls in the black room, and chairs with “nails sticking out of the seats” where inmates would be tied down. Torture devices on the walls “looked like they were from the Middle Ages,” including “implements used to pull out fingernails and toenails,” and a spear-like rod “for jabbing into a person’s flesh.”

Electric chairs, “iron chairs with holes in the back so that the arms could be twisted back above the shoulder joint,” and other chairs designed to pin victims down lined one side of the room. “Many of the people they tortured never came back out of that room,” she says. “Others stumbled out, covered in blood.”

Secretive orders mandated that any prisoners who died or were killed “must vanish without a trace,” Sauytbay recalls. “There should be no visible signs of torture on the bodies … Any evidence, proof, or documentation was to be immediately destroyed.”

Fine people, these Chinese communists. Sautybay recalls one of the classes she was forced to teach:

I was barely even listening to myself talk about our self-sacrificing patriarch Xi Jinping, who "passes on the warmth of love with his hands" [while] several of the ‘students’ collapsed unconscious and fell off their plastic chairs.

When prisoners fell unconscious, from anguish or stress, the guards “grabbed the unconscious person by both arms, and dragged them away like a doll, their feet trailing across the floor,” Sauytbay says. “They didn’t just take the unconscious, the sick, and the mad … sometimes it was simply because a prisoner hadn’t understood one of the guard’s orders, issued in Chinese.”

One 84-year-old woman Sauytbay remembers was accused of making an international phone call. Despite her denial, the camp guards punished her by ripping out her fingernails.

Another woman, in her twenties, admitted to texting a greeting to a friend for a Muslim holiday as a teenager. As punishment, the guards gang-raped her, while Sauytbay was forced to watch. “While they were raping her they checked to see how we were reacting,” she recalled in 2019. “People who turned their head or closed their eyes, and those who looked angry or shocked, were taken away and we never saw them again.”

It gets worse:

Inmates who were healthy and young often had their medical files marked by a red X. “It was simply a fact that the Party took organs from prisoners,” Sauytbay says. She began to suspect those inmates were being forcefully used for organ harvesting. Organs from Muslim donors are often preferred by other Muslims because they are “halal.”

“I realised that these young, healthy inmates were disappearing overnight, whisked away by the guards,” Sauytbay adds. “When I checked later, I realised to my horror that all their medical files were marked with a red X.”

She goes on to describe having seen classified documents from Beijing that discuss plans for world domination. Frankly, I don't know why such documents would be in a prison camp or how she would have seen them, but perhaps she explains in the book. At any rate, here's what Reynolds says about Sautybay's claims:

Sauytbay also recalls seeing classified papers from Beijing outlining a plan to overtake Europe by 2055. The first step, alongside the years 2014-2015, was to “assimilate those who are willing in Xinjiang, and eliminate those who are not.”

Step two called for the annexing of “neighboring countries” between 2025 and 2035. China has already started to test its borders. In 2020, the Chinese government built 11 buildings inside the Nepalese district of Humla, and denied Nepal’s claim to the district. In the same year, the CCP passed a “security” law over Hong Kong and used it to charge and imprison pro-democracy legislators and activists.

The third step, to be achieved between 2035 and 2055, was the “occupation of Europe.”

Of course, our elites will scoff, just as they scoffed at the notion that Covid-19 started in a Wuhan lab, and just as they scoffed at Trump for calling it the Wuhan virus. Such aspersions against the Chinese are racist and not to be countenanced. After all, why think the compassionate Chinese leadership would do such things?

As Reynolds concludes:

Western nations cannot afford — morally or practically — to turn a blind eye to the Chinese government’s abuses against its own people, the survivor says. “The current situation has already surpassed ethnic and religious issues,” Sauytbay told Radio Free Asia in 2020. “[It] has risen to a level of humanitarian tragedy.”

You can read more about Sayragul Sauytbay here. Meanwhile, we might reflect a bit on Dostoyevsky's aphorism, repeated several times in his great novel The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead then everything is permitted."

Determinism Is Irrational

Earlier this month neuroscientist Michael Egnor posted a piece at Mind Matters in which he made a case against the notion that free will is an illusion and that in fact all of our choices are determined by factors such as our environment or our genes.

Egnor made four brief points:

1. Nature is not deterministic.
2. Neuroscience clearly supports the reality of free will.
3. The claim that “free will isn’t real because we are governed by states of matter” is self-refuting.
4. Everyone believes free will is real.

He gives a brief explanation of each of these at the link. His explanation for #3 is particularly interesting.

Essentially, he points out that if determinism is true then all our thoughts and actions are the product of electro-chemical processes in the brain.

It follows, then, that the claim that determinism is true is ultimately a product of electro-chemical processes, but the claim that determinism is true is a proposition, it can be either true or false. But if it's just an epiphenomenon of brain chemistry how can it be true or false. Molecular interactions have no truth value, they're just states of matter. Thus, the determinist's claim is fundamentally meaningless.

About #4 he writes this:

Free will deniers live their lives as if free will is real — they make moral claims, they believe they can convince other people to change their minds by rational arguments, they acknowledge the concepts of justice and injustice, they give credit or blame for good or bad conduct, etc. The least we can ask of materialists is that they live according to their “beliefs” (which they deny they have — it’s just states of matter after all!).

But if you really don’t believe free will is real, you can’t logically praise or blame anyone. You can’t adhere to any moral standard. If free will isn’t real, them murder has the same moral status as saving a life — it’s all determined by states of matter and we have no choice in what we think or do.

Hitler and Mother Theresa are morally the same — that is, they are not moral creatures at all. We instinctively know that that isn’t true.

It comes down to this: If you have a metaphysical theory and it contradicts science, logic, and everyday experience, then your metaphysics should be abandoned. It’s noteworthy that materialists miss this point: the logical implication of determinism and materialism — the implication that free will doesn’t exist — isn’t evidence against free will, which is undeniable, but evidence against materialism, which is utterly untenable.

If someone is a determinist but they can't live consistently with their determinism they really should give it up. Otherwise, they're being irrational.

The Amazing Enucleation

In an interview at a site called The Successful Student geneticist Michael Denton discusses one of the strangest phenomena in cell biology and a huge problem for Darwinian explanations of the evolution of the cell. The interview is a must read for anyone interested in how discoveries in biology consistently refute the Darwinian paradigm.

Here's just one of the problems he discusses, a problem I confess I had never heard of before reading the interview:

At King’s [College in London] the subject of my PhD thesis was the development of the red [blood] cell and it seemed to me there were aspects of red cell development which posed a severe challenge to the Darwinian framework.

The red cell performs one of the most important physiological functions on earth: the carriage of oxygen to the tissues. And in mammals the nucleus is lost in the final stages of red cell development, which is a unique phenomenon.

The problem that the process of enucleation poses for Darwinism is twofold: first of all, the final exclusion of the nucleus is a dramatically saltational event and quite enigmatic in terms of any sort of gradualistic explanation in terms of a succession of little adaptive Darwinian steps.

Stated bluntly; how does the cell test the adaptive state of ‘not having a nucleus’ gradually? I mean there is no intermediate stable state between having a nucleus and not having a nucleus.

This is perhaps an even greater challenge to Darwinian gradualism than the evolution of the bacterial flagellum because no cell has ever been known to have a nucleus sitting stably on the fence half way in/half way out! So how did this come about by natural selection, which is a gradual process involving the accumulation of small adaptive steps?

The complexity of the process — which is probably a type of asymmetric cell division whereby the cell extrudes the nucleus - is quite staggering, involving a whole lot of complex mechanisms inside of the cell. These force the nucleus, first to the periphery of the cell and then eventually force it out of the cell altogether.

It struck me as a process which was completely inexplicable in terms of Darwinian evolution — a slam-dunk if you want.

And there’s another catch: the ultimate catch perhaps? Is an enucleate red cell adaptive? Because birds, which have a higher metabolic rate than mammals, keep their nucleus. So how come organisms, which have a bigger demand for oxygen than mammals, get to keep their nucleus while we get rid of ours?

And this raises of course an absolutely horrendous problem that in the case of one of the most crucial physiological processes on earth there are critical features that we can’t say definitively are adaptive.... Every single day I was in the lab at King’s I was thinking about this, and had to face the obvious conclusion that the extrusion of the red cell nucleus could not be explained in terms of the Darwinian framework.

And if there was a problem in giving an account of the shape of a red cell, in terms of adaptation, you might as well give up the Darwinian paradigm; you might as well "go home." .... It’s performing the most critical physiological function on the planet, and you’re grappling around trying to give an adaptive explanation for its enucleate state. And the fact that birds get by very, very well (you can certainly argue that birds are every bit as successful as mammals).

So, what’s going on? What gives? And it was contemplating this very curious ‘adaptation’ which was one factor that led me to see that many Darwinian explanations were “just-so" stories.

Denton, whose recent book The Miracle of the Cell describes a host of amazing cellular phenomena, also talks about another fascinating development in biology - the growing realization that everything in the cell affects everything else. Even the shape, or topology, of the cell determines what genes will be expressed and that the regulation of all of the cellular activities is far more complex than any device human beings have ever been able to devise.

It's all very fascinating stuff.

So What Are They?

Everyone has probably heard by now about the Unidentified Flying Objects that have perplexed those who've viewed videos of these encounters taken by military pilots. The Today Show did a segment on it the other day:

Jim Geraghty at National Review offers four possible explanations for these phenomena and rules out the first three. He posits that they are either:

1. secret U.S. government or military technology,
2. secret private sector technology,
3. secret technology from a foreign country, or
4. aliens.

You'll have to go to the link to see why Geraghty rules out the first three possibilities, but I think he should rule out all four.

Andrew Follett, also at NRO, insists, contra much popular opinion, that these are not sightings of aliens and that they each have "an obvious terrestrial explanation." He argues that each of the controversial videos taken of these phenomena can be more plausibly explained by such mundane things as geese, planes, balloons or space debris.

Again, check out the link to see his reasoning. It's not as crazy as it sounds.

I'm certainly not in any position to venture an opinion on the identity of these strange phenomena except to say that I think visitors from some other planet in some other part of the galaxy is by far the least likely explanation for them. I say this because I'm very skeptical that intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe, let alone in our galaxy.

Astronomer Hugh Ross in his book Why the Universe Is the Way it Is states that there are at least 816 parameters which have to be met by any planet for complex, intelligent life to be possible on it. Here are just a few of the 816:

A life-sustaining planet must:

• be located in the habitable zone of a suitable galaxy and must orbit in the habitable zone of a star of the proper age, size and luminosity.
• have a certain mass, period of rotation, plate tectonics, a magnetic field and a stable axis tilt.
• have ample liquid surface water and sufficient amounts of other specific elements and compounds.
• have an atmosphere of the proper chemical composition and transparency, and not too much nor too little oxygen.
• have a moon of the proper size and distance from the earth.

Ross calculates that there's less than 1 chance in 10^1032 that even one planet possessing all 816 criteria would occur anywhere in the universe apart from the intentional agency of a transcendent Creator.

Even if there are a trillion galaxies in the universe, each with a trillion planets, that would only be 10^24 planets. It requires an incredible exertion of blind faith to believe that despite such enormous odds not only does another planet exist somewhere in the universe that can support life, but that despite the additional enormous odds against life actually arising on this hypothetical planet, it nevertheless did.

Moreover, one must believe that despite the additional enormous odds against it, the life on that planet actually reached a level of intelligence that enabled it to develop technology that could defy the known laws of physics and travel across thousands, or even billions, of light years of space to reach earth.

I don't know what those pilots are seeing, and I'm reluctant to say that overcoming the astronomical probability barriers mentioned above is impossible, but in my opinion, unless God put life there, it's all but impossible.

The Evolution of Whales

This animated video depicts a sperm whale hunting prey, including a giant squid, by echolocation.

Until recently the consensus opinion among biologists was that whales evolved from land animals, but recent finds have made this view increasingly untenable. Not only is the window of available time for all the requisite changes to adapt a terrestrial creature to a marine environment very narrow, but the sheer number and scope of the changes strains credulity.

Here are a few of the changes that would need to have occurred within the span of about 3-5 million years:

• Counter-current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes
• Ball vertebra
• Tail flukes and musculature
• Blubber for temperature insulation
• Ability to drink sea water (reorganization of kidney tissues)
• Fetus in breech position (for labor underwater)
• Nurse young underwater (modified mammae)
• Forelimbs transformed into flippers
• Reduction of hindlimbs
• Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae
• Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs
• Hydrodynamic properties of the skin
• Special lung surfactants
• Novel muscle systems for the blowhole
• Modification of the teeth
• Modification of the eye for underwater vision
• Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution
• Reorganization of skull bones and musculature
• Modification of the ear bones
• Decoupling of esophagus and trachea
• Synthesis and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals)
• Emergence of blowhole musculature and their neurological control

The problem of how all these changes could've come about by random mutations so that a terrestrial species ultimately transitioned to marine whales remains a serious difficulty for any kind of "molecules to man" evolutionary hypothesis, as this article at Evolution News and Views illustrates.

It may have happened that all forms of life on earth descended from a single ancestral form by purely natural processes, but it seems that the more we discover the less evidence there is for it, and the more improbable such a descent is.

Water's Weirdness

There's an interesting article by Alok Jha in The Guardian on the very strange and unique properties of a substance we (unless we're Californians) take for granted - water.

It's hard to overstate how amazing water's properties are and how crucial those properties are to living things. For example, Jha tells us that,

Water is at its most dense at 4C and, at that temperature, will sink to the bottom of a lake or river. Because bodies of water freeze from the top down, fish, plants and other organisms will almost always have somewhere to survive during seasons of bitter cold, and be able to grow in size and number.

If the temperature of the water continues to drop toward 0C (the freezing point) the colder water actually gets less dense and rises to the surface. That's why ice floats. It's less dense than the warmer water it floats in.

In fact, if it didn't float it would sink to the bottom and bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up making it impossible for most forms of life to survive a cold winter.

Jha adds,

This, though, is just the start. Take a glass of water and look at it now. Perhaps the strangest thing about this colorless, odorless liquid is that it is a liquid at all. If water followed the rules, you would see nothing in that glass and our planet would have no oceans at all.

All of the water on Earth should exist as only vapor: part of a thick, muggy atmosphere sitting above an inhospitable, bone-dry surface. A water molecule is made from two very light atoms – hydrogen and oxygen – and, at the ambient conditions on the surface of the Earth, it should be a gas. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), for example, is a gas, even though it is twice the molecular weight of water. Other similar-sized molecules – such as ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) – are also gases.

Of course if water were a gas at normal temperatures life as we know it would be impossible. Jha mentions a few other interesting facts about water, but he just touches the surface, as it were. Entire books have been written on the subject, and indeed, Jha himself has written one.

Here's one more fact that Jha didn't mention. Water gains and loses heat more slowly than almost any other substance. This is why the ocean is still cold even on a blistering hot day in June. It takes a long time for water to heat up and a long time for it to cool down.

This is very fortunate for a number of reasons but one is that because there's so much water on the earth's surface and because it changes temperature slowly it tends to stabilize the earth's overall temperature and keep it within a range in which life can thrive.

Water has lots of other properties that make it indispensible for life: Its very low viscosity, its ability to dissolve most other substances, its ability to adhere to surfaces and cohere to itself, its ability to exist in all three states at the same time, and many more unique properties, many of which are essential to living things.

Jha claims that evolution has shaped us to survive in a watery environment.

Perhaps so, although it's hard to imagine a life form that could exist in the absence of water, or perhaps the myriad fortuitous properties of water, so far from accidentally resulting from the mindless chaos of the initial Big Bang, are actually the deliberate result of the scientific genius of a brilliant cosmic Chemist.

This lovely 8 minute video emphasizes the uniqueness of water:

Metamorphosis

A couple of short videos excerpted from Illustra Media's film titled: Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies shows the incredible difficulties metamorphosis pose to any account of the process which insists that its genesis be completely unguided and naturalistic.

Why such a process would have ever evolved in the first place and how it could have done so are questions for which the standard Darwinian model of evolution has no answer.

There is a bit of overlap in the two videos but not much:

Speaking for myself, the idea that such a process evolved seems possible, maybe even plausible, but the idea that such a process evolved unaided by any intelligent, purposeful guidance seems to me quite literally incredible.

Here's another thought for those who believe that our lives don't end when we die. Is it far-fetched to think that in this life we are like caterpillars and that death is really a kind of metamorphosis from which we emerge as a creature in some ways like, but in many ways completely different from, the caterpillar?

Stand for the Truth

In a recent column at The American Conservative Rod Dreher quotes a message from Donald Trump in which he makes several claims about chicanery in the Arizona election. Among other things he asserts that the entire database of Maricopa Co. has been deleted, the boxes that hold the votes show evidence of having been tampered with, ballots are missing, etc.

Dreher then shows a tweet by Maricopa Co. Recorder Steven Richer who states that Trump is lying, and that he, Richer, is looking at the Maricopa database on his computer as he writes that tweet.

Dreher is himself convinced that Trump is lying and writes this about those who will believe him because they were enthusiastic about what he accomplished as president:

Donald Trump is flat-out lying to manipulate the political process. I get sick and tired of people on the Left who refuse to believe things that contradict what they prefer to believe, but it is no better when people on the Right do it.

It is as plain as day what happens when a people accept as true statements they have every reason to know are lies, and accept them because it suits their political preferences. The corruption of the truth is far worse than ordinary corruption, like stealing money. It makes it impossible to know what is real.

What Dreher says about the willingness to believe what we have every reason to know is false is on the mark whether or not Trump is, in fact, lying. He quotes from his book Live Not By Lies:

Heda Margolius Kovály, a disillusioned Czech communist whose husband was executed after a 1952 show trial, reflects on the willingness of people to turn their backs on the truth for the sake of an ideological cause:

It is not hard for a totalitarian regime to keep people ignorant. Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of “understood necessity,” for Party discipline, for conformity with the regime, for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, or for any of the substitutes that are so convincingly offered, you cede your claim to the truth.

Slowly, drop by drop, your life begins to ooze away just as surely as if you had slashed your wrists; you have voluntarily condemned yourself to helplessness.

Dreher remarks that,

You can surrender your moral responsibility to be honest out of misplaced idealism. You can also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth.

In pre-totalitarian states, [Hannah] Arendt writes, hating “respectable society” was so narcotic, that elites were willing to accept “monstrous forgeries in historiography” for the sake of striking back at those who, in their view, had “excluded the underprivileged and oppressed from the memory of mankind.”

For example, many who didn’t really accept Marx’s revisionist take on history—that it is a manifestation of class struggle—were willing to affirm it because it was a useful tool to punish those they despised.

Arendt wrote that a people’s eagerness to believe lies that pleased them was a clear sign of a pre-totalitarian society:

The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda—before the movement has the power to drop the iron curtains to prevent anyone’s disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world—lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.”

Arendt also wrote in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism that "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction...and the distinction between true and false...no longer exist."

Dreher concludes with these thoughts:

Look, I wrote a whole book that describes the left-wing ideological assault on the truth, for the sake of achieving political power. We on the Right are no better than them if we surrender the truth for the sake of power. Donald Trump is not forcing anybody to accept the lie. That is on us.

If you are a member of Congress who would rather affirm something you know to be a lie, or should know is a lie, because you are afraid of losing your job, then you have already lost something far more important than your job.

Once again, I want to see a Republican Party that embodies many of the principles associated with Trump: immigration restriction, anti-globalism, cultural conservatism, and so forth. But none of that matters if we abandon the truth. None of it. That is a price too high for honest men and women to pay.

Truth matters. Not "truth" as in whatever works to promote one's particular political agenda, but objective truth that corresponds to objective reality.

Good people who were paying attention were disgusted by those who spent almost the entire Trump presidency perpetuating the libel that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (and who have the chutzpah to now affix the stigma of the "Big Lie" to Trump for insisting that the Democrats stole the 2020 election).

But if the only lies that disgust us are those purveyed by those we oppose politically, then we're no different than they are. Dreher's right. If Trump is lying he should be publicly called to account by the GOP. More than that, Republicans need to find a candidate in 2024 who will give us Trump's policies without Trump's character flaws.

If neither Republicans nor Democrats will put truth before party then our nation won't, nor will it deserve to, survive.

Causal Adequacy

Frank Wilczek is a very bright man, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, but sometimes very bright people say things that leave one scratching one's head.

In a recent Wall Street Journal column he draws a comparison between the precision found in living cells and the precision required in technology. The former is certainly impressive, as anyone who has read about how living cells work can attest.

He starts off his column with this:

Precision is a powerful tool, but it can be hard to come by. That theme, with variations, is a leitmotif of science, organic life and modern technology. It is sounding again today, at the frontier of quantum computing.

Consider biology. Complex organisms store their essential operating systems—instructions for how to build cells and keep them going—within long DNA molecules. Those basic programs must be read out and translated into chemical events.

Errors in translation can be catastrophic, resulting in defective, dysfunctional proteins or even in cancers.

There's nothing problematic about any of that, but then he concludes this observation with an off-handed comment that's tantamount to waving a magic wand while saying abracadabra:

So biology has evolved an elaborate machinery of repair and proofreading to keep error rates low—around one per billion operations. A series of complicated molecular machines examine the progress and correct mistakes, in a process aptly called proof-reading.

The creation of this machinery is one of evolution’s greatest achievements.

It's uncertain, of course, what he means by "evolution," a protean term that has several shades of meaning, but it appears from the phrase "biology has evolved" that he intends Darwinian evolution - the development of the enormous diversity of living things from a single ancestral cell via purely natural processes like chemistry and chance.

If so, then the sentences I've highlighted in bold-face are an expression of a marvelous degree of blind faith in the power of those processes.

I say blind faith because blind faith is a belief in something despite the lack of any evidence for it. There's simply no evidence that chemistry and chance can generate the information necessary to produce the very complex machinery and systems that Wilczek describes and there are good reasons to believe that they can't.

Such systems require dozens of proteins, all working in a coordinated fashion to achieve a certain end. Yet the odds of just a single functional protein of modest length being produced by the random connections of amino acids in some hypothetical prebiotic environment are something like 1 chance in 10^164. This is so astronomically improbable that it would be a miracle if it happened just once let alone dozens of times.

And that's just what's necessary to produce the proof-reading machinery. An actual cell consists of hundreds of proteins, all choreographed to perform myriad functions. Not only the production of the proteins but also their choreography all require information, and no one knows how random, accidental processes could generate that information, especially in the first cell.

Indeed, what we do know about natural processes is that they are exceedingly more likely to degrade information.

Another Nobel-Prize winner, Francis Crick, reflecting on the enormous difficulty in trying to imagine how chemistry and chance could create the equivalent of a library of information before any life existed said,

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that would have to be satisfied to get it going.

Crick used the word "almost" because he didn't believe in miracles, but he didn't know what else to call the organization of the first life.

Paul Davies in his book The Fifth Miracle is at pains to avoid using the term "miracle" to describe the origin of biological information, but by the end of the book, after all his attempts to find a plausible, non-miraculous solution to the problem of life's genesis, he's no closer to an answer than he was when he started.

Here's the problem for folks like Wilczek, Crick and Davies: Nature just doesn't create information, but intelligent agents do it all the time. Chemistry and chance by themselves lack causal adequacy as explanations for the origin of the biological information packed into proteins and DNA, but scientists can relatively easily synthesize functional proteins and nucleic acids in the lab.

It seems, then, that the most plausible explanation for the origin of the amazing biological error-correcting systems Wilczek discusses, are, like technological error-correcting systems, the product of intelligent engineering. It's the explanation that relies upon what we know about information and its causes.

As Stephen Meyer writes in his excellent new book The Return of the God Hypothesis, causes known to produce a given effect are judged better explanations than those causes which are not known to produce that effect.

Intelligent minds are the only causes known to be able to generate large amounts of specified information, so why Wilczek so insouciently assumes that the massive amounts of information required by a functioning cell are the product of blind, mindless, accidental processes is certainly puzzling, to say the least.

No Moral Equivalence

Conflict has yet again broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas has launched over 1500 rockets at Israeli cities, an attack to which Israel has responded with airstrikes against Hamas military targets in Gaza (see here for an account of how the Israelis duped Hamas terrorists), and predictably there are several myths circulating about these events.

Jack Elbaum debunks three of the biggest myths surrounding the violence in a piece at The Federalist.

The three myths Elbaum criticizes are these:

• Israel Is Committing ‘Terrorism’ in Gaza
• Israel Attacked Peaceful Worshippers
• The Conflict Would End if Israel Gave Palestinians a State

You'll have to go to Elbaum's article to read his full response to these, but here's some of what he says about the first:

This claim is not supported by the facts. The only reason that Israel conducted any airstrikes was that the terrorist group in charge of Gaza, Hamas, instigated violence by indiscriminately shooting thousands of missiles into Israel. These rockets were not only aimed at their usual targets in southern Israel, but also civilian centers in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv.

These strikes have hit schools, hospitals, and homes in Israel.

While Hamas’s attacks were aimed at civilians, Israel only intends to strike military targets. Israel destroyed a Hamas military intelligence facility, a weapons manufacturing and storage site, terror tunnels used to kidnap and kill Israelis, and dozens of top terrorist leaders.

Anti-Israel activists are quick to point out that many civilians have also been killed in Israel’s airstrikes. This is true, and it is a tragedy. The reason it is happening, however, shows who the real terrorists are.

While Israel invests in state-of-the-art Iron Dome technology to protect its people from rocket attacks, Hamas puts its people in harm’s way by using them as human shields. While Israel conducts its military activity away from civilian centers, Hamas launches rockets, hides senior officials, and manufactures weapons in heavily populated areas where they know collateral damage will take place.

They store rockets in hospitals, schools, and mosques; they shoot rockets off the top of homes.

When Israel responds, they attempt to only hit terrorist targets. They even give notice hours in advance to the people who are in the buildings they are about to strike through phone calls or other means — something that nearly no other army would have the decency to do. But, because Hamas would like their people to remain in harm’s way for photo ops and to stoke Palestinian grievances, innocent lives are tragically taken.

The loss of innocent Palestinian life is a strategic goal of terrorist groups like Hamas.

Those who seek to draw some sort of moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel, or worse, make Israel culpable for this current outbreak of violence, are either very ill-informed, very unintelligent or very malevolent. As Kevin Williamson notes at National Review,

Hamas has its advocates and apologists in the United States. So did Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc. — all of them “deadly foes of civilization.”

Are Miracles Impossible?

A common objection to the possibility of miracles is that such prodigies as, for example, a man rising from the dead would entail a series of violations of the laws of nature, specifically the conservation laws, and that, as David Hume put it, it's been the "uniform experience" of mankind that nature's laws suffer no such violations.

Of course, as C.S. Lewis observes in his book Miracles we can only know that nature's laws have never been "violated" if we also know that every report of a miracle is false, but we can only know that every report is false if we also know that miracles are impossible, and we can only know that miracles are impossible if we also know that God doesn't exist. And how can we know such a thing as that?

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga explains in this 11 minute video why, even if the laws of nature were inviolable - even for God - it's a mistake to think that a miracle violates them. Whether the laws are Newtonian or quantum mechanical the occurrence of a miracle is not ruled out by them:

As noted above, if it's possible that God exists then it's possible that God acts in the world and that miracles occur, and since it's manifestly possible that God exists any report of a miracle must be assessed on the evidence for it and not on the apriori assumption of atheism.

Some Very Bad Arguments

Jeff Schweitzer, a former White House policy advisor and a Ph.D. in marine biology as well as in neurophysiology, must be a very bright guy, which makes a column by him in the Huffington Post all the more remarkable for the sophomoric silliness of its argumentation.

Schweitzer evidently wishes to persuade his readers that the recent discovery of an earth-like planet elsewhere in our galaxy threatens to discredit the Bible and perhaps mark the end of any warrant for belief in God, but the reasons he gives in support of this are unworthy of a man of such achievements.

He immediately gets off on the wrong foot:

[T]here are likely thousands or millions or even billions of such earth-like planets in the universe. The discovery of just one such world is good evidence for many more: after all, we know of 100 billion galaxies each with as many as 300 billion stars (big variation per galaxy). Astronomers estimate that there are about 70 billion trillion stars. Math wizardry is not necessary to conclude we did not by chance find the only other possibly habitable planet among that huge population of stars.

With this discovery, we come ever closer to the idea that life is common in the universe. Perhaps you are not convinced.

Well, no, I'm not convinced. The discovery of a planet roughly the size of the earth orbiting in the habitable zone of a star, is certainly a necessary condition for life to exist on it, but it's nowhere near a sufficient condition. So many other factors are necessary for the planet to sustain life, much less advanced life, that the odds against any planet in the galaxy, or in the hundred billion other galaxies, exhibiting them all are astronomical.

It's very possible that Earth is the only planet which exhibits all the characteristics necessary for advanced life, and to believe otherwise is little more than an act of faith.

Furthermore, to assert, as Schweitzer does, that this discovery brings us ever closer to the idea that life is common in the universe is like saying that the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun brought us ever closer to sending a man to the Andromeda galaxy. Even if our planet is not the only one in the universe that can sustain life it doesn't follow that any other similar planets there may be actually have life on them, and it certainly doesn't follow that life is common in the universe.

Schweitzer seems to think that given a few appropriate conditions the emergence of life is inevitable, but this again is an act of faith.

In any case, these little exaggerations are as nothing compared to what Dr. Schweitzer has in store for us further on:

[L]et me speculate what would happen should we ever find evidence of life beyond earth even if you think such discovery unlikely. I would like here to preempt what will certainly be a re-write of history on the part of the world's major religions.

I predict with great confidence that all will come out and say such a discovery is completely consistent with religious teachings. My goal here is to declare this as nonsense before it happens....

Let us be clear that the Bible is unambiguous about creation: the earth is the center of the universe, only humans were made in the image of god, and all life was created in six days. All life in all the heavens. In six days. So when we discover that life exists or existed elsewhere in our solar system or on a planet orbiting another star in the Milky Way, or in a planetary system in another galaxy, we will see a huge effort to square that circle with amazing twists of logic and contorted justifications.

But do not buy the inevitable historical edits: life on another planet is completely incompatible with religious tradition. Any other conclusion is nothing but ex-post facto rationalization to preserve the myth.

This is so bad, so far wrong, that one is embarrassed for Dr. Schweitzer for having made such public display of his ignorance. He states that:

1. the Bible is unambiguous about creation
2. the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe
3. the Bible teaches that only humans were made in the image of God
4. the Bible teaches that all life was created in six days.

The first three of these claims are patently false, and the last is the subject of intense disagreement among Christian scholars, but even if all four claims were true how are they inconsistent with life existing elsewhere in the cosmos? Nothing in those statements precludes the possibility that life on earth is not unique.

Schweitzer assays to reinforce his asseverations by drawing on the Genesis record, though he misidentifies Genesis 1:26,27 by calling it Genesis 1:1. This is a small error perhaps, but it serves to cast doubt on Schweitzer's understanding of his topic. He writes:

From Genesis 1:1 [sic], we get:

God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them.

Nothing in that mentions alien worlds, which of course the ancients knew nothing about. Man was told to rule over the fish on the earth, not on other planets. But god would have known of these alien worlds, so it is curious he did not instruct the authors to include the language.

In other words, 1) if the Genesis account is accurate then we would expect it to give us an accurate account of life on other planets. 2) Since it makes no mention of such life we are left to believe there is none. 3) So, if it should turn out that there is life on other planets we can only conclude that the Bible is wrong.

Set aside the fact that premise 1) is clearly false. Taken as a whole the argument is what is called in elementary logic an argument from silence. It's like arguing that if the Bible were really the true word of God it would mention Antarctica because God would have known about Antarctica. Since the Bible nowhere mentions Antarctica it cannot be the true word of God.

Most people learn to recognize this fallacy by the time they reach puberty, but Dr. Schweitzer, in all his learning, has evidently never come across it before.

Later he gives us another textbook example of the same fallacy when he says:

None of the 66 books of the bible make any reference to life other than that created by god here on earth in that six-day period. If we discover life elsewhere, one must admit that is an oversight. So much so in fact that such a discovery must to all but the most closed minds call into question the entire story of creation, and anything that follows from that story.

How could a convincing story of life's creation leave out life? Even if the story is meant to be allegorical, the omission of life elsewhere makes no sense.

It's only an oversight, of course, if the purpose of the Bible is to provide an exhaustive description of the universe, but that was surely not its purpose. Schweitzer may as well have complained that Genesis doesn't mention quasars, black holes, and the moons around Jupiter and that the omission of these celestial objects makes no sense since surely God would have known about them.

To be sure, if life is discovered elsewhere in the cosmos, it will raise some interesting questions, but it will have no bearing whatsoever on the basic claims of Christian theism.

Let's close with another example, among many that Schweitzer provides, of his philosophical/theological sloppiness. He writes:

There is also a problem with Genesis 1:3: And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Well, the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, yet the universe, and all the light generating stars in ancient galaxies, are more than 13 billion years old. So when god said, "Let there be light" there already had been light shining bright for at least 10 billion years.

Dr. Schweitzer here fails to acknowledge that most people believe Gen. 1:3 to be a reference to the initial creation event, the Big Bang. Why assume that it comes ten billion years later?

I don't have all the letters after my name that Dr. Schweitzer has after his, but even so, I'll presume to give him a word of advice. Before venturing out of your field of expertise to make dogmatic pronouncements about what is and is not the case in other disciplines, please read up on what the brightest minds in that other field are saying about the issues you want to raise.

In other words, do some homework. You'll save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

Spring Birds

Long time readers of VP know that I enjoy birds. It's something of a hobby of mine, and the spring migration is a great time to get out and try to get a good look at some of the beautiful bits of feathered fluff passing through on their northward trek.

Here are a few of my favorites from this past week. All of these pics are of males of the species. Females are often more drab, and, in the case of the last two species, they look much different than the males:

The bird above is a Magnolia warbler. It's the bird that inspired a young teen-ager named Roger Tory Peterson to take up birding which led to a lifetime of painting birds and a whole series of nature field guides. Peterson saw the Magnolia warbler in New York's Central park and was immediately hooked on birds.

The Blackburnian warbler is in my mind one of the most striking birds in all of North America. When the sunlight hits the bird's throat it's as if it has been set aflame.

The Cape May warbler nests in boreal forests in the U.S. and Canada and is only found in Cape May, NJ during migration. It was first described by ornithologist Alexander Wilson in Cape May, NJ but not seen there for a hundred years afterward. The Cape May warbler's tongue is unique among warblers. It's tubular, like the hummingbird's tongue, and enables the bird to sip nectar from flowers on its wintering grounds in the Caribbean.

The Prothonotary warbler is famous, those who've read about the "Red Scare" of the early 1950s might recall, for being instrumental in convicting Alger Hiss on charges of spying for the Soviet Union. You can read about it here. The Prothonotary warbler got its name from the bright yellow robes worn by papal clerks, known as prothonotaries, in the Roman Catholic church.

The bird pictured above is an Indigo bunting. Here's an interesting fact about birds that many people have a hard time believing. Birds do not have blue pigment in their feathers. The blue color found in many birds is due to the way their feathers refract sunlight. The Indigo bunting is common in eastern North America but is often overlooked because it's small, and the dazzling blue color only shows up in good light against a proper background.

The Rose-breasted grosbeak is a handsome woodland species that occasionally visits sunflower feeders during migration. The female looks like a large brown sparrow.

Bird migration is one of the most astonishing phenomena in nature and it's occurring this week across much of the United States. Since it happens largely after dark most people aren't very much aware of the amazing spectacle that's occurring in the skies above them most nights at this time of year.

Even so, millions of birds are traveling each night from their winter haunts in Central and South America to their breeding territories in North America. The migration involves birds of all types, hundreds of different species, navigating their way north to find a mate, establish a territory, breed and return south again in the Fall.

To help give a sense of the movements of birds during migration, the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology has produced a fascinating animated feature that shows the annual migration pattern of 118 different North American species. The migration animation can be viewed here.

There's also a link on the page which takes you to a similar animation which shows the particular species of bird that's being represented. If you love nature you're sure to enjoy this.

Here are a few questions to ponder while you're watching: How and why did migration, not just in birds but also in butterflies, fish, turtles, whales, dragonflies and numerous other creatures, ever evolve in all these different groups through mindless, unguided processes like random mutation and natural selection? Did it evolve through mindless, unguided processes?

How do these animals know how to navigate their way back and forth, often returning to the exact patch of territory they departed from six months before? How do the young of the year, which have never made the trip before, know how to do it? How did that ability evolve through mindless, unguided processes?

Birds truly are a marvel.