Give me DDT or give me death…

I have nothing against environmentalists as a whole. In fact, I consider myself “environmentally aware.” I work in an environmentally-related field. I recycle. I love creation / nature (trying to be inclusive), and believe that we have been entrusted with the Earth and should take care of it; it’s the only one we’ve got (and I also believe the Earth is uniquely situated to support life, so we don’t have much hope of finding another livable planet). I hate pollution. Most of all, I hate styrofoam. In fact, I’m so disgusted when manufacturers package their products in the crap that I’m considering asking to see the packaging prior to buying anything.

However, I believe that many environmentalists mean well, but are simply misguided and misinformed. Take the issue of global warming, for example (not that I want to start a side-debate on this issue). While the media and various environmental groups firmly assert that global warming is a fact and that man is behind it, there is substantial evidence which challenges all of those assertions. Many don’t realize that GW theory is a product of computer models which create their own data (a unique approach). The most current models actually predict a much less severe global impact than thought, and may actually be more beneficial than not. But, that’s not the point of this post.

For some time now I have been aware of the scandalous (although debated) history of the DDT ban. Some environmentalists claim that DDT was banned because of the increase in DDT-resistant mosquitoes; however, the resistance argument is over-stated. It is fact that much of the concern here was the belief that DDT caused a thinning shell of bird eggs and was leading to the demise of Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons (when in fact bird populations had dropped significantly before DDT was in use). The U.S. was largely responsible in influencing, if not persuading, international DDT bans; I’ve read (I’m looking for the reference) that the U.S. made certain financial assistance to 3rd world countries contingent upon DDT restrictions.

An interesting post at Uncommon Descent states:

… I did some research and was horrified to learn that the malaria epidemic in Africa is perhaps the most preventable health care tragedy in the history of the world. We could eradicate African malaria if only we would allow them to use DDT to combat the mosquitoes that spread the disease.

The post also includes a reprint of an article by Sam Zaramba, the Director General for Health Services for the nation of Uganda on the subject. It’s well worth reading.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Leave a comment

Behe right, Miller wrong?

Today at Uncommon Descent: “Junk” DNA may not be junk at all. From a June 13 article posted on Science Daily, the the ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) consortium (which, by the way, appear to be real scientists, not those ID people) has just published a group paper and 14 companion papers indicating a need to rethink what we presume about DNA. The Science Daily article states, “The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact.”

As the Uncommon Descent post points out, in 1994 Ken Miller wrote, “the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, in contrast, can easily explain them as nothing more than failed experiments in a random process…” I’ve seen this “junk DNA” argument tossed around again and again by those wanting to simply dismiss people like Michael Behe.

Behe, on the other hand, proposed in Darwin’s Black Box that what was called “junk” DNA might not be junk after all, once we know more. Apparently Behe was correct.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 4 Comments

Review: Letter to a Christian Nation

I just read Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation. I thought I should, as it was more or less addressed to me. Not that this in itself means anything, as I either shred or ignore much mail sent my way. However, the idea that anyone would spend $16.95 to read a letter addressed to them made me quite curious, to see if it was worth it. So, rather than buying a copy of my own, I snagged it from our local library.

First of all, I want to say that I do have a certain amount of compassion for Mr. Harris; after he wrote his book, The End of Faith (which is still on my reading list), he apparently got deluged in hate mail from people calling themselves Christians. I say “calling themselves Christians,” based on 1 John 4:8: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” If I were Sam Harris in this situation, I would tend to think that these hate letters confirmed my conclusions, and this would justify my charging $16.95 for this very short, little book which could be read in 30 minutes. And, whether he makes any sense or not, I’m guessing he made a fair amount of cash for what appears to be a weekend’s work, which should help him to feel better. (I’m a bit jealous, actually; perhaps I should write a similar “letter to a Christian nation” from a Christian’s point of view… hmm… I started out joking, but I’m starting to think it’s a great idea….).

So, Harris’ first point is made, and it’s valid. Many Christians are jerks who don’t act like they’ve ever read – or at least believed – the Bible. The New Testament is clear what a Christian should look like, or at least try to look like. It’s a shame, but it’s true: some of the worst advertisements for Christianity are people who say they’re Christians but don’t have a clue what that actually means.

However, the rest of Harris’ book is, for the most part, pure nonsense. As it’s a letter, he’s under no obligation to be accurate, logical or coherent. (Again, this would be the perfect book for me to copy…) He uses as many logical fallacies as I’ve ever seen in 90-some tiny pages, and it would be a great exercise to go through the book and analyze it from this perspective. Perhaps the most glaring example of faulty logic is to use various specific groups to make general attacks (which he does admit to, to some extent). He shotguns Christians, sometimes referring to fundamentalists, sometimes to Catholics, and so on. This lets him bounce around, blasting away, without ever actually making an accurate shot. For fellow atheists and other non-believers, its all good fun, as they say. However, it means Christians will be generally dismissive of what he has to say.

There are a number of things he alleges, such as conservatives wanting to “preserve cervical cancer as an incentive toward abstinence” that is simply ludicrous; someone might have made such a stupid statement, but this is not typical Christianity. He really should have taken the time to mention names, if he’s going to toss out bizarre examples like this.

A few other statements I noted:

  • “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world.” Now I don’t know what he means to prove here, but atheism certainly is a worldview, and it definitely has an influence on how you’d live your life.
  • He alleges that “we know on the basis of textual evidence” that the New Testament writers wrote in such a way to fulfill prophecies of the Old Testament. He can believe this fairy tale if he wants, but it’s simply not the case.
  • He states that if the Bible actually had prophecy, it would predict something like the internet. This shows how clueless he is about the Bible; even clear-thinking atheists could see past this.
  • He also makes the case that science “represents our best efforts to know what is true about the world.” and says “The core of science … is intellectual honesty.” From what I’ve seen of the more vocal anti-God scientists, I would have to conclude that I haven’t seen much in the way of real science from them…

His letter is full of ranting and hand-waving with very little in the way of logic or reason. He also manages to really offend Muslims, which probably got his name added to a list that also includes George Bush and Salman Rushdie. Of course, I have to say that I would agree with some of his statements there.

He does start his conclusion rather well: “One of the greatest challenges facing civilization … is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.” However, he then proceeds to talk about his desire to see religion eradicated from the world. It would seem that Sam Harris has a lot to learn about how to actually communicating with people he disagrees with.

Now, perhaps it’s time to start writing my own letter …

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews | 4 Comments

Food for thought: Evolution and the long-necked giraffe

From page 48 of The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) – What do we really know? (Part 2) by biologist and genetic mutations expert Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig of the Max Planck Institute for Breeding Research:

In the first part of the paper we have come to the conclusion that the assertions on the evolution of the long-necked giraffes by Ulrich Kutschera, Richard Dawkins and Kathleen Hunt do not have a scientific basis. This is also true for macroevolutionary propositions of Mitchell and Skinner and others, which have been discussed in the second part. Although an absolute negative proof is nearly or completely infeasible, nevertheless the scientific data that are available to date on the question of the origin of the giraffe make a gradual development by mutation and selection so extremely improbable that in any other area of life such improbability would force us to look for a feasible alternative.

Yet biologists committed to a materialistic world view will simply not consider an alternative. For them, even the most stringent objections against the synthetic evolutionary theory are nothing but open problems that will be solved entirely within the boundaries of their theory. This is still true even when the trend is clearly running against them, that is, when the problems for the theory become greater and greater with new scientific data. This essential unfalsifiablity, by the way, places today’s evolutionary theory outside of science, one of whose defining characteristics is that theories can only be considered to be scientific if they are falsifiable, and when they set forth criteria by which they can potentially be falsified.

Just food for thought.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 2 Comments