Anti-Diluvianism

The impact of the Bible on the English language cannot be denied. The word "antediluvian" means "really old". Literally, it means "before the Flood".

Most studies indicate that Christians are well represented among scientists and doctors (notable exceptions being psychologists, biologists, and geologists - probably self-selection).

But, in the field of science fiction, it seems there are no Christians whatsoever.

In fact, the loudest voices are definitely atheist and anti-Christian.

One of such authors I read is Ken Macleod. He often rants about Creationists, and has provided an article by a Christian orthodox geologist - that's Christian (orthodox geologist), not (Christian orthodox) geologist.

Reading the article does little to educate or convince me. The whole piece rests on a single pivot:

"Much has been written by Christians against 'uniformitarianism' while actually we must believe in it."

No, no we mustn't.

"We believe God created the universe according to a blueprint and that it operates according to predetermined laws. While it is true that God may supersede any of these laws at any time, it is certainly not the normal course of events, nor is it perpetuated for any great length of time. Therefore in geology the present operation of erosion, transportation sedimentation and compaction is the key to those actions in the past." (Emphasis in original)

And there we have it. I'm not sure anyone would consider the forty days of rain preceding the Flood "normal" or a "great length of time" - the upheavals during this time (the breaking up of the fountains of the deep) and after (which led to the ice age [singular]) and the division of the earth under Peleg. These followed naturally, but are certainly not typical of today's processes.

We must accept, there is no key to the past.

The past is unknowable, except by eye witness testimony. And the faith we place in that testimony.

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" - 2 Peter 3:3-6

This is a very specific prediction that there would be people disbelieving the Bible based on uniformitarianism and the Flood. This is an overwhelming charge against any attempt to "reconcile" orthodox science with a Christian view of science.

Do "aging mechanisms" all agree? That is because creation is orderly. It does not mean they give the right answer. There are assumptions that go into the interpretation of data (how do these crystals form, what processes have they been subjected to, what environment have they been kept in). You cannot say, "Well, this is how we find them today, this is how things operate today." You have no idea where they came from, and what they have been through.

The argument that "God would not deceive us by creating the illusion of age" is a straw man. God never told us to use crystal formation to date the earth. We came up with that system. God never promised that the original creation was anything like what we find today. In fact, we have the exact opposite. The world today is totally unlike the original creation is most every way. Methuselah lived almost a thousand years! Unless you reject that statement as part of your presuppositions, you must realize things were different.

Stellar Distance Revisted

An interesting take on Type 1a supernova, which I have previously mentioned (not cepheid).

It reads like something off the Onion:

"A lack of knowledge about the explosion process didn’t stop Kirshner and his colleagues, along with another team, from using type 1a supernovas to discover in 1998 that a mysterious entity, later dubbed dark energy, is accelerating the expansion of the universe"

We have no idea what's going on, but let's use variances in the measurements to make up more unbelievable stuff!

"Since all 1a’s appear to have the same starting point — blowing up the same amount of mass —they all should have roughly the same luminosity. After adjusting for variations by applying the Phillips relation, which holds that intrinsically brighter supernovas take more time to fade than dimmer ones"

They should have the same luminosity, except when they don't - so we apply some more fudge factors... I found a nifty formula:
Luminosity = 4 pi * distance^2 * apparent_brightness
So, you've got two unknowns, and one equation. I'm really curious how they solve that one.

"When astronomers applied this prescription, they found that light from distant supernovas appeared dimmer than it ought to be based on what had been the accepted model of the universe’s evolution"

In other words, they didn't get the answer they were expecting. Normal people would say, "Hmm, I probably did something wrong at some step in here." But no...

"That unexpected result led in 1998 to an astonishing conclusion: Rather than slowing down, the cosmos has recently sped up its rate of expansion"

Of course! That would be my answer too!

I'm trying to take this stuff seriously, but I guess I am too old and cynical. This response almost writes itself.

Gardasil

Interesting take on the Gardasil controversy over at CNN.

First, some choice quotes:

"I would hate to think that normal sexual experimentation -- the kind that my sister and I and many of our friends and peers 'tried on' in college -- could result in a life-threatening illness 30 years later."

Nice.

I've looked into the safety of Gardasil, it does seem to actually be safe. The seven deaths reported are likely not related (when you have 24 million people involved, a handful are going to just die from bizarre circumstances - although it may be one-in-a-million/DNA specific reactions to the drug).

But, let's look at it from a rationalist's point of view.

You could not have sex.

(At least until marriage, and only marry someone who hasn't had sex before)
Then you don't have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases. You wouldn't need millions of doses of this drug. And all the time and effort to test its safety, and the effects on people.

Are we rational? Or driven by emotions and physical desires?

ASC, ESC, and Blood

You really have to wonder what is the point of ESC...

"The technique works equally well with stem cells grown from an embryo and with adult pluripotent stem cells"

"Compatibility problems should disappear if the blood-forming stem cells are based on the patient's own cells"

Of course, embryonic cells are never compatible with any patient's cells (since the original "patient" was the embryo who was killed). Adult stem cells are always compatible.

Government and Healthcare

An intriguing survey on Science Daily.
(The plans are described as "public", "Medicare", and "single payer")

"Support for the public option was strongest among Democrats with 63/64/69"

"far less support among Republicans with only 29/30/12"

This is a remarkable split. I am really at a loss to describe it.


But, I am actually interested in a completely different aspect of the health care debate, one driven by what has happened to public education.

When the first public schools were established, they taught what the parents desired (often using the Bible as a school book). At some point that changed. Then, the curricula became outright hostile to the Bible and to Christianity (where teaching creationism is now widely believed to be against the law). Although Christians (albeit largely "cultural Christians") remain the majority.

With abortion, destruction of embryos, and euthanasia becoming such hot topics - do we really want to turn over our health care system to agents dedicated to being against Christian values?

ASC and Vision

I previously covered a trial on humans to repair the cornea using eye stem cells.

Now there is a case of repairing retinas in mice, using bone marrow stem cells.

Against Pietism

I previously wrote on the tension between Legalism and Antimonialism.

There is a similar tension between extreme Pietism and Antimonialism.

The legalist forms a codified set of rules which must be obeyed to demonstrate one's salvation.

The pietist has no such set of rules. Rather, they look for trends of outward behavior (usually framed as "separation from the world" or "sanctification").

Of course, this is much worse.

At least you know where you stand with a legalist (you have violated Section 21.36.14b through g, and Sections 131 through 135).

The pietist can simply say, "You haven't improved enough" or "You're of the world".

Everything you enjoy, is "of the world", and must be done away with, "for your spiritual well-being". Any enjoyment of things from before conversion, is "reversion" or, worse, "sin".


The disproof of this stand is easy enough. It focuses on judging our brothers, rather than helping them. Also, it allows for the identification of tares - which is explicitly forbidden by Matthew 13:25-30.

The real irony is that the pietist is no better than his brother. It's a classic case of Matthew 7. Of course, if you try to point this out - or worse, to point out your brother's sin, the pietist has a long list of your "sins" to hold against you - while ignoring his own.