An Interview with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez

By Eduardo Arroyo Pardo & Mario A. López

Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.

Gonzalez has extensive experience in observing and analyzing data from ground-based observatories, including work at McDonald Observatory, Apache Point Observatory and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. He is a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the “Galactic Habitable Zone” concept, which captured the October 2001 cover story of Scientific American. Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on exoplanet host stars, the Galactic Habitable Zone and red giants.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

*This interview was originally conducted in two parts by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa.

Gonzalez has also published nearly 70 articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including The Astrophysical Journal, The Astronomical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Icarus and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He also is the co-author of the second edition of Observational Astronomy, an advanced college astronomy textbook.

In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery with Jay W. Richards.

CA: Dr. Gonzalez, can you explain with the easiest words your field of expertise within astronomy and physics? In your opinion, which of all these matters is the most controversial one?

GG: I have expertise in two general fields within astronomy: quantitative stellar spectroscopy and astrobiology. The first involves the use of high resolution spectra to determine the basic properties of stars, such as surface temperature and chemical composition. The second is a multidisciplinary research program which attempts to detemine which conditions are necessary for habitability.

In addition to these two conventional research areas, I also do Intelligent Design (ID) research in the physical sciences. This is by far the most controversial research I conduct. But, astrobiology research is also controversial. They are controversial, in my view, because some people don’t like the implications of the research findings.

CA: Have you intellectually evolved from the “standard way” of doing science? In other words, how did you come to the actual position?

GG: While those who reject ID as legitimate science would say I have deviated from the accepted or standard way of doing science, I would say that ID research I do is science. If science is a systematized method to discover truths about the universe through observation, then ID certainly qualifies as science. If, instead, science is defined by edicts from the governing bodies of scientific organizations, then ID does not qualify as science. So, I would say I am simply following the evidence wherever it leads. And, if that evidence leads me to conclude that the universe is designed, then I can only be honest and accept it.

I came to be a supporter of ID first from the evidence for fine-tuning in physics and cosmology and later from the evidence we present in The Privileged Planet.

CA: What was most influential for you in accepting ETI?  What was most influential in changing your mind?

GG: The huge number of stars in our vast universe was the deciding factor for my original support of ETI. I changed my position on ETI when as a graduate student I began to examine the many factors relevant to a planet’s habitability. I learned that much must go just right for a planet to be habitable. To determine the probability of ETI, it is not enough to understand that there are vast numbers of stars and planets. It is also necessary to factor in the many “habitability factors”. Over the years the list of habitability factors has continued to grow, resulting in probabilities for ETI that continue to drop.

CA: Can you explain us the concept of “Galactic Habitable Zone”? Why do you think this is so relevant?

GG: The Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) concept describes how habitability varies with place and time in the Milky Way Galaxy. Two broad classes of processes define its boundaries: threats to life and planetary building blocks. The inner regions of the Milky Way are more dangerous, while the outer regions contain fewer planetary building blocks. As a result of these trends the region of greatest habitability takes the form of an annulus in the disk of the Milky Way.

The GHZ concept is relevant to both astrobiology and ID. The GHZ is another factor that must be included in any calculation of the probability of ETI in the Milky Way Galaxy. As we show in The Privileged Planet the GHZ is not only the most habitable location in the Milky Way, it is also the best location for doing astronomy research. This is part of a broader pattern of evidence for design we discuss in The Privileged Planet.

CA: Many others in your field or related fields have acknowledged that it appears as though a super-intellect may have “monkeyed with physics.”  Why are your ideas so controversial?  Aren’t they drawing similar conclusions?

GG: Yes, I am drawing similar conclusions to those cosmologists and phycisists have been making since the 1950s. For this reason I expected that scientists in the physical sciences would be more receptive of my ID research. Indeed, several scientists have endorsed or positively reviewed The Privileged Planet. I think my work in ID has become controversial because of the general controversy surrounding the evolution/creation/anti-Darwinism debate. The same people and organizations who have strongly opposed creationism and criticism of Darwinism in the past now oppose ID. And, they often lump creationism together with ID and fail to distinguish between ID research in biology to ID research in the physical sciences.

The passion behind the recent opposition to ID clearly comes from militant athiests. They see the conclusions of ID research as challenging their deeply held materialist beliefs, which they equate with science itself.

CA: You have paid dearly for being involved with the ID movement, has it been worth it?

GG: It has been difficult, but I would do it all over again. I have made a number of important discoveries in astronomy, but none can compare in importance to my research in ID. So, yes, it was worth it.

CA: Can you explain to the spanish-speaking public how was your conflict with Iowa State University? Do you feel that there is some kind of academic prosecution within the American educational system?

GG: I was targeted for public criticism and condemnation beginning a few months after The Privileged Planet was published in March 2004. A small group of vocal athiest professors at Iowa State University (ISU) began to publicly criticize me in local newspapers and public forums on campus. I don’t mind criticism. In fact, I expect it. The criticisms reached a new level in June 2005 when a documentary based on the book was shown at the Smithsonian Intitution in Washington, D.C. James Randy, a prominent “skeptic”, orchestrated a national campaign to try to get the Smithsonian to cancel the showing.

Two months later, over 100 faculty at ISU, led by athiest professor of religious studies Hector Avalos, signed a petition statement condemning ID. Although my name was not mentioned in the petition, I was clearly the target; Avalos had been publicly criticizing me since the fall of 2004.

In the fall of 2006 I came up for tenure review. The physics and astronomy faculty voted against my tenure in November, and the President of ISU came down with his final negative decision the following spring. Since then, I have been applealing the decision, first to the President and then to the Board of Regents. Today, my appeal is still being considered by the Board of Regents.

Statements made by the chair and several faculty of the physics and astronomy department make it clear that my ID research (The Privileged Planet book, my work on which was officially approved by ISU when I arrived in 2001) was the determinative factor in denying me tenure. This is clearly an infringement of my academic freedom. The faculty let their prejudices against ID influence their votes on my tenure.

At this point, I think it is not possible for a known ID proponent to be hired in a science department at a major American university. There is overt viewpoint discrimination taking place at American universities.

CA: Will your conflict with Iowa State be included in Ben Stein’s upcoming film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

GG: Yes, I was interviewed for the film. My understanding is that my story will be included in the film when it is released in the spring.

CA: Can you explain a short synopsis of your work The Privileged Planet?

GG: In The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, Jay Richards and I present evidence for design using data from the physical sciences. Specifically, we showed that the same conditions that result in the most habitable locations also produce the best overall settings for scientific discovery. We reached this conclusion after examining evidence from the atmospheric, geologic and astronomical sciences. The correlation between the conditions for life and the conditions for scientific discovery is improbable and it is not necessary. The correlation is what one would expect if the universe is designed for discovery, but not otherwise.

CA: Peter Ward, co-author of Rare Earth, called your work on The Privileged Planet “crap.”   Considering that you were “instrumental in tying the various strains of the Rare Earth argument;” how do you feel about Mr. Ward’s comment?  Has your relationship with him changed since your involvemnt with ID? Why?

GG: Peter Ward is a very emotional person, and he often reacts emotionally to ideas that challenge his. He ceased collaborating with me in 2001, immediately after learning that I was an ID proponent. He made very clear to me at that time his intense dislike of ID. This occurred long before my book was published, so he already had a bias against ID before reading it.

CA: What is your take on the multi-verse hypothesis?  Does it have implications for the so-called anthropic coincidences?

GG: I consider myself to be a skeptic of the multi-verse hypothesis. I don’t see how one can have conclusive observational tests of other universes, or even of other domains of our universe. Nevertheless, I must remain open to possible existence of unobservable universes. If (and that’s a big ‘if’) a large number of other universes actually exist, then they could account for the observed anthropic coincidences. Whether they could account for the most impressive examples of fine-tuning would depend on how many other universes there are. In principle, this “self-selection bias” only accounts for necessary conditions for life. Of course, we do not actually know such universes exist, so this remains a speculative explanation for anthropic coincidences.

But, the evidence I present in The Privileged Planet goes beyond just fine-tuning of the necessary conditions for life. The evidence for the fine-tuning of conditions for scientific discovery cannot be explained by appeal to self-selection from multi-verses. This doesn’t mean other universes don’t exist, just that they cannot account for the particular properties of our universe. In other words, we live in an extravagant universe, one that has some properties beyond what is necessary for our existence.

CA: Apart from all of the ad hominem attacks, have you met any formidable challenge against your work in The Privileged Planet?

GG: In Chapter 16, The Skeptical Rejoinder, we presented what we considered to be the most important criticisms of our thesis (including some not so important ones). These are criticisms we either thought of ourselves or encountered from scientists and philosophers while we were still writing the book and speaking at public venues. We have not heard a criticism that we did not already address in the book. Probably the most frequent criticism has to do with the multi-verse hypothesis.

CA: Do you have plans in writing another ID related book?

GG: Right now I don’t have plans for another ID book. I might write a new version of The Privileged Planet with a chapter updating the science, somewhat like what Mike Behe did with Darwin’s Black Box.

An Interview with Dr. William A. Dembski

By Mario A. López

A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. He is also a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle as well as the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Previously he was the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, where he founded its Center for Theology and Science. Before that he was Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Baylor University, where he also headed the first intelligent design think-tank at a major research university: The Michael Polanyi Center.

Dr. Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. The sequel to The Design Inference appeared with Rowman & Littlefield in 2002 and critiques Darwinian and other naturalistic accounts of evolution. It is titled No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Dr. Dembski has edited several influential anthologies, including Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (ISI, 2004) and Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge University Press, 2004, co-edited with Michael Ruse). His newest book is a festschrift volume in honor of Phillip Johnson. It is titled Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement.

As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public intellectual. In addition to lecturing around the world at colleges and universities, he is frequently interviewed on the radio and television. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. He has appeared on the BBC, NPR (Diane Rehm, etc.), PBS (Inside the Law with Jack Ford; Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson), CSPAN2, CNN, Fox News, ABC Nightline, and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

*This interview was originally conducted in two parts by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa.

CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry.  How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them. There’s a reason for this slow start. My work in The Design Inference was essentially a work on the philosophical foundations of probability theory, trying to understand how to interpret probabilities in certain contexts. This led naturally to some ideas about information and the type of information used in drawing design inferences. My book No Free Lunch was a semi-popular overview of where I saw the ID movement headed on the topic of information. The hard work of developing these ideas into a rigorous information-theoretic formalism for doing science really began only in 2005 with some unpublished papers on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design that appeared on my website (www.designinference.com). With the formation of Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab just this month and work by me and my colleague Robert Marks on the conservation of information (several papers of which are available at www.evolutionaryinformatics.org), I think ID is finally in a position to challenge certain fundamental assumptions in the natural sciences about the nature and origin of information. This, I believe, will have a large impact on science.

CA: Your critics (such as Wein, Perakh, Shallit, Elsberry, Wolpert and others) seem unsatisfied with your work.  They charge your work as being somewhat esoteric and lacking intellectual rigor.  What do you say to that charge?

WD: Most of these critics are responding to my book No Free Lunch. As I explained in the preface of that book, the aim of this book was to provide enough technical details so that experts could fill in details, but enough exposition so that the general reader could grasp the essence of my project. The book seems to have succeeded with the general reader and with some experts, though mainly with those who were already well-disposed toward ID. In any case, it became clear after that publication of that book that I would need to fill in the mathematical details myself, something I have been doing right along (see my articles described under “mathematical foundations of intelligent design” at www.designinference.com) and which has now been taken up in earnest in a collaboration with my friend and colleague Robert Marks at Baylor University’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evolutionaryinformatics.org).

CA: Are you evading the tough questions?

WD: Of course not. But tough questions take time to answer, and I have been patiently answering them. I find it interesting now that I have started answering the critics’ questions with full mathematical rigor (see http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/eil/

Publications.html) that they are strangely silent. Jeff Shallit, for instance, when I informed him of some work of mine on the conservation of information told me that he refuse to address it because I had not adequately addressed his previous objections to my work, though the work on conservation of information about which I was informing him was precisely in response to his concerns. Likewise, I’ve interacted with Wolpert. Once I started filling in the mathematical details of my work, however, he fell silent. Perhaps the most striking instance of silence is that of Thomas Schneider, whose article on the evolution of biological information in Nucleic Acids Research (2000) claims to refute my colleague Michael Behe. When Robert Marks and I recently showed that his evolutionary program was equivalent to a neural network and that it works worse than pure chance (http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf), he too fell silent though in the past he would reply in a day’s time on his own website to any challenge from me. I have found that Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet about problems with their theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.

CA: Are there any major universities supporting the work of ID proponents?  If not, why not?

WD: I wouldn’t say that universities as such support ID. They tolerate it if the faculty member doing ID research has tenure. And if they don’t have tenure, the university makes sure that they don’t get tenure (the tenure denial of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University is latest instance). Why this opposition? Darwinists have been very successful at demonizing anyone who dissents from their materialistic view of evolution. They have essentially established a Stalinist regime over the western academy.

CA: I know about the Biologic Institute and the work of Dr. Minnich.  Are there any other laboratories currently doing ID work?

WD: Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab: www.evolutionaryinformatics.org. I understand another ID lab at Baylor is on the way.

CA: Is your (still incomplete) monograph, Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design, supposed to be a more complete or rigorous explanation for inferring design?

WD: For now, this work will be published as separate articles in collaboration with Robert Marks. I expect that eventually we will be co-authoring a monograph on this topic together, though we may not give it that title given the climate of hostility against ID. The emphasis in this work shifts from detecting or inferring design to the need for information in search. These are related problems since information that enables successful search can trigger a design inference.

CA: Now that we have methods of design detection (i.e. The Explanatory Filter and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity), is there any work being done on the designer’s modus operandi, other than the conjunct of evolutionary theories and front loading?  I am thinking of something in the lines of Von Neumann terms, such as self replicating automata or the increase of specificity atom at a time.  Is this an irrelevant question?  Why?

WD: The implementation of design into living systems, especially at the origin of life, is a fascinating question but I’m not sure that science is in a position right now to answer it. If life is indeed designed, then it represents a technology far more sophisticated than anything humans have devised. It may take some time before our technology is at the place where we can determine the designer’s modus operandi. ID research, however, does not need to be limited to that question. Much of the focus these days is on the limits of evolution given certain types of informational resources. This is an inherently interesting question and one that does not prejudge which theory is likely to emerge on top, ID or Darwinian evolution.

CA: Do you feel that we are on the verge of proposing a neo-saltation theory on the smorgasbord of ideas?

WD: I don’t think the evidence supports universal common descent, but there are design theorists such as Michael Behe who think that it does. A saltational theory of life’s diversification is therefore a design-theoretic option, but it is not the only option, and I don’t expect to see any one position gain ascendancy within the ID movement any time soon.

CA: Amidst all the animosity and criticisms written about your work, what is your motivation for continuing this ambitious research program?

WD: The work itself is immensely satisfying and intellectually stimulating. Moreover, I see those who seek to shut it down as intolerant dogmatists who encapsulate a tyranny that I despise. So I get to see myself as both a scientific researcher and as a freedom fighter-a rare combination.

CA: You’ve done a lot of work on ID already.  Is there something else in the works?  Maybe other theoretical models for inferring design?

WD: I see evolutionary informatics as the scientific core of ID and expect I’ll be working in this field for the next several years. In addition to this work with the engineering and mathematical communities, I retain my interests in philosophy and theology and have various books in the works in this area. My first doctorate was in mathematics, and what mathematics has given me is a desire to solve interesting problems, whatever they might be and wherever I might find them. One of the things that convinces me that ID is on to something is that I find one interesting research problem leading to another, and that I have more interesting problems to resolve than I have years to spend working on them. Despite all the opposition I face, especially ostracism from the scientific mainstream, which can be painful, I would not change places with anyone.

An Interview with Dr. Michael J. Behe

By Mario A. López

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe’s current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, he has also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. His book, Darwin’s Black Box discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls “irreducibly complex” biochemical systems. The book was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

His most current book, The Edge of Evolution presents landmark evidence that devastatingly disproves random mutation as a major part of evolution and shows that life developed non-randomly from cells to animals.

Through a combination of experimental evidence, genome research, and mathematical law, Behe analyzes three key case studies of the tens of thousands of generations of malaria, E. coli, and the HIV virus, and the human genomic response to those invaders. We now know exactly what mutations have occurred in the struggle between these parasites and their human hosts. We know their rate of occurrence. We know all possible types of mutations, and their natural rate of occurrence. Armed with all this, it is a simple matter of extrapolation to determine the limits of Darwinian randomness in the entire tree of life on earth.

Behe has presented and debated his work at major universities throughout North America and England.

DARWIN’S BLACK BOX: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1998)

THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION (The Free Press, 2007)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

*This interview was originally conducted by Mario A. Lopez for the pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa.

ML: Dr. Behe, for people who aren’t familiar with your work, what exactly is the argument you are making in The Edge of Evolution?

MJB: In Darwin’s Black Box I argued that at least some very complex biochemical systems found in cells required purposeful design. However, some aspects of biology are simple, and could have appeared by chance in a Darwinian fashion. In The Edge of Evolution I try to draw a general line between the types of biological systems that would require design and those that wouldn’t.

ML: How does this book differ from you previous book, Darwin’s Black Box?

MJB: The Edge of Evolution makes the case that design is not just needed for the fanciest biological systems, but for almost all of them. In other words, unlike Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution argues that design extends very deeply into biology.

ML: Your critics have called your design hypothesis the “Great” or “Divine Mutator.” Is this a fair representation?  Why or why not?

MJB: Well, critics tend to use silly-sounding phrases to make ideas they disagree with look bad. In The Edge of Evolution I argue that life had to be designed to a very great degree of detail in order to exist. So, if one believes (as I do) that the designer is God, then God planned life on earth down to the molecular level. If that means the designer is a “Great Mutator”, so be it. Don’t forget, the astronomer Fred Hoyle coined the term “Big Bang” to ridicule a scientific hypothesis he disagreed with, but the idea survived and prospered because of its merits.

ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72).  Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of humans and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent?  Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution.

ML: I know that you are well liked and respected by other ID proponents, but how do your ID colleagues feel about your commitment to common descent? Have they ever addressed that issue with you?

MJB: We have discussed it briefly and cordially, and have agreed to disagree.

ML: If you found a compelling argument against common descent, would you ever reassess your current position?  How about your position on ID?

MJB: Sure. Science is always supposed to reassess its conclusions in light of the best available evidence. If new evidence came to light, or old evidence reinterpreted in a compelling way, then I would change my position on common descent, intelligent design, or any scientific conclusion.

ML: Is the repeated independent evolution of nylonase in two different strains of flavobacterium and of pseudomonas aeruginosa a good example of an increase of information in the genome?  Does this refute the main contention of your book?

MJB: No. Those enzymes are very simple ones which simply hydrolyze precursors to nylon. That’s a very simple task, which can be done even by small organic catalysts.

ML: How will your work affect the way science is done?

MJB: I think the most practical effect will be to show the scientific and medical communities that the range of changes that random mutation can effect in disease-causing organisms like malaria is quite limited. Thus if we concentrate on finding impediments to the few effective mutational pathways in the most deadly organisms on earth, we may be able to conquer completely some of mankind’s oldest scourges.

From Reflections: The Works of Rosabel Lopez-Macias

A Present for Eternity [PDF]

To purchase more of Rosabel’s work, click on the texts below our “Purchase” widget.

—Thank you.

AMAZON.UK description: “If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again…IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century’s Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT’s proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God’s image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity enabled the West to triumph in the modern era. Evolution, on the other hand, derives from more ancient, even pagan, ideas about our rootedness in nature and the transience of all life forms. It has been always more popular outside the West, and until Darwin few evolutionists were scientists. What happened to reverse these two movements’ fortunes? Steve Fuller’s brilliant revisionist history is essential reading for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of science’s most vociferous debate.”

Review Synopsis

Contrary to popular belief, fostered in countless school classrooms the world over, Christopher Columbus did not discover that the world was round. The idea of the world as a sphere had been widely accepted in scientific, philosophical and even religious circles from as early as the fourth century bc. Bizarrely, it was not until the supposedly more rational nineteenth century that the notion that the world might actually be flat really took hold. Even more bizarrely, it persists to this day, despite Apollo missions and widely publicized pictures of the decidedly spherical earth from space. Based on a range of original sources, Garwood’s history of flat-earth beliefs – from the Babylonians to the present day – raises issues central to the history and philosophy of science, its relationship with religion and the making of human knowledge about the natural world. “Flat Earth” is the first definitive study of one of history’s most notorious and persistent ideas, and evokes all the intellectual, philosophical and spiritual turmoil of the modern age.

Lately I have been thinking a lot about writing a book on emotions.  I realized that every time people talk to me about their problems, they have a lot of guilt concerning their emotions.  They often feel guilty for being jealous toward their partner, or for feeling hate toward someone that wrongs them.  Here I will outline some of my thoughts on the subject, perhaps this will prompt me to pursue the subject further.

The way I see it, we were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), and therefore, bear all of His communicable attributes.  We should not be ashamed of our emotions, but rather we should embrace them and utilize them as God truly intended it.

The guilt that we often feel when our emotions have temporally marred our judgement derives from the fact that we have disobeyed God’s perfect law.  A law that, although not always obvious to us, abides in our hearts (Romans 2:14).  We project those emotions, not as God intended, but without restraint.

On Jealousy

Jealousy is an inherited attribute of God (Exodus 34:14)  which clearly demands exclusive loyalty.  Our projection of it, however, is often marked by selfishness; often attempting to force someone’s loyalty to us .

So, how can we change this?  Well, for starters, we need to recognize that it is NOT the emotion, “jealousy,” that is the problem, but our “projection” of it.  In other words, it is how we react to it that matters.  If we were to express how we feel in a positive manner, instead of reacting impulsively, the outcome would be far more pleasant.

Our emotions are indicators of what is going on; they are telling us something about a particular situation.  Jealousy reminds of a covenant, such as that we must be loyal to our relationships (Mark 10:6-9), or to God, our creator (Exodus 20:3).

If we act out our jealousy in anger, we suppress the true intention of that emotion.

The way we handle jealousy really depends on the situation we find ourselves in (i.e. whether the emotion was a result of somebody else’s actions, or the result of our own fertile imagination).  If it is the case that we are feeling jealousy without any concrete reason, then it is best to reassess our thoughts as to what the real problem is.  If we are experiencing jealousy as a result of someone’s actions, then we need to tell the person about it and point out how his/her actions cast doubt on their loyalty toward us.

On Anger

The bible tell us that God angers (1Kings 11:9, Nahum 1:3), but that we should be “slow to anger” (Proverbs 16:32).  Not that we shouldn’t anger, but that we should’t emote in haste or impulse.  Again, this emotion tell us that there is something wrong, some problem that is in conflict in our heart.  Anger, in the form of righteous indignation is not a bad thing.  It is not until we abuse relationships that anger becomes a dangerous emotion.  Often, anger can lead to hatred and so , not having a clear understanding of the two, makes it nearly impossible to control both the anger and the feeling of hate in the proper context.

A person can be angry without having hatred toward the thing causing the anger.  It is also true that a person can hate something without being angry over it.

The idea here is that a person should only express their anger in such a way that it does not conflict with God’s commandments (such as to “love your neighbor as yourself” -Mark 12:31).

On Hate

The proper context of “hate” needs some clarification.  For example, a passage of scripture can clearly indicate God’s preference of one person over another (see Romans 9:13), however, that is not to say that God is expressing utter odium for the other person, but simply that he has chosen one person over another and bestowing his grace upon that person.

In the context of God’s character, however, hate is an expression of  His antipathy towards evil and all kinds of abominations (Deuteronomy 12:31).  Hatred in this context is not only justified, but commendable.

Hatred should never be directed at an individual, but toward the individual’s negative actions.  So to change someone’s character is to help them hate the same evil that they themselves perpetuate through their lives.  This can only be done through the expression of love.

On Love

So, what is love? The Bible (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) teaches us that love is patient and kind; it does not envy, nor does it boast; it is not proud or rude; it is not self-seeking nor is it easily angered; it keeps no record of wrongs nor delights in evil, but rejoices in truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.  Love never fails.

This emotion is often hard to distinguish, and often confused with lust, affection, or attraction.  It is, in fact, none of these.  This emotion is referred to as agape because it is a selfless emotion.  When a person’s emphasis is on the “fuzzy feeling”, instead of a selfless commitment, “love” becomes extremely disposable (“fuzzy feelings” ebb and flow).  That is not to say that these “feelings,” in the natural sense, are wrong, but that they tell us nothing about love’s true purpose.  Notice that the passage of scripture above says a lot about what love ought NOT to be;  so when these conflict within our relationships, we know we are no longer acting in love, but in selfishness.  In contrast, when we love as we are told in scripture, love never fails.

Notice also that the passage tells us that love rejoices in truth.  Why is that?  What does being truthful have to do with being selfless?  That is because love can only be exercised in truth.  For example, if we are trying to help someone out of self-destructive behavior, we need to remember that we can only help that person if we are honest enough with them about their problem.  Often times we tend to “water” things down in the name of “political correctness,” but how is that going to help anyone?

If we act in love, as outlined in scripture, we know that we are, 1) being obedient to God, and 2) perpetuating the qualities of love.  The bible tells us that love must be exercised even on our enemies (see Matthew 5:43-48); for what good is it to only love those who love you back?  Love is of no effect in this manner, therefore, when we love-we must love unconditionally.

I am sure most of you have heard about the Discovery Channel’s special about the Jesus ossuary.  The falsehoods being propped-up by the “scientific experts” is not a new attack on Christianity.  Not surprising their news coverage often bears titles such as, Jesus Died From Blood Clot and Jesus Walked on Ice, Not Water. Well, I thought I should put something up for all of you to read.  Here is a great article that oulines some of the problems with Discovery’s documentary:

Note: (You will need Adobe Reader)

The Jesus Ossuary: A Critical Examination

judge [juj]
n
[12th century. Via Old French juge from, ultimately, Latin judex , literally "one who speaks the law," from jus "law, right" (source of English just).]

Encarta® Reference Library 2003. All rights reserved.

________________________________________________________________________

Ann Coulter should probably be the one writing this, and I am certain that she would do a better job in articulating the travesty of justice occuring in our courts today.  Who will judge the judges?  It is a good question.  Take a look at some recent decisions made by judges here in our beloved country:

Judge Richard Kramer - San Francisco judge that declares state law on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

Judge M. Brooke Murdock – Ruled on allowing same sex marriage.

Superior Court Judge John McCann – Sets child sex offender, Glen Wheeler, free.

Judge Gordon Thompson - Rules to remove cross off Mt. Soledad after being voted to remain or be moved.

Judge John E. Jones III - declares Intelligent Design theory as “religion.”

Judge Stephen Reinhardt – Makes decision declaring that the “right to privacy” did not apply to parents who wanted to prevent public school officials in Palmdale, Calif., from giving their elementary school age children a sexually explicit survey.

Among his better known decisions, Reinhardt:

1. … agreed that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional;
2. … found a “right to die” in the Constitution;
3. … overturned Alaska’s sex offender registry law because a registrant would suffer the “ostracism that would accompany his being publicly labeled a sex offender;”
4. … ruled that the Second Amendment, which states in part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” does not recognize a right of individual citizens to own guns, but of state governments to arm “militias.”

Judge Gerard O’ Brien - Ruled that a female-to-male individual is legally a man in Florida.

Judge Bruce A. Gaeta - Sentenced 43-year-old teacher Pamela Diehl-Moore to probation after she admitted having sex with a seventh-grade student who was 13 at the time.

Judge Robert Freedman – Voids a requirement that had threatened to disqualify an estimated 1,500 seniors in San Diego County and 47,000 students statewide from graduating with their classmates.

District Judge Kristine Cecava - (Cheyenne County, Nebraska) Sentenced Richard Thompson, 50, on two counts of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl. He was given 10 years of probation by a judge who said the man was too small to survive prison. His sentence to intensive supervision probation means he’ll be electronically monitored for 120 days, he cannot be alone with anyone under 18 and he can’t date or live with anyone whose children are under 18.