We're losing the war, eh?

Riiight. If casualty count is any indicator, we're not. America could afford to go on like this for another decade, assuming constant casualty rate, before we even reach the level of the Mexican War. Maybe it's just due to technological improvements. Maybe not.

Lead and the mind etc.

Article here (Yahoo! News). When I first read the title, "Lead linked to aging in older brains," my first reaction was "Duuuh!" - but when I read the whole article, it changed to "Interesting." It happens all too often, but maybe the inner cynic is good for something after all. (Maybe lead in younger brains causes a greater incidence of vacillating opinions? No, wait, that's just human nature.) Anyhow, for all my readers who are GenY or better, I dedicate this post to you. Just don't eat any more lead.

And now...a surprise poll. If you read this post, would you mind posting briefly in the comments section on how you found this blog? (linked to a friend's blog, Googled it, etc.)

Jeremiah session 4

Today we got from 2:29 to 3:23, not to mention 1 Corinthians (and that's quite a lot of text if you know my pastors!). Here are the notes.

• God rebuked Israel in the past for unfaithfulness, yet Israel killed the prophets and forgot God. God expected Israel to be His bride, yet Israel became a whore.
• 2:33--Israel was so evil that she taught pagans more false gods.
• 2:34--two sins: idolatry and neglecting the poor.
• 2:35--Israel was brazen; she didn't repent, even though she had the Law.
• 3:1--more unfaithfulness (God's only grounds for a divorce).
• 3:3--more brazenness from Israel.
• 3:6--high places = for worship, unfortunately pagan.
• Don't take the intimacy with God for granted (Lord's Supper).
• 3:11--surprising! Judah (formerly better) went farther (worse) than Israel.
• 3:12-13--God invites contrition; He will always forgive repented sins. His patience still (but not for long) has a thread left.
• 3:14-19--imagery of the promised Christ. See John 10:11-13.
• 3:23--Jeremiah's confession of the true faith.
• 1 Cor. 10; 11:17, 23-26--the sanctuary is the fellowship (Greek koinonia) hall--we all partake of Christ's blood (under the wine) and ONE body (under the bread). True fellowship happens at the communion rail--intimate fellowship with Christ and each other. Don't provoke God to jealousy.
  

Could be a miracle

From Yahoo! News - a nine-year-old girl, upon receiving a new liver, got some pleasantly unexpected baggage along with it: a new immune system and a new blood type. This was six years ago. Now she's much healthier than before the transplant--thank goodness!

Michael Stormon, a hepatologist treating her, [said]..."It is extremely unusual -- in fact we don't know of any other instance in which this happened...In effect she had had a bone marrow transplant. The majority of her immune system had also switched over to that of the donor."

An article on the case was published in Thursday's edition of the leading US medical journal The New England Journal of Medicine...

Stormon said it appeared that Brennan may have been fortunate because a "sequence of serendipitous events", including a post-transplantation infection, may have given the stem cells from her donor's liver the chance to proliferate.

The task now was to establish whether the same sort of outcome could be replicated in other transplant patients, he said.

What a miracle.

Epiphany 2

Today's sermon text was Isaiah 49:1-7, the second of the Servant songs (others: 42, 50, and 53).

We Gentiles are saved by grace!--God has included us in His salvation plan. But those outside Jesus Christ are condemned. Their lives are wasted. God offers to all the gift of life, but some reject it. Yet Jesus went to the cross for each of us.

The prophecy in the text is in the past tense while being about Jesus, far in the future. It is the "prophetic perfect" tense--so certain (for God guarantees it) that it's as if it had already happened. Verse 6 makes quite clear that Jesus, the Promised One, is for all, Jews and Gentiles alike. Verse 1--see 7:14. Verse 7 foretells His crucifixion.

This Messiah gives us His word (v. 2) and is THE Word (John 1:1). Through Him we have life better than physical life. Why do we tell so few of our unsaved loved ones about Him? The Word has come from Jerusalem all the way to us--surely we can spread it a little farther. Tell others that they too are included in God's promise.

Musings on "good" science

Certain blogs I frequent seem to be posting more and more about the ID-versus-evolution or creationism-versus-evolution debates. While evolutionists keep insisting that there is no debate, they persistently ignore or belittle evidence provided by creationists in response, saying that it is either false or just bad science. I won't make any judgment on those statements here; rather, I will simply throw some small darts, if you will, a few points to consider.

• Darwinian evolution has been blamed for such items as gangs, murders, and a general rising worldview of "if God doesn't exist or didn't create the world, what prevents me from naturally selecting myself by firing this gun at someone's head?" Evolutionists reply that these conclusions are based on misapplications or misunderstanding of social Darwinism. Are they? If not, show me they aren't.
• Evolutionists claim that creationism is pseudoscience. Does pseudoscience beget itself? Read this post from Cao2, then bring your answer.
  
• Microevolution, or the theory that species change gradually over time, into more specialized species, has been well established. Creationism relies on that too. However, the other component of Darwinian evolution, macroevolution (that, over time, something like a paramecium could develop into a human), has somewhat less support. Looking at this post, a good summary, I wonder how much the second component really matters. Reasons 1 and 2 therein are certainly dependent on microevolution, not macroevolution. While reason 3 depends on both components, this is because it refers to the AP test, which assumes the truth of both.

Metaphysics

While browsing W. E. Messamore's blog, Slaying Dragons, his most recent post caught my eye. My being a biologist-in-training who doesn't care to think much about invisible/inconceivable things like attoseconds, reading the article linked to the post was a challenge fit for any philosopher. Check out the post and the article; they may lead to surprising conclusions (who knows?).

Jeremiah, session 2

Here, for your continued edification, are the notes from today; the topic was Jeremiah chapter 1.

• Ch. 1--authority, nature, and character of God's Word. Law-message: "Tell Israel they'll be destroyed." Jeremiah, as all prophets did, tried to back out. But it was God's word, so he had no excuse.
• Jeremiah prophesied/preached from 627 to 587 B.C.--40 years.
• Verses 4-5: God's word came (by vision or voice or while he preached) to Jeremiah, set apart before birth. Good proof text against abortion. But it's about god's specific plan for Jeremiah--be careful about applying it universally.
• Verse 7: God's rebuttal to Jeremiah's reluctance; see Mark 13:11. Verse 8: Jeremiah had reason to fear--people were plotting against his life--but God here promised to protect him. Lutherans pray "if it be Your will"--but should pray rather that God would deliver them to heaven (and hopefully leave them some time on earth!).
• Verses 9-10: God's Word from His touch--Jeremiah was from Benjamin (v. 1) but put over "nations and kingdoms"--see ch. 44ff. He got to pronounce judgment on everybody (see text headings throughout the book).
• Verse 11: "almond" sounds like "watching"--close enough [translation: ESV].
• Verse 13: Babylon came from the north--they would be the enemies.
• Verse 16: "works of own hands"--primary sin of Judah; see 1st table of Commandments.
• Verse 19: God: "I'm protecting you; you shall prevail." One can't say that ideas are inspired and not words. If words mean nothing, then what is true? (Pilate) Once you give up on the truth of words, anything is possible. Ideas come from man, not God.
  

The baptism of our Lord

Today's readings were Isaiah 42:1-9, Romans 6:1-11, and Matthew 3:13-17.

Today, the first of the Servant songs (others: 49, 50, and 53). The Messiah was promised to be the perfect servant--and Jesus, the Anointed One of God, fulfilled all of the prophecies. How to we react to this "interruption"? Move on? Or not? for this event, Christ's baptism, alters history entirely. It is important because God, the Three-in-One, is present (the Father's voice, the Son incarnate, and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove--Matt. 3:16-17). The Greek of Matthew--"in whom I am well pleased"--matches the Hebrew of Isaiah.

Another surprise of Isaiah: "[Messiah] will bring justice" to all nations--you and me. The Romans reading explains this wonder of God counting us innocent. Isiah goes on to explain the great graciousness and gentleness of the Messiah--neither breaking a bruised reed nor quenching a smoking wick.

Then His covenant interrupts. We receive the promise of it in Communion, the Lord's body and blood. Christ Himself interrupts our lives, forgiving freely our filthy sin. Give God the glory for this. Christ Jesus has already given us everything! Glorify Him.

The great debate

As both my conservative and liberal readers know, the ID debate has been raging for who-knows-how-long. This post won't argue anything per se, but is rather an archive for a few articles from WORLD Magazine's perspective (subscription helpful). Certain readers may be unpleasantly surprised.

From the Sept. 18, 2004 issue: an account of a biology teacher, Roger DeHart, prosecuted for daring to teach Darwinian evolution and ID side-by-side.

From the Oct. 9, 2004 issue: how an ID paper got published and how evolutionists lashed out-- "'The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories' by Stephen Meyer [that] appeared in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington," to be precise.

From the May 21, 2005 issue: how certain schools, defying Darwinists' demands to the contrary, are "teach[ing] the debate." A telling sentence: "Darwinians boycotted the hearings, insisting that there is no debate."

From the July 21, 2007 issue: a unique teacher who hasn't gotten prosecuted for teaching the controversy.

And, in closing, a blurb from page 36 of the Dec. 29, 2007/Jan. 5, 2008 double issue.

Throughout the year, Darwinists upped their rhetoric against proponents of Intelligent Design, blocking the tenure of...Guillermo Gonzalez...and interfering with the ID research of Robert Marks at Baylor. But the ID movement fought back.

...The Edge of Evolution [by Michael Behe] hit bookstores in the summer with a devastating critique of Darwinism. Specifically, Behe demonstrates the limitations of random mutation and natural selection in producing new genetic information.

Similar challenges to Darwinism propelled a new high-school textbook... Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism [from the Discovery Institute].

So far, that "teach the controversy" approach to biology education appears lawsuit-proof...

Unlike the famous Dover, Pa., school board that advocated introducing ID into the classroom and lost a landmark lawsuit to the ACLU in 2005, this new methodology draws only scorn, not litigation...

Yes, this collection may be one-sided. But let the articles speak for themselves.

Added 1/9/08: Look at this link (trackbacked here) from The Stiletto and answer this question: Are we evolving up (as, in my understanding, Darwinian evolution would predict) or down (as creationism would predict)?

Global warming? Sure, it's happening!

Check out this *inconvenient* post from TRM. As if that weren't enough, the peak temperature for yesterday and today in my locale (and no, it's not in Florida, but in the icy Midwest) has been about 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Can someone say "temperature fluctuations do not equal global warming"?

Added 1/8/08: Look at this interesting post from The Astute Bloggers. Humans *definitely* cause all of global warming, don't they.

Jeremiah, session 1

Starting today: a brand-new, 11-session Bible study. The topic: Jeremiah. (Since the sermon emphasis at my church is currently Isaiah, why not continue? reasoned the pastors.) This first session is an overview.

• Timewise: Jeremiah prophesied after Isaiah, ca. 627-587 B.C. Very near the end of Old Testament history, just prior to Judah's fall. He's the second of three "major" (long) prophets--Isaiah and Ezekiel are the others.
• Style: Hebrew poetry (not rhyme, but repetition, plays on words, figures of speech, parallelism--antithetical, synonymous, and synthetic); narrative (e.g. ch. 39). He preaches and prophesies (really the same thing, 'speaking forth'); he speaks forth God's words--Law and Gospel.
• Matching up Jeremiah's history with Biblical history: 1 Kings 12:16 = the great divide. 2 Kings 17 = Israel's fall. 2 Kings 22 = Josiah's reign. The last three chapters of 2 Kings correspond with Jeremiah's period of prophecy, the very end of Israel.

Next week: Jeremiah 1.

It's a bird! It's a plane!

...No, wait, it's both! Here's an article (A1; subscription required) by Michael M. Phillips about one of the stranger jobs in America: the guy in Baghdad who collects smashed birds from Air Force planes and the woman who analyzes them.

The bird collector: "Lt. Col. Del Johnson...[who makes] sure that every time war bird and regular bird collide, the latter is scraped off the former and shipped to scientists at the Smithsonian Institution." Why this job? Answer: even a sparrow can destroy a plane if it goes into the turbines; a goose collision can destroy the pilot & co. Johnson has tried to get the birds away, period, by such methods as burning trash in towers (rather than "open pits, [which attract] mice, [which attract] birds"), shooting "fireworks from a double-barreled signal pistol," and potentially "a $7,700 Desman laser with a sniper's scope and 1.5-mile-long beam (Birds aren't harmed by the laser, its dealer says.)." The alternate method is the favorite of scientist-mathematicians everywhere: analyze the collisions to get data by which pilots can more easily avoid the birdies.

And that is where the woman, Carla Dove (yes, pun) in Washington state, comes in.

Ms. Dove and her staff have three methods of identifying dead birds, which they do about 4,000 times a year. Marcy Heacker, a 44-year-old research assistant from Dayton, Ohio, specializes in matching whole feathers with those found on more than 620,000 bird specimens in the museum's back rooms. Red-tailed hawks, scarlet tanagers, blackpoll warblers and more are lined up in drawers stacked floor to ceiling, their bodies lifelike except for the white cotton where their eyes once were.

There's taxidermy at its best for you-serving the country! Here are the other two methods:

When feather remains are too severely damaged to make a naked-eye identification, Ms. Dove steps in. In wooden filing drawers in her office, amid pictures of birds and jets, she keeps 2,400 microscope slides of fluffy feather barbs. Up close, she can see nodes that distinguish, say, a wren from a Muscovy duck. "Not many people do this," says Ms. Dove...

In the case of Col. Johnson's two-bird specimen, however, there wasn't enough feather to do microscopic comparison. So the blue, blood-stained rag ended up with Nancy Rotzel, a 28-year-old molecular specialist from Appleton, Wis. Using an expensive machine provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, Ms. Rotzel extracted DNA from the sample and matched it to records from the Barcode of Life Data Systems, a collection of DNA from 35,105 plant and animal species, [revealing] a 99.5% match with a skylark, and a 98.5% match with a great egret.

The Smithsonian team entered its findings into a global bird-avoidance database, which calculates the odds of a plane hitting a given species of bird at a given moment...

So nothing productive is coming out of the war, eh? (I'm kidding, of course.) This is just one of many silver linings. That job of "molecular specialist" sounds fun--not to mention the other two.

Yet another meaning for "yo"

The Informed Reader (B5, subscription required) scoops Jan. 5 New Scientist, this time about linguistics. And political correctness (or lack thereof--finally! Now that would make a good major for the politically queasy...). Need I say more?

English speakers who want to avoid seeming sexist frequently struggle with the lack of a gender-neutral alternative to "he" and "she." Suggested alternatives such as "ter," "ip," "ze" or "hir" haven't caught on.

But linguists in Baltimore have found that a gender-neutral pronoun has emerged among schoolchildren there. It is "yo," as in "yo put his feet up." Their study showed this usage was different from other uses of "yo" -- as a greeting or as a synonym of "you."

Dennis Baron, an English professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, doubts "yo" will become an established pronoun. But he said it is significant it emerged without politically correct prodding.

Life: then and now, here and there

Here's an odd pair of articles about life in today's WSJ: one about evolution (which is its own complete kettle of stew) and cooking (B8, Informed Reader scooping January Scientific American), the other about possible extinction and plans to compensate (subscription required; A10, by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.).

First, apes and fire. The big question: "Could primates have evolved into humans without knowing how to cook?" Sure! Look at today's vegetarians! (For my evolutionist readers: Save the arguments about ID and so forth for another time. For my creationist readers: Keep up the research. In the end there'll be a big shootout; may the truth win!)

For 10 years, Harvard University primatologist Richard Wrangham has gathered data that he says show that the discovery of cooking allowed humans to evolve. The only snag: He has yet to prove that humans' ancestors could control fire, a missing link that some scientists say casts doubt on the cooking hypothesis.

Yep, that's a rather large snag, I would say. Here's why he's using that hypothesis:

Chimpanzees' diets of raw, bitter fruits couldn't provide enough energy to support humans' relatively large brains, says Dr. Wrangham. Cooking would have allowed early humans to digest hard, fibrous food more easily and free up energy for brain tissue. He has found that Homo erectus, a human ancestor that appeared between 1.6 million and 1.9 million years ago, had larger brains, smaller teeth and smaller guts than its evolutionary predecessor.

Now, to be fair, is the other side (if you know me, it's still not quite fair...the age part, to say the least--but I'll save that for another time):

But skeptics say Prof. Wrangham hasn't proven that Homo erectus consistently worked with fire, although one archaeological site has been found that shows signs of a fire 1.6 million years ago. Signs of consistent cooking only emerge within the past 500,000 years, around the time Neanderthals were coping with an ice age. In addition, some scientists believe humans could have developed their larger brains and smaller stomachs by eating raw, energy-dense animal products such as soft bone marrow or brains.

Mmm, tastes like chicken! (Now we know why Campbell's soups sell so well!) Back to the Doc:

Prof. Wrangham hopes DNA evidence will eventually prove him right, by revealing whether Homo erectus developed the genetic responses found in modern humans to counter some chemical effects of cooking.

Quibble: Normally the word "prove" is only used in math; in the *softer* sciences, I would prefer the word "demonstrate." Once we find the same evidence in every specimen of humans of this type, then it will technically be "proven." Now for the next article.

Jenkins starts with a bang:

Unless you can avoid a newspaper in 2008, expect to be reading a lot about human extinction. In June arrives the hundredth anniversary of the Tunguska impact, which leveled 800 square miles of Siberia. By happenstance, a rock of similar size may smash into Mars on Jan. 30, affording scientists a close-up view of a planetary disaster...[for example,] NASA last week was announcing discovery of a supermassive black hole spraying deadly radiation into a neighboring galaxy, ending life on an unknown number of planets in its path.

Yes, I have issues with that whole extraterrestrial-life thing. But bear with me. He continues:

More discouragement is found in the so-called Fermi Paradox, or the failure of the universe to yield evidence of intelligent alien civilizations. Is that because intelligent species end up killing themselves off with their own technology?

Hmmm...could it possibly be that there's (gasp) no life on other planets? A shocking notion to some, to be sure. The answer to humans' *imminent* extinction? Cheapening the process of getting *evolved primates* like us into orbit. There ends the biologically interesting part, and there begins the economically interesting part. So I'll stop. Just watch for cheaper shuttles.