Perspectives

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Some-Thoughts-on-Changing-the-Climate-Narrative/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

            Happy New Year!  I hope that 2019 is off to a great start for you, your family, and those around you. 

            Chances are you have many hopes, plans, and aspirations for 2019.  Doubtless, you'd like some things to be different than they were in 2018 and before. 

            For many of us, a different narrative on "climate change" would be wonderful news.  Unless you've decided to swear off media, you likely feel bombarded with stories about impending environmental doom due to climate change.  Lots of scary scenarios are on the horizon.  While there is hope that environmental disaster can be avoided later in the 21^st century, there is a great deal of fear that not enough is being done now to avoid future calamity.

            Which brings me back to the need for a "change of narrative".  In my mind, too much of the debate is focused on one of three topics: 1) international climate forums such as the recent talks in Poland; 2) impending climate catastrophe projections; or 3) climate change denial.  It's rare to find a story that doesn't somehow fit in one of those three "buckets".

            So here's a story about climate that doesn't fit any of the three conventional "climate change storylines".  Instead, it focuses on some of the practical, behind the scenes things being done to deal with the problem.  For me, a great "change of narrative" for 2019 would be to stop talking about the three "buckets" above and re-focus onto practical solutions. 

            My "practical" story is definitely about climate change (because it's real), but it isn't the usual narrative about what governments are doing.  In fact, some of the protagonists in this story are the last you'd ever think of in the climate change debate: Big Oil companies. 

            Please understand, this is not an apologetic about Big Oil, and it isn't about environmental "green washing".  Instead, I want to talk about some practical strategies being used to try to deal with the problem of greenhouse gas removal.  It fits into what you might call the "angel/venture capital investing" model.  It isn't a panacea, but it could provide a useful, if slightly unexpected, model of the "practical" variety.

            The common denominator is technology.  If you look back in history, there have been various predictions of environmental catastrophe, beginning with Thomas Malthus.  Malthus predicted that the Earth would be destroyed by overpopulation.  It never happened, and the reason it didn't was because technology changed. 

            The best chance we have of avoiding an environmental catastrophe due to greenhouse gas-induced climate change is new technology.  The good news is that a whole bunch of new technology has already emerged:

• Better solar panels
• Better wind turbines
• Better battery storage.

These three technologies have made all electric vehicles, as well as solar and wind power, highly cost competitive, in a way hardly dreamed possible just 10 to 15 years ago.

            However, we're going to need even more technology, and we'll need it pretty quickly, especially in heavy industry, particularly to deal with greenhouse gas associated with things like cement and steel production. 

            One approach is to encourage university research, then get that research spun out into start up businesses.  This is a well known strategy employed by angel investors.  Exhibit A for this approach is a company C-Capture Technology.   The Chemistry Department at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom sought to find a way to improve carbon capture technology.  The technology most recently available is very energy intensive, and it reduces the economic efficiency of any plant that adopts it. 

            The chemistry researchers at Leeds have developed a new technology they believe will significantly improve the process.  The technology has been spun out into C-Capture Technology.   C-Capture will try to commercialize technology.  If the company is successful, it will likely mean both a much better commercial method to capture carbon in an industrial plant, but it will also provide a large financial reward to the university, to be reinvested in the school.

            Lots of technology companies spin out of university-based research.  The challenge, then, is to commercialize that technology and create viable businesses.  It's one thing to build a company based upon software, but a very different thing to try to build a business that requires lots of assets.  Unfortunately, many technologies associated with greenhouse gas reduction require huge asset investments.  From where will that capital come?

            A four year old project called the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative provides an interesting approach.  The OGCI is a joint undertaking of a number of international oil and gas companies.  Members include ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Shell, and Total.  The companies have joined together to make investments in a variety of "green" technologies.

            This particular initiative is interesting for several reasons.  The first is that it points to the idea that major oil and gas companies are being pushed by their shareholders, as well as governments and other entities, to do something about greenhouse gas emissions.  Some think the companies are only doing this because they're being forced by public opinion. 

            I don't think so.  Instead, they're doing it because they perceive that greenhouse gas reduction is not just politically popular, it's a good business investment.  In my mind, these companies are making investments because they perceive a potentially huge payout. 

            The OGCI companies have already invested in seven companies that have developed "green" technologies.  Here's a quick rundown of the companies in which they've invested:

            Achates Power:           

Achates has developed high fuel efficiency piston engines.  The most obvious application is in aviation.

            Clarke Valve:              

Clarke has developed the world's first new valve in more than 50 years.  It's valves can be used in a broad range of industrial applications.  They're considerably more efficient than traditional designs.  (Full disclosure: I am an investor in this company)

            Econic:                       

Econic has developed catalysts that permit the incorporation of CO2 as a raw material in various plastics.  The idea is to take CO2 emissions and turn them into plastic, a fantastic recycling strategy if it can be commercialized!

            GHGSat:                    

GHGSat is developing a set of greenhouse gas monitoring devices and data services.    The need for such monitoring is quite evident, as the first step to reducing greenhouse gases is to identify where they're present, as well as their source.

            Inventys:                    

WhiIe various organizations are trying to develop carbon capture technology, Inventys says it is trying to do it on the "gigatonne scale".

            Kairos Aerospace:      

Kairos is adapting aerospace technology to improve detection of methane gas, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

            Solidia Tech:                

Solidia is developing improved technology for making cement.  Many if not most people don't realize that cement-making is a potent source of greenhouse gases.  The world would be hard pressed to do without cement, so developing better processes â€" especially ones that reduce greenhouse gases â€" is really important.

            These are OGCI's initial investments.  The experience of angel and venture capital investors suggests that OGCI will need to create a portfolio of at least 20, and preferable 30 or more, investments.  Most likely, for every 10 investments that OGCI makes, half will fail and another three will provide only a fairly small return.  The goal, however, is for one or two of every ten investments to be very successful.  If that happens, the investors will likely realize excellent returns.

            In this case, however, there should be an additional benefit: the successful companies will be successful because they've developed and commercialized an important technology that will help reduce greenhouse gases.  In that case, everyone will win!

            OGCI has made one other investment.  It is in an initiative to build the first natural gas plant that uses carbon capture and underground storage (CCUS) technology.  The plant is in Teeside in the United Kingdom.  If this investment is a success, the technology could be used to capture carbon in plants around the world.

            Policymakers around the world should be encouraging similar types of investment in new technology to reduce or eliminate carbon.  The examples above provide a useful template:

#1: Fund basic and applied research in universities to develop carbon capture or other carbon reduction/elimination technologies;

#2: Encourage universities to spin out promising technologies;

#3: Encourage angel and venture capital investors to focus attention on these new technologies;

#4: Encourage other industries to model what the OGCI has done.

            Much, if not most, attention has been focused on government-led initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.  The entire Paris Climate Treaty strategy is built upon this.  Unfortunately, governments are poorly equipped to carry out the four steps listed above.  The only way that government can be helpful is with #1 and, to some extent, #4.  Governments could, and should, invest more funds in research, especially through major research universities. 

            The other place government might have a positive influence is through the promotion of OGCI-style initiative in other industries.  Consider the example of cement-making cited earlier.  Greenhouse gas is a significant problem.  Governments might encourage companies in cement-making to establish pools of capital to invest in new technology.  Why not create a portfolio of companies developing new technology to improve the process?  On one level, this could be financially remunerative to the investor-owners.  More importantly, it could help build new technology that could benefit an entire industry, much less the planet as a whole.

            Please understand, none of this is a panacea.   None of the companies cited above are likely to create a "magic bullet" that will solve the carbon emissions problem.  But encouraging the development of new technology is likely the very best way we'll avoid the climate disaster that appears in the offing.

            Had technology not improved, Thomas Malthus probably would have been proved right, with disastrous consequences for the entire planet.  The same is likely true for us today, so we'd best do what we can to encourage the improvement of technology.   Doubtless, technology will get better in 2019.  We just need to find ways to channel that technology to create better solutions to things such as greenhouse gas emissions.  Governments, especially national ones, tend to be pretty ineffective in doing this, but there are ways to get the job done.  The examples I've cited above could provide a useful, practical model.

            May 2019 be the best year ever for you, your family, and those who surround you, and may you be showered with blessings.  May the "narratives" you hear be different â€" and better â€" than anything you thought possible.

 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Four-Unexpected-Christmas-Gifts/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

            Merry Christmas!  Wherever you live, and whatever your personal beliefs, I hope the Christmas season brings both good tidings and blessings to you and your family.

            Judging by the news, you probably feel very much in need of it.  Most everyone I talk with seems at least somewhat depressed.  While the reason for some is personal, familial circumstances, for the vast majority it is because of the seemingly endless stream of bad news: the stock market is cratering; Washington is in crisis; the Federal debt is exploding; and your data are probably being hacked as you read.  I could go on and on, and the troubles just seem to get worse and worse.

            Except that even though the headlines are bad, the world isn't imploding.  The Sun came up today, and it's pretty likely to come up tomorrow.  Most likely, you'll be here to see it come up tomorrow.

            So even though some things seem bad, it most likely isn't anywhere near as bad as it might seem in the moment.  We have lots of things about which to be happy, and to feel blessed. 

            Christmas is a time for gift giving.  In that spirit, I want to suggest four gifts that we can give, not only to others, but especially gifts we can give to ourselves.  These gifts will cost absolutely nothing, so you don't have to worry about depleting your bank account any more than you already have, but they could be some of the best ones you give and receive this year.  At first, you're likely to find these gifts to be highly unusual, but upon reflection, I think you'll see they are real gifts.

Gift #1: Stop Thinking That Facts Will Convince Others to Change Their Minds

            What's our natural reaction when we hear someone of a different political persuasion say something we don't like, or believe?  We start reciting our favorite facts that support our position.  We think our facts are persuasive, and we can't understand why they convince others to change their minds.

            So we think, when our facts don't persuade them to change their minds and see things our way, we conclude these people must be stupid, arrogant, or maybe even evil!

            Well, most likely, the people who disagree with us most likely are neither stupid, arrogant, nor evil, at least no more than we are.  Moreover, lots of evidence suggests that people in general, especially adults, don't easily change their minds.  Not only that, but people don't change their minds because they either learn that something they thought was true actually isn't, or that certain things they think are factual are actually incorrect.  In short, it is REALLY HARD to get people to change their minds about things, especially deeply held beliefs. 

            I personally like Politifact.  It takes statements made by public figures and evaluates their veracity.   They have a scale that ranges from "True", all the way to my favorite: "Pants on Fire".  Remember "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"?  The funny thing is, some research shows that not only does the Politifact strategy of "identifying errors, mistruths, and outright lies" not effective, it may even be counterproductive.  That's because some research shows that when a lie is repeated as part of an investigate into its truthfulness, the lie may become even more cemented as truth in the minds of many people.  Bottom line: Politifact is entertaining, but it fails to accomplish its goal of getting people to re-think untruths.

            So why, then, do we keep trying to throw our facts at others, then get frustrated when they don't "get in line" with our thinking?  It may be related to the endless efforts we take to get our spouses or other family members to change the things we find annoying about them.  Well, anyone who has ever been married knows that is a fool's errand.  Yet we keep trying to do it!

            So a great gift you could give yourself this Christmas is to stop doing this.  Stop thinking that you'll persuade others to change their minds by throwing facts at them.  Stop thinking they're stupid because they don't fall in line with your thinking.   The reduction in frustration will be a great gift for you.

            Now please understand, I'm not telling you to stop trying to be factual, just stop trying to use your facts as a weapon against others.

            Instead, go back and rediscover a gift you were given at birth, but which you probably have largely thrown in your pile of discarded toys.

            Rediscover your natural inquisitiveness.

Gift #2: Draw a Little Upon Your Natural Inquisitiveness

            Anyone who's ever been around children know they're naturally inquisitive.  Most likely, you once drove your parents nuts by all the questions you asked as a child. 

            We adults just somehow lose that capacity.  One of the best examples of how we've lost that is our general failure to inquire why people who think differently from us think the way they do.

            Ask yourself, when you hear someone express an opinion radically different from you, what was your natural reaction?

            They're ignorant, stupid fools!

            Liberals who can't understand why many conservatives have strong feelings about the Second Amendment, or are skeptical about climate change.

            Conservatives who can't understand why a high percentage of the population thinks the idea of building a 20 or 30 foot wall across the southern USA border is a really stupid idea.

            Instead of doing that, when we hear someone express a contrary viewpoint, why not revert to the inquisitiveness of our "inner child" and ask, why does the other person think the way he/she does?  Is there something I might be missing myself?  If so, what might that be?

            The funny thing is, when one stops and really thinks about contrary viewpoints, there are often "aha, I never thought of that" moments. 

            The gift of inquisitiveness often provides the dual rewards of new ideas and new perspectives.  It truly is a gift to any adult who rediscovers it.  And it doesn't cost anything!

            Now, of course, there is no assurance that even added insight will eliminate your sense of frustration at world events.  Which leads me to consider the third gift we can give ourselves.

Gift #3: Focus on the Things Within Your Control

            Doubtless, you've heard the Serenity Prayer: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change/ Courage to change the things that I can/ And wisdom to know the difference."  It was composed by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971).  Technology developed over the past few hundred years has radically changed the world.  We've developed the ability to overcome nearly every obstacle imaginable.  Unfortunately, it has left too many of us with the idea that anything and everything is within our power.  Too bad that just isn't the case.  Intellectually, we know we ourselves can change only a few things, and we get frustrated when so many things seem beyond our grasp.

            Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer is appropriate for all such occasions.  Instead of getting frustrated by world, national, or even local events out of our individual control, let us take pause, and hopefully reduce our stress and frustration.

            Instead, we should focus our individual attention on the things we really can change.  For each of us, there are plenty of things we can and should change.  A great place to start is with how we treat our family, friends, and co-workers.  If you want change, let's start there, not with national and international matters largely beyond our immediate control.  Why not provide the gift of ourselves at our very best?  Our family, friends, and co-workers will doubtless love to see that.  Each of us will, too.

            Which leads me to a fourth and final gift we can each give to ourselves: the wisdom to realize the world is not composed of good and bad people, but people who are all simultaneously good and bad.

Gift #4: Try to Stop Dividing the World into Good People and Bad People

            The question of whether people are basically good or bad is a very old one.  Lots of traditional wisdom says, however, that individual people are neither basically good nor basically bad.  Instead, each of us possesses both good characteristics and bad characteristics.  We all have our flaws.  Even universally reviled mass murders such as Adolph Hitler had a good side.  Virtually none of us ever saw it, but it was very likely there.  Please understand, I'm not in the least trying to excuse the terrible things people like Hitler have done, merely to say that the world is composed of lots of good people, and a few very bad ones, is at best a caricature.

            The idea that people are basically good is a thoroughly modern one.  So what's wrong with this very widely held viewpoint?  The problem is that it simultaneously leads us to look for the evil in others and overlook the evil in our own hearts.  If we think, on balance, that we, our family, and our friends are all basically good people, it leads us to point the finger at others rather than point at ourselves. 

            Now I realize, very few people enjoy acknowledging their own shortcomings.  It's way easier, and more fun, to look for what's bad in others.  But if we want to get along with each other, far better first to consider our own shortcomings than point out those in others.  Not only that, but when we start thinking the world is composed of good people and bad people, we start trying to change, or get rid of, "the bad people".  As I recall, trying to rid the world of "the bad elements" (i.e., Jews, gypsies, and other so called "undesirables") was one of Hitler's major shortcomings. 

            But you don't have to be one of history's greatest mass murderers to believe that we should do something about "the bad people". 

            Instead, think of the world as composed of people all of whom have both good and bad characteristics.  Each of us has good characteristics, maybe even noble ones.  At the same time, we are each flawed in different ways.  While many religious traditions believe this, Christians in particular believe that because we are that way, God came to Earth in the form of a man to live, then die as an atonement for the shortcomings all of us have.  Christmas is a celebration of the first appearance of God on Earth.

If we think of ourselves as simultaneously good and bad, our outlook upon with world will truly be different.

            So how could this change in viewpoint be a gift?  If we stop thinking the world is composed of mostly good people and a few bad ones, we'll stop frustrating ourselves with fruitless efforts to "perfect" mankind on our own.  Apart from technological progress, attempts at "human progress" over the past few hundred years have done nothing but make us individually and collectively frustrated and angry.  If, instead, we adopt the traditional view that people are simultaneously good and bad, and we can't do too much about our bad sides by ourselves, we may afford ourselves the gift of a little less frustration and anger.

            When you think about it, these are just little bits of traditional wisdom.   You've probably heard every one of them before, and you probably think you're already following them.  I'd like to think I follow them regularly, too, but I know oftentimes don't, and need a reminder.

            While there's lots of bad news around, the world isn't coming to an end.  As you give and receive gifts this Christmas season, indulge yourself in the gifts I've described above.  They are freely available to each of us, and they could help make this Christmas, and the coming year, better than you ever thought. 

            In whatever way you celebrate Christmas, I truly hope it is a happy and joyous time for you, your family, and your friends.  I hope you derive joy from the gifts you give a receive.  I hope you'll consider the four gifts mentioned above.  They're freely available, and receiving them may just make your Christmas, and your coming year, a little bit better.

            Merry Christmas!

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/New-Evidence-for-the-Appearance-of-Life-on-Earth/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

Our Earth is estimated to be about 4.4 billion years old. Over time, scientists have pushed the date of the earliest appearance of life on Earth farther and farther back. For the past two decades, the general consensus has been that life first appeared on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, meaning that for the first billion years, Earth was "lifeless". Now a new study in Nature magazine suggests the date is much earlier.  The research is definitely controversial.  In fact, some critics of the new study have called the fossil evidence "dubio-fossils".  Obviously, it isn't just politics that's controversial today! Check out Oldest Bacteria.  

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/The-Fifth-Reason-to-Embrace-Darwin/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

THE FIFTH REASON

            The fifth reason for Christians to embrace Darwin and the Big Bang Theory has to do with secular humanism.  Secular humanism is a group of creeds that have emerged over the past 100 plus years representing an alternative to Christianity and other religions.  While not exclusively so, a very high percentage of secular humanists are atheists and freethinkers.  Their thinking is summarized in three Secular Humanist Manifestos, issued respectively in 1933, 1973, and 2003.  In general, one can summarize their beliefs as follows:

• Humans have an innate capacity to do and be good
• We should focus our attention on the needs of this world, not on some mythical deity and  "afterlife"
• The values of scientific inquiry, as well as justice and fairness, are paramount
• Humans are capable of making progress, and given this capacity, should focus on building a better world.

There is much one can find appealing in the beliefs of secular humanists.  The

problem, of course, for Christians is that secular humanists believe there is little or no place for God in the world: in the secular humanist world, God either doesn't exist, or He takes a completely "hands off" approach to the world, similar to the conception of the Deists.  Either way, in the mind of the average secular humanist, God, even if He exists, is completely irrelevant.  When the subject of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, comes up, secular humanists tend to make the following arguments:

• Religious beliefs tend to become fanatical, causing unnecessary wars
• Humans have demonstrated tremendous progress, particularly in the past few hundred years, and that progress will lead us to solve any and all problems without the help of God
• One of the highest values for humanity is science, and religions tend to be opposed or at odds with scientific endeavors
• Sacred books such as the Bible are merely a bunch of stories and myths, things that can be disproved by science
• Secular humanists can be just as moral, maybe even more moral, than Christians and those who adhere to other religions, so why bother with religious dogma?

These arguments will understandably cause Christians to get red in the face, but what responses can be offered?  First, with respect to wars, it's true, sometimes wars have been undertaken in the name of religion.  However, what secular humanists are forgetting to consider is that atheists have been the cause of incredible suffering, too.  All one needs to do is consider the murderous reigns of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.  Thus, the argument that religious belief leads to irrational, possibly murderous, behavior is not credible. 

Beyond this, in response to secular humanism, Christians tend to refer back to the Bible, but secular humanists already dismiss the Bible as a bunch of myths that lack credibility.  The result is that Christians and secular humanists largely shout past one another. 

The bottom line, however, is that for increasing numbers of ordinary people, secular humanism seems very appealing.  Once again, this is where a Christian embrace of Darwin and the Big Bang Theory could be beneficial to Christians.  Let me explain how and why.  First, I've laid out the argument that Darwin's theory actually reinforces the idea that sin is a byproduct of the evolution of humans.  Thus, the core belief of Christianity, one can argue, is based upon the very science that secular humanists seem to embrace. 

Second, secular humanism is grounded in the idea of human progress.  I agree that humans have, and continue to make, tremendous technological and material progress.  No one would disagree with that.  Even the most committed Christians still love their Ipads and Iphones, and wouldn't trade them in for old fashioned rotary dial up phones or 300 baud computer modems.  Where the disagreement comes is whether or not humans are making any real moral progress.  A fundamental tenet of secular humanism is that humans have the capacity to solve their own problems.  It may take us a while to do that, but we can eventually solve pretty much any problem.  My response is that secular humanists are mis-guided in this because they are not taking antagonistic pleiotropy into consideration.  Let me provide a brief review of the concept.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection suggests that traits that do not fit well will eventually die out.  If that's the case, one would expect that various terrible diseases would eventually disappear because humans, and other animals and organisms, would adapt to the diseases, much as microbes tend to adapt to antibiotics intended to kill the microbes; unfortunately, after a period of time, the antibiotics no longer work.  The problem is, terrible diseases don't seem to disappear, or at least humans don't seem to develop innate resistance to those diseases.  In my book I cite the example of Sickle Cell Anemia, a terrible disease that tends to strike people of sub-Saharan African descent.  The reason is because the genes that cause the disease have both negative a positive characteristics: the positive side of Sickle Cell Anemia is that it confers resistance to malaria, so the disease doesn't disappear because it simultaneously has negative and positive characteristics.  I make the argument that Sickle Cell Anemia is a metaphor for human sinfulness: each human behavior has both a positive and a negative side, the positive being the reason the person has survived, and the negative being the sinful side of the trait.

The argument I make is that each human behavior has both a positive side and a negative side, much as Sickle Cell Anemia has both a positive side and a negative side, and much as every coin has both a heads and a tails.  Assuming that's the case, the notion of human moral progress becomes impossible.  This is because the bad sides (the tails of the coin) of our individual natures are – what we call sin – are the flip side of the very things that have helped us survive – the heads of the coins.  These bad traits aren't going to go away.  Yes, humans will likely continue to make technological and material progress, but our real problem is that we're unable to make moral progress: we continue to deceive others, cheat on our spouses, gossip, bully others, engage in wars, and do all manner of other bad things, ostensibly because these things help us to be genetically successful.  Precisely because these bad things help us to be genetically successful, they're not going away. Moreover, the argument of the secular humanists – the reliance upon science – is used to overturn the secular humanist belief in human progress. 

Christians can then combine this understanding of Darwin with traditional Biblical arguments, as follows.  When mankind evolved from lower species, the negative traits that helped us to survive, combined with our far greater brainpower, led us to become simultaneously capable of doing good along with being sinful.  That's the traditional Christian formulation – the dual nature of humanity.  Moreover, Christians argue that we cannot overcome this on our own – it's "baked in."  The only thing we can do is to rely upon faith in Jesus Christ to help overcome this.  We can't do it on our own.

Thus, by relying upon Darwin, Christians can build an argument that secular humanism is fundamentally flawed.  The argument relies upon science – the very thing secular humanists say is the cornerstone of their thinking.  Secular humanists will no longer be able to make a claim that they're the only ones relying upon science.  Christians will be able to do the same, in addition to having the arguments laid out in the Bible.  Of course, secular humanists will reject these arguments, but Christians will now have a new set of arguments to use, ones that will buttress their underlying arguments about the claims of the Bible.  In other words, Christians won't be using science to replace the Bible – the thing secular humanists have been doing – but use science, in conjunction with the Bible, to undercut the secular humanist case.  So far, I haven't seen any effective secular humanist argument in response. 

In summary, Christians should love Darwin and the Big Bang because they can be used to help Christians to build solid, credible arguments against secular humanism.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Hurricanes-and-Climate-Change/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

            The incredible destruction wrought by Hurricane Harvey on Texas, as well as that from Hurricanes Irma and Michael – reminds us of the unbelievable havoc and misery that hurricanes and tropical storms can wreak.  The fury accompanying these three storms has raised an obvious and important question: is climate change making hurricanes worse; and isn't this an important reason to take action on climate change?

            I definitely believe in human-induced climate change, and I also strongly suspect that climate change may well be making hurricanes at least somewhat worse.  But if we want to try to reduce the tragic impact of hurricanes, focusing on climate change is at best a distraction in the effort.  Let me explain how I come to what is probably an unexpected conclusion.

            Before going any further, let's consider why climate change might be making hurricanes and tropical storms worse.  The two key reasons are water temperature and water vapor in the air.  Hurricanes gain their energy from warm ocean temperatures.  In fact, a hurricane can only form if the water temperature is at least approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit (26.6 degrees Celsius).  It can only be sustained with warm water temperatures.  The warmer the temperature, the greater the chance of a hurricane forming and/or strengthening.  Global warming certainly appears to be increasing water temperatures.  At the same time, higher temperatures tend to increase the amount of water vapor in the air, something else that helps nurture a hurricane and make it more destructive.  So other things being equal, global warming may well be contributing to the problem both of the number and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms.

            Yes, but it isn't so simple.  Let me explain why.

            First off, even if we could somehow end the problem of global warming and associated climate change, it's not clear what impact there would be on the number of hurricanes or their intensity.  We know this for no other reason that there were intense hurricanes before there was evidence of global warming.  In fact, since the start of the 20^th century, the USA has experienced a Category 5 hurricane about once every 25 – 30 years: one in 1900, one in 1935, one in 1961, one in 1969, one in 1992, and now one in 2017.  Category 4 hurricanes are an even more frequent occurrence.  Table 1 below shows a list of the most intense Atlantic basin hurricanes over the past century.  Hurricanes such as the 1900 Galveston storm, the 1935 Florida Keys storm, Carla, and Camille were likely just as intense as Irma and Katrina, and all occurred before global warming was an issue.   So solving the global warming problem is certainly not going to eliminate these hurricanes.  It may reduce the frequency, but even that isn't clear.

 

Table 1: Past Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes

 

Hurricane	Year	Windspeed (Miles/Hour)
Irma	2017	185
Katrina	2005	175
Andrew	1992	175
Camille	1969	175
Carla	1961	175
Mitch (did not hit USA)	1998	180
Rita	2005	180
Florida Keys	1935	185
Gilbert (did not hit USA)	1988	185
Wilma	2005	185
Allen	1980	190
Galveston hurricane	1900	Unknown Cat 5

 

 

            But the intensity of the hurricane really isn't the thing we should be worried about anyway.  Instead, deaths and injuries, as well as the resultant damage, are the real concern.  After all, there have actually been a number of extremely intense hurricanes in the Atlantic that never touched land.  Nobody remembers the names of those storms, and nobody really cares.

            So which storms have actually been the deadliest and costliest?  The deadliest by far was the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which killed an estimated 6,000 people.  They had virtually no warning on that one.  Fortunately, modern technology has helped to provide better warning, with much less loss of life.  The 1926 Miami hurricane killed 372 people, mainly because people didn't understand the calm of storm's eye is but a precursor to another round. 

            Then there's property damage.  Table 2 shows a list of the most costly hurricanes and tropical storms.  One interesting thing to note is that amongst the costliest were storms that weren't intense.  In fact several of them – Tropical Storm Allison and Superstorm Sandy - weren't even hurricanes.  They did incredible damage, however, and besides fatalities and injuries, that's what really gets our attention.

Table 2: Costliest Hurricanes/Tropical Storms

 

Hurricane	Year	Estim Cost (Billion USD)
Hugo	1989	7.1
Jeanne	2004	7.6
Tropical Storm Allison	2001	9.0
Frances	2004	9.5
Rita	2005	12.0
Charley	2004	15.1
Irene	2011	7.3
Wilma	2005	21.0
Andrew	1992	26.5
Ike	2008	29.5
Superstorm Sandy	2012	71.4
Katrina	2005	108
Harvey	2017	100+

 

            Our real concern shouldn't be how intense the storm is, it should be how much loss of life (and injuries), as well as the damage.   To deal with those, there are three things we can focus on.  Let's consider each of them.

            The first is the technology associated with tracking storms and predicting where they'll go.  The 1900 Galveston hurricane killed so many people because there was little technology to track the storm and warn people to get out.  We can and should continue to improve this technology, but we're not likely to have much impact here.  Yes, we can build ever better weather satellites and sensors, but such improvements will probably have only marginal impact.

            Instead, we should give greater attention to the second area where we can improve – building technology and building codes.  The destruction caused by Hurricane Andrew in 1992 led to a detailed review of building codes and practices.  They were strengthened significantly, especially with respect to window and door technologies, as well as methods to insure that roofs won't blow off.  Homes and businesses built since 1992 are far more likely to survive an intense hurricane, thanks to the Andrew-induced changes.  More obviously can be done in this area, particularly in retro-fitting existing structures.

            While spending on hurricane tracking and building technologies can help save lives as well as reduce property losses, there is a third area that will yield substantially greater reductions in deaths, injuries and property damage … and it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or technology.  Instead, it has to do with zoning and insurance.

            The biggest single danger in a hurricane or tropical storm is storm surge.  The low barometric pressure associated with a hurricane causes the ocean to rise at least a few feet.  The lower the air pressure, the greater the surge.  How do you avoid this problem?  By either not building structures in low lying areas adjacent the ocean, or building the structure high enough that storm surge passes underneath the structure.

            This isn't some great new revelation – it's been known for at least fifty years.  The other thing that's been known for many years is what areas are susceptible to storm surge and flooding.  So you may ask, if we know that storm surge is a problem, and we also know where it could be a problem, why haven't we solved the problem?

            The answer, unfortunately, is that we don't want to acknowledge the problem.  Not only that, we take active measures through our government to make the problem worse.   Let me explain how, and why.

            We have pretty detailed maps that show what areas in the country will flood, as well as the estimated frequency of flooding.  This is quite well known for coastal areas, especially low lying coastal areas.  You may ask, if we know the relative frequency that these low lying coastal areas will flood, why do we build structures in those areas?

            It's a good question.  Some say we shouldn't build structures in low lying coastal areas for this very reason.  One way to solve the problem is through property insurance.  Unfortunately, about fifty years ago, property insurers concluded that flood insurance simply wasn't a good product to sell.  This is because the property insurers calculated they would have to pay out too many claims and wouldn't be able to make money.

            To the rescue came the US government, which decided to provide insurance companies guarantees for the flood insurance policies they wrote. This helped foster the development of property in flood prone areas, including areas subject to hurricane storm surge.  Lots of people were happy about this – property developers, because they could build beautiful beach front developments; and buyers.  So what could go wrong?  Plenty.

            Remember that the reason the Federal government started guaranteeing flood insurance policies was because the private market wasn't working.  By getting involved in flood insurance, there have been a whole host of unintended consequences.  The key one is that a huge amount of development has occurred in these flood prone areas.  Every time a hurricane or tropical storm hits, huge claims need to be paid.  The real reason the costs in Table 2 are so high is because these storms did serious damage to structures that were principally located in flood plains.   The 1926 Miami hurricane, a pre-global warming storm, killed lots of people and did a lot of damage.  If the same storm occurred today, it's estimated it would cost $ 164 billion in damages.  This is because of so much development, as well as lots of it in flood prone areas.

            Unfortunately, the problem just gets worse, because we keep permitting development in known flood plains; and that development is backstopped the Federal government.

            We probably can't do much about reducing the number of hurricanes and tropical storms we have, at least in the short run, but we can do something about building structures – especially expensive structures – in known flood plains.  If we curtailed the number of structures in flood plains, we're likely to reduce storm induced damage there.

            We could materially reduce the terrible cost of hurricanes by focusing on items two and three (i.e., improving building codes, zoning,  and reducing the amount the amount of construction in flood plains.

            Here's the really good news about this.  It can all be done without the Paris Climate Accord … without developing any new technology to reduce carbon emissions … and without worrying about who is the President of the United States.  Much of it can be done without even spending money. 

            If it is indeed that easy, why hasn't it been done?   Quite simply, because there are lots of incentives to build structures in known hurricane flood plains, but not enough dis-incentives to prevent this from happening.  The incentives are obvious: buildings near the sea are highly desirable.  Economic development of the beach is highly attractive for lots for people.  The disincentives are far less obvious.  The big disincentive – paying out Superstorm Sandy size insurance  claims – just isn't a disincentive until it happens.

            What realistically can be done?  At one extreme, we could stop all development in flood prone areas.  Pretty draconian, but that would reduce the problem going forward.  At the other extreme, we could end all Federal flood insurance guarantees and just let the marketplace sort out the risk.  This solution would save taxpayers a lot of money, but it would create problems, especially for lower income groups.  Moreover, it would be very unpopular with those whose insurance is presently being subsidized.  Any way you look at it, there are tough choices to make.  The key point, however, is that these are the real decisions that need to be made if we want to reduce the cost of hurricanes.

            This problem isn't limited to construction of properties that are in storm surge prone areas.  The case of Houston and Hurricane Harvey is instructive here.  The impact of Hurricane Harvey on Houston was not related to storm surge.  Even though Houston is a good distance from the Gulf of Mexico, it still has numerous areas that are prone to flooding.  Yet there's been lots of development in those areas thanks to government backed flood insurance. 

            The other thing about Houston is that flooding is a recurring problem.  I personally experienced in 25 inch rainstorm in Houston one day in the summer of 1976.  It had absolutely nothing to do with a hurricane.  The flooding was horrendous.  There have been numerous other floods since.  The problem is exacerbated by poor soil, excess construction, and inadequate zoning – all problems which are understood, but for which not enough has been done. 

            Hurricane or no hurricane, these are costly and deadly problems that need to be prevented.  My point is that one can superficially cite global warming and climate change as the cause, but by doing so one obscures the real problem: building in flood plains and inadequate building codes.

            So while it's important to deal with global warming and climate change, let's not let that be an excuse.  When it comes to problems like hurricanes, lets focus attention on solving the real problems.   

            Please share your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.  Thanks for reading.   

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/The-Fourth-Reason-to-Embrace-Darwin/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

THE FOURTH REASON

            The fourth reason Christians ought to love Darwin and the Big Bang is because it provides a way to deal with the longstanding problem of what to teach about science and religion in the public schools.  This is certainly a very old problem, one going back to the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee in the 1920's. 

Unfortunately, Christians have generally come out on the losing end in court cases, the courts pretty much always ruling that Christian efforts to present alternatives to Darwinian science are unacceptable.  Many would argue that everyone – Christian and non-Christian alike – has lost out, the reason being is because teachers and schools are so afraid of this issue they shy away from teaching anything.  Some would argue that students are simply being taught "junk".  I believe that my proposed approach can come to the rescue, offering benefits to all:

• NonChristians will be happy because good science will be taught
• Christians will be happy because they will be able to build the set of arguments they've always wanted taught in schools, but simply haven't been able to advance, until now.

Sounds like a pretty bold claim – and it is – but let me show you how I believe I can make it.

            Let's go back to the great fear that Christians have had about Darwin.  I think there have been two: 1) that Darwin is inconsistent with the Biblical narrative; and 2) that it hypothesizes a world without purpose, and one without God, so students will be taught that the atheistic conception is correct.  Elsewhere I've shown how Darwin is clearly not inconsistent with the Biblical narrative, so we can definitely dispose of that objection.  Let's now turn to the other objection.  My proposal will provide atheists and other non-Christians with something they've always wanted – to teach Darwin in the schools – but it will come at a cost they haven't considered, one that Christians will definitely like.

            Let me explain how I think the subject of Darwin and the Big Bang should be taught in schools.  Bear with me, because if you're a Christian, I think you'll like where this is going.  As I've argued in my book, I think the schools should teach that the Big Bang and Darwin's theory are essentially correct, so let's teach that in the schools.  Atheists should love that, so what might their objection be?  Well, the problem that arises for atheists is that, just as Christians are practicing religion, atheists really are, too.  They'll object mightily to this, but let me show you why they actually are practicing religion.  If the schools follow through with what I'm suggesting, it should be fairly obvious.

            So here's what I think should be taught in the schools.  First, the Big Bang is our best explanation for how the universe began, about 13.8 billion years ago.  From that, the universe, as well as life, emerged and evolved to the present.  Here, though, is the big question: what caused the Big Bang?  Christians, as well as adherents of other religions, believe that God, or some type of God-like agent, caused it.  Atheists, of course, believe that it more or less happened by chance.  Who's right, and what proof is there?  Let's consider the alternatives.

            The question of the cause of the Big Bang is an excellent opportunity for schools of all sorts to teach the scientific method.  Pretty much everyone believes it's a good idea for children to learn the scientific method, they just haven't thought about it in this context.  So let's demonstrate the scientific method in the context of the question, who or what caused the Big Bang?

            Teachers at all levels could describe the following experiment.  Imagine that there is a giant wall, with all humanity on one side of the wall and an unknown world on the other side of the wall.  The question is, what's on the other side of the wall, and how can scientists prove it, one way or the other?  So imagine that a group of scientists get the very best scientific equipment available and aim it at the wall to determine what's on the other side of the wall.  Now even young children are familiar with X ray machines, if only because they may have seen them at airport screening.  Imagine that the scientists aim all of their sophisticated equipment at the wall, but despite their best efforts, the equipment provides absolutely no information about what's on the other side of the wall.  The question is, what conclusions can the scientists draw about what's on the other side of the wall?

            The obvious answer is, nothing!  If there are no data produced by the machines about what's on the other side of the wall, it remains a mystery what is on the other side.  Since no data are available, any conclusions reached are in the realm of speculation, and possibly religion.  I say this because one of the definitions of "faith" is belief in things that are unseen and not provable.  The experiment I've described is a perfect example of our understanding of what happened before the Big Bang.  Right now, we have absolutely no data points, so the experiment I've described pretty well summarizes our understanding of the "cause" of the Big Bang.  The scientific method dictates that we can reach no other conclusion than that, at least at this time.  So if someone tries to draw conclusions about the cause of the Big Bang, it means they're moving from the realm of science and into the realm of the metaphysical or religious.

            Christians, as well as adherents of other religions, believe that God caused the Big Bang, but what proof is there of that?  Well, unfortunately, there is no proof.  As such, the belief that God caused the Big Bang is a faith statement – a belief in something that is neither provable nor seen.  Absolutely no surprise in that!  Religious people have always understood that at some point, at some level, there was no way to prove what they believe.  For Christians and other religious people, our conclusion that God is on the other side of "the wall" is understood to be a religious statement. 

The problem, though, is that the very same principles apply to atheists.  Let me show you why.  Recall, there is absolutely no data from our hypothetical experiment about what is on the other side of the wall, so any conclusions drawn are religious or metaphysical.  That means that the conclusions of atheists about the cause of the Big Bang are, well, faith propositions because there is absolutely no data to back up the statement.  Yes, while atheists insist they're not practicing religion, they actually are, because they're making claims that they dress up as scientific, but are not based upon science.

Thus, everyone benefits, for the following reasons: 1) good science is being taught in the schools; 2) children are learning about the boundaries between science and religion; and 3) no one needs to worry that a particular religious view is being taught.  Christians should also be pleased because children will be taught that the claims of atheists are, like those of Christians, merely faith statements, so any conclusions drawn are beyond science.

Christians, of course, can rest assured that the case doesn't end there.  After all, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the real "line in the sand" Christians should be drawing is not how the world was created.  Instead, the "line" is the Garden of Eden, the reason being that the core of Christian beliefs are derived from that event: 1) mankind is sinful; 2) we have a dynamic God who cares about us; 3) we can't overcome sin on our own; and 4) Christ's death and resurrection are the atonement for our sin.  As I've noted elsewhere, Christians can build a strong case out of Darwin that leads directly to the Garden of Eden.

Based upon this understanding, an embrace of Darwin and the Big Bang will benefit Christians, especially those who have been concerned about what is taught to children in school.

           

 

 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Intelligent-Design-Part-2/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

INTELLIGENT DESIGN PART 2

In the last post, I discussed a number of the problems with intelligent design theory.  Many Christians view it as a viable alternative to Darwinism, but I noted the fact that it really isn't a coherent scientific theory, merely a set of objections to Darwinism.  Unfortunately, the majority (possibly vast majority) of scientists – including Christian scientists – object to it. Moreover, conventional scientists continue to find ways to overcome the objections that Intelligent Design has raised. Evidence keeps appearing that seems to confirm the Darwinian theory, as well as the Big Bang Theory, thus weakening the case for ID.  

The second key problem I have with Intelligent Design is that I see absolutely nothing "Christian" in it.  It's a theory that can be embraced by anyone with religious inclinations.  It seems to be equally applicable to Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians, and Deists.  In other words, even if one built a strong case for ID, it would not reinforce any of the unique claims of Christianity, merely that some god-like agent intervened to create the universe as we know it. 

The best example of this I can think of is traditional Deism.  Deists believe that God created the universe, but that He no longer participates actively in the creation.  Some have made the analogy of the great watchmaker who, having created a magnificent timepiece, is content to sit back and admire his creation.  However, as the timepiece operates on its own, without the need for its Creator to intervene, the creation is perfect.  As such, the Creator no longer has a role to play in His creation.  

Deism emerged in the 18th century.  Many of the founding fathers of the USA were themselves Deists.  Thomas Jefferson is one of the best know of the early Deists.  As Jefferson lived and died before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the third president of the USA likely would have believed both that God was actively involved in the creation of the universe, but then chose to play the role of "admirer of his great creation".  Thus, Jefferson and the other Deists likely would have adhered simultaneously to Deism and Intelligent Design.  Christians, of course, reject the concept of Deism. This then creates the peculiar situation of many modern Christians defending a theory (Intelligent Design) that could easily have been embraced by those who were opposed to many of the precepts of Christianity.

In contrast to this, let me suggest a different form of "Intelligent Design", one that both accommodates accepted modern science and also fits into the traditional Christian narrative.  My version of Intelligent Design includes two key elements: 1) the evidence of "design" shown by the six scientific constants of Martin Rees, as well as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Martin Rees is a well known Britist physicist.  He has identified six scientific constants that were present from the moment of the Big Bang onward.  What is interesting about these six constants is that even very slight changes in any one of the constants would have prevented the creation of the world we know.  I commend to you Rees's book titled The Six Numbers.  The existence of these scientific constants is acknowledged and accepted by scientists of all persuasions, including atheists and the religiously inclined.  Moreover, everyone acknowleges that if the constants changed even slightly, life as we know it could not exist.

Many Christians take the presence of these six constants as evidence of design by God.  It seems to be pretty good evidence, though even Christian scientists will readily agree that there is no way to prove this to be the case.  On the other hand, atheists and others will dismiss this as evidence of design, saying only that the constants emerged by chance.  Unfortunately, neither side can either prove its own case or disprove the case of the other side.

At the same time, one can make the argument that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is also a form of design, arguably an indication of Intelligent Design.  Of course, atheists don't believe there is a God, so no atheist will say that Darwin is evidence of ID.  It's a fair point, so the various parties will simply have to agree to disagree.

Thus, my argument is that the best evidence of Intelligent Design is the six scientific constants, as well as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.  It can't be proved, at least not now, but it also can't be dis-proved, and no alternative theory can be proved either.  Many atheist supporters of Darwin seem to agree that these two elements - the scientific constants and Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection - are all the Intelligent Design that is necessary.  I agree.

Why, then, do supporters of traditional Intelligent Design cling to the theory? Many have argued that the real problem with Darwin is that his theory eliminates "purpose" in the world.  It seems to say, in effect, that the world emerged without purpose; and Christians tend to have a real problem with notions that the world was created in any way beyond the hand of God, or that there is no purpose.  In upcoming blogs, I'll discuss why Christians can still believe in the idea of purpose to the world, even if it was created in a way that is consistent with what Darwin described.

    
 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Intelligent-Design-Part-I/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

INTELLIGENT DESIGN PART 1

Many Christians who reject Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have embraced a concept called Intelligent Design (ID in common parlance).  Broadly speaking, that's the idea that God, or some God-like agent, had to have been involved with the creation and emergence of life.  It's an idea that's intuitively appealing to Christians.

Intelligent design actually can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century Roman Catholic theologian, but it really was popularized in the 1980's and early 1990's by Michael Behe, an Australian micro-biologist, and Philip Johnson, who teaches constitutional law at the University of California Berkeley.  It's become very popular with many evangelical Christians, but is roundly rejected by mainline scientists, both non-Christian and Christian.  Let's first provide a brief explanation of the modern day version of Intelligent Design, then we'll discuss why most scientists reject it.

First off, one should realize that most supporters of Intelligent Design actually believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, just on the scale of microbes and viruses.  For example, they acknowledge that mutations can occur.  A perfect example of this is when bacteria mutate to develop resistance to drugs. The problem for supporters of Intelligent Design, drawing upon a card playing analogy, is that Darwin "over played his hand".  They have problems on two levels – chemical evolution and macro-evolution.    Let's look at those.

It turns out that cells are far more complicated than Darwin ever could have imagined.  How did that complexity emerge?  Supporters of ID claim that one cannot explain a reasonable way for the complexity of the average cell to emerge through the process Darwin described.  The conclusion is that it could only have happened with the intervention of an intelligent designer.  

The other problem they have is on a macro-scale.  It's one thing for evolution to occur on a micro-scale, but that doesn't explain how new species and orders emerge.  If it did occur, then there should be evidence of transitional species.  As an example, Darwin's theory postulates that life forms transitioned from the oceans to land, so how did species make that transition?  There should be some evidence of life forms that made that transition.  When Philip Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial, there weren't any known transitional species.  Johnson made a point to note that Darwin, himself, said his theory would fall apart if there were no such evidence.

Johnson and other ID theorists have indeed identified weaknesses in Darwin's theory.  In the minds of many evangelical Christians, what the ID theorists have done is fatally wounded Darwin.  Unfortunately, it isn't so simple as that.  Here's why.

First, while ID theorists have developed a number of important criticisms of Darwin, they have not developed an alternative scientific theory.  Intelligent Design is not a fleshed out scientific theory that can compete with Darwin, merely a hodge-podge of criticisms of Darwin.  That doesn't mean a full theory won't emerge, it just hasn't yet.  

Second, ID depends upon including some form of "intelligent agent" in the design process, usually described as God.  From a scientific viewpoint, that's a non-starter.  The reason for this is because there is absolutely no way to construct a scientific hypothesis that can test for the existence or non-existence of God.  That's not to say God doesn't exist, just that there is no way to do a scientific test of His existence.  Please understand, this  isn't some type of atheist conspiracy.  Scientists who are themselves strong evangelical Christians line up in lock-step with atheist scientists on this point.  It comes down to how the scientific method, including the principle of falsifying a hypothesis, that trips up ID.  Thus, ID can't become a serious scientific theory until it can be presented in a way that eliminates the need to explain phenomena based upon the intervention of a God-like agent.  Remember, it isn't a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of whether the science can be explained without having to rely upon the existence of God.

The second issue with ID has to do with the "evidence problem" described above.  The problem is that conventional scientists keep coming up with actual evidence of the things that ID theorists said can't or didn't exist.  For example, remember the problem with "transitional fossils"?  Since Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial in the early 1990's, evidence of real transitional fossils has been found.  Such transitional fossils tend to reinforce Darwin's theory.  Second, scientists keep finding examples of things ID theorists say are too complex to be explained by Darwin's theory.  In other words, supporters of Darwin keep finding things that reinforce what Darwin said, and undercut the ID argument.  If you think of ID as a chair, what's happening is that conventional science keeps knocking the legs off the chair.

Has Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?  No, it hasn't, but no other theories have been developed that come anywhere near close to providing the explanatory power of Darwin.  While ID has identified a number of problems with the theory, ID itself is not a fleshed out theory itself.

While I'm rejecting Intelligent Design as a concept, one could make the argument that my proposed concept is really just a different form of Intelligent Design.  After all, I'm suggesting that God did create the Universe and His hand is evident, so aren't I being hypocritical?  No, not in the least.  In the very purest sense, my proposal is a form of Intelligent Design, because I do believe God was involved in the creation of the Universe, but my proposal is significantly different from Intelligent Design in some very important respects.  The key difference is that I wholeheartedly embrace the concept of macro-evolution, the very thing that Philip Johnson and the other key leaders in the Intelligent Design movement reject.  I believe Darwin's theory applies on a macro scale, just as do people like Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists.

So what's the difference between the atheist conception, Intelligent Design, and my conception?  Here's a quick summary:

a) I embrace Darwin's theory on both a micro and macro scale, just like Dawkins, but unlike the Intelligent Design movement;

b) I also embrace the idea that there is a Creator God, much like most of the Intelligent Design movement, but quite unlike Dawkins;

c) I believe that whatever "design" God did was pre-Big Bang, so there is really no way to prove it, or disprove it.

The "design" I embrace includes two key elements: a) the physical constants that make our world amenable to life as we know it; and b) the process of evolution by natural selection.  People like Dawkins also embrace these two "design" elements, they just don't think they came from the hand of God, whereas I do.

Scientists have not identified any tools or methods to investigate what might have happened before the Big Bang, or who or what might have caused it.  Thus, any thoughts about the origin of the Universe, or the existence or non-existence of God, are purely in the realm of speculation, at least for now. 

    

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/A-Different-and-Better-Question-to-Ask/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

A DIFFERENT AND BETTER QUESTION TO ASK

As discussed in the last post, at a minimum, the world view of a religious person, Christian or non-Christian, seems to be at odds with what Charles Darwin and the Big Bang Theory are saying.   This is because the religious believe that God, or a god-like agent, pre-existed the world, then directed the emergence of the world.  The Big Bang Theory seems to suggest that the world emerged out of nothing at a particular moment in time, and Darwin seems to suggest that the world emerged without purpose.

Since Darwin's theory was first elucidated about 150 years ago, religious people, both Christian and non-Christian, have sought ways to reconcile the different ideas.  You'll recall in an earlier blog post, I pointed out two theories – directed evolution and planned evolution – that reconcile Darwin, the Big Bang and Christianity.  A number of Christian groups, including the Roman Catholic Church and various mainline Protestant denominations, have reconciled the ideas.

Reconciliation, however, is not the same as what atheists have done – they've wholeheartedly embraced Darwin and the Big Bang.  Is there a difference?  I think there is, and let me describe it by analogy.  Recall when you were a child that at least one of your parents, most likely your mother, told you to eat your vegetables because they're good for you.  You probably didn't care for them, but you knew you needed to eat them.  For me, it was Brussels Sprouts.  Today, I'm a man in late middle age, and my tastes in food are considerably broader than when I was a child … but I still HATE Brussels Sprouts!  Conversely, I absolutely love carrots and watermelon, two other fruits and vegetables.    You likely have your own version of Brussels Sprouts, carrots, and watermelon.

Darwin and the Big Bang are like my carrots and watermelon to the atheist – he or she absolutely loves these theories, whether he or she knows anything about them.  Conversely, for the average Christian who has reconciled these theories with the Bible, it's still somewhat like my Brussels Sprouts: my "good reason" for eating them was to avoid the wrath of my mother.  But in my own mind, no one has given me a really good reason I should love them.  

But imagine a different scenario – a variation of the carrots and watermelon one I described above.  Imagine that Christians wanted to embrace Charles Darwin and the Big Bang Theory just as much, if not more than, atheists?  What would be the benefit of that?  Well, let me suggest a bunch of benefits:

    #1: Younger Christians might stop leaving the church as much as they do now, if only because one of the reasons for leaving has been mooted;
    #2: Rather than spending time arguing about "origins", Christians could use the that "bandwidth" to offer constructive comments about other matters of science, particularly scientific matters with an ethical dimension.  Hint: there are LOTS of them!
    #3: Christians could regain the respect of non-Christians on matters of science.  The latter probably still won't adopt Christianity, but at least some important attitudes could change.

There could be real benefits to this, but it could only happen if Christians could be given reasons to want to embrace Darwin and the Big Bang.  

You'll recall how I said that entrepreneurs often reframe old problems by asking new questions?  Well, that's precisely what I'm doing here.  Most everyone has some sort of entrenched position on this issue, and no one is budging.  In a case like that, the only way to make any real progress is to re-frame the problem.  Thus, for me, the starting point for addressing the BIG ISSUE – the relationship of Christians to science and technology – actually starts with coming up with a solution to the Darwin/Big Bang issue … and the only way to make real progress on that is to re-frame the entire problem by asking the following question: what would have to happen for Christians to want to "bear hug" embrace Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Georges LeMaitre's Big Bang Theory?

The answer is actually pretty straightforward: the two theories would have to show something that somehow reinforced something else that Christians already believed.  After all, that's really the reason atheists embrace the theory – because the two theories, when taken together, appear to reinforce the idea that the world just emerged out of nothing and evolved without purpose.

So the real question becomes: is there a way to think about Darwin and the Big Bang Theory that provide evidence that reinforces what the Christian Bible has been saying all along, that reinforces fundamental Christian doctrines?  If the answer is yes, then Christians ought to want to "bear hug" embrace Darwin and the Big Bang Theory, not because an atheist said to, but because the Christian Bible, and therefore God, says to do so.

Your initial reaction may be, preposterous!  I invite you to continue along with me, for I am going to take you on a journey to a place you probably thought was preposterous, but which I firmly believe is real. 
 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Is-Creationism-Uniquely-American/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous late scientist and writer, made the observation that belief in "creationism" is pretty much limited to certain groups in the USA.  He said, "I hope everyone realizes the extent to which this is a local, indigenous, American bizzarity."  Many outside the USA seem to share the belief.  Ronald Numbers, a Professor of History and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, and perhaps the world's foremost authority on the study of creationism, says that Gould's idea is a complete myth. 

Numbers is perhaps best known for having written The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism.  He has devoted a significant portion of his career to the study of the emergence and propagation of creationist ideas.  He has also edited a very interesting book entitled Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion.  He personally wrote the chapter describing the myth about creationism being a purely American phenomenon. 

It is certainly true that the creationist movement started in the USA, and it continues to be very strong here.   What appears to be a myth, however, is the idea that creationist ideas are a purely American phenomenon and haven't taken hold in other countries.  In fact, Numbers has meticulously recorded evidence of strong creationist groups outside the USA.  For example, he notes that creationist thinking has been very positively received in both Australia and New Zealand.  Closer to home, he observes that Canada may have more creationists per capita than anywhere else.  Even though less than one third of Canadians attend church regularly, survey data show that 53% of adults in Canada reject the theory of scientific evolution.

One normally doesn't think of people in Europe, especially Western Europe, as having strong religious leanings, yet creationism has definitely taken hold there.  Numbers cites a United Kingdom poll that shows four in ten people in the UK think that religious alternatives to Darwin's theory should be taught as science in the schools.  Surveys show that only 45% of respondents believe that evolution best represents their personal views.  On the other hand 22% identified themselves as supporters of creationism, while 17% endorsed Intelligent Design.

Elsewhere in Western Europe, Numbers notes that 20% of those surveyed appear to believe in special creation.  Young earth creationism, the most conservative version, is widely endorsed in various countries.  For example, surveys show that 21.8% of the Swiss say they're young earth creationists.  Lest you conclude that yodeling or Swiss chocolate may have inflicted some unintended consequences on the populace, 20.4% of Austrians self-identify as young earth creationists.  The number in Germany is 18.1%.

In Latin America, a similar phenomenon is occurring.  Belief in creationism has skyrocketed in Brazil, for example.  In Asia, belief in creationism also seems to be on the rise, particularly in Korea.

Perhaps even more surprising is the data Numbers has compiled about non-Christians outside the USA.  He notes much interest expressed by Muslims in Turkey.  A creationist movement has emerged there, too.  Not to be outdone, Jews in Israel have also been embracing creationism.  In fact, Numbers cites the emergence of the Torah Science Foundation in Israel to promote creationist ideas.  A particular variation on this is what is called "Kosher evolution".  This involves an acceptance of micro-evolution but rejection of macro-evolution.

The obvious question to ask is, how did this come about?  Numbers notes that various groups have been evangelizing the creationist message.  One group in particular, based in Kentucky and called Answers in Genesis, has definitely been proselytizing.  Just as Christians have been faithfully following the Great Commandment to spread the Gospel, so have creationists been adhering to a Great Creationist Commandment to do the same with respect to creationist doctrine.

The spread of interest in creationism outside the USA has been accompanied by an increasing desire to teach alternative scientific theories to evolution by natural selection.  Just as creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design have pushed to have alternative science taught in schools, the same is true outside the USA.

Numbers has observed that secular scientists in many of these countries are shocked at this development, seemingly thinking that the impossible has come to pass.  However, just as atheist scientists in the USA are absolutely shocked and appalled that, notwithstanding all of the scientific evidence, about half of the USA adult population is skeptical of Darwin, and only one quarter of Christians embrace Darwinian thinking, is it really a surprise that attitudes are the same in other countries?  This again seems consistent with the notion that there is no science/religion continuum.  The idea that the more one believes in science, the less they'll believe in religion … and vice versa … is a myth.  Moreover, it is a worldwide myth that applies throughout the world.

Just as the embrace of creationism by many in the USA has led to a battle about what science is taught in the public schools, so are similar battles emerging in countries around the world.  Scientists are understandably horrified by this, but they really shouldn't be surprised.  When all is said and done, there is nothing uniquely American about creationism, intelligent design, and other forms of opposition to Darwin's theory.