I knew unions supported the Democrats, but really; getting fired for wearing a Bush hat and sweatshirt?  Even though it’s referring to the aircraft carrier the George H. W. Bush?  That your son serves on?  Really?  That’s a sign of rabid, unthinking support of the Democrats.

Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications at Christian Medical Fellowship, writing in Christianity Today, lays out the big difference between embryonic stem cells and the adult variety.

Ron Futrell, writing at Big Journalism:

During the discussion where Williams said he gets “nervous” when he sees people on a plane in Muslim garb (that’s what got him fired).  Williams also warned O’Reilly against blaming all Muslims for “extremists,” saying Christians shouldn’t be blamed for Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy McVeigh was not Christian. Love ya Juan, and sorry to hear about what happened with NPR, but Timothy McVeigh was not Christian. He was agnostic. He made the statement many times to newspapers. He also said “science is my religion.”

Political violence is an indictment against the cause that motivates it … except when Democrats do it.  If you just read liberal-leaning blogs, you haven’t heard the whole story about the Rand Paul supporter "stomping" on the MoveOn.org activist.

And finally, a scary Halloween story.  Click for a larger version.

Leave it to Newsweek to call family films "shameful" for not fulfilling their PC feminist quotas.  With so much that is actually shameful coming out of Hollywood, you’d think they’d have more to deal with than "Finding Nemo".

Robert Robb of The Arizona Republic asks:

What will it take for economic policymakers to understand that the chief problem today is uncertainty? And that until they quit moving significant pieces of fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy around, the uncertainty won’t abate?

Quite a lot, apparently.  If jobs start getting created after big Republican wins in November, it’ll likely be because the "Party of No" will be there to curb this uncertainty.

If 91% of white voters had voted against Obama, some would have called it partially due to racism.  If 91% of black support him, can that be partially attributed to racism?  Jerome Hudson considers this.

The New York Times trumpets how well the civilian court system is for dealing with terrorism it when a terrorist pleads guilty and is sentenced.  Um, that’s not a real test of the system, guys.  A trial is the way to test it, and a terrorist trial going on in the civilian system was dealt a huge blow.  Do we want to chance, perhaps, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed getting off on a technicality?

Glasses that give perfect vision for any type of eyesight, even if you need bifocals?  Looks possible!

And finally, the longest stretch of 9.5+ percent unemployment since the 1930s has not been mitigated one bit by the two highest deficits since 1945.  Given liberal claims, we ought to have been sailing out of this by now.  Can we finally put that "government spending fixes the economy" meme to bed?

Venezuelans are getting tired of the food shortages, the electricity shortages, the soaring crime, the deep recession (i.e. everything that comes part and parcel with socialism) and have started taking back the country, starting with last weekend’s elections.  American voters are poised to do the same in November.

The "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza is apparently mostly about symbolism, false narratives and propaganda.  Flotillas are required to keep up the narratives.

The United Nations will appoint an Earth contact for aliens.  No, really.  "Mazlan Othman, the head of the UN’s little-known Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), is to describe her potential new role next week at a scientific conference at the Royal Society’s Kavli conference centre in Buckinghamshire."  Doesn’t it strike anyone as unintentionally humorous that "Unoosa" sounds like some alien specie you’d see on "Star Trek"?

When the Bilderbergers met last June (cue paranoid music), one of the topics they discussed was Global Cooling.  No, really.  (Al Gore was apparently not invited.)  But indeed, global cooling, were it happening, would be worse than global warming.  Crops, for starters, kinda’ like the heat.

Tea Partiers uncover rampant voter fraud in Houston.  Would it surprise you if I said that most of this was related to a former SEIU employee’s voter registration group?  Yeah, me neither.

"Scientists have invented an efficient way to produce apparently safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos…."  They start with ordinary skin cells.  As Glenn Reynolds would say, "Faster, please."

And finally, from Mike Lester, two views of the Constitution.  (Click for a larger image.)

All things are better in Koine! And my friend Joe Carter should get a kick out of the shot of Biola’s infamous hippie Jesus mural.

###

Bad News / Good News The Bad News? 49% of Protestants think Mormons are Christians. The Good News? Those same Protestants are looking forward to having a whole lot of fun at church this coming Sunday.

###

Mexico tosses us a red herring From CNN,

Violence in the United States is not related to illegal Mexican immigrants, but violence in Mexico is connected to vast shipments of weapons from the United States, Mexico’s foreign minister told CNN Thursday.

Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa pointed to efforts by Mexico to stop the flow of weapons, the great majority of which come from the United States.

“Since 2006,” she said in a wide-ranging interview with CNN’s editorial board in New York City, “the Mexican government has seized over 85,000 weapons in Mexico.”

She noted that it’s not just “regular weapons,” but also machine guns, grenades and other high-power arms.

Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, pointed out last year there were at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.

I’d venture to say that the chances are slim to none that one could purchase machine guns, grenades, or other [related] high-power arms, in any of those 6,600 gun shops.

###

With either choice, your system’s gonna get cleaned out Evidently, people would prefer to have a colonoscopy vs. cleaning out their computer’s registry.

###

The FBI chooses Glock Contract award at close to $1 million, for 2,900+ Glock 23 .40SW handguns.

###

Lucky Break: significant good fortune or opportunity What do you do, if you’re committed to naturalism, and you’re faced with the fact that your very existence hinged on at least 10 highly improbable events of the past? Well, the rational, neo-Darwinistic logical conclusion must surely be that we were really, really, really, really, really lucky! For those who can actually put 2 + 2 together, the folks at Reasons to Believe have been discussing the design aspects of our universe, for quite some time.

Oil-eating bacteria had a feast on the BP Deep-Sea oil spill At Reasons to Believe, on the August 25th podcast, they discussed how ocean bacteria ate up a whole lot of the oil from the BP spill. It is very interesting that this phenomenon was unexpected, considering how much we know about the earth. What? We don’t know everything? Oh… maybe we need to be wary of dire predictions due to Global Warming Climate Change.

###

Oops Maybe the bacteria ate mostly gas and not oil. Hmmm… what was that you said about hot summers?

###

More guns… Yes, less crime.

###

Oops 2 Kind of reminds me of the misteaks I made at skool.

###

Bush stumbled over his speeches But did we really think we could listen to great speeches for 4 years? Like Matthews says – get rid of the teleprompter!

###

Maybe a bit premature Yet people are frustrated.

###

Imagine a white Republican making similar statements Just remember that it came from the party of tolerance.

Ken Ham, staunch Young Earth Creationist, has recently written a blog post highlighting a recent position change taken by the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination (HT: Ron’s Bloviating). Ham takes issue with the AG for revising their earlier held position, sympathetic to a Young Earth position, for that of one which allows for Old Earth belief as well. For the record, I have grown up in the AG denomination and have been partial to the Old Earth Creation model, despite their earlier stance, since I was in elementary school (the 1960s). In A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination, Ham writes,

The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc)

Of particular concern, to Ham, is the statement by the AG,

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation.

evidently because he connects such reasoning as equivalent to succumbing to the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he tempted Eve to doubt God’s Word. By comparing a 1977 statement, from the AG, Ham contrasts a previous belief that a “natural reading” of the Genesis 1 creation account results in an understanding that the account refers to consecutive 24 hour solar days. His concern seems to be that any acceptance of data, from scientific research, that points towards a billions of years old universe, is tantamount to the doubting of God’s Word, which he understands – nay, demands – to state otherwise. Ham writes,

The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.

I applaud Ham’s concern, which is ultimately driven by a desire to keep Christians from falling prey to worldly wisdom, yet I seriously question the dogmatic stance he has taken. He posits that a Young Earth interpretation of the creation accounts, found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, is the only viable interpretation allowed. Such a position has neither a theological, historical, or scientific grounding.

While this blog post is, by no means, an attempt to exhaustively answer the Young Earth / Old Earth debate, I do want to make a few concise points.

In discussing this subject, with Young Earth proponents, I’ve sometimes been told that the Young Earth position is held because “it’s what the Bible says”. The obvious conclusion, from such a position, is that the Old Earth interpretation is NOT what the Bible says. I wonder if Young Earthers, who make such a statement, are really aware of implications of what they’re proposing? Do they really think that some of their fellow Christians are not aware of what they happen to be reading in God’s Word? I also wonder how consistent Young Earthers are with their “natural reading” of “what the Bible says” argument? If they wish to be consistent, then surely they must think that God has wings, that Jesus’ had nails driven through his hands, that it’s the Sun that revolves around the Earth*, that the mustard seed is the smallest plant seed on earth, and that the value of Pi is equal to the integer 3. But, of course, I would imagine that for those references they would argue that the meaning found in text involves intent and context – context which includes culture, language, genre, etc. Try as they might, they cannot get around the fact that the Genesis creation accounts have not been dogmatically held, through Christendom, to mean that God created the cosmos in 6 24 hour solar days, nor that one is mandated to translate the Hebrew text as such. It’s my conclusion that they are incorrect in stating that their interpretation is the “natural reading” of “what the Bible says”.

Another point in which Ham slips up, in my opinion, is his accusation that the belief the universe is billions of years old correlates with a belief in natural process evolution. To his credit, he does not accuse Old Earthers of categorically believing in natural process evolution, but merely states that the Old Earth position “opens the door” to such belief. Still, I take issue with such a proposition, for it demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the Old Earth position as well as the natural process evolutionary position. The Old Earth interpretation attempts to harmonize not only the multiple creation accounts found in the Bible (including and beyond the two major ones found in Genesis), but our understanding of the physical realm as well. If the data points towards a universe billions of years old, and if we can harmonize the data with what we read in the Bible, then it is irrelevant whether or not the natural process evolutionary model also accepts a billions of years old universe. Also, as research continues, the complexity of our natural realm is becoming more evident: from the minute structure of DNA to the makeup of the universe itself. As we discover that advanced life requires this specified complexity, and as we understand that specified complexity is highly improbable, by chance, we begin to understand how improbable our existence is – from a purely natural point of view. Truth is, billions of years is appearing to be not enough time for advanced life to arise through natural means.

It seems to me that many in the Young Earth camp dismiss scientific research too easily. At best, they simply recognize man’s fallibility and apply that fallibility to our interpretation of the natural realm; at worst, they assume some grand conspiracy, in the scientific community, dedicated to the undermining of all religious belief. I will spend zero time discussing the latter option, as I believe it to be nonsense and as I believe that Ham holds to the former option.

I wonder, at what point do I, as a fallible human, disregard the ideas of other fallible humans? Do I refuse to board an airliner simply because it was designed by fallible humans who, obviously, have fallible ideas about aeronautical engineering? Do I take the stairs, when visiting a high-rise building, because the elevator was designed by fallible humans with fallible ideas of structural engineering? How many Young Earthers have ever taken an over-the-counter medication? Since such medication was developed by fallible humans with fallible ideas regarding chemistry, I must conclude that Ken Ham does not take any over-the-counter medication. Speaking of fallible ideas – how about the idea of how we read, and understand, text? I think that we believe, however fallibly, that we are able to see, and then read text, due to the physical action of light photons bouncing off of a page of text, being received and processed by our eyes, through the lens, retina, and optic nerve, with the resulting electrical impulses then being interpreted by our brain. The whole notion of understanding God’s written Word is dependent on a physical process.

You see, the problem with discounting scientific research is that one ends up having to pick and choose which scientific research they will believe in. While we don’t have an exhaustive understanding of the physical realm, we do have some understanding of it and – this is important – our level of understanding grows as we continue to do more research. So, whereas the scientific community in the 1800s thought that the universe had always existed, Albert Einstein threw them on their heads by proposing (with scientific backup), in the early 1900s, that the universe was finite and actually began to exist. It is indeed very interesting that this notion of a beginning was already found in God’s Word.

In the years since Einstein, the ideas of general and special relativity have been refined, through continued experimenting and testing, and as our understanding of cosmology grew. Likewise, in the years since the Wright brothers, we’ve moved from airplanes built out of wood and fabric, capable of carrying only one person, to jet powered airliners which transport hundreds of people thousands of miles at a time. Is there a chance that as we gain a better understanding of the physical realm the ideas of general and special relativity, as well as those of aeronautical engineering, will be overturned? Certainly. As stated earlier, we don’t have a complete understanding of the entire cosmos. However, and this is how the process of progressive understanding works, as continued research builds cumulative support for a particular theory, the more reliable such a theory becomes in explaining the natural realm.

Unfortunately, for the Young Earth camp, they have no credible scientific data which can support a universe of 6,000 – 10,000 years in age. And, to make matters worse, further research in multiple, unrelated disciplines, continues to support an old age for the universe. The Old Earth model is certainly not without paradoxes or weak points, yet one should consider its many strengths before dismissing it out of hand.

Kudos to the Assemblies of God for revising their position on the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2.

* a natural reading obvious conclusion, if the Earth truly does not move (and a conclusion that the church had to revise due to an eventual better understanding of the physical realm).

Oops From the setting yourself up department, a lesson in election politics in the New Mexico governor’s race.

###

Geek News of the week Amateur astronomers capture images of objects (comets or asteroids) impacting Jupiter. Beyond the geek-factor, however, Hugh Ross argues that Jupiter’s size and location, within our solar system, are no accident. Ross, president and founder of Reasons to Believe, notes that Jupiter’s gravitational tug is strong enough to result in errant bodies (e.g., comets and asteroids) slamming into its surface, reducing the chance of such bodies impacting the Earth while, at the same time, not being so strong as to corrupt Earth’s orbit, thereby making advanced life impossible. Is such precision in timing, size, location, etc., the result of chance or design?

###

Acrobat Security Hole This is why I use PDF Xchange or FoxIt.

###

Oops 2 The purpose of a gun holster is not to simply have a place to hold your gun. Holsters prevent you from placing your trigger finger directly onto the trigger when removing the gun from the holster. This is important because any time your finger is ON the trigger it is very likely that a bullet will exit the barrel. For those that choose to keep a gun in a pocket, the need for a pocket holster is even more significant. Or… you could be like the guy in the link.

###

Oops 3 While guns and holsters mix, guns and alcohol do not. However, I’ve got to admit the idea of using a finicky computer server as a target has a certain appeal.

###

Illegally in the U.S., and enrolled in college How broken is the immigration system when a person is allowed to be in the U.S. illegally, for over 15 years, not have a Social Security number, yet allowed to enroll in college?

Steven Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists of our time, and we’re lucky to have him.  In earlier days, his disability might have relegated him to being homebound, and he probably wouldn’t have lived nearly this long, robbing humanity of his intelligence.

However, he’s apparently branching out into a new area that he is not as well versed in; religion.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

In A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking’s most famous work, he did not dismiss the possibility that God had a hand in the creation of the world.

He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”

In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton’s theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by God.

Scientists have a conniption when theologians delve into the scientific realm.  But apparently, that doesn’t work both ways in Prof. Hawking’s estimation.

Frankly, I think there can be spill over to each other.  The God of creation made us to be curious and made the order of the universe understandable to us.  I just would like scientists, who frown when a religious person appears to infringe on territory they claim exclusive rights to, would judge themselves by their own standards when moving the other direction. 

Yes, it’s that time of the week again, where I toss out a bunch of links that I was too lazy to do a full blog post on.

Turns out the Iraq war didn’t break the bank.  It’s understandable that you might think that, but that only indicates a need to get your news from more sources.  The MSM loves to parrot DNC talking points.

(Liberal) feminism is dead.  Long live (conservative) feminism!

Jim Wallis said that Marvin Olasky (World magazine editor) “lies for a living” when Olasky noted that Wallis got $200,000 from George Soros.  When it was pointed out that he, in fact, did, then came the abject apology in sackcloth and ashes, “Well, it was so small I forgot.”  UPDATE: Wallis has issued a formal apology.

Three months ago, James Cameron was ready to “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads”, speaking of those who dispute anthropogenic global warming.  At the very last minute, after changing his demands over and over for how a debate was to be run, he cancelled.  Now that takes guts.  Or something.

In England, teachers are dropping history lessons on the Holocaust and the Crusades, for fear of offending Muslims who are taught Holocaust denial and a different view of the Crusades at local mosques.  They’re afraid of challenging “anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils”.  So much for academia being the standard bearer of truth and free speech.

A back door repeal of the First Amendment by … social workers?  Well, when liberal ideologues get ahold of professional organizations, nuttiness does ensue.  Look at most unions.

And finally, a US district judge put a temporary halt to embryonic stem cell research.  Some believe this will devastate scientific research, but  Steve Breen puts it in perspective.  (Click for a larger image.)

So… where’s the oil now? Either Obama really is the Messiah he was portrayed as, and it was his mere presence alone that healed our earth; or, maybe, we aren’t quite up to predicting global effects of non-globally sized events? A couple of months ago, it wasn’t difficult to find commentaries declaring that we were were on the brink of planetary destruction, that the Gulf of Mexico would never recover, that oil spill was a foretaste of the effects of Global Warming Climate Change, that God was allowing this disaster as punishment for our sins on Mother Earth. Yet now we see that Obama really has the power to heal the Earth – scratch that – Yet now we see how inadequate we might be in our attempts at extrapolating data, on a global scale, over extended time periods – well – even short time periods. Common sense should tell us that our efforts would be better served by addressing known issues that we currently face, as opposed to potential issues we might face. (also see Joe Carter’s post)

###

Illegal aliens allowed to get a New Mexico drivers license… so, why not allow them to purchase firearms as well (why should that “right” be infringed upon?). The argument for giving illegal aliens drivers licenses is that it provides for better enforcement of insurance, etc. If that were so, then why not allow illegal aliens to purchase firearms, thereby giving them direct access to the right of self defense?

###

Well, at least they weren’t burning the books (but a pragmatist would have donated them to a local library). Or have a used-book sale or something to recoup some money?

###

When in doubt, ask someone who has actually followed the rules. Gabriella, a naturalized U.S. citizen, educates a Tucson City Council member on why the City of Tucson should not sue the State of Arizona over SB1070.

###

Two exo-solar planets transiting the same star… geekfest time.j

###

The Ghosts of World War II. Have not confirmed the validity of these images but, if true, an interesting use of Photoshop linking the past with the present.

The scientific method is taught and portrayed as a dispassionate rational dialectic between theory and experiment. Theories are propose, data is collected which forces refinement of theory and that continues. Occasionally, ala Mr Kuhn, a revolution occurs in which a major paradigm shift takes over and a radically new theory becomes ascendant. 

Alas, this has little to no relation to what actually occurs within science. Scientists are not dispassionate men judging between different competing theories analyzing experimental data to that end. They are instead emotional advocates of a particular theory which they espouse a theory which they find, well, beautiful (for a variety of reasons). Now, the reason we have success and progress in science is that the training and process of learning their particular specialty has programmed their emotional responses to align their aesthetic principles with the rigors of their discipline. 

to be continued … 

Anthony Watts calls attention to a new study on the famed/infamous "hockey stick" graph purporting to show a huge uptick in global temperatures in the 20th century.

There is a new and important study on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the Annals of Applied Statistics and is listed to be published in the next issue. According to Steve McIntyre, this is one of the “top statistical journals”. This paper is a direct and serious rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann.

Proxies are things like tree rings and ice core measurements, rather than actual thermometer readings.  From the paper’s abstract:

We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.

The first sentence says essentially that proxy data does not predict future temperatures any better than picking temperature numbers at random. 

Wow.

I imagine this study will get a good looking-over by those on both sides of the issue, but if it stands scrutiny it would be a huge blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory.  Stay tuned.

Recently I was asked my opinion on anthropogenic global warming. In the ensuing discussion, there was criticism of my rejection of “the majority opinion of ‘experts'” as a good or valid method to base my position. Having rejected that, I was asked by what means, if not the majority of experts, would I personal espouse as how to base your belief or understanding of the truth behind a matter which is in contention. In the following, first I lay out a number of different methods that people use to form opinions, next I briefly describe the two methods I try to follow.  Read the rest of this entry

It could happen.

Blood drawn with a simple needle stick can be coaxed into producing stem cells that may have the ability to form any type of tissue in the body, three independent papers report in the July 2 Cell Stem Cell. The new technique will allow scientists to tap a large, readily available source of personalized stem cells.

Because taking blood is safe, fast and efficient compared to current stem cell harvesting methods, some of which include biopsies and pretreatments with drugs, researchers hope that blood-derived stem cells could one day be used to study and treat diseases — though major safety hurdles remain.

The findings “represent a huge and important progression in the field,” stem cell biologist Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan and the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease in San Francisco, Calif., writes in a commentary appearing in the same issue of the journal.

All this without the need to destroy embryos.  This just keep looking better and better for getting stem cells from adults rather than the more riskier and ethically challenged embryonic stem cells.

An interesting conversation took place, recently, at First Thoughts. Joe Carter wrote A Walk to the Moon, and Stephen Barr responded. And then, there were the 150+ comments.

The topic is Intelligent Design.

Now, rather than attempt to re-hash the arguments and discussions at these posts, I’d rather comment on what I consider to be the limited field all those involved seem to playing in. I’ve watched,  and participated, in this debate for several years now, and one thing I’ve noticed is how predictable the paths of argumentation are. E.g., Intelligent Design (ID) is simply the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), ID is God of the gaps, Methodological Naturalism (MN) is science of the gaps, MN cannot produce increasing information, the fossil record provides evidence for MN, the fossil record provides evidence for ID, implied design is just that – implied. The debate can, believe me, go on and on.

Yet I can’t help but wonder if most of those involved in such debates are somehow missing the bigger picture. Consider that many of those involved are engaged in work in the sciences, or perhaps scholars, etc. Since the topic is, essentially, design, how many of those involved are intimately familiar with the design process? And, by “design”, I’m not necessarily referring to artistic design, although that too can be discussed in this context. What I’m referring to, by use of the word “design”, is more akin to engineering design – that which occurs when one is designing and building a mechanical component of some sort.

In the world outside of science and academia, the act of engineering design is readily seen in many areas. One example is the design of an oil refinery. The basic process involved in an oil refinery is that a product comes in (crude oil) and a product, or several products, goes out (refined fuels).  However, to get from the “in” to the “out” requires a multitude of apparatus such as pumps, air coolers, specialized refining vessels, rotating equipment, pipeways, steel structures, electrical transformers, control instruments, electrical wiring, foundations, etc. Each of these individual units are either custom designed, or are selected based on design parameters.

The term I just used, “design parameters”, doesn’t seem to come up much in ID / MN debates, yet no design project in the world would go forward were it not for design parameters. Design parameters are specifications which engineers and designers use to guide the type of design they come up with. These parameters essentially dictate the end result. An oil refinery project may have unique design parameters based on a variety of factors. For example, design and construction projects must be funded and, if cash flows are limited, the design and execution of the project may also be limited (a parameter)). The upstream product, what goes “in” to the refinery, may be of a certain quality or type that then dictates the type of refining equipment to be designed. The desired output product will dictate the type of process to be designed. The geographical location of a project will dictate the physical layout of the design. At the micro level, specific pieces of equipment may be designed based on availability, or even client preference. And, it should be noted, these design factors follow through into the actual construction of the equipment and refinery.

So, how does this apply to the ID / MN debate?

As we discover more about the biological realm, we find more complexity, both integrated and, as some would argue, irreducible. Regardless of whether or not the complexity is irreducible, though, the point is that we find structures and systems that exhibit the characteristics of design. As Joe Carter pointed out, this characteristic is essentially accepted by both camps (Intelligent Design vs. Bind Watchmaker Design). That fact alone, in my opinion, mandates that design principles and methodologies, in the world outside of academia, be addressed as to how they relate, or don’t relate, to biological systems.

Despite the overwhelming prevalence of evolutionary teaching, in the U.S., over the past 50 years, the general population still has a difficult time accepting it as fact. Academia claims that such results simply justify the need for more education. Yet could it be that the general population simply sees something that the academics don’t? Could it be that the general population has the common sense ability to correlate complex biological (and natural) systems with human designed systems?

Could it be academia that is missing the bigger picture?

When I began work, out of university, a joke was told to me about a Ph.D. graduate who had landed his first job at an engineering firm. After orientation, he was taken to his work station, introduced to his fellow co-workers, and then given a broom. “What’s this for?”, he asks. “We need the storeroom swept up,” responds his boss. “But,” the Ph.D. employee replies, “I’ve got a Ph.D.!” His boss thinks for a moment, and then says, “Oh, yes. I forgot.” His boss then takes the broom from him and, as he sweeps back and forth, says, “This is how you sweep.”

It seems to me that too many individuals in the ID / MN debate brush off references to human design as being non-applicable. Yet if design is what is being discussed, whether it is Intelligent Design or Blind Watchmaker Design, then we had better be about educating ourselves in how design occurs.

[In my opinion, Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross, at Reasons to Believe, are pioneering an approach to ID that attempts to incorporate human design processes.]