Reformation Day — Oct 31

Happy Reformation Day!

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Castle Church doors in Wittenberg, Germany, unknowingly launching the Protestant Reformation and recovering precious truths about the Gospel. The 95 Theses were arguments against the medieval church’s practice of selling indulgences, documents which freed one or one’s family members from time in purgatory.

From Desiring God Blog:

Luther’s First Thesis and Last Words

by David Mathis

491 years ago today, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg.

He wanted to debate the sale of indulgences with his fellow university professors. So he wrote in Latin.

But a nameless visionary translated the theses into German, carried them to the printing press, and enabled their dispersion far and wide. Luther ended up with more than he bargained for, but he proved to be no coward in defending the discoveries he was making in Scripture.

First Thesis

The truth of Luther’s first thesis would reverberate throughout his lifetime, even finding expression in his last words.

His first thesis reads,

When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said “Repent,” he intended that the entire life of believers should be repentance.

All of the Christian life is repentance. Turning from sin and trusting in the good news that Jesus saves sinners aren’t merely a one-time inaugural experience but the daily substance of Christianity. The gospel is for every day and every moment. Repentance is to be the Christian’s continual posture.

Last Words

Almost 30 years later, on February 16, 1546, Luther’s last words, written on a piece of scrap paper, echoed the theme of his first thesis:

We are beggars! This is true.

From first thesis to last words, Luther lived at the foot of the cross, where our rebellious condition meets with the beauty of God’s lavish grace in the gospel of his Son—a gospel deep enough to cover all the little and massive flaws of a beggar like Luther and beggars like us.

Grace and Peace

Canada election map

Elections Canada has a nice map showing the results of the October 14th national election for the House of Commons:

This is more colorful than the red-blue map that we will see on election night here in the US (which I fear will have too much blue on it this year).

Here are the Canadian colors:

• Dark blue: the winning Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper
• Red: Liberal Party (not much red on the main part of the map, but note the insets of Montreal and Toronto)
• Light blue: Bloc Quebecois
• Orange: New Democratic Party.

Nice map.

Grace and Peace

100

My grandmother, on my mother’s side, lived to be 100. My wife’s grandmother, on her father’s side, turned 100 yesterday. I guess it looks good for women in my family.

Yahoo had a story yesterday: 4 Surprising signs you’ll live a long time. Here they are:

1. Don’t drink pop. All that sugar either makes you fat or raises your triglyceride levels.
2. Keep your legs strong. Walk. Exercise.
3. Be born before your mother turns 25. I guess there’s not much I can do about that.
4. Eat and drink purple things. Grapes, blueberries, red wine. I guess purple Jolly Ranchers don’t count.

Grace and Peace

Dinosaur footprints part 3

I wrote about dinosaur footprints a few weeks ago here and here. I had recently attended a young-Earth creation seminar where the speaker used very questionable examples of “human” footprints in Permian and Cretaceous rocks as evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Many of these “human” footprints turn out to be forgeries. A scientist can easily tell a genuine footprint from a fake one. One way I mentioned before is to examine the thin layers (laminations) in the sediment beneath the footprint. If the footprint is genuine, the weight of the animal will have depressed the layers beneath the impression:

Freshly deposited sediments contain a lot of pore space, and are easily compressed.

On the other hand, if the footprint is a forgery, the carving will cut across the layering, with no compression of the layers beneath:

This is illustrated by the following photos from the Jurassic Morrison Formation, near Red Rocks Park west of Denver:

These are believed to be sauropod (picture “brontosaurus”) footprints, seen from the side (top photo) and from below (bottom photo). The size and distribution of the bulges suggest this interpretation, and the layering is depressed beneath each of these features, as discussed above.

Using this kind of evidence, geologists (including Christian geologists, even those associated with the Institute for Creation Research) have rightfully rejected every instance that has been suggested for human footprints in very old rocks.

The very presence of these footprints speaks against the whole flood-geology model advocated by young-Earth creationists. The following footprints are also exposed west of Denver:

This one exposure, in the Cretaceous Dakota Formation, has hundreds of footprints. Other Mesozoic locations have thousands of footprints, such as the “Dinosaur Dance Floor” recently described from the Jurassic of the Utah-Arizona border.

Based on multiple criteria, geologists seek to determine the type of environment these features formed in. The Dakota Formation footprints shown above are interpreted to have formed in a coastal environment, based on the types and distribution of sediments, sedimentary structures (such as ripple marks), fossils, and trace fossils (such as worm burrows). The Morrison Formation sauropod footprints, on the other hand, were deposited in a stream channel. Again, the type and distribution of sediments, sedimentary structures, and fossils help geologists to make this type of interpretation.

Young-Earth creationists insist that all of these sediments formed in Noah’s flood. (Now the Bible doesn’t say that the sedimentary rocks were deposited in Noah’s flood, but that is a bit off topic for now). Let’s examine what it would take for these rock layers I have been discussing in Colorado to be a product of the flood. Here’s what would have had to have happened:

1. The flood covers all the Earth, eroding the continents down to their roots. Most erosion, according to this model, would have had to have happened early in the flood.
2. At this point, the world-wide ocean was a slurry of water, sediments, and fossils.
3. Deposition of thousands of feet of sediments, representing Proterozoic through Triassic rocks.
4. Deposition of some Jurassic sediments. Then some dinosaurs go walking around. Then some more deposition. Then some more dinosaurs–a bunch this time–go wandering around. Then some more deposition of sediments. Then more dinosaurs trotting along the beach. Then more sediments. Wait, how did these dinosaurs all survive the previous part of the Flood?
5. Deposition of thousands of feet of sediments on top of all of this.
6. Lithification of the sediments (changing from soft sediments to solid sedimentary rocks).
7. Uplift of the Rocky Mountains, tilting up these layers to a steep angle (they aren’t horizontal anymore).
8. Erosion to expose the rocks.

Multiply this by hundreds of sites worldwide. Add other considerations, such as the presence of complete dinosaur nests in the Cretaceous of Montana and other places. Did dinosaurs have time to make nests, lay eggs, and for those eggs to hatch, right in the middle of the flood? 

In the young-Earth flood model, dinosaur footprints shouldn’t even exist in mid-flood sediments. But they do, in large numbers in some places.

The reason that I take the time to write about this is the gospel. For us to present young-Earth creationism as apologetics, and as a necessary part of Christian faith, actually works against the spread of the Kingdom among many groups, such as scientists. This is placing, as I have written before, an unnecessary and tragic stumbling block, keeping people from being open to Christianity. Let the foolishness of the message of the Cross be the stumbling block, not our bad arguments in defense of the Bible.

Grace and Peace

Photos by Kevin Nelstead

The Environmental Case for John McCain

The attacks against John McCain by some environmental groups (such as the Sierra Club) are unfair. McCain has a well-integrated energy and environmental policy, that reflects his years of environmental leadership, not only in the Republican Party, but in the senate as a whole.

---

From Republicans for Environmental Protection:

The Environmental Case for John McCain

by REP Government Affairs Director David Jenkins

Speech to Society of Environmental Journalists conference, Roanoke, Virginia; October 18, 2008

Thank you, it is a pleasure to be here.

For those of you who don’t know, Republicans for Environmental Protection, or REP for short, is an organization dedicated to improving the Republican Party’s stance on environmental issues, helping elect truly green Republicans, and advancing our belief that real conservatism requires a strong stewardship ethic.

REP first endorsed Senator McCain in his 2000 primary race against George Bush—and in case anyone is wondering— no, we have never endorsed President Bush.

In fact, it was during that 2000 race that Senator McCain first met with REP and raised the issue of climate change.

And since climate change is currently the biggest and most pressing environmental challenge we face, it is a good place to start when talking about Senator McCain and the environment.

His record of leadership on climate change is unequaled. No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has done more to move our nation forward towards an effective response to climate change than John McCain.

Senator McCain has done more than talk about climate change, or roll out an election season plan. He was the first senator to introduce comprehensive climate legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

He has been introducing his climate bill since 2003, he held numerous hearings on the legislation, and in the face of opposition by his own party leaders, used political capital to secure floor votes on the bill.

His leadership didn’t stop there. To build support for climate legislation, Senator McCain undertook an intensive effort to educate his colleagues in Congress about climate change and the need to address it.

He took skeptical senators and representatives to the ends of the earth, including Antarctica, Alaska, Greenland, and New Zealand, to show them, firsthand, the impacts of climate change, expose them to climate research, and convince them that it is time to act.

By contrast, Senator Obama’s record on climate change is pretty thin. We really do not know how much political capital he is willing to spend on the issue—or how this issue stacks up related to his other priorities. He has a plan, but that only matters if it is something that can realistically become law.

I firmly believe that a McCain presidency, because of his proven commitment to this issue, his record of bipartisanship, and the fact that he can secure Republican votes, offers the best opportunity to see meaningful climate legislation become law.

During the primary season, a top priority of the environmental community was for candidates to raise the climate issue on the campaign trail. Senator McCain did just that. He was constantly raising the issue in the Republican debates—even when the question was about energy or the economy, he addressed the issue in speeches, he sent out flyers exclusively about climate change, and he made this issue a key part of his campaign.

As you might imagine, this was a first for a GOP presidential primary—and on top of that, he actually won.

Because of Senator McCain’s record of climate leadership, the fact that he elevated the issue in the primaries, and because he was clearly the greenest candidate in the GOP field, I had hoped that the environmental community would have celebrated, at least briefly, his winning the nomination.

Well, that didn’t happen. Instead our friends over at Sierra Club begin launching harsh attacks on Senator McCain as soon as it seemed likely that he would be the GOP nominee.

In February, when the League of Conservation Voters released its 2007 scorecard, Senator McCain was given a zero rating because he missed all of the scored votes. Sierra Club President Carl Pope issued a statement at the time saying that McCain’s zero rating “exposed a lifetime pattern of voting with polluters and special interests.”

Call me crazy, but I thought it just exposed the fact that he was busy campaigning for president and missed the votes.

Now, interestingly enough, just yesterday, LCV issued its 2008 scorecard. Senator Obama received a score of 18 because he missed 9 of the 11 scored votes while he was out campaigning.

I look forward to seeing Mr. Pope’s characterization of that score.

I mention this because I think such harsh partisanship from the environmental community serves to further polarize environmental issues along political lines at a time when bipartisan support is needed, just as it was when we passed the landmark environmental laws of the 1970s, if we are to enact climate legislation that can be sustained long-term, regardless of which way the political winds are blowing.

Senator McCain also has a long record of leadership on public lands issues.

Most of you probably know that Senator McCain’s hero and role model is Theodore Roosevelt. This is especially true when it comes to environmental stewardship. His close friend, the late Congressman Mo Udall, also shaped Senator McCain’s stewardship ethic.

Senator McCain and Congressman Udall worked together to protect 3.4 million acres of Arizona wilderness. Senator McCain has been a champion of the Grand Canyon, fighting successfully for legislation to protect the canyon from noisy aircraft overflights. He currently has the Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River bill in an omnibus public lands package that the Senate plans to vote on in November.

Thus far, Senator Obama has not taken an active leadership role in wilderness, parks, or other public lands issues.

Climate change and public lands issues are areas where there is a clear difference between the candidates in experience, focus, and leadership, but there are also some real differences in policy direction that have gotten very little play in the media.

One of these has to do with the candidates’ approach to water projects.

In 2006 and 2007, Senator McCain, along with Russ Feingold, sponsored a bill and two legislative amendments to require independent prioritization and review of Army Corps of Engineers water projects. Lacking such prioritization and oversight, Corps projects are often wasteful, pork barrel boondoggles that destroy rivers and wetlands and siphon valuable dollars away from more worthy projects.

Senator Obama opposed the McCain–Feingold Corps reform amendments.

Senator McCain supports farm policy reform to address costly, outdated, and environmentally harmful subsidy programs. Senator Obama has supported the status quo.

Senator McCain opposes an effort to add wind damage coverage to the already financially troubled National Flood Insurance Program. Adding wind coverage to NFIP would put the program deeper in the red and encourage development in ecologically fragile, hurricane-prone coastal areas by having taxpayers across the country underwrite the risk of such development.

Senator Obama favors adding wind damage coverage to NFIP.

Senator McCain has promised to end the destructive practice of mountaintop removal coal mining, which—as has been highlighted at this conference—is destroying the Appalachian landscape and has resulted in thousands of miles of streams being buried by the overburden.

Senator Obama has been considerably less committal about this issue.

Since energy has been such a high profile focus of the campaigns, I’m sure most of you are aware of the major distinctions between the two candidates’ energy policies. So, in the interest of time I’m just going to make a few points.

While much of the talk has centered around offshore drilling and nuclear energy, it is important to point out that Senator McCain has a very balanced energy plan that is fully integrated with his climate change policy.

He is committed to quickly shifting our transportation sector away from oil by dramatically improving fuel efficiency and relying more on alternative fuels. He believes that electric hybrids and flex-fuel capability are keys to this. He supports accelerating the development and use of cellulosic ethanol.

His support for nuclear energy is rooted is his commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He is not convinced that we can meet our energy needs in a climate-friendly way unless we expand our use of nuclear energy.

Senator McCain opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as does Senator Obama.

The Obama campaign continually attacks Senator McCain by claiming he opposes tax credits for wind and solar. While he has voted against specific bills for various reasons, he wants to rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits and provide an even-handed system of credits that will remain in place until a cap on carbon emissions can transform the market.

Anyone who tries to compare Senator McCain’s stewardship ethic and his energy and environmental policies to President Bush is simply not being honest. The differences are dramatic, whether the issue is climate change, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, CAFE standards, Tongass logging subsidies, heck, even the role of science in informing public policy—and those differences have positively impacted the tone and substance of the GOP platform.

In 1908, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was busy implementing his great conservation vision for America—and protecting our nation’s natural heritage more than any other president before or since.

Now, exactly 100 years later, we have an opportunity to elect another Republican, cut from a similar mold, who believes that conservation is conservative, who cherishes our public lands, and who is passionate about the stewardship obligation we owe future generations.

Thank you.

Xe Bang Fai River Cave, Laos

Take a look at the pictures of this cave at the National Geographic site.

HT: Geology.com News

Grace and Peace

Ice-free Arctic

I was watching CNN today (not something I normally do; I was standing in a line at the post office) and the story was about record melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The prediction was that the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer within five years.

And I was reading Geology.com News today (which is something I normally do). There was a link to the Geological Survey of Norway, with an article by Gudmund Løvø entitled Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago.

Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.

The scientists studied ancient beaches along the northern coast of Greenland. Two distinct types of beaches were studied. Beaches formed when pack-ice is present tend to have an irregular character, formed when ridges of ice are pressed against the sandy shoreline. Beaches formed where there is open water, on the other hand, tend to be long and linear, formed as linear waves break along a long stretch of the shore. Shorelines from 6000-7000 years ago are of the linear type, suggesting that there was open water for a considerable distance northward from Greenland, perhaps even to the North Pole.

I’m not a global warming denier, which bothers some of my friends. I do believe that human activities are affecting Earth’s climate. This does point out, however, the importance of geological studies of Quaternary (ice age to present) climate systems. Whatever is happening today, even if caused by humans, can only be fully understood in its geological context.

Grace and Peace

Cicada molting

A cicada molting, from the Wikipedia Picture of the Day archive.

Grace and Peace

Saturn, rings, and moons

From today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: Saturn, its rings edge-on, and four moons:

Grace and Peace

Why Evangelicals and other Christians should not vote for Obama

Read Obama’s Abortion Extremism, by Robert George.

The press reports that many pro-life people say they will be voting for Obama. The Obama message is that his social programs will reduce the need for abortions. In reality, Obama is the most pro-abortion senator, and the most pro-abortion presidential candidate, we have ever had, and all restrictions on abortion would disappear.

If you consider yourself even somewhat pro-life, read Obama’s Abortion Extremism before casting your ballot. In terms of the rights of the unborn, this election is indeed critical.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals – who aggressively promote Obama’s candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

Robert George picks apart the Obama rhetoric about reducing the need for abortions through social programs, and goes through Obama’s statements and voting record, which includes the following:

• Favors federal funding for abortions, which, according to the abortion industry could double the number of abortions in this country. And you and I would be paying for it.
• Favors the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would sweep away existing restrictions on abortion through all nine months.
• Opposed the ban on full term partial-birth abortions.
• Opposed legislation that would protect children born alive during an abortion. Better to throw them in the trash can, according to Obama. The federal version of this legislation passed the senate unanimously before Obama was in the senate, receiving support from even the most ardent supporters of abortion.
• Obama not only supports embryonic stem cell research on a large scale, he opposed spending on promising non-embryonic research programs that would have removed the ethical problems of using human embryos. “It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.”
• Obama opposes parental consent and notification laws (the school nurse cannot give a child a painkiller, but the girl can get an abortion without parental consent or notification)

Abortion is the most critical moral issue facing us. There are many other important issues, but we cannot take the giant step backwards that an Obama administration would bring.

The Republicans in the past thirty some years have not done all that the pro-life movement has hoped for, but it could have been much worse. An Obama administration, for all its talk about “hope,” would be a disaster for the most helpless ones in our society.

HT: Gene Edward Veith

Grace and Peace

Rub’ al Khali

An image of sand dunes and interdune salt flats from Rub’ al Khali, the Empty Quarter of the Arabian Peninsula. This vast sandy desert covers large parts of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

This image was on NASA’s Image of the Day Gallery for October 20, 2008. Take a look at it there to see the image in its detailed glory.

Grace and Peace

Clean coal

The phrase “clean coal” came up in all three presidential debates. So what is clean coal? The Christian Science Monitor has a brief article describing the concept. The concern now, of course, isn’t just that burning coal releases acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, or that burning coal is a major source of mercury contamination, or that surface mining of coal is rather hard on landscapes and water. The concern is that burning coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The idea behind “clean coal” is to take the CO₂ produced by combustion of coal, and to inject it underground for long-term storage. This has been tested on a small scale, but never been tested on a large scale.

Coal, being particularly abundant in the United States, is likely to be a key part of our energy future for quite some time.

Read more about it at What is ‘clean coal’ anyway?

Both McCain and Obama support the development of clean coal technology.

Grace and Peace

More Pickens

Pickens plan video — a plan to use natural gas for transportation, wind power for electricity generation, and to reduce the U.S. expenditures for imported petroleum by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

HT: Geology News

Grace and Peace

Granite tables and countertops

McDonalds restaurants in Romania are superior to McDonalds in the U.S.A. The food is better, the service is better, they ask which Happy Meal toy your child wants, and… the tables are made out of beautiful SOLID GRANITE!

If it weren’t for “Super Size Me,” these tables would be enough to make any geologist eat at McDonalds every day. I didn’t eat there every day, but occasionally I would be there with students, and I would be sure to point out the granite tables. I would point out the potassium feldspar, quartz, amphiboles, and accessory minerals. I would show them the zoning in the feldspar crystals, and tell them that each mineral grain had a story to tell. I’d also point out that the table was probably somewhat radioactive, but at a level low enough that they really didn’t have to worry about it.

Earth Magazine has an article on this same topic: Granite Countertops: NOT Silent Killers.

Granite does contain elevated levels of uranium and thorium, and it releases tiny amounts of radioactive radon gas, which is the second leading cause of lung cancer after tobacco. But the radiation emitted by granite is generally at a level well within safety limits, and it is good to test your home for radon whether or not you have granite in the kitchen, as naturally-occuring radon seeping up from the ground is a greater risk than granite countertops. I wouldn’t recommend sleeping on a granite slab in an enclosed box every night for twenty years, but you are far more likely to die from the Big Macs and fries that are served on the granite table than from the radiation that table emits.

Grace and Peace

Enceladus close up

A dramatic image of Enceladus, one of the moons of Saturn, taken by the Cassini probe last week:

The description from Astronomy Picture of the Day, October 14, 2008:

Explanation: What creates the unusual tiger stripes on Saturn’s moon Enceladus? No one is sure. To help find out, scientists programmed the robotic Cassini spacecraft to dive right past the plume-spewing moon last week. Previously, the tiger stripe regions were found to be expelling plumes of water-ice, fueling speculation that liquid seas might occur beneath Enceladus’ frozen exterior. Such seas are so interesting because they are candidates to contain extraterrestrial life. Important processes in tiger stripe formation may include heating from below and moonquakes. Visible above is terrain on Enceladus so young that only a few craters are visible. This newly released raw image shows at least one type of false artifact, however, as seeming chains of craters are not so evident in other concurrently released images of the same region. The large tiger stripe across the image middle is impressive not only for its length and breadth, but because a large internal shadow makes it also appear quite deep. Cassini will next fly by Enceladus on October 31.

Grace and Peace

Constipated astronauts?

LiveScience.com: Space Station Toilet Breaks Again.

More ridiculousness of Religulous

Stand to Reason Blog has another review of “Religulous.” Here are a few excerpts from Religulous is Ridiculous:

Watching Bill Maher’s supposed expose of the irrationality of religion “Religulous” is like being hit over the head with a club for 90 minutes.  Not even a baseball bat.  A club.  Because it’s so atrociously dull, heavy-handed, and crude.  And I don’t mean crude in the rude sense, though there is some of that.  Maher’s evaluation of and arguments against religion are crude and are only used as a club to beat people.  He says at the beginning that he’s a skeptic looking for answers, but that’s a ruse that he makes explicit in the last five minutes when he expresses his evangelistic goals for his movie. 

The movie is made by the man who made “Borat.”  And it’s really the same kind of movie.  A clown does absurd things to get a reaction out of unsuspecting people.  Only this time the clown doesn’t realize the part he’s playing.

Again, don’t take a movie like this as a serious attack on Christian faith. It doesn’t address the real issues. The creators of the film found Christians, and other religious people, who say silly things. So what? I can find historians who say silly things about Abraham Lincoln, but does that mean Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. But we should also not be confused or have our faith weakened by these attacks.

Grace and Peace

More atheist drivel: Religulous

The title of the movie “Religulous,” starring comedian Bill Maher, is a combination of “Religious” and “Ridiculous.” Like most of the bitter propaganda coming out of the atheist camp in the past few years, this movie will reinforce the anti-Christian attitudes among the atheists and their allies, but the content of the film is intellectually indefensible.

Here are two excerpts from a movie review by Mark Hemingway:

Still, it’s never taken much to scratch the surface of Maher’s glib opinions to expose the underlying dermatitis of vanity, egoism, and even outright hostility. Maher apparently thinks he doesn’t show enough of these unflattering traits when he discusses politics; that’s just about the only conceivable reason someone of his temperament would make a documentary about religion.

And thus was born Religulous. It’s hard to pin down where Maher falls along the atheist-to-agnostic spectrum, except to say he’s an avowed opponent of organized religion, which he has described as a “neurological disorder.” (Maher serves on the board of Sam Harris’s Reason Project with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, which directly links him with the three biggest atheist intellectuals in the world.)

Of course, Bill Maher is also on the board of PETA, thinks milk is poisonous, and has stated that he doesn’t believe in vaccination or that Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease is correct. So while he may not believe in God, the idea that Bill Maher is somehow in a position to judge whose beliefs are reasonable is kind of laughable. 

Particularly when Maher thinks he knows so much more about the target of his opprobrium than he actually does. He makes his first mistake in the first line of the movie by referring to the “Book of Revelations” — it’s not plural — and it just snowballs from there. 

Within a few minutes Maher is denying not just the divinity of Jesus Christ but his actual historical existence, a question disputed by almost no credible scholar. You can argue that it is difficult to believe in Jesus’s existence considering that primary records for his existence are recorded by only a precious few devoted disciples who recorded his allegorical teachings in detail as well as the social unrest they inspired. Then again, if that’s the standard – you probably don’t believe Socrates either. 

[Underlining in the original]

And:

Maher doesn’t confront one serious theologian or apologetics expert in the entire film. Not One.

Don’t let your faith in Christ or in the Bible be shaken by these guys. They come across as confident and intelligent, but their arguments against Christ and the Bible don’t stand up.

HT: Stand to Reason Blog

Grace and Peace

Montana snow!

We traveled to Billings, Montana for the weekend. It started snowing Thursday night as we were driving there, and didn’t stop until some time Sunday, for a total of 22 inches (56 cm). We were able to build snow men, have a snow ball fight, make a snow maze in the park, and go cross-country skiing. We had a blast!

Let it snow!

Grace and Peace

Rays on Mercury

The NASA MESSENGER probe flew by Mercury for the second time on October 6th. It flew by Mercury earlier this year, will fly by one more time in 2009, and will enter orbit around the planet in 2011.

Here’s an image taken yesterday:

Some parts of Mercury’s surface revealed in this have never been photographed in detail before. One type of feature that stands out are the rays, composed of ejecta from impact craters.

Mercury is the least-well known of the terrestrial planets. We know considerably more about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn than we do about Mercury.

Source: NASA MESSENGER home page.

Grace and Peace

Following more wrong footprints

The speaker at the young-Earth creationist seminar I’m attending also referred to the Robledos Mountains human footprint, allegedly found in Permian rocks of New Mexico. Again, I’m highly skeptical.

Here it is:

If this were genuine, it would be the most precious fossil in the entire world. It would be in a glass case in a museum, sort of like moon rocks.

Where is this “fossil” now? Why is it not available for scientific examination, even by creationist organizations? I know ICR has scientists who would be competent to examine this object. It would not be difficult to demonstrate whether or not it were a genuine human footprint. Footprints depress the laminations in the mud beneath the feet, whereas carved footprints cut through the laminations. It would also be fairly easy to determine if the rock itself matched the mineralogy of the Permian rocks in the NM mountain range, or if it were from somewhere else.

It looks fake to me. Try walking barefoot in the sand or mud some time. Your footprint will not look like this; it will have more of an impression near the toes and your arch will be almost absent. Perhaps if you very carefully place your foot straight down in the mud, it might look sort of like this. Maybe. But who, in the middle of a world wide Flood, is going to stop and carefully push their foot down into the mud?

Sigh.

Grace and Peace

Image from www.bible.ca

Following the wrong footprints

I’ve been attending a seminar presented by a smaller young-Earth creationist organization. I respect the speakers for their commitment to the inerrancy of Scriptures, and their proclamation of the gospel. I share their trust in the Bible, and my heart is lifted any time I hear Christ proclaimed as God’s sacrifice to take away our sins; the only way to God.

The first seminar was a good presentation of design in the living world and how it points to God. Whether one buys into intelligent design or not (I mostly do), the marvels of creation should never fail to amaze us.

Last night, I attended the session on “Dinosaurs and the Flood.” Most of it was what I expected, having read a lot of young-Earth creationist literature. Dinosaurs, of course, are interesting to people of all ages, and there were a lot of young children in attendance; no doubt they were fascinated to be able to touch the fossils on display out in the hallway.

The promotional flyer for the weekend had a quote: “Evolution is the number one reason students give me for rejecting the Gospel” That may be true. There is a naturalistic philosophy that many attach to evolution that is in opposition to the Gospel; this is clear in the bitter arguments of the “new atheists.” I would contend that this naturalistic philosophy is not a necessary part of evolution. I would like to counter with this: “Young-Earth Creationism is the number one reason scientists give for rejecting the Gospel.” I haven’t taken a survey, but this statement might not be too far from the truth.

I’ll give an example.

I was surprised at the seminar when the speaker brought up some “evidences” for dinosaurs and humans coexisting that have been repudiated by the two major young-Earth creationist organizations. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, one of the prominent arguments for Flood geology—the idea that Noah’s Flood was responsible for most of the geologic column—was the Paluxy River footprints. These are dinosaur footprints preserved in the Cretaceous Glen Rose formation in Texas, not too far from Fort Worth. Creationists claimed that there were fossilized human tracks in the rocks as well, and entire books and movies were made about these trace fossils. The evidence against this, however, was so overwhelming that the Institute for Creation Research backed away from the claim in the mid 1980s. All of the “human” footprints turned out to be either dinosaur footprints or frauds (or ambiguous, some would say). This is still the position of ICR, and it is also the position of the other large U.S. young-Earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis. AiG lists the Paluxy River tracks on their “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use” page.

To use these arguments will only drive scientifically-minded people away from the Gospel, not draw them to it.

I asked the speaker about why he used the Paluxy tracks in his talk, and he said that he talked to a forensic scientist who thinks some of these really are human. If this is true, then why do ICR and AiG still reject the “evidence?” And how much does this forensic scientist know about geology? Probably not much.

I am concerned about two things:

• First, I am concerned with how this sort of presentation affects our young people: the teens in the crowd, and the little kids who were in the hallway touching the fossils. If they are taught that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and that these tracks are proof (and therefore that the tracks are proof that the Bible is true) then what will happen when they go off to college and find out that it just isn’t so? I fear that our youth are being set up for a fall.
• Second, presentation of material like this will drive scientists away from Christ needlessly. Let it be the Gospel that is foolish (1 Cor 3:19), not our arguments.

In a future post, I’ll write about how footprints in stone—whether dinosaur, human, or any other type of terrestrial creature—don’t fit into a young-Earth creationist Flood geology scenario anyways.

Grace and Peace

Image: Paluxy River dinosaur footprints, Wikipedia: Paluxy River, photographer: Robert Nunnally

Corn maze 2

We went to the eight acre Denver Botanic Gardens corn maze today (as I mentioned yesterday). It was fun; not only to do the maze, but to be out in a field. Any escape from the city is good. The corn was not planted as densely as in the one other corn maze I’ve been to, which made it easier for some people to make shortcuts through the rows of corn. Eventually, as more people take the new paths, it will be difficult to tell which paths are authentic, and which are cheats, which takes away a bit of the fun. Still, it was a good family outing.

Grace and peace

Solar prominence

Today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: a solar prominence.

Watch the movie here.

Explanation: On September 29, this magnificent eruptive solar prominence lifted away from the Sun’s surface, unfurling into space over the course of several hours. Suspended in twisted magnetic fields, the hot plasma structure is many times the size of planet Earth and was captured in this view by the Sun-watching STEREO (Ahead) spacecraft.

Grace and peace

Green elephants

In my previous post, I explained that I was born a Republican. If you know me at all, you know that I am also a strong advocate for the environment. I like clean air, clean water, biodiversity, sustainability, alternative energy sources, simple life styles, and wild places. Is “environmentalist Republican” an oxymoron? By no means! Sustainability, economic or environmental, should be considered a conservative value. Greed and consumption are not inherent to—nor limited to—conservatism.

The group Republicans for Environmental Protection is a minority group within the Republican Party. To some, it is part of the “moderate wing” of the Republican party, but I think the views expressed by REP are squarely in line with conservative philosophies.

Let’s take this for a starting point: George W. Bush’s environmental policies have been, for the most part, a disaster (see Bush’s sorry environmental record on the REP site). Air and water quality in this nation are much better than they were in 1970, when the Environmental Protection Agency was formed. They are better not just because we are wealthy and can afford the “luxury” of clean air and water, but primarily because of legislation, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. The Bush administration has worked hard, however, to roll back the clock on these important pieces of legislation. Having lived for most of the past six years in Eastern Europe, where the communists had no regard for the environment, has strengthened my conviction that clean air and water are worth protecting. I am convinced that President Bush, and Vice President Cheney, don’t share this conviction. The same could be said for the protection of wild lands and wildlife.

This is out of line with conservative principles. Teddy Roosevelt, for example, was one of the great champions of setting aside land for preservation. Here are some quotes from some great conservatives on the environment:

“While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean, pollution-free environment.” — Barry Goldwater

“Nothing is more conservative than conservation.” — Russell Kirk

“Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destructive trespass of pollution” — Ronald Reagan

“Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.” — Theodore Roosevelt

Some might object that Ronald Reagan is not normally thought of as an environmentalist, and in some ways I can’t argue. But the principles expressed in these quotes, such as viewing pollution as a trespass on other’s property rights, are clearly both conservative and environmentalist.

Before I get too far, I need to mention that John McCain is on the honorary board of Republicans for Environmental Protection, as was his fellow Arizonan Barry Goldwater. John McCain would be the greenest Republican president in a long time.

Here are samples of statements and policies promoted by Republicans for Environmental Protection:

National Forests:

• America’s system of national forests, founded and expanded by Republican presidents, is a priceless heritage that must be conserved for the benefit of today’s Americans and future generations.
• Maintain forests in healthy condition in perpetuity.
• End large-scale commercial commodity timber sales and all harvest quotas.
• Designate protected reserves, including all roadless areas 1,000 acres in size or larger, all old-growth stands, essential habitat corridors, Eastern forests recovering old-growth characteristics, and areas that provide outstanding recreation opportunities.
• Designate as wilderness all protected reserves meeting National Wilderness Preservation System standards.
• Establish policies giving rural, small-scale, independently-owned, community-oriented wood products enterprises preference for forest restoration project contracts.

Oceans:

• The world’s oceans, and the resources they contain, have been called the last frontier on earth. Indeed, the surface of Mars is probably better understood today than are ocean depths only a few miles away. Yet the biological riches of the oceans are currently being exploited at a rate that has already depleted them of many fish stocks, with many other marine organisms in imminent danger of exhaustion. Emphasis must also be given to the critical role the oceans play in regulating global climate, oxygen supplies, and temperatures. The oceans may be the world’s single most vital natural resource complex.
• Establish a moratorium on all depleted marine species (or regions of extraction), to the extent consistant with legal and treaty obligations, until such time as stocks are sufficiently re-established.
• Institute a worldwide ban on dynamite, cyanide, long-line, and other destructive methods of fishing.
• Bring nutrient discharges under the regulatory provisions of the Clean Water Act, to help control coastal algal blooms.

Wetlands:

• Wetlands are one of America’s most valuable assets. They are among our most productive and economically important ecosystems, yet we have been converting them to other uses at an alarming rate. Numerous scientific bodies have recommended that protecting those that remain should be a high national priority.
• Wetland protection and rehabilitation should be accorded a high priority in all federal, state, and local planning documents and policy statements. The loss of wetlands to agriculture and urban sprawl should stop.
• Floodplains should be left undeveloped wherever possible. Any type of “flood-control” project that protects less than the full natural floodplain leaves adjacent areas vulnerable to significant future flood damages. Local jurisdictions should utilize tools such as zoning to prevent encroachment into floodplains.
• If loss of wetlands is unavoidable and mitigation is the only recourse, mitigation should always occur at greater than a one-to-one ratio. (The exact ratio should depend on the type of wetland and specific on-site factors.) This is because experience has shown that not all wetlands restoration projects will be fully successful.

Water Quality:

• There have been significant improvements in our nation’s waters since passage of the Federal Clean Water Act in 1972. In general, industrial and municipal wastewater dischargers are no longer the major polluters they once were. The Federal Clean Water Act, EPA regulations, and state laws and regulations have contributed greatly to improvements in water quality. However, individual facilities may still be causing violations of water quality standards and strong actions must be taken by EPA and state water quality regulatory agencies to enforce compliance. To do otherwise would represent a step backward in time and jeopardize gains made over the last 30 years. Additional regulatory activities also need to focus on stormwater and nonpoint source runoff issues, which now account for about 80 percent of the nation’s impaired lakes and streams.
• Republicans stand for limited government, value personal freedom when accompanied by self-discipline, and support imposition of government regulation only where demonstrated needs exist. The reason our country has needed environmental regulations is that some sectors of our society and some individuals have failed to maintain self-discipline. Instead, they felt they had inherent rights to use public resources for their own benefit, but assumed no responsibility to ensure such use did not adversely impact either other industries or the health and welfare of the general public. This attitude placed short-term profits ahead of civic and personal responsibility, and led to substantial water pollution problems across the nation.

Energy and Climate Change:

• Energy is the pre-eminent strategic issue facing America today. The choices that our nation makes in the production and use of energy create deep and lasting influences on our economy, our position in the world, and on the natural capital that underpins modern civilization. Making the right energy choices has become crucial. As a result of a convergence of extraordinary geopolitical and environmental circumstances, we are at a moment of both great danger and great opportunity. The conservative ethic of prudence requires us to acknowledge the challenge, and our obligation to be good stewards must impel us to act.
• Oil is embedded in modern human society. Oil has a dark side, however. The U.S. sits atop only 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Yet we consume 25 percent of current global production, about 21 million barrels daily. Much of the world’s production, along with the largest remaining conventional oil reserves, is located in world regions racked by poor governance, chronic instability, and violence.
• The most important step that Congress and the administration must take to reduce oil dependence and lower greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on those emissions, by establishing a market-friendly “cap-and-trade” system. A carbon tax, the leading alternative to cap-and-trade, would not be as effective in sending a market price signal, and therefore, should not be adopted.
• Reducing oil dependence and stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations will require scaling up numerous advanced energy technologies. A strong research and development program is necessary for moving promising technologies out of the lab and into the marketplace.
• Energy efficiency is consistent with conservative values of frugality and stewardship. As the cheapest, cleanest, and most secure energy resource available, efficiency has a strong track record. It’s time to build on that record of success, through measures to increase efficiency in buildings, industry, and transportation.
• Natural gas is a relatively clean fuel for power generation and transportation. Gas can serve as a bridge to a cleaner, more diverse, less carbon-intensive energy economy. Steps should be taken to ensure the most efficient use of this fuel and minimize the impacts of gas production in the Intermountain West.

[I'm open to alternatives to the cap-and-trade proposal; it seems like a bureaucratic nightmare. REP also supports building additional nuclear power plants, as does John McCain. I'd rather find other alternatives. Nuclear fission can be safe, but it also has serious risks. Uranium is a non-renewable, limited natural resource.]

REP has policy papers on other topics as well: takings (i.e. compensation for landowners when regulations affect them), federal public lands, National Wildlife Refuges, Market-based environmental policies, and mercury.

This is already a long post; I could say much more. Take a look at the Republicans for Environmental Protection web site.

Grace and Peace

I was born a Republican

I very rarely venture into politics on this blog. This, in fact, might be the first time.

My father, Keith Nelstead, was a Republican, a one-term member of the Montana House of Representatives (1971), and twice an unsuccessful candidate for Yellowstone County assessor. A great childhood memory of mine is sitting with my dad at his desk in the legislative chamber in Helena while votes were going on, waiting to see if the other legislators would vote the same way my dad did. Another memory is watching the 1968 Republican National Convention on our little black and white television, looking for the sign for the Montana delegation, and maybe even seeing Dad on the convention floor.

My grandfather was a Republican. He served a long time in the Montana legislature, representing Ekalaka and Miles City on and off for much of the 1920s through the 1950s. I suppose my great-great grandparents would have been Republicans too, if only they had had such a thing in mid-nineteenth century Norway.

Once, when my dad was running for office, the unions were about to make their candidate endorsements—a rather predictable outcome in most cases—and my dad actually went to be interviewed by the union officials. They asked him, “Keith, why are you a Republican?” He answered, “I was born a Republican!” Dad didn’t get the union’s endorsement, but neither did his Democrat opponent! (I wasn’t very old; I hope I got the story correct).

So, I guess I was born a Republican too. I often have described myself as an independent, but the truth is I almost always have voted for Republicans. I believe in conservative political values, such as not spending more than one takes in (I wish more Republicans would stick to that). I don’t think the Department of Education has done much positive for K-12 education. I think everyone should have good health insurance, but I think national health insurance would be a step backwards for most of us. I am strongly pro-life, and cannot vote for a candidate (Barack Obama) who has as strong of a pro-abortion voting record as anyone in the Senate.

I don’t agree with everything done by Republicans: I was opposed to the Iraq war (I didn’t see a way out), and I think government regulations have an important role, whether on Wall Street or in taking care of the environment.

I think my political viewpoints are in step with a majority of Americans. Think about it, only two Democrats have won a presidential election in the past forty years! Jimmy Carter only won because of a backlash against the Republicans in the wake of Watergate, and Bill Clinton won on an economic platform that wasn’t all that different than that of his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan (I know that statement will make many cringe from both parties, but I think it is largely true).

I’m voting for John McCain for President. He was my favorite back in the primaries, and I believe he is the better choice for a number of reasons, in terms of both foreign and domestic affairs.

I don’t write this as a wealthy country club Republican; I have spent the past six years serving as a missionary and teacher overseas, and am presently looking for employment in a difficult economy.

I believe John McCain is also a good choice for president in terms of the environment. Read more about it in my next post: Green elephants.

Grace and Peace

Corn maze

Here’s what we’re planning on doing tomorrow: Denver Botanic Gardens Corn Maze

We’ve done this once before, in Iowa (who ever heard of corn in Iowa?). To make a good corn maze, the farmer plants a high density of seeds in two different directions to make it difficult to take shortcuts. I believe the design is not cut into the corn until September. Last year’s design shows up on Google Earth, west of Chatfield State Park:

Here’s a link to a short video from the Denver Post.

Grace and Peace

Good oak

There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.

To avoid the first danger, one should plant a garden, preferably where there is no grocer to confuse the issue.

To avoid the second, he should lay a split of good oak on the andirons, preferably where there is no furnace, and let it warm his shins while a February blizzard tosses the trees outside. If one has cut, split, hauled, and piled his own good oak, and let his mind work the while, he will remember much about where the heat comes from, and with a wealth of detail denied to those who spend the week end in town astride a radiator.

Quote from Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, “February”

(andirons — metal supports for firewood on a hearth or fireplace)

Grace and Peace