Ban Urban Bears?

A recent news headline read: “State may ban bears in urban regions—surging population stirs rising concern”

Questions immediately occurred to me: How? Put up signs? Shoot on Sight?

The content of the article offered no answers, but the thought of “banning” ursine mammals from our cities seems impractical. Just training them to read signs would cost millions; and certainly they would have to be read their Miranda rights before taking drastic action.

Seriously though, there is a problem. There are about 8.5 million people in New Jersey and 1600-3000 black bears, concentrated here in the northern region and to our west. And more and more frequently, the two species meet, not only in the woods, but also in back yards and even on decks and in kitchens. Encounters with people and property can be scary, dangerous and destructive. Imagine coming home to find a broken back door and something big and furry rummaging in your pantry—and it’s not your teenage son. Quite a few New Jersey citizens haven’t just imagined—it has happened to them.

War has been waged at times, not only between man and bear, but between government agencies and between wildlife management officials and humane groups, over whether to have a bear hunt to reduce the population. Would hunting kill mostly “innocent” bears rather than the ones who have caused trouble by being habituated on garbage and birdseed? Would reducing the numbers actually solve the bear “problem?” The debate has gone on for years.

In all my tramping through the fields and forests around here, I have never seen a bruin, but just in case, I have memorized all the advice given for surviving an encounter, including yelling and banging pots and pans together--and in the case of a close encounter, hitting the animal repeatedly on the nose. Trouble is, I keep forgetting to take pots and pans on my hikes. And I would rather not have to resort to swatting a bear's schnoz with my $3000 camera. Have you priced camera repair services lately?

Actually, bears are our friends. Before sin entered the world they were strict vegetarians, and even now stick mainly to fruits and other plant material in their diet. They also eat carrion, so they help to clean up dead things and curb disease. There is a problem with livestock and with occasional attacks on humans, but over all, the black bear is a beneficial species and one of God’s more intelligent creatures—more so than some newspaper headline writers (?) And the cubs are so cute and cuddly!

Soon, perhaps sooner than we think, the bear problem, as well as all other problems, will be solved--but only for true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ at His return. (Isaiah 11:6-9) (Rev. Chapters 21-22)

p.s. The Newark Bears are our local Minor League baseball team. Could that headline writer have been thinking of them? Nah!

...and Then I Turned to the Last Page

In yesterday’s post I got excited about an article in the latest issue of Scientific American, America’s premier popular science journal. The article about savant syndrome and the brain was very useful. Unfortunately, after glowing about that article, I made the mistake of turning to the last page of the magazine, where I was confronted by Steve Mirsky’s editorial piece entitled “The Trials of Life.” Right off I thought, “Here we go.” The word “trial” was a clue to where this thing was going. The sub-title read, "Because eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, we have to talk about Intelligent Design again, sorry."

Before launching into a bunch of misrepresentations of ID and the Dover, Pennsylvania ID trial, Mr. Mirsky proceeded to characterize creation science as “oxymoronic and just plain moronic, and ID as a subtle form of creationism that refuses to identify the designer, “but," he sardonically adds, "it rhymes with Todd.” He then makes a demeaning sexist remark comparing the bacterial flagellum ("a whippy little tail") to a couple of well-known Hollywood actresses.

Now I ask you, what is this very unscientific, sarcastic, insulting piece of non-literature doing in a supposedly respectable scientific journal?

Then I flipped over the page to its reverse side and witnessed an amazing bit of irony: the “Ask the Experts” column entitled, “How and why do fireflies light up?” Here, on the very same sheet of paper as the anti-ID rant is a description of one of the most obviously irreducibly complex pieces of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry in the animal kingdom. Firefly bioluminescence has been the subject of scores of research projects and journal articles over the past several decades, attempting to figure out the anatomy and chemistry of the phenomenon. And the more that is known, the more amazing it becomes. In fact the anatomy of these insects—in fact, any insect—is so complex, so unique, that some well-known scientist (Fred Hoyle, as I recall) declared that insects must have come from outer space—they couldn’t have evolved on Planet Earth.

Back to Mr. Mirsky’s subtitle: “Because eternal vigilance is the price of liberty…” What kind of liberty are we talking about? The liberty to demean and insult anyone who questions Darwinian orthodoxy, but not the liberty to mention, in a government school classroom, the idea that there just might be Someone whose name rhymes with “Todd”?

A Fortuitous Split-Brain Find

My December issue of Scientific American arrived today and, much to my delight, it contains an article entitled, "Inside the Mind of a Savant." It features the rather famous savant, Kim Peek, now 54 years old. The reason for my interest involves a book that I have been TRYING to write for the last six years, one theme of which has to do with the pre-Fall mind of Adam. The thesis behind this is that, pre-Fall and pre-Curse, Adam's mental capacity would surely have been remarkably keener than that of our fallen, depraved, sin-infected minds. So I have been investigating (on and off) brain defects that seem to free up the brain to allow the subjects to do amazingly complex things and have extraordinary memories.

One new fact that was brought out in the article was that savants' brains often lack the corpus callosum, the thick band of tissue that connects the two hemispheres of the brain. That is the tissue that is severed in the so-called "split-brain" operation sometimes used to prevent seizures from spreading from one side of the brain to the other. The other interesting fact is that some "normal" people lack the corpus callosum--and their brains work just fine. This has fascinating implications for my research. Did Adam's brain have the corpus? Is the corpus a result of the Fall? I realize this is a far-out thought, but it is surely worth thinking about.

Another reason that this subject is so interesting is that I have been using the split-brain as an analogy for the relationship of science and religion. But I'll leave an analysis of that analogy for another bloggeration (I think I just coined a term there :-) In fact I just may change the name of my blog...

p.s. I just Googled for "bloggeration" and had several hits--so I guess I missed out on claiming ownership of a neologism. But I think I'll use it anyway.

Don't Drift From The Solas!

The photo to the left illustrates perfectly what happens when a church drifts away from or actively abandons the five solas of the gospel: that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on the merits of Christ alone, as revealed in Scripture alone, and giving glory to God alone.

When a pattern of water stains under a bridge overpass is perceived to be an image of the virgin Mary, it is venerated and prayed to by thousands--an act of pure idolatry, or perhaps pure superstition, both of which are condemned by scripture. What false hope is generated when the truth of the God-breathed Bible is added to or subtracted from.

Only by adhering to the five "alones" do we have the sweet truth that we have a Savior who really saves, without the help of His earthly mother or the excess merit of her and some super-saints.

We should honor Mary for the saintly woman she was and for the eternally valuable service she performed in giving birth to the Savior, not because she can add anything to our salvation.

Hi-tech Productivity?

I must say that having a modern high-powered computer that allows multi-tasking is a pleasure. Presently, I have a Real Player window open showing a webcam view of a sleeping panda cub, a web page on which I am reading James White’s response to Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code,” as well as this Word document with which to post this blog.

The panda just twitched, so I know he’s still alive (sometimes it’s hard to tell) and Dr. White is proceeding to demolish Mr. Brown’s fabrication of church history. Check it out at http://www.aomin.org/

The question is, “will this habit of multi-tasking actually improve my writing productivity?” Perhaps a #2 pencil and a scratch pad would serve better.

…and now for a Weather Bug update, an email check--and maybe a game of solitaire :-)

Don't Worry, My Photosynthetic Friends!

New Jersey Classifies Carbon Dioxide as Air Contaminant
Furthering New Jersey’s commitment to combat climate change, Acting Governor Richard J. Codey adopted regulations classifying carbon dioxide as an air contaminant. The new classification was announced October 18, 2005, and amends several air pollution control rules. This announcement facilitates the state’s engagement in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which aims to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions across nine Northeastern states.

This remarkable statement reminds me of the old one about Dihydrogen Oxide being the major component of acid rain. Dihydrogen Oxide is, of course, water. Now what about Carbon Dioxide? It is a regular, albeit small (.04%) component of air. Classifying it as a contaminant seems odd, to put it mildly. After all, it is an absolutely vital component, upon which all life on Earth depends. It is one of the compounds that plants use to manufacture just about 100% of the world’s food supply, by the process of photosynthesis.

Now it is true that the percentage of CO2 is rising due to the burning of fossil fuels; and the increase is somewhat contributing to global warming (how much is a matter of great debate.) But referring to an absolutely essential substance as a contaminant is semantic foolishness. Every green plant must be shaking in its roots and wondering, “what are they trying to do to us?”

Don’t worry, my green friends, they won’t be “decontaminating” your atmosphere for a long time. I can assure you that much, with every breath I exhale, a breath rich in--Carbon Dioxide!

p.s. The photo: a portion of a skunk cabbage leaf. Click on the image to see a larger version. If you look closely, you may be able to see irregularities, which are individual cells. I like this photo so much that I use it as my Windows desktop wallpaper. And used thusly, the odor is barely noticeable :-)

An Interesting Saturday Morning

Saturday, November 05, 2005

This morning, as I usually do on Saturday, I glanced through (online) the book review section of the New York Times to see what was on the non-fiction bestseller list. I read the first chapters (or as much as they give you) of several books on the list, including Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, about Lincoln’s cabinet, Jung Chang’s Mao: The Unknown Story and Charles C. Mann’s 1491, which, surprisingly, begins with Pilgrim/Indian relations in the 1620s. All three of these first chapter excerpts were attention grabbers and exemplified good historical writing, though somewhat different in style. And even these brief glimpses offered much insight into the historical periods represented. I should do more reading in history, even entire books, rather than merely free samples.

I also read ICR Daily devotional online. This one was particularly meaningful (actually, they are all very meaningful, as they are based on God’s Word) so I will preserve it here:

One God November 5, 2005
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).
This great verse has been recited countless times by Israelites down through the centuries, setting forth their distinctive belief in one great Creator God. The Jews had retained their original belief in creation, handed down from Noah, while the other nations had all allowed their original monotheistic creationism to degenerate into a wide variety of religions, all basically equivalent to the polytheistic evolutionism of the early Sumerians at Babel.
But along with its strong assertion of monotheism, there is also a very real suggestion that this declaration, with its thrice-named subject, is also setting forth the Triune God. The name, "Lord," of course, is Yahweh, or Jehovah, the self-existing One who reveals Himself, while "God" is Elohim, the powerful Creator/Ruler. "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" is the proclamation. A number of respected Jewish commentators have acknowledged that the verse spoke of a "unified oneness," rather than an "absolute oneness." The revered book called the Zohar, for example, even said that the first mention was of the Father; the second one the Messiah; and the third, the Holy Spirit.
The key word "one" (Hebrew, achad) is often used to denote unity in diversity. For example, when Eve was united to Adam in marriage, they were said to be "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Similarly, on the third day of creation, the waters were " gathered together unto one place," yet this gathering together was called "Seas" (i.e., more than one sea; Genesis 1:9-10).
Thus, Israel's great declaration should really be understood as saying in effect: "The eternally omnipresent Father, also Creator and Sustainer of all things, is our unified self-revealing Lord." HMM

I then spent way too much time watching the longest interaction to date between mother and cub giant pandas, live via webcam from the National Zoo. Mei Xian and Tai Shan cuddled and played, licked and pawed for a half hour or so. The cub is reaching toward 16 pounds and is becoming more active every day. This is an amazing phenomenon to watch, and a rare one, as only 4 panda cubs have been raised successfully in the US. The next time I checked the webcam, Tai had collapsed into a heap, exhausted after his extended playtime. Pandas sleep a lot, due to their low energy level. A diet of bamboo doesn’t provide a lot of energy.
The photo of Tai Shan was taken during a recent medical exam.

Evolutionary Party Line

Last night I attended a Fyke Nature Association (local bird and conservation club) meeting and heard a fellow science educator's talk / PowerPoint presentation about his trip to the Galapagos. In general, the man did a fine job, having photographed a large number of the species and habitats of several of the islands.

But, as might have been expected, he concentrated on the finches and their "rapid evolutionary changes" brought about by climate changes (wet and dry spells.) "See how fast evolution can happen--within only a few years beaks became bigger or smaller by natural selection!"

Of course that wasn't evolution at all, but slight variations in beak size, with populations increasing and decreasing as food supplies to which each species of finch was adapted became more or less plentiful. When the weather conditions reversed, so did the populations of big and little-beaked finches. So "evolution" goes nowhere. Yes, there is natural selection, but it can't cause any large-scale changes because it doesn't add any new information, but merely selects from genes already present. In fact, as genes are selected for survival in a particular environmental niche, information is actually lost, so any large-scale "advancements" are impossible.

So this fellow science educator (he's a chemist, so let's not be too hard on him :-) was following the party line of naturalistic Darwinism, probably not having really thought out the problems inherent in the "theory."

Late in the talk, he asked the question, "how did this come about?" Someone in the audience shouted, mockingly or out of ignorance, "intelligent design!" which was received with equally mocking laughter from the audience. The speaker chortled, "Yea, right," or something to that effect.

The audience and the speaker had just mocked The Intelligent Designer and had become inexcusable, according to Romans 1:18-20. So, much prayer is necessary as to how to approach these very nice (in the human sense) people who have "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." (Romans 1:23) Perhaps some idolotrous birder will happen upon this humble blog and be encouraged to open a Bible instead of a Sibley (that's almost a private birding joke.)

p.s. Perhaps I should quote the entire relevant passage so you won’t have to go to the trouble of looking it up (although that would more a blessing than trouble, especially if you read it in the context of all of Romans Chapter 1—and then keep reading.) But here is the immediate context, after the reading of which you will have no excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Romans 1:18-23 NASB)

More Dishonest Editing

As I reported in my September 9 post, a letter to the editor I had written was edited by the newspaper's staff in such a way as to change the whole point and thrust of the original. As the Intelligent Design Movement continued to be denegrated by further editorials, I wrote another letter, this time limiting it to exactly 200 words, so there would be no excuse for "editing for length."

The results were shocking. Not only did the editors add some of their own material, but they eliminated a key quote, thus again severely altering the meaning of my letter. I would call this a case of irresponsible and dishonest editorial policy and practice.

So what is a person to do? Write more letters to the editor? Write to the editors, complaining about their policies and practices? Cancel my subscription? Well, the first two are certainly possibilities. Cancelling my subscription would only cut myself off from further debate. And besides, I must have my daily dose of crossword puzzle therapy and the philosophical enlightenment of Ziggy cartoons :-)

Once a Month?

I seem to be settling in on about one blog entry a month--not prolific to be sure. But I have other journal entries, stored as Word document files. They are mostly related to my writing project, so they would probably be boring or useless to anyone but me, at least in their present form.

Today, however, I decided to celebrate the revival of my new Dell (after 5 hours on the phone and a service call to get it going) by posting here. It is indeed a pleasure using a big, fast machine with a bright 19" flat panel monitor. Getting this machine might actually encourage me to get some serious writing done, an activity that had come to a halt over the past few months.

This morning I concentrated on reading several articles related to the Intelligent Design controversy. The most in-depth and useful was one at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1025nejom.asp It was a response and analysis of an article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Now it's off to do some shopping, so I will have a little something to eat for dinner. The cupboard is bare :-(