Random Thoughts
Canal simulator
We went to a demo of a canal operations simulator up at the Central Arizona Project. It’s sort of like flight-simulator except it’s for operators of canals. You sit down at a real console and conduct operations and react to “field” conditions just as a normal operator would, except that instead of being hooked to the real canal, it’s hooked to a numerical hydraulic model of the canal. It appears to work very well – they said they were pleased with it. Maybe we can do something similar here at SRP.
Eggs, almonds, citrus and garlic
These are some of my high-sensitivity foods, according to a food sensitivity analysis done on my blood last week. In addition, the preliminary results seem to indicate that I’m at least somewhat sensitive to just about everything. I’ll get more details when I go in to see her next week. The naturopathic doctor I’m going to (for the purpose of weight-loss and health-gain) runs these tests as part of her overall evaluation.
Birthers
Birthers are a variety of conspiracy theorists who are still hanging on to the idea that President Obama is not a citizen and should not be allowed to remain as president. James Taranto (Best of the Web Today) has a good summary of why we should discount their claims.
Intelligent Design’s Theological Problem
I’m not much of reader (a situation I long to correct) but I do read readers’ blogs, which provide some insight into interesting books, and occassionally into some side issues. Such is the case with R.C. Sproul’s review of Stephen C. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell.
In his review, Sproul says:
Advocates of intelligent design are directing most of their efforts toward addressing scientific questions and objections. They are not addressing the questions theologians might have about the implications of their work. If they were, it would probably bring more criticism down upon their heads. Be that as it may, Christian theologians do need to ask questions about the implications of their works.
He then talks about a theological error that intelligent design proponents frequently make, which is to say that if it can be explained from laws of nature, then you cannot say it’s designed (which, by the way, is an argument that is not made in Meyer’s book). Sproul argues that this isn’t true:
… God designed things that can be explained in terms of natural laws as well as those that cannot. In fact, God designed the natural laws themselves! God not only designed irreducibly complex biological systems; He designed simple biological systems. He designed everything. It is the failure to deal with this issue adequately that has led many to see in the work of some intelligent design proponents a “God of the gaps” argument.
The “God of the gaps” argument, I assume, is that if you can’t explain it, it must be from God. Does that mean then that if one day you figure it out and can explain it, it no longer is from God? No one would use this argument if they thought about it for a second, and yet I’ve heard it.
The “thinking” behind this may be good-intentioned, that is to give God credit for understanding a whole lot more than we do. But this argument could, and sometimes does, make ID proponents come off looking as blind as evolutionists look. We have to be disciplined in our thinking.
Speaking of evolutionists, my favorite evolutionist quote so far is from George Wald, a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate:
One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. [ref]
What faith he must have!
