Yes, it's true, I am now a published author! After many years of soul searching and prayer, and not a little procrastination, I finally succumbed to the subconscious nagging and wrote up my book on the bioethics of abortion: Finding the Balance: quantitative ethics resolves the abortion issue. After some positive feedback from reviewers and subsequent revisions, along with the usual battles with my word processor for control of the formatting, I actually got it published! It is a simple e-book, available on Amazon at: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07JM8L4RT/
The Kindle app is free of charge for computers, tablets and smart phones, so you can read it on almost any device. I also wanted to make the book free to download, but Amazon would not let me offer it for less than $0.99. I won't copy the book description here as you will see that when you open the link. It is a short book and (I think) an easy read, even with its graphs and yes, equations. The first three pages are viewable free on-line. They give my purpose for writing the book and begin to introduce the topic.
Those of you who know me well may think you already know the gist of what I've written, but you would be mistaken. My "quantitative ethics" approach was developed to be as completely neutral as possible; that is, to avoid or counter all the usual emotional arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, as impossible as that may seem. The analysis and results I arrive at depart from a purely pro-life position -- hence the soul searching on my part alluded to above. I will not reveal the conclusions of my efforts here, but I hope my book will help reframe the abortion debate along objective, defendable lines. The quantitative ethics approach is also offered and applied as a new tool for use in other bioethical subjects, such as end-of-life issues.
I expect that most reviews (if I get any at all) will be negative. After all, most people who read books about abortion will likely already be either solidly pro-life or pro-choice, and they will not like what I have written! This could be a good thing as long as it doesn't dissuade everyone else from reading it. The book is mostly aimed at the majority of people, neither pro-choice nor pro-life (or perhaps both), who may be looking for a reasonable resolution to the issue, one that eschews both extremes.
I hope your curiosity will be piqued enough to risk the minimal cost and find out what I have come up with in this book. And if you indeed read it, please consider posting a review on Amazon. Good or bad, any publicity is better than none!
Saturday, 10 November 2018
Thursday, 8 November 2018
Now Where Was I?
After a four (4) year hiatus (Four Years - really? That's forever in the blogosphere!), I am returning to capture additional THoughts, OPinions and IDeas here at my blog. Why did I stop posting? Not sure; I guess I was preoccupied with other crucial aspects of retired living: cycling, moving house, grandchildren, reading, writing, volunteering, watching Netflix, procrastinating, etc. Or maybe, having temporarily run out of ideas, I stopped and just didn't get back to it.
Why am I returning now? Well the THOPIDs have been bubbling up in recent months, demanding to escape from my head and be captured in articulate English, so I have been making notes and have now gathered enough to push me over the threshold of starting again. And who knows, maybe this time I'll actually tell people about my blog, and someone may even read it. 😉
In any case, please continue to ignore the dates on my entries, especially the older ones. None of them are particularly time limited, or tied to past news and events. And having read them over again recently, I still hold pretty much all the same positions. I'll let readers decide whether that makes me dependable and consistent, or just stuck in my ways. Perhaps once captured, the thoughts are forever carved in the cloud and don't want to be changed? Or maybe, having written them out, they vacate my mind. After all, why expend wetware resources when we have the cloud?
All this to say, welcome to my blog, or welcome back if you happened to stumble across it earlier. I also welcome any comments you may have, but reserve the right to delete any that are nasty or abusive.
Now what was that I wanted to write about?...
Sunday, 21 December 2014
Engineering Gender Balance Rant
Please tell me, where is it written that all professions must strive mightily to achieve 50-50% gender parity? For more than twenty years now, the engineering profession, at least here in Canada, has been bending over backward trying to increase the percentage of women practitioners, all without avail. There are special "women in engineering" groups and meetings, scholarships for women students, women role models provided, "outreach" events to entice high-school and even younger girls; and every group photo, engineering advertisement, or awards ceremony has to have women prominently recognized or on display. Male engineering students are continually reminded to be on their best behaviour regarding women students, and many engineering companies try hard to recruit and hire women, when possible.
Early on in these initiatives, there was a modest increase of women up to almost 20% of graduates, but then it dropped back and is currently stuck just above 15%, as I recall. What's more, a large fraction of women engineers drop out of the profession, or seek non-engineering roles once they have graduated and worked for awhile. Some people look upon this situation as a shameful failure, especially when some other professions have had great success building gender balance in their ranks. Thus, efforts are redoubled to change the engineering atmosphere, or even the profession itself, and there is much soul-searching and hand wringing among certain leadership groups. Certainly if a particular workplace harasses or is biased against women as engineers, then changes are needed there, but I have not seen that in the fields where I have worked.
It is great that some women do want to become engineers and those I've worked with have done as good a job as the men in similar roles. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about women doing engineering, but why should it be necessary to increase their numbers beyond whatever the natural percentage of interested women may be? Is it not possible that, by and large, most women simply do not want to be engineers? Is there something special about engineering that we think we need to almost force women to sign up? Maybe women look at engineering work hours and conditions, or pay scales and decide to pursue another career. Or could it be that women generally prefer to work with human beings, rather than with things, as in most of engineering? (e.g. design, hardware, testing, software.) Yes, of course, engineering involves human interaction, but much less than in medicine, teaching, or law, where most of what you do is for and with other people.
Speaking of other professions, is there any similar push for gender balance in nursing or the teaching profession? This short article suggests that such typically female professions have the opposite "problem" (if problem it is), but are not doing much to address it. If gender parity in engineering is so important, why is it not also important in other imbalanced professions? And beyond the professions, is there a similar push for gender equality in the trades, which often pay as well, and can be every bit as rewarding as the professions? Is there a nation-wide full-scale campaign to recruit women plumbers, or women truck drivers? I somehow doubt it.
Given that there are many professions and job categories where women are in the majority, one could also ask where would all these women engineers come from? I doubt there are large numbers of young women out there just waiting for the chance to become engineers. Rather, those women simply choose other interest areas for their education and careers. So a growth in women in engineering would mean a reduction somewhere else.
What's more, most women want to have children at some point and many of those want (and for good reasons are often encouraged) to stay at home with their kids for a few years, thereby taking themselves out of the paid work force. This suggests that, if we want to have enough children to replace ourselves, and want them raised in the most effective way (i.e. by their parents), and don't want a higher unemployment rate for men, then overall, there must be fewer women than men with paid employment.
Before you castigate me for my incorrigible male chauvinism, I am well aware that men can raise children too, but child bearing and breast feeding (the recommended approach) by necessity fall to women, and on average, women make better caregivers than men, at least for pre-schoolers. There is a reason why almost all early-childhood educators and day care personnel are women. Biology is not destiny, but it is a big factor in certain aspects of life, and who is going to tell young mothers NOT to stay at home with their young children if that is what they want to do? Indeed, many working mothers wish they could be at home with their kids.
If engineering societies want to keep banging their heads against the wall trying to increase the number of women practitioners, they will doubtless continue to do so. However, I do not expect them to have much in the way of success, and I for one, do not want my dues or fees going toward pointless and increasingly desperate recruitment efforts. At some point these groups have to recognize that most women simply choose not to become engineers, and let it go. If some professions can be mostly female, we do not need to be sorry or feel ashamed that some others will inevitably be mostly male.
Early on in these initiatives, there was a modest increase of women up to almost 20% of graduates, but then it dropped back and is currently stuck just above 15%, as I recall. What's more, a large fraction of women engineers drop out of the profession, or seek non-engineering roles once they have graduated and worked for awhile. Some people look upon this situation as a shameful failure, especially when some other professions have had great success building gender balance in their ranks. Thus, efforts are redoubled to change the engineering atmosphere, or even the profession itself, and there is much soul-searching and hand wringing among certain leadership groups. Certainly if a particular workplace harasses or is biased against women as engineers, then changes are needed there, but I have not seen that in the fields where I have worked.
It is great that some women do want to become engineers and those I've worked with have done as good a job as the men in similar roles. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about women doing engineering, but why should it be necessary to increase their numbers beyond whatever the natural percentage of interested women may be? Is it not possible that, by and large, most women simply do not want to be engineers? Is there something special about engineering that we think we need to almost force women to sign up? Maybe women look at engineering work hours and conditions, or pay scales and decide to pursue another career. Or could it be that women generally prefer to work with human beings, rather than with things, as in most of engineering? (e.g. design, hardware, testing, software.) Yes, of course, engineering involves human interaction, but much less than in medicine, teaching, or law, where most of what you do is for and with other people.
Speaking of other professions, is there any similar push for gender balance in nursing or the teaching profession? This short article suggests that such typically female professions have the opposite "problem" (if problem it is), but are not doing much to address it. If gender parity in engineering is so important, why is it not also important in other imbalanced professions? And beyond the professions, is there a similar push for gender equality in the trades, which often pay as well, and can be every bit as rewarding as the professions? Is there a nation-wide full-scale campaign to recruit women plumbers, or women truck drivers? I somehow doubt it.
Given that there are many professions and job categories where women are in the majority, one could also ask where would all these women engineers come from? I doubt there are large numbers of young women out there just waiting for the chance to become engineers. Rather, those women simply choose other interest areas for their education and careers. So a growth in women in engineering would mean a reduction somewhere else.
What's more, most women want to have children at some point and many of those want (and for good reasons are often encouraged) to stay at home with their kids for a few years, thereby taking themselves out of the paid work force. This suggests that, if we want to have enough children to replace ourselves, and want them raised in the most effective way (i.e. by their parents), and don't want a higher unemployment rate for men, then overall, there must be fewer women than men with paid employment.
Before you castigate me for my incorrigible male chauvinism, I am well aware that men can raise children too, but child bearing and breast feeding (the recommended approach) by necessity fall to women, and on average, women make better caregivers than men, at least for pre-schoolers. There is a reason why almost all early-childhood educators and day care personnel are women. Biology is not destiny, but it is a big factor in certain aspects of life, and who is going to tell young mothers NOT to stay at home with their young children if that is what they want to do? Indeed, many working mothers wish they could be at home with their kids.
If engineering societies want to keep banging their heads against the wall trying to increase the number of women practitioners, they will doubtless continue to do so. However, I do not expect them to have much in the way of success, and I for one, do not want my dues or fees going toward pointless and increasingly desperate recruitment efforts. At some point these groups have to recognize that most women simply choose not to become engineers, and let it go. If some professions can be mostly female, we do not need to be sorry or feel ashamed that some others will inevitably be mostly male.
Monday, 2 June 2014
Empirical Faith
I find it strange that some people claim that religious faith is "irrational", "blind", or that there is "no evidence" to support religious belief. For Christianity, such statements are simply wrong. I have previously listed evidence that supports theism, the belief that God exists. Here I want to show that Christianity is an empirical faith, and that anyone seeking with an open mind can come to faith by means of rational inquiry.
I am not thinking about logical "proofs" for God's existence, nor philosophical arguments and deductions, however meaningful they may be. Neither am I thinking of "Pascal's wager". Rather, I am considering evidence that can be evaluated by anyone, and an "experimental" approach to finding out for yourself whether God is real. Numerous people started out as agnostics or atheists, but became Christians after investigating the evidence. C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Nicky Gumbel, Mortimer Adler, Malcolm Muggeridge, Francis Collins, Alan Sandage are a few of the more famous converts.
The first and more obvious approach to finding out whether Christianity is true or not is to collect, study and assess the evidence, setting aside any preconceptions you may have, and comparing Christianity to the alternatives. There are numerous books available and web sites on "apologetics" (systematic argumentative discourse in defense) to present the evidence and walk you through this process. To avoid a biased study, you should also, of course, check out atheist books, web sites and their arguments against theism. Note that every pro and con argument has a rebuttal, so do not take anything at face value. I never said this would be a simple or easy exercise, but surely knowing the truth about whether God exists and who Jesus was is worth the effort. After all, what could be more important than your eternal destination, or lack of same?
The Bible contains most of the historical evidence for the person of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity, developing from Judaism. Of course the Bible has been attacked and defended from all angles by numerous authors over the centuries, so again, you will have to dig through the pros and cons to make up your own mind. Similarly, there is a mountain of literature about the development of Christianity over the past two millennia, including the formulation of various creeds and doctrines, but that study should probably wait until you are convinced that God exists and has revealed himself to us in the Bible.
At some point in your searching you will doubtless come across statements to the effect that, "Christians do awful things therefore their faith cannot be true". This in its various forms is essentially an ad hominem attack on Christianity; i.e. reject the teaching because the teachers often do not follow it. One of the basic beliefs of Christianity is that all people are sinful (do bad things), and that becoming a Christian does not instantly make you perfect. Thus, it would be strange if Christians, as forgiven sinners, never did anything bad. Christians can make wrong decisions, get confused, be conned or pressed into evil, just the same as anyone else.
Fairly considered, I think that Christianity provides the best model to explain all aspects of reality: the physical universe, the world around us, abundant life, spiritual mysteries, and especially our complicated and bewildering human nature. But of course, I am biased, so you will have to do this investigation yourself. There are other world views that may be considered: Buddhist and Hindu religions, atheistic materialism, postmodernism, animist, Islam religion, etc. These can be compared in various ways, such as: explaining origins, authenticity of their writings, their effect on adherents and mankind in general, the hope or future they offer, how well they explain human behaviour, their view of human rights, our sexual difference, relationships with the world and people, the nature of reality, and so on.
As described above, determining the truth about faith and Christianity is a huge undertaking. It will take a lot of work to do a proper job of it. Indeed some people have been searching agnostics for many years. That is probably why most people do not bother, but merely accept someone else's views. If you are at all inclined to belief, however, there are some shortcuts you can take. I recommend C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is a collection of common-sense observations and arguments delving into the basics of the Christian faith. There are lots of other books, videos, etc. as well. Lee Strobel has a series of apologetics books that present the pro-God, pro-faith, pro-Christ evidence in an easy-to-read format. These can be found at on-line bookstores.
If you don't like scholarly investigation or logical expounding about Christianity, there is another approach -- a more personal and private way to seek the truth -- the experimental method. If you are a sincere seeker after the truth about God, then take your search to him! Put aside your doubts, fears, logical arguments, presuppositions, and with an open mind, quietly pray to God, asking Him to reveal himself to you in some way. Clear you mind and, in your thoughts, say something like, "God, I don't know whether you exist, but I want to find out. Please give me some sort of sign that you are real and that you revealed yourself to mankind in the Bible. I don't know what or whether to believe, but I am open to you, so please let me know if you are real". Use your own words and express your search and deep interest.
To make sure this is not a trivial request and to be sincere about it, you should probably think about and repeat this prayer over several days. Meanwhile you could open the Bible to the book of Mark in the New Testament, and read parts of it each day, asking God to help you understand it. Jesus said "seek and you will find", so if you are truly seeking, then God, through his Spirit, will open your heart to him and help you find him. Each day you should watch for some indication that God is answering your heartfelt prayer. This could take any form; e.g. a dream, a sudden feeling that what you are reading is true, contact out of the blue with a helpful Christian, a reassurance in your spirit that someone is listening and cares about you, a feeling of awe about some event or situation in your life, a change in your attitude or circumstances. Whatever it is, it should be special and important to you.
There is no telling how God will respond to your fervent prayer; many have found that he does respond, not necessarily quickly or in an expected way. But asking God to reveal himself is one tried method of seeking the truth about Christianity and faith. On the other hand, if after prolonged and honest seeking, searching and prayer, you get no discernible response, then you can tentatively conclude that God is not for you or that he isn't real after all. For unknown reasons, not everyone becomes a believer. Faith is ultimately a gift from God, and not everyone receives it.
So there you have it; some ways to investigate faith claims, or to seek the truth about God and Christianity. Many people have used these or similar methods to convince themselves. While some doubt may remain (few things are 100% certain), you should be able to find enough evidence or personal assurance to allow you to start believing. In so doing, you will find that the so called "leap of faith" is really a series of quite reasonable steps.
I am not thinking about logical "proofs" for God's existence, nor philosophical arguments and deductions, however meaningful they may be. Neither am I thinking of "Pascal's wager". Rather, I am considering evidence that can be evaluated by anyone, and an "experimental" approach to finding out for yourself whether God is real. Numerous people started out as agnostics or atheists, but became Christians after investigating the evidence. C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Nicky Gumbel, Mortimer Adler, Malcolm Muggeridge, Francis Collins, Alan Sandage are a few of the more famous converts.
The first and more obvious approach to finding out whether Christianity is true or not is to collect, study and assess the evidence, setting aside any preconceptions you may have, and comparing Christianity to the alternatives. There are numerous books available and web sites on "apologetics" (systematic argumentative discourse in defense) to present the evidence and walk you through this process. To avoid a biased study, you should also, of course, check out atheist books, web sites and their arguments against theism. Note that every pro and con argument has a rebuttal, so do not take anything at face value. I never said this would be a simple or easy exercise, but surely knowing the truth about whether God exists and who Jesus was is worth the effort. After all, what could be more important than your eternal destination, or lack of same?
The Bible contains most of the historical evidence for the person of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity, developing from Judaism. Of course the Bible has been attacked and defended from all angles by numerous authors over the centuries, so again, you will have to dig through the pros and cons to make up your own mind. Similarly, there is a mountain of literature about the development of Christianity over the past two millennia, including the formulation of various creeds and doctrines, but that study should probably wait until you are convinced that God exists and has revealed himself to us in the Bible.
At some point in your searching you will doubtless come across statements to the effect that, "Christians do awful things therefore their faith cannot be true". This in its various forms is essentially an ad hominem attack on Christianity; i.e. reject the teaching because the teachers often do not follow it. One of the basic beliefs of Christianity is that all people are sinful (do bad things), and that becoming a Christian does not instantly make you perfect. Thus, it would be strange if Christians, as forgiven sinners, never did anything bad. Christians can make wrong decisions, get confused, be conned or pressed into evil, just the same as anyone else.
Fairly considered, I think that Christianity provides the best model to explain all aspects of reality: the physical universe, the world around us, abundant life, spiritual mysteries, and especially our complicated and bewildering human nature. But of course, I am biased, so you will have to do this investigation yourself. There are other world views that may be considered: Buddhist and Hindu religions, atheistic materialism, postmodernism, animist, Islam religion, etc. These can be compared in various ways, such as: explaining origins, authenticity of their writings, their effect on adherents and mankind in general, the hope or future they offer, how well they explain human behaviour, their view of human rights, our sexual difference, relationships with the world and people, the nature of reality, and so on.
As described above, determining the truth about faith and Christianity is a huge undertaking. It will take a lot of work to do a proper job of it. Indeed some people have been searching agnostics for many years. That is probably why most people do not bother, but merely accept someone else's views. If you are at all inclined to belief, however, there are some shortcuts you can take. I recommend C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is a collection of common-sense observations and arguments delving into the basics of the Christian faith. There are lots of other books, videos, etc. as well. Lee Strobel has a series of apologetics books that present the pro-God, pro-faith, pro-Christ evidence in an easy-to-read format. These can be found at on-line bookstores.
If you don't like scholarly investigation or logical expounding about Christianity, there is another approach -- a more personal and private way to seek the truth -- the experimental method. If you are a sincere seeker after the truth about God, then take your search to him! Put aside your doubts, fears, logical arguments, presuppositions, and with an open mind, quietly pray to God, asking Him to reveal himself to you in some way. Clear you mind and, in your thoughts, say something like, "God, I don't know whether you exist, but I want to find out. Please give me some sort of sign that you are real and that you revealed yourself to mankind in the Bible. I don't know what or whether to believe, but I am open to you, so please let me know if you are real". Use your own words and express your search and deep interest.
To make sure this is not a trivial request and to be sincere about it, you should probably think about and repeat this prayer over several days. Meanwhile you could open the Bible to the book of Mark in the New Testament, and read parts of it each day, asking God to help you understand it. Jesus said "seek and you will find", so if you are truly seeking, then God, through his Spirit, will open your heart to him and help you find him. Each day you should watch for some indication that God is answering your heartfelt prayer. This could take any form; e.g. a dream, a sudden feeling that what you are reading is true, contact out of the blue with a helpful Christian, a reassurance in your spirit that someone is listening and cares about you, a feeling of awe about some event or situation in your life, a change in your attitude or circumstances. Whatever it is, it should be special and important to you.
There is no telling how God will respond to your fervent prayer; many have found that he does respond, not necessarily quickly or in an expected way. But asking God to reveal himself is one tried method of seeking the truth about Christianity and faith. On the other hand, if after prolonged and honest seeking, searching and prayer, you get no discernible response, then you can tentatively conclude that God is not for you or that he isn't real after all. For unknown reasons, not everyone becomes a believer. Faith is ultimately a gift from God, and not everyone receives it.
So there you have it; some ways to investigate faith claims, or to seek the truth about God and Christianity. Many people have used these or similar methods to convince themselves. While some doubt may remain (few things are 100% certain), you should be able to find enough evidence or personal assurance to allow you to start believing. In so doing, you will find that the so called "leap of faith" is really a series of quite reasonable steps.
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Capital Punishment
Pro-lifers in favour of capital punishment are sometimes challenged with, "How can you be pro-life if you support capital punishment?" This may be presented as a put down to pro-life views, as if being 'wrong' about capital punishment somehow means that you are also wrong about abortion. Or that being pro-life means you are somehow a hypocrite if you support killing under any circumstances. There are, of course, many pro-life people who are against capital punishment as one way of being "consistently pro-life". But I do not think that is the only legitimate position for pro-lifers.The unborn child in the womb is surely the most innocent of all human beings. Therefore, taking her/his life without legal process and for the most urgent possible reasons (e.g. saving the life of the mother) is surely wrong. In contrast, a condemned criminal is not innocent at all. Rather he (usually a male) has been proven guilty in a court of law of an egregious crime against humanity -- usually the taking of another human life without legal sanction. Once duly convicted, the criminal should have no further human rights. By taking another life, he has by his own action forfeited his own right to life and is now at the mercy of his fellow man in the form of the state. If the state views his crimes (usually plural) as sufficiently bad, then the state has the right to take his life in retribution. This is one way to see justice done; having the punishment fit the crime.
All pro-life people hold the dignity and value of human life very highly. To us, life is sacred and each human is created in the image of God. Therefore, human life should not be taken wantonly, for personal gain, and without due process. However, human life being held so highly, anyone taking another's life in a criminal way (murder) needs to be severely punished for that evil act, possibly up to and including capital punishment. Another answer to the question how a pro-life person can support capital punishment is to consider the opposite: how can anyone who is against capital punishment support abortion? Isn't there something seriously wrong with someone desiring mercy and rehabilitation for a guilty murderer, while allowing innocent children to be killed before birth for any reason at all? Isn't that a truly twisted view of the dignity of human life? Anyone accosting a pro-lifer for her views on capital punishment had better think through his own views first to see how consistent he is.
My own view is that, yes, the state does have the right to take the life of a condemned criminal through capital punishment. However, I believe that there are very few cases when this should happen and that capital punishment in a modern state should be rare. There have been too many cases of wrongful conviction, court-sanctioned revenge killings, and skewed statistics on who gets condemned. Indeed our courts are not as 'blind' as they should be. A life sentence is probably better in most cases. Most modern, democratic states are well enough off and stable enough that they can incarcerate convicted murderers safely and securely without breaking the national budget.
The flip side, however, is that a life sentence should be just that; the convict remains imprisoned until death. When a convicted multiple murderer can be given parole after a mere ten years or so, there is something wrong with our justice system. When a murderer gets out after some minimal sentence, only to re-offend by taking another life, then those who let him out should also be punished in some way. The illegal taking of a human life needs to be treated as the serious offense against God and humanity that it truly is. And that is a consistently pro-life position.
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Intelligent Design
There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding, and not a little misrepresentation, about the theory of intelligent design (ID) out there, especially on certain web sites. Those who do not like some of the supposed implications of ID choose to equate it with "creationism", which they usually take as a simplified literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis in the Bible. Some even claim that ID is somehow not even a scientific theory. Others who support such a literal reading (the true "young-Earth, six-days creationists") often apply the findings of ID research in a misplaced attempt to bolster their own pseudo-science arguments, thereby sowing further confusion. Both approaches are false, so to clear the air by some small amount, as a believer in the ID theory, I will try to explain it.
Intelligent Design is a theory about origins: the origin of the cosmos, life on Earth, and the wide variety of life we find around us today, including ourselves. On these subjects, there are only two basic possibilities: either our origins somehow involved a mind (AKA the intelligent designer, or possibly "creator") having purpose and planning, or else they did not and the universe and life came about with no purpose and no plan or guidance -- two options if you will, mindful or mindless!
Materialists -- those who believe that matter and energy are all that exist -- rule out the mindful option (and any form of ID) a priori, without even considering it. But that seems unreasonable. Surely it is at least conceivable that there is a Creator of some sort that was somehow purposefully involved in putting together the universe and getting life started on this planet? If so, wouldn't exploring that option be a useful endeavour?
Supposing for a moment that there was a Creator that brought the Universe, or life, or us into being. One might then expect that there would be some evidence of his (or its) activity left behind in the world around us. This is what ID researchers claim to have found by various types of scientific study. They have examined evidence in physics and biology and claim that the best explanation for some of what we see is the work of an intelligent agent doing what we would normally refer to as "design"; i.e. purposeful selection and assembly of components for a complex item with defined function.
There are other sciences that look for the effects of intelligent agents; archeology, espionage, criminology and forensics all try to explain historical facts to determine whether an intelligent agent was involved. Add to this the SETI research looking for meaningful (i.e. purposeful, complex, non-natural) signals from other star systems as evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence. Given that we can often distinguish natural and intelligent causation in these fields, why not do the same for research into origins?
ID presents two types of evidence. Some is positive evidence; e.g. the incredibly fine tuning of the fundamental physical constants and initial conditions of the Universe, which together allow elements, stars, planets, life and people to exist; or the extensive, complex and highly-functional information coded into the DNA in every living cell; or the complex interacting and self-regulating nano-machinery inside these same cells. Some of the evidence is negative; if there are really only two alternatives, then evidence against one of them (materialism) may be counted as evidence in favour of the other (ID).
In this latter category we have the abiogenesis of life on Earth, which no materialist hypothesis comes anywhere close to explaining in a credible way. We also have the Cambrian explosion and most of the fossil record showing fully-formed complex life forms coming into existence without intermediary precursors, contrary to the expectations of Neo-Darwinism; the materialist theory for the evolution of life. Then there is the failure to produce a unique "tree of life" based on the DNA in present life forms, and of course, there are the "irreducibly complex" structures in some cells which are not explicable by the Darwinian mechanism, which allows no foresight or purpose.
Some of the ID studies, experiments and analyses demonstrate the complete inability of Darwinism (i.e. unguided mutation plus natural selection) to produce new proteins and physiological structures as life develops and new species come into being. Many non-ID scientists now agree that Darwinism cannot explain much of what we find in the fossil record and in living species. Materialists keep trying to find naturalistic ways around these failures, but so far have come up empty as far as testable theories go.
On the other hand, ID accepts the role of Darwinism where it can reasonably be applied; in bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for instance, where a single amino acid knockout explains the loss of bacterial function used to prevent the antibiotic from working. But ID research also finds evidence that, when examined with an open mind, points to the work of an intelligent agent as the best explanation.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory, doing experiments, writing papers, involved in conferences and discussions, and making predictions. For example in the 1980's ID researchers predicted that the non-protein-coding DNA between genes in the chromosomes of all living species would be found to have important functions. Materialists dismissed these nucleotide sequences as "junk DNA" and loudly proclaimed them as "proof" of Darwinian evolution -- the waste products of random mutation left behind in the genome. This slowed research into the vast majority of the genome, but recently numerous purposes have been discovered for this "junk" and now it seems that most, if not all of your DNA is important to control your development, differentiate cell types and manage the expression of the genes that code for proteins. ID has made other predictions and opened up avenues for research.
Just to be clear, ID accepts various aspects of "evolution"; the changing life forms over millions of years as revealed in the fossil record; and micro-evolution with shifting ratios of different alleles in a population that explain changes in colouring, beak sizes, etc. ID is also compatible with the concept of common ancestry for all of life, even as it uncovers evidence that brings that concept into question. Therefore, arguments for these aspects of evolution cannot be used to argue against ID. What ID does argue against is the Darwinian attempt to expand micro-evolution to the macro level to explain new body plans and novel protein complexes. There are areas for both agreement and disagreement, and anyone seeking to study origins should examine all aspects and both sides of any apparent conflict.
As a science theory, ID does NOT claim to identify the intelligent designer. Just as a criminologist, armed with forensic evidence, can conclude that a particular death was a murder (i.e. caused purposefully by an intelligent, if rather misguided, agent), without identifying the murderer, so can ID find evidence of intelligent causation without having to name the designer. Of course, given the scale of time and the nature of the origins events, the obvious candidate is God, but that supposition is not a result of the ID science, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
ID is sometimes dismissed as a "god of the gaps" argument, wherein "god" is invoked to account for areas that science has not yet been able to explain. However, this too is a misrepresentation. As science delves deeper into various aspects of biology, more "gaps" in Darwinism appear, making it harder to believe, and more evidence accumulates that the basis of life is information, which in our experience, is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent rather than mindless chance and physical necessity. When presented with widening gaps in our knowledge and presumed explanatory powers, it is best to consider ALL possible explanations and look for the one that best accounts for the evidence, rather than dismissing one out of hand just because it does not fit some preconceived ideas about reality.
There are many web sites, videos and books that explain ID, and present the detailed evidence in its favour. For careful and civil discussions about ID and the latest findings, I suggest looking at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/ . There are other good sites, and of course there are pro-Darwinism and anti-ID sites as well, which you are welcome to peruse. But don't study only one side as you will get a skewed view of reality. Check out several and see how credible they are, even if you do not fully understand all of that you read. The exploration is fascinating and the controversy is stimulating.
In summary, Intelligent Design is a bona fide scientific theory that claims to have found evidence for design in nature. Before writing it off and pooh-poohing the IDea, it would be better to take a look at the evidence with an open mind and assess it fairly. Isn't that what science is supposed to do?
Intelligent Design is a theory about origins: the origin of the cosmos, life on Earth, and the wide variety of life we find around us today, including ourselves. On these subjects, there are only two basic possibilities: either our origins somehow involved a mind (AKA the intelligent designer, or possibly "creator") having purpose and planning, or else they did not and the universe and life came about with no purpose and no plan or guidance -- two options if you will, mindful or mindless!
Materialists -- those who believe that matter and energy are all that exist -- rule out the mindful option (and any form of ID) a priori, without even considering it. But that seems unreasonable. Surely it is at least conceivable that there is a Creator of some sort that was somehow purposefully involved in putting together the universe and getting life started on this planet? If so, wouldn't exploring that option be a useful endeavour?
Supposing for a moment that there was a Creator that brought the Universe, or life, or us into being. One might then expect that there would be some evidence of his (or its) activity left behind in the world around us. This is what ID researchers claim to have found by various types of scientific study. They have examined evidence in physics and biology and claim that the best explanation for some of what we see is the work of an intelligent agent doing what we would normally refer to as "design"; i.e. purposeful selection and assembly of components for a complex item with defined function.
There are other sciences that look for the effects of intelligent agents; archeology, espionage, criminology and forensics all try to explain historical facts to determine whether an intelligent agent was involved. Add to this the SETI research looking for meaningful (i.e. purposeful, complex, non-natural) signals from other star systems as evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence. Given that we can often distinguish natural and intelligent causation in these fields, why not do the same for research into origins?
ID presents two types of evidence. Some is positive evidence; e.g. the incredibly fine tuning of the fundamental physical constants and initial conditions of the Universe, which together allow elements, stars, planets, life and people to exist; or the extensive, complex and highly-functional information coded into the DNA in every living cell; or the complex interacting and self-regulating nano-machinery inside these same cells. Some of the evidence is negative; if there are really only two alternatives, then evidence against one of them (materialism) may be counted as evidence in favour of the other (ID).
In this latter category we have the abiogenesis of life on Earth, which no materialist hypothesis comes anywhere close to explaining in a credible way. We also have the Cambrian explosion and most of the fossil record showing fully-formed complex life forms coming into existence without intermediary precursors, contrary to the expectations of Neo-Darwinism; the materialist theory for the evolution of life. Then there is the failure to produce a unique "tree of life" based on the DNA in present life forms, and of course, there are the "irreducibly complex" structures in some cells which are not explicable by the Darwinian mechanism, which allows no foresight or purpose.
Some of the ID studies, experiments and analyses demonstrate the complete inability of Darwinism (i.e. unguided mutation plus natural selection) to produce new proteins and physiological structures as life develops and new species come into being. Many non-ID scientists now agree that Darwinism cannot explain much of what we find in the fossil record and in living species. Materialists keep trying to find naturalistic ways around these failures, but so far have come up empty as far as testable theories go.
On the other hand, ID accepts the role of Darwinism where it can reasonably be applied; in bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for instance, where a single amino acid knockout explains the loss of bacterial function used to prevent the antibiotic from working. But ID research also finds evidence that, when examined with an open mind, points to the work of an intelligent agent as the best explanation.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory, doing experiments, writing papers, involved in conferences and discussions, and making predictions. For example in the 1980's ID researchers predicted that the non-protein-coding DNA between genes in the chromosomes of all living species would be found to have important functions. Materialists dismissed these nucleotide sequences as "junk DNA" and loudly proclaimed them as "proof" of Darwinian evolution -- the waste products of random mutation left behind in the genome. This slowed research into the vast majority of the genome, but recently numerous purposes have been discovered for this "junk" and now it seems that most, if not all of your DNA is important to control your development, differentiate cell types and manage the expression of the genes that code for proteins. ID has made other predictions and opened up avenues for research.
Just to be clear, ID accepts various aspects of "evolution"; the changing life forms over millions of years as revealed in the fossil record; and micro-evolution with shifting ratios of different alleles in a population that explain changes in colouring, beak sizes, etc. ID is also compatible with the concept of common ancestry for all of life, even as it uncovers evidence that brings that concept into question. Therefore, arguments for these aspects of evolution cannot be used to argue against ID. What ID does argue against is the Darwinian attempt to expand micro-evolution to the macro level to explain new body plans and novel protein complexes. There are areas for both agreement and disagreement, and anyone seeking to study origins should examine all aspects and both sides of any apparent conflict.
As a science theory, ID does NOT claim to identify the intelligent designer. Just as a criminologist, armed with forensic evidence, can conclude that a particular death was a murder (i.e. caused purposefully by an intelligent, if rather misguided, agent), without identifying the murderer, so can ID find evidence of intelligent causation without having to name the designer. Of course, given the scale of time and the nature of the origins events, the obvious candidate is God, but that supposition is not a result of the ID science, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
ID is sometimes dismissed as a "god of the gaps" argument, wherein "god" is invoked to account for areas that science has not yet been able to explain. However, this too is a misrepresentation. As science delves deeper into various aspects of biology, more "gaps" in Darwinism appear, making it harder to believe, and more evidence accumulates that the basis of life is information, which in our experience, is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent rather than mindless chance and physical necessity. When presented with widening gaps in our knowledge and presumed explanatory powers, it is best to consider ALL possible explanations and look for the one that best accounts for the evidence, rather than dismissing one out of hand just because it does not fit some preconceived ideas about reality.
There are many web sites, videos and books that explain ID, and present the detailed evidence in its favour. For careful and civil discussions about ID and the latest findings, I suggest looking at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/ . There are other good sites, and of course there are pro-Darwinism and anti-ID sites as well, which you are welcome to peruse. But don't study only one side as you will get a skewed view of reality. Check out several and see how credible they are, even if you do not fully understand all of that you read. The exploration is fascinating and the controversy is stimulating.
In summary, Intelligent Design is a bona fide scientific theory that claims to have found evidence for design in nature. Before writing it off and pooh-poohing the IDea, it would be better to take a look at the evidence with an open mind and assess it fairly. Isn't that what science is supposed to do?
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Epidemiology 100
Some simple mathematical thoughts about epidemics. An epidemic is a disease that spreads rapidly or expands into a large population. A bit of thought will show that for a disease outbreak to become an epidemic, each person with the disease needs to pass it on to more than one other person on average. Suppose 100 people have the disease but on average each one has only a 50% chance of passing it on to another person before the disease runs its course. In that situation an epidemic is impossible; the original 100 will pass it on to only 50 new sufferers, who will pass it on to only 25 new cases, and so on until the disease stops with only 200 (approximately) having been affected. Not an epidemic.
If on the other hand, each person on average passes the disease on to two others, then there will be exponential growth and a real epidemic unless it is contained by some intervention. In that case, the original 100 sick people will infect 200, who will pass it on to 400 new cases, and so on. Thus, it is useful to think in terms of a "infection ratio" being the average number of people each affected person infects before the disease has run its course.
Clearly various factors will affect this infection ratio for different populations, subgroups or even individuals. Things like the weather, the population density, living conditions, sources of food and water, etc. can all change the circumstances of infection and hence the likelihood of transmitting the disease. Perhaps the most obvious factor is vaccination. In a population where almost everyone has been vaccinated against measles, there is little danger of one case of measles causing an outbreak. On the other hand, as the unvaccinated fraction of people increases, the danger of an outbreak will rise, until the infection ratio exceeds unity. Then an outbreak will occur, which could turn into an epidemic unless measures are taken to reduce the infection ratio, by vaccinating all the unvaccinated people, or perhaps just by isolating the sick people from contact with unvaccinated ones.
One interesting application of this concept is HIV infections in North America. Under typical conditions, faithful monogamous heterosexual people who do not inject drugs with shared needles have a very low chance of contracting HIV, and if they do contract it by some means, they have a low probability of passing it on to anyone else, or perhaps at most, to only one person. Thus, HIV/AIDS in such a population would never have become an epidemic.
In contrast, there are at least two groups in North America with demonstrated HIV infection ratios above unity. These are injection drug users (IDU's) who share needles, and men who have sex with other men (MSM). In both cases, the behaviours of people in these groups raise their infection ratio above unity, and the virus infects others in those groups. Indeed, these two groups remain the two where HIV/AIDS is most prevalent, and most of the new infections (on a per capita basis) occur.
For IDU's, sharing needles transmits the virus from one individual directly into the bloodstream of another. Since such people shoot up often, and sometimes change who they do it with, the risk of infection can be very high and the disease can spread rapidly in that population. Therefore preventive measures like needle exchanges, or bleach washing of used needles can be important to reduce the risk and stop the epidemic.
With MSM, the combination of anal sex and multiple partners make HIV transmission much more likely than for single-partner, heterosexual intercourse. Thus, here too, the infection ratio can be quite high and the virus can spread quickly through an unprotected population. For example, recall "patient zero" and the rapid increase in AIDS among homosexual men before the virus was identified. Here too, limiting partners, and using some form of protection can presumably reduce the risk.
Notwithstanding attempts to prevent transmission and limit the risk of infection, these two populations remain centres for HIV transmission in the North American population. Indeed, these two sub-populations may be considered as "reservoirs" for the disease and act to maintain it at significant levels within the wider population. How that works can be explained by the relative infection ratios of these two groups compared to the rest of the people. Within these sub groups, the infection ratio is high (more than one), so the disease does not die out.
However, these groups also interact in risky ways with people outside their groups, and thus may pass on the infection to those people. For example, bisexual, or secretly homosexual men may infect their female partners, even if the chance for that is relatively low. In the past, IDU's might give blood to earn money to pay for their drugs, children might be pricked by used needles left in parks, or health care workers might accidentally get infected blood on them.
In such ways, HIV/AIDS can "leak" out of the reservoirs where it is sustained, and into the broader population. But once there, it does not become epidemic, because the subsequent infection ratio outside the reservoirs is less than unity. A few other unfortunates will contract the disease, but for most of us the risk is low, although given the nature of the disease, taking precautions in uncertain situations is still a good idea.
This analysis suggests that efforts to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS should focus almost entirely on the reservoir sub-populations of IDU's and MSM. This is happening to some extent, but misplaced political correctness (e.g. "everyone is at risk" campaigns), and the tendency of these two groups not to adopt the recommended precautions (any needle for a fix?) allow the reservoirs to maintain the disease at low but stable levels, condemning many more each year to the AIDS disease.
Stronger methods (recall the "Typhoid Mary" quarantine rules) could be applied if health care agencies had the will and political clout to apply them. Mandatory HIV testing for some groups, tightly focused educational campaigns, backed up by strong laws against knowingly transmitting the virus, enforced and coupled with aggressive treatment regimes, could presumably reduce the infection ratio even within these reservoirs, thereby winding down the disease, at least to some significant degree.
Given the cost of lifelong anti-HIV treatments and the poor health associated with the disease and ongoing treatments, it seems that we would be well advised to pursue such measures, to protect these sub groups and the population at large from this scourge. There are good reasons for being sexually faithful to one partner, and for not injecting yourself with drugs, and North America would do well to promote truly healthy behaviour and stop pretending otherwise. I expect an unbiased professional epidemiologist would agree.
If on the other hand, each person on average passes the disease on to two others, then there will be exponential growth and a real epidemic unless it is contained by some intervention. In that case, the original 100 sick people will infect 200, who will pass it on to 400 new cases, and so on. Thus, it is useful to think in terms of a "infection ratio" being the average number of people each affected person infects before the disease has run its course.
Clearly various factors will affect this infection ratio for different populations, subgroups or even individuals. Things like the weather, the population density, living conditions, sources of food and water, etc. can all change the circumstances of infection and hence the likelihood of transmitting the disease. Perhaps the most obvious factor is vaccination. In a population where almost everyone has been vaccinated against measles, there is little danger of one case of measles causing an outbreak. On the other hand, as the unvaccinated fraction of people increases, the danger of an outbreak will rise, until the infection ratio exceeds unity. Then an outbreak will occur, which could turn into an epidemic unless measures are taken to reduce the infection ratio, by vaccinating all the unvaccinated people, or perhaps just by isolating the sick people from contact with unvaccinated ones.
One interesting application of this concept is HIV infections in North America. Under typical conditions, faithful monogamous heterosexual people who do not inject drugs with shared needles have a very low chance of contracting HIV, and if they do contract it by some means, they have a low probability of passing it on to anyone else, or perhaps at most, to only one person. Thus, HIV/AIDS in such a population would never have become an epidemic.
In contrast, there are at least two groups in North America with demonstrated HIV infection ratios above unity. These are injection drug users (IDU's) who share needles, and men who have sex with other men (MSM). In both cases, the behaviours of people in these groups raise their infection ratio above unity, and the virus infects others in those groups. Indeed, these two groups remain the two where HIV/AIDS is most prevalent, and most of the new infections (on a per capita basis) occur.
For IDU's, sharing needles transmits the virus from one individual directly into the bloodstream of another. Since such people shoot up often, and sometimes change who they do it with, the risk of infection can be very high and the disease can spread rapidly in that population. Therefore preventive measures like needle exchanges, or bleach washing of used needles can be important to reduce the risk and stop the epidemic.
With MSM, the combination of anal sex and multiple partners make HIV transmission much more likely than for single-partner, heterosexual intercourse. Thus, here too, the infection ratio can be quite high and the virus can spread quickly through an unprotected population. For example, recall "patient zero" and the rapid increase in AIDS among homosexual men before the virus was identified. Here too, limiting partners, and using some form of protection can presumably reduce the risk.
Notwithstanding attempts to prevent transmission and limit the risk of infection, these two populations remain centres for HIV transmission in the North American population. Indeed, these two sub-populations may be considered as "reservoirs" for the disease and act to maintain it at significant levels within the wider population. How that works can be explained by the relative infection ratios of these two groups compared to the rest of the people. Within these sub groups, the infection ratio is high (more than one), so the disease does not die out.
However, these groups also interact in risky ways with people outside their groups, and thus may pass on the infection to those people. For example, bisexual, or secretly homosexual men may infect their female partners, even if the chance for that is relatively low. In the past, IDU's might give blood to earn money to pay for their drugs, children might be pricked by used needles left in parks, or health care workers might accidentally get infected blood on them.
In such ways, HIV/AIDS can "leak" out of the reservoirs where it is sustained, and into the broader population. But once there, it does not become epidemic, because the subsequent infection ratio outside the reservoirs is less than unity. A few other unfortunates will contract the disease, but for most of us the risk is low, although given the nature of the disease, taking precautions in uncertain situations is still a good idea.
This analysis suggests that efforts to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS should focus almost entirely on the reservoir sub-populations of IDU's and MSM. This is happening to some extent, but misplaced political correctness (e.g. "everyone is at risk" campaigns), and the tendency of these two groups not to adopt the recommended precautions (any needle for a fix?) allow the reservoirs to maintain the disease at low but stable levels, condemning many more each year to the AIDS disease.
Stronger methods (recall the "Typhoid Mary" quarantine rules) could be applied if health care agencies had the will and political clout to apply them. Mandatory HIV testing for some groups, tightly focused educational campaigns, backed up by strong laws against knowingly transmitting the virus, enforced and coupled with aggressive treatment regimes, could presumably reduce the infection ratio even within these reservoirs, thereby winding down the disease, at least to some significant degree.
Given the cost of lifelong anti-HIV treatments and the poor health associated with the disease and ongoing treatments, it seems that we would be well advised to pursue such measures, to protect these sub groups and the population at large from this scourge. There are good reasons for being sexually faithful to one partner, and for not injecting yourself with drugs, and North America would do well to promote truly healthy behaviour and stop pretending otherwise. I expect an unbiased professional epidemiologist would agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)