A nuclear physicist reconciles the Bible with an old earth

August 20, 2011 • 8:53 am

Where else but at BioLogos?  Matthew Blackston, a nuclear physicist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, knows—as a good physicist should—that the Earth is very old.  But the Bible implies otherwise, and Blackston is a good Christian.  What does he do?  In a piece called “God’s use of time,” he observes that:

. . . since time exists, change and development are possible. The sciences have acquired the tools to “look back” in time and explore our universe’s rich history, so we know that the universe and the life in it do indeed evolve. Through these observations in the natural realm, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that God typically prefers to do His work gradually rather than instantaneously.

and

In the cosmos, in the evolution of life, in the redemption of the world, and in the redemption of individuals, God sees fit to use long timescales for accomplishing his purposes. Moreover, with the similarities between what we learn of God from nature and from scripture, Christians needn’t react defensively to what science tells us about the history of the cosmos. Instead, we can indulge in the opportunity to marvel at the ever continuing work of God the Gardener, both in His dynamic creation and His dynamic acts of redemption.

All well and good: the “days” of Genesis are clearly metaphorical.  But the weird thing is that Blackston appears to see every other story in the Bible as literally true:

And like what we learn from the sciences about the evolution of the universe, He decided to take his time about it. God began his redeeming work with a promise to use Abraham’s family to be a blessing to the entire world (Gen. 12:1). This was a promise that was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus nearly two millennia later. Now if God had been in a hurry, he might simply have allowed Sarah to conceive by the Holy Spirit and bring forth Jesus directly. But instead, he decided to take the scenic route, working through Abraham’s seed, including Jacob, Moses, David, and others until the time was right for Jesus.

As time went on and God’s people developed into a nation, David rose to the throne and God made another promise — that of perpetual kingship to David’s line (2 Sam 7:13). This was another opportune time for Jesus to be born, take the throne, and fulfill the promise. But again we find God taking his time, allowing the kingdom to be divided and eventually conquered, and God’s people sent into a long exile, until the time was right for Jesus, nearly a millennium after David.

So that’s all real, as were the existence and sayings of Jesus.  And so, apparently, were Adam and Eve (a story on which BioLogos refuses to take a position):

After humans made a mess of their intended role in the created order, God desired to restore it and put it right.

So much for cognitive dissonance.  Blackston doesn’t give us the criterion for judging why the “days” of Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphorical but Moses, David, Abraham, and Sarah were real people.  And although he asserts that “with the similarities between what we learn of God from nature and from scripture, Christians needn’t react defensively to what science tells us about the history of the cosmos,” he doesn’t talk about the lack of similarities, including the fact that dead people don’t come back to life after three days, and nature tells us that no human has ever been born of a virgin female.  And since science tell us that Adam and Eve could not have existed, I’d love to know how Blackston thinks that humans “made a mess of their intended role in the created order.”

And so BioLogos increasingly resembles a certain Chicago restaurant, telling Christians in some articles that the Bible is largely a pretty story (note: not a textbook of science!) meant to impart “timeless truths,” and in other articles that the stuff in the Bible is pretty much true.  In such a way they hope to keep Christians confused and off balance, hoping that somehow they’ll manage, swimming about this mess, that they’ll grab the life preserver of evolution.

St. Petersburg: Peter and Paul Fortress and the Romanovs

August 20, 2011 • 6:13 am

The heart of old St. Petersburg is the Peter and Paul Fortress, built in 1703 on an island in the Neva by Peter the Great.  It was intended as a fort to defend the nascent city against the Swedes, but was never used for that purpose. It served instead as a prison (housing, among others, Dostoyevsky, who underwent a “mock execution” there), a garrison, and it houses a mint and the famous Peter and Paul cathedral, the burial place of all the tsars from Peter the Great to Nicholas II. Nicholas was the last tsar, who was executed (along with his entire family) by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Here’s an aerial view of the fortress (not my photo); the cathedral with its enormous spire, the tallest structure in old St. Petersburg, is clearly visible:

I went there for one reason: to see the tombs of the tsars, especially those of Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and their children.  Their murder by the Bolsheviks is one of the horrors of the Russian Revolution, and one of the earliest murders engineered by Lenin.  It’s always intrigued me, especially because of the now-debunked story that one child (Anastasia) had survived the execution, and because the bones of the family, buried in haste by the Bolsheviks, were rediscovered, identified by their DNA, and interred in the Cathedral during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin.

With its high steeple, the Cathedral is an imposing sight, visible from many places in the city.

Inside are the graves; this is the biggie: Peter the Great (Peter I).  I can’t make out the rest of the Cyrillic, but I’m sure one of my readers can:

Half of the floor is covered with tombs of the tsars and tsarinas; here are some more:


I was there, however, mainly to see Nicholas and his family.  Here they are in a photo from 1913. The whole lot (along with their doctor and maids) were shot by the Bolsheviks in Yekaterinberg on the night of July 16, 1918.  Wikipedia labels the photo below as: “left to right: Olga, Maria, Nicholas II, Alexandra, Anastasia, Alexei, and Tatiana.

Alexandra, of course, was Nicholas’s wife, the tsarina; the rest were the daughters (with Anastasia being the one who, in legend, survived), and Alexei, the young son, a hemophiliac who was ill at the time of the execution.  The daughters all carried the title of “Grand Duchess,” and Alexei was both “Tsesarevich” (heir apparent) and a Grand Duke.

Here are their photos in one of the corridors of the cathedral.  The story of Nicholas and Alexandra was the subject of a best-selling book by Robert Massie, and was made into a film that won several Academy Awards.


The execution of the family is described graphically by Wikipedia and other places, though accounts differ somewhat.  What is clear is that it was a grisly and brutal business, carried out with handguns and bayonets (it’s said that some of the daughters weren’t killed by bullets because they had diamonds sewn into their clothes).  They were killed because of fears that the White Army was approaching Yekaterinburg and might rescue the family, but also because, if left alive, Nicholas instead of the Bolsheviks could be regarded by other European powers as the legitimate head of state.  It’s beyond me, however, how anyone could, in the name of politics, coldly murder an entire family, including the wife and young daughters and sons.

I’ve watched several videos about the execution itself.  The family was roused around midnight, taken to a room in the basement, and told that they were going to be transported elsewhere.  But then a sentence of death was read out, and almost immediately a group of men began firing at the family with handguns.  If you want an idea of what that was like, watch the following video, but WARNING—it’s bloody and you might find it disturbing.


The bodies of the family and retainers were buried in the forest, but most of them were found by an amateur archaeologist in 1998 and identified by DNA analysis.  These bodies were interred in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in 1998; a photograph of the ceremony is below. You can make out Boris Yeltsin (I think) between the second and third priest from the left (click twice to enlarge):

Two other bodies, those of Alexei and Maria, were found and identified in 2007; they are now interred with the others. Here is the alcove in the church where the Romanovs lie.  Nicholas is to the left of center, Alexandra to the right, and the children around them.  Even if you don’t read Cyrillic, you can make out the names (click to enlarge). I find this ineffably sad.

The area on an adjacent island, which has a view of the Fortress in the background, is a popular place for Russian wedding parties to have their photographs taken. I saw at least four such parties on the two days I visited the area.  Here’s one of them, with the bride and a bridesmaid (?, wearing a sash) looking jaunty.

I have at least one more post on St. Petersburg, involving the art and interiors of the Hermitage and Russian Museum. I’ll try to put that up this week.

Caturday felid: the source of cat videos

August 20, 2011 • 4:17 am

If you thought that all those popular cat videos, like “Maru,” “surprised kitten,” and “OMG cat” were made by independent cat owners, you’re wrong.  They are the product of Kittywood Studios, a lucrative empire that churns them out by the dozens. This short documentary tells the tail. (Note the Steve Jobs clone at the end.)

Heisenberg’s cat

August 19, 2011 • 1:51 pm

Why not a kitteh for a lazy Friday afternoon?

There is no way to prove that this cat actually moves on its own, for observing it destroys our ability to detect its movement.

This also says something about selection for hunting behavior.

h/t: Chris

Sophisticated theology: why God is hidden

August 19, 2011 • 11:55 am

Sophisticated theologians need to explain why we don’t see much of God these days.  But, as always, they’re superb at making virtues from necesssities.  Here’s Catholic theologian and evolution-accommodationist John Haught with some answers:

  • “Theology may at least point out that that hiddenness of God to conscious beings here and now is consistent with the fact that the universe is still coming into being . . . If our universe were completely finalized here and now we could justifiably insist on absolute clarity.  However, as long as the world is still being created, and as long as the drama of life has yet to be concluded, we cannot reasonably expect here and now to make out clearly what it is all about, or what lies beyond, behind, and within it. We have to wait.

For this reason it is not unexpected that what Whitehead calls the greatness of present facts—in other words, God—must remain beyond our grasp. “  (Making Sense of Evolution, p. 108).

  • “It is essential to religious experience, after all, that ultimate reality be beyond our grasp. If we could grasp it, it would not be ultimate.”  (Deeper Than Darwin, p. 68).

We have to wait!  I like this explanation better:

  • “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.” (Delos McKown)

The prescient pachyderm: elephants are even smarter than we thought

August 19, 2011 • 10:15 am

If elephants are so smart, why aren’t they rich?  Seriously, folks, try the roast beef, and don’t forget to tip the waitress.

Elephants are known for their intelligence, but up to now have not been seen to engage in “insightful problem solving,” which I take to mean solving problems by thinking about them beforehand rather than simply by trial and error, and using two hitherto unconnected items together (like standing on a box to get food).  Such problem solving is known in other species, including chimps, birds, and other primates, but not in pachyderms.

A new paper in PLoS One (reference below), highlighted in a summary in piece in Science NOW, suggests that at least some elephants do indeed solve problems insightfully.  The paper reports that a 7-year-old male Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) could retrieve a cube from his enclosure, moving it to below a branch where fruit hung out of reach.  Standing on the cube, the elephant (named Kandula), then reached the fruit. Two other elephants, 33 and 61 years old, couldn’t do this, nor were any of the elephants able to use sticks to knock the fruit down.  Kaduna also showed the ability to use other objects, like a tire, as platforms to reach the food, and he even tried to stack blocks on top of each other to reach fruit that was hung higher; in this he was unsuccessful.

It’s an interesting finding, but does it merit a whole big paper on its own? Well, maybe it does show us new and unsuspected abilities of familiar species, and of course PLoS ONE doesn’t judge papers for their importance, but only by whether the conclusions are justified by the results. I like this result because it’s cute, but I don’t much like PLoS ONE’s publication policy.

Here’s Kaduna doing his thing:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1002086&w=425&h=350&fv=]

And several more species engaged in insightful problem solving, with photos contributed by Matthew Cobb:

A chimp putting two sticks together to get fruit, and stacking boxes to the same end:

Pigeons, too, can move boxes to get food:

And of course our own species is not exempt from this behavior.  Here’s a human—in fact, it’s a young Matthew Cobb himself!—chained up in a yard, but using a spoon to get some milk that had been put out for the dog:

Of course when I saw the photos above I asked Matthew why on earth he had been chained up as a child.  Was this abuse? He reassured me:

Yes that is me. We were visiting my grandfather’s place—he had a dairy which delivered milk (that quaint UK custom). The yard had lorries and milk floats going in and out of it, so the safest thing to do with me as a toddler was to let me play in the sandy yard, but prevent me from going too far. They also put the dog’s milk out of reach. But I was too smart for them *mwaa-hah-hah*

__________

Foerder P, Galloway M, Barthel T, Moore DE III, Reiss D. 2011. Insightful Problem Solving in an Asian Elephant. PLoS ONE 6(8): e23251. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023251

The “David Mabus” story

August 19, 2011 • 8:39 am

Most of you know about the threatening emails that Canadian Dennis Markuze, aka “Dave Mabus” sent to many atheists and scientists. I myself received hundreds of them, including death threats. When I asked others how to report them, I learned that Markuze had already been reported to the Montreal police, who apparently weren’t interested in messing with him so long as he sat in his mother’s basement and didn’t actually hurt anyone.

That, of course, has changed.  Carl Zimmer, P. Z. Myers, and others made serious complaints, there was a petition signed to the police, and, finally, the police themselves lured Markuze into attacking their own Twitter account.  Ars Technica has the whole gory tale of his capture and arrest.

And, as far as anyone could tell, the complaints went nowhere. The local authorities weren’t interested in acting, and most of Mabus’ targets didn’t even live in Canada. That eventually changed, in part due to Mabus’ lack of discretion when it came to choosing his targets. One of Zimmer’s tweets apparently caught the attention of William Raillant-Clark, who handles press for the University of Montreal. Calling the inaction “unacceptable,” Ralliant-Clark began investigating the story and placed his results on Tumblr; he also included the Montreal Police’s press account on Twitter in some of the conversation.

Here’s where Mabus’ thoroughness backfired. Noticing the Twitter conversation between Ralliant-Clark and his former victims, he added the journalist to his target list. And, since the Montreal police’s Twitter account was also mentioned, it got a copy too. Mabus actually started sending diatribes to the local police force.

He’s a sick man, and I hope he gets the help he needs. But really, the Montreal Police should have taken action long before this. How many death threats does it take before someone gets investigated? Or do they have to wait until those threats are actually carried out?

Markuze, photographed at an atheist meeting in Montreal

Pope gives Catholics “abortion holiday”

August 19, 2011 • 5:01 am

Also according to CNN, the pope, who is visiting Spain, has given Spanish priests the right to absolve Catholics of abortion.  Until now, only a few select priests have the right to absolve Catholic women of this mortal sin and the automatic excommunication that follows.  CNN explains:

“All the priests that are administering the sacrament of confession during World Youth Day have the general authority to give absolution from the penalty of excommunication for abortion if someone comes to confession… if someone has this need,” Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told CNN on Thursday, referring to the event that brought Pope Benedict XVI to Madrid on Thursday for a four-day visit.

Madrid Archbishop Antonio María Rouco Varela announced the extension of such authority to more priests in a statement on the archdiocese’s website, saying the move was made in hopes that “all of the faithful who attend the celebrations of the 26th World Youth Day in Madrid can more easily attain the fruits of divine grace, that the doors to a new life open for them.”

Here’s the stipulation:

Varela said the Roman Catholic Church “has conferred to all the priests legitimately approved to hear sacramental confessions, who are in the archdiocese of Madrid during August 15 to 22, the delegated power to remit during the sacrament of penance the excommunication… corresponding to the sin abortion, to the faithful who are truly sorry, imposing at the same time a convenient penance.”

Now remember, the Catholic church considers abortion a “grave evil” that, if not expiated through confession, becomes a mortal sin that can send a person to Hell.  So what’s happening is that the Pope has proclaimed that God is excusing people from Hell if they happen to confess to priests who happened to be around Madrid in one specific week. How does the Pope know that?  This kind of shenanigan makes a mockery of the Church’s policy toward abortion, and of the supposed moral authority of the Vatican.

There have been lots of protests in Spain because the Pope’s visit is very expensive, angering those Spaniards who suffer from the country’s financial austerity.  Here’s one poster from a Spanish trade union site, which sums up many people’s feelings about the Catholic Church:

h/t: Sigmund