Brain-eating “amoeba”

August 19, 2011 • 4:42 am

Well, it’s billed as an amoeba, but it’s really a protist, Naegleria fowleri (Naegleria is in the family Vahlkampfiidae, while true amoebas are in the family Amoebidea and the genus Amoeba). But it’s a bad protist, for it causes infections that, while rare, are nearly always fatal.  Three people have already died this year.

As CNN reports, the infection is water-borne: the protist enters the noses of swimmers, and then lodges and multiplies in their brains, causing death by consuming the neurons of the frontal lobe, leading to swelling of the brain.  Only one person is known to have survived the infection, so it’s nearly as deadly as rabies.

Note that in the video at the link, the mother of a 16-year-old girl who died from the parasite calls her loss a “blessing in disguise,” for the daughter was an organ donor (something we should all be doing), and the death has not only alerted people to potential dangers of the protist, but also has brought people to religious faith, made them go to church and get baptized, and inspired them to believe in God. It’s understandable that a distraught mother would want to find something positive in the death of her child, but how such a senseless tragedy inspires people to turn to God is beyond me.  Not only did He take a young girl for no obvious reason, but He created the parasite that killed her.  I’ve written a hymn to explain:

The parasite, the flies that bite

All came from Adam’s Fall;

The protists that consume the brain—

Yes, the Lord God made them all.

Life stages of Naegleria fowleri. Left to right: cyst, trophozoite (reproductive feeding stage), and flagellate

h/t: Chris

Another Republican disses evolution, claims that nobody knows the age of the Earth, and osculates conservative rump

August 19, 2011 • 4:04 am

We already know that Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann supports creationism, claiming falsely that there are “hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” Since Republicans have historically been anti-evolution and anti-science, it’s no surprise that conservative Texas Republican governor Rick Perry—probably the current front-runner to challenge Obama in 2012—is also antievolution.  It’s sad, and uniquely American, that important political figures deny the palpable truth about nature to cater to their conservative constituents.

Here’s Perry in a video from two days ago, talking to a young boy and claiming not only that he, Perry, doesn’t know the age of the Earth, but neither does anybody else.  He also claims, falsely, that in Texas both creationism and evolution are taught in science classes, certainly also a lie if he’s referring to public schools, where such teaching violates the First Amendment.  A report of the meeting follows the video:

Here’s the background and transcript from TPM News:

A woman who will probably not be supporting the Texas governor brought her young son along to a campaign event in New Hampshire on Thursday, and had the boy ask Perry his views about science. “How old do you think the earth is?” the boy asked. This was an apparent allusion to how fundamentalist Christians often insist that Earth — and indeed, the whole universe — is about 6,000 years old.

“How old do I think the earth is? You know what, I don’t have any idea,” Perry responded. “I know it’s pretty old. So it goes back a long, long ways. I’m not sure — I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.

Perry then steered the conversation to some questions the boy’s mother had been asking him, about evolution

“Here your mom was asking about evolution. And you know, it’s a theory that is out there — it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools. Because I figure–”

The mother cut back in: “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.”

Perry continued: “Because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”

The mother continued to tell her son, “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.” At that point Perry politely ended the conversation, and moved on to the next person in the crowd.

Imagine a presidential candidate claiming that nobody knows how antibiotics work, and that in Texas schools they teach both Western medicine and homeopathy, letting the children sort out the truth.

Evolution: fact or theory?

August 18, 2011 • 11:53 am

It is in fact both, as Larry Moran points out in a very nice essay at Sandwalk.  It’s an update of an essay he first wrote in 1993, but he’s updated it constantly.  And even if you read the earlier versions, the latest is a must-read for anyone with an interest in evolution, or those who must deal with evolution-deniers who dismiss the concept as “only a theory.”

David Lose tells us how to interpret the Adam and Eve Story

August 18, 2011 • 6:50 am

The Adam and Eve story continues to plague theologians, for we know from genetics that it’s wrong—modern humanity did not all descend from two contemporaneous ancestors—and yet the concept of sin and redemption through Jesus is desperately important to Christians.  Without a literal interpretation of the Fall, what sense does Jesus’s sacrifice make?

David Lose, who has appeared on this site before, has a solution in a new piece at HuffPo: “Adam, Eve and the Bible.” Lose is Director of the Center for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary, but not a literalist.  He apparently accepts the scientific refutation of Adam and Eve’s existence, but when it comes to facing its implications for Christianity, he waves away the problem:

The second argument against reading Adam and Eve as mythic story rather than historical account is that later theologians, most notably the Apostle Paul, base some of their theology on the Adam and Eve account. Lose Eden, the theory goes, and you’ve lost Paul as well. This I name the “house of cards” understanding of theology, because if any single element of a larger theological argument appears flimsy then the entire confession is at risk. This creates for conservatives tremendous insecurity about the validity and integrity of Christian theology that must be kept at bay at all costs.

The Apostle Paul, however, betrays no such insecurity. Striving to describe mysteries that surpass him, Paul presses language to its limits in order to witness to God’s work in Christ. Paul is not trying to explain divinity but rather pay homage to it. For this reason he reaches for familiar stories, symbols and characters to give voice to his testimony of how the man crucified as a criminal unexpectedly emerges as God’s divine solution to our human plight. Working at times with Adam and at others with Abraham, drawing comparisons to the sacrificial system of Judaism at some points and Greco-Roman house ethics at others, Paul stretches language and metaphor to render God’s accomplishment as vivid and accessible as possible rather than reduce it to historical or even theological formulas. Jesus is neither a data point in Paul’s larger rational argument nor a cog in some machinery of salvation; rather, he is the narrative linchpin and interpretive key that holds together and makes sense of all of Israel’s stories and, indeed, all the stories of the world.

I guess he’s saying here that the redemption of humans from sin through the crucifixion, and the status of Jesus as God’s son, are merely metaphors rather than historical facts.  Jesus is reduced to a “narrative linchpin” to make a larger point. And what is that point? Lose returns to it at the end when discussing Genesis, Adam and Eve:

Yet read these stories literally and all the artistic nuance and poetic beauty of these distinct confessions is immediately flattened by the need to have them conform to post-Enlightenment ideas of rational verifiability imported in the mid-19th century to repel attempts to read the Bible as a historical document.

“Conforming to post-Enlightenment values of rational verifiability,” of course, is a theologian’s way of saying “true”.  So if the story isn’t true, what can we take from Adam and Eve? Just this:

If, however, we look to Genesis not for historical datum from which to construct a pseudo-scientific cosmology we find a different story all together. It’s a story about the insecurity that is endemic to humanity and the ever-present temptation to refuse the identity that comes from the vulnerability of authentic relationship in favor of defining ourselves over and against each other. Read this way, the story of Eden is the history of humanity writ small, and Adam and Eve are, indeed, the parents of us all. It’s a more complicated story, for sure, than we’ve sometimes been offered, but it is also more interesting and compelling and, ultimately, one I’m inclined to believe.

I have no idea what he’s talking about, but I know it has nothing to do with what most Christians see as the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.  How nice of God to tell Lose what the Bible really means, and how accommodating of Lose to give Christians a way to abandon one of the central tenets of their faith.

The Selfish Gene becomes a musical

August 18, 2011 • 6:21 am

Well, of all the books to make into a musical, you’d think that Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene would be among the least likely.  But it’s happened: as New Scientist reports, the Edinburgh Fringe Festival is putting on that show, written by Jonathan Salway and Dino Kazamia.

How could this be done? Like so:

In the show a fusty Oxford professor, played by Salway, tries to lecture the audience on the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Meanwhile, the Adamson family share the stage, going about their daily trials of life, unwittingly providing examples of the points he’s making. He frequently interrupts and explains to them why they’re feeling and behaving the way they are, and sporadically gets involved in their lives along the way. . .

. . . Another highlight is the battle of the sexes in which Dad and his “bit on the side” (we know she is because it’s written on her T-shirt), are having a date. He’s not sure how much to splash out on the meal because he doesn’t know if he’ll be getting what he wants in return. She orders the expensive fish dish to test his relationship potential. But then she’s worried about being too coy – maybe she should flirt a little, open up her shirt a little – but it backfires because then he wonders if she’s too quick and has done this with other men. The song ends with them singing in unison, “I can’t invest more till I’m sure that you’ll invest more in me.” Amongst this, the prof is explaining philandering versus faithful males and coy versus fast females.

Reviewer Mairi MacLeod renders a positive verdict, hedging only because of the over-concentration on memes (a concept that I see as tautological and unhelpful):

For cutting-edge evolutionary biologists, or for that matter for regular readers of New Scientist, the theory depicted in the show might feel slightly dated, with its talk of memes rather than culture evolution or multilevel selection. That said, the show is true to Dawkins’s book, and for this reason it would have been great had it appeared a few years back. But still, it achieves something remarkable – it imparts to the audience the fundamentals of the evolution of behaviour while delivering great entertainment.

The play runs until August 20 at Zoo Roxy in Edinburgh.

h/t: Seth

Why theology is not benign: the “natural law” of Catholicism

August 18, 2011 • 6:04 am

The other day we discussed Edward Feser and his take on the “natural law” in Catholicism—in this case, the “law” that sex between married couples is for procreation only, not to be impeded by chemicals or devices (although judicious employment of a calender is okay).  I wondered at that time what Catholics meant by “natural law,” and if that law was well understood and explicitlly laid out in Catholic dogma.

It turns out that this isn’t the case.

In her latest post, “The dangers of theology,” Miranda Hale tries to decipher the mysteries of natural law and comes up pretty dry.  The best she can do is this:

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “[t]hose actions which conform with [nature’s] tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral” and “[a]ctions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires”.

Compatibility with “rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain” is hardly something that’s immediately obvious.

I found a bit more in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but it’s not very helpful:

The question arises: How far can man be ignorant of the natural law, which, as St. Paul says, is written in the human heart (Romans 2:14)? The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason. These principles are really reducible to the primary principle which is expressed by St. Thomas in the form: “Do good and avoid evil”. Wherever we find man we find him with a moral code, which is founded on the first principle that good is to be done and evil avoided. When we pass from the universal to more particular conclusions, the case is different. Some follow immediately from the primary, and are so self-evident that they are reached without any complex course of reasoning. Such are, for example: “Do not commit adultery”; “Honour your parents”. No person whose reason and moral nature is ever so little developed can remain in ignorance of such precepts except through his own fault. Another class of conclusions comprises those which are reached only by a more or less complex course of reasoning. These may remain unknown to, or be misinterpreted even by persons whose intellectual development is considerable. To reach these more remote precepts, many facts and minor conclusions must be correctly appreciated, and, in estimating their value, a person may easily err, and consequently, without moral fault, come to a false conclusion.

The ambiguity is “those [conclusions] which are reached only by a more or less complex course of reasoning,” and which may be misinterpreted even by smart folks.  That’s where the discretion of Church authorities comes in, giving them of course considerable wiggle room, though they haven’t wiggled out of their stands on abortion or condom use.

This is the same problem I came up with in trying to investigate what sins are considered “mortal sins” by Catholics.  That idea, too, is ambiguous.  And I think the ambiguity of both notions is deliberate, for by keeping the faithful off balance, and unsure whether they’re obeying natural law and committing mortal sins, the Church gains considerable power over its members.

A win for evolution in Texas

August 17, 2011 • 10:12 am

Creationists tried to get their filthy fingers again into Texas public-school education, with one biology textbook held up by the Texas State Board of Education because a creationist had some objections to material that affirmed evolution.  After working with the Board of Education, the publisher, Holt-McDougal, has come up with a final version, which was approved.  The thing is, the “edits” made the book even more pro-evolution than before! You can read about it here, and download a pdf file of the changes made in response to creationist objections.

That makes nine textbooks, all undergirded with solid evolutionary ideas, that can be used in Texas over the next decade. Kudos to the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education for lobbying in favor of solid science.

More religious lunacy: why God loves sports

August 17, 2011 • 6:22 am

If you live in the American South, you’ll know about the deep connection between religion and sports, particularly when the sport is football at a major university.  Although the First Amendment now prohibits most pre-game prayers, the contests are seen as reflections of God’s will, as if he cares deeply about which team scores the most touchdowns.  Alert reader Sigmund, following a story broadcast on CNN, found an article explaining why sports confer glory to God.

The piece, at Church Sports Outreach, is one of the greatest post facto theological rationalizations I’ve ever seen.  It’s called “Was there competition in the garden?“; the “garden” is, of course, the Garden of Eden.  The purpose of the piece is to show that although sports originated after humans became sinful, it’s okay—in fact, godly—to love and follow sports. Here’s the dilemma that must be rationalized:

If competition only came after the Fall in Genesis 3, then as followers of Christ we should move people out of competition and sports rather than into them.  Jesus Christ came to overcome all of the corruption from the Fall.  If competition is a part of this corruption, then, in our work as fellow laborers with Christ to build the kingdom of God, we should work to eliminate, not encourage competition.  However, if there was competition in the Garden, then the Fall didn’t bring competition into existence, it only corrupted it.   Our work would then be to overcome the corruption and restore competition to the original design, not to eliminate it.

Remember, this is not a parody!  Now to show that God really does loves sports, one simply has to do a judicious reading of Genesis:

To answer the question, we need first to define what we are looking for in the Garden.  The word competition comes from the Latin word competere, which means to seek or strive together.  In our culture, we typically think of competition as striving against.  In our search, we will look for the first idea – striving together.

I find at least two places in Genesis 1 & 2 where this striving together, this competition takes place.  The first comes in Genesis 1:28 where God says to Adam & Eve, “Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it.  Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”  These verses have been referred to as the Cultural or Dominion Mandate. . .

. . . Notice, this command was given to both of them.  They were to unearth treasures together just as they were to multiply together.  This required cooperation, a striving together toward this end.  Here we see competition.  As they strived together, each one brought out more of the image of God in them.

You can see where the author, Bob Schindler, is going with this.  And he proposes the following scenario, which I am not making up:

I can imagine one day Adam says, “Eve, would you toss me an orange.”  Now Eve had never tossed before but she picks up the orange, reflects for a moment and throws it.  It is a little high and Adam has to jump up from his seat to catch it.  He has never jumped but reflexively does so.  “Hey that was fun.  Do it again only higher,” Adam says.  Eve picks up another oranges, thinks for a moment and throws it higher.  Adam has to really jump but stretches out and catches it.  On and on it goes with lots of laughter.

Do you see what is happening there?  More of the “treasure” within them is being unearthed.  Adam’s ability to jump and Eve’s ability to calculate angle, velocity, distance for a perfect throw are coming out.  Can you sense the joy?  The fun?  Can you taste this original game?  And in the process, God is glorified.  His image, Adam & Eve, are showing off more and more of the “glory” given them.

Ergo, football and Jesus.  But there is one obvious problem:

You may respond, “But that isn’t there in Genesis.  There is no tossing, no “original corn-hole game”.  It doesn’t say there is but I can’t help but think this happened because of the second place I find competition in Genesis 1 & 2.

With a little more logic-chopping, Schindler explains:

Genesis 1:26, 27 says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female he created them.”  God is speaking to someone here.  Who is it?

He’s speaking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, obviously—the other members of the Trinity (the “Godhead”). And, if you drag in C.S. Lewis, and mix in a bit of imagination, you get the solution:

The Godhead dancing.  Ever thought about that?  C.S Lewis adds, “In Christianity God is not an impersonal thing nor a static thing – not even just a person – but a dynamic pulsating activity, a life, a kind of drama, almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance.”  [3]

For us dance is choreographed movement typically to music.  Play is choreographed movement without music.   Could we even think of this as THE ORIGINAL TEAM, the Godhead, playing?  Creation was the result of the Godhead dancing, may we say even playing!

If Adam and Eve were made in this image, would play have been a part of their lives?  Absolutely!!!!

And so he concludes that “Christian competition”, i.e. Alabama and Auburn football, gives glory to God.

Now maybe university theologians wouldn’t find this logic sufficiently “sophisticated,” but remember that university theologians aren’t the same thing as garden-variety believers. And this noisome bit of Biblical exegesis still illustrates the three salient aspects of modern theology, including the “sophisticated” variety:

  1. The assertion that the Bible doesn’t really say what it seems to say.
  2. The fact that theology (despite the assertions of its practitioners) doesn’t involve a search for truth, but a rationalization of things that you already believe to be true from revelation or church dogma.  I’m now convinced that there is nothing that can’t be rationalized by a judicious reading of the Bible. I’m sure that sects that consider sports immoral can rationalize that as well.
  3. Gross fabrication of arguments from whole cloth, i.e., the faithful make stuff up.

More rationalization, which you can buy from Amazon. The description is below:

“Scripture calls Christians to do everything for the glory of God. That means every thought, every word, and every deed are to be done in a way that brings pleasure and honor to him. Believe it or not, this includes playing, watching, and talking sports! But most of us fail to recognize how sports fit into the big picture of a God-glorifying life, unable to imagine that the God who created the universe might actually care about Little League games and Monday Night Football.

So how do we play, watch, and talk sports for God’s glory? Game Day for the Glory of God seeks to answer that question from a biblical perspective. Sports fan Stephen Altrogge aims to help readers enjoy sports as a gift from God and to see sports as a means of growing in godliness.”