"Weird" science #1: Louis Pasteur

This post originally appeared on my personal blog. Ported to Forbidden Questions on 11/21/2011.

This is one of those posts I have been tied up in knots over because I have simply not had enough time to study it out to the final degree I want to. But I think I have gone far enough to share it with you so, if you are intrigued, you can study it far enough to feel comfortable yourself either to affirm or deny its veracity.

If you think I may be following a primrose path to error, please feel free to correct me!

******
I had always been led to believe that Louis Pasteur was a great person, worthy of great honors. After all, it is he who developed the germ theory that led to most of the tremendous advances in late 19th and early 20th century medicine and, of course, to the process that bears his name: pasteurization, "a process of gently heating foodstuffs like milks to kill these organisms without changing the flavor or nutritional value." I have even found him held out by many conservative Christians as a model of religious rectitude.

This is what I have been taught.

Except now I am finding that nearly everything I was taught about Pasteur's science and discoveries, not to mention the value of pasteurization, may be wrong.

More specifically, I'm learning, there is quite a number of historians who claim,

• Pasteur didn't "discover" what is credited to his name. All of those "discoveries" were known before he came along. --It appears the case for this is quite strong. (See Chapter 1 of The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur for one source.)
   
  • Question, however: Could it be said that Pasteur "discovered" the germ theory in the same way that it can be said legitimately that Columbus "discovered" America (even though we have definitive evidence Columbus was not the first European to make it to the Americas and back)? No, Columbus was not first in the sense of absolutely no one having done it before. But, yes, he was first in the sense that it was only after Columbus went and returned that "America" came to be generally recognized for what it was. I.e., he was first in somewhat the same sense that George Washington was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." . . .
    
    My point: Is it possible that, while, as R. B. Pearson notes, it was proposed by many people even centuries before Pasteur that diseases are transferred by microscopic "seminaria contagionum" (Geronimo Fracastorio (1483-1553)) or "animalcula" (described in 1683 by Antonius van Leeuwenhoek) or "germs" (proposed in 1762 by M. A. Plenciz), the world really needed a Pasteur to popularize the concept and make it stick?
     
• I lack the capacity to judge one way or another on this matter, but several credible sources suggest that bacteria are not so much the causes of disease as they are the consequences. Microorganisms are, as it were, the "cleanup crew." When a macroorganism is weak, the microorganisms will come in to put it out of its misery and/or digest (and, thus, remove) the diseased parts. They say that the germ theory of disease--the theory that germs cause disease--is ill-conceived.

It was/is this latter point, really, that has put much of my blog writing on hold over the last few weeks. I have had this post semi-written (up to the words "ill-conceived") for the last month. But/and I have not been able to get far enough into the underlying literature to feel satisfied about the truth or error of the claim.

So let me share some of the sources I have perused:

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur. --That, actually, was my first introduction to this set of weird ideas. It focuses primarily upon Bechamp and Pasteur. I received the link from a friend who has bought into the theory that "the [physical] terrain [of the host body] is everything; the germ is nothing."

The Lost History of Medicine. A development of the terrain/germ dichotomy with lots of links.

. . . I would like to develop this more, but I think the development will come in subsequent posts. (Be glad! 1--I'm getting this stuff published. And, 2--maybe my posts will be shorter than they used to be when I would get into this kind of stuff!)

For those who think I have jumped off the deep end, that I would even "listen" to this kind of stuff, let me acknowledge that I am finding myself extremely skeptical about the claims. But I am intrigued that, even if (as I expect), the authors of these articles--and the books and articles that they reference--are mistaken in some fundamental ways, they are probably more right than conventional medical advocates are willing to acknowledge. Put another way: Conventional medicine has some insights (but claims far more knowledge and competency than it has a right to claim), and these possible "quacks" are onto some keen insights that most of us ought to know about and utilize to our benefit. At the same time, I expect, they also claim far too much for their theories than they have a right to claim. --Just for example, "The terrain is everything," I imagine, is way overblown. So, too, I'm sure, is "the germ is nothing." But it would be extremely valuable to notice the terrain, and pay attention to the terrain, and to work on the terrain--something that conventional medicine, by and large, refuses to do; and something that the U.S. government, through its subsidies, actively undermines (a subject we will return to in subsequent posts).

So. Onward!

I hope you'll join me as we see where this leads. . . .

Object v. domain of study . . .

This post originally appeared on my personal blog. Ported to Forbidden Questions on 11/21/2011.

I just started reading Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism by Howard J Van Till, Davis A Young, and Clarence Menninga.

In the first few pages they make an interesting observation. Actually, they make the observation in their very first sentence, but it took a couple of pages before I understood its significance:

Although the entire physical universe may be the object of investigation by the natural sciences, not all of its attributes fall within the domain of scientific inquiry.

What does this mean?

The authors attempt to illustrate the distinction by suggesting how we might study a page in a book.

Suppose we were able to describe every aspect of the page from the perspective of a natural scientist. Suppose we analyzed its chemical and physical characteristics, the distribution of atoms, the specific locations of different compounds, the proportions and dimensions and spatial relations of all the physical components. . . .

At the end of such an analysis, would we have missed anything of significance?

Absolutely!

No amount of scientific investigation--at least no amount of scientific inquiry of the type described here--could possibly reveal, 1) that the object of our study [what we--as observers--know is a page of the book] actually is intended to convey meaning, or 2) what that meaning really is.

And, thus, "to say that this page is nothing but a particular assembly of atoms and molecules, or to assert that the physical universe is 'all that is or ever was or ever will be' (as Carl Sagan does in Cosmos, p. 1) is to speak nonsense."

Frustrated! Need to change my methodology . . .

This post originally appeared on my personal blog. Ported to Forbidden Questions on 11/21/2011.

I keep reading books and articles and tell myself I need to blog what I'm reading and studying and thinking. I feel the need partially because I find I really "master" something when I am able adequately to explain it. But I rarely get around to blogging . . . perhaps because I keep wanting to ensure I've done a thorough job of hitting every fine point.

So I've decided I need to change my mentality. "Just get the basic points out on the blog. Let your readers get a glimpse of what you're thinking about and, if they are interested, let them do their own research. Give a few clues, maybe a few links, but don't worry about being completely thorough."

So that's what I hope to do . . . and hope, thereby, to break up the ice and the backlog of posts I've been wanting to write but have never gotten around to.

Sorry.

And thanks.

Self-healing DNA . . .

This post originally appeared on my personal blog. Ported to Forbidden Questions on 11/21/2011.

My friend Perry Marshall just sent me a link to his latest article titled The Mathematics of DNA.

I have to confess, I can't follow all the math. (Or, perhaps more accurately: I have been unwilling to invest the time to figure out exactly what he is saying when he speaks about the implications of certain ratios.)

But ignore the more technical aspects and--as long as he isn't blowing smoke--the article is filled with some very intriguing ideas, indeed!

I'll quote the introduction just to whet your appetite:

Imagine that someone gives you a mystery novel with an entire page ripped out.

And let’s suppose someone else comes up with a computer program that reconstructs the missing page, by assembling sentences and paragraphs lifted from other places in the book.

Imagine that this computer program does such a beautiful job that most people can’t tell the page was ever missing.

DNA does that.

In the 1940’s, the eminent scientist Barbara McClintock damaged parts of the DNA in corn maize. To her amazement, the plants could reconstruct the damaged section. They did so by copying other parts of the DNA strand, then pasting them into the damaged area. . . .

How does a tiny cell possibly know how to do that???

A French HIV researcher and computer scientist has now found part of the answer.

Check out The Mathematics of DNA.

And if you can find anything wrong with what Perry has written, you may be sure he (and I!) would appreciate hearing about it.

Honesty . . . it's such a lonely word . . .

This was originally posted 27 February 2009 on my personal blog. I reposted it here on Forbidden Questions on 21 July 2011.

To quote Billy Joel:

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

I am so disappointed!

Answers in Genesis claimed their "Charles Spurgeon-Reloaded" series would "update" Spurgeon's sermons, "not to change the meaning, but to make them more easily understood by modern readers." Moreover, they said, "the original text [would] also [be] included so that [readers] can see what was changed."

How disappointing, then, to find what they have done with only the 30th sermon they have "updated."

Due to limitations of the blogging software I'm using (I can't get any table cells to align vertically to the tops of their cells), I am breaking sentences apart into separate cells within the following table . . . so the actual quotes will align as closely as possible one with the other. However--as you will see if you visit the referenced sites, I have removed no sentences from either quotation, nor altered the wording in any way. I have added italics and bolding to call attention to the obvious tampering that AiG has done with the text of Spurgeon's sermon as preached:

Original	AiG's "Modernized" Version	John's Comments
In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."	In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”	Yes. Very minor update.
We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be--certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam.		!!!! Oh! Can you say "point-of-view censorship"?!? How about honoring Spurgeon enough at least to point out the massive emendation? Spurgeon's actual views about the age of the earth--views he expressed four years before Darwin's Origin of Species came out--didn't align with AiG's. "Too bad! Down the memory hole with them!" How incredibly dishonest, don't you think?!?
Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.	Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation.	Sorry! "Pass[ing] through various stages of existence" isn't quite the same as "pass[ing] through various stages in creation. Close, but not quite the same. Worse, however, "[giving] up the world to confusion" has a very different meaning than "initially creat[ing] the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation." Not even close. The original leaves plenty of room for a gap of millions of years (as is rather clear Spurgeon allowed for, based on what he actually said in the sentence two up from this one--the sentence AiG's "modernizers" so carefully removed!). But AiG's rephrasing leaves no such option. Anyone who would speak as AiG has made Spurgeon to speak would have to be a literal, six-day, young-earth creationist. But based on what he actually said, Spurgeon--at least at the time he preached this sermon--obviously believed in a world that was "certainly many millions of years" old. Is AiG being honest with the historical record? I don't think so!
He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder. The only name you could give to the world, then, was that it was a chaotic mass of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or define.		Oops! Another major emendation. And AiG expects us to believe this is a faithful rendition of Spurgeon's meaning? (Remember their promise "not to change the meaning"?)
It was entirely "without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The Spirit came, and stretching his broad wings, bade the darkness disperse, and as he moved over it, all the different portions of matter came into their places, and it was no longer "without form, and void;" but became round, like its sister planets, and moved, singing the high praises of God—not discordantly, as it had done before, but as one great note in the vast scale of creation.	It was entirely without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The Spirit came, and stretching his broad wings, bade the darkness disperse, and as he moved over it, all the different portions of matter came into their places, and it was no longer “without form, and void;” but became round like its sister planets, and moved, singing the high praises of God—not discordantly as it had done before, but as one great note in the vast scale of creation.	Ah! How nice! Back to our regular broadcast . . . having first eliminated one of those damning pieces of evidence that AiG's version of Christian theological history may not, in fact, be accurate.

A few days ago, in anticipation that AiG just might engage in this kind of dishonesty, but with sincere hopes and expectations that they wouldn't, I wrote,

If [AiG does, indeed, decide to engage in such behavior,] I go back to my original post that kind of sparked this entire discussion: Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear?

Apparently, if you can't win your argument on the merits, AiG believes in winning through altering the historical record--as I intimated above, the old "memory hole" trick.

Oh. And in case, for some reason, you are unaware, the memory hole was not merely a literary device dreamt up by George Orwell. No. He got his idea from a master of such historical lies. Look at how Joseph Stalin dealt with inconvenient history. . . .

--Thanks to Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn for bringing this story to my attention. (See their comments yesterday in answer to my post in which I asked, Does old-earth/old-universe creationism=Liberalism? Atheism?)

I wrote my comments above before reading Tim's post on the same subject.

Yowzie! The CHEC controversy looks like it is about to boil over . . .

This was originally posted 18 February 2009 on my personal blog. I reposted it here on Forbidden Questions on 7 June 2011.

Tim Martin forewarned me he intended to write about what happened between Sonlight and CHEC. (See the follow-up posts as well. For example, my Change of Interpretation article, CHEC, Part III, and, finally, A direct (indirect) statement from Kevin Swanson about CHEC's perspective on Sonlight.)

And, in fact, Tim forwarded me an early draft of his document for my review. But I didn't take the time to read it until he emailed me to say he had actually posted what he had written, posted it in public.

I just (in the last hour or so, ending a few minutes ago) read the document: Homeschooling, the Genesis Debate, and Hypocrisy.

I'm impressed with the quality of research, thinking, and, finally, writing Tim has done! The paper is hard-hitting and, I think, by and large, very clean-hitting. Just a couple of places I think Tim may have overstepped the bounds a bit . . . ascribing motives to behaviors that I doubt he could be absolutely sure about. (I think, particularly, of his charge, under "Learning Lessons: Failure of Leadership," that "When John and Sonlight pursued the matter [of Sonlight having been banned from the CHEC convention], CHEC decided to embark on a fishing expedition to find some new 'concern' that would vindicate the ban on Sonlight, saving face for CHEC's previous decision." I think that is a reasonable hypothesis. I just can't know for sure that it is true.)

Tim's words, clearly, are his own. They are not mine. But--as implied by my linking to it--I think the article is well worth reading and the questions it raises worth thinking about. . . .

*********

And knowing how this kind of stuff works, let me address an issue that might soon blow up in my face if I don't make note of it now.

Tim is an advocate of an eschatological system known as preterism.

I know enough to know that this perspective is wildly divisive in some circles. (Indeed, Tim's paper says as much.)

I know enough about the subject to find it mildly intriguing but also seriously troubling, all at the same time.

I have stumbled around just enough on a few preterist websites to realize that some preterists call others heretics. And at least one such preterist levels exactly that charge against Tim.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many non-preterists are convinced that all preterists (or, at least, a goodly number of preterists) are heretics.

I will confess ignorance on these matters.

But, then, by personality and preference, I tend to gravitate more toward Jesus' statement to His disciples that "he who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40; see also Luke 9:50) than I do to His other statement (Matthew 12:30; see also Luke 11:23) that, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

ETA: Clearly, there is truth in both perspectives. Jesus Himself obviously taught both. I am simply saying my predilection is to seek, hope, and believe the best, and to pursue the former, rather than the latter . . . with respect to friends and ostensible foes.

I seek, hope for, and try to pursue the former unless and until it becomes impossible. . . .

Does old-earth/old-universe creationism=Liberalism? Atheism?

This was originally posted 18 February 2009 on my personal blog. I reposted it here on Forbidden Questions on 7 June 2011.

Last night, I followed a few links . . . and links from links . . . from Tim Martin's paper, Homeschooling, the Genesis Debate, and Hypocrisy, and comments about the paper.

Tim, for example, included a link to a brief quotation from a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached on June 17, 1855--four years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species saw the light of day. The title of Spurgeon's sermon: The Power of the Holy Ghost.

Tim preceded the quote from Spurgeon with this comment:

[O]rganizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International, [promote the concept] that any belief in an old earth or universe is compromise with Bible-denying liberals and unbelieving atheistic Darwinists. For devoted young-earth advocates the situation is as simple as this: believe our interpretation of Genesis creation and Noah's flood, or side with the liberals and godless scientists. . . .

[But] the next time you witness this tactic, perhaps you can ask a very simple question. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a liberal evolutionist? Here is what he taught in one of his sermons:

. . . In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

I found it so hard to believe that Spurgeon would say such a thing (after all, I, myself, have been listening quite carefully to the declarations of the young-earth creationists, and they really do make the kinds of claims Tim ascribes to them: that anyone who disagrees with their perspective has been, at minimum, influenced by godless liberals (if not having become one outright))--that I decided I had to look up Spurgeon's original for myself. (You can find it at www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0030.htm.)

What I found there astonished me even further, because it went beyond that which Tim quoted.

Truly.

It sounds as if Spurgeon himself was preaching a view of providential creation very similar to what I have been hearing and writing about, here, that I have now heard from the Haarsmas, Glover, and, now, Miller and friends.

Immediately preceding the passage that Tim quotes, I found this:

[T]he Spirit has manifested the omnipotence of his power in creation works; for though not very frequently in Scripture, yet sometimes creation is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father and the Son.

The creation of the heavens above us, is said to be the work of God's Spirit. This you will see at once by referring to the sacred Scriptures, Job 26, 13th verse, "By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." All the stars of heaven are said to have been placed aloft by the Spirit, and one particular constellation called the "crooked serpent," is specially pointed out as his handiwork.

He looseth the bands of Orion; he bindeth the sweet influences of the Pleiades, and binds Arcturus with his suns.

He made all those stars that shine in heaven. The heavens were garnished by his hands, and he formed the crooked serpent by his might.

So, also, in those continued acts of creation which are still performed in the world; as the bringing forth of man and animals, their birth and generation. These are ascribed also to the Holy Ghost.

If you look at the 104th Psalm, at the 29th verse you will read, "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth." So that the creation of every man is the work of the Spirit; and the creation of all life, and all flesh-existence in this world, is as much to be ascribed to the power of the Spirit, as the first garnishing of the heavens, or the fashioning of the crooked serpent.

--I quote this latter passage because it seems to indicate that Spurgeon himself would have found little difficulty with the idea that God may have used "natural processes"--what I referred to, yesterday, as "proximate causes" (possibly, "even," "evolution"!)--to bring about His creation.

But back to the links I found from Tim's article.

"Virgil" commented:

When the folks at FreeRepublic.com are disagreeing with Ken Ham, you know that he has gotten out of control and he is in fact falling out of favor with his followers. He has played the "heresy" card one time too many if you ask me. . . .

--And he provided a link to an article on FreeRepublic.com, posted just yesterday, but referencing something Mr. Ham wrote some ten years ago: The god of an old earth: Does the Bible teach that disease, bloodshed, violence and pain have always been 'part of life'?

Writes the Free Republic author:

By declaring “the god of an old earth cannot be the God of the Bible” and “the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel,” he is accusing old-earth creationists of heresy.

Disagreements in the body of Christ are inevitable. And history has shown debate in the church can be edifying and unifying when it is conducted properly. This requires focusing on the things that unite us and avoid passing judgment on nonessential matters (Romans 14:1). But, that is not the spirit of Ham’s paper. By claiming old-earth creationism violates orthodox Christian teachings, he seeks to denigrate and marginalize it. That only serves to divide faithful Christians and prevent them from having fellowship together.

Ouch! --Kind of what I was referring to last night when I referenced Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 (where Jesus says, "he who is not against us is for us") v. Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 (where Jesus says, "He who is not with Me is against Me"). While not denying the latter in any way, I noted that "my predilection is to seek, hope, and believe the best, and to pursue the former [a general sense of cooperation], rather than the latter [a general sense of opposition]."

What disturbs me most grievously in the ongoing creation/evolution wars is this: that most partisans seem to enjoy exactly what my friend Tracy warns against in her article on the finest practices Christians should adopt when they engage in sacred-cow tipping. Sadly, too many of us take joy in tipping others' cows. We don't put pillows down for other people's cows. We don't give them time and space to realize that their cows are down. [Please read her entire (short) article to place these comments in context!]

I hope my ongoing discussion of these issues, here, will not cause my young-earth brothers and sisters to feel that I am abandoning them or taking pleasure in attempting to tip their cows! That is not my intention at all.

Rather, I am attempting simply to share what is going through my mind pretty much as it is going through my mind . . . and hoping you'll accompany me on my journey . . . provide warnings and counter-balancing perspectives, if and as you see the need, and, perhaps, point out additional vistas that I might otherwise miss.

*****
A postscript: I wrote to Tim, before I did my own search for Spurgeon's sermon, and commented, "He really said that in 1855--four years before Darwin's book came out?!?"

Tim replied: "The Spurgeon quote shocked me, too. A reader sent it in a few weeks ago. I thought it was funny because of the date. And, you probably haven't noticed, but AiG is releasing a 'modernized' version of Spurgeon's material. Jeff [Vaughn, Tim's co-author for Beyond Creation Science] investigated and found that they omitted that sermon!" Edited to Add, on 2/22/09 at 7:20 AM: At this moment, there is no evidence that AiG has omitted anything. If they are going to omit something, that should become obvious beginning on Thursday of this coming week--on February 26th--since that is the day on which, it appears, their Charles Spurgeon--Reloaded program should come to the particular sermon under question: Spurgeon's Sermon #30, The Power of the Holy Ghost.

If the charge is true, I go back to my original post that kind of sparked this entire discussion: Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear? --Are we entering a new era of "Christian soviet thought-control" . . . in which one side attempts to control the debate by censoring what the majority of people can hear from those they view as opponents?