Comments for ASA Voices http://www.asa3online.org/Voices A group blog of ASA members Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:40:27 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 Comment on Thoughts about Psychopathy and the Moral Law by Wayne Dawson http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/08/08/thoughts-about-psychopathy-and-the-moral-law/comment-page-1/#comment-477 Wayne Dawson Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:40:27 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=466#comment-477 Reflecting on this, I was thinking about how such a behavior could even have been (and may even be) a selective advantage in certain contexts.  For example, war.  The sanguine soul can do pretty well as a soldier of fortune, as a cruel dictator, and probably many other “occupations”.   In China: Tradition and transformation (Houghton Muffin, Boston, 1989), Fairbanks and Reischauer write     Thus Chinggis [Genghis Khan] before his death in 1227 had established the basis of a far-flung Eurasian empire by conquering its inner zone across Central Asia.  Many have speculated as to Chinggis’ true personality.  For all his ability, his motives apparently were simple.  “Man’s highest joy,” he reportedly said, “is victory: to conquer one’s enemies, to pursue them, to deprive them of their possessions, to make their beloved weep, to ride on their horses, and to embrace their wives and daughters.” Both in Europe and in Asia the Mongols have been remembered for their wanton aggressiveness, and this trait was certainly present in Chinggis.   For that time and circumstance of Europe and Asia, the Mongols’ war strategy, attitude and social structure was, in effect, a true “selective advantage”.  This was not unique to the Mongols either.  The cruel and ruthless brutality of the Assyrians was notorious and earned a place in the book of Nahum.  Rome was not exactly a prime example of humanistic rule.  Also, recall the statement by Lemech in Gen 4:24-25.  All through history, and everywhere in the world, I am sure we can find examples of this.  Whatever version of Adam you wish to uphold (physical or figurative), collectively, we are sinners and sin pervades at the periphery of all of our thoughts and actions.  We honor “courage”, and such a person would probably be seen as “courageous”.  It is such as these that often receive honor and praise, wine, women and power in our societies.    However, just as Paul wrote in Rom 3:1-8, we are responsible for our deeds.  Our genes are not an excuse for doing evil.  Though, as Christians, we have to hold to a faith that God works through everything for good, it is certainly not because we are good.  Though Samson is given an important place in scripture, he is not particularly honored.  Though we may not have the same problems as Samson, we are born with other problems we must struggle to overcome or work around. A wise Samson would see his folly and seek ways to avoid repetition of the same mistakes.  Yet rarely in our youth, do we perceive what our pea-brained lack of foresight will incur and inflict on the world we live in.  Usually, it is when we are finally humbled that we look up and realize that it is right to live a life of repentance.   So, whereas we may have some supposed malady, it is still our responsibility to seek ways to overcome it.  Most supposed “maladies” have instances where they are productive.  For example, persistence verse stubbornness, ingenuity verse indolence, frugality verse greed, etc.  It’s also a reflection on how we should consider honoring behaviors that may, in some circumstances, prove right (courage for example), but in other instances could prove detrimental to society (wanton destruction).  Both instances require the setting aside of normal social restraints.  It is courageous to rescue someone from a burning building or free someone from false accusation and imprisonment.  It is depraved to commit untold violence and murder.  Jesus writes that if your eye makes you sin, cut it out.  What he means is don’t actively and intentionally put yourself in situations where you <em>know</em> you will sin.  He who hears his words and does them will obey. When confronted with a tough situation, it’s who you think of first that matters the most.  Let’s hope we all remember our Lord in those moments.   By Grace we proceed, Wayne   .     Reflecting on this, I was thinking about how such a behavior could even have been (and may even be) a selective advantage in certain contexts.  For example, war.  The sanguine soul can do pretty well as a soldier of fortune, as a cruel dictator, and probably many other “occupations”.
 
In China: Tradition and transformation (Houghton Muffin, Boston, 1989), Fairbanks and Reischauer write  
 
Thus Chinggis [Genghis Khan] before his death in 1227 had established the basis of a far-flung Eurasian empire by conquering its inner zone across Central Asia.  Many have speculated as to Chinggis’ true personality.  For all his ability, his motives apparently were simple.  “Man’s highest joy,” he reportedly said, “is victory: to conquer one’s enemies, to pursue them, to deprive them of their possessions, to make their beloved weep, to ride on their horses, and to embrace their wives and daughters.” Both in Europe and in Asia the Mongols have been remembered for their wanton aggressiveness, and this trait was certainly present in Chinggis.
 
For that time and circumstance of Europe and Asia, the Mongols’ war strategy, attitude and social structure was, in effect, a true “selective advantage”.  This was not unique to the Mongols either.  The cruel and ruthless brutality of the Assyrians was notorious and earned a place in the book of Nahum.  Rome was not exactly a prime example of humanistic rule.  Also, recall the statement by Lemech in Gen 4:24-25.  All through history, and everywhere in the world, I am sure we can find examples of this.  Whatever version of Adam you wish to uphold (physical or figurative), collectively, we are sinners and sin pervades at the periphery of all of our thoughts and actions.  We honor “courage”, and such a person would probably be seen as “courageous”.  It is such as these that often receive honor and praise, wine, women and power in our societies. 
 
However, just as Paul wrote in Rom 3:1-8, we are responsible for our deeds.  Our genes are not an excuse for doing evil.  Though, as Christians, we have to hold to a faith that God works through everything for good, it is certainly not because we are good.  Though Samson is given an important place in scripture, he is not particularly honored.  Though we may not have the same problems as Samson, we are born with other problems we must struggle to overcome or work around. A wise Samson would see his folly and seek ways to avoid repetition of the same mistakes.  Yet rarely in our youth, do we perceive what our pea-brained lack of foresight will incur and inflict on the world we live in.  Usually, it is when we are finally humbled that we look up and realize that it is right to live a life of repentance.
 
So, whereas we may have some supposed malady, it is still our responsibility to seek ways to overcome it.  Most supposed “maladies” have instances where they are productive.  For example, persistence verse stubbornness, ingenuity verse indolence, frugality verse greed, etc.  It’s also a reflection on how we should consider honoring behaviors that may, in some circumstances, prove right (courage for example), but in other instances could prove detrimental to society (wanton destruction).  Both instances require the setting aside of normal social restraints.  It is courageous to rescue someone from a burning building or free someone from false accusation and imprisonment.  It is depraved to commit untold violence and murder.  Jesus writes that if your eye makes you sin, cut it out.  What he means is don’t actively and intentionally put yourself in situations where you know you will sin.  He who hears his words and does them will obey. When confronted with a tough situation, it’s who you think of first that matters the most.  Let’s hope we all remember our Lord in those moments.
 
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
 
.
 
 

]]> Comment on Thoughts about Psychopathy and the Moral Law by Jason Hine http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/08/08/thoughts-about-psychopathy-and-the-moral-law/comment-page-1/#comment-476 Jason Hine Tue, 17 Aug 2010 05:25:48 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=466#comment-476 In his book <em>People of the Lie, </em>M. Scott Peck explores the notion of evil as seen through his psychiatric practice.  What he finds disturbs him in much the same way that C.S. Lewis was disturbed by the writing of <em>The Screwtape Letters. </em> As I recall, Peck doesn't explore the possibility of genetic disposition, but he seeks to understand the ethical landscape of people under the influence of evil.  What I noticed when reading <em>People of the Lie</em> was that, for many of his patients, evil seemed to gain control through a series of choices on the part of the individual, with it becoming more and more difficult for them to make (or even discern) "the right choice" as time went on. I was able to relate to that experience in both simple and profound ways.  The example that comes to mind is a time when, as a teenager, I lied to my parents about something relatively trivial, but in order to keep the charade up, the lie quickly had to become more elaborate and involved.  Luckily, I was found out and reprimanded.  The first trivial lie seemed harmless, but it was merely the lip of a slippery slope of deception that ensnared me so quickly and effectively that I remember being amazed and reflecting deeply on what had happened (while sitting in my room, grounded).  I remember, too, that at each choice to lie further, I was aware that I also had an "out" -- to admit all, to turn myself in, to tell the truth and accept punishment.  But oh, was my mind filled with many seemingly good reasons not to do that, and carefully crafted alternatives that seemed much easier and sure to get me in the clear.  As a result, the "right path" seemed an impossibly thin and rather undesirable way, like the eye of a needle. Through my own experience and through works like <em>The People of the Lie</em>, I have repeatedly been amazed at the subtlety with which temptation can present itself, rationalize itself, and unfold itself into full-blown evil. I think that most (but perhaps not all) people do (or did) have a choice to make at one point, on the lip of the slope, but chose wrongly and continued to do so.  It's possible they did not have caring people close enough to see their descent and intervene; more likely, those close to them encouraged their fall.  And "the right choice" quickly became a faint, seemingly impossible way, one that might require more willpower than most of us possess. Jason Hine In his book People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck explores the notion of evil as seen through his psychiatric practice.  What he finds disturbs him in much the same way that C.S. Lewis was disturbed by the writing of The Screwtape Letters. As I recall, Peck doesn’t explore the possibility of genetic disposition, but he seeks to understand the ethical landscape of people under the influence of evil.  What I noticed when reading People of the Lie was that, for many of his patients, evil seemed to gain control through a series of choices on the part of the individual, with it becoming more and more difficult for them to make (or even discern) “the right choice” as time went on.
I was able to relate to that experience in both simple and profound ways.  The example that comes to mind is a time when, as a teenager, I lied to my parents about something relatively trivial, but in order to keep the charade up, the lie quickly had to become more elaborate and involved.  Luckily, I was found out and reprimanded.  The first trivial lie seemed harmless, but it was merely the lip of a slippery slope of deception that ensnared me so quickly and effectively that I remember being amazed and reflecting deeply on what had happened (while sitting in my room, grounded).  I remember, too, that at each choice to lie further, I was aware that I also had an “out” — to admit all, to turn myself in, to tell the truth and accept punishment.  But oh, was my mind filled with many seemingly good reasons not to do that, and carefully crafted alternatives that seemed much easier and sure to get me in the clear.  As a result, the “right path” seemed an impossibly thin and rather undesirable way, like the eye of a needle.
Through my own experience and through works like The People of the Lie, I have repeatedly been amazed at the subtlety with which temptation can present itself, rationalize itself, and unfold itself into full-blown evil. I think that most (but perhaps not all) people do (or did) have a choice to make at one point, on the lip of the slope, but chose wrongly and continued to do so.  It’s possible they did not have caring people close enough to see their descent and intervene; more likely, those close to them encouraged their fall.  And “the right choice” quickly became a faint, seemingly impossible way, one that might require more willpower than most of us possess.
Jason Hine

]]> Comment on Thoughts about Psychopathy and the Moral Law by Iain Strachan http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/08/08/thoughts-about-psychopathy-and-the-moral-law/comment-page-1/#comment-475 Iain Strachan Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:03:12 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=466#comment-475 Thanks, John, for the input. I think as my ideas continue to evolve on this subject, there are two somewhat different threads to explore, one from the Christian/ethical point of view and one from the scientific point of view. (1) From the ethical point of view, it always seems the case that we (the world) regards criminals as somehow more evil if they show no remorse for their crimes.  Here is a <a href="http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/-112842--.html" rel="nofollow">typical example</a>, of an 18 year-old who stabbed a drama teacher 21 times.  A Texas ranger who interviewed him commented: “I didn’t know what to expect ... There was no remorse; he wasn’t crying. It was more like he was proud of what he had done. I couldn’t believe he had no remorse.”  Interestingly one of the comments on the article says "He's a psychopath, Duh!".  But rather than the thinking folks are more evil if they show no remorse, perhaps one might argue (from the Moral Law perspective) that the person who shows remorse was more evil in committing the crime, because they deliberately didn't listen to the voice of their conscience at the time.  But if the psychopath didn't have a functioning conscience mechanism to provide moral guidelines, then that seems less culpable rather than more. (2) As regards to whether psychopathy is an evolutionary development, that also is an interesting question.  I think one might well argue that a conscience is an evolutionary development (though this does not exclude the idea that it is a gift of God as well).  There is considerable evidence that elephants, who have large brains, can act in an altruistic fashion.  But if the genes (if there are such) that lead to a functioning conscience get corrupted and become pseudo-genes, leading to psychopathic tendencies, the scientific question is does this lead to an evolutionary advantage?  It is believed that there are many more "successful psychopaths" out there than the failed psychopaths one finds in jail.  I understand, for example that many successful entrepreneurs tend towards Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), which appears to be somewhat related to psychopathy, in that such people can be quite ruthless, emotionally manipulative, and lacking in empathy.  A successful psychopath can appear charming and take a lot of people in. <a href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/12/psychopaths_are_charming.html" rel="nofollow">This article</a> argues (perhaps somewhat controversially) that women are particularly vulnerable to being taken in by psychopaths.  They have a confidence with women that normal nice guys don't have because they don't have a conscience and know how to manipulate people to get what they want.  It is my experience as a volunteer at Samaritans that certain women tend to go from one abusive relationship to another - as if the psychopath knows who is most likely to fall for their charms, and hence propagate their genes.  If it is a heritable trait (which it would be if it is down to a pseudo-gene), then who knows where it may lead?  Various estimates give between 1 and 4 percent of the adult population as being psychopaths.  The majority of these are NOT locked up in prison because they don't commit crimes such as murder, but get away with telling lies and manipulating vulnerable people. Iain Strachan Thanks, John, for the input.
I think as my ideas continue to evolve on this subject, there are two somewhat different threads to explore, one from the Christian/ethical point of view and one from the scientific point of view.
(1) From the ethical point of view, it always seems the case that we (the world) regards criminals as somehow more evil if they show no remorse for their crimes.  Here is a typical example, of an 18 year-old who stabbed a drama teacher 21 times.  A Texas ranger who interviewed him commented: “I didn’t know what to expect … There was no remorse; he wasn’t crying. It was more like he was proud of what he had done. I couldn’t believe he had no remorse.”  Interestingly one of the comments on the article says “He’s a psychopath, Duh!”.  But rather than the thinking folks are more evil if they show no remorse, perhaps one might argue (from the Moral Law perspective) that the person who shows remorse was more evil in committing the crime, because they deliberately didn’t listen to the voice of their conscience at the time.  But if the psychopath didn’t have a functioning conscience mechanism to provide moral guidelines, then that seems less culpable rather than more.
(2) As regards to whether psychopathy is an evolutionary development, that also is an interesting question.  I think one might well argue that a conscience is an evolutionary development (though this does not exclude the idea that it is a gift of God as well).  There is considerable evidence that elephants, who have large brains, can act in an altruistic fashion.  But if the genes (if there are such) that lead to a functioning conscience get corrupted and become pseudo-genes, leading to psychopathic tendencies, the scientific question is does this lead to an evolutionary advantage?  It is believed that there are many more “successful psychopaths” out there than the failed psychopaths one finds in jail.  I understand, for example that many successful entrepreneurs tend towards Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), which appears to be somewhat related to psychopathy, in that such people can be quite ruthless, emotionally manipulative, and lacking in empathy.  A successful psychopath can appear charming and take a lot of people in. This article argues (perhaps somewhat controversially) that women are particularly vulnerable to being taken in by psychopaths.  They have a confidence with women that normal nice guys don’t have because they don’t have a conscience and know how to manipulate people to get what they want.  It is my experience as a volunteer at Samaritans that certain women tend to go from one abusive relationship to another – as if the psychopath knows who is most likely to fall for their charms, and hence propagate their genes.  If it is a heritable trait (which it would be if it is down to a pseudo-gene), then who knows where it may lead?  Various estimates give between 1 and 4 percent of the adult population as being psychopaths.  The majority of these are NOT locked up in prison because they don’t commit crimes such as murder, but get away with telling lies and manipulating vulnerable people.
Iain Strachan

]]> Comment on Science, Faith, and Public Policy by Ted Davis http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/22/science-faith-and-public-policy/comment-page-2/#comment-474 Ted Davis Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:18:23 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=451#comment-474 Stephen Meyers interviewed some of our members during the meeting.  To view them, go to <a href="http://bibleandscience.com/science/ASA2010.html" rel="nofollow">http://bibleandscience.com/science/ASA2010.html</a>. Stephen Meyers interviewed some of our members during the meeting.  To view them, go to http://bibleandscience.com/science/ASA2010.html.

]]> Comment on Thoughts about Psychopathy and the Moral Law by Jon Tandy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/08/08/thoughts-about-psychopathy-and-the-moral-law/comment-page-1/#comment-473 Jon Tandy Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:34:09 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=466#comment-473 Iain, I believe this is why Francis Collins warned about a "God of the Gaps" argument in this arena.  If we hang our hopes for the existence of God on a "universal moral law", and then find out that that law isn't quite universal, then our faith would be challenged.  Indeed, while I like the moral law argument and believe it has much truth in it, I am uncomfortable with it for other reasons that may be more difficult than the psychopath example.  For instance, there are and have been cultures with a radically different sense of moral law, such as those where cannibalism has been accepted as normal.  How can we dismiss these examples as having been inherited by cultural factors, and hold that other cultures receive their "acceptable moral law" from a supernatural source, rather than the other way around?  I believe Collins' and/or Lewis' answer to this has been that each of these cultures has an innate sense of right and wrong, even if the specific "right actions" are different.  But this may be begging the question. As regards psychopaths, if it turns out that their behavior and corrupted sense of right and wrong is due to a broken pathway in the brain or some other abnomality, I don't think it does much damage to the "moral law" argument.  In that case it would be seen as simply an abnormal deviation from the norm.  In the same way, God made the eyes for seeing, but some people are born blind.  These are genetic or disease-caused deviations from otherwise working structures. But if it turns out that psychopath brains are just the result of different evolutionary developmental pathways, normal but different developments in the brain instead of an obviously "broken" structure in their brains, it could be more damaging to a moral law argument.  I sort of doubt this will turn out to be the case, because I don't know that there is evidence that psychopathy is genetically heritable.  Even if it were heritable, it might still be the result of a broken gene that is passed on, but at what point does a "broken gene" get distinguished from a "normal but different" gene transmission?  Is it in the eye of the beholder, so that those with a "normal" sense of morals get to decide what is normal?  I don't have the answer to this, without relying to religious or moral law arguments as self-evident. Jon Tandy Iain,

I believe this is why Francis Collins warned about a “God of the Gaps” argument in this arena.  If we hang our hopes for the existence of God on a “universal moral law”, and then find out that that law isn’t quite universal, then our faith would be challenged.  Indeed, while I like the moral law argument and believe it has much truth in it, I am uncomfortable with it for other reasons that may be more difficult than the psychopath example. 

For instance, there are and have been cultures with a radically different sense of moral law, such as those where cannibalism has been accepted as normal.  How can we dismiss these examples as having been inherited by cultural factors, and hold that other cultures receive their “acceptable moral law” from a supernatural source, rather than the other way around?  I believe Collins’ and/or Lewis’ answer to this has been that each of these cultures has an innate sense of right and wrong, even if the specific “right actions” are different.  But this may be begging the question.

As regards psychopaths, if it turns out that their behavior and corrupted sense of right and wrong is due to a broken pathway in the brain or some other abnomality, I don’t think it does much damage to the “moral law” argument.  In that case it would be seen as simply an abnormal deviation from the norm.  In the same way, God made the eyes for seeing, but some people are born blind.  These are genetic or disease-caused deviations from otherwise working structures.

But if it turns out that psychopath brains are just the result of different evolutionary developmental pathways, normal but different developments in the brain instead of an obviously “broken” structure in their brains, it could be more damaging to a moral law argument.  I sort of doubt this will turn out to be the case, because I don’t know that there is evidence that psychopathy is genetically heritable. 

Even if it were heritable, it might still be the result of a broken gene that is passed on, but at what point does a “broken gene” get distinguished from a “normal but different” gene transmission?  Is it in the eye of the beholder, so that those with a “normal” sense of morals get to decide what is normal?  I don’t have the answer to this, without relying to religious or moral law arguments as self-evident.

Jon Tandy

]]> Comment on Science, Faith, and Public Policy by Carlos Pinkham http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/22/science-faith-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-472 Carlos Pinkham Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:51:28 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=451#comment-472 This was my third conference in a row since joining in 2007.  For nearly 30 years I reflected deeply on how God used evolution to providentially produce us.  This was done in a near intellectual vacuum (Vermont doesn't provide many like-minded people to discourse with) and after all that time, I am delighted to find others who think as I do.  The largest problem with my isolation was that it provided no theological center.  I am slowly coming to see the importance of "accommodation" to our thinking. It is exactly this unique opportunity for acquisition and assimilation of a new vocabulary (and new ideas) from considerate, like-minded people that makes the ASA Annual Conference what it is for me.  Four  years ago, I would never have used the word "accommodation" to describe Genesis 1-11.  Denis Lamoureux's   workshop (Denis is one of ASA's champions of accommodation) was excellent.  We need more of the same. This was my third conference in a row since joining in 2007.  For nearly 30 years I reflected deeply on how God used evolution to providentially produce us.  This was done in a near intellectual vacuum (Vermont doesn’t provide many like-minded people to discourse with) and after all that time, I am delighted to find others who think as I do.  The largest problem with my isolation was that it provided no theological center.  I am slowly coming to see the importance of “accommodation” to our thinking.
It is exactly this unique opportunity for acquisition and assimilation of a new vocabulary (and new ideas) from considerate, like-minded people that makes the ASA Annual Conference what it is for me.  Four  years ago, I would never have used the word “accommodation” to describe Genesis 1-11.  Denis Lamoureux’s   workshop (Denis is one of ASA’s champions of accommodation) was excellent.  We need more of the same.

]]> Comment on Science, Faith, and Public Policy by Mark Strand http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/22/science-faith-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-471 Mark Strand Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:15:35 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=451#comment-471 I really enjoyed the conference.  I was thinking that maybe we need a discussion where we try to integrate the core historic doctrines of the gospel with some of the things we are learning from science.  It would be a fascinating chance for theologians who live science to collaborate with scientists who love theology to create some new products. I really enjoyed the conference.  I was thinking that maybe we need a discussion where we try to integrate the core historic doctrines of the gospel with some of the things we are learning from science.  It would be a fascinating chance for theologians who live science to collaborate with scientists who love theology to create some new products.

]]> Comment on Science, Faith, and Public Policy by Ted Davis http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/22/science-faith-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-469 Ted Davis Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:39:09 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=451#comment-469 I'll be honest: I don't have the same level of interest in public policy issues as I do in many other aspects of science and faith, so I wasn't expecting all that much (for myself) from our meeting this year.  I must say, I have some thinking to do after hearing so many excellent talks about such a wide range of policy issues.  Susan Daniels' program did us proud!  I can't recall ever learning so much from one of our meetings--perhaps because I knew so little going into it, but also because it was such a well-organized and well-chosen set of presentations. Let me add something concerning one of my own presentations, which wasn't about policy--the talk about "Darwin and Religion" on Sunday afternoon.  Several people have talked to me about aspects of that talk, which (I sense) represented for them a new way of thinking about the ongoing conversation about evolution and Christian beliefs.  A number of folks want to see the cartoon about the staircase, and want to hear a bit more about Polkinghorne's views.  Therefore, I'll link a short piece I wrote about Polkinghorne, using that cartoon, for the online version of "First Things" magazine: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/the-motivated-belief-of-john-polkinghorne If anyone wants to talk about this further, I'll stay tuned. I’ll be honest: I don’t have the same level of interest in public policy issues as I do in many other aspects of science and faith, so I wasn’t expecting all that much (for myself) from our meeting this year.  I must say, I have some thinking to do after hearing so many excellent talks about such a wide range of policy issues.  Susan Daniels’ program did us proud!  I can’t recall ever learning so much from one of our meetings–perhaps because I knew so little going into it, but also because it was such a well-organized and well-chosen set of presentations.
Let me add something concerning one of my own presentations, which wasn’t about policy–the talk about “Darwin and Religion” on Sunday afternoon.  Several people have talked to me about aspects of that talk, which (I sense) represented for them a new way of thinking about the ongoing conversation about evolution and Christian beliefs.  A number of folks want to see the cartoon about the staircase, and want to hear a bit more about Polkinghorne’s views.  Therefore, I’ll link a short piece I wrote about Polkinghorne, using that cartoon, for the online version of “First Things” magazine:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/the-motivated-belief-of-john-polkinghorne
If anyone wants to talk about this further, I’ll stay tuned.

]]> Comment on Science, Faith, and Public Policy by Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/22/science-faith-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-468 Randy Isaac Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:06:55 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=451#comment-468 <p>Sunday began with a worship service led by Rev. McGarrahan from National Presbyterian. I think it's great that we begin each day with devotions and Sundays with a worship service. The singing send chills up my spine. Not that the quality of the music is so great. After all, there's a reason why we're in science instead of being professional musicians. But the passion for Christ and the love of God just pours out of each mouth and we do make a very joyful noise to the Lord.</p> Sunday began with a worship service led by Rev. McGarrahan from National Presbyterian. I think it’s great that we begin each day with devotions and Sundays with a worship service. The singing send chills up my spine. Not that the quality of the music is so great. After all, there’s a reason why we’re in science instead of being professional musicians. But the passion for Christ and the love of God just pours out of each mouth and we do make a very joyful noise to the Lord.

]]> Comment on Science, Faith, and Public Policy by Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/22/science-faith-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-467 Randy Isaac Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:11:18 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=451#comment-467 <p>How could one possibly summarize today's events? Three plenary speakers and 38 contributed papers are an overload for even a skilled multitasker. I'm eager to hear the DVD of Sara Miles' talk, which I unfortunately missed while attending to some of the inevitable crises in meetings such as this. The other two plenaries were outstanding.  Stan Bull gave a powerful global perspective on renewable energy. From his vantage point at the National Renewable Energy Research Lab he was able to provide insight into the opportunities for sustainable energy sources. It may come as no surprise that he touted solar energy as the most plentiful resource to be tapped but I was surprised at the potential he cited of wind energy. Global use of wind energy has increased dramatically in the last decade and the growth is likely to continue to accelerate. Part of the stewardship God has given us for this earth is to use these energy resources wisely.  Francis Collins was in top form, as always, giving us his personal testimony, insights into progress in genetics, and sharing his experiences of what it means to be a scientist who believes in God. I was most encouraged by his comments about progress in genomic sequencing as applied to cancer. He said several new sub-types of glioblastoma have been identified through sequencing, which are now the subject of new drug research. He told us the story reported by CBS of a stage IV lung cancer patient who was now in remission after a trial of a drug determined through DNA sequencing of that cancer. Most of all, it was encouraging to see how his faith is growing and thriving as he continues to lead the NIH.  It was a real pleasure to have the Korean Christians in Science and the Korean Christian Forum in Science and Engineering join us for this meeting. They are well represented and gave some talks. Their organizations will have additional sessions following our meeting, having been organized about 5 years ago and having been patterned after the ASA. With four parallel sessions, it's hard to summarize the rest. for those of you that attended some of the sessions, feel free to chime in with your own reactions. Randy</p> How could one possibly summarize today’s events? Three plenary speakers and 38 contributed papers are an overload for even a skilled multitasker. I’m eager to hear the DVD of Sara Miles’ talk, which I unfortunately missed while attending to some of the inevitable crises in meetings such as this. The other two plenaries were outstanding.
 Stan Bull gave a powerful global perspective on renewable energy. From his vantage point at the National Renewable Energy Research Lab he was able to provide insight into the opportunities for sustainable energy sources. It may come as no surprise that he touted solar energy as the most plentiful resource to be tapped but I was surprised at the potential he cited of wind energy. Global use of wind energy has increased dramatically in the last decade and the growth is likely to continue to accelerate. Part of the stewardship God has given us for this earth is to use these energy resources wisely.
 Francis Collins was in top form, as always, giving us his personal testimony, insights into progress in genetics, and sharing his experiences of what it means to be a scientist who believes in God. I was most encouraged by his comments about progress in genomic sequencing as applied to cancer. He said several new sub-types of glioblastoma have been identified through sequencing, which are now the subject of new drug research. He told us the story reported by CBS of a stage IV lung cancer patient who was now in remission after a trial of a drug determined through DNA sequencing of that cancer. Most of all, it was encouraging to see how his faith is growing and thriving as he continues to lead the NIH.
 It was a real pleasure to have the Korean Christians in Science and the Korean Christian Forum in Science and Engineering join us for this meeting. They are well represented and gave some talks. Their organizations will have additional sessions following our meeting, having been organized about 5 years ago and having been patterned after the ASA.
With four parallel sessions, it’s hard to summarize the rest. for those of you that attended some of the sessions, feel free to chime in with your own reactions.
Randy

]]>