Book Review: Mere Christianity

Author:	C.S. Lewis	Rating:	*****(5)
Date read:	January, 2010

Read it twice now, and the second reading was even better than the first. The first part contains a reason-based argument for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity as a religion. Then some fairly universal Christian beliefs are discussed, which are not dependent on any particular denomination, though in a few cases the described Christian morals and beliefs might be considered a rather conservative interpretation of the scriptures.

I particularly like his description of God’s mission in the Christian’s life, which is to aim toward perfection, which of course cannot be attained in this life. However, this perfection is not that of the self, but of giving up on self and allowing Christ to live in and through one’s life more and more fully. This is accomplished by a continual making of mostly small decisions on a day-to-day basis, gradually letting oneself be governed a little more by that Christ-life and a little less by the selfish self.

Another inspiring discussion was his description of human forgiveness, how it works and what it is. When we decide to forgive someone who has wronged us, we are not saying what they did was ok, nor that we like them as a person, and not even that they should not be punished. We are saying that we hope things turn out well for them, that they can move beyond whatever is wrong and come to the knowledge of life in God’s love as we know it. A key insight he provides is that there is one person I am constantly forgiving for doing the wrong things – myself. The commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” in terms of forgiveness, means I should forgive others the same way I forgive myself.

Book Review: The Alchemist

Author:	Paulo Coelho	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	January, 2010

Inspirational, but not life-changing. No real revelations in this story; it is mostly just a new and interesting portrayal of what you might call “cosmic principles” that most people would believe are true and important, and which many of us are in the habit of forgetting or minimizing in our lives. It is an interesting story, and well written, I think.

Retreat to Subsistence

An excellent article in The Nation, which was summarized somewhat loosely on the Guernica blog.  It describes the issues surrounding corn in Mexico, the effects of NAFTA and Mexican government policies, and the potential consequences for the future of corn as a viable crop in the U.S. and everywhere.

Retreat to Subsistence

Disease is Not Random

There exists a misconception which is sadly common in our times, and which I feel is the first issue that must be addressed in our attempt to achieve optimum health. Therefore the subject of this my first post to my health blog is this misconception that disease strikes randomly.

Cancer, heart disease, Alzhiemer’s, Parkinson’s, arthritis, diabetes, asthma and other degenerative diseases do not strike an individual because he or she is unlucky. Cancer rates in the United States are currently about 50% for both men and women. Half of us will get cancer. Which half? God is not tossing a coin to decide who gets cancer and who doesn’t. Neither is nature the coin-tosser. There are natural laws at work, just as true and predictable as the law of gravity. The biological processes involved in the health of our bodies are very complex, and there are many things we do not understand. However, there is much that we do know and understand at least at some level, and much that we can do to ensure that we have the best health possible.

What can we do? Well, as an individual human being, there are exactly three factors that determine my health, including every aspect of it. How much energy I have, how susceptible to colds and flu I am, whether I develop arthritis, whether I get cancer, whether I develop Alzheimer’s disease, how strong my bones are, etc., etc. These three factors are:

• Genetics
• Environment
• Lifestyle

Let’s look at each of these one at a time. The first one is the simplest, at least from my personal perspective regarding my own personal health. I have no control over my genetic makeup. It was irrevocably set when I was born. There is nothing I can do to change it. Whatever inherent weaknesses and strengths, in the biological sense, that I was born with, I am stuck with. However, I do have quite a bit of control over the health of my future children. Studies have shown that the health of both mother and father before conception, along with of course the health of the mother during pregnancy, have a very strong effect on the health of the child.

Number two is environment. Environment includes everything that touches my body in any way. The air I breathe and live in whether clean or polluted, the water I bathe and/or swim in, cosmetics, shampoo, soap, deodorant, clothing, furniture, bedding, detergents, cleaning agents, car and truck exhaust, mold, pesticides and herbicides, chemical fertilizers, airborne toxins in factories and offices, … well, you get the idea. Some of this is under my control. I can choose, within limits, where to live. I can certainly choose the kind of products I use to wash my clothes and my body, what I apply to my hair and body, and what I use to clean my home, dishes, and furniture.

Number three is lifestyle. By lifestyle I mean what I eat, how and how much I exercise, and how I spend my time.

Diet

Eating is a big one. My experience indicates that people are generally more resistant to changing how they eat than they are to any other change. With most of us, we don’t change what we eat until we experience a sufficient level of pain to provide the motivation. With some that threshold is never reached. Similar to the smoker dying of lung cancer who refuses to give up smoking, many of us eat ourselves into our graves despite readily available solutions to our health problems that would simply require us to change what we eat.

I hope to cover more of the details about nutrition in future articles, but as a quick start guide, here are some nutrition tips:

• Minimize, eliminate if possible, sugar. Sugar is an anti-nutrient and is bad for us in numerous ways. The common sweetener corn syrup is worse than sugar. And do not replace sugar or corn syrup with artificial sweeteners; they are even worse. Stevia is a healthy, sweet-tasting herb that works great as a sweetener for foods.
• Minimize starches, especially refined starches such as white flour, white rice, bread, and pasta. Grains are best when boiled as a whole grain. Barley is very healthy, and quinoa is a popular grain with many nutritional benefits. If you are hooked on bread, try sprouted grain breads. If you must eat pasta, look for some made of brown rice or whole grain spelt.
• Maximize vegetables, raw or cooked, and aim for a variety of colors. Fresh is best, frozen is ok in a pinch, canned is worthless. Organic is ideal, and yes, it does make a difference.
• Eat sufficient good-quality animal protein. Raw egg yolks are almost a perfect food, assuming the egg comes from a healthy hen. Shelton’s eggs and Organic Valley organic, free-range eggs appear to be some of the best widely-available eggs. Raw milk is also extremely nutritious. Beef or lamb from grass-fed animals is ideal. Otherwise at least try to get antibiotic, hormone and pesticide-free meats. Same for chicken and turkey, try for organic and free-range. Eat the meat with the fat.
• Eat only healthy fats. This includes naturally occurring fats on healthy meat, butter and cream (raw is best but expensive), coconut oil (Omega Nutrition is my favorite), palm oil, and organic extra virgin olive oil. Coconut oil can be used for high-heat cooking; olive oil should not be heated above 300 F. Do NOT eat margarine nor any of the bottled so-called vegetable oils in the supermarket.
• Fruit is ok, especially with other foods. Berries (except strawberries) are best. Fruit juice is not good, containing too much concentrated sugar that is too easily and quickly absorbed.
• Avoid foods with additives, whether colors, preservatives, artificial flavors, etc.

Exercise

In my reading and experience I have heard from multiple sources the advice that if, in your quest for better health, you had to choose between changing your diet or starting to exercise, choose exercise. We cannot be healthy without regular exercise. That’s the way our bodies are made. Biology does not listen to excuses, and is unaffected by how much we like or hate physical activity. These natural laws do not limit themselves to apply only to persons for whom it is convenient to exercise, or who do not have to work long hours, or who do not have children to care for, or any other reason to not exercise, whether valid or not. Lack of regular exercise equals poor health, both short term and the long term. Period.

Most experts agree that some combination of moderate-to-strenuous aerobic exercise combined with strength training is necessary to get the maximum benefits from exercise. One hour per day or more seems to be an average consensus as well.

How I spend my time

The other aspect of lifestyle is everything else. Getting enough sleep. Balancing work, home life, and relaxation. Maintaining healthy relationships. Letting go of the past. There are many pressures and problems in life, and everyone faces them. There are good and bad ways of dealing with the pressures and problems, and each of us must find what works for us to maintain our spiritual, mental and emotional balance. Most of us seem to need some outside help in order to accomplish this, whether from a church, counselor, support group, etc. Emotional health is essential to physical health, and vice-versa. They work together. It is not uncommon for someone who is working on improving physical health to be presented with situations and insight that help to improve the emotional side of things, and for someone who is making progress on the emotional side to experience improved physical health.

Taking Control

The point of this article, and the reason I’m bothering to publish any of these articles at all, is that each of us can take control of our health. I, as an individual, can make changes in my environment, my diet, and my lifestyle which will improve my health. I can’t change my genetic makeup, and if I was born with a weakened immune system or other problem, I can’t change that. So I don’t have absolute control over whether I will be affected by disease. But I can certainly take action that will dramatically improve my chances of a happy and healthy life both now and into the future.  I am not helpless in the fight against disease. I can do something.

For a good source of information on nutrition and health and lots of worthwhile book reviews, see David Getoff‘s web site.

1963 – This country has become…

“This country has become frankly a warfare state built on affluence, a power structure in which the interests of big business, the obsessions of the military, and the phobias of political extremists both dominate and dictate our national policy. It also seems that the people of the country are by and large reduced to passivity, confusion, resentment, frustration, thoughtlessness and ignorance, so that they blindly follow any line that is unraveled for them by the mass media.” – Thomas Merton, “The Cold War Letters”, 1963 (Quoted in “JFK and the Unspeakable” by James W. Douglass)

Book review: Socialism – A Very Short Introduction

Author:	Michael Newman	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	January, 2010

Excellent overview of socialism as a concept, looking especially at the history of socialism. Starting with almost zero knowledge, I found it to be informative and not too difficult to understand. Cuba and Sweden are discussed as modern examples of attempts at socialism, with good and bad, advantages and disadvantages, advances and problems, etc. Also the effects of various other movements, such as feminism and environmentalism, on socialist thought is discussed.

Key quotes

(From the introduction, I like this definition of socialism) p. 2-3

“In my view, the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is its commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society. Socialists may not have agreed about the extent to which inequality can be eradicated or the means by which change can be effected, but no socialist would defend the current inequalities of wealth and power. In particular, socialists have maintained that, under capitalism, vast privileges and opportunities are derived from the hereditary ownership of capital and wealth at one end of the social scale, while a cycle of deprivation limits opportunities and influence at the other end. To varying extents, all socialists have therefore challenged the property relationships that are fundamental to capitalism, and have aspired to establish a society in which everyone has the possibility to seek fulfillment without facing barriers based on structural inequalities.” 

(From the section “The relevance of socialist ideas”, in a discussion of economic inequality and social mobility) p. 139 

“Such inequality is not fundamentally between individuals but is embedded in structures: the fact that some individuals, with particular talent or determination or luck, can rise from humble backgrounds does not affect the fact that the overwhelming majority cannot do so. Of course, the perception of the system as a meritocracy is functional to its legitimation, but this does not change its underlying basis. Similarly, the fact that poor people possess more than their grandparents had done in absolute terms helps sustain the belief that poverty and inequality are no longer fundamental problems in advanced capitalism; but poverty should be measured in relation to the wealth of contemporary society, rather than by historical standards.”

Book Review: The Value of Nothing

Author:	Raj Patel	Rating:	*****(5)
Date read:	January, 2010

Excellent discussion of the “market society” and some alternative ways of looking at society and economics. The title is based on a statement by Oscar Wilde: “Nowadays people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.” There is a discussion about the true cost of things, for example, if a hamburger were priced to include all the environmental and human costs associated with it, it would cost $200. Also, corporations are not having to pay the true costs of the things they are selling. For example, health care and other assistance for underpaid workers, environmental costs which will have to be paid by future generations, etc.

The author discusses why the economy and society cannot be treated separately, and how our modern concept of “market economy” came to be and what it means. Particularly that the market economy requires a market society in order to function. He goes on to describe the concept of the “commons,” giving several historical and contemporary examples of how relatively small groups of people have been able to cooperate in their management of a shared resource. Many political books are available that convincingly describe the problems in our current society, both in the US and internationally. Creative solutions, however, are few and far between. “The Value of Nothing” is the most hopeful treatise of politics and economics that I have read. The possibility of adapting the commons on a large scale is not discussed, and it may not even be possible, especially in the current world situation. However, the examples cited give me hope that people can cooperate effectively and govern themselves if given the opportunity and environment that supports such cooperation. Even if only possible on a small scale now, this concept does provide a real solution that can work today. And it couldn’t hurt to have more and more of these small, cooperative initiatives as we move into the future.

The description of the relationship between the “market” and freedom starting on page 112 is outstanding. He shares the thought experiment of the late Oxford philosopher Jerry Cohen, relating rights to tickets. Then this is applied to the sorry state of health care in the US. As a statistical example, he cites maternal mortality–women who die during or shortly after childbirth. It turns out that African American women in the US, if they were a country, would rank just below (a little worse than) Uzbekistan, a country where the average income per person is $840 per year. “In the United States, one corollary of free market liberty is dying young.”

Another key concept is that of “homo economicus,” an imaginary human that is a purely rational consumer, seeking to maximize its own comfort and rewards while minimizing the effort needed to acquire them. It turns out people aren’t really like that, but there is an entity that is: the corporation.

Overall this book provides lots of insight, as in useful ways of looking at the world, ourselves, politics, economics, society, the past, and the future. Everyone in the world should read this book!

Book Review: Field Notes on Democracy

Author:	Arundhati Roy	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	January, 2010

Shocking, frightening, and horrifying description of both secular and religious fascist elements at work in modern “democratic” India. I have had a sense from comments read in other places that the media’s portrayal of India and its thriving, growing middle class was not telling the whole story. Little did I know; the truth is far worse than I imagined. The book is a collection of essays, providing different angles on Indian society and government. Between selling out the country (especially the poor) and its future to the multinational corporations and the fanatic, government-sponsored religious nationalism and its massacres, it’s a dark picture. I hope someone is listening, a lot of someones.

Book Review: Socialism Past and Future

Author:	Michael Harrington	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	January, 2010

Michael Harrington wrote this book when he was dying of cancer. He wanted to make sure the things he learned through his life of study and experience would be written down. The book was published in 1990. It contains a reasonably comprehensive and thoughtful history of socialism from about the 16th century until modern times. It also contains the author’s proposal for what is the future of socialism. The historical part was very interesting and informative to me, being almost entirely ignorant of the subject, other than my recent reading of “Socialism – A Very Short Introduction.” I found this historical part of the book well worth reading, full of insights plus comparisons of people, philosophies, countries, theories, practice, results, successes and failures.

The second part of the book is where the author makes an argument for a new socialism that incorporates both the “visionary” aspect, i.e., complete transformation of the world society and economy, and the “gradualist” aspect, i.e., the introduction of individual socialistic reforms in the existing system. He calls this approach “visionary gradualism.” He believes it must be international in scope and based on shared ethics rather than class. I tend to agree with his proposals, though whether they can actually be carried out is far from certain.

Key quotes

Page 23
In such a perspective, it might be argued, the obvious contradictions should have convinced the socialists that sudden insurrection was the only way out. But even assuming there was a majority political will for such a course–in fact, none has ever existed within a Western society–it still would not resolve the problem. Karl Kautsky formulated the issue just after the turn of the century. “A socialist revolution,” he wrote, “can at a simple stroke transfer a factory from capitalist to socialist property. But it is only gradually, through a course of slow evolution, that one then transforms a factory from a place of monotonous, repulsive forced labor into an attractive spot for the joyful activity of happy human beings.” One can seize power–but then it is necessary to run an entire, complex economy, and that cannot be done at the point of a gun. The day after the revolution, there would still be capitalist structures staring the revolutionaries in the face. What, exactly, were they supposed to do with them? 

Page 108
Some years later, the Marxist Harry Braverman was to point out that capitalist technology was capitalist technology, that is, that it was designed not simply according to engineering priorities but in keeping with social values, and incarnated the inferior position of the workers in the production process. 

Pages 114-115
The people are held in thrall by golden chains, by the satisfaction of false, manufactured needs; they are victimized by a technology that manipulates them every moment of the night and day; they have become visionless, conformist, programmed. At the same time, there are the less subtle, more old-fashioned forms of repression turned against the external proletariat in the Third World and the internal lumpenproletariat of minorities in the ghettos.
…
But this vision of a controlled anti-utopia–of Hilferding’s “organized capitalism” become a means of an oppression all the more terrifying because it is so subtle and benign–was certainly one of the reasons for Marcuse’s resonance among the anti-bureaucratic youth.
…
There was now an objective abundance–this is clearly a key term of all the sixties’ utopias–the clear possibility, for the first time in human history, of abolishing want on a worldwide basis. But it resulted either in the pseudosatisfactions of a programmed consumerism or in a new a vicious form of imperialism and racism. 

Page 119, re: John Maynard Keynes
In a 1926 essay, which explained why he was a Liberal and not a Labourite, Keynes wrote, “I am sure that I am less conservative in my inclinations than the average Labour voter; I fancy that I have played in my mind with the possibilities of greater social changes that come within the present philosophies [of a number of prominent socialists in the twenties whom he names]….The Republic of my imagination lies on the extreme left of celestial space.” And in “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren” (1930), he described a humane future in which “the love of money as a possession–as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life–will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over to the specialists in mental disease.” 

Keynes concluded: “All kinds of social customs and economic practices affecting the distribution of wealth and of economic rewards and penalties, which we now maintain at all costs however distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in promoting the accumulation of capital, we shall then be free at last to discard.” Readers of Marx will recognize a significant echo.
These concepts were sufficiently important that Keynes repeated them at the end of  The General Theory. There he talked of a future in which markets would have a significant role but capital would be socialized, in which the price of capital would all so low that there would be a “euthanasia of the rentiers.” In this setting, the economic issue would finally be solved, and men and women could get on with the serious business of life, which was noneconomic. Keynes was, after all, a man of Bloomsbury, a balletomane, a lover of the arts, and for all of his genius as an economist, he looked upon his own discipline as a necessary evil, or as a prelude. Keynes’s attitudes in this, like those of so many of his friends, had been profoundly influenced by the Cambridge philosopher and author of Principia Ethica, G. E. Moore. Keynes was to remember that at Cambridge in 1902 Moore opened up “a new heaven on a new earth” for him. The Principia taught that personal affection and aesthetic enjoyment were the summum bonum. 

Page 144
More broadly, this brief summary of the Reagan and Thatcher policies points to a central paradox of the times: that even “laisser-faire”  has now become statist, that in practice “free market” policies have been the work of strong, militaristic, socially authoritarian, and debt-financed regimes. Conservative governments are, in short, unwitting but dirigiste agents of an antisocial socialization, not the obedient servants of the law of supply and demand. And the choice for the future is not between an Adam Smith idyll or government intervention, but between top-down and bottom up socialization. That is why freedom lies to the Left, and not to the pseudopopulist Right. 

Page 145
First of all, the immediate demands of the new socialism will be internationalist, or else the new socialism will fail.
That is true in the obvious sense that disarmament and an end to the possibility of a nuclear world war are the preconditions of every humane goal. But it also signifies that there can be no “socialism in one country” at a time when the economic and social structures of the world are becoming more international every day. 

Page 146
The point is, society can clearly reward genuine, real-world innovation (but not unto the generations) without providing enormous subsidies for corporate gambling. 

Page 148
The new socialism must be concerned with the character of civilization, not just with the allocation of investment. For economic and social development have now made more and more people conscious of primordial injustices that were ignored when simple survival was the central issue. The immediate task has to do with issues of gender, environment, and race that cannot be reduced to class injustice because they are posed within every class, the working class most emphatically included. 

Page 150
…the vision itself is two centuries old and audaciously new: that the inexorable socialization of the entire planet, which is the future contained in our present, can become the tool, rather than the oppressor, of free women and men. 

Page 187
The emergence of a global consciousness will not be the work of a decade. It is, rather, the challenge of an entire epoch of history. If the new socialists understand the complexities, they will take visionary first steps in the direction of a new world. No more. And no less. 

Page 189 

…the existing socialist movement, with all of its failures, remains the only serious hope for a theory and practice of freedom adequate to the twenty-first century. For it is struggling to define not simply a new social structure of accumulation, important as that is, but the first steps toward a new civilization as well.

Page 194
The issues that have just been defined — basic choices between manipulative and authentic communitarianism — will be decided not in an abstract debate over desirable futures, but in a bitter political struggle over how to meet the crises this transition will bring to the advanced economies. 

It is outrageous but inevitable that this confrontation over the future of humankind will be focused, to begin with, in the societies of the privileged fifth of the race. … But it is no simple matter to reverse a carefully articulated system of planetary injustice wrought over some four centuries of history. 

… That, for pragmatic reasons as well as for moral solidarity, the socialists in these economies must design their response in international terms has already been made clear. But, through no fault of their own, they will do so primarily in those nations in which the technological revolution begins. 

Page 195
We are talking, then, of crises of the system, within the system, over the next half century. 

Page 196
It means that the socialists are going to have to synthesize their long-run transformations of the way people live and work with short-run responses to serious economic and social disturbances, which is something they never succeeded in really doing in the twentieth century. 

Page 197
If one is concerned with the truly audacious project of empowering people to take command of their daily lives, that will not be done through the expansion of bureaucratic state power. But to say that is not to give up the vision of social ownership; it is to prepare a fresh way of taking it seriously. 

Page 199
Thus, one can grant formal rights for participation, but if the participant lack the technical competence to take part in the debate, that is all but meaningless. So, in the society now emerging, one has to look toward the socialization of information as well as of property.
… A fundamental proposition of the new socialism — which is also a basic requirement of the new technology — is the participation of worker representatives in all economic decision-making processes. 

Page 202
… it is extremely difficult to build an island of social cooperation in an economy based fundamentally on competition at the expense of the vulnerable.  Antisocial priorities are imposed by the market  upon the workers even when they do have the vote on the Board of Directors. This is not to disparage all attempts at such worker ownership in a transitional effort to begin to change the nature of the system; it is to emphasize once again how hard it is to change the system when you play by the system’s own rules. 

Page 204
The capitalist attack on artisanal skill, the whole historic process that created a semi- and unskilled labor force, has left a deep impression on society. Labor was widely degraded to the status of a painful means to the pleasurable end of consumption. … But the circumstances could change, and socialists should not, in any case, turn their backs on such a critical category of human experience as work. 

Page 205
We should make the engineering of technology a political question, insisting that industry of every kind try to create machines that make jobs creative and interesting.
Second, there is a sense in which indifference to decision making in the workplace expresses a realism limited to a particular situation, not some deep reluctance to participate that is part of human nature. … Whenever they did feel that their participation could make a difference, they acted. 

Page 217
Socialists should therefore propose a new set of statistics based on the QNP and the QIP — the Qualitative National, and International, Product. … After computing the Gross National Product, one then subtracts from it all environmental degradation, premature death, wasteful packaging, and uninformative advertising in order to arrive at a figure for a Qualitative Product. … If such a series of statistics were available, the relevant facts of political debate would be radically redefined and there would be different kinds of conclusions. 

Page 219
Let me put my point most paradoxically: only under socialism and democratic planning will it be possible for markets to serve the common good as Adam Smith thought they did under capitalism. 

Page 241
The American experience, however, includes a little-known history of success with implications that go far beyond medicine. The Neighborhood Health Center program was begun in 1965 under the aegis of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the main federal agency of the War on Poverty. Its premise was that the traditional organizational modes for the delivery of health-care services were not appropriate to the poor, that it was imperative to locate community centers in the immediate neighborhood of those in need. The centers were not only able to facilitate dramatic health gains in those neighborhoods; they turned out to be more cost-effective than the traditional, hospital-dominated system financed by third-party insurers. But, as Paul Starr has suggested, they were not followed up in the Nixon and Ford administrations because they contradicted conservative ideology. They experienced a brief revival during the Carter presidency and were then subjected to renewed attack during the Reagan years. 

Page 246
In reality, monopoly capital produces whatever will yield the largest profit, and uses all the wiles of psychology and science to make sure that the consumer chooses what is good for the corporate bottom line, while at the same time many essential and even desperate human needs — say, for affordable housing in the decaying central cities — are not met. Above all, under the consumer “democracy” of contemporary capitalism, the votes are determined by income and wealth, and the market is thus a mechanism for transmitting the desires of the privileged.
…
But the alternative should be socialized consumer information, education, a commitment to the proposition that the people, if they are not systematically misinformed, are quite capable of making intelligent decisions for themselves. 

Page 248-9
“All” that socialists have to do in order to forward that emancipatory potential is to make this process transparent and subject to democratic control. And this must be done while simultaneously winning political support from a majority of the people for the short-run governments that are the only possible agency of long-run democratic change. 

Page 265
If socialization is no longer thought of as the automatic consequence of the economic development of capitalist society, as a transition from capitalist monopoly to socialist monopoly; if, on the contrary, socialization is understood as the conscious control of their destiny by the people; then it is clearly a goal that extends to all of society, not just to the economy. It involves a shift in culture, in psychology, in the very self-conception of individuals who have previously accepted a subordinate condition. 

Page 266
Socialism is not an explanation of all of the fundamental problems of life, of the meaning of death, the existence of evil, and so on. Socialists may well address those questions, and Marxism, as an atheistic humanism, makes a stoic response to them. But socialism itself deals with putting an end to the unnecessary evil of the world that is caused by economic and social structures. No more, no less. 

Page 272
This is one of the many reasons why a commitment to a rebirth of practical idealism, of values rooted in programs that actually change the conditions of life, is so important to the new socialism.
…
the language of a common idealism that transcends mere material interest becomes all the more important. 

Page 272-3
Power had to be dispersed; some would no longer “lord it over” others. Equality was seen to be not simply a matter of justice for the individual but a means of establishing the very moral atmosphere of the nation as a whole. Solidaristic values were basic and so was communication. That vision, I think, can be found in every serious socialist thinker, even in those, like Marx and Kautsky, who shunned the language of morality out of a contempt for moralizing. Now in our fragmented world — and that was another Tawney theme — these values are not simply ethical imperatives; they are also strategic and tactical elements of a socialism that will unite, within nations and throughout the world, forces more disparate than those dreamed of by the founders of the movement. 

Page 276
A similar perspective followed from Gramsci’s Marxist revisionism in which the socialist working class would play a key role in a “moral and intellectual reformation” that would embrace many classes and strata. Such a new “historic bloc” would have to be united on the basis of ethical values and not simply in terms of the material interests of a single class. 

Page 277
But I insist that the political, social, and economic development of modern society points socialism toward an ethical, multiclass, and decentralized conception of it goal based on the democratization of the workplace and the creation of new forms of community, both within the nation and throughout the world.
…
It therefore requires new structures — the democratization of information and education, the vesting of real power in decentralized institutions that give the citizen a pragmatic reason for participation.
Is such a socialist republicanism possible? Can we really create a space for personal and community freedom in a modern society? No one can be sure. All we can say with confidence is that if such freedom is to come into existence, it will be the result of new global structures of solidarity and justice. Which is to say, of socialism.

Book Review: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Author:	Geisler and Turek	Rating:	*****(5)
Date read:	January, 2010

Excellent summary of Christian apologetic ideas, giving evidence- and reason-based arguments for belief in God and in Christianity. It had two effects on me. One, it strengthened my own beliefs. Two, it made me feel more confident about discussing my beliefs with others, both believers and non-believers. Makes a very good case. Highly recommended.

Book Review: a fine line

Author:	Hartmut Esslinger	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	January, 2010

The first part of the book deals with a description of the author’s (and his firm’s) approach to strategy and design, along with some case histories of clients that the author and his company, frog design, have worked with over the past years. There are success stories and failure stories, all of which are fascinating from a business and design point of view. The idea of design as strategy makes a lot of sense, as is borne out in the examples. The principal expertise and interest of frog design, and the author, is the design and manufacturing of high tech electronic products.

The second part of the book is an attempt to look at design, business strategy, manufacturing, and outsourcing in a new light based on the so-called “green” revolution. This was a noble attempt to promote strategic design and well-thought-out local manufacturing and/or outsourcing relationships as a profitable move toward a more sustainable model, including consideration of the entire product lifecycle from manufacture through recycling/landfill. It’s obvious that Mr. Esslinger is very intelligent, and that he has given some thought to these issues.

I believe, however, that he suffers from a common frailty of many devotees of technology, in believing that modern capitalism and technology can solve the massive problems which they have created and perpetuated. It is, admittedly, a hopeful thought that consumer pressure on corporations to produce more “green” products would lead to significant changes in the way businesses operate, resulting in a sustainable economic and production model. And certainly there is some possibility that some marginal progress could be achieved through this mechanism. However, other than a suggestion that electronic gadgets such as cell phones and music players could be manufactured with replaceable components, so they would not have to be thrown away every 1 – 2 years, there are no practical ideas about how these changes would come about, or what they might be.

Also, in discussing the wonderful fruits of intelligent “smart-sourcing” and working with companies in Taiwan who know how to design and manufacture electronics very well, he does not mention the issue that manufacturing was moved to places like Taiwan because of the absence of environmental controls and other worker protection laws prevalent in the US and western Europe. I had a friend who lived in Taiwan a few years ago. She said the soot in the air was so think it would turn the screens black and clog them, and it had to be swept up off the floors in the house at least daily. So it’s the same old story of exporting destruction of the environment and importing cheap labor, aka globalization (which used to be called Imperialism). There’s nothing “green” or “sustainable” in this model.

To the author’s credit, he does admit that often times outsourcing of manufacturing ends up destroying the local economies of the poor countries where the factories are built and then a few years later shut down. But what is the solution? He does discuss the advantages of keeping the manufacturing in the home country, but in a framework that includes at least some of the manufacturing being outsourced.

The bottom line is that it all depends on the bottom line, and as long as corporations and profit rule supreme, all other considerations will be secondary. I simply do not believe that following the current model of profit at all costs will lead to anything different than more of what we already have, getting worse and worse. That being said, it is admirable that the author is attempting to push for designers and business people to get together and work on profitable solutions that lead to a more sustainable world. Maybe a few people will listen, and do some good things they would otherwise not have done. That’s the best I can hope for, and maybe that’s what the author is hoping for as well.

Key quote (in the section subtitled “Adapt to Win”) on page 43:

“My wife and partner Patricia and I call this strategy “Outside-In” — the idea that we succeed by creating what our clients really need most, rather than by simply trying to replicate our own past successes.”

Book Review: Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Author:	Greg Mortenson	Rating:	***** (5)
Date read:	March, 2010

Lots about the earthquake in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and the amazing people doing the CAI work in these places. A continuation of, and yet different than, Three Cups of Tea. In my review of that book, I said “Everyone needs to read this book!” Same applies to this one. My wife and I were reading through the book together and after almost every chapter we would look at each other and exclaim something to the effect of, “Wow! Totally amazing!”

Book Review: In the Sanctuary of Outcasts

Author:	Neil White	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	June, 2010

Interesting; though not what I’d call a page-turner. We follow along as the author goes through some major life-perspective changes while an inmate in a prison that is on the same grounds with a home for people with leprosy. My personality is opposite to that of the author, so maybe I related to his story less than some readers. But I did enjoy it. I’d say it was interesting to me more in an informational sense than emotional. Not earth-shaking nor life-changing, but worthwhile.

Books I read in 2010

These are the 36 books I read during 2010, listed in the order I read them.

Works of fiction are marked with an asterisk — 8 out of 36 titles. Only 5 were contemporary novels. Apparently I lean toward nonfiction.

Number in parentheses is my rating (5 is best). My reviews for some are this blog site, others are in my GoodReads account (see the list on the right side of the page).

* The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho (3)

Socialism – A Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman (4)

The Value of Nothing by Raj Patel (5)

Field Notes on Democracy by Arundhati Roy (4)

Socialism Past and Future by Michael Harrington (4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek (5)

The Greatest Story Ever Told by Richard Dawkins (3)

Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff (3)

a fine line by Hartmut Esslinger (3)

The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll (3)

Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson (4)

Stones into Schools by Greg Mortensen (5)

Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne (3)

Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe (4)

In the Sanctuary of Outcasts by Neil White (3)

* The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo by Stieg Larsson (4)

* The Girl Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larsson (4)

Half the Sky by Nicholas Kristof (5)

Lords of Finance by Liaquat Ahamed (4)

* Storm Front by Jim Butcher (4)

An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson (4)

Open: An Autobiography by Andre Agassi (4)

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis  (again) (5)

* The Robe by Lloyd C. Douglas (again) (5)

* Emma by Jane Austen (again) (4)

Rework by Jason Fried and DHH (3)

* The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver (4)

Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis (3)

Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality by Donald Miller (5)

* Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold by C.S. Lewis (4)

Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton (5)

Miracles – C.S. Lewis (5)

A Million Miles in a Thousand Years by Donald Miller (4)

All That You Can’t Leave Behind by Ryan Murphy (4)

Winter Spring Summer Fall by Ryan Murphy (4)

Book Review: The Greatest Story Ever Told

Author:	Richard Dawkins	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	Feb, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	1

The first book I read in my quest to learn more about the evolution vs. creation arguments. One of my initial overwhelming impressions as I started reading this book is finding out that my ideas of what I thought evolution was were not at all accurate. Many of the arguments against evolution which I had heard years ago and still clung to did not even apply to the principles being expounded in the book. 

Overall, Richard Dawkins comes across as very intelligent and well informed, if somewhat denigrating of creationists, who he calls “history deniers,” putting them in a class with “holocaust deniers.”

Despite this arrogance, the book is, in most of its content, fascinating, and very informative. I came away with doubts about many of the things I had believed for a long time, though not about the fact that the origin of the universe had to do with an act of God, IOW, creation. When I say doubts, I mean wondering about things, as in, “What if this aspect of evolution’s teachings were true? What would that mean to me and to Christianity and my faith and various doctrines I believe?”

I also, however, came away with doubts about some of the central tenets of evolution. For example, I was not convinced of the reality of macroevolution, i.e., new species evolving through mutations and natural selection. If this were true, I can’t help but believe logically, we should be up to our necks in intermediate forms in the fossil record. Instead, even granting that some intermediate forms have been discovered, they are extremely rare. Also, there is no evidence of this (macroevolution) ever happening, only inferences and speculation, and well, if macroevolution were true, we would expect to see thus and so, and that’s exactly what we find. I don’t see that as foolproof logic, but more as circular reasoning.

Dawkins repeatedly proclaims the equivalent of “an intelligent designer would never do things this way, therefore this disproves creation.” However, I think, from a creationist perspective, if we assume an intelligence sufficient to be the origin of the universe including time, matter, DNA, and all the rest, even natural selection, then that intelligence would necessarily be so far beyond our understanding that we could not presume to such claims as “would never do this” or “should always act in this way.” Surely there would always be natural phenomena beyond our understanding, no matter how far science advances.

Ironically, several of the passages in the book in which Dawkins is explaining the details of natural selection to me were usable as evidence for the existence of God as part of the teleological argument, that is, design implies a designer. The description of embryology also impressed me in this way–very fascinating.

Book Review: Tornado in a Junkyard

Author:	James Perloff	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	Feb, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	2

This is my first creationist book, which I read right after “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” Overall I found the book well organized and methodical, and very informative. To a certain extent, there was a tendency to disparage evolutionists, though not nearly as strong as the anti-creationist attitudes in Richard Dawkin’s book. I also found the book to be a little more religious than it needed to be, which I suppose is to be expected, and in some cases promoting the American so-called Christian, right-wing belief system, with which I and many other believers are at odds. In spite of these shortcomings, the book was very informative and helped me to understand the other side of the arguments made by evolutionists, which is exactly what I wanted. The key points for me were: evidence for a young earth, the description of uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, the nature of large numbers of fossils indicating instantaneous fossilization, the disagreements among paleontologists and other scientists regarding the “missing links” in the fossil record cited by Dawkins, and the explanations regarding the various modern dating methods not being as reliable as we are led to believe. All the information was backed up by multiple citations from scientists past and present, including many biologists and other life scientists; even evolution-believing scientists are quoted on many topics.

One of the sections I did not appreciate was the chapter on social consequences of belief in evolution. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are cited as examples of monsters whose actions were either based on or excused by evolutionary concepts. This is easy to do when addressing an audience of not-very-well-informed conservative Christians in the United States (the obvious target market for this book), but doesn’t hold up very well in a more objective view of history. Many monsters committed horrible atrocities before Darwin came along, and many of them did these things in the name of God or their religion. The inquisition comes to mind, along with the centuries-long oppression of the masses by the church through the middle ages into the reformation period. In the 19th century and before, “Christian” leaders in the U.S. preached and taught that the Bible approved of, or even encouraged, slavery. Both the North and the South in the American civil war thought God was on their side. The invasion of Iraq serves as a contemporary example of the same “God is on our side” warmongering. (Bob Dylan has a good song on this topic, titled “God on our Side,” relating to American history.)

My anti-evolution arguments having been formed from information that was at best decades old, it was interesting to read more up-to-date information countering some of the evolution “evidence.” In “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” Dawkins presents the material on evolution so unquestioningly and with strong assertions, either explicit or implied, that all thinking modern scientists know these things are incontrovertible facts. It was eye-opening to find that the reality is there is much disagreement in the scientific community over many of these points, and there are many assumptions behind even the things most of the evolution-believing scientists agree on. The evidence presented in “Tornado in a Junkyard” is not absolutely convincing, but it does a good job of presenting the other side reasonably and logically.

Book Review: The Making of the Fittest

Author:	Sean B. Carroll	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	March, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	3

This book is about the interplay between genetics and evolutionary biology. I think it is a very important topic, and an excellent presentation of the topic, in the study of evolution. As I expected, much of the science presented in the book deals with microevolution. The function of DNA and the science of genetics is something I was not at all familiar with prior to reading this book. Also, I knew that proponents of evolution cited DNA and genetics as indisputable proof, but I had no idea what constituted such proof. So the book was very informative, and mostly interesting, even fascinating in parts.

I appreciated the explanations of gene duplication and insertion as a result of mutations, something of which many creationists are apparently unaware. Also, the description of what the author calls “fossil genes,” which are sometimes called “pseudogenes,” was new information for me, and very interesting. One of the parts of the book that I did not really buy into was the so-called Evo-Devo science, which uses embryology as explanation of and evidence for complex organisms evolving from simple organisms or single cells. The embryology itself is fascinating, but I saw no evidence that it parallels evolutionary development of species.

The description of the different types of eyes, the genes involved in eye structures, and the hypothetical evolution of all animal eyes from a distant, unknown ancestor was interesting, especially in that some parts of the DNA act as controllers of the actions or effects of other genes, rather than directly on physiology. Fascinating, and it illustrates that there is much complexity in DNA which we have yet to fathom.

One mistake the author made, in his attempt to convince me of the unreasonableness of evolution deniers, was to compare them to people who are against mass vaccination. There happens to be a large body of evidence indicating that vaccines, and in particular mass vaccinations, are doing more harm than good, especially when viewed from the perspective of the evolution of the human species. Many, many respected scientists and medical professionals oppose vaccinations. Interestingly, the author calls for opponents of vaccinations to produce double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. This is exactly what many of these scientists have been clamoring for, for the past several decades. In fact, virtually no double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have ever been performed to test the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The author deals specifically with chiropractors who are anti-vaccine, some for ideological reasons. I have no particular wish to defend the premises of chiropractic, but the author dismisses the whole practice as quackery, which is as narrow-minded and dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians denying evolution with no research into the supporting science. The author showing himself to be so dogmatic and narrow-minded does not make me likely to believe that his arguments in the rest of the book are completely objective.

Another thing that has bothered me, and continues to bother me after reading this book, is the implication that modern advances in life sciences (such as agriculture and medicine, maybe?) somehow would cease to exist without, or could never have happened without, or in some other way are derived from scientific discoveries of how evolution works. This statement is made, in so many words, near the end of the book, with no indications of why this is true. I tend to believe it is not true. I can understand the progress in the science of genetics has also led to greater understanding of evolution. There may actually be some advantages to human civilization and life that come from these advances in genetic science, but I’m not aware of it. Gene-based medicines overall have been a flop, and GMO crops are one of many profit-based trends that threaten to destroy the ecology of our planet. So where are the great scientific benefits that have come from our “understanding” of evolution? If you take out the part of biology that is actually focused directly on evolution, what breakthroughs in the rest of biology have resulted from that knowledge of evolution?

The last chapter of the book contains an description of the problems of over-fishing and pollution, and warns that we are headed for disaster. I’ve seen this in other places, and fully believe it. It is one of many areas in which we humans are actively working to destroy ourselves. There is an implication that the decisions being made in this area, obviously bad decisions considering the long-term implications, are somehow related to a disbelief in evolution. That is definitely a stretch.

Book Review: Darwin on Trial

Author:	Phillip E. Johnson	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	March, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	4

Excellent, logical treatment of evolution itself and the debates surrounding it. Johnson is not a “young earth” creationist, so the age of the earth is not treated in the book. This is an advantage, because it enables the argument to focus on the key point:  does the evidence support the claim of Darwinists that all forms of life we see today evolved from a common ancestor through gradual changes due solely to natural influences. This is exactly what I attempt to focus on in approach the subject of evolution: what is the actual evidence for or against, without getting into alternative belief systems.

I tend to view problems and questions logically and analytically, and so I appreciated and related to Johnson’s approach. He makes what I have felt is a key point, which is not clearly enunciated in the other books I’ve read, that if Darwinism were true, the fossil record should be full of transitional forms; i.e., there should be more transitional forms than anything. Darwin and contemporary evolutionists contend that all of life is in a continual transitional state. Richard Dawkins, in “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” states that there is enough evidence for evolution without the fossil record. The problem is that the fossil record is not missing; the fossil record provides evidence that contradicts Darwinism. What we see is stasis, which is not what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Even granting the handful of exceptional fossils that could be interpreted as transitional forms, some more believably than others, the overall record of fossils shows species appearing suddenly, going through directionless and non-substantive changes, then disappearing from the record. This is the opposite of what it should be, if evolution were true.

Johnson provides a very useful explanation of how the term “evolution” is used by evolutionists to describe a broad enough array of concepts so as to make it very difficult to say whether “evolution” is a fact or not. Obviously, there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution: the guppies, the bacteria, the famous case of the black/white moths, the finches, etc. We can see it happening, and we can see evidence of it happening in the past. Johnson explains how the evolutionists often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for Darwinism, that is, the evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor. And he explains very clearly why there is no evidence, neither in the fossil record, nor in genetics, that the known mechanisms such as natural selection and mutation can or ever have resulted in development of major organs or new biological types.

Towards the end of the book, the author discusses the philosophical issues involved with naturalistic evolution. He makes the point that it is essentially impossible to separate philosophical/religious concerns from a discussion of evolution, because naturalistic evolution as promoted and taught by evolutionists includes a strong atheistic philosophy. A key aspect of this discussion is that evolutionists start with the assumption that no supernatural forces are nor ever have been at work in the universe. Since all life forms we see have been brought into being by purely natural forces, Darwinism is the best explanation we have of how this could have occurred. Therefore, we accept it as fact. He also explains how evolutionists and their supporters have framed the argument in such a way that “science” refers only to natural forces, and “religion” represents only superstition and fantasy.

Johnson describes some positive interactions he has had with evolutionists, including debates and discussions, and even presentations to university classes. He explains that he frames the question as what he calls “The Blind Watchmaker Thesis.” And he attempts to expose the philosophical, as opposed to evidentiary, approach to the question taken by evolutionists. Some evolutionists agree with him on this question, understanding that evolutionists tend to be dogmatic and guided by assumptions, reacting to criticism in ways that reflect this mindset and approach.

In summary, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the evolution debate, whether tending toward the creation or evolution side. There is lots more worthwhile material in the book that I have not covered in this brief review.

Book Review: Why Evolution is True

Author:	Jerry A. Coyne	Rating:	***** (3)
Date read:	May, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	5

My perspective on this book is that overall it is more emphatic than analytic. Many subjects are covered, and the author brushes over, or more frequently completely ignores, any evidence contrary to the points being made, including problems known and acknowledged by other evolutionist authors. Simply stating emphatically that things are thus and so, and the evidence obviously proves such-and-such beyond any doubt does not substitute for in-depth analysis. One exception to this tendency is the chapter on biogeography, which the author states up front is somewhat of a specialty for him, and his favorite part of evolution to teach. This subject is covered thoroughly and comprehensively, at least in my uneducated viewpoint.

Coyne follows what is becoming a familiar pattern in the “pro-evolution” literature, which is insulting creationists and more generally anyone that espouses religious beliefs. Some examples:

“The battle for evolution seems never-ending. And the battle is part of a wider war, a war between rationality and superstition. What is at stake is nothing less than science itself and all the benefits it offers to society.”

“On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life’s diversity from mythology into genuine science.”

“Matchbooks resemble the kinds of creatures expected under a creationist explanation of life. In such a case, organisms would not have common ancestry, but would simply result from an instantaneous creation of forms designed de novo to fit their environments.”

“Now, science cannot completely exclude the possibility of supernatural explanation. It is possible — though very unlikely — that our whole world is controlled by elves.”

It seems from what I have read in other places that there is somewhat of a consensus that the fossil record overall shows stasis within species over time, and sudden changes rather than gradual ones. If this were not the case, why would alternate theories such as “punctuated equilibrium” and its predecessors have been developed by evolutionist biologists? Coyne does not mention this at all (except in a very brief mention of the Cambrian explosion at the end of the book, blending it in with other unrelated questions about mechanisms of evolution that are not well understood). Instead he insists (emphatically, of course) that the fossil record unfailingly and universally demonstrates gradual changes in species and gradual divergence of living forms into new species. Since there is no know genetic mechanism that could produce these relatively sudden changes, ignoring that such changes exist in the record lets the author off the hook of explaining how they could happen. Coyne states, “…the fossil record gives no evidence for the creationist prediction that all species appear suddenly and then remain unchanged. Instead, forms of life appear in the record in evolutionary sequence, and then evolve and split.”

Another example of ignoring contradicting facts where they are inconvenient is his use of Java man in the explanation of human evolution. Java man was discredited as a fraud only a few years after its discovery, and this has been admitted by evolutionists. Peking man, also cited without reservation by Coyne, is shrouded in mystery, as the bones were confiscated and hidden before rigorous scientific study could be performed. Such clear cases of playing fast and loose with the facts cause me to ask myself in how many other cases with which I’m not familiar has the author included information as “evidence” which is either questionable or outright false. Not a good way to inspire belief and acceptance of the points propounded in the book.

The philosophical approach to the study of evolution is present in this book as in other similar works. For example: ”How do we know that creationists are wrong when they say that selection can make small changes in organisms but is powerless to make big ones?  But first we must ask: What’s the alternative theory? We know of no other natural process that can build a complex adaptation.” No other “natural” process is known, therefore natural selection must be responsible, even though we have no clue how this might have worked. The same old philosophical approach, i.e., “true science” denies the possibility of any not “natural,” in other words, supernatural, influence or even existence in the universe. Therefore only natural explanations can be considered. Here’s more:

“Naturalism is the view that the only way to understand our universe is through the scientific method. Materialism is the idea that the only reality is the physical matter of the universe, and that everything else including thoughts, will, and emotions, comes from physical laws acting on that matter. The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism.”

“But supernatural explanations like these are simply never needed: we manage to understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism. Furthermore, supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry: that’s the way God wanted it, end of story. Science, on the other hand, is never satisfied: our studies of the universe will continue until humans go extinct.”

There are a few things wrong with this last quote. First, it puts reason and materialism together as if they are inseparable. As the study of Christian apologetics and other philosophical approaches to fundamental questions about life show, it is possible through reason and logic to arrive at the existence of the supernatural. Second, we don’t understand the natural world just fine with a purely materialistic approach. For example, why does the universe (and why do we) exist? And what started the evolutionary chain of events (abiogenesis)? And why is there this driving force of survival as exemplified in natural selection? If evolution is true, why does it happen? Where did the natural laws come from? Why do they work the way they do? Third, supernatural explanations do not automatically mean “the end of inquiry.” Go down the list of well known scientists through the ages who have made significant contributions to knowledge about our universe. Many of them were creationists, with firm beliefs in the supernatural. This didn’t seem to prevent them making the discoveries that serve as the foundations of modern science.

In summary, this book provides a thorough and convincing explanation of how discoveries in the area of biogeography fit very well with darwinist teachings regarding evolution. This is an area of evolution which, so far, I have not seen any creationists answer. In the beginning of the book, the author states that he has written this book partly with the intention of providing a convincing argument to open-minded creationists. In my opinion, he has failed in that mission. Much of the book is too superficial to truly convince one who is not predisposed to acceptance of evolution; and besides that the book frequently throws out insults of those with religious beliefs–not exactly motivating skeptics to accept the author’s viewpoint.

Book Review: Darwin’s Black Box

Author:	Michael Behe	Rating:	***** (4)
Date read:	May, 2010
Evolution vs. Creation Book:	6

Behe makes a good case that Darwinism does not account for complex biochemical processes, i.e., molecular-level structures and processes within cells. He describes several examples in detail, showing the interaction and interdependencies among different components. Very interesting to me, having close to zero previous knowledge of biochemistry. Along with these examples, Behe also looks at the literature to see what biologists and other scientists have discovered or proposed as explanations of step-by-step development of these structures and processes, and finds there is virtually nothing there. The topic is not addressed in the literature in any meaningful sense at all.

Key quotes:

The English biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders complain as follows: “It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.” 

In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion. Although many scientists ask how sequences can change or how chemicals necessary for life might be produced in the absence of cells, no one has ever asked in the pages of JME such questions as the following: How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? How did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop? The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.

Evolution vs. Creation - Summary

After reading three books on each side of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, what are my conclusions? In short, there is no clear winner. There are some points on which the evidence for Darwinian evolution is strong and this evidence has not been effectively countered by the creationists. There are also strong points on the creationist (or intelligent design) side, which have not been effectively addressed by the evolutionists.

Points for Evolution

• Biogeography. Jerry Coyne, who specializes in this field, makes a good case. It is difficult to reconcile instantaneous creation with the evidence of how living things are, and have been according to the fossil record, distributed across the earth. In my reading I did not find anything in the creationist or ID books that address this evidence.
• Pseudogenes (or fossil genes per Carroll).I think this is not so much evidence for evolution as simply a good fit. The characteristics of these DNA sequences correspond well with Darwinian evolution, and do not make sense in an instantaneous creation scenario.
• Vestigial organs. Similar to pseudogenes, many instances of vestigial characteristics do not make much sense in a creation scenario, but can be explained reasonably in terms of Darwinian evolution.

Points for Creation (or Intelligent Design)

• Complex biochemical structures and processes. These are the “irreducibly complex” features, described by Behe in “Darwin’s BlackBox,” for which there are no known explanations in Darwinian terms.
• Preponderance of evidence of stasis in the fossil record. The fossil record overwhelmingly shows species appearing, staying mostly the same or undergoing directionless changes, then disappearing from the record. This situation is the reason behind the famous and not-believed-by-anyone “monster” theory (bird hatching from reptile egg) and the more recent “punctuated equilibrium” theory, which is virtually the same.
• Lack of any known genetic mechanism for development of major changes. Micro-evolution is all around us and there is plenty of evidence for it. The genetic mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection that cause it are well known and understood. The mechanisms for macro-evolution are unknown; random mutations and natural selection have not been shown to be responsible for the development of vastly different organisms from a common ancestor.

Young earth and Noah’s flood

The evidence provided by biogeography combined with the fossil record indicating the vast numbers of species make the Noah’s flood scenario as described in Genesis a tough sell. On the other hand, why is folkloric reference to a worldwide flood in which a few people were saved in a boat so widespread?

Creationists cite such things as the gradually increasing distance between the moon and the earth, gradual shrinking in the size of the sun, gradual decrease in the rotation (spin) rate of the earth, change in the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, and other astronomical observations as proof that the world cannot be billions of years old. One of the foundations for Darwinian evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism, which states that the processes we observe in the present are the same processes that have always occurred, and they have always occurred at the same rate that we observe. The observed astronomical changes and this concept seem to be in conflict. In my limited reading I did not find any evolutionist arguments that countered these points.

There is abundant evidence in various forms that contradicts the 6,000-year-old earth scenario. Some arguments can be made that radioactive dating techniques are not as accurate as we are led to believe. And it is easy to believe that fossil finds that contradict what Darwinian evolution would predict are downplayed and possibly even suppressed. However, the preponderance of evidence seems to point to an older earth, and creationist arguments against this evidence are, in my unscientific opinion, vague and inadequate.

Evolution and Atheism

Though the vocal proponents of evolution claim there is nothing about evolution which precludes religious belief, the philosophical viewpoints and derogatory statements in their writings indicates their true opinions on this matter: that people who believe in religion are simply superstitious. Phillip E. Johnson provides an excellent treatment of the interplay between atheism and the creation-vs-evolution argument in his book Darwin on Trial. See my review of that book for a summary of his explanation.

Now what?

My view is that it is reasonable to believe in evolution, as it is reasonable to believe in creation. There are good arguments on both sides. In the current cultural environment, people who question evolution are considered at least possessing inferior intelligence, or at worst dangerous religious fanatics. Darwinian evolution is enshrined in such a way that rational debate is not permitted. In my opinion when anything is not open to rational debate, it becomes dogma. Evolutionists who criticize dogmatic religious creationists might want to take a good look at themselves and their fellow evolutionists, and see how open they are to debating points on which current knowledge is inadequate to explain certain phenomena in terms of Darwinism. On the other hand, there are plenty of dogmatic creationists, and some of them I would classify as dangerous religious fanatics, not because they believe in creation, but because they believe in lots of other crazy things. The evolution-vs-creation debate has become highly politicized along with other religion-related issues, which is another factor that makes rational debate difficult if not impossible.

What are my personal beliefs after this study? First of all, I still firmly believe, as I have always believed even in the most anti-religious and anti-Christianity periods of my life, that God created the universe. As to whether it happened in six days about 6000 years ago, on that I’m not so firm. My current state of belief is that I don’t have enough information to decide how much of Darwinism is fact, and how much of Genesis is literal. Does this shake my Christian faith? No. Christianity is neither theology nor just a religion for me; it is an experience which I have lived, deeply and intimately, for many years.