My next posts deal with the moderate consumption of alcohol.  I thought I would make all the relevant definitions seperately in the interests of brevity.  It is worth noting that these guidelines and definitions differ between countries.  I am using those found in my country of origin.

What is a standard drink?

Firstly, the standard drink equals 10g of pure ethanol.   This roughly equates to:

• One 330ml beer
• 30ml of straight spirits (about one shot glass)
• One 100ml glass of wine (a lot of people overfill their glasses and are actually drinking closer to 2-2.5 standard drinks)

From here.

What is moderation?

The current guidelines say:

• Men have a daily maximum of 6 standard drinks and a weekly maximum of 21.
• Women have a daily maximum of 4 standard drinks and a weekly maximum of 14.

It is also recommended that you eat food when consuming alcohol and have alcohol free days each week.  There are also instances when these figures are too high and circumstances where one shouldn’t consume alcohol at all.

You can read the full brief here.

However, I must say that I think that these guidelines are a bit high (more on why later).  Personally I prefer the recommendations of The Nutrition Taskforce which posits a maximum of 30g for men and 20g for women.  Obviously these guidelines are there for a reason as binge drinking is a large contributor of health and social ills.

You can find a quick quiz to test your drinking here.

Connor, J., Broad, J., & Rehm, J., et al. (2005). The burden of death, disease, and disability due to alcohol in New Zealand. Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 118(1213).

Tasman-Jones, C., (2005). Alcohol drinking guideline,Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 118(1218).

Note: This post may be subject to some revision. I’ve hopefully managed to accurately summarise some scientific findings outside my area of proficiency.  Also, there is a lot that could be said here but I’m be trying my best not to bog this down too much. Dialogue and suggestions are most welcome.

The bacterial flagellum (from latin “whip”) is one of the most complicated examples of biological “machinery” we know of today. The projecting filament of the flagellum is capable of rotating at thousands of revolutions a minute to propel bacteria through watery environments, in a similar way to an outboard motor. Explaining how such a system works and how it evolved has been a subject of interest for modern biologists.

In recent years, the interest in this curious piece of micro-machinery has increased dramatically. This has been as result of the intelligent design (ID) movement using it as a challenge to evolution and the flogging the subject took at the Dover trial a few years ago. Cdesign propensists, claim that the bacterial flagellum is evidence for ID as it exhibits an attribute called “irreducible complexity” (IC), which was coined by Michael Behe.

What he means by this is:

“An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”

“Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.”

Essentially, an irreducibly complex system could be formed by the gradual processes of evolution as the non-functioning intermediates would not be preserved by natural selection. This harkens back to the old creationist arguments of “what good is half an eye” and William Paley’s argument for design (Perhaps these arguments and IC share a common ancestor?).

Despite the over-whelming rejection of ID by the scientific community and the gaping wound left by the rulings at Dover, ID proponents insist they have a case for design in irreducible complexity.  Do they?

I don’t think so when I consider:

1. the bacterial flagellum isn’t irreducible

2. homology within the proteins involved

3. the many paths to bacterial mobility

4. complexity ≠ design

An article by Nick Matze mentions that some bacterial flagella can function without some of the proteins that make up the flagellum. According to the definition we should not be able to reduce such a system to a functioning simpler form. It should be by definition non-functional.

Another reason not to accept the notion of irreducible complexity is the existence of homologies. One popular example is that of the type 3 secretory system (T3SS) which pathogenic bacteria use to inject cells with toxins. Several of the T3SS proteins are found in the bacteria flagellum. It’s currently debated which came first or whether they evolved from a common ancestor, regardless, this example shows how a partial flagellum could have a use. If it has a use it can be preserved by natural selection and exaptation/co-option to act on it, which leaves no reason to claim evolution is incapable of producing it.

In reading some of the literature surrounding bacterial flagella I came across something I had previously overlooked, which is possibly my new favourite reason to reject ID’s notions. The fact is that there is no such thing as the bacterial flagellum. Instead, we find huge variation in how flagella function and are assembled. Of the 40-50 proteins used in making a flagellum only 20 are universal. I think it’s unnecessary to detail all the possibilities, but this raises some rather awkward questions for the ID camp such as:

Why did the intelligent designer reinvent the design so many times?

Did the intelligent designer create all of these varying different flagella in thousand of special creations?

Is the intelligent designer trying to trick us by making it look like these different systems evolved from a common ancestor?

The final question for me is how on earth would we recognise design? Complexity is not necessarily a good indication that something is designed. What about simplistic designs? Paperclips and bricks aren’t complicated but we know that they are designed (albeit by human designers which is another limitation for intelligent design). What we’re actually looking for in design is artificiality, which is difficult to find in a biological system.

Bacterial flagella are complicated and their evolutionary history is not well understood.  However, I think that it is much better to leave science to explain, rather than invoking the arguments from psuedo-science which halt scientific enquiry.  Pointing at gaps in scientific knowledge without providing a scientific and testable alternative is not good science.  Furthermore, intelligent design implicitly limits God’s intelligence and power (most ID proponents think of the Judeo-Christian God).  A God who has to repeatedly intervene to maintain his creation is less intelligent than one who could had a process in mind which could produce such complex micro-machines.

Relevant articles:

Dolittle, W.F. & Zhaxybayeva, O., (2007). Evolution: Reducible Complexity — The Case for Bacterial Flagella , Current Biology, 17(13) , 510-512

Pallen, M.J., & Matzke, N.J., (2006). From Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4, 784-790

Wong, T., Amidi, A., Dodds, A., Siddiqi, S., Wang, J., Yep, T., Tamang, D.G., & Saier, M.H., (2007). The Evolution of Bacterial Flagellum, Microbe, 2(7), 335-340

In response to this post: http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/evidence-indicates-a-young-earth-rather-than-old

Scientists have many different methods of dating our earth and universe. All of these methods give ages much older than those accepted by young earth creationism (YEC). If the earth is only 6000 years old, why does a mountain of evidence contradict this? For me it raises questions about the honesty of the God of YEC. These are just a few brief examples.

1. Dendochronology or tree ring dating gives us an age of around 11000 years old.

2. Thermoluminescence: method of dating materials based on stored nuclear energy, can date items more than 80,000 years old.

3. Radioisotope dating: based on observed ratios between different isotopes of radioactive elements, dates some rocks on earth older than 4.4 billion years (uranium-thorium, potassium-argon). Carbon 14 dating is used on organic samples to gives dates of tens of thousands of years.

4. Electronic spin resonance: can date samples hundreds of thousands of years old.

5. Fission track dating is suggestive of an earth billions of years old.

6. Light from distant galaxies reaching earth indicates the earth is much older than a few thousand, otherwise we wouldn’t see anything past the milky-way.

7. Red-shifted light from distant galaxies is indicative of the universe of almost 14 billion years old.

More reading:
Chronometric dating part 1
Chronometric dating part 2
Red shift

I’ve often thought that a lot of what I’ve been told surrounding lust has been ill-defined and much too black’n'white.  Perhaps this is because it might be because it is a difficult topic or perhaps a bit taboo.  I’m primarily interested to know if and where there is a demarcation between attraction and lust.  This is looked at largely from my perspective as a Christian and will probably make little sense from an outside perspective.

I’m inclined to think that sexual attraction is natural and good thing.  An example from my perspective: a female waist to hip ratio of around 0.7 is a characteristic that is considered attractive across time and ethnic groups.  I would say that male brains are hard-wired to find this attribute attractive because this ratio is associated with health, fertility and high-performance children.  I won’t go into why this makes good reproductive sense (I think most of the implications are self-evident) but I will say that such attraction is important for survival of the species.

However, I’m not sure this attraction is the same thing as lust, but where is the line?  Is there a line?  Matthew 5:28 says: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  The last part in particular leaps out at me as showing that this is a desire for something selfish and inappropriate.  Gluttony and greed are similar manifestations, and without them we can still eat and earn a living.  I think our topic falls in a similar category.

Perhaps what I’m looking for is a more balanced perspective on this.  I’d say that both the puritan and whatever the equivalent opposite is (I can’t think of a nice word) are both equally misguided on the issues of human sexuality.

Earlier this week a fossil Darwinus masillae (nick-named “Ida”) created a bit of a stir and sent creationist websites into deny-everything-about-everything mode.  The media has also been pretty unhelpful with it’s “missing-link” labeling and over-hyped rhetoric that this fossil has finally validated Darwin’s theory.  I’ve reluctantly decided to throw in my tuppence worth because some of what I’ve read has not been good.

Ida is:

• 47 million years old, which makes her a great deal older than our species.
• Well-preserved and 95% complete.
• Not a lemur as she lacks a grooming claw and tooth comb.  Additionally, her talus is shaped like members of our primate line.
• Helpful in giving us an idea of how various traits developed (which is pretty cool).
• A bridge between lemurs and their more distant relatives such as monkeys and us.

Ida isn’t:

• THE missing link.  (Every fossil is transitional in some way; Ida is one link in a very long evolutionary chain.)
• The only example we have of a transitional fossil.  (There are so many that I feel sorry for those who have to store and categorise them all.)
• An example of scientists trying to deceive you.  (Yes, there was a hoax but that doesn’t put every subsequent fossil in the same basket.)
• A much needed piece of evidence for the theory.  (There’s a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly supports evolution by natural selection. We don’t even need fossils due to: vestigial organs, embryology, morphological similarities, genomic similarities, observable evolution of micro-organisms and virtually every other discovery in biology over the 150 years.)
• The work of Satan.

How Christians respond to facts such as these can be very influential as to how people view Christianity.  If one avoids, ignores or denies them it is very detrimental amongst those people who wonder about Christianity today.  Honest dialogue is necessary not only for our intellectual integrity but also for our message.

I’ve read a lot of opinions on abortion I’ve disagreed with in the last week or so but one statement in particular irked me.

“It’s a women’s health issue and it’s nobody else’s business other than the woman’s.” – Fiona Robertson

This sentiment seems to be fairly common (also seen as “my body, my choice” slogans) and I disagree with it on a number of levels (though I’ll only address one). This way of thinking totally ignores men. While we may not have the same experience as the woman, it undoubtedly affects men too.

Hypothetically, if I get a woman pregnant I’ve provided half the genes and therefore it should be equally my business. If the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy I would be liable for child support even if I didn’t want the child. I agree that this is good practice because I should be responsible for my actions. Conversely though, if the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy and I want the child, suddenly nobody wants my input. If I wanted the child and it was terminated I could very well experience grief, depression, anger, helplessness and resentment.

There’s only one word to describe this situation: unjust.

In New Zealand it looks as though the issue of abortion may be coming to a head.  I for one am very interested to see how it all pans out and decided to post a bit of the story so far.  In June last year there was a review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) where the High Court judge doubted the grounds of most New Zealand abortions and claimed the ASC weren’t doing their job.

He had this to say:

“There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.
Indeed, the [Abortion Supervisory] Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more
liberally than Parliament intended.”

Personally, I agree with him. Currently under the law an abortion is only justified if it “is immediately necessary to save the life of the patient or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health.” (From the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, 1977)

However, of the approximately 18000 abortions performed each year, nearly all are justified on the grounds of risk to the mother’s mental health. I find this dubious to say the least and think that consultants are freely reinterpreting the law to effectively give the country abortion on demand.  Justice Miller clearly thought so too and his ruling has made pro-life groups feel vindicated.  Earlier this week the ASC appealed the ruling and the group “Right to Life” cross appealed.  In the end it was chucked out because it was outside of the courts jurisdiction and many pro-choice groups are recommending the law is reviewed in parliament.

I’m very curious as to what happens next. Will this become a more publicly discussed issue and will we see a law reform?

I personally don’t have much problem with the law as it stands but what I don’t like are the rationalisations that we are dealing with something other than human life.  The aborted foetuses are produced by our reproduction, which makes them part of our species.  We shouldn’t get to decide who is or isn’t human.

In today’s age of religious tolerance there is a tendency for people to deride the importance of religious belief or to say that “all paths lead to God”.  Increasingly anyone who does not agree with these ideas can be labelled as close-minded, intolerant or judgmental.  However I think all of this business is a bit muddled and needs a bit of straightening out.

Now unless you really haven’t paid any attention to me whatsoever you either know or are not surprised to find that I am a Christian.  Am I therefore close-minded or intolerant then as well?  That depends on what you mean by close-minded and intolerant.

If you mean that if one holds a belief and defends their position against views which are incompatible/contradictory then I’ll likely disagree.  For example if I am approached by a nice Mormon individual while strolling to the supermarket who tells me that salvation is by faith + works I may disagree and attempt to falsify this idea being a budding apologist.  It is perfectly acceptable to do so (with gentleness and respect of course – 1 Peter 3:15-16) as their position contradicts my own and I do allow their beliefs to endure.

I think the crux of the matter is that all religious faiths are mutually exclusive.  This means that the idea that “all paths lead to God” is logically infeasible.  For instance Taoism is pantheistic, Hinduism polytheistic and Christianity monotheistic. Basically they’re all teaching different things which are irreconcilable with each other.  If you believe A is true and someone else believes B is true you cannot both be correct (although you can both be wrong).  This is also the case when you compare Christianity and Islam (considered to be quite similar) they are not the same at a fundamental level.  Christianity says Jesus died on the cross and Islam says he did not die on the cross, both cannot be correct.  These claims come from religious texts which  claim to be written by men inspired by God but one must be incorrect (Either A or B, not both).  This is a reflection of logic and reality, not intolerance.  Truth cannot contradict itself otherwise it cannot possibly be the truth can it?

Furthermore I would add that anyone that holds an opinion on anything is close-minded to an extent.  Having an opinion usually indicates they have employed reason to get there and eliminated other alternatives as possibilities (as we should – 1 Thessalonians 5:21).  You should still show respect for the others position and remember there is always a chance you could be wrong.

So in conclusion I do not believe that “all paths lead to God” as religions make mutually exclusive truth claims.  Is it logically possible to reconcile Christ’s statement “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No-one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) with a religion that does not accept Jesus as God incarnate?  To do so you would have to alter them to the degree that either one or both no longer contains its core doctrines.  Respect/tolerance should always be shown to those with different ideals but this does not make all views equal or correct.

For no particular reason I’ve decided to expound my thoughts on atheism and morality. Do I have a point? I’m not sure.

What is Atheism?

Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s) or belief that there is no God. (From the Greek, a “without”; theo “god”.) There is certainly a lot of discussion in defining different types of atheism. Including what it applies to and whether it is an assertion in itself for the non-existence of deities or just the absence of faith in one. Generally speaking though, an atheist does not believe in the divine and rejects supernatural concepts such as the soul or spirituality.

Atheism and morality

The real interest for me in atheism is its relationship with morality. Seeing as atheism is not an organised religion there are no tenants guiding how one should act. Not surprisingly there is plenty of variation on ideas of morality between atheists (such as humanism, moral relativism and moral nihilism).

Some theists equate atheism with immorality, arguing that atheists cannot be moral as morality is derived from God. Others say that because the vast majority of atheists accept naturalism they must be selfish baby eating heathens as Darwinian evolution apparently encourages “survival of the fittest”.

I disagree with both of these positions and I’m going be defending atheism a bit (which is a bit odd considering I’m a theist type).

Can an atheist be moral?

In my opinion an atheist can be moral. We live in societies where there are laws and acting in a moral way is the smart thing to do (unless you want to end up in prison). It makes sense for our atheist friends to be honest members of society who play nice. Belief in God is not a requirement for morality and atheists are capable of governing their own behaviour (just like everyone else).

While atheists are right that morals are not contingent on God or a particular religion, they are contingent on religion in that they are also contingent on drawing off of the concept of absolute good and absolute evil which comes from religion. Neither absolute good or absolute evil is real in an atheist worldview. If there is no absolute truth or absolute goodness, what makes doing the opposite of what we call good actually bad?

(While morals can be seen as beneficial to the majority I do not think it logically defensible that just because something offers benefit to the majority, that it is the right course of action for an individual that it does not benefit, so argument from the social context does not work for me.)

I was encouraged to join WordPress and I decided it could be interesting.  I have used blogging features on various social networking sites but this is my first REAL blog as such.  I might import some of my other posts if I find that I’ve managed to say something intelligent in the past.

I’m not particularly interested in sharing who I am, however, I decided to write a small summary as it does influence what I think:

1.  I’m a 22 year old male.

2.  I’m a Christian (of the Protestant kind).

3.   I’m interested in theology, science, history and health sciences.

Ryan