MENTAL FENCES

Fences - a word recently on many minds. There are many kinds of fences, both physical and mental. Basically, fences do one of two things – they either protect, or they contain. I grew up on a dairy farm with many wire fences. Some kept the cows at home, others protected garden and crops from destruction. In other words, they either contain or protect. On a broader scale, fences may be appropriately designed with people or smallest to largest animals in mind. All fences, however, have gates. They may be rarely, or frequently opened, and their function is to allow controlled passage without needing to tear down the fence.

There are also mental fences. People take a position and develop a fence to support their position. They very seldom, if ever, install a gate in their mental fence. In developing their position, they may listen to conflicting theories, but once a position is taken there is seldom a willingness to consider anything that conflicts with it. No matter how terrible their position turns out to be, or how logical a conflicting position may be, once their position has been established there is refusal to change. This is readily seen in politics, as well as many other aspects of life. One fence, very solid and well taken care of, is the creation/evolution fence. Each side is solid in belief, and in feeling that the other side is, basically, imbecilic in their beliefs. Personally, I believe both are correct, but they are like two blind persons feeling an elephant – and developing different pictures of the animal based on what they feel. For example, the sides on the creation/evolution arguments are looking at the same thing, but different aspects. On any observation, there are five questions, four ‘W’ and one ‘H’ questions. They are Who, Why, When, Where, and How. The creation side is looking only at Who (God) and Why (because He wanted to). They are minimally interested in the other three questions. The evolution side take a scientific approach, looking at Where, When, and How, with no interest in the Who and Why questions. The five questions must all be examined if a correct answer is to be obtained. One problem is that some giving here and there will be required, and neither is willing to give anything. Their fence remains very firm and cared for. I wrote a book on this controversy, “Scripture Versus Science: Reconciling God’s Ancient Wisdom with a Modern World View.” In it I attempted to show the unity path of considering all five questions. Neither side accepted if, with very few other than family and friends buying it. Christians tend not to be interested in anything on this subject that is not in the Bible. On the other hand, few evolutionists give any thought to the possibility of there being an all-powerful God.

When is a fact not a fact?

I am a physical scientist, and I spent 30 years of my life as a professor. One thing I observed is that most scientists are comfortable only when talking to other scientists. Those who are also professors spend substantial time training more scientists with whom they can be comfortable. There are a few who are interested and able to talk with the “uneducated.” I have now been retired for a number of years, with time to think about what we know and what we don’t know. My current objective is to give non-scientists some understanding of our world.

First, I should introduce myself. Most of my ancestors were in the United States by about 1800 and, so far as I know, all were farmers and blue-collar workers. My maternal grandfather spent one year in college, but, to the best of my knowledge, I am the first of my line to graduate from college and certainly the first to graduate with a PhD degree. (I do have one uncle who graduated from college and three aunts who were nurses.) When I graduated from High School my expectation was to spend my life as a farmer.  I dreamed of going to college, but neither my father nor I had the necessary resources. It would probably have been a mistake to have gone immediately to college anyway. Three years later life began to turn, and my dream became reality. After another nine years I officially became Dr. Harter, with expertise in Soil Chemistry.

One thing you should know about scientists – “fact” is not in their vocabulary. Or, perhaps, it shouldn’t be! Occasionally the word might be used for personal or financial reasons. Most basic concepts have been known for decades and, in many cases, centuries. Our job, then, is to refine what we know and better understand it. The basic agenda is to work from theories, or hypotheses. No theory can be satisfactorily proven true, but it can be proven false, so this is the basis of scientific work. Our hypothesis upon which a research program is: “If (A) is true, then (B) must be true.” We might feel that (A) is correct, but the research must be set up to test the truth of (B). We can never prove the truth of either (A) or (B), so additional tests are designed for (C), (D), (E), etc. until a convincing number are shown not to be false. At that point it becomes believed that (A) is probably correct, and often taken as being a fact. It can never, however, be considered a proven fact. Any time a correctly designed research study  proves the test theory false, the theory explaining (A) MUST be discarded and a new theory developed to explain the new information.

Discarding a known “fact” is not always easy. The earth was once thought to be flat, and center of the universe. As societies developed, a flat earth made less and less sense, so was discarded. Yet, there are still a few people who are certain that the earth is flat. Likewise, as the understanding of our relationship to heavenly bodies became increasingly understood, this center of the universe “fact” had to be abandoned. Any person who questioned the accepted position put himself at risk. Those who said the sun was actually the center were considered heretics. They were kicked out of the church, at best, and hung at worse.

The human nature is such that we need facts for a sense of security, and scientists are human (believe it or not!). It is only in scientific research that “fact” is (or should be!) forbidden. There are facts in our lives, many of which we have actually defined. For example, mathematics is full of facts, because we have designated them as facts. Base ten has been defined as fact for counting and calculating. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division were created for working with numbers – all and their functions are facts. All geometry and calculus functions are facts using these four functions. Computers must count using base two – they can only handle 0 and 1. (Printout, however, must be in base ten, because only computer programmers can think in base two.) Another group of facts: we use wood for building many things – fact. Wood comes from trees – fact. Trees grow from seed – fact. Seed is a fact and we can pretty well describe it, but to understand how it works is getting into science and theories – no facts.

This is how it works. Anything we create or define can be considered facts, because their existence was either created or defined by humans. Whether organic or inorganic, anything relating to things we have not actually created can never be considered factual, because we never completely understand formation and existence. In some cases, we can’t even study it, but are limited to observing related phenomena and, from that, create an appropriate theory. Those theories are most at risk of being discarded when related testable theories are shown to be false. 

- Dr. Robert Harter, Professor Emeritus, University of New Hampshire

The formation of all things

As I look out the window each morning, I am newly amazed at what I see. Everything looks solid and permanent. Yet, nothing is as it seems. The basic components of everything is actually ethereal. From the smallest weed to the tallest tree and from the Pekinese to the whale, every living thing is built of Oxygen (O), Carbon (C), and Hydrogen (H), with a few other elements thrown in when needed. Even these elements are not what they seem. All are made up of precise amounts of negative electrons and positive protons, and so small they can’t even be seen by powerful electron microscopes. If, for example, the oxygen proton-nucleus were to be enlarged to the size of a ping-pong ball, the electrons around it would form a ball the diameter of three football fields! Now, even this is not the full story. Researchers are beginning to realize that the electrons and protons are, in turn, similarly constructed of very small packets of energy --- there is really nothing of consequence there!! Somehow, when the energy is molded into electrons and protons a charge is created and, along with the charge, rejection and attraction forced are created.

Essentially, everything is created from nothing! Given recipes provide the differing elements that chemists like to play with in the laboratory. Uniting different elements (more recipes) forms molecules. If C is the dominant molecule element, we call it “organic.” If O is dominant, we call it “inorganic.” Organic molecules are connected, forming cell walls. The cells are filled with H2O (water) and a variety of important molecules. Appropriate quantity and type of cells are then the building blocks for all living organisms. Each cell contains the recipe for its full organism construction, so every organism can reproduce itself. Formation is a 'bit' more complex, but this is the basis upon which all living things are built.

Turning to the inorganic world, it is formed in the same manner except the constituent elements do not form molecules and cells. Rather, they are more closely associated three dimensionally to form crystals and rocks. Otherwise, the mineral elements are also 'built' from nothing but energy, just as are the organic elements. Since everything is built out of nothing but energy, nothing has weight as we think of it! Why, then, do we stay fastened to the surface? As I indicated, when the electrons and protons are formed, attractive and repulsive forces are created along with electrical characteristics. What we call weight is actually a measure of the attractive force. We stay on the surface because repulsive forces increase as two bodies become closer and closer and, at some point, the two forces become equal and can't come any closer - thus, we stay on the Earth surface.

All this is assumed to have happened after a 'Big Bang' as the many different elements were gradually formed. It is believed by some that hydrogen was the first element, then all others were created through interactions. Whatever the method of formation, most mineral elements are then consolidated into solid bodies.

And we are told that this all happened by chance??

The Highway of Life

In 1992 I attended an international Soil Science Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, and took Nancy (my wife) with me. We arrived in Tokyo a week early for a pre-meeting “soil science” tour. The next morning, we were picked up by a bus and headed north toward Osaka. We visited and discussed one or two soil sites each day, and the rest of the time was spent sightseeing. Most of the site-to-site travel was via major highway, but then we would turn off onto side roads, and sometimes they were quite narrow for a bus. The most memorable travel experience was making a 90 degree turn from one narrow road to another. This was in a small village, and a house roof extended right to the corner of the roads. A hostess was with us, and one of her jobs was to guide the driver from the bus rear, communicating via a police whistle code. She jumped out into the rain and guided his twice necessary back-ups in getting around the corner. We could have easily reached out the window and touched the house roof, but the corner was rounded with neither a touch of the roof nor scratch on the bus. Upon reaching Osaka, we were invited to an evening banquet and entertainment. The next morning, we boarded a Bullet Train for Kyoto. 

Isn’t that an image of our life? Many hours of our life-excursion time are spent traveling on “wide, easily navigated” highways, but there are constant needs to get off the highway. Marriage usually requires travel off the main highway. College will be a side trip along the way, and it may result in switching to a different, unexpected main highway. Jobs almost always require spending time on narrow roads, and can sometimes require clearing and building a new road upon which to travel. The list goes on, and many times we take “bullet trains” from one thing to another. We may or may not have planned out our side trips, but we constantly need guides to help along the way, particularly when we come to a dead end and need to turn around. 

Who are your guides? Parents should be your major guide for the first decade or two, but their guide-role should gradually decrease as they guide us into adulthood. Who have you chosen as your adulthood guide(s)? Peers? Politicians? Bosses? Those ahead of you on a ladder of success? Those you admire? There are many options, some good, some OK, and some bad. You may choose to follow different guides during different phases of your life. But who have you chosen for your supervising guide? Have you chosen God? This decision and obeying instructions may take you through some difficult paths, but will always bring you through these paths to a successful expedition conclusion.

The ultimate building block of all life.

I recently wrote that we are actually a package of organized energy. I wonder how many discounted me as crazy or, at best, a comedian. In reality, I am absolutely serious (and correct). Most readers have heard of Einstein’s development of the equation E=MC². No scientist has yet been able to disprove this as not true.  I do, however, question whether C is really the speed of light or was that simply a known very large number which was convenient to use. In any case, it should really be written M=E/C². Looking at it that way, so far as we know energy (E) has no weight, and speed does not carry any assumption of weight, so what are we measuring when we stem onto a scale? We are measuring the attractive force holding our mass to the surface of an extremely large mass, or package of energy, called “Earth.” That force is conveniently called “weight” and the magnitude is proportional to the size of two energy packages. Slowly, but surely, scientists are beginning to understand what is going on.

Let’s take a tour through the understanding of human bodies – opening of the doors of understanding is becoming more and more rapid. In the earliest days I am sure that there was no thought other than the unity of a human being. It may have been magic to see a woman’s stomach gradually enlarge followed by production of a baby. It probably was not long before this was associated to an enjoyable activity in which man and woman engaged. People, animals, trees, etc. were simply considered units which started out small and grew to “adulthood.” Humans, however, are curious and inventive. By the sixteenth century, AD, it was known that, if carefully formed, one could enlarge items by looking through glass. Hans Janssen was a lens maker, which provided his son, Zacharias, with plenty of lenses to play with and in 1595, at the age of seven, he invented the compound microscope (perhaps with his father’s help?).

The microscope opened up whole new worlds to investigate. Not only was it turned to the heavens in the form of a telescope, but very small things could be enlarged for examination. In 1665, Robert Hooke reported the discovery that wood was actually a collection of cells. In 1674 Antony van Leeuwenhoek was first to describe living cells, in this case, the green charophyte alga, Spirogyra. As a result of his work, the complexity of our makeup began to become understood, but how was a different story.

Even so far back as the Greek philosophers it was thought that everything was somehow made up atoms, but the atoms of the time were earth, fire, air, and water. (this, of course, led to the belief you could rearrange the components to form different materials, i.e. alchemy). In 1799, the French chemist Joseph Louis Proust established the fact that compounds were made up of atoms, and would always be of the same “recipe.” About 460 B.C., the Greek philosopher, Democritus, develop the idea that atoms would be the smallest unit into which a substance could be broken. However, it was not until the early nineteenth century that people begin again to question the structure of matter. An English chemist, John Dalton, reported that matter consists of elementary lumpy particles (atoms). Although he couldn’t describe a structure, the evidence pointed to something fundamental. In 1897, the English physicist, J.J. Thomson, discovered the electron and proposed an atom structure. Knowing electrons had a negative charge, Thomson proposed that the atom matter must also contain positive charge. His model looked like raisins stuck on the surface of a lump of pudding -- i. e. the “pudding” model of the atom.

In 1909, Ernest Rutherford found that most of the mass and positive charge of an atom is concentrated in a very small fraction of its volume, assumedly at the very center. Further experimentation indicated that positive charge of the atom must be concentrated in a very tiny volume producing an electric field. Rutherford therefore proposed a planetary model in which a cloud of electrons surrounded a small, compact nucleus of positive charge. An excursion into theoretical theory ensued in an attempt to understand what kept the electrons away from the nucleus. I won’t go into that, but simply say that, in 1913, Niels Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom, in which electrons orbit the nucleus in particular circular orbits. The Bohr model was taught to me in High School Chemistry (1952-3) and college introductory Chemistry (1958). The Bohr model still had some theoretical problems, and has been displaced by a “modern model” which basically says the electrons are not in orbit, but in a cloud around the nucleus. I won’t go into that here either. I will just say that I was not introduced to this model until undertaking Physical Chemistry. By the time I finished graduate school, the Bohr model had been abandoned in Introductory Chemistry, and it wasn’t much longer until it had been abandoned in High School Chemistry.

By default, within this development, the electron was displaced as the smallest possible unit of mass. It has now been possible to split electrons into something even smaller. When it is split, there are small units flying away in different directions. Each with a unique path, so the units are given unique names. Are they, in fact, the smallest possible unit? Whether they are or not, we may have to stick with the idea, because these units only exist for microseconds and are gone. Why? Because they are small units of energy, which is quickly dispersed. All evidence also indicates that atom nuclei are also nothing more than conglomerations of energy. The whole idea carries some very interesting implications, but I will go into that elsewhere. For now, I will stop at the understanding of all mass being nothing more than organized energy.

Trump and Daniel - same story?

Are we currently experiencing a reenactment of Daniel in the Lion's Den?  No services today due to the snow, so we went to our "second team" TV preacher, David Jeremiah. He preached on Daniel 6, "Daniel in the Lion's den." He didn't make a whole lot of comparison with today, but he did make a comparison of the political actions (Daniel 6:4-7) to what is going on in Washington today. God put Daniel where he was, and, as the story plays out it is obvious that God was going to take care of him.    What I am about to say is going to raise the anger of some who are reading this, but when I step back and consider all that has happened over the last three years, the only way it really makes sense is that God has put Donald Trump into the President's chair. This has angered today's politicians just as did giving Daniel the supervision authority over Darius' entire kingdom. And they have reacted in a similar manner. Just in case a few readers don't know what happened next, the politicians of the day managed to maneuver the king into (very reluctantly) throwing Daniel into a den of hungry lions. He spent the night there, and the next morning the King pulled Daniel out, without a scratch on him. The perpetrators of this action were then thrown into the den and were devoured immediately.    In some regards, President Trump has already been thrown into the lion's den, and opposing politicians are egging the "lions" on, with expectation of him soon being devoured. The final act of this drama is yet to be seen, but if he was, indeed, placed there by God, he will come successfully through this trial and, as were the politicians of many years ago, his opponents will be thrown into oblivion.    Those who hate President Trump should read no farther. There is a possibility that your head will explode in anger. If God is really behind President Trump, just as Daniel is still revered by many today, with time he may join Presidents Washington and Lincoln as the most revered presidents of the United States.

The problem of conflicting visions

As I look back through my career, I realize that I have my feet in two worlds: One in the world of science, the other in the world of Christianity. Each seems to always be ridiculing the positions of the other. I wish I could bridge them and help people understand they are simply studying the same thing, but from different perspectives - much as two blind persons might be describing an elephant, one examining the tail and the other the trunk. Perhaps I am one piece of the bridge structure, but after centuries of study the supporting structure is still not complete, and I wonder whether it will ever be complete. So, I feel like I am moving back and forth via canoe, attempting to make sense of connections.

A Warning to Washington?

There was once a man named Ezekiel who had some very serious charges against Jerusalem, and filled a book with warnings. I wonder: If, instead, he were living in the U.S.A. today, and warning Washington, would chapter 22 of his book read something like the following?

-----------------------------------------

The word of the Lord came to me:

 “Son of man, will you judge her? Will you judge this city of corruption? Then confront her with all her detestable practices and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Your city that brings on herself doom by committing felony in her midst and defiles itself by lying to hide actions, you have become guilty because of the crime you have committed and have become defiled by the evil you have compiled. You have brought your days to a close, and the end of your years has come. Therefore, I will make you an object of scorn to the nations and a laughingstock to all the countries. Those who are near and those who are far away will mock you, you infamous city, full of turmoil.

“‘See how each of the elected leaders who are in you uses power to gain wealth. In you they have treated the poor with contempt; in you they have oppressed the legal immigrants and mistreated the poor. You have despised my holy things and desecrated my Sabbaths. In you are slanderers who commit felony and blame the honest; in you are those who freely spend money that is not theirs and make decisions that benefit themselves rather than those they represent. In you are those who dishonor women; in you are those who violate women by force, when they are unable to resist. In you one man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, another shamefully goes to prostitutes, and another violates children, both girls and boys. In you are people who accept bribes to direct their votes; you take interest and make a profit from the poor. You extort unjust gain from those who elect you. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign Lord.

 “‘I will surely strike my hands together at the unjust gain you have made and the people you have destroyed in your midst. Will your courage endure or your hands be strong in the day I deal with you? I the Lord have spoken, and I will do it. I will disperse you among the nations and scatter you through the countries; and I will put an end to your corruption. When you have been defiled in the eyes of the nations, you will know that I am the Lord.’”

Then the word of the Lord came to me: “Politicians have become dross to me; all of them are the copper, tin, iron and lead left inside a furnace. They are but the dross of silver. Therefore, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘Because you have all become dross, I will gather you into Washington DC. As silver, copper, iron, lead and tin are gathered into a furnace to be melted with a fiery blast, so will I gather you in my anger and my wrath and put you inside the city and melt you. I will gather you and I will blow on you with my fiery wrath, and you will be melted inside her. As silver is melted in a furnace, so you will be melted inside her, and you will know that I the Lord have poured out my wrath on you.’”

Again, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, say to the land, ‘You are a land that has not been cleansed or rained on in the day of wrath.’ There is a conspiracy of her Congressional representatives like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they devour people, take treasures and precious things and make many widows. Her Senators do violence to my law and profane the Constitution; they do not distinguish between the legal and the illegal; they teach that there is no difference between their acts and the Constitution; and they shut their eyes to the wishes of those who elect them, so that I am profaned among them. Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they ignore the cost to make unjust gain. The Supreme Court judges whitewash these deeds for them by false judgements and lying decisions. They say, ‘This is what the Constitution says’—when the Constitution contains no support. The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the foreigner, denying them justice, while awarding and supporting illegal immigrants.

 “I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found no one. So I will pour out my wrath on the politicians and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

(or would this last paragraph read: “I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, and I found one. You have ridiculed, belittled, voted down, and blocked the actions I have ordered. So, I will pour out my wrath on the politicians and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord.”)