Theological speculation for the day

It's a near-universal phenomenon that humans find stories engaging. Whilst in Western society, story-telling as a form in itself has faded, alternative incarnations of story-telling - cinema, computer games, role-playing - and so on are alive and well even amongst those people who have so little interest in stories in their traditional form.

Perhaps we are designed as creatures to respond to stories. In theological terms, God has revealed himself through "story"/"narrative"/"history" - the Bible is not a book of "systematic theology" but a "history". Perhaps this links with the fact that we respond to stories - God has given us the Bible, and has designed us to respond to narrative - the two are different sides of the same theological coin.

I wonder if this also means that stories that correspond most closely to "the great story" are those that we find most engaging. For example, the Harry Potter stories have really engaged at a popular level with all sorts of people. Although they are apparently "neutral" or "non-Christian", there are several themes which actually tie in closely with Bible themes (though I don't suppose that J.K.Rowling consciously considered this when she was writing them). For example; the theme of Harry's mother giving up her own life to save Harry - the idea of Harry being a person destined to overcome evil - the significance of personal moral choices - and so on. I'm sure that with more thought, a longer list could be constructed. "The Lord of the Rings" is another example - again, with Frodo as the "Messiah"-figure who has to overcome evil through humility. Comments?

Oh, by the way, happy new year.

Another great carol...

... that I haven't had the chance to sing this year. This one's by Charles Wesley.

Let earth and heaven combine,
Angels and men agree,
To praise in songs divine
The incarnate Deity,
Our God contracted to a span,
Incomprehensibly made Man.

He laid His glory by,
He wrapped Him in our clay;
Unmarked by human eye,
The latent Godhead lay;
Infant of days He here became,
And bore the mild Immanuel’s Name.

Unsearchable the love
That has the Saviour brought;
The grace is far above
Of men or angels’ thought:
Suffice for us that God, we know,
Our God, is manifest below.

He deigns in flesh to appear,
Widest extremes to join;
To bring our vileness near,
And make us all divine:
And we the life of God shall know,
For God is manifest below.

Made perfect first in love,
And sanctified by grace,
We shall from earth remove,
And see His glorious face:
His love shall then be fully showed,
And man shall all be lost in God.

More thoughts about Christmas

Christmas is a bit of a problem, really. Anybody who knows me will know that I am fairly close to being one of the "grumpy old men" that were on TV last night. Pet hates: the naffness of free church carol singing (none of the spine-tingling descants, fading use of harmony singing, grating modernisations of words, people squeezing "begotten" into two syllables); Christmas music in shops from late Autumn onwards - canned music in shops is bad enough, but when I am being expected to feel festive on a grey November day? - give me a break (the only two songs I like are "Fairytale of New York" [the original version] and Greg Lake's "I believe in Father Christmas"); trying to get "the right present" for everybody; the sadness of knowing that you have gone another year without actually speaking to a whole stack of people you (really!!) care about.

Also, I am very conscious of the fact that Christmas as celebrated basically has nothing to do with Christianity. We don't even know what time of year Jesus was born, so describing it as "Jesus' birthday" strikes me as stupid. The cosmic impact of God becoming human is so huge that there is no way we should be confining our celebrations of it to one day a year. The "one day"-ness of Christmas has a lot more to do with the retail sector than anything religious.

So what do I do as a Christian? Do I opt out and feel superior? Or do I just buy into the whole nine yards, and put all these feelings down to snobbishness or something?

Well, a lot of non-Christians only darken the doors of a church at Christmas. Let's make sure they hear the (proper) gospel then. Of course they won't listen to it - you could preach like Jonathan Edwards, and they would still go out saying "nice message, minister" - but sorting that out is the job of the Holy Spirit - I need to make sure that I am doing what I can to take the message to the world. If the reason people come is because they think it would be nice to go to a candle-lit service, or because their children are going to take part in a nativity presentation with the rest of the Sunday School - so be it. It's only deceptive if the church is implying that the message it proclaims is something other than the gospel.

In any case, do I go to church only because it suits me to do so? At any other time of the year, the (correct) answer to that question would be, "Of course not! I am here to serve other people; to encourage other believers; because this is the structure that God has ordained for the life of his children on earth, reflecting the perfected universal church as it will be in heaven." Does anything change over Christmas? No. So if as a Christian it is right for me to be a part of a church community all year, it is hardly right for me to opt out of it at Christmas.

Christmas

Various things to say about Christmas, mostly given the fact that so many other bloggers seem to have various shaped chips on their shoulders about it. But I don't have time - too many Christmas preparations to make.

I did want to make two comments about carols, however. The first is that the "be-" of "begotten" should be on the previous line (along with "Very God"), because it then scans. The second is that this is one of my favourite carols, but I wanted to give it in its unbowdlerised version - verse 3 seems to be excluded from most hymnals. It is probably factually inaccurate in all sorts of significant details - the first verse in particular could be ditched with no great loss. However, it is excellent in capturing the idea of Jesus, the Son of God, accepting human flesh, its limitations and requirements, and recognising that there is really nothing I can bring to Jesus, except myself. It is by Christina Rossetti.

1. In the bleak mid-winter
Frosty wind made moan,
Earth stood hard as iron,
Water like a stone;
Snow had fallen, snow on snow,
Snow on snow,
In the bleak mid-winter
Long ago.

2. Our God, Heaven cannot hold Him
Nor earth sustain;
Heaven and earth shall flee away
When He comes to reign:
In the bleak mid-winter
A stable-place sufficed
The Lord God Almighty,
Jesus Christ.

3. Enough for Him, whom cherubim
Worship night and day,
A breastful of milk
And a mangerful of hay;
Enough for Him, whom angels
Fall down before,
The ox and ass and camel
Which adore.

4. Angels and archangels
May have gathered there,
Cherubim and seraphim
Thronged the air,
But His mother only
In her maiden bliss,
Worshipped the Beloved
With a kiss.

5. What can I give Him,
Poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd
I would bring a lamb,
If I were a wise man
I would do my part,
Yet what I can I give Him,
Give my heart.

Baptising people - some musings

How does it work? Well, being a member of a non-conformist church, what I have always assumed is that people become Christians, and then at some stage either then or thereafter they will become convinced that they ought to be baptised, and so get baptised. If the context is that of a baptist church, they will then become church members.

But maybe in leaving everything to the individual to respond, we have become affected by consumerism and a lack of confidence in what Christianity ought to be. The Bible doesn't seem to approach it like that. What it says is

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matt 28:19-20 NIV)

The instruction here is not that the individual should seek baptism, but that the apostles (and conventionally by extension, the church following their example) should go and make disciples - and to achieve this should baptise them and teach them. In other words, it doesn't wait for the new Christian to make the first move, it makes it on their behalf.

Oddly enough, the established churches (theologically) come closer to this, in baptising infants and then expecting that they will be brought up in the faith of the church. In practical terms, it doesn't work within them, because christening has in many cases become more of a tradition than anything that is meaningful in Christian terms.

How might it be different? Well, at the moment, somebody says "I want to follow Jesus". What follows is an indeterminate length of time during which the person exists in a kind of uncertain state as to what they ought to do next, whilst the church mentions baptism in sermons from time to time, hoping that new Christians take the hint. How about ... as soon as somebody says, "I want to follow Jesus", the church were to say to them directly, "Well, you need to get baptised then" - with probably an explanation of the significance of baptism - but the emphasis on the fact that this is the first step of obedience to Jesus. Of course, it means that there will potentially be new Christians in the church who know little beyond what it means to become a Christian (which is in any case 'What you need to know'!) and what baptism means.

Baptism is important for the church - but so is the "teaching" that the church should be doing, following the apostles. Of course, some people having been baptised end up turning away from Christianity - in some cases, there has been reservation about baptising too quickly, in case this happens. However, could the antidote to this be better teaching? a more biblical church life? greater spiritual accountability to other Christians? - rather than simply putting off the time at which somebody is publically accepted as a Christian - which in some cases simply puts people off Christianity altogether.

Sorry, there's probably all sorts of untestable assertions and things here - these are only musings. What do you think?

Internet Chess

Having read a chess column in a newspaper, I thought I'd avail myself of the "week's free trial" at the Internet Chess Club.

The software is really well implemented. Registration is quick, the software downloads and installs itself, and runs from your desktop - not in a browser. I tentatively put in a request for a game - and about two seconds later was matched with somebody who trounced me very quickly. Well, to be honest, any "Blitz" games are very quick - typically, you are allowed two minutes plus 12 seconds per move. I lost three straight games in a row, and got my rating down to about 1050, before managing to win anything. It's very easy to pick an opponent of whatever level you like, and pick a game structure of whatever format you like - yes, you can play suicide chess if you want, and any of loads of other variants, together with time structures to suit.

However, a word of warning. If you are playing Blitz, make sure there is nobody else in the house. Make sure the phone is off the hook. Put a "do not disturb" sign on the front door. Don't have a family! I've had to offer draws or resign three times just because something has happened in the house that I couldn't ignore whilst I was playing.

You just really so have to read this book

Anybody who knows me will know that I periodically get completely obsessed by a new book, buy it for as many people as I can afford to, talk about it incessantly and so on. These are rarely books that somebody has passed to me and said, "Hey, why don't you read this?" More normally, they are serendipitious choices.

Well, the latest candidate is By Design or By Chance, by Denyse O'Leary. It can be found on Amazon here. It is an introduction to the evolutionism/creationism/intelligent design debate, written by a journalist from an arts background, who therefore had to do lots of research to understand the issues involved. She is a Christian, but her church didn't expect any particular view regarding origins, so she wasn't starting with a strong commitment to any particular position.

The book is written in a very accessible style, with sidebars to explain key points and other issues, lots of notes and web references. One of the things that I particularly like about it is that it has sought to detach itself from a lot of the more intense positions, on all sides, to present "just the facts" - although the writer is happy to give her concluding opinions at the end.

Unpublished letter to Daily Telegraph

Sir,

Prof. Steve Jones (24/11/04) argues that arrogance is the problem of creationists: "they cannot bear the idea that they share ancestors with simpler creatures."

A creationist might argue that arrogance is the problem of atheistic evolutionists: they cannot bear the idea that there might be a higher being to whom they might be answerable.

What do they have in common?

Two books - The Biotic Message, and The Privileged Planet.

Their argument is closely linked. The first argues that the reason that life is like it is, is to tell us that there is a creator. It talks about the unity and diversity of life, and argues that evolutionism so far from explaining everything is actually a "smorgasbord" of ideas, into which any evidence is fitted.

The second argues that, so far from being a "Copernican" non-special-place, the planet upon which we exist is almost uniquely placed to observe and learn about the universe. For example, if there were clouds all the time, we wouldn't know anything about the sky (although there would be some things we could infer). If we lived closer to the centre of the galaxy, we wouldn't be able to observe space beyond the galaxy .... and so on.

I've only half read one, and not read the other yet (I'm hoping to get the second for Christmas: the first, alas, was borrowed). But thought-provoking stuff.

The Dutch love Carbon Dioxide!

Amsterdam opened a new runway at their airport about a year ago - it's called 18R/36L. Aircraft operating between there and London generally use it either for departure or arrival.

It is several kilometres to the West of the central terminal area, and it takes about an extra ten minutes to get to or from that runway, compared to the central runways.

Doubtless the runway is keeping the noise lobby happy, as you don't have so many aircraft taking off or landing in the central area. But for every aircraft "movement" that could have used one of the central runways (and given the abundance of runways there, this is basically all of them), aircraft are burning an extra 100-200 kg of fuel to get to or from the runway. This equates to about half a tonne of carbon dioxide.

Runway 24 is one of the most central runways used for departure there. It takes literally five minutes to taxy there from the main European gates. However, even when the wind suits 24, western departures will have to taxy out to 36R, whilst eastern and southern departures depart from 24. So a departure to Prague goes from runway 24 - and has to make a 150 degree turn once it takes off to head east. And a departure to London goes from runway 36L - with the extra taxy fuel - and has to make a 150 degree turn once it takes off to head southwest. So yet more unnecessary carbon dioxide production.

I realise that this will mean nothing to most readers. Sorry. As with many of my posts, it has the air of a rant, which there is a small chance will be picked up by somebody interested in the subject looking on Google, or something.

Here, have a look at another website.

Steve Jones, Daily Telegraph, 24/11

Steve Jones argues that arrogance is the problem of creationists: "they cannot bear the idea that they share ancestors with simpler creatures." One can just as reasonably argue that arrogance is the problem of evolutionists: they cannot bear the idea that there is a being to whom they might have to give an account.

It was an interesting article - it said that, rather than evolving lots of times, vision evolved once - and as evidence makes reference to the fact that there is a certain organism that has lived unchanged on the seabed since (reading between the lines) before the Cambrian explosion, which has a protein in its brain that is found in the human optic nerve. The same protein is found in the vision systems of all sorts of other organisms. Cool!

A couple of points, though. Firstly, Jones remarks that the human version of this protein is actually less far removed (5% rather than 16%) than the version in the invertebrate line. He comments that this shows that homo sapiens is naturally conservative. However, although this was a non-technical article, if he is talking about molecular homology then I comment: nonsense. Molecular homology is used as a means of demonstrating relatedness, to show how evolution by common descent is plausible - textbooks have diagrams comparing cytochrome-C from different organisms. If you start saying that in this case, the molecular homology in humans is different, then you have to start asking whether the whole molecular homology thing is flawed in the first place. NB - it is not a technical article; Jones never mentions molecular homology; I am reading between the lines here.

Secondly, the "interesting" bit of evolution occurred somewhere else. The "lord of the flies, the worms and the human race" had "a heart, brain, legs and more". Now forgive me, but this doesn't sound like a primitive organism, but quite a complex one. It's a lot easier to envisage how a new organism might modify existing structures to adapt to new environments than it is to envisage how this precursor organism might have had these in the first place - especially before so much of the cellular differentiation that characterised the Cambrian explosion came about - conventional evolutionist wisdom was that life before this point had developed quite slowly.

However, assuming it hadn't, this scenario still leaves unanswered the question as to where all these proteins and structures might have come about in the first place, to be available for subsequent evolution. This relates to the question of probability that is discussed a couple of posts below. Unless a realistic mechanism for producing these proteins and structures can be proposed, evolution doesn't work.

Problems with evolution

Creationist: "Evolution simply doesn't work. Take a fairly typical protein, 200 amino acids long. There are 20 different amino acids, so the probability of this single protein arising at random is 1 in 20²⁰⁰ - that is, 1 in 1.6*10²⁶⁰. Since the number of protons in the universe is less than 10⁸⁰, if every proton was a universe containing the same number of protons, and if every one of those protons were also a universe also containing the same number of protons, there is a chance that in one of these universes, this protein might appear at random if all the protons were involved in sequencing amino acids (rather than basically being fuel in stars). The short way for describing this level of improbability is 'impossible'. And that's just one protein."

Evolutionist: "Ah, but you are making unnecessarily restrictive assumptions. Yes, the appearance of that specific protein at random might be very improbable, but firstly you wouldn't need to specify that precise sequence of amino acids to get a protein with the same functionality. Also, there is no reason to think that there aren't lots of different possible proteins, derived from lots of different routes, that would have the required functionality. Finally, once the protein is partly specified, natural selection can work on it to improve its functionality."

Me: "OK, but how specified does a protein have to be to have limited functionality? Let's say that in a 200 amino acid protein, only half the amino acid sites are required to specify the protein. Also, that as long as one of four possible amino acids is specified at each of these sites, the protein will have its required functionality. The probability of this protein arising at random is then reduced to approximately 1 in 5¹⁰⁰ - that is 1 in 7.9*10⁶⁹. So we have gone from the impossible to the astronomically unlikely - we are still talking about an improbability of a similar order of magnitude to one in the number of protons in the universe. And we are still only talking about one protein. Don't like these figures? Suggest some different ones, based on empirical data. And remember that before a protein has some functionality, natural selection won't work on it to improve it. If you can't suggest plausible figures, given the amount we know about proteins and so on today, then you don't have a theory."

Am I embarrassing you?

I went to buy a newspaper at W.H.Smiths in Terminal 2 at Heathrow on Saturday. Although I didn’t spend a significant time studying it, I noticed that the “Saturday Sport” publication (newspaper is not an appropriate noun) was being prominently displayed. Most of the front cover was a photo of a woman wearing a bikini bottom, facing away from the camera, bending over, with her right leg lifted up to the side.

Are you embarrassed reading that? Would you be embarrassed if somebody stood in front of you doing that? Would you expect any woman you know to behave like that? If not, why is it considered acceptable or appropriate for this publication to be displayed in a public place in that way?

When I paid for my newspaper, I asked the checkout assistant (a young Asian girl) if she was offended by the newspaper being displayed. She didn’t really understand what I was asking; her supervisor took over the conversation, but also didn’t really understand; she assumed that I was saying that the papers had been left open, and apologised for that (rather than the fact that the cover was offensive). By this time, I was too self-conscious, and aware of the queue behind me, to try and push it any further. Of course, if you draw attention to something like that, does it The newspapers were still there when I went home about 10 hours later.

What I should have done was asked one of them to come with me, taken them to look at the magazines, and asked them if they thought it was appropriate for it to be displayed in a public place. Next time ....

The next day, I happened to notice that, in a section of “The Observer”, there was a headline asking the question whether Tescos were guilty of censorship. What is happening is that, being the second largest magazine retailer in the country, they have some clout, and they are returning some “lad mags” to publishers saying that they are not prepared to display them unless the covers are less explicit.

Is this censorship? Is this restriction of freedom of speech? I don’t think so. Tescos aren’t saying that if there is a demand for these magazines, they should not be available (though why soft pornography with a touch of irony should be more socially acceptable than soft pornography I don’t know). They are saying that if these magazines are to be sold by them, they can’t offend their customers. Obviously Smiths don’t have such sensitive customers. Perhaps anybody reading this could do something about it, if they ever go into shops and are shocked by the covers of magazines on display. Remember this isn’t about censorship, it’s about appropriate behaviour and not causing offence to people.

Incidentally, this isn’t something that’s restricted to “lad mags” and the trashy end of the daily newspaper market. Have a look at the number of women’s magazines which have explicit headlines on the front relating to sexual activity. Would you be happy about explaining what they mean to a primary school child?

Fireworks night

Anybody who has any doubt about the Anglo-Saxon ability to have a "festival" should have seen the South of England from the air on Friday night. The visibility was exceptional - except for the odd cloud patch - and there were fireworks everywhere. Some were bursting up to several hundred feet high. Now if I were a really switched on blogger, I'd be able to show a photo - but I'm so not good at this, I didn't even have a camera. Tch!

Explain this

Supposing that there was somebody on the point of being appointed to a position of significant authority who said that he found the idea of Christianity morally repugnant. Would we be shocked by that? Would we make a fuss about it? Would we expect the media to take any notice? Would we get to hear about it at all?

Well, there is a certain Italian European Commissioner. He doesn't say that. He says that homosexuality is a sin. Not a crime, a sin. Not something that should be punished by the state, but something that is offensive to God. He also says that:

• he can't change his convictions for political expediency (which I think demonstrates integrity);
• he would not allow his personal beliefs to affect the execution of his office.

And yet he's put under huge pressure to resign. Barroso, the head of the commission, is put under pressure to reshuffle. MEP's say they will veto the entire commission unless there is a change.

How tolerant we are in Western Europe of religious convictions. NOT!

Some links

What do you have bookmarked? I'm sure you can tell a lot about people from the websites that they have bookmarked. Actually, a lot of people don't even know that you can bookmark pages to come back to. Hint: use CTRL-D - and then the website appears on your list of favourites. And while you are at it, get rid of all the junk that your ISP put there because it wants to get you to use its products.

OK. So what have I got under "Apologetics" - the first heading?
The Bible gateway - the Bible online - a good place if you need a verse or more in a wide variety of translations and languages.
Debate topics apologetic - The website is a set of resources relating to the Muslim-Christian debate, and the page referenced here contains a list of "contradictions" in the Bible, which are countered.
Discovery Institute - Center - this is the Discovery Institute in Seattle (I think), who are pushing ahead the Intelligent Design program, and making waves in the science community.
Facing the Challenge Training Course - this is a course for Christians who want to understand and do something about the challenge of our times. There are also a large number of articles that cast a Christian eye over culture and other things.
The Panda's Thumb - a bulletin board/blogsite basically dedicated to advancing the cause of evolutionism. Go here if you want to argue with somebody - or more realistically some dozen people - about evolution. However, if you aren't a scientist, or aren't very thick-skinned, you may be better off staying away - they don't take prisoners here .....
The Biblical Creation Society - this is kind of the opposite of the Panda's Thumb, without the interaction - a creationist website, with some solid and credible scientific stuff.

A couple of other "apologetic" bits and pieces, that aren't bookmarked:
The Biotic Message - a pretty heavy book (it reads like a PhD thesis) that answers the question "Why are we here?"
After the Flood - a less heavy creationist book, which seems well-researched and historical, outlining the history of human races following the Genesis flood. I don't know how solid the credentials of this book are, but it makes for an interesting read, and the entire text is available on-line.

Why exiled?

Groggs - General Purpose Reverse Ordered Gossip Gathering System - is the mother of all bulletin boards. Actually probably not, but it was certainly one of the few things that made a sojourn "up" in Cambridge worthwhile to a comprehensive lad with ideas above his station. Yes, dear reader, I was PF101. However, since I graduated, my access to "real" computers has been limited, and I don't have the wherewithall to run the bits and pieces that will allow me back. And it gives a fascinating edge of exclusion to the handle I have chosen for this blog.

Incidentally, should anybody who really has anything to do with Groggs happen to wander across this blog by virtue of the power of Google, I was intrigued to read how closely key dates in the history of Groggs corresponded with my time there. Also, tears were nearly brought to my eye at the thought of near-forgotten phenomena such as AG109, the XEAGLE delta function and GROAN. Incidentally, if anybody knows where I can get hold of a tidy PC-runnable version of GROAN, I'd appreciate it - weather forecasts and reviews haven't been the same since I lost access to my GROAN WITH WEATHER and GROAN WITH PSEUD. They've meant something, for a start.

This will be complete drivel to about 99.5% of the potential readers.

Evolution versus Intelligent Design

The story so far ... would actually take far too long to tell. So let me confine myself to recent (i.e. since this summer) history - and see if I can do justice to the science, but explain it in terms that non-scientists can understand.

"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Stephen C. Meyer was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington on September 29, 2004. Remember that living things are organised hierarchically? - with species being the lowest level of organisation, but there are also genera ("genuses"), phyla, kingdoms and so forth. These are "taxa" or "taxonomic categories". Most of the higher taxa - bits of the hierarchy at the level of phylum - appeared fairly suddenly in evolutionary history - in the Cambrian era - this phenomenon is known as the "Cambrian Explosion".

Now, the new body plans that are represented by the higher taxa, argues Meyer, require large numbers of new proteins and hence genetic information. The various traditional evolutionary models - which include neo-darwinism, self-organisation, punctuated equilibrium, and structuralism - don't have any mechanism that explains how this big increase in information could have come about. Meyer suggested that a new mechanism was required; he proposed that if the traditional options were not able to explain how evolution might have come about, then it might be an appropriate time to suggest that design had been at work.

This would have been just another paper - not the first on Intelligent Design - not the first in a journal - or anything - but somebody in evolution-world noticed it and got the bit between their teeth.

Allegations were made about whether the paper was within the scope of the journal (it was); whether a peer-review process had been carried out by people qualified to review the paper (it had); whether the editor had either ignored or not sought the counsel of the Biological Society of Washington's council (he had acted in accordance with his authority). The allegations were made predominantly by the NCSE - the National Center for Science Education - an apparently neutral title of an organisation that is basically dedicated to pushing for evolution to be taught in public schools in America. Incidentally, one of the many odd things about this organisation is that the evolutionist community alleges that there is a conspiracy to get Intelligent Design into schools!! How ironic!

There has been no formal response to Meyer's paper so far, except on Panda's Thumb, another evolutionist website, that has strong links with NCSE. They, in the form of Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry wrote a paper called "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" (posted August 24, 2004). This has in turn been responded to by the Discovery Institute in two papers, with more to follow - their website is at http:/www.discovery.org/csc .

The time has come ....

There's no point in doing this, of course, because nobody ever reads these sites - particularly at random. But I keep coming across things that I want to talk about. A blog gives me the chance to talk about some of these things without all the people I know eventually wanting to keep their distance from me. More will follow at some stage - the controversy about Dr Meyer's paper that was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is what is currently rattling my cage.

Here is a link to the paper.

There is lots more discussion pointed to by the Discovery Institute - follow this link for more.

Be back soon. Hopefully.