Stewardship is an obligation in many aspects of life, and stewardship over the health of the ecosystem is our obligation to our grandchildren. It’s really difficult to have stewardship over something if you don’t know how it works. Therefore it should be goal one of every person to learn as much as he can about how the ecosystem works. If he takes his responsibility to his grandchildren seriously.

Scientists know a lot about how the ecosystem works; religious people are more likely to be seriously interested in stewardship. Therefore, if we want to find a way to stop trashing the earth, it would be good if the religious people and the scientist would come down out of their respective ivory towers and talk with each other.

Nothing stops us from talking with each other. Understanding each other is a bit more difficult, but any two groups of people can talk with each other if they have the same goal and if they remember what that goal is. And stop themselves from introducing fake debates. A fake debate is a debate over something that is not relevant to the goal.

The first goal of ecosystem stewardship is to understand the system so we can stop trashing it. Scientists know a lot about how the ecosystem actually functions. Science is the study of measurable facts using the scientific method. Therefore, if we want scientists to share their professional expertise we have to talk about things that can be evaluated using measurable facts.

090531BP_dsc1461SLsWhat is the average size of a domestic cat?

How much does this cat weight?

What is she thinking? Not measurable.

God is also not a measurable fact; if you can’t talk about physical phenomena such as gravity (weight, mass), for example, or the flow of energy in the ecosystem, or the sexual reproduction that makes life possible as we know it. Well. Then. I wonder if you really want to fulfill your obligation as a steward, because those things exist and are discussable among peoples of any faith. That is the power of science. Measurable facts are discussable. They are not universal – they are not everythiing – but they are important and they are discussible.

And you can’t ask a professional scientist to professionally discuss science in the absence of measurable facts, because there is no such thing as science in the absence of measurable facts. Science IS the study of measurable facts. Technology is not science, but technology is a very good evidence for the validity of scientific discoveries, because technology uses the basic laws of nature (that science learns about) to make things. If the scientific information were wrong — the things wouldn’t work. So some of what scientists believe might be wrong, because scientists are only human, but most of it does tell us facts about how the ecosystem functions. And we cut ourselves off from the greatest body of knowledge that humans on earth have ever assembled when we refuse to talk to scientists, just because we (also humans) don’t like whatever scientists might be saying.

If we do that, I would doubt if our real motivation is stewardship, because if we genuinely want to fulfill our obligation as stewards, then we wouldn’t cut ourselves off from the information we need. We would do whatever it takes to learn the facts that we need to do the best possible job.

Fake Debates. Creationism

090530cloud_dsc1457SsWould you set out to debate whether the picture of the Texas sky is more real than the sky? Or the clouds? Or the light that shines on the sensors in my camera?

They are real. They are not comparable things, but you can not debate which is more real. They are all real.

Would you set out to debate whether philosophy or science is more true?

They are both true. Philosophy is a true method of trying to understand the reality of the creation of which we are a small part. Science is a different true method. We can use one method or another method, but if we want to know as much as we possibly can, we will use both methods and add up the results. Because these methods are different, they tell us different truths.

And if you can’t see anything outside your own discipline, then you will never learn anything you don’t already know.


Mr. Don Mcleroy, dentist, resident of my home town, and head of the committee that makes the crucial decisions about what textbooks are permitted in our public school system, believes that “Somebody’s gotta stand up to experts. . .” by which he means scientists who prefer that creationism not be taught in science classes. You can view his statement here.

Furthermore, Mr. Mcleroy still believes that our understanding of evolution is based on fossils. The fact is that our modern scientific belief in evolution is largely based in the elegance with which it answers questions in the field of modern genetics. It’s a far stretch from Darwin, who knew no genetics. If you have any doubt about the accuracy of the above, or if you think it is merely my opinion, I suggest you read “The Language of God,” written by a renowned scientist who is a fundamentalist Christian and has struggled over these issues in his personal life. It’s not about evolution; it’s about science.

Scientists do believe in evolution, but that is not why we want to teach science (and not teach philosophy) in science classes. The basic purpose of science classes is to teach how we do science. Professional science is the study of measurable facts using the scientific method. Professional scientists find it very hard to understand any rationale that wants to remove science from the science classrooms or water it down with other disciplines that are normally taught in the liberal arts curriculum as philosophy or comparative religion. Especially at a time when most of our scientists in training are imported from other parts of the world where real science is taught.

I could easily see a study of science alongside religion alongside creationism in a philosophy class, but it is ludicrous to claim that anything should be taught in the science classroom that is not science. Most of us don’t even know the difference between a measurable fact and an opinion. The world is laughing at us.

The Work has Started. Help Needed Already

And by the time it gets published will probably be my third published book. At the moment I can’t refer you to Amazon, but we do have one book under contract with Wiley, tentatively titled Mouse Pigmentation Genetics.

The new book:

Biology for Normal People

I’m talking real biology, no games, no metaphors, no fairy tales, no debates. Just the provable facts. I sincerely believe anyone who wants to can understand the most simple basic laws of nature, and I also believe this information is being withheld from the people. It’s so nice to know something powerful that someone else doesn’t know, isn’t it. But we are on a campaign to prevent the withholding of this factual information. So that’s the background.

I could use a little help with the first chapter.

I want to start off with everyone on the same page, so we need to agree on what we are talking about — what we are trying to understand is the place where we live, right? Biology is the study of life, so we are going to talk about the place where life exists. On this earth, where life can and does exist. How should we name that place?

The Earth Ecosystem?
The Creation?
The Biosphere?

And for all you creationists out there, I’m especially happy to have your input because I already know a scientific definition. What exactly is your definition of The Creation (the creation we live in, not the event)? What is the difference between the ecosystem that we live in and The Creation. Aren’t they the same thing? If not why not?

Thanks all, I will appreciate whatever you have to say, and I may quote you.