The Contradictions of the Healthcare debate

I am certainly no healthcare expert, nor am I a noted economist (or even an ignored economist), so I don’t feel adequate to delve into the nitty gritty of the current House bill. However, it doesn’t take an expert to observe that over the course of the debate about health care from the current administration, there have been numerous contradictions, both in terms of logic and fact. Many of these get short shrift in the 30 second analysis we get from the media.

 One of the first logical contradictions one notes has to do with the ‘Healthcare System wastes 800 billion dollars’ vs. ‘Insurers regularly deny care’ claims. On one hand we presented with a picture of stingy health insurers, who routinely deny care in order to line the pockets of their greedy CEO’s. Meant to elicit support for healthcare legislation by generating hatred for the imaginary rich, this is standard class warfare language.

 Yet, on the other hand we are presented with a recent study, much touted by government healthcare advocates, that our current healthcare system wastes up to ‘$800 hundred billion a year’ (which coincidently at the time was exactly the same as the cost of the healthcare legislation). This waste was said to be the result of a a number of conditions, including unnecessary procedures and inefficiencies in paperwork. It would follow if the healthcare legislation could fix these cost overruns, it would practically pay for itself.

 But it only takes a minute to realize the unlikelihood that both of these arguments are generally true. If health insurers really are money-grubbing dictators trying to squeeze every last cent out of the health system, then why are they completely ignoring the waste of 800 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they shut down those extra procedures and eliminate the paper work? That’s a lot of cash for those penny pinchers to ignore. Perhaps fixing such problems isn’t so straight forward. Indeed, the government already insures nearly half our population through Medicare and Medicaid – and it has shown no propensity to contain such costs.

 In fact, another assumption of the health reform bill is that congress will cut billions of dollars in Medicare programs in the near future. That’s great; but why haven’t they started until now? A lot of the fraud and waste is the product of the Medicare system, which is after all a government run public health insurance option – why should the electorate trust that the broader public option will create efficiencies when we already have a budget busting example of a government run program that has been anything but efficient, by the Democrats own admission?

 And finally, we come to the discussion about the public option. Perhaps the most controversial part of the current House bill, the public option will provide a government funded healthcare option, much like Medicare, for those who currently have no health insurance.

 The primary argument for this option has to do with the fact that a certain number of people in our country –either 60, 40, or 30 million people depending on the day and who is counting – don’t currently have insurance. The public option would provide for those folks who either due to lack of funds, or some pre-existing condition, have been denied private healthcare. So far so good; it’s hard to deny that basic healthcare should be more accessible.

 But the second argument is that a public option will provide ‘competition’ for the private insurers, causing them to bring down costs, and become more efficient. The problem with this though is that it is never explained how it is that insuring folks already deemed ‘uninsurable’ by the private industry will create ‘competition’; competition after all only occurs when two entities vie for a single market. Those who can’t afford insurance and those who can are in fact two different markets – so insurance companies will have no incentive to bring down costs, since they aren’t losing out by maintaining their current practices.

 The only way such a situation would be competitive is if the government were to structure the public option so that it was available to those who already had insurance, giving individuals and employers incentives to drop private insurance and adopt the ‘competitive’ (and publicly funded) public option.

 If this happened on a wide scale (and why wouldn’t it?) it would inevitably move us toward a government run, publicly funded, single payer healthcare system in our country, much like the socialized systems seen elsewhere – but I am sure that isn’t the intention behind all this at all, is it?

Species, baramin, or kind – the inadequacy of classification schema

Frequently in discussions between evolutionists and creationists, a central point of disagreement revolves around the origin of species, of which evolution claims to be the primary engine. Creationists deny that evolution is capable of such a feat, and even deny that species as a proper classification of organisms. In keeping with Biblical text, they instead adopt kind, or more properly baramin as the proper distinction between different types of organisms, and deny evolution the power to create this level of distinction.

 The problem with both classification schemas is that they are both based on either vague or arbitrary criteria. In the case of baramin, the Bible gives no detailed description of what distinguishes one ‘kind’ from another or any criteria by which to measure such a distinction. As Genesis is not a detailed science text, such criteria are not expected.

 However the term ‘species’, despite its long history and centrality to both biology and evolutionary theory, fairs no better. In fact the species problem is a long recognized issue in biology. In the simplest terms a species is an interbreeding population which is reproductively isolated from other populations; in reality populations are in constant flux, and despite years of relative isolation populations often find ways to interbreed.

 And the problem gets worse when considering the prehistory of life; indeed, a recent analyses of dinosaur ‘species’ found that up to a third of the dinosaur species may in fact not be species at all, but instead be different age groups and sexes of the same type of dinosaur.

Species or stages?

Such a finding also underlines the weaknesses of fossil interpretation when investigating life’s past. Indeed, this has the potential to call into question much of the supposed record of evolution said to be found in fossils, which purports to demonstrate the gradual appearance of species over time.

 As someone who favors intelligent design and who is a critic of evolution, I don’t necessarily have a dog in this fight. Indeed, I think it is better to focus on the origin of information, body plans, living systems and capabilities rather quibble over classification schema that are virtually impossible to actually define. But I have found, clarity is rarely the goal of such discussions.

Another brick in the wall

I have pretty vivid memories of the Berlin Wall falling; in large part because it was the last thing I ever expected to see in my lifetime. I spent a significant part of my college years as a bit of an activist, at first on the left, and later on the right. Like a lot of people my age I felt the fear, sometimes expressed, but more often than not, that the long cold conflict we had with the Soviet Union would burst into hot war, replete with world ending bombs. That was why Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall!” was at the same time frightening and exhilarating – it framed freedom as a gift so precious that not even the threat of annihilation could deny it. Nonetheless, I never expected to see that yearning fulfilled in my lifetime.

 Perhaps that was what made the recent 20^th anniversary celebration a rather disappointing affair. Unlike the still vivid memories of my youth the recent remarks of our President made no mention of Reagan – no mention of Thatcher, or Pope John Paul, or Lech Walesa. No mention of the Soviets or communism. He does however oddly make mention of himself as an icon of freedom:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it,”

 As President of the United States, Obama is free to set his schedule and agenda as he sees fit. If he wants he wants to personally appear to lobby to have the Olympics in Chicago and then skip out on the celebration of the one of the greatest advances of freedom in the 20^th century, that is his prerogative; however, his office doesn’t give him the liberty to re-write history, and his failure to make note of the true champions of freedom constitutes an abrogation of duty.

Some Friday Encouragement

  I admit when it comes to politics and social/political/scientific issues, I am a bit of a curmudgeon. Perhaps this is because one truth that informs my beliefs is that humans are essentially sinful, and that truth should inform our policies and views. The lack of understanding this truth has led to much misery in the world.

 That being said, other truths inform my beliefs - one being that all people, being made in God’s image, have inherent worth and value. The other is that God desires to display believers, corruptible weak vessels that we are, His incredible love to humanity.

 To that I have two videos – one of which is from a piece on Good Morning America this morning. The second is from a center in Kenya which serves disabled children. I am very blessed to know both families in these videos, and humbled by their great service. Well, take a look for yourselves: 

The first video is from Good Morning America this morning, and it’s an amazing  story about some friends of ours, Jay and Beth Loecken:

Next, Tracey Hagman with Heshima Childrens Center in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, called Ngando:

Interestingly, Jay and Beth were inspired by Eric and Tracey during a mission trip to Africa (which my wife and I have also been on). I was priviledged to know both couples, when we attended the same church. What strikes me about them both though is that they weren’t what I would would consider the stereotypical ‘missionary’ types – the were both realtively ordinary ordinary folks living fairly comfortable successful lives, who decided, with no little sacrifice, too obey God’s calling of a life of service and sacrifice.

As tempted as I am to comment further, I think their lives speak for themselves.

Life in the balance in South Dakota

Interesting news from South Dakota concerning the recent strict anti-abortion law passed in the state legislature. Opponents of the law have managed to gather the required number of signatures to place the law on the Nov. 7th ballot, allowing SD citizens the option to vote keep the law as is or have it removed from the books.

There appear to be three possible outcomes to this effort; the first being that the opponents win the day in South Dakota and the legal barriers to abortions are removed (again). In that case, they have undermined a regular argument they have made, namely that the courts must act to preserve a women's right to abort because democratic processes aren't sufficient protectors of essential rights.

The second outcome might be that the law holds up, in which case the oft repeated idea that Roe v. Wade is a 'popular' ruling will be dealt a blow.

Of course, in the case of a loss, an appeal to the Court is likely. But this is a rather circuitous route to take; normally abortion rights groups run directly to the local judge; why attempt a democratic solution first?

I suspect this is because abortion rights advocates are afraid that the tide has turned on the court; a series of appeals is more likely than ever to end with an erosion of legal support for Roe. In that case, a number of states may move to enact such laws.

Overall this seems to be a lose-lose-lose proposition for the pro-abortion bunch; they must now utilize the democratic process they have so far disdained, and in doing so, undermine their primary venue for advancing their cause – liberal pro-abortion courts.

Of course, in the interim, the greatest loss continues to be the lives of the unborn.

Meyer vs. Ward Transcript

In a previous post I linked to an audio of the Peter Ward/ Stephen Meyer Intelligent Design debate. Here is a transcript of the debate for those with slower connections (or for those that prefer to read).

It highlights again the eminently reasonable arguments of Intelligent Design.

Last Stand in Clark County

Comes a story out of out of Las Vegas Nevada not unlike the recent events I detailed earlier in Kentucky. In this particular case, rather than banning a prayer, the school administrators took restrictions a step further; they shut off the microphone of a valedictorian when it was perceived she might voice religious sentiments, or more specifically, credit her success with it's source; faith in Christ. From the report:

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her — Christ — her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Presumably had she given praise to the public school systems, a disciplined homework regime, or positive thinking, Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb would have been free to say whatever she pleased. Indeed, had she criticized the current government, the supposed 'intolerance' of more conservative thinkers, or any other presumed enemies of the American educational system, she certainly would have been applauded by those in charge.

The ACLU, long the protector of speech, no matter how vulgar or vile, seems wholly complicitous with the administration. Allen Lichtenstein, an ACLU lawyer, who finds school dress codes to be "Orwellian" finds the systematic review and editorial removal of references to Christ to be wholly inline with the administrator's duties.

I think this is a further demonstration of the restrictive nature of the secular state. By attempting to parse the sentiments of a young woman who by all measures was a an educational success in one of the largest districts in the US, the school in all respects acts as advocate of anti-religious ideologies. Far from being neutral, the school teaches it's captive audience that the only true freedom is a godless one.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. My own children attend a charter school here in Minnesota. It is a fairly unique school, originally begun by home-schoolers and sponsored by a local Christian college. Even though it is a 'public' school, because of our charter system it flies under the radar of many of the restrictive policies normally found in our nation's public schools.

Last year, for our graduation ceremony, an academically accomplished young woman was asked to speak. Her story was quite amazing by all accounts; she came from a significantly broken family, her mother dealing with drug addiction and a string of bad boyfriends, her father completely absent. I remember reluctantly dropping her off at her home one time; the sagging roof, the plastic over the windows. It just didn't seem the place one would leave a child.

And yet this girl thrived, nurtured by a church family and a school that encouraged rather than opposed her faith. And for the graduation ceremony, she requested that she be able to say a prayer rather than give a speech; a request that administrators, not bound by the 9th District Court, happily allowed. What preceded was the most beautiful prayer I think I have ever heard, one that brought tears to the eyes of the most skeptical; its power being primarily in the life of a young woman whose experience had obviously exceeded the expectations of her circumstance.

It is ironic, that in our age a relativism where truths are thought to be mere personal expressions, people are allowed to express in our schools anything they percieve to be true so long as they don't really believe that it actually is.

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed

It's been a busy week at home, so my posts have been few and far between, but I thought I would offer something light on a Friday.

I try to keep this blog fairly non-partisan (admittedly, a task virtually impossible for me) but I am not above political humor. Indeed, I consider good humor in most forms is an essential ingredient in life. On that note, I offer the latest from Scrappleface, a political humor site, on our President's 'difficult' week:

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed

The Da Vinci Ode, Part Deux

This is the second part of the two part talk I did on the Da Vinci Code, this time discussing the reliability of the four Gospels. I know, it's already old news, but I did it two weeks ago and forgot to post.

 Audio here.

A Primer on Intelligent Design

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had long been interested in the science of life and its origins, and I have spent a number of years exploring the intersection between science and faith. In recent years, the conversation has centered primarily on Intelligent Design, a theory much talked about in the media, courts, schools, and scientific circles. To that end, I wanted to give those unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the issue an overview of the discussion to date.

Below are a series of questions and answers about Intelligent Design. I attempted to be as even-handed as possible, though I readily acknowledge that in general, I support intelligent design as a scientific theory.

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

Intelligent Design is the scientific theory that states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as mutation and natural selection. It is a theory promulgated to answer this question, posed by William Dembski, an originator of the theory of ID, and one of its primary proponents:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

That question can be asked by anybody regardless of metaphysical belief; and the answer, presumably, wouldn't require a particular belief either.

To that end, two main criteria have been proposed to determine the earmarks of intelligent activity in the formation of an object (or organism) – they are irreducible complexity, and specified complexity.

Irreducible complexity is drawn from a statement by Charles Darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
–Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189

Thus Michael Behe describes an irreducibly complex system this way:

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
–Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 9

In simpler terms, if you have a mechanism (for example, a mousetrap) you can only reduce that mechanism down to a certain number of parts before it ceases to function in any useful way; in biological terms, all the parts to a irreducibly complex biological system must be in place at once in order for it to function in any useful way and confer a survival advantage to the organism. Thus, such systems could not be formed by a series of gradual modifications as required by Darwinian evolution.

In the case of specified complexity, developed by William Dembski, the idea really centers on information patterns. If a pattern is both specified, and complex, it is a reliable marker of intelligent activity. Thus a mountain side may be complex, that is made up of a variety of materials, but it isn't specific in its arrangement. A crystalline structure like a diamond might be specific because its structure is organized in uniform a pattern, but they aren't really complex.

Intelligence allows for patterns that are both specified (organized) and complex, like written languages, computers codes, and machines. In short, it allows us to discern the degree to which intelligence played a part in the formation of Mount Rushmore versus the natural formation of a cliff wall.

These two criteria form the basis of intelligent design theory.

Does ID disprove evolution?

ID is primarily a criticism of evolution on one specific point; primarily that undirected causes such as mutation and natural selection are sufficient alone to account for the current genetic diversity we see in biological systems. Beyond that, it accepts other evolutionary concepts such as common descent, adaptive radiation, and natural selection.

Intelligent Design also acts as a critique of the natural origin of life and the universe, though this is not a criticism of evolutionary  theory which attempts  no explanation of life and the universe.

Is ID Creationism?

No – ID and Creationism have fundamentally different goals; creationism attempts to reconcile the narrative of Genesis with scientific theory; ID on the other hand simply attempts to answer the simple question, Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Of course, creationists often find the information ID provides as useful (just as they sometimes find the information provided by other sciences as useful) but this doesn't make ID and creationism the same thing.

Is ID science?

This depends how one defines science. If the standard definition is used, that is the investigation of the universe through hypothesis, observation, investigation and testing, well then yes, ID qualifies as science.

If one adds the current addendum that all explanations must be the product of wholly natural phenomenon (that is, non-intelligent, or non-directed forces) as does methodological naturalism, then ID wouldn't qualify as science; but of course, methodological naturalism also conceivably disqualifies science from answering fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, life, and the origin of species by dismissing viable explanations.

Didn't the court rule ID wasn't science?

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was not science, and as such, could not be taught in the science classroom. If one holds that courtrooms are where science is conducted, then yes, at least in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, ID is not science, though of course the court also ruled ID may be true.

It is notable that to this day, evolution is the only scientific theory which requires court protection from detractors in order to maintain viability.

Aren't all supporters of intelligent design Christians?

No, actually a number of them aren't; among non-Christian ID supporters we have Anthony Flew (Agnostic), Michael Denton (agnostic), Mustafa Akyol (Muslim), Slade Gorton (Jewish). Of course, whether or not they are Christian is rather irrelevant; one could safely say 95% of atheists are evolutionists of one stripe or another, but that doesn't really say anything about whether or not evolution is the best explanation for the existence and variety of life on earth.

Does ID hurt science or science education?

I have always been perplexed by this idea; that somehow if ID were accepted as a viable alternative to evolution that all critical thinking would end. This runs counter to two obvious facts, the first being that historically science in large part is the product of a Christian culture that had no problem reconciling the existence of a Creator with natural exploration. In fact, many great scientists, among them Newton, Kepler, Bacon, and Pascal were notable commentators on theology as well as scientific icons.

The second obvious fact is that the debate between evolution and intelligent design is perhaps one of the most vibrant scientific discussions of the twenty-first century. It has driven an interest and exploration into origins and genetic capability, and the very structure of life. There is really only one side who wants to shut down discussion in the debate, and that side isn't supporters of intelligent design.

I hope this helps further the discussion now going on about Intelligent Design, both for supporters, critics, and the casual observer.