Ten Things About Science and Religion that Might Surprise You

Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder brings a unique combination of expertise’s to the science and faith realm:  an understanding of ancient Hebrew and an understanding of quantum mechanics. That’s quite enough for two brains, but he’s got it in one.

While I don’t agree with him on all points, he does give me a lot to think about, and much of what he says is at the very least reasonable, if not revolutionarily and likely correct. On his website he has two articles you will find quite thought provoking. Check them out. (Note: you might notice that 5 + 5 = 9 in this case as one item appears on both lists like two sides of the same coin.)

Top Five Religious Myths Popularly Accepted as Fact

Top Five Scientific Myths Popularly Accepted as Fact

(Thanks to Sarah Salviander at SixDayScience for the links!)

SDG

Vibrant Dance 2: The Implications of My Position on the Core Christian Doctrines

{RJW Note:  The second “panel” discussion was really each speaker taking 10 minutes to address the title issue. So this session was not a lot of back and forth but just a serial lecture by each panel member, again moderated by Craig Blaising (CB). The panel members were:  TB(eall), JD(uncan), WK(aiser), JR(eynolds), BW(altke), JW(alton). Also Genesis 1 and 2 are abbreviated as G1 and G2 respectively. Again, this post will be in the form of a pseudo-transcript. Not everyone took the full ten minutes, so some are shorter than others.}

CB:  Looking at the core Christian doctrines, is your view essential to the faith? In other words, if someone holds or does not hold your view, are they missing a core doctrine of faith?

WK:  Look at the Apostle’s Creed and as long as we stick to that, we’re fine. Yet a real implication of having an eternal God is a demand for non-eternal matter. Genesis IS important because it sets up the meta-narrative of the whole of Scripture. Atheists begin with a eternal universe, but the Bible begins with an eternal God, which offers meaning and gives the origin of universe. The universe cannot explain itself. Beliefs about age of earth and length of days are secondary to the fact that God created. By naming things, in ancient times, you claim authority and ownership of them. So therefore speaking things into existence, God claims ultimate authority and by creating us in His image, He imparts special status to us. Other (ancient near east) ANE creation accounts are very different and more materialistic, more like us, than the Bible. The God of the Bible is continuously active, not a Deist or Scientific God that winds things up and steps back to watch it unfold. The Bible makes enormous claims—Christ claims to have created the universe and now rules it. Creation was created for us—its pinnacle. Other ANE views are without purpose for the universe.

Vibrant Dance 2: Reynolds: Reconciling the Cosmos: Orthodoxy and Beauty

{RJW Note:  The second position paper given was by Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Professor of Philosophy, Biola University, Los Angeles, California, and founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, a great books program, and fellow Celtophile. As a philosopher, he is a departure from the theologian-heavy lineup and his perspective helps also to define the discussions. Dr. Reynolds also comes from a young-earth perspective.

When I asked him for a copy of his notes as we walked down the hall, he stopped, pulled out a notepad and ripped out a single sheet of paper with a loose handwritten outline and handed it to me. Again, the generosity of these scholars in sharing their work for me to share here is humbling and I am very grateful. It is remarkable to see the different styles of preparation and presentation each uses. Today’s post will constitute a merging of his rough outline with my notes. Any inaccuracies in the substance and intent of his message are mine.}

Dr. Reynolds began by making it clear that even at this conference on faith and science, he was neither theologian nor scientist, and plays neither on TV or movies, as some might wonder given he’s in LA. To begin with offering his epistemological perspective, he defined and discussed the nature of science and then theology. He seemed largely unconcerned with the tensions between the two fields, and appears to be a NOMAist, one who adheres to the idea that they are non-overlapping magisteria (that science and faith answer fundamentally different questions and so do not overlap areas of expertise, so the tensions should be in mostly in appearance than reality). This is my assessment of his views, not an explicit statement by Reynolds.

What is science? It is a likely story of sensory experience that becomes rapidly complicated by philosophical assumptions. {See my 8-part series on “What is Science?”} To ask the question, ‘how to do science?’ is not a science question, but a philosophy question. To cloud it further, if you ask {most} scientists how they do science, their answer is {most likely} different than how they actually do it. Furthermore, scientists do not reject the ‘wrong’ model for the ‘right’ model, but make forward progress by getting rid of one wrong answer in favor of another wrong answer. {but maybe, hopefully, less wrong?} To muddy the waters further, it is possible to adopt the right idea at the wrong time and it could retard the advancement of science.

Vibrant Dance 2: Blaising: What Is At Stake: A Call For Gracious Discourse

{RJW Note:  This is the text of the first plenary session at this weekend’s Vibrant Dance conference. In an effort to accurately relate the views of the speakers, I tried to obtain their notes and permission to share them directly whenever possible. Every speaker I approached was more than gracious, even giving me from their hands their notes with handwritten modifications. I am most grateful to these gentlemen.

This talk is from Dr. Craig Blaising, the Provost and Executive Vice President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, TX. He has very graciously updated and emailed his 45 minute talk to me to share with you. I have only made the most minor of edits to be consistent with the format generally used here, issues of spacing and paragraphs mostly. Below is his text and work, so this amounts to a guest post. Again, I am grateful for his willingness to share it so generously.

Dr. Blaising also served as the moderator for the talks and panel discussion, so this talk served as an introduction and setting of format for the entire conference, so having it verbatim is particularly important.}

The biblical doctrine of creation teaches that God, acting alone, freely, by His own will and power created all things—the entire universe, the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. He brought all of it into being out of nothing—no preexistent material, no prior stuff, matter or energy. And, what he brought into being out of nothing, he has shaped and formed, preserved, ordered and upheld as the world and universe in which we live, inclusive of our very own selves.

            God acted alone in creation

                        I am the Lord, who made all things,

                        Who alone stretched out the heavens,

                        Who spread out the earth by myself.

Neither is the universe or anything in it including ourselves or anything about ourselves an extension or division from, or portion of, God's own being, which is simply to say that there is nothing in and nothing about the universe that is in itself eternal or ontologically necessary—none of its powers, processes, or component parts. No part or aspect of the universe functions as or constitutes its ontological ground. All of it exists by a will and wisdom that is ontologically separate from it.

Vibrant Dance 2011: Day 1 Recap

Today was the first of the two day conference on the Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science, Theology Edition:  Creation—Biblical Options. All of the presenters come from more of a theological or philosophical background rather than a science background, so it was a change for me. I plan to give a short recap of each day’s sessions and in future posts discuss each of the talks I attended, so that it can be delivered in blog-sized bites.

There were seven plenary sessions and a breakout session interspersed with times of worship, breaks and meals. The first, by Dr. Craig Blaising, Provost and Executive Vice President of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, set the tone by establishing a framework for discussion in terms of generally accepted principles of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) and understanding knowledge (epistemology). He also laid out the importance of Creation as a Christian doctrine and the key questions that tend to come up in debate.

To An Unknown God

One of my favorite passages in the book of Acts is in chapter 17 when Paul visits Rome and preaches in the Areopagus to the intellectual elites of the city, telling how he saw an altar “To An Unknown God,” and how he was there to reveal that God—Jesus. Recently I came across this blogpost suggesting that America as a whole is now in a similar position. We have forgotten who the God is referred to in our pledge, our currency, and in our patriotic songs. Thus, in reaching out to our fellow Americans, we can adopt Paul’s Athens methodology.

I think it is a provocative idea and is a quick read with some great history about how that altar came to exist in the first place. What strikes me is that Paul was preaching to the intellectual elites of that culture, which when translated forward 2000 years corresponds to university faculty.

Here’s where the challenge begins. Paul acknowledges the deep spirituality of the Athenians as a precursor to his message, commenting on the vast numbers of gods in their pantheon. As I look over the current university pantheon, I see precious few deities, and either a severe animosity towards the Christian God (or anything that hints at Him) or an even more profound, even herculean effort to ignore Him. The basic academic pantheon consists of about three deities with different areas of campus honoring them in different proportions, based on area of study.

We have Knowledge, sometimes called Science, whose gender identity is generally ambiguous.

File This Bill under “Ambivalence”

The Texas Legislature is in session, and a bill has been proposed to protect faculty and students from discrimination for studying “theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.”

As you can imagine, this is simply igniting the blogosphere, mostly with outrage at how backwards Texas is. Pick your own favorite invective and it is surely being hurled our way.

I am having a very difficult time deciding how I feel about the bill. Part of me supports the general idea of protecting academic freedom from political correct whims. We have respected research on many esoteric and minutial topics, yet there are some topics that are simply taboo. The purpose of tenure is to protect academic freedom to explore extremely controversial topics with a minimum of blowback. To the extent that universities fail to hold themselves to that standard, such laws may be useful. Regardless of how folks feel about “Expelled,” there is a certain level of antipathy towards areas with theistic implications, whether or not they explicitly have anything to do with evangelical Christianity.

To be honest, there is also some controversy among scientists of faith as to how to define ID. Is it a theory, as the bill calls it, or something more vague? A theory implies a series of testable/falsifiable hypotheses that suggest research to answer specific questions. If ID merely suggests a different interpretation of the data, but does not offer insight on how future experiments can be performed that would reveal either an increase or decrease in the ruggedness of that interpretation, it is of limited scientific value.

Of course, I suspect some ID proponents would rebut with the idea that if they had the freedom to pursue ID research in the open, then they would be in a better position to move from the latter to the former. Fair enough.

For me, the heart of the matter goes back to the whole agent/mechanism dichotomy. When looking at origins, we need to be careful to distinguish the mechanism by which things occurred, from the agency initiating and/or guiding that mechanism. Both sides muddy this line pretty badly and it makes for increased antagonism.

The mechanism question is best explained thus: Did the various species on earth arise from whole cloth, either instantaneously or in a type of punctuated equilibrium, or by a series of gradual processes from simple to more complex? There are a number of variations from these descriptions, but basically this covers the various proposed models.

The agency question is quite independent from the answer to the mechanism question: What initiated the first thing we can clearly identify as a living organism and was subsequent development directed or random. If directed, how and by what?

Then there is the clincher agency question:  Can we definitively distinguish the difference between various agencies? If the mechanism is Darwinian evolution, how would we tell if it were motivated by an intelligence with a purpose or simply was a series of random mutations that now that we are here, we call ‘lucky?’ The same question can be asked for whatever answer we come up with to the mechanism question.

If we cannot distinguish between agency models, then the discussion is moot, and must firmly remain in the areas of philosophy. If, however, there were a way to distinguish between the agency models, then it seems like it is of paramount importance to pursue that course and resolve it. Otherwise, we are limiting our own progress. But to the extent the question cannot even be discussed in the academy, there will be a nagging question in people’s minds, “what if?” The Christian church has received a great deal of criticism over how it handled various key scientific discoveries and how if they had embraced the investigations rather than squelching them, more progress might have been made faster. Are we as the scientific establishment making the same mistake that we accuse the Church of making?

If ID researchers can garner grant money, attract students, perform competent investigations and help resolve even the clincher question, why not allow it? Why should universities care as long as they are getting their overhead? It certainly adds to the diversity of the community.

I know many in the scientific community see the issue as moot. They are upset because they genuinely believe the issue is settled, the horse is so dead that it’s already a fossil in the British Museum. At the very least, part of tolerance is allowing others to scratch their itch.

Also, many believe ID is just an excuse for quietly inserting religion into science. While many ID proponents are scientists of faith, not all are. While a few may have a hidden agenda, most don’t. I personally know many people in the ID movement, and they have absolutely no desire to post the Apostle’s Creed in their classrooms and recite it at the beginning of class. However, no matter how convincingly that is argued, I know that many naturalists cannot be convinced that ID is nothing more than a secret Christian conspiracy. All I can say is that it isn’t. You can choose to believe it or not.

(Some readers are probably asking where I come down on this as I am obviously sympathetic, but not quite embracing, and so wonder if I am adopting an artificially neutral position to ‘appear legitimate.’ I address that issue here.)

Going back to the proposed bill, the small-government, freedom-minded part of me isn’t terribly thrilled with it. Here is yet another law cluttering the books. Even if the universities do not discriminate and take the attitude I propose four paragraphs ago, would the ID researchers be able to obtain grant money or be reviewed fairly in the literature? Can this bill help with that? Should it try? How will the Law of Unintended Consequences have an impact on things? Many well-intentioned laws end up, through the vagaries of practice and interpretation, doing the exact opposite of their intended effect. If someone wanted to study the scientific implications of, say, the Hindu creation story, would that be covered by the protections of the bill? It is an equal protection bill? The wording appears so, but the challenges of a pluralistic society require us to examine such things, preferably ahead of time.

Did Representative Zedler consult with faculty and universities to explore impact before proposing the bill? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to “bite the hand that’s petting me.” I’m exploring the issue as a scientist—looking at it from various angles to see if it is needed, wanted and/or accomplishes the intended purposes. If the answer is no to any of those, it needs to be reexamined for improvements or possibly discarded as a nice try.

I have no doubt that my ambivalence on this issue will irritate folks on both sides. I think there is need for increased charity towards one another, and let the data lead where it will, but I’m not convinced this bill is the best way to make progress towards that.

SDG

The Gospel for the Scientifically-Minded

{RJW Note: I welcome TSR’s second guest blogger, John Weber. Last week, I introduced his new campus ministry to you, and now he’s here to tell us more about his vision and how it will be accomplished. Thanks, John!}

Although I have been studying the intersection of faith and science for a number of years, the credit for the above title belongs to a friend, Rich Lawson, for a talk he gave in 2009 in Austin at the local Reasons To Believe meeting. As a businessman, I am well aware of the increasing segmentation of markets as consumers have more information available to them for choices. Companies that can identify emerging segments and develop specific products that meet needs within a segment can be successful. The thought of creating a modified approach to a specific group of people is not new to Christendom. However we have usually considered going to a far away land, learning the language and culture, translating key segments of the Bible into local language, and teaching about Jesus.

As a technical person I have begun to see the advantage of using science apologetics as a methodology to appeal to the scientifically-minded person (SMP) right here in my own backyard, Austin, Texas. I believe an engineer or scientist has God-given neurological processes for the pursuit of objective analysis of observations prior to reaching a summary or conclusion. After 37 years with my bride, Linda, who is wired completely opposite of me, we can both testify that this difference exists. Reasons To Believe Austin (RTBA) is being formed to reach the SMP, on the University of Texas campus, by showing that good science and correct interpretations of scripture are extremely highly correlated and match the world around us. This will largely be done through weekly discussion groups, one-on-one meetings and referrals from professors and lecturers. Further and just as important, RTBA will serve existing campus ministries by providing a methodology and language that reaches students they are already serving, who may be scientifically-minded.

An apologetic approach, building a logical defense for the hope that is in us, will hopefully help many scientifically-minded students see that, from the exquisite nature of the universe to the delicate balances and complexities in earth’s systems to the magnificence of the micro-biological factory, the evidence for a powerful and loving designer and creator is overwhelming. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans chapter one that humans have this awareness just from observing the nature around us. Science apologetics will build on that to solidify a person’s concept of God the Creator as well as the logical purposes of God that follow, namely the need for reconciliation with fallen human nature and the death and resurrection of Jesus. It just makes so much sense.

I believe this is the start of something substantial and covet your prayers. To learn more and how you can help, please email me at jweber14@austin.rr.com

John Weber

President, Reasons To Believe Austin

Chapter Director, Ratio Christi, University of Texas

SDG

God's Fingerprint

A friend sent me this YouTube link about how ubiquitous the Fibonacci Sequence is throughout nature, from floral patterns to the human ear to spiral galaxies. They call it God’s Fingerprint. I’m not disputing the claim, but the scientific skeptic in me wants more.

(It should be noted that this video appears to be produced by some Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is interesting.)

It is extremely well documented how many subtle effects there are in the universe, things that play out in unexpected ways that have a high correlation without having a causal relationship. I would be interested in knowing if there was some quantum or subatomic property that somehow, in effect, pre-codes for Fibonacci curvatures. Scientific apologists make a big deal about fine-tuning arguments for God’s existence, and some of them are compelling. Is there a feature of these fundamental physical constants that when arranged properly, provide for this behaviour in manifold environments?

If this is God’s Fingerprint, then, following the logic of the video, we should be expecting to find it in even more places and, in truth, be more surprised where we don’t find it than where we do. Is there a Fibonacci pattern found in neural pathways? In nerve branching? In the curve of the DNA helix? In molecular energy levels? If it is truly universal in its appearance, we should be looking for it and be able to predict behaviours and patterns that can offer new insights on discoveries remaining to be made.

As I watched the video, I wondered about music and art. The Fibonacci ratios are called Golden Ratios and the Greeks discovered it in that form. Where else does it occur in the arts, particularly music? It would seem that if it is God’s Fingerprint, musical scales would reflect it euphonically. As it turns out, one of the subsequent videos dealt with a tonal series, called Solfeggio frequencies. While this video sounds like pure New Age bunk (which is why I don’t link to it), it makes some obscure connection between the Solfeggio notes and the Fibonacci sequence, that I didn’t catch. If the music playing in the background is based on this, it wasn’t particularly euphonic.

Therefore, I throw this post ‘out there’ in the hopes that scholarly input can be offered on the questions I raise.

If we find the sequence in more places than we don’t, it is NOT proof of God, but in the first place an indication of unifying fundamental factors in the universe, and may, in the second place be a signature. (Remember, just because we know how Houdini got out of the straightjacket doesn’t change the fact that Houdini got out of the straightjacket—understanding a mechanism does not negate the concept of agency.) The philosophical naturalists will remain unconvinced, maintaining that it is just a function of the mathematical order of nature, while the theists will maintain that this order in itself is evidence of an intelligence behind or beyond nature. I don’t see it changing many minds, but even so, may offer real insights into future avenues of research and deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of all aspects of the cosmos (which by the way, comes from the Greek word for order brought out of disorder).

SDG

Walter Bradley: Is the Bible Scientifically Reliable?

Dr. Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineering professor with a long and distinguished career at three major institutions:  Colorado School of Mines, Texas A&M, and currently is at Baylor. His current research studies various uses of the coconut plant for improving the standard of living in tropical areas. He is also a personal friend and mentor for the last nearly 20 years.

One of his passions is studying the interface between science and Christianity. Over the last 40 years, his views have evolved from young-earth creationism to increasing sophistication in old earth theories, as his studies have gotten more in-depth.

About two weeks ago, he was in Austin to give a presentation he entitled, “Is the Bible Trustworthy in Areas Related to Science?” At the request of a friend also in the audience, Walter has sent me the slides in order to post here. Most of the slides are self-explanatory. For those that aren’t, that’s the limitation of not having the audio attached.

I hope they are useful, interesting and informative for you. (I apologize for the delay in posting this due to technical issues.)

Is the Bible Trustworthy in Areas Related to Science? by Walter Bradley

SDG

Bric-a-brac

Baby, it’s COLD outside! We haven’t been above freezing for over 24 hours, and won’t likely for another 36! This reminds me of my time in Ann Arbor. I’ll admit, I’m sort of enjoying it. There’s even an inch of snow forecast for overnight Thursday—makes me glad I don’t have classes on Friday and can stay home in front of the fireplace! (Though my laptop will also keep me close company—lots of work to do for my classes.)

It is simply amazing to me just how fine tuned the Earth’s orbit is—that just by shifting our relative distance from the sun by a few hundred miles, our temperature shifts from sweltering to freezing and back. I’m sure some geologist or astronomer can tell me exactly how far Texas moves away from the sun between summer and winter, and I’m sure I can even calculate it myself if I bothered to look up the 2-3 pieces of data I’d need, but I can promise you—it ain’t much, and that is incredible. I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened naturally, it could have—if Earth exists, it has to exist somewhere, so why not here—but this is just one of the dozens of ‘just exactly rights’ science has realized about our universe. How many before we give in and say the raw probability of God is higher than the raw probability of random dumb luck?

Recently, I posted about “The Case for Christianity” webcast. They have a new video online. Check it out and tell your pastor!

Also, recently, I wrote about Christian and Muslim Views on Science and Religion. An astronomy colleague wrote me with the following in response:

“One thought occurred when I read Safak's comment that Muslims stopped watching the sky. I'm reading a book about the history of astronomy written by Michael Hoskin that touches on this. Hoskin comments that Islamic astronomy, like that of most cultures up to that time, was primarily concerned with facilitating astrological predictions. Astrology was very popular, but Islamic religious authorities frowned on it, so much so that astrologers/astronomers and their patrons were sometimes killed. That might have discouraged sky-watching. Moreover, from other sources I have read, it appears the decline in science occurred ca. the 11th/12th century when Islam became quite orthodox and the Greek wisdom that Muslims had previously treasured were deemed corruptive to faith.”

Stay warm in the hope of Christ!

SDG

Christian and Muslim Views on Science and Religion

Tonight, the same group sponsoring last night’s talk sponsored a talk on science and religion. They had a Christian Religious Studies professor from the University of Houston, Dr. Lynn E. Mitchell, and a Turkish Imam from San Antonio, Zubeyir Safak.

                        

Mitchell went first and then Safak. There followed a Q&A with only a couple of questions, most of which were fielded by Mitchell.  Nearly everything discussed has been pretty thoroughly covered in previous posts, particularly the “What is Science?” series a couple of weeks ago, and a few Vibrant Dance topics from last fall.

Mitchell is a clear NOMA supporter, a fact he confirmed to me explicitly afterward, though he seemed to respect the Concordist view I tend to hold, and is appreciative of the work of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. He correctly and at length explained that in spite of much belief to the contrary, there hasn’t really been a war between science and religion, again as covered in the highlighted post earlier in this paragraph. He also echoed Ross by describing how Genesis is unique among creation accounts in that God created, rather than creation creating some pantheon, like the Babylonian {and Greek} mythologies do.

I found Safak a pleasant, likable, soft-spoken gentleman, and very thoughtful. He holds a concordant viewpoint that the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, when properly interpreted are in complete agreement/harmony. The key difference is that his Book of Scripture is the Qu’ran, not the Bible. I would enjoy sitting down with him over lunch or dinner and discussing theology, philosophy and/or science. One of the more interesting things he touched on was why the Muslim nations, which had an advanced scientific/technological understanding for centuries, stagnated. He stated simply that they stopped watching the sky.

As has been recently popularized by the DVD “The Star of Bethlehem,” The magi were likely Babylonian scholars descended from the school of scholars of which the Old Testament prophet, Daniel, was chief. One of the primary things this school of scholars did was astronomy.

Why did they stop watching the sky? I’m not sure, but I interpreted Safak’s statement as being both literal and figurative, in that for some reason, scholarly pursuits were simply not valued. There is a rather unflattering legend that in A.D. 640 when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they sent word back to the Caliph Omar asking what to do about the documents in the Library of Alexandria. He is reported to have replied, "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." And thus they were burned. This legend, recorded 300 years or so after the event by a strongly anti-Muslim bishop, must be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Furthermore, it is sad to admit that a few of our brothers and sisters in Christ would agree with the Caliph, viewing any book other than the Bible as being unnecessary.

Before going to the lecture, I had mentioned it to some of my staff, and one commented that he expected that the Islamic view of science and religion would likely be comparable to the other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity, and he was right. On the one hand that makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, there has been such a long historical divide in the cultures of Western Judeo-Christianity and Islam, and corresponding difference in scientific development, that I wasn’t sure what to expect. What I found was there is a range of view that is very similar to the range among us.

Still the biggest surprise for me was the similarity. I have read precious little of an English translation of the Qu’ran (which must be read in Arabic to insure you’ve gotten the message correctly, I’ve been told), and have heard a fair bit of hearsay regarding the content of it. That small level of exposure has not left me with an expectation that Concordism between the Qu’ran and science would be feasible or significant. That an imam sees it as such is interesting.

During the Q&A, I was the first to raise my hand, and thanked them for coming, saying that as a scientist of faith, it was encouraging to hear theologians speak on the subject in similar terms to my own views, and got the chance to offer up this blog to demonstrate it. (Never pass up an opportunity for free advertising!) The unexpected result of that comment was to draw enough attention to myself, that afterward, three students accosted me with digital voice recorders, saying they were in a journalism class and wanted to interview me for an assignment. Sigh. (What was that about free advertising?) Fortunately, they said it would not appear in the student paper, as I’m not sure I’m ready for that kind of publicity.

Admin note: it appears I have fixed whatever setting was causing the email subscriptions not to go out daily, and I think I have linked the blog to Twitter. Supposedly, when I post, it will send a tweet out to @ScholRed. It didn’t work last night, but maybe it is fixed now???? Stay tuned or tweeted or friended or…

SDG