Archive for the ‘Science’ Category
22July2008
On Immunizations
Posted by Convallaria under: Health; Science; Younguns.
What’s the deal with immunizations? One side is dogmatic about giving them and the other is dogmatic about refusing them. I’ve been recently looking at the controversy trying to decide whether to continue with the normal schedule of shots, to slow it down a bit (i.e. space out the shots over a longer period of time), or to discontinue them all together.
On one end of the spectrum I have my SiL who is staunchly against immunizations and has not immunized my two youngest nephews at all. She’s not alone as several young mothers in my church have made the same decision. On the other end of the spectrum is all my training in Public Health most of which can be boiled down into a single statement: an ounce of prevention goes a long way.
But it’s one thing to sit in a classroom and listen to lectures on preventative medicine and quite another to try and make informed decisions that could affect your baby’s whole life.
Read on, MacDuff!
1April2008
A Single Line
Posted by Puretext under: Quotables; Science; Theology.
that caught my attention:
“If death is to be approached as martyrdom” he says, in the context of dying of old age, as if that were an assumption that everyone had already thought of. We proceed from there:
If death is to be approached as martyrdom, i.e., as an opportunity to witness to our faith, what do services do we require or request of our healthcare especially at end-of-life? how can that goal be realized in the greater Chrisitian community, i.e., the Church. For example, individuals lifetime spending on healthcare is concentrated to an astounding degree on the final decade of life. Is that a Christian response to healthcare?
One could say that this single perspective could change your whole view on medicine at the end of life…
15September2006
Christian Counseling
Posted by Puretext under: Essay; Science; Theology.
When I consider your heavens and the work of your fingers,
The moon ad the stars, which you have set in place,
What is man that you are mindful of him
The son of man, that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
And crowned him with glory and honor.
You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
You put everything under his feet:
All flocks and herds, and beasts of the field,
The birds of the air and the fish of the sea
All that swim the paths of the sea.
–Psalm 8:3-8
This seemed as good a place to start an essay on the integration of theology and psychology as any.
Scripture tells us that Man was made to fill a very special role in creation. Created in the very image of God, he was intended to superintend (“have dominion” Gen. 1:28) over the earth, to reflect God’s goodness and authority over the earth and to reflect back to Him the glory of creation’s worship of the living God. Earth was to be a garden, and man the chief under-gardener.
It is fitting then, that God first placed man in a garden. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t stop there. Adam and Eve both sinned, turning away from their intended purpose, and directing their natures toward their own designs. Since then, Paul tells us, everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
And that’s how things got complicated. God’s ultimate purpose for man is the same as it ever was. Ephesians 1:10 tells us that ultimately everything in heaven and on earth will still be summed up in Christ. But now, everything has been distorted by sin. Where man’s purpose was merely to tend the earth, now it must be conformed. Instead of a garden, we face a wilderness. Worse still, man himself has become a wilderness, and bends away from God’s purposes for him (cf. Jer. 17:9).
It is my feeling that theology and psychology converge nicely at this point. Theology insists that there is a right way for man to be, a way called holiness. Psychology, while it doesn’t necessarily hold to a single “right way”, does recognize that a good number of people are not the way they want to be and sets about facilitating a change.
Read on, MacDuff!
2August2006
Peer Reviewed
Posted by Puretext under: General; School; Science; Theology.
As I was saying, I’m required by my class to read 1500 pages in addition to the assigned text, so I’ve been browsing the academic archives for articles relevant to pastoral counseling.
Be forewarned: Stay away from the Journal of Pastoral Counseling. It gives a whole new meaning to the concept of Peer Review. Apparently, the question to consider is ever “who are the peers?”
Just a few salient quotes:
Secularization is based on fact and therefore it will inevitably dismiss beliefs that cannot be proven.
From: “Psycholgy Versus Religion” (2001)
12January2006
Nice
Posted by Puretext under: Science; Theology.
Via William Dembski
All the fuss causes the critically minded to speculate if it’s for the sake of the children or rather about something else the hypertolerant malcontents themselves do not want to confront. A child not belonging to the Christian faith is not going to necessarily pick up on any Christian motifs Lewis might have incorporated into the text.
To pick up on any parallels, one would already have to be familiar with Christian doctrine. Thus to be offended by Aslan as a perceived Christ-figure is to have a problem with an intellect more formidable than even that of C.S. Lewis, namely God Himself.
1December2005
It was selected for….
Posted by Convallaria under: Science.
Kyle was reading me some excepts from anarticle and this passage stuck out to me:
That phrase — “it was selected for” — is regarded as a sufficient explanation for . . . everything.
Read on, MacDuff!
9October2005
Nobel for Discoverers of Ulcer Bacteria
Posted by Puretext under: Science.
Two Australian scientists have been awarded the Nobel prize for medicine for their discovery that stomach ulcers can be caused by a bacterial infection.
I thought this was pretty fascinating. Before Robin Warren’s and Barry Marshall’s discovery in 1982, it was pretty much a given that ulcers were caused by too much stress and a poor lifestyle. Even in the 90’s, when my mom had an ulcer, she was told pretty much to try to reduce her stomach acid levels and chill out a bit. This was so much the case that,
“When Robin Warren and Barry Marshall first claimed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers, they were roundly ridiculed. So much so that Marshall actually infected himself to prove the point.”
As William Dembski is pointing out, “The scientific community’s reception of this discovery should give us pause about the continuing controversy over ID” (emph. added). The image we often get of scientists is that of open-minded free thinkers, who consider each new idea on its own merits, without prejudice. Why shouldn’t we? That’s how science works, isn’t it? But science and scientists are two different things.
In reality, people always like to hold on to their old ideas, whether religious, or cultural, or scientific, and the scientific community can be every bit the masters of the close-minded imperium as the religious council that bid Copernicus recant. It usually takes a good firm shove in the right direction before a person will consider a blind spot. Barry Marshall had to give himself an ulcer to get people to reconsider a bacteria. What will it take to get people to reconsider Darwin?
26May2005
Being Healthy
Posted by Convallaria under: Science.
On Wednesday, I received an email from the Drexel MPH program. They had received my release form for their program to review the application I filled out for Drexel University Medical School. They asked so nicely for it too…Anyway, yesterday’s email told me that they needed a personal statement from me before the committee could review my completed application. Here was my prompt:
“This statement, which can be e-mailed to me, should describe what you perceive to be pressing public health issues, why a career in the field appeals to you, and how it will utilize your strengths and commitment. It should be approximately one page length.”
Read on, MacDuff!
6April2005
guess what?
Posted by Convallaria under: Science.
If you type “epulopiscium” into google search, my post is at the top of the list. I’m above several schools including Cornell and Kenyon, and also above MedPub (which is a really good website for med related articles if you have the subscription) and the Britannica Student Encyclopedia.
Cool.
11March2005
Epulopiscium
Posted by Convallaria under: Science.
Now I suppose that I shouldn’t be writing about bacteria around lunch time but this sucker is cool…..
It’s called Epulopiscium fischelsoni and was found in the gut of a surgeon fish in the Red Sea. Most scientists believed that bacteria couldn’t get very big because the critters don’t have a system for getting food inside very well (have to use diffusion for water and phagcytosis for food). So when they found this critter, they thought it was originally a protozoan instead of a bacteria. Epulopiscium is the only bacteria you can see without having to use a microscope and is about a million times larger in volume that regular old E. coli.
If you’re interested in reading more go here or here.
That’s your science lesson for today. Enjoy your lunch.
