[This post from June 23, 2016 was deleted in mid-October, 2016]
MUHAMMAD ALI and DONALD TRUMP
IMPERSONATORS
Just as Elvis had his impersonators, Muhammad Ali will likely have more than Donald Trump now that he has gone to his eternal reward. If you Google Muhammad Ali, you will find a quote of his that that may well be uttered by Donald Trump if he sees it. The quote - "I am the greatest, I said that even before I knew I was,"
If you notice in the quote, the claim of greatness precedes acceptance of it as truth. In the political world it seems that repetition of a lie often leads to it becoming truth to many.
MUHAMMAD ALI
Cassius Clay showed the depth and sincerity of his beliefs several times in then unpopular ways: changing his name first then refusing service in a war he considered unjust. Whether he was right or wrong, he had a depth of sincerity that deserves admiration. Later, his philanthropy continued in spite of declining health.
Thirty-six years ago I was with a small group visiting oases in the Libyan Desert portion of the Sahara. We were there as part of a doctoral student's advisory group for help in studying what could be helpful in controlling blood flukes, a major health problem in the area which involved snail hosts in the springs as part of their life cycle. A small group of children followed along, curious about the group of adults investigating the aquatic weeds harboring the snails. One of the children wore a t-shirt with Muhammad Ali written beneath his picture. I had to be impressed by his fame.
DONALD TRUMP
He may have discovered "I am the greatest" on his own. If so, he was unobservant of popular culture of the time when Ali was saying it. He has built up an abundant supply of his statements covering all occasions and views so he could well believe he has said whatever is appropriate for the occasion.
Unfortunately, he appears to screen out all who risk telling him when he is wrong. I am sure there are many good things about Donald, but are there enough to keep the Republican Convention from becoming a Trump Dump?
Joe Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan June 23, 2016
Disclaimer: I decline all responsibility for the above due to probable low oxygen supply to the brain after blood loss from minor surgery earlier this month.
[I'm not quite sure why I deleted and now returned this post, the only one of 170+ posts to be deleted. Perhaps I thought I would give Donald a chance, he has shown some ability to change. But he is not likely to do things scientists have found to be better choices. J.E. May 3, 2017.]
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
CAN SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD?
CAN SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD?
“Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Believe in God?”
[That was a title of a colloquium organized by Dr. Richard Malott for the Psychology Department in its 1993 version for his Behavior Analysis Classes at Western Michigan University. In 1992, the title was “Can Scientists and Other Smart Guys Believe in God?” It was an annual event for a few years with two Psychology Faculty presenting a more skeptical view and a Religion Professor and a Biologist (me) presenting different perspectives. The main text of a handout I provided was as follows.]
Rather than be defensive about it, I note that from my perspective it is more reasonable to pose the question – “Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Not Believe in God?”
I take the affirmative and state that I believe in God. If that is accepted at face value, then proof that I am a scientist or intelligent goes a long way toward supporting the affirmative position.
Intellectuals and/or scientists before me have believed in God. Aristotle is credited with being the founder of numerous sciences and is an authority in natural theology providing a number of proofs of the existence of God. Let’s consider some of Aristotle’s proofs.
Proof from causality is that we note from inductive reasoning that everything has a cause, but it stretches the imagination or credulity to think that there could be an infinite number of causes leading to the present event, therefore there must be a First Cause, uncaused, otherwise known as God.
A variant of the proof from causality is the proof from motion. If there were an infinite series of motions leading to present observed motion the movement would not yet have occurred. Therefore, there must have been a first mover or Prime Mover, another name for God.
The order in the universe begs a source of that order; we do not have true chaos but order and direction due to its creator, God.
Some observers look at diverse human populations and cultures and see that these all exhibit similar moral themes and behavior that leads them to believe in a source, God.
Are Aristotle’s 2300 year old proofs still valid? I think so. Does the new knowledge science gives us have anything to contribute? Time has not diminished Aristotle’s arguments because they are based on reason and abstractions from the real world that have not changed. But I think there are some modern proofs for the existence of God that science has made possible. Most modern proofs have their roots in the ancient proofs from causality, but consider the following.
The Big Bang theory of origin of the universe, if correct, implies a start that seems to require a creator.
The second law of thermodynamics means there must have been a starting point or an infinity of time would have us now at an ultimate state of entropy.
Forces acting across vacuums as do gravity and various electro-magnetic forces defy reason for existence in an uncaused system. This caused me to hypothesize a new mechanism for gravity: an infinity of cosmic particles (perhaps photons) randomly streaking or bouncing around the universe and forcing things apart but forcing them together as does gravity when proximity to another body shades the adjacent sides.
My own consciousness and understanding of biology leads be to a belief in God. How I function mentally is reducible to a physical mechanism that could be simulated by a computer. But I have a self-awareness that transcends the physical process. The human activity could be simulated by a computer; but would it be aware of its activity, I think not even though it could be programmed to tell you otherwise.
I don’t see that any of the “proofs” compel belief in God because I see other intelligent people that understand the arguments but do not believe. I also believe that belief in God is a gift from God, but a gift that will be given to one seeking that belief. Part of my belief structure includes a belief in an eternal life that can be much more joyous than the present life and may be dependent upon belief in that life. I think that is why God does not intrude his presence upon us in a way that would compel our belief and deprive us of our free will. As a corollary of this I believe he lets natural laws operate most of the time and the temporary misery and suffering that results is minor in the overall scheme of things.
My personal belief has been strengthened by experiencing or knowing of numerous instances of what I think are divine intervention, both personal and public miracles. Reasonable alternate explanations could be given for many of these, but I think not for all.
As a scientist, my belief in God and thus causality strengthens my performance as a scientist. It gives me confidence that there are reasons for all things and causes that can be found. When you are convinced there are answers it I easier to continue the search.
I remember returning to Wood Hall [then home to Biology, Psychology, and some other departments at WMU] after an intense religious renewal weekend [in 1964] and entering it with a sense of awe or reverence for Wood Hall and other buildings and thinking that they somewhat represented temples where both believers and non-believers join in a goal of discovering and teaching about the various aspects or truths of God’s Creation.
A scientist cannot as a scientist deny the existence of God without a suspicion that his/her sample size is too small for such a negative conclusion. A scientist can possibly be agnostic as a scientist by not having motivation to either examine possible reasons to believe or seek belief. Scientists can really be happy scientists when they believe in God and know that the truth of whatever their research reveals will not hurt God but only bring them closer to understanding the Creator through God’s Creation.
__________________
Just as bad science does not invalidate good science, abuses in the name of God do not invalidate God.
All major theistic groups believe in some form of the “Golden Rule”, i.e., treat others as you would like them to treat you.
That has not prevented some adherents from becoming extremists that think their beliefs justify atrocities to support their objectives that show little resemblance to the “Golden Rule”. Although I think one should respect the teaching authority of their religion, I also think an individual should not abandon their own conscience in evaluating the pronouncements of religious leaders. Divine inspiration claimed by others should not be accepted at face value without serious tests of its truth.
“Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Believe in God?”
[That was a title of a colloquium organized by Dr. Richard Malott for the Psychology Department in its 1993 version for his Behavior Analysis Classes at Western Michigan University. In 1992, the title was “Can Scientists and Other Smart Guys Believe in God?” It was an annual event for a few years with two Psychology Faculty presenting a more skeptical view and a Religion Professor and a Biologist (me) presenting different perspectives. The main text of a handout I provided was as follows.]
Rather than be defensive about it, I note that from my perspective it is more reasonable to pose the question – “Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Not Believe in God?”
I take the affirmative and state that I believe in God. If that is accepted at face value, then proof that I am a scientist or intelligent goes a long way toward supporting the affirmative position.
Intellectuals and/or scientists before me have believed in God. Aristotle is credited with being the founder of numerous sciences and is an authority in natural theology providing a number of proofs of the existence of God. Let’s consider some of Aristotle’s proofs.
Proof from causality is that we note from inductive reasoning that everything has a cause, but it stretches the imagination or credulity to think that there could be an infinite number of causes leading to the present event, therefore there must be a First Cause, uncaused, otherwise known as God.
A variant of the proof from causality is the proof from motion. If there were an infinite series of motions leading to present observed motion the movement would not yet have occurred. Therefore, there must have been a first mover or Prime Mover, another name for God.
The order in the universe begs a source of that order; we do not have true chaos but order and direction due to its creator, God.
Some observers look at diverse human populations and cultures and see that these all exhibit similar moral themes and behavior that leads them to believe in a source, God.
Are Aristotle’s 2300 year old proofs still valid? I think so. Does the new knowledge science gives us have anything to contribute? Time has not diminished Aristotle’s arguments because they are based on reason and abstractions from the real world that have not changed. But I think there are some modern proofs for the existence of God that science has made possible. Most modern proofs have their roots in the ancient proofs from causality, but consider the following.
The Big Bang theory of origin of the universe, if correct, implies a start that seems to require a creator.
The second law of thermodynamics means there must have been a starting point or an infinity of time would have us now at an ultimate state of entropy.
Forces acting across vacuums as do gravity and various electro-magnetic forces defy reason for existence in an uncaused system. This caused me to hypothesize a new mechanism for gravity: an infinity of cosmic particles (perhaps photons) randomly streaking or bouncing around the universe and forcing things apart but forcing them together as does gravity when proximity to another body shades the adjacent sides.
My own consciousness and understanding of biology leads be to a belief in God. How I function mentally is reducible to a physical mechanism that could be simulated by a computer. But I have a self-awareness that transcends the physical process. The human activity could be simulated by a computer; but would it be aware of its activity, I think not even though it could be programmed to tell you otherwise.
I don’t see that any of the “proofs” compel belief in God because I see other intelligent people that understand the arguments but do not believe. I also believe that belief in God is a gift from God, but a gift that will be given to one seeking that belief. Part of my belief structure includes a belief in an eternal life that can be much more joyous than the present life and may be dependent upon belief in that life. I think that is why God does not intrude his presence upon us in a way that would compel our belief and deprive us of our free will. As a corollary of this I believe he lets natural laws operate most of the time and the temporary misery and suffering that results is minor in the overall scheme of things.
My personal belief has been strengthened by experiencing or knowing of numerous instances of what I think are divine intervention, both personal and public miracles. Reasonable alternate explanations could be given for many of these, but I think not for all.
As a scientist, my belief in God and thus causality strengthens my performance as a scientist. It gives me confidence that there are reasons for all things and causes that can be found. When you are convinced there are answers it I easier to continue the search.
I remember returning to Wood Hall [then home to Biology, Psychology, and some other departments at WMU] after an intense religious renewal weekend [in 1964] and entering it with a sense of awe or reverence for Wood Hall and other buildings and thinking that they somewhat represented temples where both believers and non-believers join in a goal of discovering and teaching about the various aspects or truths of God’s Creation.
A scientist cannot as a scientist deny the existence of God without a suspicion that his/her sample size is too small for such a negative conclusion. A scientist can possibly be agnostic as a scientist by not having motivation to either examine possible reasons to believe or seek belief. Scientists can really be happy scientists when they believe in God and know that the truth of whatever their research reveals will not hurt God but only bring them closer to understanding the Creator through God’s Creation.
__________________
Just as bad science does not invalidate good science, abuses in the name of God do not invalidate God.
All major theistic groups believe in some form of the “Golden Rule”, i.e., treat others as you would like them to treat you.
That has not prevented some adherents from becoming extremists that think their beliefs justify atrocities to support their objectives that show little resemblance to the “Golden Rule”. Although I think one should respect the teaching authority of their religion, I also think an individual should not abandon their own conscience in evaluating the pronouncements of religious leaders. Divine inspiration claimed by others should not be accepted at face value without serious tests of its truth.
The above was not presented in my biology classes because it did not seem to be appropriate content. The context of both views being represented in an event outside of a classroom did seem to make it appropriate.
Joseph Engemann, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. April 13, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
WHERE IS GOD IN SCIENCE?
It may be an impossible question because the relationship of God to science encounters some of the same concerns that make the separation of church and state such a valuable part of life in our country. It is just as important that scientific principles are independent of spiritual considerations. But it is reasonable for legitimate governmental processes to apply and enforce moral/ethical principles when science impinges on human welfare.
Scientists, who accept God as the Creator of the world responsible for the physical/chemical principles of matter endowed with forces that interacted to produce the universe with the world as we know it, have no basis for finding the principles of science to be different from those denying God's existence.
Some who believe in God depart from evidence based science to rely on literal interpretation of biblical stories. "Creation Science" is flawed by such a departure from valid science. They are like the "flat earth" scientists of a few generation before them, skewing science to fit scripture.
CAUSALITY
A proper understanding of causality is important in science. Advances in science are often tied closely to finding causes. Projecting back in time to earlier and earlier causes, it seems like the "Big Bang" creation of the world has no understandable preceding cause for those not believing in God as the Creator. Even a repeated sequence of big bangs does not satisfy our reason as well as does an infinite spiritual being, infinite in goodness, power, knowledge, love, and not bound by time or any other constraints as the same Creator's will provides the good things of creation.
GOOD AND EVIL
It seems to me that good and evil did not exist in the material world until humans came along by the evolutionary process God directed in the original instructions for creation. The celestial fireworks of heavenly bodies cooled somewhat as planets formed and the evolutionary process produced beings capable of sensing awe of the wonders of the world. When the social structure and relationships reached a stage planned and pleasing to God a touch of spiritual life gave us the ability to understand values including good and evil.
I don't presume to speak for God. God has left a message to us via a series of prophets and ultimately His Son. The books of the New Testament are the clearest record of his message. It seems that the touch of the Spirit of God reaches even those without knowledge of scripture. The touch of God is sometimes visible in the material world as miracles that are unrecognizable by those not believing in God.
Each miracle is a unique event and as such is not accessible to a scientist to meet the criterion of repeatability needed for scientific proof. The unbelieving scientist "knows" some of the data is missing or flawed. Not all of them can expect to be given a dramatic awakening such as the way St. Paul had a personal introduction to Jesus Christ.
GOD AND SCIENCE
God and Science will occupy two irreconcilable aspects of our knowledge until we personally accept God. The acceptance may come gradually, intermittently, or instantly. I will probably make my next post one that may help bring that acceptance for some.
Joe Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2017
Scientists, who accept God as the Creator of the world responsible for the physical/chemical principles of matter endowed with forces that interacted to produce the universe with the world as we know it, have no basis for finding the principles of science to be different from those denying God's existence.
Some who believe in God depart from evidence based science to rely on literal interpretation of biblical stories. "Creation Science" is flawed by such a departure from valid science. They are like the "flat earth" scientists of a few generation before them, skewing science to fit scripture.
CAUSALITY
A proper understanding of causality is important in science. Advances in science are often tied closely to finding causes. Projecting back in time to earlier and earlier causes, it seems like the "Big Bang" creation of the world has no understandable preceding cause for those not believing in God as the Creator. Even a repeated sequence of big bangs does not satisfy our reason as well as does an infinite spiritual being, infinite in goodness, power, knowledge, love, and not bound by time or any other constraints as the same Creator's will provides the good things of creation.
GOOD AND EVIL
It seems to me that good and evil did not exist in the material world until humans came along by the evolutionary process God directed in the original instructions for creation. The celestial fireworks of heavenly bodies cooled somewhat as planets formed and the evolutionary process produced beings capable of sensing awe of the wonders of the world. When the social structure and relationships reached a stage planned and pleasing to God a touch of spiritual life gave us the ability to understand values including good and evil.
I don't presume to speak for God. God has left a message to us via a series of prophets and ultimately His Son. The books of the New Testament are the clearest record of his message. It seems that the touch of the Spirit of God reaches even those without knowledge of scripture. The touch of God is sometimes visible in the material world as miracles that are unrecognizable by those not believing in God.
Each miracle is a unique event and as such is not accessible to a scientist to meet the criterion of repeatability needed for scientific proof. The unbelieving scientist "knows" some of the data is missing or flawed. Not all of them can expect to be given a dramatic awakening such as the way St. Paul had a personal introduction to Jesus Christ.
GOD AND SCIENCE
God and Science will occupy two irreconcilable aspects of our knowledge until we personally accept God. The acceptance may come gradually, intermittently, or instantly. I will probably make my next post one that may help bring that acceptance for some.
Joe Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2017
Saturday, March 25, 2017
LIFE WELL LIVED
A LIFE WELL-LIVED
I often learn something at funerals. It may be the good things about the guest of honor, in this case, a former student being eulogized by the clergyman, on the basis of second-hand knowledge recently gained from his family and friends. The deceased was in his late fifties, he had no wife nor children, a fact of life that the octogenarian priest noted he shared with him. He pondered the meaning of a premature death as others have done.
He related the story of a Jewish scholar in Alexandria, Egypt, pondering the question about a hundred years before the birth of Jesus Christ. The scholar did not arrive at an answer but reflected that a life well-lived is more to be desired than a long life. I think most of us would concur. If you believe in an eternal reward for a life well-lived, the length of life becomes somewhat irrelevant.
The greatest life was only about 33 years long; today is an anniversary of his miraculous conception over two thousand years earlier. More recently, Martin Luther King showed what a person can achieve before forty.
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
The fact that I did not remember the former student did not bother me too much. I was at the funeral because his mother was a friend of my wife from working together on some charities years previously. But I realized how few students I still remember from the hundreds taught in the thirty-six years of teaching plus twenty-one years of retirement. Even fewer names from that sub-group are remembered.
I started reflecting on the people that were part of our lives in the past. A next-door neighbor, some fifty years ago, had been very good to us and we had visited her after she retired and moved away, but I couldn’t think of her name. Well, I finally did a dozen or so minutes later. I was telling that to my wife and she said, “you couldn’t remember my name when we were first married.” Unfortunately, that was true several times when stressed by making introductions.
Your name does not have to be known to me in order for me to pray for you, but it helps. I don’t pray for invertebrates, but it was exciting for me to see one for the first time as a specimen in some pond water on a microscope slide a student was examining. It was a tardigrade and it looked just like the line drawing of it in a textbook.
BUCKET LISTS
I doubt that tardigrades would make the bucket list of things to see or do before dying for very many people. They are not quite as spectacular as the Grand Canyon, Denali, a volcano, Waikiki, or the skyscrapers of many cities. Celebrities and famous people and their homes, historical sites, and related tours appeal to many.
One thing that stands out upon reflecting about the many places I’ve visited are the encounters with people. For some reason, when you are traveling it is sometimes easier to talk to strangers. When you are older, I hope you do not regret not getting to know the people you find close to home better. That is one thing travel often makes you realize- people are people and each one has an interesting story to tell. The hazard of that is that if told every time it may get boring. The joy of it is you can have an interesting life just staying home.
A bucket list is not essential. I discovered this most convincingly when I was completing my trip around the world on the way back from Tasmania. Although making new, interesting friends on different segments of the trip; I mostly missed doing it with someone or a group that was part of my normal life. So, wherever you are, be happy.
Joe Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan March 25, 2017
I often learn something at funerals. It may be the good things about the guest of honor, in this case, a former student being eulogized by the clergyman, on the basis of second-hand knowledge recently gained from his family and friends. The deceased was in his late fifties, he had no wife nor children, a fact of life that the octogenarian priest noted he shared with him. He pondered the meaning of a premature death as others have done.
He related the story of a Jewish scholar in Alexandria, Egypt, pondering the question about a hundred years before the birth of Jesus Christ. The scholar did not arrive at an answer but reflected that a life well-lived is more to be desired than a long life. I think most of us would concur. If you believe in an eternal reward for a life well-lived, the length of life becomes somewhat irrelevant.
The greatest life was only about 33 years long; today is an anniversary of his miraculous conception over two thousand years earlier. More recently, Martin Luther King showed what a person can achieve before forty.
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
The fact that I did not remember the former student did not bother me too much. I was at the funeral because his mother was a friend of my wife from working together on some charities years previously. But I realized how few students I still remember from the hundreds taught in the thirty-six years of teaching plus twenty-one years of retirement. Even fewer names from that sub-group are remembered.
I started reflecting on the people that were part of our lives in the past. A next-door neighbor, some fifty years ago, had been very good to us and we had visited her after she retired and moved away, but I couldn’t think of her name. Well, I finally did a dozen or so minutes later. I was telling that to my wife and she said, “you couldn’t remember my name when we were first married.” Unfortunately, that was true several times when stressed by making introductions.
Your name does not have to be known to me in order for me to pray for you, but it helps. I don’t pray for invertebrates, but it was exciting for me to see one for the first time as a specimen in some pond water on a microscope slide a student was examining. It was a tardigrade and it looked just like the line drawing of it in a textbook.
BUCKET LISTS
I doubt that tardigrades would make the bucket list of things to see or do before dying for very many people. They are not quite as spectacular as the Grand Canyon, Denali, a volcano, Waikiki, or the skyscrapers of many cities. Celebrities and famous people and their homes, historical sites, and related tours appeal to many.
One thing that stands out upon reflecting about the many places I’ve visited are the encounters with people. For some reason, when you are traveling it is sometimes easier to talk to strangers. When you are older, I hope you do not regret not getting to know the people you find close to home better. That is one thing travel often makes you realize- people are people and each one has an interesting story to tell. The hazard of that is that if told every time it may get boring. The joy of it is you can have an interesting life just staying home.
A bucket list is not essential. I discovered this most convincingly when I was completing my trip around the world on the way back from Tasmania. Although making new, interesting friends on different segments of the trip; I mostly missed doing it with someone or a group that was part of my normal life. So, wherever you are, be happy.
Joe Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan March 25, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
WATER
WATER
Water-
drop, splash, trickle, dash
torrent, stream, creek, meander
turbid, clear, precious, dear
water
Water-
river, stream
ocean lake
pond, marsh
gulf, bay
fountain, fall
channel, quay
oasis, sluice
salt, fresh
stagnate or use
water
Water-
hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen
hydrogen, hydrogen
oxygen
is water
Water-
bathing, cleaning
cooking, steaming
cooling, quenching
boiling, blanching
water
Water-
vapor, dew
mist, rain
hail, sleet
ice, snow
freeze, thaw
sizzle, drizzle
water
Water
fished, squished
polluted, drained
eutrophic, stained
chemically maimed
water
Water
saline, pure
limpid, clear
tossing, frothing
churning, turning
smooth, placid
water
Water
surf, shore
wave, breaker
feelings of closeness
to our maker;
needed, soothing
renewing, laving
tears, sweating
baptizing, saving
water
Water
softened, piped
distilled, wiped
tanked and drank
pumped, dumped
leaked, sumped
flushed, floated
bridged, boated
water
Water
studied, muddied
channeled, dammed
crudded, flooded
swum and skied
Aquarians and all
will ever need
-water
Joseph G. Engemann
August 10, 1977
as a tentative forward to a
proposed limnology text
Copyright 1981 Joseph G. Engemann
[permission to reproduce is granted for non-profit use and/or for printings of less than 1,000 copies.]
The above was found when looking in my limnology notes from long ago to find something about "Langmuir circulation". I gave up and looked in Wetzel's limnology textbook. It is the seeming cylinders of alternating clockwise and counterclockwise water that, where they converge, push bits of debris or oils into surface streaks paralleling the wind direction. I was thinking it must operate in the atmosphere on a much larger spatial scale and be responsible for some of the streaky weather patterns at times seen in rain, snow, and clouds. I was going to send an email asking the weatherman for the Kalamazoo Gazette if they use that type of phenomenon to explain small scale weather patterns.
Joe Engemann retired, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan March 16, 2017
Water-
drop, splash, trickle, dash
torrent, stream, creek, meander
turbid, clear, precious, dear
water
Water-
river, stream
ocean lake
pond, marsh
gulf, bay
fountain, fall
channel, quay
oasis, sluice
salt, fresh
stagnate or use
water
Water-
hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen
hydrogen, hydrogen
oxygen
is water
Water-
bathing, cleaning
cooking, steaming
cooling, quenching
boiling, blanching
water
Water-
vapor, dew
mist, rain
hail, sleet
ice, snow
freeze, thaw
sizzle, drizzle
water
Water
fished, squished
polluted, drained
eutrophic, stained
chemically maimed
water
Water
saline, pure
limpid, clear
tossing, frothing
churning, turning
smooth, placid
water
Water
surf, shore
wave, breaker
feelings of closeness
to our maker;
needed, soothing
renewing, laving
tears, sweating
baptizing, saving
water
Water
softened, piped
distilled, wiped
tanked and drank
pumped, dumped
leaked, sumped
flushed, floated
bridged, boated
water
Water
studied, muddied
channeled, dammed
crudded, flooded
swum and skied
Aquarians and all
will ever need
-water
Joseph G. Engemann
August 10, 1977
as a tentative forward to a
proposed limnology text
Copyright 1981 Joseph G. Engemann
[permission to reproduce is granted for non-profit use and/or for printings of less than 1,000 copies.]
The above was found when looking in my limnology notes from long ago to find something about "Langmuir circulation". I gave up and looked in Wetzel's limnology textbook. It is the seeming cylinders of alternating clockwise and counterclockwise water that, where they converge, push bits of debris or oils into surface streaks paralleling the wind direction. I was thinking it must operate in the atmosphere on a much larger spatial scale and be responsible for some of the streaky weather patterns at times seen in rain, snow, and clouds. I was going to send an email asking the weatherman for the Kalamazoo Gazette if they use that type of phenomenon to explain small scale weather patterns.
Joe Engemann retired, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan March 16, 2017
Friday, March 3, 2017
VALUES AND RISKS OF RESEARCH FOCUS
The importance of research focus
When focus
is maintained on a research topic success in publication of results is likely
to follow. Not only will the researcher
more easily add new elements to their topic, reviewers will be aware of the
publication record and assume you are well qualified in the topic and
publication is justified.
An
additional important aspect is the ease of keeping current in the pertinent
literature. The beginner in a topic has
the difficulty of mastering the literature with searches of older literature, pertinent
peripheral topics, and newly published material. Attendance at professional society meetings
is very beneficial in learning what are the current hot topics and who is working
on them.
Role of literature cited in manuscript evaluation
Lack of
citation of key research papers can result in rejection of submissions to
professional journals. Citing the most
recent review articles is helpful in reducing the need for citing countless
older articles. The most recent
publication of materials and methods you use is important to cite to show you are
up to date as well as to simplify your discussion of that aspect if you
have not made modification of the materials and methods.
The hazards of research focus
The danger
of becoming obsolete can plague older researchers who have pursued their topic
to where their work is finding more and more about less and less with sadly
declining value. In my search of
literature on isopods I encountered many redundant lists of measurements
of isopod leg segments published in an old prestigious French science journal
and authored by the editor. Journals
sometimes become less valuable when editors and/or reviewers become narrowly
focused.
Some
molecular work on evolution of phyla has suffered because the accepted standard
ignoring generation time is too often applied and older peripheral knowledge of
other disciplines is ignored.
My lack of
focus, or frequent change of focus, has been detrimental to success in publishing
research results. Often it was one
submission and out if a rejection was encountered. Unfortunately, many manuscripts were never
submitted because they were produced over such a long time that I felt a need, not easily met, to catch up on recent literature to update the manuscripts. Many of the most cited research papers of others were rejected many times before publication.
Jumping in
to new topics can make review of pertinent literature overwhelming. The help of on-line searches may ease the need for Biological Abstracts, Science Citation Index, and Zoological Record . I also used Chemical Index and Index Medicus for some past searches. Nowadays, Google and Wikipedia are useful for both quick overviews and details to get current. Specialty journals need monitoring for researchers to stay current.
Credibility
Focus, with
success, can bring credibility. Linus
Pauling gained success for his work and Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, he was given attention, in
areas other than his specialty, in some peripheral subjects. Much more than needed amounts of vitamin C
was consumed by many others as a result.
And in a joint paper with E. Zuckercandl he ventured the idea that
generation time did not need attention in molecular clock evolution
studies. That mistake has not yet been
corrected as you can find in numerous other posts on this blog.
Success in one area does not equate to mastery of another area. I will try to avoid applying that observation to current events.
Joseph
Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan March 3, 2017
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Richard Brewer: A Tribute
What did he do?
This morning, as I was reflecting on how to tie up the ends of this blog before it is too late, it occurred to me that one of the friends I usually meet for lunch about once a week had played a significant role in the discoveries I have presented in this blog. It may come as a surprise to him as much as to me because we are usually on opposite ends of the creation/evolution debate. The debate is seldom discussed as our entrenched positions are usually ignored, possibly out of mutual respect.
Richard Brewer joined the Western Michigan University faculty in 1959, a year before I did in 1960. We both retired in 1996, but he had a much more productive record in research, publishing, and teaching. It was so much so that at least once I had nominated him for the Distinguished Faculty Scholar award. You can verify his many contributions by examining his website - richardbrewer.org - and find such things as his most recent book on the Land Conservancy or the land trust movement.
He started as a ornithologist and had a prominent role as editor and contributor of Breeding Birds of Michigan. His texts and lab manuals on Ecology published by Saunders had considerable success. He was an original and long time board member of the Kalamazoo Nature Center as well as Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy. He was a dedicated teacher and the major professor of many ecology graduate students. He was instrumental in arranging for the deposit of the library of an early American ecologist into the C. Adams Center Collection of Western Michigan University Library, the collection was for many years housed in the Biology Department.
So how did that help my discoveries related to the Pogonophora?
The Adams Center was the vehicle for publishing a periodical, Occasional Papers of the C. C. Adams Center for many years. It provided a vehicle for subscription exchanges with other science periodicals, including a Norwegian periodical, Sarsia. The two periodicals were not likely to be encountered in most libraries. So it is unlikely that, in their absence, I would have seen the three research papers published in Sarsia by M. Webb, two of which helped me see the extreme longevity of the group, and the other helped show the connection to the Hemichordates.
Why talk about this now?
I have a realization that I won't live in the earthly realm forever. In fact, I am certain that God has extended my stay here to help others realize that evolution and natural selection are part of His plan, and that I have a role in helping others see that is true. I am not the only one to see that God and evolution share that relationship. But it seems to me that I have overwhelming evidence that my findings are far beyond coincidence and serendipity.
The role that God had in my findings is apparent to me, but I have not given all the evidence and somewhat hoped to leave it for posthumous publication of details. How I know that is mysteriously tied up in the faith, reason, knowledge of scripture, and knowledge of nature that God has given me. God is equally generous with his gifts to others. The gentleness of God is infinite like God's love and shown by how good many are that live admirable lives without recognizing God.
Joseph G. Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan February 25, 2017
This morning, as I was reflecting on how to tie up the ends of this blog before it is too late, it occurred to me that one of the friends I usually meet for lunch about once a week had played a significant role in the discoveries I have presented in this blog. It may come as a surprise to him as much as to me because we are usually on opposite ends of the creation/evolution debate. The debate is seldom discussed as our entrenched positions are usually ignored, possibly out of mutual respect.
Richard Brewer joined the Western Michigan University faculty in 1959, a year before I did in 1960. We both retired in 1996, but he had a much more productive record in research, publishing, and teaching. It was so much so that at least once I had nominated him for the Distinguished Faculty Scholar award. You can verify his many contributions by examining his website - richardbrewer.org - and find such things as his most recent book on the Land Conservancy or the land trust movement.
He started as a ornithologist and had a prominent role as editor and contributor of Breeding Birds of Michigan. His texts and lab manuals on Ecology published by Saunders had considerable success. He was an original and long time board member of the Kalamazoo Nature Center as well as Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy. He was a dedicated teacher and the major professor of many ecology graduate students. He was instrumental in arranging for the deposit of the library of an early American ecologist into the C. Adams Center Collection of Western Michigan University Library, the collection was for many years housed in the Biology Department.
So how did that help my discoveries related to the Pogonophora?
The Adams Center was the vehicle for publishing a periodical, Occasional Papers of the C. C. Adams Center for many years. It provided a vehicle for subscription exchanges with other science periodicals, including a Norwegian periodical, Sarsia. The two periodicals were not likely to be encountered in most libraries. So it is unlikely that, in their absence, I would have seen the three research papers published in Sarsia by M. Webb, two of which helped me see the extreme longevity of the group, and the other helped show the connection to the Hemichordates.
Why talk about this now?
I have a realization that I won't live in the earthly realm forever. In fact, I am certain that God has extended my stay here to help others realize that evolution and natural selection are part of His plan, and that I have a role in helping others see that is true. I am not the only one to see that God and evolution share that relationship. But it seems to me that I have overwhelming evidence that my findings are far beyond coincidence and serendipity.
The role that God had in my findings is apparent to me, but I have not given all the evidence and somewhat hoped to leave it for posthumous publication of details. How I know that is mysteriously tied up in the faith, reason, knowledge of scripture, and knowledge of nature that God has given me. God is equally generous with his gifts to others. The gentleness of God is infinite like God's love and shown by how good many are that live admirable lives without recognizing God.
Joseph G. Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan February 25, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)