Over Coffee - 1999 THE MILLENNIUM BUG With only eleven months to go until 2000, is Edinburgh ready if the Millennium Bug does its worst? Should our town's residents hunker down next December 31, or just go ahead and party the night away, safe in the realization that Millennium Bug has checked in to the Y2K Roach Motel? First, let's review the situation briefly. By now, anyone who hasn't spent the last 10 years in a cave has heard about the Millennium Bug, a.k.a. the Y2K problem. Back in the 1970's, computer designers and software programmers bent over backwards to save valuable computer memory space. It was hugely expensive back in those days. Every letter, number, and other character that is typed on the keyboard takes up 8 bits of computer memory. In order to save memory, these early computer gurus expressed all dates using only the last two digits of the year. The idea was everybody knew it was 19-something, so why not save 16 bits worth of memory every time somebody enters a date and just use the last two letters of the year? The trouble with that, of course, is that not all dates begin with "19." Perhaps the early programmers thought computers were just a fad and there would be none in existence past the year 2000; or perhaps they all had tunnel vision, thinking only of saving their precious memory and not realizing they were setting the world up for calamity in 25 years. Whatever the reason, the deed is done. The result is that a non-conforming computer cannot understand the year 2000. Its hardware only looks at the last two digits of the year, so when 2000 gets here, it will see "00" and interpret "1900." This will confuse the computer into thinking that everything in its database is seriously out of date. In a fit of cyber- neurosis, some computers may shut down; others may spew out faulty data. In today's world where everything from wrist watches to washing machines use computer chips, the task of making every piece of software and hardware Y2K compliant is a monumental one. It has already cost billions of dollars. To see what effects the Millennium Bug may have locally, I contacted the two local banks as well as Town Hall. What I heard, basically, was "nothing to worry about." Terry Neville, president of Blue River Savings Bank, said his bank has been working diligently to upgrade their computer system for compliance. "We have installed new teller line equipment and bought some new PCs," Neville said. "We have also been examined by regulators to make sure we're compliant." Neville said the ATMs should also work just fine as their hardware has been updated. Lynn Bierlein, Information Officer for Salin Bank is equally optimistic. "We have gone through extensive planning and testing," he said. "We have been upgrading our software and hardware." He said they were two-thirds finished and should be all done by summer. There has been some concern raised about utilities, such as water and electric. But utilities director Bob Davis said he has been working with the town's software provider to make sure utility bills don't get messed up. And IMPA, the company that supplies Edinburgh's electricity, has also made extensive upgrades to their system, making it unlikely that there will be any power interruptions. If we can believe the experts, Edinburgh should not feel much effect from the Millennium Bug. However, nobody can be sure that every single glitch has been found and fixed. Even Bierlein admits that there might be some small problems at some of his locations. So what does one do to prepare for the Millennium Bug if it should actually show up? And what should one avoid doing? Here are a few do's and don'ts: Do... ...buy an extra few days' worth of non-perishable groceries that do not require cooking or refrigeration. ...make sure you have at least a 2- or 3-day supply of cash on hand. ...buy some bottled drinking water, just in case. Don't... ...withdraw all your money from the bank. If everybody did that, the Millennium Bug would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. ...have elective surgery at midnight on New Years Eve. ...panic. DON'T WATER DOWN THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM There are certain things and events that occur periodically that defy reasonable explanation. Some things leave me in wonder, even dumbfounded, as to how and why they could occur, or be taken seriously. One of these enigmas is the growing tendency for states to water down or discourage the teaching of evolution in high school. The latest state to take this action was Oklahoma. A state text book committee voted to require a disclaimer in biology textbooks stating that evolution is a "controversial theory." "Some of us on the committee wanted to send a strong statement to the publishers that we are fed up with textbooks that only present one side of the story," said one committee member. The problem with that statement is that there is only one side to the story, scientifically speaking. The other "side" to the story is religious dogma, not science. There is no push to force evolution to be taught in Sunday School classes, so why is there such as push to get Adam and Eve taught in science classes? In minute detail, the theory of evolution is somewhat controversial. The controversy, however, is not about whether or not it occurred, but on the intricacies of its mechanism. The theory of evolution is so complex and all encompassing, there are bound to be some scientific disagreements over it, just as there are controversies involving the details of most other scientific theories. The only place that evolution itself is "controversial" is in the Midwest and South of the United States. No other country in the world gives evolution education a second thought. It's simply taught without any more controversy than a math class. And even in this country, at the college level, there is no controversy as to whether or not evolution actually took place. Even most mainstream religions have no problem accepting the science of evolution. The fact is, evolution is a fact -- period. It can be, and has been proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt. That is the main reason why the Creationists, who want their so-called "theory" taught along with evolution in high schools, keep losing court battles. Creationism is not real science, but religion. The trouble comes when most people misunderstand what the word "theory" actually means. Using the layman's definition, it can be a guess or a supposition. But in science, a theory means it really happened. A scientific theory is not a guess, but a complex explanation of events based on facts and data. I cannot stress this enough -- all life on earth, including humans, really did evolve over millions of years from earlier forms of life. No, humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes. But monkeys, apes, and humans did evolve from a common ancestor. The proof is there, and is relatively clear. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is up to them. Regardless of personal beliefs, forcing the teaching of evolution to be watered down or even eliminated does a severe disservice to students, especially those who wish to enter a science-related field. They will be at a disadvantage compared to the more enlightened regions of the country that do not try to sheath evolution in the dogma of religion. I have said this before, and will probably have to say it again in the future. One can believe in God and evolution at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. It's a matter of deciding whether to believe that God is static and rigid in his creations, or that he is dynamic. Did he really create unchanging clones from dust, or did he simply invent the laws of nature, and then let nature take its course. My God did the latter. TESTING COACHES FOR DRUGS A GOOD START The Edinburgh School Board has shown that it has vision by being the first school board in the state to consider requiring coaches to take drug tests. We will soon see if the board also has backbone by officially adopting the new policy under inexplicable objections from the teachers' union. It is difficult to understand why anyone, especially teachers, would object to a general drug testing plan by the school. In fact, the policy should be expanded to include all teachers, staff, and students on an annual basis. Edinburgh schools promote drug awareness in many ways. Students make posters highlighting the negative consequences of drug and alcohol use. They have a Red Ribbon Week to increase awareness in the community, and to allow its students and staff to wear red ribbons proclaiming themselves "drug free." Now that the time has come for the teachers to prove to the students and community that they are drug free, some are balking. But unless a teacher is not drug free, why would he or she object to being tested? The answer to that question might lie in the litigious personalities of a few of the union representatives. At least that would be a more palatable explanation than to believe that some teachers are afraid of the results of the testing. Whatever reason the teachers may have for opposing the adoption of this policy, they should set it aside and embrace the school board's efforts for being the first in the state to take this forceful a stand against drugs. After all, what kind of message does it send to students if their teachers object to being tested for drugs? I can imagine the thought process of some of the students: "Hmm, my teacher doesn't want to be tested for drugs. I wonder if that means he/she is actually taking drugs...." The possibility that a new drug test policy may or may not fit nicely into the current teachers' contract should not be an issue. If it's a good idea, it needs to be implemented. And teachers should waive any legal recourse they may have in favor of accepting and embracing this good idea. I applaud the school board for putting the safety of its students first, and for its foresight. I encourage all who agree to call one of them up and show your support as well. CARBOHYDRATES ARE TO BLAME FOR OBESITY I read a blurb in the newspaper recently with the headline, "Americans are getting fatter." The article said that, according to figures released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of Americans considered to be obese went from about one in eight in 1991 to one in five last year. Obesity is defined as being 30 percent over ideal weight. The article blamed at least part of the increase in portliness to a lack of exercise, pointing out that residents of the South are getting fatter quicker because they tend to spend much of their time in the hot southern summers just lounging around. The article didn't bother mentioning whether there was any true scientific data regarding the lounging tendencies of southerners, or whether the authors were relying on a stereotyped image. An earlier article related a scientific study showing a definite correlation between obesity and heart disease. To paraphrase, "We told you so; being fat makes you die younger due to heart disease or stroke!" One thing is definitely undisputable: There certainly is a correlation between heart disease and obesity. But the researchers made one critical error -- their contention that because there is such a correlation, obesity must lead to heart disease. That has not been proven, and probably won't be. It is more likely that both obesity and heart disease are caused by the same factor too much insulin. Two of the biggest misconceptions about obesity are: 1) Being fat is always caused by overeating, and 2) Obesity is the direct cause of cardiovascular disease. Now, I'm no doctor, nor even a nutritionist. But I do know what works for me, and millions of others who are fighting the battle against being fat. I am also well- read on the subject of dieting, and why most diets do not work. When did Americans start getting fat? Ironically, the fatness started piling on just about the time that the low-fat diet craze started catching on in the early 1980's. When the American Medical Association and the American Diabetic Association came out with their recommendations on diet, and when the government came up with the new "food pyramid," that was the beginning of Fat America. The food pyramid, and the dietary recommendations of the AMA and ADA say that we should all be consuming about 50 to 60 percent of our calories from carbohydrates, with no more than 30% coming from fat. Yet, if you remember your grandparents, or great- grandparents, you probably remember them as being rather thin. Obesity, though it existed, was not very prevalent prior to the 20th century. Heart disease and high blood pressure were virtually unknown until early in this century. What changed? Notably, it was in the late 1800's that sugar-sweetened soft drinks and refined white flour became popular. Less than twenty years later, Americans started dying of heart disease at an ever-increasing rate. And it was then that Americans started to get fatter. Then, in the 1980's, following the high-carbohydrate diet recommendations of those "official" agencies, Americans really started putting on the tonnage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the real culprit here. It's not dietary fat; our great- grandparents ate a lot of it and remained trim. The Eskimos eat a diet consisting of 90 percent fat and stay healthy. No, the real culprits are the highly- processed foods containing sugar and refined flour. Carbohydrates are the real enemy. A high carbohydrate diet leads to increased insulin output. That eventually leads to insulin resistance in susceptible people, meaning that greater amounts of insulin must be produced to keep the blood sugar in check. Insulin causes fat to be stored in the body cells. Insulin also causes hunger, which leads to eating more carbohydrates, which leads to even more insulin production, and the cycle goes on. In January of this year, I weighed 350 pounds; my blood pressure was controlled by medication but still borderline high; I was prone to anxiety attacks; my cholesterol was 205, and, being a diabetic, my blood sugar levels were more than 200. In June, based on a recommendation from my doctor, I stopped eating sugar, bread, potatoes, pasta, grains, and most fruits. Instead, I started eating lots of eggs (between two and eight per day), lots of meat, green vegetables, and cheese. I started using real butter, real salad dressing (ranch or bleu cheese), and stopped buying "fat free" foods. The result? I now weigh 307 and am still dropping; my blood pressure is 130/80; my cholesterol is 163, and my blood sugar has dropped to normal. I also have more energy and am less prone to anxiety. There are thousands, maybe millions, of other obese and formerly obese people in America with the same story. My only question now is, when will the ADA and AMA start acknowledging that sugar and flour are the real enemies, not fat? NATIVITY SCENE IS APPROPRIATE FOR COMMUNITY One night next month, for a few hours, the Edinburgh School Corporation will play host to one of the most recognizable of Christian symbols the Nativity. The Nativity scene, sponsored by the Edinburgh Ministerial Association, depicts the Baby Jesus and his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, along with a host of other biblical characters. This has raised questions about whether or not it was an appropriate decision on the part of the school to allow such a blatantly religious icon to be erected on school grounds for public display. An area newspaper has come out against the decision. I certainly am a proponent of the constitutional separation of church and state. I can understand the logic behind not allowing religion to be taught in school, or of not allowing time to be set aside in a public school for the purposes of prayer. Suppose, for example, a person is a member of, say, the Baptist denomination in a hypothetical community in which 85 percent of the residents are Baptists. Let's also assume that 10 percent of the community belongs to other Christian denominations, and that only 5 percent either are atheists or belong to some non-Christian religion. Suppose that the school system in this hypothetical town sets aside a moment for a watered-down Christian- style prayer and that it always displays Christian symbols at Christmas and Easter. Naturally, the 85 percent of the population who are Baptist would not see a reason to complain. The 10 percent who are non-Baptist Christians might also tolerate the more conservative slant. But what about the remaining 5 percent? Their children must also attend the public school in the hypothetical town, or they must pay to go to a private school. Are these minority of children being cheated by having to listen to the prayers of, and look at the symbols of a religion that is not their own? Are not these prayers and symbols sponsored by a government entity that is supported by the taxes that their parents help pay? What if the situation were reversed, and 95 percent of the population of a community were Jewish or Muslim or Hindu? What if your Christian family had to be exposed to these non-Christian symbols and non-Christian devotionals at the public school? You see, the Constitution protects the rights of everyone to worship as they wish. It does this by prohibiting the government from adopting one official religion over another, and by prohibiting the government from denying anyone their rights to believe in whatever god they choose even if it is no god at all, and even if the believers are in the minority. In our democracy, the majority has great power, but not total power. The Constitution protects the basic rights of the minority from the impositions of the majority. All that being said, I believe that the school has interpreted the will of the community appropriately in this case. The school system has a policy of renting out its property to any organization for $20. It charged the ministerial association $20. So the school is not preferring one group to another. Everyone is being treated fairly and equally. In addition, the school is counting on the relative religious homogeneity of the community. It knows that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is unlikely to take any action in the absence of an official complaint by a taxpayer. And it has assumed that no taxpayer in Edinburgh is so offended by the Nativity scene that they are willing to file a lawsuit over it. I believe these are safe assumptions. I don't believe anyone will be harmed by the display. And, as they say -- no harm, no foul. AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO SHOP FOR CHRISTMAS There are only 18 shopping days until Christmas -- like you needed somebody to remind you of that, right? Christmas shopping is a chore that people either love or hate. I can see the enchantment of going out on a brisk December evening and taking in all the hustle and bustle, the Christmas lights and decorations, and the general atmosphere of the season. There is a certain appeal to Christmas shopping, although that appeal probably stops at the end of a long line at the checkout. Of course, one way to avoid the larger crowds of the city is to do as much of your Christmas shopping as you can right here in Edinburgh. That's right, you can find lots of Christmas presents right here in town, or at Prime Outlets, (which is, by the way, considered part of Edinburgh). The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce ran a promotional campaign back in March of this year called "Edinburgh First." It was an attempt to educate the public about the shopping possibilities right here in town. Not only will you avoid the larger crowds, but you will be helping local merchants by keeping your money here in Edinburgh. Probably not every item you intend to buy can be purchased locally. But there is still a good way to avoid the big city crowds even if you don't do all your shopping in Edinburgh. I do the majority of my Christmas shopping without ever leaving the comfort of my own living room! It has grown enormously over the past couple of years. Internet shopping via e-commerce web sites is taking the country (and world) by storm. You can literally order almost anything on the Internet, usually at a discount. You can buy toys at toysrus.com or etoys.com; you can pick up the latest CD releases at amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, or cdnow.com. You can purchase books or software, too. If you want apparel, try jcpenney.com. How about some popcorn, or chocolates? Get it locally by going downtown, or just go to notjustpopcorn.com. Is there a musician on your Christmas list? Try musiciansfriend.com. And, of course, there is even a wal-mart.com to buy just about anything else you can think of. And all those sites are just a few of the places you can buy stuff online. People seem to be getting over their original apprehension about online shopping. They are starting to see that it is quite safe -- safer than giving your credit card number over a telephone, for instance. Unless you're one of the people who revel in holiday crowds or unless you really don't mind standing in long lines, check out the shops in Edinburgh, then get online to order everything else. You'll be amazed at how easy it really is. DESPITE NASA TROUBLES, SPACE PROGRAM STILL IMPORTANT NASA has certainly had its problems over the past few years. In the early part of this decade, it seemed like there were more failures than successes on NASA's tote board, including the ill-fated Hubble Space Telescope. More recently, however, NASA's black eye was beginning to heal, thanks to some high-profile and very successful missions. A mission was sent to repair the Hubble Telescope, for example. And last year, there was a successful Mars landing that employed a small robotic rover that was sent out to explore Martian rocks and soils. It sent back some excellent photos of the Martian surface, not to mention reams of data. The first round of NASA failures, beginning with the ill-fated Challenger space shuttle, was due to mismanagement and complacency. It led to a wholesale overhaul of the space agency, and resulted in a more efficient use of time and money, with an emphasis on safety. More recently, NASA has started to see an increase in the failure rate of missions again. Two spacecraft that were to study Mars were lost just in the past three months. These more recent failures, however, probably stem from the fact that NASA is severely underfunded. The agency is trying to do too much with too little. There are those who question the importance of sending spacecraft to far-off worlds. They question what good it will do us. They say the money would be better spent on education or to help eliminate poverty. That way of thinking is shortsighted. It fails to recognize all the positives that have come out of the space program. Hundreds, even thousands of items we use every day were made possible by the space program. Everything from freeze-dried coffee to the computer chip that keeps your car engine running is a direct or indirect result of the space program. It would be difficult to imagine the things we take for granted but which would not have been possible if it were not for the space program. But space exploration provides far more for our society than gadgets. It is much more important than to simply supply fringe benefits for our modern world. Probably the most important reason the space program should not only be continued, but better funded, are the other things it provides that are not so obvious the intangibles. What price is too much to pay for a depth of understanding that could not be achieved without exploration? Why do parents send their children to school, compulsory education laws aside? Why do parents encourage their children to participate in things like athletics, choir, band, and other nonessential aspects of education? Why are field trips to art museums and stage productions considered positive educational experiences? And why do we force our children to learn about history, the arts, humanities, or even science? Is it not possible for people to get by knowing only the minimal basics of education? Some people have done quite well in life, having no more than a sixth-grade reading level, and knowing only basic arithmetic. So why is it so important for children to learn all the "extras?" The successful people who lack a good formal education are usually the first to encourage kids to stay in school and learn all they can. The fact is, those "extras" are just as important as the basics. No parent wants to deny their child a comprehensive education. And yet, it is sometimes very difficult to express to a student why it is important to learn all they can about a variety of subjects. "Why do I need to know what happened in 1812," they ask. "Why should I learn how to solve algebraic equations? I'll never need to know how to do that in life!" Children fail to realize that the problem-solving techniques they develop while learning how to solve those equations will be of great help in a variety of real-life situations. And the higher-order learning that is achieved through a rich and well-varied education is immeasurable. The same arguments can be related to space exploration. There are those who don't really care whether or not there is microscopic life on Mars, or if there is water under the surface. There are those who can't really see the importance of learning what it's like on another planet, just as some children don't see the importance of learning algebra or of observing works of art in a museum. But the rewards are always greater than the investment, even if those rewards are not immediately apparent. Michael Faraday, one of the pioneers of electricity, once performed an impressive demonstration showing the effects of an electric current on charged pieces of foil. The audience was impressed. But one gentleman stood up and said to Faraday, "It's quite impressive, but of what practical use is it?" Faraday quickly responded, "Of what practical use is a newborn baby?" When the future rewards, even the intangible ones, start flowing in, will we still have to ask of what practical use is the exploration of space? RESPONDING TO EVOLUTION'S CRITICS Occasionally, opinions expressed in this column will elicit written responses from my readers. I consider it a positive thing, whether those responses are in agreement with my original opinion or not. Everyone has the same right to express his opinion as I have to express mine, and for that reason, I typically do not respond to those who respond to me. I've had my say; I usually let them have theirs without interference. However, sometimes an opinion is offered that is based upon misleading, or misunderstood information. In those cases, I feel a responsibility to point out the faulty logic that is the basis of these responses. A few weeks ago, I wrote that the theory of evolution should continue to be taught, unfettered, in public schools. I received some responses disagreeing with some of my statements regarding evolution. And, as I said, there is certainly nothing wrong with people disagreeing with me. It happens all the time! I do feel, however, that I need to clarify my position, as well as to point out some inaccuracies in those responses. Someone once said, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." And, over the years, I have come to realize that the majority of those who disagree with my opinion regarding the theory of evolution have only a little knowledge of how evolution works. For example, they point out that evolution does not seem to obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I find it somewhat ironic that people would try to dismantle one scientific principal by using another. Nevertheless, the notion that evolution cannot be possible because it violates thermodynamic principals is a fallacy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, things will tend to become naturally more disordered. In other words, entropy increases by nature. A clean room left unattended will become dirty and eventually will deteriorate with age. On the other hand, a messy room that is left unattended will never clean itself up. The theory of evolution states that the complex life forms that exist today came from simpler, less complex forms of early life. Although that seems to violate the Second Law, closer scrutiny will show that it does not. First of all, the laws of thermodynamics apply only to "closed systems." Closed systems are those in which energy remains constant. The earth is not a closed system. It continually receives large amounts of concentrated energy from solar radiation, from geothermal heat, volcanoes, lightning, and so forth. Secondly, even in closed systems, the laws of thermodynamics allow for "momentary" lapses on the road to disorder. For example, galaxies form from primordial cosmic dust; a tornado forms from random wind patterns, but it lasts only a short time. In the end, entropy will win out, but on the road to entropy lies many temporary, highly-ordered systems. Life is one of those systems. For these reasons, and others, the theory of evolution does not violate any laws of physics. The notion that it does so is meer fallacy. Another charge against the theory of evolution is that it is no more scientific than creationism. That is utter nonsense. There are many differences between creationism and evolution, not the least of which is that the theory of evolution was arrived at using strictly scientific methodology, whereas creationism was arrived at by employing a belief system. The most important difference is the starting point. Evolution, like any other scientific theory, developed from an original position of not knowing the answer. How did life on earth develop? What are the mechanisms of change? These early questions were gradually answered over the years by accumulating vast amounts of scientific evidence. This evidence was pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle until the picture of evolution started to appear. To be sure, there are still pieces of the puzzle missing, but the picture is still apparent. On the other hand, creationism started out from a position of already having the answer: That God created everything in six days. From that assumption (belief), creationists worked backward to find "evidence" that fit their preconceived dogma. The evidence that fit their belief system was retained. Any conflicting evidence was discarded. This method of reasoning is the total opposite of the scientific system. On a related note, I have been accused of being dogmatic with respect to my beliefs in evolution. However, and you have only my word on this since I can offer no proof, but I believe what the facts and evidence show me. If scientists ever accumulated enough evidence against the theory of evolution so that the theory had to be abandoned or changed, I would accept their conclusions, based solely on the new evidence. That is not likely to happen, but if it did, then my position regarding evolution would change. Creationists, however, are by definition totally recalcitrant in their beliefs. No amount of evidence or "proof" would cause them to change their belief and to accept evolution as factual. A third fallacy is that it is impossible to accept the theory of evolution and also to believe in God. Nobody really knows what method God used to create the universe. The Bible was written many thousands of years ago in a manner that the people in that ancient culture could understand. The Bible did not speak of evolution because it had not been discovered yet. The Bible is a wonderful and amazing book of spirituality. One must realize, however, that its messages are conveyed using allegory, not history. The old saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding." There certainly is substantial proof that evolution took place -- and not only microevolution, but macroevolution as well. Contrary to what you may have read, there are plenty of transitional fossils. Macroevolution can also be explained by the theory of punctuated equilibrium, an explanation of which is beyond the scope of this column. Nevertheless, many of the details of evolution have been worked out to the satisfaction of the vast majority of biologists. For those who want more detailed information on evolution and how it works, visit the following Web site: http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html.