I’m watching a show on the History Channel about the early Christian church. They are talking about writings by, or about, some of the Apostles, like Peter and Paul, that were excluded from the New Testament for one reason or another. A section of the show is on celibacy and how it came to be part of the doctrine of the early church. Which it didn’t. It became doctrine for a few of the churches but not most, until the Nicene Creed, by which time the practice was so entrenched and protected by special interest groups that it was retained.
In one of the apocrypha, something attributed to Peter, the experts explain that while Paul’s admonition in the New Testament to separate from one another for a time for prayer and meditation, then return to intimacy, Peter advises us to “remain chaste and avoid the [putrefaction] of the flesh.” (Brackets indicate I don’t remember the actual word, but that one is close).
It is assumed from this that Peter is demanding we all be celibate to be counted as serious Christians, and that this is the genesis of the practice in the early church and later Catholicism. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the same misunderstanding Paul suffers from. Chastity is not the same thing as celibacy. Celibacy is the total abstinence from sexual activity. Chastity is maintaining ones purity and virtue, but does not (necessarily) involve abstinence. Chastity is being true to marriage vows, remaining faithful to a spouse, and keeping sexual appetites and activity set within the bounds God gave us. Thus a married woman (or man) who is sexually active and maintaining fidelity, is being chaste. A person maintains his or her virtue through fidelity, not abstinence. Peter was telling the church (assuming the document is authentic) to be chaste in the sense of keeping vows. If they were to stray, they would be subject to the sins of the flesh. Paul was saying the same thing by the way. Neither Christ nor the Apostles ever preached any form of abstinence other than abstinence from adultery and fornication—which are defined as extra-marital sex and pre-marital sex. Indeed, marriage is one of the saving ordinances given us by God. Remember, He didn’t tell Adam and Eve to reject one another, He told them to multiply, and replenish the earth. These days sex is so mundane, promiscuity so common, that it no longer occurs to anyone that the Apostles might have been speaking about pre-and extra-marital sex. Society can now only imagine they must have been talking about no sex at all, because these days the only realities are sex or no sex, nothing in between. It’s too bad really. Makes God’s job that much harder.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
WIMPS
There’s an interesting article in Physorg.com this morning. Something called the Cryogenic Dark Matter Research Project, being run by Fermi Labs and involving several universities, made a major announcement today. Which is; they still haven’t found any dark matter. The experiment involves some cryogenically chilled crystals that will make a sound if WIMPs happen by and interact. WIMP’s of course, are Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, thought to be the best candidate for dark matter. The announcement was all about how the CDMRP had “regained” the lead in the search for dark matter. Better equipment, much more sensitive crystals and less background noise. They said the new device should be able to detect WIMPs even if only two or three impact it during the course of a year. The scientists tried, but were unable to keep me from noticing the big “NO DETECTION” comment towards the end of the article. I’m not making fun of the fact that they haven’t found anything yet (yes I am) because sometimes these things take a while. Why, look how long Crypto-Zoologists have been looking for The Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch and Chupacabra, Madeline O’Hare, and Jimmy Hoffa, and they still haven’t hit pay dirt. No, my complaint is that they held this big press conference to announce they haven’t found anything yet, despite exponential improvements to their detectors. As I always say, Dark Matter may exist, but I’m waiting for some hard evidence. The universe expanding faster than it should be is not hard evidence.
IGM Alien Intelligence
Interesting article at Phys.org this morning. The headline reads thusly: E.T. not likely to have human-like intelligence: Astronomer.
The astronomer, a Dr. Charlie Lineweaver, speaking at a conference in Australia, says he is reviewing the major patterns of evolution on earth. Apparently, he plans to make the case that since no other life form has evolved intelligence closely resembling ours, it is unlikely that an alien life form would develop intelligence similar to our own. Really? I guess that makes sense. In fact, it makes such good, obvious sense, that I daresay it might be a waste of time and money to actually study it. But then he goes on to say;
“If human-like intelligence were so useful, we should see many independent examples of it in biology, and we could cite many creatures [which] had evolved on independent continents to inhabit the ‘intelligence niche'.
Since when did usefulness become a hallmark of evolution? I thought it was all random, accidental, processes— mute, blind, and wandering on the winds of chance. Oh wait, once a mutation occurs and is “useful”, it begins to breed true. I believe the phrase is “natural selection”. Interesting word, selection. It implies a number of possible scenarios and a process of decision-making (selection). Sounds almost like some kind of intelligence is involved, doesn’t it?
And is the good doctor implying that intelligence isn’t useful? And if that were the case why would it exist at all? Because according to the laws of evolution, intelligence is no more important, or likely, than yellow feathers or scales or a noxious odor. Many scientists claim that intelligence actually gets in the way of survival, that it is a hindrance. Of course, if that were accurate, intelligence would not have been “selected” and bred true. Right? Personally, I find intelligence pretty handy.
But that’s not what piqued my interest. It was the notion that we might not recognize alien intelligence, even if we saw it. Then how would we be able to determine something was intelligent? We have examples in the animal kingdom (here on earth) of very complex social structures, and behavior sets, all of which effectively mimic intelligence. But ants and birds aren’t “intelligent”. Do you remember that episode of Star Trek (the original) where they encounter a blob of mobile rock that turns out to be a silicon-based, intelligent life form? Spock uses his mind-meld to figure out the thing was only trying to protect its young from a mining operation. (The young being round blobs of pure silicone about the size and shape of a breast implant. But not as hard.) But the humans had no way to communicate with the creature, no way to test for intelligence.
I’ve had an idea for a novel in mind for some time based on this very problem. It’s a First Contact story. Humans encounter life somewhere in the galaxy. The aliens are obviously intelligent (they are in a starship) but do not answer our attempts to communicate. The entire book would be an account of the humans attempting to communicate with the aliens, and the aliens trying to do the same. But the two species are so different, so “alien” that a common ground is never found—perhaps cannot be found. The end of the book would be the human expedition finally giving up in defeat and leaving the alien craft floating in interstellar space. The aliens leave as well, and continue with their journey of exploration. I haven’t written it yet because of the obvious challenge of writing from the point of view of a species with which humans are unable to communicate and where there is no chance of common understanding. Tricky, but I’m mulling it over.
I would counter Lineweaver’s thesis by arguing the following: If we encounter intelligent aliens whose “type” of intelligence is sufficiently foreign to our own that we can’t test for it, we will never know they are intelligent. Unless they display mastery over technology, which means they will be similar enough to us that we will be able to communicate somehow.
Many of us suspect that whales and dolphins (among others) are intelligent. But we can’t be sure because we can’t communicate with them. And being able to learn is not a reliable indicator—science is training bacterium to perform tasks. (Of course, by that standard, men and women won’t think of each other as intelligence.) Having a rudimentary language, it seems to me, is not sufficient proof either. Most animals communicate with each other, and many do so with us, but their levels of intelligence do not rise to the self-aware, sentient ability to form abstract ideas and concepts (which do not exist in nature) necessary to include them in the inner circle. At least we don’t think so. We can’t communicate with them well enough to find out.
As some of you know, I firmly believe (and I’m being serious here) that the universe is full of intelligent life. Further, I believe it is human life, with necessary adjustments for varying environments. I do not rule out new species of alien intelligence—that would be a bonus—but my belief is a matter of faith. It is not based on any evidence—other than God’s announcement to Moses and others that He builds planets for his children and populates them across the universe. What? You hadn’t heard? Earth is one of a limitless number of such worlds. But that’s just me. Anything Moses says that God says-- I’m taking to the bank.
The astronomer, a Dr. Charlie Lineweaver, speaking at a conference in Australia, says he is reviewing the major patterns of evolution on earth. Apparently, he plans to make the case that since no other life form has evolved intelligence closely resembling ours, it is unlikely that an alien life form would develop intelligence similar to our own. Really? I guess that makes sense. In fact, it makes such good, obvious sense, that I daresay it might be a waste of time and money to actually study it. But then he goes on to say;
“If human-like intelligence were so useful, we should see many independent examples of it in biology, and we could cite many creatures [which] had evolved on independent continents to inhabit the ‘intelligence niche'.
Since when did usefulness become a hallmark of evolution? I thought it was all random, accidental, processes— mute, blind, and wandering on the winds of chance. Oh wait, once a mutation occurs and is “useful”, it begins to breed true. I believe the phrase is “natural selection”. Interesting word, selection. It implies a number of possible scenarios and a process of decision-making (selection). Sounds almost like some kind of intelligence is involved, doesn’t it?
And is the good doctor implying that intelligence isn’t useful? And if that were the case why would it exist at all? Because according to the laws of evolution, intelligence is no more important, or likely, than yellow feathers or scales or a noxious odor. Many scientists claim that intelligence actually gets in the way of survival, that it is a hindrance. Of course, if that were accurate, intelligence would not have been “selected” and bred true. Right? Personally, I find intelligence pretty handy.
But that’s not what piqued my interest. It was the notion that we might not recognize alien intelligence, even if we saw it. Then how would we be able to determine something was intelligent? We have examples in the animal kingdom (here on earth) of very complex social structures, and behavior sets, all of which effectively mimic intelligence. But ants and birds aren’t “intelligent”. Do you remember that episode of Star Trek (the original) where they encounter a blob of mobile rock that turns out to be a silicon-based, intelligent life form? Spock uses his mind-meld to figure out the thing was only trying to protect its young from a mining operation. (The young being round blobs of pure silicone about the size and shape of a breast implant. But not as hard.) But the humans had no way to communicate with the creature, no way to test for intelligence.
I’ve had an idea for a novel in mind for some time based on this very problem. It’s a First Contact story. Humans encounter life somewhere in the galaxy. The aliens are obviously intelligent (they are in a starship) but do not answer our attempts to communicate. The entire book would be an account of the humans attempting to communicate with the aliens, and the aliens trying to do the same. But the two species are so different, so “alien” that a common ground is never found—perhaps cannot be found. The end of the book would be the human expedition finally giving up in defeat and leaving the alien craft floating in interstellar space. The aliens leave as well, and continue with their journey of exploration. I haven’t written it yet because of the obvious challenge of writing from the point of view of a species with which humans are unable to communicate and where there is no chance of common understanding. Tricky, but I’m mulling it over.
I would counter Lineweaver’s thesis by arguing the following: If we encounter intelligent aliens whose “type” of intelligence is sufficiently foreign to our own that we can’t test for it, we will never know they are intelligent. Unless they display mastery over technology, which means they will be similar enough to us that we will be able to communicate somehow.
Many of us suspect that whales and dolphins (among others) are intelligent. But we can’t be sure because we can’t communicate with them. And being able to learn is not a reliable indicator—science is training bacterium to perform tasks. (Of course, by that standard, men and women won’t think of each other as intelligence.) Having a rudimentary language, it seems to me, is not sufficient proof either. Most animals communicate with each other, and many do so with us, but their levels of intelligence do not rise to the self-aware, sentient ability to form abstract ideas and concepts (which do not exist in nature) necessary to include them in the inner circle. At least we don’t think so. We can’t communicate with them well enough to find out.
As some of you know, I firmly believe (and I’m being serious here) that the universe is full of intelligent life. Further, I believe it is human life, with necessary adjustments for varying environments. I do not rule out new species of alien intelligence—that would be a bonus—but my belief is a matter of faith. It is not based on any evidence—other than God’s announcement to Moses and others that He builds planets for his children and populates them across the universe. What? You hadn’t heard? Earth is one of a limitless number of such worlds. But that’s just me. Anything Moses says that God says-- I’m taking to the bank.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
war and peace
I think there are two main differences between me and most comedians. One, I’m not a comedian, and two, I believe there are some things that are not funny, and should never be treated in a humorous fashion.
With that in mind, I was watching 60 Minutes last night (as I’m sure some of you were) and discovered a “war” going on in Africa I knew nothing about. At first I thought they were talking about Dufar, which is a horrible debacle of human depravity, but this conflict is taking place in the Congo, and I am not at all sure what it is over. A wealth of natural resources I suppose. But unlike the other conflicts we have had the misfortune to suffer—albeit at a distance—this one seems even more heinous. According to Cooper Anderson, more people have been killed in this conflict than any since WWII. Think about that. But in this conflict, which has all the usual characteristics of man’s inhumanity to man, a new and dreadful weapon is being used to great advantage, and even greater perfidy. It is the systematic rape, torture, disfigurement and dismemberment of women. And Children. It is being done in such a way as to terrify entire villages—who are often forced to watch. It is being used as a component of power-brokering. It is being used as a strategy to intimidate a populace. If you saw the segment, then you know that most of the stories are too terrible to even relate here, but I want to mention one as an example. A twenty-four year old woman with two small children was attacked by six “soldiers”. They tied her down and began to rape her, one after another. They gave her brother a flashlight and forced him to hold the light so he could see what was happening. When they were finished, they told the brother to take his turn. Terrified, he refused, saying “I cannot rape my sister.” So the men took out their knives and stabbed the boy to death. They then took the woman and dragged her into the bush to their camp where she was kept for eight months and raped repeatedly every day. She finally escaped, pregnant with one of the rapists children. She kept the baby—a girl—and named her Luck.
Africa is killing itself. I don’t know why, but I am suspicious it is not an accident. Even though it is too hideous to contemplate, I am beginning to believe that someone, some group of people or cabal, a Star Chamber somewhere, wants Africa empty. They want it for themselves. I have no proof of such a thing—I wouldn’t even want proof of such a thing—but it’s the only way I can make any sense out of the slaughter, the petty, mindless killing and torture. I know it happens other places as well, but not on such a scale, and not for so long a time.
And I don’t know how to fix it. I’m not sure I would have the courage to try, even if I did. It will be fixed, eventually, I have a deep and abiding faith that that is true, but having to live through it—even as a distant, vicarious witness—is soul-wrenching. I think most of us feel that way about these kinds of things. We want to help, to make it stop, to go and explain why it is wrong and have them all just say “oh, I see what you mean,” and suddenly become good, but that isn’t going to happen. So what can I do? What can any of us do, individually or as small groups with limited resources and influence? Then it hit me. I am doing something. Nita and I spent our lives doing our best to raise, decent, polite, educated, compassionate children who would never do anything like what is happening in the Congo. We try to be good people every day, with admittedly uneven results, but we are serious about the attempt. We are spreading the only available cure—not just us, but lots of others—you I hope—thousands of people who sacrifice and teach, discipline and love and nurture their children. Millions. And with luck our children will do the same, and their children, and it will spread, just like the madness, the lust to kill and the “will to power” until the charity and compassion, the sincere desire to live lives of peaceful service, prevail. I have little faith that there is any other way. The generation coming up must be given a mandate to be the best, the most moral, virtuous and selfless generation in history. And the generation after that, and so on. If you think that might be the right way to go, pass it along. Become truly involved in the lives of your children, teach them incessantly, cherish them, be the example they need. If your children are grown, help your grandchildren, be a positive presence in their lives. If you have no children—there are plenty to choose from at work every day. Pick a few. Teach them eternal principles, show them values, introduce them to the idea of being good people. It needn’t be “ religious” in nature—all these things are found in the philosophies of men. But if anyone feels strongly about it, make it theological; introduce God, a Supreme Being—do it in a deistic fashion, without the trapping of particular creeds of sects. Do it in spite of the politically correct ideologues, in spite of District policy, in spite of a disingenuous ruling by the High Court. We have to change the direction of the world. Not politically—that doesn’t work. We have to do it individually, then collectively, then universally.
We can’t let Africa—or anywhere else—destroy itself. We need those people. They are us. We need everyone, because everyone has worth. This is a struggle between those who believe human beings have intrinsic worth beyond that of other living things, and those who don’t. When we listen to those who don’t believe in the ascendancy of humanity, we get the Congo, Dufar, South Africa, Iraq, our own national past and so many other tragedies. It’s time to grow up and stop it.
With that in mind, I was watching 60 Minutes last night (as I’m sure some of you were) and discovered a “war” going on in Africa I knew nothing about. At first I thought they were talking about Dufar, which is a horrible debacle of human depravity, but this conflict is taking place in the Congo, and I am not at all sure what it is over. A wealth of natural resources I suppose. But unlike the other conflicts we have had the misfortune to suffer—albeit at a distance—this one seems even more heinous. According to Cooper Anderson, more people have been killed in this conflict than any since WWII. Think about that. But in this conflict, which has all the usual characteristics of man’s inhumanity to man, a new and dreadful weapon is being used to great advantage, and even greater perfidy. It is the systematic rape, torture, disfigurement and dismemberment of women. And Children. It is being done in such a way as to terrify entire villages—who are often forced to watch. It is being used as a component of power-brokering. It is being used as a strategy to intimidate a populace. If you saw the segment, then you know that most of the stories are too terrible to even relate here, but I want to mention one as an example. A twenty-four year old woman with two small children was attacked by six “soldiers”. They tied her down and began to rape her, one after another. They gave her brother a flashlight and forced him to hold the light so he could see what was happening. When they were finished, they told the brother to take his turn. Terrified, he refused, saying “I cannot rape my sister.” So the men took out their knives and stabbed the boy to death. They then took the woman and dragged her into the bush to their camp where she was kept for eight months and raped repeatedly every day. She finally escaped, pregnant with one of the rapists children. She kept the baby—a girl—and named her Luck.
Africa is killing itself. I don’t know why, but I am suspicious it is not an accident. Even though it is too hideous to contemplate, I am beginning to believe that someone, some group of people or cabal, a Star Chamber somewhere, wants Africa empty. They want it for themselves. I have no proof of such a thing—I wouldn’t even want proof of such a thing—but it’s the only way I can make any sense out of the slaughter, the petty, mindless killing and torture. I know it happens other places as well, but not on such a scale, and not for so long a time.
And I don’t know how to fix it. I’m not sure I would have the courage to try, even if I did. It will be fixed, eventually, I have a deep and abiding faith that that is true, but having to live through it—even as a distant, vicarious witness—is soul-wrenching. I think most of us feel that way about these kinds of things. We want to help, to make it stop, to go and explain why it is wrong and have them all just say “oh, I see what you mean,” and suddenly become good, but that isn’t going to happen. So what can I do? What can any of us do, individually or as small groups with limited resources and influence? Then it hit me. I am doing something. Nita and I spent our lives doing our best to raise, decent, polite, educated, compassionate children who would never do anything like what is happening in the Congo. We try to be good people every day, with admittedly uneven results, but we are serious about the attempt. We are spreading the only available cure—not just us, but lots of others—you I hope—thousands of people who sacrifice and teach, discipline and love and nurture their children. Millions. And with luck our children will do the same, and their children, and it will spread, just like the madness, the lust to kill and the “will to power” until the charity and compassion, the sincere desire to live lives of peaceful service, prevail. I have little faith that there is any other way. The generation coming up must be given a mandate to be the best, the most moral, virtuous and selfless generation in history. And the generation after that, and so on. If you think that might be the right way to go, pass it along. Become truly involved in the lives of your children, teach them incessantly, cherish them, be the example they need. If your children are grown, help your grandchildren, be a positive presence in their lives. If you have no children—there are plenty to choose from at work every day. Pick a few. Teach them eternal principles, show them values, introduce them to the idea of being good people. It needn’t be “ religious” in nature—all these things are found in the philosophies of men. But if anyone feels strongly about it, make it theological; introduce God, a Supreme Being—do it in a deistic fashion, without the trapping of particular creeds of sects. Do it in spite of the politically correct ideologues, in spite of District policy, in spite of a disingenuous ruling by the High Court. We have to change the direction of the world. Not politically—that doesn’t work. We have to do it individually, then collectively, then universally.
We can’t let Africa—or anywhere else—destroy itself. We need those people. They are us. We need everyone, because everyone has worth. This is a struggle between those who believe human beings have intrinsic worth beyond that of other living things, and those who don’t. When we listen to those who don’t believe in the ascendancy of humanity, we get the Congo, Dufar, South Africa, Iraq, our own national past and so many other tragedies. It’s time to grow up and stop it.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
CREAVOLUTION
Well, they’re at it again. Only a day after Mike Huckabee ‘won’ the Iowa caucus, “A group of scientists” came out to announce that the United States is “doomed” if a creationist is elected President. As if Huckabee would be the first President in history to entertain an irrational idea. Assuming creationism is irrational. Or that classical evolution is not. The scientists (unnamed for the most part, and I couldn’t find a name for any organization) admit in their own announcement that nearly half of adult Americans (47%, according to this laughable article) do not accept the notion that humans evolved over very long periods of time from lesser life forms. That’s their big argument for banning Creationism? 53% claim to accept the theory. But listen to some of the arguments used to blast creationism:
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming . . .”
I find this an interesting admission. While we all believe smoking to be hazardous, there have been more than a few cases of people smoking their entire lives with no discernible ill-effects. The global warming logic is even weaker. That isn’t even a theory—it’s an opinion. Lots of well-educated people share it, but as many or more do not. If that kind of logic is the best they can do, Creationism doesn’t have much to worry about. But let’s follow that logic back a ways and see where it leads us. In order to accept trans-species evolution, we have to accept the prevailing theory of the creation of the earth, which takes us back four billion years to the accretion of dust and gas, the igniting of our sun and the subsequent forming of the planets, the long bombardment, the “building blocks of life” somehow coming into being, etc. In order to accept all that, we have to go even further back to Inflation, [and now] the appearance of dark matter and energy, then back to the Big Bang. In order to accept the Big Bang and its subsequent faster-than-light inflationary period (because, you know, the speed of light hadn’t been ‘determined’ yet) we have to accept the idea of spontaneous generation—something created from nothing. Here’s why. According to the theory, the universe came into being as the result of a rapid expansion of a “super plasma” which cooled enough to form matter and energy. This original “singularity” is described as a point without reference of any kind, of infinite mass and infinite pressure, balled up into an infinitely small space. An infinitely small space is synonymous with nothing. All of existence must have come from that one point of Everything which is described as having the characteristics of nothing. Later on, we have to accept the idea of non-living elements and combinations thereof, suddenly and miraculously figuring out how to be alive. Even though no one, not even those smarty-pants evolutionists, has any idea at all how something like that might happen—something not-alive becoming alive. And even though for thousands of years our experience has consistently been that only living things are able to create living things. So we know of at least two cases directly related to the theory of evolution in which miracles have to be accepted as articles of faith. No one has an explanation for non-living to living, and no one has an explanation for how or why the singularity existed, or what came before it. Remember, anything that is not infinite—eternal—has to have a cause. What caused the singularity? Science clings to belief and dogma with the same zeal and passion as any believer-in- God.
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other [smoking and energy policy] arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.”
Is he serious? That’s like saying if you don’t believe in Santa Clause, you won’t believe in plate tectonics either. What do those things have to do with one another?
People believe all kinds of crazy things, but that doesn’t make them crazy. I believe God is corporeal, has a body of flesh and bone. Most of the rest of Christianity calls that crazy, heretical, and blasphemous, including many of my friends. But while most of my friends might tell you they find me odd, or even quirky, none of them would call me insane or crazy. Except Gloria, but she’s just jealous.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves how doubting the veracity of the theory of evolution is going to hinder a Presidents ability to make treaties, or deal with congress, or hold State dinners. I can see how the acceptance of Creationism could weaken a Presidents authority; “gee, this guy thinks God made the world! We’d better not trust him to run the military or negotiate with terrorists!”
There are several variations of Creationism, but the one everyone thinks of is the idea that God made the world in six literal days, and that humans were put here after everything else had been selected and placed. Another is a little more liberal—allowing for one of the Lords ‘days’ to be a thousand years, which gives us a little more time to evolve, but not enough to satisfy those paleo-biologists. I like the one which allows us to accept six “creative periods” of indeterminate duration, as it is able to encompass the inexact number scientists love, known as “billions”.
The newest iteration is “Intelligent Design”. This one suggests that the universe is natural and all, plain as your hand in front of your face, but that the level of organization demands some kind of guiding intelligence. This is the same as “God made the world” without mentioning God specifically. If I were God—and I’m not—I think I would resent being left out of my own creation. But that’s just me.
For me the problem isn’t which one is “true” or what should or shouldn’t be taught in school. I’m not at all sure Creationism needs to be in schools. We taught our children the doctrine of our faith starting in the delivery room and reinforced the lessons every day, more or less, until they left home. I was content to let evolution run rampant in the classroom, after all, it’s “logical”. All my kids can explain the theory of evolution well enough to prove themselves literate, but the logic hasn’t weakened their faith in revealed truth. Amazingly, we are able to exist successfully in both worlds with hardly any cranial hemorrhaging at all. Apparently, there are some scientists out there who are not.
"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
That’s a pretty good argument on the face of it. But we do teach astrology after a fashion. At least culturally. You can find your horoscope in most newspapers, popular magazines and on-line. Universities teach it, and not just in classes on mythology or history. Classes are available for Tarot, astrological interpretation and charting. But it’s true they’re not taught as alternatives. At least not officially.
“We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.
That sounds pretty strident for a scientist. Almost like he was afraid of something. Now, I know some people are trying to pass Creationism off as science, and that’s not the brightest idea in the world, but these attacks sound purposefully mean-spirited. Creationism cannot and should not take the place of rigorous scientific inquiry. On the other hand, science has no business trying to suppress and-or eliminate religious inquiry and the religious experience. That will turn out to be a self-defeating behavior--that kind of thing makes it sound as if science is afraid of religion. They claim to be afraid of ignorance and superstition, using those words as poorly disguised synonyms for religion. But I wonder if it is something else. I wonder if some of them are afraid of what they might find at the end of their search. I can easily imagine these rational, “truth”-worshiping researchers laying awake at night, full of an unnamed anxiety, suffering from dreams and night-sweats, unable to name their fear. But I can name it. After all their creativity, and their research and deductions, their brilliant theories delving ever deeper into the heart of the universe, past atoms and bosons and leptons and quarks, past DNA and fossils and natural selection, dark matter and dark energy, strings and superstrings, they will finally come to a place where they can go no further, having not answered the ultimate question. And there, waiting with the answer, which will prove to be a logic beyond logic and a truth encompassing all truth, will be Intelligence. God. Not ‘a’ supreme being, but The Supreme Being. And He will prove to be quite willing to explain it all and there won’t be anything irrational about it at all. The scientists and the religious will both find themselves surprised at their ignorance, superstitions, and the inefficacy of their deeply-held beliefs.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect to be in that group as well. The difference is, I know it.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming . . .”
I find this an interesting admission. While we all believe smoking to be hazardous, there have been more than a few cases of people smoking their entire lives with no discernible ill-effects. The global warming logic is even weaker. That isn’t even a theory—it’s an opinion. Lots of well-educated people share it, but as many or more do not. If that kind of logic is the best they can do, Creationism doesn’t have much to worry about. But let’s follow that logic back a ways and see where it leads us. In order to accept trans-species evolution, we have to accept the prevailing theory of the creation of the earth, which takes us back four billion years to the accretion of dust and gas, the igniting of our sun and the subsequent forming of the planets, the long bombardment, the “building blocks of life” somehow coming into being, etc. In order to accept all that, we have to go even further back to Inflation, [and now] the appearance of dark matter and energy, then back to the Big Bang. In order to accept the Big Bang and its subsequent faster-than-light inflationary period (because, you know, the speed of light hadn’t been ‘determined’ yet) we have to accept the idea of spontaneous generation—something created from nothing. Here’s why. According to the theory, the universe came into being as the result of a rapid expansion of a “super plasma” which cooled enough to form matter and energy. This original “singularity” is described as a point without reference of any kind, of infinite mass and infinite pressure, balled up into an infinitely small space. An infinitely small space is synonymous with nothing. All of existence must have come from that one point of Everything which is described as having the characteristics of nothing. Later on, we have to accept the idea of non-living elements and combinations thereof, suddenly and miraculously figuring out how to be alive. Even though no one, not even those smarty-pants evolutionists, has any idea at all how something like that might happen—something not-alive becoming alive. And even though for thousands of years our experience has consistently been that only living things are able to create living things. So we know of at least two cases directly related to the theory of evolution in which miracles have to be accepted as articles of faith. No one has an explanation for non-living to living, and no one has an explanation for how or why the singularity existed, or what came before it. Remember, anything that is not infinite—eternal—has to have a cause. What caused the singularity? Science clings to belief and dogma with the same zeal and passion as any believer-in- God.
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other [smoking and energy policy] arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.”
Is he serious? That’s like saying if you don’t believe in Santa Clause, you won’t believe in plate tectonics either. What do those things have to do with one another?
People believe all kinds of crazy things, but that doesn’t make them crazy. I believe God is corporeal, has a body of flesh and bone. Most of the rest of Christianity calls that crazy, heretical, and blasphemous, including many of my friends. But while most of my friends might tell you they find me odd, or even quirky, none of them would call me insane or crazy. Except Gloria, but she’s just jealous.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves how doubting the veracity of the theory of evolution is going to hinder a Presidents ability to make treaties, or deal with congress, or hold State dinners. I can see how the acceptance of Creationism could weaken a Presidents authority; “gee, this guy thinks God made the world! We’d better not trust him to run the military or negotiate with terrorists!”
There are several variations of Creationism, but the one everyone thinks of is the idea that God made the world in six literal days, and that humans were put here after everything else had been selected and placed. Another is a little more liberal—allowing for one of the Lords ‘days’ to be a thousand years, which gives us a little more time to evolve, but not enough to satisfy those paleo-biologists. I like the one which allows us to accept six “creative periods” of indeterminate duration, as it is able to encompass the inexact number scientists love, known as “billions”.
The newest iteration is “Intelligent Design”. This one suggests that the universe is natural and all, plain as your hand in front of your face, but that the level of organization demands some kind of guiding intelligence. This is the same as “God made the world” without mentioning God specifically. If I were God—and I’m not—I think I would resent being left out of my own creation. But that’s just me.
For me the problem isn’t which one is “true” or what should or shouldn’t be taught in school. I’m not at all sure Creationism needs to be in schools. We taught our children the doctrine of our faith starting in the delivery room and reinforced the lessons every day, more or less, until they left home. I was content to let evolution run rampant in the classroom, after all, it’s “logical”. All my kids can explain the theory of evolution well enough to prove themselves literate, but the logic hasn’t weakened their faith in revealed truth. Amazingly, we are able to exist successfully in both worlds with hardly any cranial hemorrhaging at all. Apparently, there are some scientists out there who are not.
"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
That’s a pretty good argument on the face of it. But we do teach astrology after a fashion. At least culturally. You can find your horoscope in most newspapers, popular magazines and on-line. Universities teach it, and not just in classes on mythology or history. Classes are available for Tarot, astrological interpretation and charting. But it’s true they’re not taught as alternatives. At least not officially.
“We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.
That sounds pretty strident for a scientist. Almost like he was afraid of something. Now, I know some people are trying to pass Creationism off as science, and that’s not the brightest idea in the world, but these attacks sound purposefully mean-spirited. Creationism cannot and should not take the place of rigorous scientific inquiry. On the other hand, science has no business trying to suppress and-or eliminate religious inquiry and the religious experience. That will turn out to be a self-defeating behavior--that kind of thing makes it sound as if science is afraid of religion. They claim to be afraid of ignorance and superstition, using those words as poorly disguised synonyms for religion. But I wonder if it is something else. I wonder if some of them are afraid of what they might find at the end of their search. I can easily imagine these rational, “truth”-worshiping researchers laying awake at night, full of an unnamed anxiety, suffering from dreams and night-sweats, unable to name their fear. But I can name it. After all their creativity, and their research and deductions, their brilliant theories delving ever deeper into the heart of the universe, past atoms and bosons and leptons and quarks, past DNA and fossils and natural selection, dark matter and dark energy, strings and superstrings, they will finally come to a place where they can go no further, having not answered the ultimate question. And there, waiting with the answer, which will prove to be a logic beyond logic and a truth encompassing all truth, will be Intelligence. God. Not ‘a’ supreme being, but The Supreme Being. And He will prove to be quite willing to explain it all and there won’t be anything irrational about it at all. The scientists and the religious will both find themselves surprised at their ignorance, superstitions, and the inefficacy of their deeply-held beliefs.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect to be in that group as well. The difference is, I know it.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Good news on the tech front
I like to search around for interesting stories that are “under the radar” as they say, especially when they contain new information of a technical nature. I have been preaching a kind of technological optimism for a good while now, and am offering an update on a few new items.
Recently, my son (who is a bigger geek than I am) let me know about two new companies poised to change everything. The first is a top-secret outfit calling itself EESTOR. Nobody knew anything about them directly because they won’t talk to anybody, have made no announcements and shoot to kill when the press comes around. So how do we know anything? Two ways. One; they have suddenly received major funding from some very heavy-hitting adventure capitalist groups, and two; they have filed for a bunch of patents (again without making any announcement). Some enterprising people have reverse-engineered the patents. And a few people are dropping scintillating hints about this new technology.
Apparently they have developed a new energy storage device they are calling a hyper-condenser. Condensers store electricity, similar to batteries. A few of the companies claims follow:
They say the device will be able to store ten times the energy of a lead-acid battery of the same weight, at about an eighth the cost. They device will not degrade like a battery. It will “outlast any commercial device” it powers. They are not corrosive, explosive, or hazardous like chemical batteries (all other types of batteries are chemical) because it is a “solid state battery”.
They recharge in minutes instead of hours, and store a lot more than old tech batteries. This means we could have a battery-powered vehicle that would go 300 miles on a single charge, and recharge in four to six minutes, about the same amount of time it takes to fill your car with gas, go pee and buy a Big Gulp. How’s that for a breakthrough?
The application will make new storage devices possible for laptops and other electronics devices that will double the capacity at again, one-eighth the cost. And it will solve the overheating problem.
Another intriguing company is Nanosolar, out of Palo Alto California. They specialize in photovoltaic technology—converting sunlight directly to electrical energy. Traditional PV panels are made of silicon chips, are heavy, bulky and require a strong supporting frame. The best of them are close to 30 % efficiency. Nanosolar has developed a special “Ink” which is applied to rolling stock of a metal alloy much like a printing press works.
At Nanosolar, we have taken the highest-performance and most durable photovoltaic thin-film semiconductor, called CIGS (for "Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide"), and innovated on all seven critical areas necessary to reach a breakthrough cost reduction in solar cells, panels, and systems.
In other words, they spray on a thin film and the whole thing becomes a semi-conductor. The resulting flexible material can be applied anywhere, attached to virtually anything.
Based on our cell and product design innovations, Nanosolar is capable of delivering high-power solar panels with 5-10 times higher current than other thin-film solar panels on the market today.
This has enabled us to work with our partners and customers to dramatically reduce the balance-of-system cost involved in deploying solar electricity systems.
The amount of current that a panel can support is important because current capacity limitations negatively impact balance-of-system cost and thus power economics.
Photo voltaic technology has traditionally been limited by the cost-to-net energy output. This new film is a major breakthrough. It means they can manufacture the product at pennies on the dollar compared to silicon-based panels, bringing the cost down enough to make the inefficiency of solar collection a moot point. Right now they are 12 months behind on orders, and trying to increase production capacity. Most of their buyers are municipalities or even countries. Germany is buying enough to revolutionize their electrical generation industry.
Imagine the south-facing roof of every house in Las Vegas producing electricity all day long, at a cost-effective price, and making enough power to sell back to the utilities until the sun goes down, then using non-peak prices at night. I’m in. I have known for decades that all this would happen (it’s actually been happening fairly consistently all along if you were willing to look for it) and have been saying forever that when the cost-to-production ratio becomes reasonable, I will buy into the new technology. Smarter people than me told me so, I’m just spreading the good news.
Recently, my son (who is a bigger geek than I am) let me know about two new companies poised to change everything. The first is a top-secret outfit calling itself EESTOR. Nobody knew anything about them directly because they won’t talk to anybody, have made no announcements and shoot to kill when the press comes around. So how do we know anything? Two ways. One; they have suddenly received major funding from some very heavy-hitting adventure capitalist groups, and two; they have filed for a bunch of patents (again without making any announcement). Some enterprising people have reverse-engineered the patents. And a few people are dropping scintillating hints about this new technology.
Apparently they have developed a new energy storage device they are calling a hyper-condenser. Condensers store electricity, similar to batteries. A few of the companies claims follow:
They say the device will be able to store ten times the energy of a lead-acid battery of the same weight, at about an eighth the cost. They device will not degrade like a battery. It will “outlast any commercial device” it powers. They are not corrosive, explosive, or hazardous like chemical batteries (all other types of batteries are chemical) because it is a “solid state battery”.
They recharge in minutes instead of hours, and store a lot more than old tech batteries. This means we could have a battery-powered vehicle that would go 300 miles on a single charge, and recharge in four to six minutes, about the same amount of time it takes to fill your car with gas, go pee and buy a Big Gulp. How’s that for a breakthrough?
The application will make new storage devices possible for laptops and other electronics devices that will double the capacity at again, one-eighth the cost. And it will solve the overheating problem.
Another intriguing company is Nanosolar, out of Palo Alto California. They specialize in photovoltaic technology—converting sunlight directly to electrical energy. Traditional PV panels are made of silicon chips, are heavy, bulky and require a strong supporting frame. The best of them are close to 30 % efficiency. Nanosolar has developed a special “Ink” which is applied to rolling stock of a metal alloy much like a printing press works.
At Nanosolar, we have taken the highest-performance and most durable photovoltaic thin-film semiconductor, called CIGS (for "Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide"), and innovated on all seven critical areas necessary to reach a breakthrough cost reduction in solar cells, panels, and systems.
In other words, they spray on a thin film and the whole thing becomes a semi-conductor. The resulting flexible material can be applied anywhere, attached to virtually anything.
Based on our cell and product design innovations, Nanosolar is capable of delivering high-power solar panels with 5-10 times higher current than other thin-film solar panels on the market today.
This has enabled us to work with our partners and customers to dramatically reduce the balance-of-system cost involved in deploying solar electricity systems.
The amount of current that a panel can support is important because current capacity limitations negatively impact balance-of-system cost and thus power economics.
Photo voltaic technology has traditionally been limited by the cost-to-net energy output. This new film is a major breakthrough. It means they can manufacture the product at pennies on the dollar compared to silicon-based panels, bringing the cost down enough to make the inefficiency of solar collection a moot point. Right now they are 12 months behind on orders, and trying to increase production capacity. Most of their buyers are municipalities or even countries. Germany is buying enough to revolutionize their electrical generation industry.
Imagine the south-facing roof of every house in Las Vegas producing electricity all day long, at a cost-effective price, and making enough power to sell back to the utilities until the sun goes down, then using non-peak prices at night. I’m in. I have known for decades that all this would happen (it’s actually been happening fairly consistently all along if you were willing to look for it) and have been saying forever that when the cost-to-production ratio becomes reasonable, I will buy into the new technology. Smarter people than me told me so, I’m just spreading the good news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)