How is one to discover the nature of the world, except by proposing "metanarratives," and seeing which fits the data the best? Is it really a problem that physics is using relativity and quantum mechanics without much questioning (other than where they do conflict), when these ideas actually describe what is happening?

Is plate tectonics a problem, or a solution to many problems? Well, it's both, but I think that we find its primary value in its great ability to solve problems. The fact that it, like evolution, can raise new problems is part and parcel of a genuinely explanatory theory. But why is it that I hear about the "dangers" of metanarrative from creationists only with respect to ideas with which creationists take issue over religious issues, and not where plate tectonics is the metanarrative (granted, they have plates moving around at highway speeds, never bothering to explain insuperable problems like where all of the heat of the magma went, but they still accept the basics of (though not much of the evidence for) plate tectonics)?

Are scientists "fitting the data to Newton's metanarrative," or are they simply using a proven general conception (in the classical realm) to do science? I really do not doubt that it is the latter.

The fact is that it makes no sense to hash over well-demonstrated concepts time and again. Science would never progress if it didn't learn, and then incorporate certain ideas into the written knowledge of science. Call it dogma, even, if you wish, for it is not fully unlike dogma, even though it is not sacrosanct (MOND questions aspects of Newtonian gravity that have continued to be accepted in the QM/relativity age).

The college general biology textbooks that I have seen do indeed give reasons for accepting evolution. My biochemistry text and cell biology text both accepted it as a known factor in biology, which of course it is. The observation that evolutionary ideas permeate biology is due to a very important fact--this being that evolutionary effects are evident in nearly all aspects of biology.

I do not think that evolution permeating biology textbooks and journals is at all unwarranted, so long as it remains the primary organizing principle in biology.

Glen Davidson

"A theory is merely a way of organizing ideas that seem to make sense of the world."

If all theories are based on that premise, how is the biblical creation narrative not also a theory based on its writers attempt at making sense of their world?

What other such theories, developed long ago, are still accepted as the last word today? Have we advanced or do we still remain in the scientific dark ages by accepting, unquestiongingly, their theories of the world?

Eric -- not to do with "astrophysics" -- just regular ol' particle physics:
The Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland went live today. You heard about it?
A couple physicists at my university are involved with that project and are pretty excited.

Hehe, yes, definitely aware of the LHC. I hung out with my friends in the Physics department this morning, and we discussed the ludicrous black-hole doomsdays stuff for a while, and some freshman got detailed explanations of what it was doing. Several math professors were met in the hall with a chipper "Happy LHC day!" which confused them momentarily, much to our glee.

@Glenn: I agree with all that you say, and while blatant creationist agendas frustrate me too, I'd like to think that it's possible and beneficial to respect the efforts and trends in science while still remaining skeptical enough to come up with creative alternatives in one's own specialty.

Happy Tuesday,
Siggy

We are still at the impass of "In the beginning God" or "In the beginning the Big Bang"

Every time we hear a loud noise we say either who did that or what caused that?

We have yet to agree. They just completed a replication of the "big bang" over in France--It will produce another generation of PhD's and little else of substance for the benefit of the hungry, tired, poor, and down trodden.

So, I'll remain with Karl Barth: "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so." Tom

Tom, why so skeptical? Science and technology produce plenty of primary, secondary, tertiary, and other-y benefits to "the hungry, tired, poor, and downtrodden." Knowledge filters. It may not filter "fast," but it does filter, and it has been filtering faster and faster in the last 100 years; I do not expect that to slow. While that continues to happen, we all have our own ground work to do, and I don't think we can afford to push it off onto other folks -- even that next gen of PhDs.

I have read the 1950s and 1960s complaints about space-race investments. I still read complaints about military spending. I do believe we would be further along if we didn't insist on blowing each other up, but our having scientists and engineers learning more of the intricate nature that God created is a very good thing for all of us. It's not all about "me" the individual. What matters most is "we" the race, and we are born knowledge-seekers. Science is part of our nature, and it will ever be.

What if life, the universe, and everything(including God) evolved...and then God genetically modified primitive forms of life into the complex forms we see today? Wouldn't this unify the Godless atheistic evolutionists with the fundamentalist God-fearing creationists? Also, is it possible that Satan has tried his or her hand(hoof?) at genetic engineering? Who made scorpions and rattlesnakes?

If I'm strictly the result of a random collocation of atoms, as I think Bertrand Russell puts it, why am I not a cyclops, with a single eye? The whole business of two very complex eyes moving together, and the crossing over of the optic nerves, and the complex processing which an even more complex brain must accomplish to produce in-focus, stereoscopic vision, gets very, very complex. But it's all just a big accident, you know. But...if this is too complex to have 'just happened'...and required creation by God...then who made this God who is much more complex than His or Her creation?

I believe...I believe I'm going to have another drink. Oh...I forgot...SDA's don't drink...or do they? Was Jesus accused of being a grape-juice drinker? Come on...

In the Fullness of Time

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Gen. 1:2

In fact, the earth was a tiny bit of water covered flotsam with a core of molten magma in a solar system within one of billions of galaxies. The solar system containing the planet earth is estimated as being 35,000 light-years from the central bulge of the galaxy we know as the Milky Way. The Milky Way is estimated as being 100,000 light years in diameter and 1000 light years in thickness. It is also estimated that it contains between 200 and 400 billion solar systems. It is estimated as being formed at least 6.5 billion years ago. When God declares Himself as from everlasting to everlasting, He is being quite modest.

If the Milky Way was reduced to 80 miles in diameter the solar system containing the earth would be only .08 inches across: a tiny speck in God’s universe but soon to become the center of attention of all rational beings.

The saga begins simple enough: in five days God swept out the place and created a habitat fit for a king and his queen. Then God popped the question: “Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created him them.” Gen 1. 26

The “rest of the story” is woven through a thousand pages of history, poetry, prophecy, and promises.

That phrase “Let us make Man in our Image” created quite a stir and a long discussion, as any risk-taking venture should.

The issue: Give man the power of choice?
The risk: Man makes the wrong choice!
The Dilemma: Build a garden and then abandon it? Or if lost buy it back?
If so: How? What is the going price on “a lost world”—the life of one Creator?

One option was off the table: If man makes a wrong choice, it would be impossible for God to cut and run! He might cut His losses as He did at the flood, in Sodom, and in Egypt. But if man failed, at some point, God would have to go in and make it right! His entire universal kingdom was based upon the twin towers of Justice and Mercy.

Certainly the Council of Creation and the Council of Redemption must have been one serious piece of decision-making. On creation, it was a go!

On making things right, it was a plan that only God could have devised. If the first man, the federal man, Adam failed, Christ would not only become the replacement federal man, He would pay the price of Adam’s failure.

Of course Lucifer would contest every inch of the way. Lucifer was quite confident that once Christ was down to Lucifer’s size, Lucifer would prevail. Being thrown out of heaven didn’t count. On earth, the playing field would be level.

The creation/redemption decision is known to us as the Covenant of Redemption. This consent agreement between the members of the Godhead may be defined as the Father, giving the Son the role of Redeemer who voluntarily toke the place of Adam and all of Adam’s issue who chose Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit agreed to be the comforter and guide through-out the history of man.

Sounds like a perfectly sane quid pro quo until the concept of separation, temptation, torture, and death raised they ugly heads.

Those demons didn’t become truly palpable until that Thursday night in the Garden of Gethsemane. (John 17) It is one thing to sit in a conference room and plan. It is another to be in the midst of battle, alone, surrounded by fearful, sleepy friends and hateful foes.

So Jesus turns in prayer to His Father. They review their options. They consider the consequences. They ratify the decision they made at the foundation of the earth. Jesus would become the surety for the human race.

Jesus Christ at that moment became, in fact, the second Adam. He would face His accuser in a final confrontation. He would pay, in full, the price of Adam’s folly.

In full confidence of His ultimate victory, Jesus returns to his disciples and assumes the role given Him so long ago. He heals the High Priest servant’s ear. He forgives the soldiers pounding spikes into His hands and feet. He looks after His mother, and He gives assurance to the thief. He submits to His Father. He declares it is finished.

Thanks be to God, We serve a risen Savior. We know our lineage from beginning to end. What a glorious ending. Lift up your head O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Ps. 24: 9

Amen

17: The Confirmation of the Covenant of Redemption

Luke 23: 34 The Grace of Jesus Christ

Luke 23: 46 Mission Accomplished.

I learned yesterday in Biology class that there has been a major re-classification in Fungi phylogeny. The classification of Deuteromycota (imperfect Fugi) has been dismantled and a new Phylum Glomeromycetes created. This is based on molecular data. Previous classificaiton was based on morphology and repeoductive features, current plylogeny is partly based genetic information unavailable even a couple of years ago. This is an exciting development right now and is happening across the science of phylogeny in biology. I would see he excitement on my Lab instructor's face when speaking of these new developments. To me this excitement is contagious and this new information rely heavily on evolutionary therory. I can see why there is so much excitement in this area and why Scott's dad's science sees less attention. On the other hand. What Scott's dad is doing also contributes to scientific knowledge and should be supported by science.

KM

Just one reason for my previous entry.

Five million under 5s a year still dying because of malnutrition

PRESS RELEASE - 27 June 2003
see also:
1st release in series
3rd release in series

Even as obesity reaches epidemic proportions, more than 5 million under fives a year are still dying unnecessarily in developing countries because they are underweight, child health epidemiologists warn today.

The authors of Where and why are ten million children dying every year?, the first paper in a special series on child health which is being launched in the Lancet today identify under-nutrition as an underlying cause in a substantial proportion of all child deaths, and call for a greater focus on developing effective and affordable interventions in those countries most affected.

Children who are mildly underweight are twice as likely to die as children who are better nourished, while the risk of death increases to between five and eight times in moderately to severely underweight children. 'Being underweight puts children at greater risk of mortality from infectious diseases, with an estimated 53% of child deaths a year attributable to being underweight'1, explains Dr Saul Morris of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, one of the authors of the paper.

'Child health epidemiology is an evolving science which is, increasingly, feeding into the public health planning, monitoring and evaluation process', he continues. 'If we are to meet the Millennium Development Goal for Child Survival2, then we need to expand our efforts to identify effective programme interventions to reduce under-nutrition and to develop a greater understanding as to how it co-presents with infectious diseases and other conditions, most notably pneumonia and diarrhoea, which are still the biggest killers of children in the world today.

'Most importantly, planning for health interventions should take place at the national, rather than the regional or sub-regional level, because of the huge variability in causes and rates of child mortality within regions. There's even variation within countries - the under 5 mortality rate in India, for instance, varies from 19 per 1,000 live births in Kerala to 138 per 1000 in Madhya Pradesh, and we need to take that on board and ensure our interventions are tailored to each country's situation'.

If you would like to interview Dr Morris, please contact the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Press Office on 020 7927 2073.

Ends.

Tom:

Yes, malnutrition and poverty is still a real issue in our world. I've seen this first hand, having lived in rural Africa, and am very passionate that there is much work to be done in this regard.

However I would like to point out that the reason we don't see it in the west is because of science. I won't try to make a case for the practicality of the LHC in particular -- any applications of such nanoscopic nuclear physics probably won't be creating yams and porridge for us any time soon. It has served us well in the past, however, to learn what we can about the universe while we can and then, once equipped with knowledge, find applications for it. The outcome of research is not obvious ahead of time, when funds are being discovered.

Besides, the LHC is telling us things that are fundamental enough to be of value as a sort of theology for atheists. Knowing the truth about our universe is definitely worth a boat-load of money.

An interesting article on the twin-heads of progress, science and industrial R&D: Gerald Holton, "What Kinds of Science Are Worth Supporting? A New Look, and a New Mode," The Great Ideas Today 1998, p. 106-135.

SigmaX

Eric

I am not anti-science, I spent my life supporting science, even done a little myself. (If you are interested in history, you might find over fifty references) My point was science to disprove God. The recent big bang in France lasted nano seconds. The Milky Way alone is over 1000 light years across and still glowing. That costly kind of ego centric science is what I am addressing. In my case, I am glad Best found the substance Insulin, and on and on. I think I pointedly wrote that diversion of grain to fuel and "happy hour" while thousands starve is a crime against humanity. I am glad they found a way to make hips out of steel and plastic, and on and on.

The reason and focus of a lot of science is totally self-serving while others perish. That is my only point. Tom

So it's ego-centric when we're studying the mysteries of the universe, but not when we apply said mysteries to industry?

Siggy

Scott

You make quite a leap in the dark. Yes I sleep better knowing that astro turf is a boon to the NFL. Tom

There is a simple test of any scientific theory - its ability to predict the results of new experiments.

It doesn't matter whether that experiment is to smash protons and antiprotons together, or to sequence and compare the DNA of fungi.

The current physics theories have fundamental problems - and the physicists know it - because those theories don't give correct answers under extreme conditions - I suspect because a lot of them are based on calculus and the universe possibly is not built on "Real" numbers

This is different to the current biology theories, which have inadequacies but don't give the obviously incorrect answers that physics gives.

Almost any adult who is prepared to read can find lots of descriptions of simple evidence for things that are really hard to reconcile with a 4000 year ago universal flood and a few thousands years of life before it. Furthermore if they are prepared to spend even a few thousand dollars they can see this evidence for themselves.

But people like the author's dad aren't interested in spending tens of hours and thousands of dollars to find out that their cherished beliefs are wrong.

Instead they will cling to almost anything that lets them keep those beliefs.

/Bevin

A slimy amoeba in the deep blue sea...was the great grand-dad of you and me. Then I was a monkey...swinging in a tree. Now I'm a teacher...I've got my PhD. See what science has done for me?!

Mr. Scott, have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? It addresses the continual construction of what you appropriately refer to as 'metanarratives,' and the cyclic necessity to take as ontological givens their tenents.

This may at least provide further language and reference for the ongoing discussion of the origination, propagation, and recurrent falsification of any metanarrative. We always need a language with which to discuss such abstract concepts, and metanarratives provide those languages.

bevin/jp katz

It is much simplier than you suggest. Some of us look up in the sky and See Someone bigger and better than us. We also believe that Someone revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ.

Other of us saw an alarm clock, took it apart and found a lot
of little parts. We grew up and found that all matter was made up of little parts, We finally discovered the atom.
We said, even the atom is made up of little parts. Let us take it apart also. We took it apart and found it behaved somewhat like our solar system--Aha we said, the atom is a microcosmus of the universe. Once the universe was one big atom like sphere. Let blow up the atom and learn how the universe began so separated in many parts far apart.

So we blew up an atom and found it more like a walnut, the pieces immediately fell apart in a nano second heap. The only thing still spinning is our heads. "Now what" Smash more?
Smash a lot more at the same time? Build a bigger smasher?

Or grow a smarter smasher designer? Or maybe put some one dying of cancer at the end of the smasher and see if he/she lived a nano second longer? Or find some other fall out practical use of a mega dollar hole in the ground.

Yes I believe in the scientific method applied to scientific problems. Origins is not one of them! Where did I come from?
Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? Are subjects of philosopy and religion.

While they were smashing that atom. 50 people died and hundred injured because the railroad in L A. didn't want to spend the money to put in a
automatic train stopping system. It would have cost less than the liability claims the railroad now faces.

Tom

Tom: Where do you think proton treatment came from? Let physicists have their toys. They tend to end up being quite useful.

Is it the LHC's fault that the LA train crashed? I don't think that's what you meant, but, then, what was the point of your harangue? Considering your background in medicine and biology, I am surprised that you have not emphasized the incredible advances made and expected to be made in that field.

Also, who is it that decides where the line between philosophy/religion/spirituality and science lies? It used to be that most questions of the functioning of the world were theological. If we had listened only to the cranky theologians (I recognize that many theologians and clerics have made significant contributions to science, though they were mostly Catholic and then mostly Jesuit) we might not have evolution and big bang understandings (incomplete though they are). Now, today, when we are continuing to discover so much, so fast, now is NOT the time to stop wondering and tinkering and searching and model building and atom smashing.

We're on a role. Don't do to us what fundamentalism may have done to Islamic science and culture.

Niemand

Why do you think I used the illustration I did? My point on the crash was the priorities of science, politics, and religion are seldom based upon human need--but special interest demands.

We spend money on the toys we enjoy--not the priorities of human need is my basic point.

In 1955 I received a Federal grant of $50,000. to study and treat the dental and orthodontics problems of Cerebral Palsy Patients. Several hundred children were helped to better dental health and better speech production. They were able to join the general population in productive lives.

In 1973 The Medical College of Georgia School of Dentistry's grant to assist Black students complete dental school was rejected. I asked Senator Nunn to get me an appointment with the proper people at NIH. The appointment was made and honored. My Host, with a grin opened our session with the remark--Senator Nunn can get you an appointment but he can't get you the money--but let's hear what you have to say! So I told him MCG/s story. In the years since founding in 1966 the School of Dentistry had doubled the number of black dentists practicing in Georgia. Next to Howard and Meharry, the Medical College of Georgia had the most Black students enrolled of any of the 55 dental schools. He interrupted me and said he would be back in a moment. He returned, with the head of the grants division. He said, would you mind telling your story again? Of course, I retold, our history. The Head of the Grants Division asked the interviewer:" Do we have any funds left? The reply was a little. The Head then asked: "Have any other institutions faulted on their grants?
The answer was yes. The Head then said, go add up what we have on hand. In moment the interviewer returned and said: "We have $65,000.00 but they are asking for $90,000. The Head asked me if I could rewrite the request for $65,000.
I said, if I can use your phone, I will dictate the changes to my Sec. and she will fax the changes to you. Within 90 minutes we left with an approval of $65,000. One of the graduates from that $65,000 became Chair of the Board of Dental Examiners of the State of Georgia.

Yes I believe in research, I believe in federal and private support for deserving and needy chidren. I even believe in the Hubble Telescpe. I rejoice that our men got to the moon and even happier that they got back safely. I don't believe in toys to create a generation of agnostics. Tom

Toys cannot create a generation of agnostics. That is well beyond the power of any toy, book, or custom. But overstate the authority of technological objects for long enough, and someone might begin to believe the hype.

How does the LHC generate more agnostics than the Hubble Telescope? And you would prefer we not learn new things if some people might then decide to believe differently than you do? That's a little arrogant.

Religion and scientific reason should not be seen as enemies. They are of a different breed.
As was said above, originally, all the "scientists" were theologians, attempting to understand God in what they were discovering.
Neither are antithetical, but only have different
pursuits.

We are all beneficiaries of scientific studies and advances and should applaud them all, rather than denigrating some as "evolution" or opposing "Creationism." Such broad terms fail to
have meaning other than what someone wishes them to mean.

We all believe in evolution as it is demonstrated all around us. We all accept new advances in science. Why a Christian be opposed to science, or a scientist opposed to Christianity? It makes no sense. Faith is always subjective, as the writer of Hebrews tells us and cannot be tested as is science.
Science, however, relies on repeated testing and observation from many before arriving at a workable theory; always dependent on newer findings that may either disprove or prove the hypothesis which originates all research.

Religion also has theories and hypotheses, and those that cannot be subjected to testing, become faith; hence the name we give to religious belief.

The bottom-line is quite simple. I don't want my tax dollar spent on scientific toys. Nor do I want my church dollars spend on travel junkets. I want my money spend on helping people in need of human basics including education, nuturition and hearing the gospel without a load of fear attached.

Science cannot solve either beginnings or endings. If it can find any point on the globe then it can also get needed food, water, and hygiene to those remote spots.

Science as currently taught teaches self sufficiency not stewardship. The applied sciences of medicine and hygiene
excepted to some degree. Tom

Tom, what you refer to as "scientific toys" is a very subjective position. We cannot always tell until results of any study are completed, whether it will benefit humans, can we? Many fall into the category of "serendipity" when something not looked for is found to be extremely beneficial, which is often the story of such "scientific toys," as you call them.

There are people who will say that the Hubble was a "toy" as it did not truly heal or cure disease, but it opened up our universe in a way which has proved to be enormously educational.
Likewise, such things as nanotechnology have been proved useful in many areas. So, before we'
label any study as "scientific toys" there should be an objective, rather than a subjective label attached, shouldn't there?

The study of DNA of the grizzlies in Montana has recently been a laughing phrase used by McCain, and yet it has been helpful to conservationists in determining how to handle what is now an overpopulation of the bears in that state. Here in California, farmers are being denied water in order to protect the Delta smelt, a small, inch-long fish that must be protected. Whether it's a toy it is certainly highly overrrated by the farmers, but who is to make the judgment when there are competing interests? One man's toy is another's important scientific project.

Our tax dollars are wasted on many things, but before we talk of wasted $$ on those, perhaps we should address the huge tax burden for the Iraq war which is the Goliath compared to the flea of scientific studies.

Tom: do you want tax dollars going to Human Genome research? Medical research? If so, why not things that can make humans proud as well as healthy, like the best new atom smasher, a telescope that gives us images from the beginning of the universe, space shuttles and stations that bring us just that much closer to the stars? What purpose do cathedrals and monuments serve?

Furthermore, how is it that you're so certain that science can't find out the beginnings and the ends? I'm not saying it can, but I certainly wouldn't make a blanket statement that it can't. Ex.: Scientists and Mathematicians working on Loop Quantum Gravity (still very much in the theory stages) have run their equations through singularity (e.g. the Big Bang) and the equations do not break down. This is only to say that it is not unthinkable that we may some day be able to glean information about what happened BEFORE the Big Bang. In general, it seems unwise to me to say that science cannot do a certain thing. Another example: consciousness. Consciousness used to be considered strongly spiritual. Now we are getting closer and closer to understanding consciousness in purely physical terms.

As far as self sufficiency is concerned, I'd far rather teach someone to fish (assuming they have access to fisheries) than just give them fish. What on earth is wrong with self sufficiency? And stewardship? Isn't it the scientific community that is trying to bring attention to things like global warming? No, let's not waste money on silly things like climate research.

"In 1955 I received a Federal grant of $50,000. to study and treat the dental and orthodontics problems of Cerebral Palsy Patients. Several hundred children were helped to better dental health and better speech production. They were able to join the general population in productive lives. "

Science has a history of producing solutions to previously insoluble issues. Medicine has found the results of science incredibly useful - but it is a poor way to improve human existence.

A better way is to prevent people from getting ill in the first place. And that is best accomplished with "toys" - devices to improve communication, our sensors, our ability to do work.

Physics has spun off many of those toys.

Results from the LHC experiments may well completely change how we produce energy and how we communicate.

Which will result in making everyones lives more pleasant - much more effective than a few more million dollars spent on raising the pleasantness of 0.0001% of people slightly closer to that of the other 99.999%

/Bevin

Wasn't it Einstein who said that he wanted to 'think God's thoughts after him' and 'God does not play dice with the universe'? I like the idea of 'devotional science' which involves meditating and praying in nature, as well as working with proton accelerators and scanning electron microscopes. Truth is truth, whether it is taught by a church or not.

My favorite shirt is the one which reads, 'In the Beginning God Said "[Schroedinger Wave Equation]!" And There Was Light!'

Go Jesuit scholars! That is if they could all just renounce that wretched 'Jesuit Oath'.

I am too old to debate you guys. Have all the toys you want!
Think as big as you like on your own money.

Just one final thought: have either of you seen any large federal grants lately to improve communication and health of congenital anomolies? No it all goes to the giant grant eaters
MIT, Harvard, et al---To dig up old bones or fly off into
unknown space for unknown reasons.

I like the scientific method--I just wish they would use it on questions answerable by science.
Tom

"The bottom-line is quite simple. I don't want my tax dollar spent on scientific toys. Nor do I want my church dollars spend on travel junkets. I want my money spend on helping people in need of human basics including education, nuturition and hearing the gospel without a load of fear attached." -- Tom Zwemer

I think you underestimate the cumulative effort required to produce the technological feats that are enabling to said education, nutrition, and communication. Pure math probably provides the most obvious historical example:

It was a TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY for the Pythagoreans, undoubtedly very intelligent people, to spend their time laying the foundations for modern mathematics twenty-five centuries ago. The concept of applied math is relatively new: but the engineering feats of today are built upon ancient efforts.

When imaginary numbers (The square root of negative numbers) were concocted a few hundred years ago, no-one expected them to have the wide-spread applications that they have today in areas such as electrical engineering and hyperbolic geometry (Which is fundamental to the system surrounding Einstein's e=mc^2, i.e. nuclear power plants).

And who would of thought that Newton's calculus would give us a litany of physical laws that are fundamental to basically every thing cool we do with technology, not to mention tools that modern science simply could not exist without.

And the list goes on. It is *not* a straightforward thing to say "today I'm going to do some science that will be practical." Finding what tools might be useful, which is indeed a very expensive process, is a big part of advancement -- because the body of knowledge that enables our current progress is extremely large and interconnected, and was even more difficult to come up with in the first place (ex. electro-magnetism was discovered thousands of years before the first computer was built, and we are indebted to thousands of minds for figuring out how to get from A to B).

Euclidean mathematics did not reach its full potential for application under the Greeks, and thus it was a waste of money for them if we consider only fiscal returns. But now we don't have to repeat the process, because once the immutable laws of the universe (Ours or Plato's Ideal world) are discovered, then we have them forever. The LHC is expensive, and we won't be able to put all its implications (Or necessarily any of them) to use right away. But the knowledge of something that fundamental to our very existence cannot be considered a genuine "waste" of our resources.

Siggy

"But people like the author's dad aren't interested in spending tens of hours and thousands of dollars to find out that their cherished beliefs are wrong. Instead they will cling to almost anything that lets them keep those beliefs." -- Bevin

I feel the need to defend my father here.

Hopefully you will agree with me when I state that our (Your and my) belief in evolution is based primarily on cognitive dissonance. Yes, we've heard the arguments about the fossil record, etc, etc, and we've probably each spent many an hour reading articles and exploring arguments for and against through books and the Internet.

On an issue as gigantic, complex, subjective (In the sense that we can not mathematically "prove" historical events, though you can come up with good "best guesses") and all-encompassing as evolution, what it really ends up boiling down to is peer pressure, if that term is not too condescending. The people who's reasoning processes we respect (Those who take all the evidence into account) have made cogent cases that we believe.

It is obvious because our culture and the scientific establishment have made it clear, not because we saw the facts and figured it out on our own. This is very similar to the experience of a thinking Christian who believes in the premonition of Biblical prophecy -- if you are in a conservative environment (i.e. a church community that is not university) you may never realize the gaps in your perspective. This is not necessarily a sign of perverted reasoning, but just a different experience.

As such, I think it is a shallow understanding of social pressure and how one's thoughts are based on his environment to stereotype a person who challenges the status quo or the zeitgeist as not being "interested in spending tens of hours... to find out that their cherished beliefs are wrong."

All this is to say that my father is an intellectual who spent decades as an agnostic himself, and has shown an empathy for and understanding of my own unbelief and reasoning processes that surpasses any I've ever received from another devout Christian. The world he has operated in has been different, but I do not devalue him for it.

Siggy

"much more effective than a few more million dollars spent on raising the pleasantness of 0.0001% of people slightly closer to that of the other 99.999%" -- Bevin

I don't know about that. Like I've been trying to get at, science is huge, and advancing knowledge creatively (i.e. in directions that are not obvious) is very expensive ('cuz it takes a lot of people working on it before someone has an awesome epiphany). The LHC is VERY expensive, and there will be thousands of scientists working to analyze the data it produces for years to come. It will still be a small contribution in the price-to-innovation ratio if you ask me, but such is the nature of science. Small steps in a positive and enlightened direction -- in medicine, physics, computing, etc etc.

Siggy

"My favorite shirt is the one which reads, 'In the Beginning God Said "[Schroedinger Wave Equation]!" And There Was Light!'" -- orthodoxymoron

I'm wearing a shirt like that right now! The Math/Physics club here at Andrews had them made for us last year :-). It's definitely one of my favorites.

"I like the scientific method--I just wish they would use it on questions answerable by science." -- Tom Zwemer

I know you're trying to wrap this thread up before we start throwing pies at eachother, but I just have to react to that last comment.

Part of the core of science is recognizing the limits of any particular idea. The Big Bang is not a theory of origins. It tells us a lot about the history of the universe, but it doesn't get to the genuine source of what's going on (Mathematically or physically). We acknowledge this -- and in doing so, we haven't answered the ultimate question of why there is something instead of nothing at all, but we have learned an awful lot in the process, gained a huge perspective, etc.

I would also be inclined to argue that if a question cannot be answered by science, it cannot be answered at all. As a child I can take my parents' word for a rule or statement about reality, but if I want to gain a full appreciation and understanding for it, I need to gain experiences of my own and see the philosophical (Which can mean practical too) concepts verified in the real world.

History is a science. Very different from mathematics, where we prove things, or Physics, where we verify mathematical models, historical pursuit is constantly driving towards the goal of figuring out exactly what really happened. There are many competing interpretations and ideas about what took place, and it takes a lot of sophisticated effort to get an authoritative opinion on what is the correct story. Skepticism and consideration of many approaches is inherent to the process.

You can take on faith the principles and metanarrative put forward in the Bible. But you can also recognize the wide array of competing stories of origins, morality, human nature, right-character, etc out there, and try and drive at which is correct, what the arguments and reasons are for its correctness, etc.

On this level, on the level of *searching* for the most likely Truth (Big 'T') amidst a variety of possible truths (Little 't') -- as opposed to relatively idly accepting what you're subculture believes and affirms -- science and religion are exactly the same.

Siggy

Discovery must be managed with responsibility. We have fantastic space-age technology...yet we often seem to exhibit cave-man ethics. We are so smart and creative...that now we can exterminate ourselves.

Could this have something to do with source material? Imagine using a science text, which is thousands of years old, to teach graduate students. Why does science use current texts while religion uses ancient texts? Perhaps religion has some catching-up to do.

How about incorporating the concept of responsibility into just about everything, including science and religion? Jesus incorporated the concept of responsibility into just about everything he said and did.

Pursue pure science with child-like curiosity, and then apply science responsibly for the betterment of humanity. And be nice to the lab animals!

"Why does science use current texts while religion uses ancient texts? Perhaps religion has some catching-up to do." -- orthodoxymoron

That statement only works if you're operating from within the enlightenment ideal of consistent progress. The idea of something becoming "outdated," however, is relatively new. That is to say that, while I as a technologist and/or science student have a very strong affinity for the latest and the greatest, the same does not apply to theology.

This dichotomy breaks down when science contradicts ancient revelation (Whether directly [evolution-creation] or indirectly [anthropology/variety of myths]).

"Pursue pure science with child-like curiosity, and then apply science responsibly for the betterment of humanity." -- orthodoxy

Well said. And part of that responsibility is determining how much resources should be allotted to the curiosity. On that note I'll re-reference the article that I already mentioned, though I realize it's much less convenient than a link to an Internet article.

Gerald Holton, "What Kinds of Science Are Worth Supporting? A New Look, and a New Mode," The Great Ideas Today 1998, p. 106-135.

Siggy

The question of resources raised earlier in the thread and again just now = a question of politics. Politics, not science, decides who gets what, when, where, how, and why. We don't have resource "problems" because resources are scarce. We have resource "problems" because we lack communal intention to share. I do understand the objections that have been raised, but think framing "science"/knowledge pursuits as the problem is an [understandable] error.

Even the politics of resource distribution is not itself the problem. It is a highly visible symptom of the problem. :)

The problem is human division. Address our division, and you address everything else... and the responsibility that orthodoxymoron and Tom and the rest of us are drawn to won't be well-intentioned playacting.

Orthodoxymoron asks a question that some have asked for years: why is theology sacrosanct from any new discoveries or new ideas of an old story, while there is no other area in life where we consistently refuse to explore other possibilities than the same, old sources? During the past 200 years amazing discoveries have been made, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamadi findings that have greatly influenced understanding of the Bible and the time in which it was written and used. Some are reluctant to accept any new finding that questions, even refutes their former concepts. If we are truly in the pursuit of truth, that position is antithtical to accepting anything new. In what other area of study would any of us adopt such an antiquated position: by refusing to accept newer medical findings than what was common 2,000 years ago, even 200?

Hi Guys

Sorry about yesterday, I waited in a doctor’s office for hours for a 10 minute check-up and then went grocery shopping only one line open with an morbidly obese woman ahead of me with a cart loaded and a purse full of coupons. Me with two hip replacements, then I got your responses which were just pulling my leg. No substance!

I have related this before, but it stands repeating given the tenacity with which you hold to the scientific method as a rational means of discovering the beginning and end.

In 1966, Computer scientists from MIT met for a series of discussions with the Biological scientists from Harvard. The object was to 1. State in contemporary terms the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. 2. Test that theory mathematically using the state of the art Computer science of the day.

The outcome was published in a book entitled: The Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom-line was written by the Computer/Math people at MIT. They said, in effect, that “We believe in evolution, however, the present model is seriously flawed. Assuming the longest age of the earth, there is not enough time to develop a human eye
let alone a human being.”

The Second Law of Thermodynanics is the stopper. Energy does not run up hill but down. The idea of higher orders emerging from lower orders is scientifically impossible. (Of course, some would say that the earth is not a closed system—given the energy from the sun) I concede the power of the Sun but I rely on beginnings and endings on the Son!

The universe is still expanding, according to the “Big Bang” theory it should start to fall back sometime: given the data from all the atom smashers to date. Of course, the “black holes” might be just such an example.

My bottom-line is simply why try to figure out how God did it when we were placed here on earth to see that each of our issue has the best opportunities for health, happiness, successful careers and eternal assurance.
Of which applied science is one tool. Tom

Actually, Tom, the value of the Hubble Constant has finally been measured, and it looks like we live in an open universe that will never collapse. In fact, evidence has been forthcoming that seems to point toward an acceleration in the expansion of the universe and the existence of a mysterious dark energy, although some astro-physicists are now dismissing this as a relativistic illusion.

Black holes really do exist. Their effects on surrounding matter have been observed. But they are collapsed stars, not collapsed universes.

Yes Bob

I agree on both of your comments--First the open universe
contradicts the big bang theory and the Black holes was a jest
not a model--certainly they exist and we don't really understand why. I don't expect the end of the universe as a black hole--even though they certainly exist from our point of view.

Now back to my thesis. I present just one example: Morman Borlaug the the agronomist that saved a billion people from starvation. First with is dwarf wheat in Mexico and on---

He has been honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal for his work in fighting hunger. In 1960 60 percent of the world's people experienced some level of hunger, by 2000 that had dropped to 14 percent. Even yet 850 million men, women, and children are hungery every day. That is more than twice the population of the United States. That is the kind of science, I am interested in. God gave man dominion, that is quite a responsiblity and should occupy a lot more brain power than we are giving it. Even Jesus wouldn't let the crowd go home hungry for even one night.

My point is science needs a moral core--beyond a resume. Tom

Mmkay, Tom, I'm just gonna write out my gut reactions here, debate-style. I trust you won't take offense...

"then I got your responses which were just pulling my leg. No substance!"

It's easy (And intellectually dishonest) to dismiss someone's argument by saying they're babbling philosophers with "no substance," just incomprehensible speculation. It's much harder to actually meet them where they are and tackle their foreign point of view. I think we would both benefit more from the latter approach than from blanket dismissals.

"The Second Law of Thermodynanics is the stopper."

No. This statement is far too simplistic to be used as a blanket dismissal of evolution, only betrays ignorance, and has been refuted so many times that it really should be on the top ten lists of 'arguments creationists shouldn't use,' right up there with moon dust and the sun's radius.

"The universe is still expanding, according to the 'Big Bang' theory it should start to fall back sometime: given the data from all the atom smashers to date."

No and no. First of all, the big bang itself does not predict a collapsing universe (See Bob's mention of the Hubble Constant). Second, your consistent association of "atom smashers" with the big bang is a straw man: exploration of nuclear physics is, believe it or not, about exploring nuclear physics, not exclusively about exploring the big bang.

"The Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian theory..."

Abiogenesis is indeed a difficult problem about which we know very little, and which I explored extensively before giving up Creationism, hoping it would give me a reason not to abandon my parent belief. We can produce self-replicating molecules in laboratories, however, and that is enough for me to consider it feasible that such a compound could eventually mutate into a cell-like structure. It is not proof, but it is a viable explanation when taken in the context of the rest of the story of life and the universe.

"My bottom-line is simply why try to figure out how God did it when we were placed here on earth to see that each of our issue has the best opportunities for health, happiness, successful careers and eternal assurance."

Because there is nothing more spiritually enriching then a metanarratical perspective, the "big picture," and the Bible does not tell the complete story.

"First the open universe
contradicts the big bang theory"

I'm beginning to think that what you mean by "big bang theory" is totally different than what I mean by it. An open universe would contradict the "big bounce" theory (As you might have seen depicted on the cover of a recent issue of Scientific American), but the bounce is just one attempt to explain what might have happened before the big bang, which in itself does not explain its own origin or the curvature of the universe.

"and the Black holes was a jest
not a model"

A lot of ideas that were once considered ludicrous have turned out to be true. Think of negative numbers (Which were considered totally counterintuitive until less than 300 years ago), for example, or of imaginary numbers, which doubtless also began as someone's joke ("Let's see what happens -- haha -- if I do this -- haha! Woah... it actually works!").

Cheers,
Siggy

Bob wrote: "Actually, Tom, the value of the Hubble Constant has finally been measured, and it looks like we live in an open universe that will never collapse."

I write: Thank-God! I was starting to get kinda worried and nervous. Now I can relax a bit. Thanks Bob, that took the edge off!

Why do bloggers insist on spinning my words. I stated that according to the 'big bang' theory the universe should expand to a certain point and then fall back on itself--as all experimentation has demonstrated. I also in jest suggested that Black holes might be a minnie sample of the "great fall back". I knew that the universe according to human measurements and calculations is expanding and not shrinking.

The fall back in the recent French/Swiss experiment was measured in nano seconds. The universe measured by the same scientists is billions of light years in expansion.

My point was and is that science is a long way from "Knowing God" or disproving God. Furthermore, it is no closer to beginnings or endings on any cosmic scale.

I guess the point is, if you have no point make a joke out of anyone who has.

Tom

"Actually, Tom, the value of the Hubble Constant has finally been measured, and it looks like we live in an open universe that will never collapse." -- Bob

Yes, we have discovered in the past decade that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, as opposed to decelerating. This does not mean the universe will never collapse -- we don't know if it will accelerate indefinitely, because we don't know why it's accelerating. The idea of Dark Energy has been proposed as an explanation, but that theory is very much in its early stages and can't be considered a solution to the problem as of yet.

"I stated that according to the 'big bang' theory the universe should expand to a certain point and then fall back on itself--as all experimentation has demonstrated" -- Tom

I've been trying to tell you that I disagree point blank with that statement, but I end up feeling very ignored. The "Big Bang" is the beginning of the picture, not the end. The "Big Crunch" and/or "Big Bounce" hypotheses are what predict that it will fall back on itself. "Experimentation" demonstrated ten years ago that it does not, at this point, appear to be falling back on itself or slowing down, but accelerating.

"My point was and is that science is a long way from Knowing God' or disproving God. Furthermore, it is no closer to beginnings or endings on any cosmic scale." -- Tom

On this we can agree. And I find the mystery titillating -- but it doesn't mean I think we should stop exploring, because whether or not science can answer all questions we would pose, it has not reached its full potential by a long shot.

"I guess the point is, if you have no point make a joke out of anyone who has." -- Tom

IMO the tongue-and-cheek is uncalled for, and undermines any growth and construction that occurs from our difference of opinion. I'll repeat my previous statement, which was ignored:

"It's easy (And intellectually dishonest) to dismiss someone's argument by saying they're babbling philosophers with "no substance," just incomprehensible speculation. It's much harder to actually meet them where they are and tackle their foreign point of view. I think we would both benefit more from the latter approach than from blanket dismissals."

SigmaX