There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding, and not a little misrepresentation, about the theory of intelligent design (ID) out there, especially on certain web sites. Those who do not like some of the supposed implications of ID choose to equate it with "creationism", which they usually take as a simplified literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis in the Bible. Some even claim that ID is somehow not even a scientific theory. Others who support such a literal reading (the true "young-Earth, six-days creationists") often apply the findings of ID research in a misplaced attempt to bolster their own pseudo-science arguments, thereby sowing further confusion. Both approaches are false, so to clear the air by some small amount, as a believer in the ID theory, I will try to explain it.
Intelligent Design is a theory about origins: the origin of the cosmos, life on Earth, and the wide variety of life we find around us today, including ourselves. On these subjects, there are only two basic possibilities: either our origins somehow involved a mind (AKA the intelligent designer, or possibly "creator") having purpose and planning, or else they did not and the universe and life came about with no purpose and no plan or guidance -- two options if you will, mindful or mindless!
Materialists -- those who believe that matter and energy are all that exist -- rule out the mindful option (and any form of ID) a priori, without even considering it. But that seems unreasonable. Surely it is at least conceivable that there is a Creator of some sort that was somehow purposefully involved in putting together the universe and getting life started on this planet? If so, wouldn't exploring that option be a useful endeavour?
Supposing for a moment that there was a Creator that brought the Universe, or life, or us into being. One might then expect that there would be some evidence of his (or its) activity left behind in the world around us. This is what ID researchers claim to have found by various types of scientific study. They have examined evidence in physics and biology and claim that the best explanation for some of what we see is the work of an intelligent agent doing what we would normally refer to as "design"; i.e. purposeful selection and assembly of components for a complex item with defined function.
There are other sciences that look for the effects of intelligent agents; archeology, espionage, criminology and forensics all try to explain historical facts to determine whether an intelligent agent was involved. Add to this the SETI research looking for meaningful (i.e. purposeful, complex, non-natural) signals from other star systems as evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence. Given that we can often distinguish natural and intelligent causation in these fields, why not do the same for research into origins?
ID presents two types of evidence. Some is positive evidence; e.g. the incredibly fine tuning of the fundamental physical constants and initial conditions of the Universe, which together allow elements, stars, planets, life and people to exist; or the extensive, complex and highly-functional information coded into the DNA in every living cell; or the complex interacting and self-regulating nano-machinery inside these same cells. Some of the evidence is negative; if there are really only two alternatives, then evidence against one of them (materialism) may be counted as evidence in favour of the other (ID).
In this latter category we have the abiogenesis of life on Earth, which no materialist hypothesis comes anywhere close to explaining in a credible way. We also have the Cambrian explosion and most of the fossil record showing fully-formed complex life forms coming into existence without intermediary precursors, contrary to the expectations of Neo-Darwinism; the materialist theory for the evolution of life. Then there is the failure to produce a unique "tree of life" based on the DNA in present life forms, and of course, there are the "irreducibly complex" structures in some cells which are not explicable by the Darwinian mechanism, which allows no foresight or purpose.
Some of the ID studies, experiments and analyses demonstrate the complete inability of Darwinism (i.e. unguided mutation plus natural selection) to produce new proteins and physiological structures as life develops and new species come into being. Many non-ID scientists now agree that Darwinism cannot explain much of what we find in the fossil record and in living species. Materialists keep trying to find naturalistic ways around these failures, but so far have come up empty as far as testable theories go.
On the other hand, ID accepts the role of Darwinism where it can reasonably be applied; in bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for instance, where a single amino acid knockout explains the loss of bacterial function used to prevent the antibiotic from working. But ID research also finds evidence that, when examined with an open mind, points to the work of an intelligent agent as the best explanation.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory, doing experiments, writing papers, involved in conferences and discussions, and making predictions. For example in the 1980's ID researchers predicted that the non-protein-coding DNA between genes in the chromosomes of all living species would be found to have important functions. Materialists dismissed these nucleotide sequences as "junk DNA" and loudly proclaimed them as "proof" of Darwinian evolution -- the waste products of random mutation left behind in the genome. This slowed research into the vast majority of the genome, but recently numerous purposes have been discovered for this "junk" and now it seems that most, if not all of your DNA is important to control your development, differentiate cell types and manage the expression of the genes that code for proteins. ID has made other predictions and opened up avenues for research.
Just to be clear, ID accepts various aspects of "evolution"; the changing life forms over millions of years as revealed in the fossil record; and micro-evolution with shifting ratios of different alleles in a population that explain changes in colouring, beak sizes, etc. ID is also compatible with the concept of common ancestry for all of life, even as it uncovers evidence that brings that concept into question. Therefore, arguments for these aspects of evolution cannot be used to argue against ID. What ID does argue against is the Darwinian attempt to expand micro-evolution to the macro level to explain new body plans and novel protein complexes. There are areas for both agreement and disagreement, and anyone seeking to study origins should examine all aspects and both sides of any apparent conflict.
As a science theory, ID does NOT claim to identify the intelligent designer. Just as a criminologist, armed with forensic evidence, can conclude that a particular death was a murder (i.e. caused purposefully by an intelligent, if rather misguided, agent), without identifying the murderer, so can ID find evidence of intelligent causation without having to name the designer. Of course, given the scale of time and the nature of the origins events, the obvious candidate is God, but that supposition is not a result of the ID science, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
ID is sometimes dismissed as a "god of the gaps" argument, wherein "god" is invoked to account for areas that science has not yet been able to explain. However, this too is a misrepresentation. As science delves deeper into various aspects of biology, more "gaps" in Darwinism appear, making it harder to believe, and more evidence accumulates that the basis of life is information, which in our experience, is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent rather than mindless chance and physical necessity. When presented with widening gaps in our knowledge and presumed explanatory powers, it is best to consider ALL possible explanations and look for the one that best accounts for the evidence, rather than dismissing one out of hand just because it does not fit some preconceived ideas about reality.
There are many web sites, videos and books that explain ID, and present the detailed evidence in its favour. For careful and civil discussions about ID and the latest findings, I suggest looking at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/ . There are other good sites, and of course there are pro-Darwinism and anti-ID sites as well, which you are welcome to peruse. But don't study only one side as you will get a skewed view of reality. Check out several and see how credible they are, even if you do not fully understand all of that you read. The exploration is fascinating and the controversy is stimulating.
In summary, Intelligent Design is a bona fide scientific theory that claims to have found evidence for design in nature. Before writing it off and pooh-poohing the IDea, it would be better to take a look at the evidence with an open mind and assess it fairly. Isn't that what science is supposed to do?
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Epidemiology 100
Some simple mathematical thoughts about epidemics. An epidemic is a disease that spreads rapidly or expands into a large population. A bit of thought will show that for a disease outbreak to become an epidemic, each person with the disease needs to pass it on to more than one other person on average. Suppose 100 people have the disease but on average each one has only a 50% chance of passing it on to another person before the disease runs its course. In that situation an epidemic is impossible; the original 100 will pass it on to only 50 new sufferers, who will pass it on to only 25 new cases, and so on until the disease stops with only 200 (approximately) having been affected. Not an epidemic.
If on the other hand, each person on average passes the disease on to two others, then there will be exponential growth and a real epidemic unless it is contained by some intervention. In that case, the original 100 sick people will infect 200, who will pass it on to 400 new cases, and so on. Thus, it is useful to think in terms of a "infection ratio" being the average number of people each affected person infects before the disease has run its course.
Clearly various factors will affect this infection ratio for different populations, subgroups or even individuals. Things like the weather, the population density, living conditions, sources of food and water, etc. can all change the circumstances of infection and hence the likelihood of transmitting the disease. Perhaps the most obvious factor is vaccination. In a population where almost everyone has been vaccinated against measles, there is little danger of one case of measles causing an outbreak. On the other hand, as the unvaccinated fraction of people increases, the danger of an outbreak will rise, until the infection ratio exceeds unity. Then an outbreak will occur, which could turn into an epidemic unless measures are taken to reduce the infection ratio, by vaccinating all the unvaccinated people, or perhaps just by isolating the sick people from contact with unvaccinated ones.
One interesting application of this concept is HIV infections in North America. Under typical conditions, faithful monogamous heterosexual people who do not inject drugs with shared needles have a very low chance of contracting HIV, and if they do contract it by some means, they have a low probability of passing it on to anyone else, or perhaps at most, to only one person. Thus, HIV/AIDS in such a population would never have become an epidemic.
In contrast, there are at least two groups in North America with demonstrated HIV infection ratios above unity. These are injection drug users (IDU's) who share needles, and men who have sex with other men (MSM). In both cases, the behaviours of people in these groups raise their infection ratio above unity, and the virus infects others in those groups. Indeed, these two groups remain the two where HIV/AIDS is most prevalent, and most of the new infections (on a per capita basis) occur.
For IDU's, sharing needles transmits the virus from one individual directly into the bloodstream of another. Since such people shoot up often, and sometimes change who they do it with, the risk of infection can be very high and the disease can spread rapidly in that population. Therefore preventive measures like needle exchanges, or bleach washing of used needles can be important to reduce the risk and stop the epidemic.
With MSM, the combination of anal sex and multiple partners make HIV transmission much more likely than for single-partner, heterosexual intercourse. Thus, here too, the infection ratio can be quite high and the virus can spread quickly through an unprotected population. For example, recall "patient zero" and the rapid increase in AIDS among homosexual men before the virus was identified. Here too, limiting partners, and using some form of protection can presumably reduce the risk.
Notwithstanding attempts to prevent transmission and limit the risk of infection, these two populations remain centres for HIV transmission in the North American population. Indeed, these two sub-populations may be considered as "reservoirs" for the disease and act to maintain it at significant levels within the wider population. How that works can be explained by the relative infection ratios of these two groups compared to the rest of the people. Within these sub groups, the infection ratio is high (more than one), so the disease does not die out.
However, these groups also interact in risky ways with people outside their groups, and thus may pass on the infection to those people. For example, bisexual, or secretly homosexual men may infect their female partners, even if the chance for that is relatively low. In the past, IDU's might give blood to earn money to pay for their drugs, children might be pricked by used needles left in parks, or health care workers might accidentally get infected blood on them.
In such ways, HIV/AIDS can "leak" out of the reservoirs where it is sustained, and into the broader population. But once there, it does not become epidemic, because the subsequent infection ratio outside the reservoirs is less than unity. A few other unfortunates will contract the disease, but for most of us the risk is low, although given the nature of the disease, taking precautions in uncertain situations is still a good idea.
This analysis suggests that efforts to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS should focus almost entirely on the reservoir sub-populations of IDU's and MSM. This is happening to some extent, but misplaced political correctness (e.g. "everyone is at risk" campaigns), and the tendency of these two groups not to adopt the recommended precautions (any needle for a fix?) allow the reservoirs to maintain the disease at low but stable levels, condemning many more each year to the AIDS disease.
Stronger methods (recall the "Typhoid Mary" quarantine rules) could be applied if health care agencies had the will and political clout to apply them. Mandatory HIV testing for some groups, tightly focused educational campaigns, backed up by strong laws against knowingly transmitting the virus, enforced and coupled with aggressive treatment regimes, could presumably reduce the infection ratio even within these reservoirs, thereby winding down the disease, at least to some significant degree.
Given the cost of lifelong anti-HIV treatments and the poor health associated with the disease and ongoing treatments, it seems that we would be well advised to pursue such measures, to protect these sub groups and the population at large from this scourge. There are good reasons for being sexually faithful to one partner, and for not injecting yourself with drugs, and North America would do well to promote truly healthy behaviour and stop pretending otherwise. I expect an unbiased professional epidemiologist would agree.
If on the other hand, each person on average passes the disease on to two others, then there will be exponential growth and a real epidemic unless it is contained by some intervention. In that case, the original 100 sick people will infect 200, who will pass it on to 400 new cases, and so on. Thus, it is useful to think in terms of a "infection ratio" being the average number of people each affected person infects before the disease has run its course.
Clearly various factors will affect this infection ratio for different populations, subgroups or even individuals. Things like the weather, the population density, living conditions, sources of food and water, etc. can all change the circumstances of infection and hence the likelihood of transmitting the disease. Perhaps the most obvious factor is vaccination. In a population where almost everyone has been vaccinated against measles, there is little danger of one case of measles causing an outbreak. On the other hand, as the unvaccinated fraction of people increases, the danger of an outbreak will rise, until the infection ratio exceeds unity. Then an outbreak will occur, which could turn into an epidemic unless measures are taken to reduce the infection ratio, by vaccinating all the unvaccinated people, or perhaps just by isolating the sick people from contact with unvaccinated ones.
One interesting application of this concept is HIV infections in North America. Under typical conditions, faithful monogamous heterosexual people who do not inject drugs with shared needles have a very low chance of contracting HIV, and if they do contract it by some means, they have a low probability of passing it on to anyone else, or perhaps at most, to only one person. Thus, HIV/AIDS in such a population would never have become an epidemic.
In contrast, there are at least two groups in North America with demonstrated HIV infection ratios above unity. These are injection drug users (IDU's) who share needles, and men who have sex with other men (MSM). In both cases, the behaviours of people in these groups raise their infection ratio above unity, and the virus infects others in those groups. Indeed, these two groups remain the two where HIV/AIDS is most prevalent, and most of the new infections (on a per capita basis) occur.
For IDU's, sharing needles transmits the virus from one individual directly into the bloodstream of another. Since such people shoot up often, and sometimes change who they do it with, the risk of infection can be very high and the disease can spread rapidly in that population. Therefore preventive measures like needle exchanges, or bleach washing of used needles can be important to reduce the risk and stop the epidemic.
With MSM, the combination of anal sex and multiple partners make HIV transmission much more likely than for single-partner, heterosexual intercourse. Thus, here too, the infection ratio can be quite high and the virus can spread quickly through an unprotected population. For example, recall "patient zero" and the rapid increase in AIDS among homosexual men before the virus was identified. Here too, limiting partners, and using some form of protection can presumably reduce the risk.
Notwithstanding attempts to prevent transmission and limit the risk of infection, these two populations remain centres for HIV transmission in the North American population. Indeed, these two sub-populations may be considered as "reservoirs" for the disease and act to maintain it at significant levels within the wider population. How that works can be explained by the relative infection ratios of these two groups compared to the rest of the people. Within these sub groups, the infection ratio is high (more than one), so the disease does not die out.
However, these groups also interact in risky ways with people outside their groups, and thus may pass on the infection to those people. For example, bisexual, or secretly homosexual men may infect their female partners, even if the chance for that is relatively low. In the past, IDU's might give blood to earn money to pay for their drugs, children might be pricked by used needles left in parks, or health care workers might accidentally get infected blood on them.
In such ways, HIV/AIDS can "leak" out of the reservoirs where it is sustained, and into the broader population. But once there, it does not become epidemic, because the subsequent infection ratio outside the reservoirs is less than unity. A few other unfortunates will contract the disease, but for most of us the risk is low, although given the nature of the disease, taking precautions in uncertain situations is still a good idea.
This analysis suggests that efforts to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS should focus almost entirely on the reservoir sub-populations of IDU's and MSM. This is happening to some extent, but misplaced political correctness (e.g. "everyone is at risk" campaigns), and the tendency of these two groups not to adopt the recommended precautions (any needle for a fix?) allow the reservoirs to maintain the disease at low but stable levels, condemning many more each year to the AIDS disease.
Stronger methods (recall the "Typhoid Mary" quarantine rules) could be applied if health care agencies had the will and political clout to apply them. Mandatory HIV testing for some groups, tightly focused educational campaigns, backed up by strong laws against knowingly transmitting the virus, enforced and coupled with aggressive treatment regimes, could presumably reduce the infection ratio even within these reservoirs, thereby winding down the disease, at least to some significant degree.
Given the cost of lifelong anti-HIV treatments and the poor health associated with the disease and ongoing treatments, it seems that we would be well advised to pursue such measures, to protect these sub groups and the population at large from this scourge. There are good reasons for being sexually faithful to one partner, and for not injecting yourself with drugs, and North America would do well to promote truly healthy behaviour and stop pretending otherwise. I expect an unbiased professional epidemiologist would agree.
Friday, 7 February 2014
Evidence for God
Quite often in discussion with atheists or agnostics, one hears the throw-away comment that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What they mean, of course, is that they do not accept whatever evidence and arguments they may have seen or heard. Usually it also means that they have not looked seriously or in any depth, or, due to their mind set, that they would not accept any evidence however compelling.
It is openly admitted by all that one cannot "prove" the existence of God, just as one cannot "disprove" it. However, without trying to do that, we can examine evidence pro and con, if only to establish that belief in God's existence is not "blind faith" or "irrational" as some are known to say, ad nauseum. Therefore, I offer up the following list of evidence that can be taken to support the existence of God:
1. The universe had a beginning:
For centuries scientists assumed that the universe was eternal; i.e. had no beginning. When evidence for the Big Bang first arose, it was dismissed and argued against. One telling argument was that if the universe had a beginning, it would need to have been caused by something outside the universe. That idea was uncomfortably close to suggesting the existence of a creator, so materialists could not even consider it. Indeed, they went to some lengths (e.g. steady-state cosmology) to avoid it. And they still do with their various "multiverse" concepts, for which indeed there is zero evidence.
Meanwhile, for thousands of years, Judeo-Christian faith has firmly taught that there was indeed a beginning, and a creator. The Big Bang theory presently used to describe the universe's beginning therefore accords with Christian beliefs.
2. The universe is incredibly fine tuned to allow life:
It has been known for several decades now that if the universe's initial conditions, or any of a dozen or so fundamental physical constants had been different, in some cases by the smallest differences, then elements, stars, planets, life and people could not have existed. To modern physics, most of these constants appear to be arbitrary in that they could just as well have had different values as far as the theories and physical laws are concerned.
Of course, if there is a creator God, then he would have done the fine tuning to get a universe that served his purposes, which presumably include us. That seems like the simplest answer (Occham's razor and all) to the fine tuning question. Again, the best that materialist cosmologists can offer to "explain" this fine tuning is their multiverse concept, which has zero supportive evidence and which only bumps the fine tuning problem up to the next (imaginary) level. After all, what would cause an infinite number of universes to continually pop into existence, each with a random set of physical constants and initial conditions? A multi-creator perhaps?
3. The laws of physics are highly ordered and rational:
Not only is the universe finely tuned, but the fundamental physical laws governing its operation appear to be exquisitely aesthetic and simple enough for mere humans to understand and write down on a single page. It is an existential mystery why the universe should be so well ordered and in such beautiful ways.
Here too, we note that if the universe was designed by a perfectly wise and rational creator, then it would be well ordered, regular and understandable, following clear and aesthetically pleasing rules. And if humans were formed in the image of God, then they would be able to study and at least partially understand those rules.
4. The beginning of life on earth:
How life could begin from non-life on planet Earth has engaged scientists for more than a century. Although numerous clever schemes have been suggested, none of them has born significant fruit, and all have fallen far short of the minimal necessary attributes for a living being to exist, grow and reproduce itself. The time scale between when the newly-formed Earth could have supported life (e.g. water remains in liquid state on the surface) and the emergence of the first living cells is quite short, making the problem that much more difficult.
Now if there were an intelligent creator in the picture, it could have thought about how best to design and make what it wanted out of its universe, and been able to put together the building blocks and create living cells from them. I hope science will continue to look for natural processes that could explain abiogenesis, but I expect that the early conditions on Earth, chemistry, laws of thermodynamics, the lack of probabilistic resources, and so on, will continue to be against them, so that they remain far from a credible naturalistic answer.
5. The appearance of design in life:
Once life gets started, evolution will take over and neatly explain the complexity of life we currently see on Earth, as well as in the fossil record. Or so say the naturalists. While Darwinism is good at explaining how gene allele frequencies change in populations subject to environmental and other pressures, the theory has fallen far short of explaining how complex novel features have come about in plants and animals during the 600 million years or so since the first simple multi-cellular life forms inhabited the planet.
The analyses and tests of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement clearly show that random mutation and natural selection cannot generate novel proteins requiring more than a few amino acid differences. Meanwhile, even the closest proteins with novel functions usually differ by many amino acids. Evolution can only work if each step in the supposed development chain benefits the species in which it occurs, and most small changes in protein sequences render the protein inoperative. ID has looked into many so-called examples of novelty in various species and shown that they arose by the addition of significant new information to the DNA, and not by an accumulation of small, random changes, as demanded by unguided evolution.
With a creator in the picture again, developing new proteins and novel features to living beings is straightforward. Intelligence is the only known source of complex information that specifies useful structures and functionality. Thus, the best cause for the existence of such information, which is what DNA is in essence, is a creator, which of course, points us again to God.
6. The historical existence and person of Jesus Christ:
I now switch from science to history. Several ancient, non-biblical documents refer to Christ or Jesus, so we know he did exist. Most of his disciples were martyred for their belief in the events they saw and in some cases clearly reported. Moreover, the same disciples went from being frightened and clueless, to being bold and certain of their belief in the risen Christ. Assuming the gospel accounts are even partly true (see below), then Jesus is an important historical figure. No one can deny that his existence has changed the world.
Now, to borrow from C. S. Lewis, who can we say that Jesus was? If he was a self-deluded fool, why would people follow him and die for him, even beyond his grave? If he was a malicious or power-hungry man, why did he allow himself to be killed? If he was just a prophet and a "good man", why did he tell his followers lies about himself? The gospels make it clear that Jesus claimed to be the very Son of God. So if that is not true, what was he and how can we square that with the historical records?
7. The existence and accuracy of the bible:
The bible was written over a period exceeding 1000 years, by more than 30 human authors, yet it all hangs together and shows the story of God's ongoing revelation of himself from Moses time, up to the first century Roman world. This is a longer time and more authors in agreement than for other religious writings.
Some of the gospels and epistles were written mere decades after Christ's death around 29AD, while others still living could remember what did (or did not) happen, to corroborate or refute what was written. Moreover, the bibles we have today are in excellent agreement with the oldest copies in existence (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls), and all true modern translations (as opposed to paraphrases) largely agree on the meanings of the passages. Thus, we can be certain that the bible we read today tells pretty much the same story as it did to the ancient Jews and early Christians.
Sure there are occasional minor discrepancies, a few lost words, and some minor uncertainties about word meanings, but the bible books remain the most intensely-studied, attacked but vindicated, and corroborated ancient texts in the world. Together they clearly point us to God as the main actor in creation.
8. The existence of miracles:
It is understandable that many people do not believe in miracles. If you have never experienced one, they seem far fetched at best. On the other hand, a large number of credible people claim to have witnessed or been involved in events which can only be described as miraculous. To write ALL of these off as wishful thinking, hallucination, deception, or confusion, is to make the error of trying to disprove a global negative. You cannot possibly know that ALL supposed miracles are false, and if even two are true, then miracles do exist.
In particular, the Roman Catholic Church investigates supposed miracles very closely and only accepts as miraculous, those which cannot be explained by any other means. Miracles do not usually violate physical laws, but to believers, represent the supernatural realm acting within the natural realm. I have a physical metaphor to describe what happens during some miracles, but will save that for another posting. For now I will just say that there are enough credible reports of seemingly miraculous events that I must take their existence seriously. To deny all miracles out of hand is merely to say that you do not accept the evidence, not that there is no such evidence.
9. Various philosophical arguments:
From ancient Greece, to medieval theologians, to modern philosophers, numerous people at various times have come up with logical arguments purporting to "prove" the existence of God, or at least of some supreme "first cause" or "supreme being". For example since the time of Anselm, there have been various "ontological arguments" put forward, with varying degrees of success. In addition, Thomas Aquinas produced five logical arguments for God, and more recently, Kurt Godel tried to prove a god-like existence mathematically. These are just a few of the many.
While many of these so called "proofs" sound dubious or suspicious to modern thinkers, skeptics have had a hard time effectively refuting them. Sometimes atheists denigrate the arguments without apparently understanding them, or claim that they have been refuted when that is not true. So it comes down to who you believe and what your basic axioms of life are. But it cannot merely be stated that there is no rational argument for God's existence.
10. The existence of morality, consciousness, free will:
A dyed in the wool naturalist has a hard time accounting for universally held moral values, has to conclude that consciousness is an illusion, and must believe that free will does not exist, despite the almost universal human tendency to accept these things as obvious. It is impossible to go through life without applying the concept of right and wrong, without being self aware and introspective, and without believing that you are largely in control of the things you do. On the other hand, these three come easily and naturally (so to speak) when you accept a creator God who gave us each a spirit in his image.
11. The existence of truth, beauty and reason:
Similarly, if we are just bundles of chemicals, come together by chance, with no ultimate purpose, then what (if anything) do these three words mean? Why should we assume that logic and reason are valid when they are just neurons firing in response to stimuli? Why should the abstract words "true" and "false" have any connection to reality (whatever that may be)? And how do we define "beauty" when it is just a collection of sensory inputs to a complex biological network?
Yet we all understand truth, use reason every day, and experience beauty in life. The easiest explanation for this is that God created us and the world that way. That may seem too simplistic, but naturalistic worldviews, if they are consistent, have a hard time with these.
12. The firm belief of the majority of humans:
Finally, truth should not be decided by popular vote, of course, but the fact that the vast majority of the human race has believed and still believes in God, or some sort of supernatural realm and forces, must count as evidence of some sort. Scientism has tried to "explain" religion from an evolutionary perspective, but such stories are shy on real evidence and tend to misunderstand religious belief as it is held and practiced by most people. In contrast, if God exists, then belief in him and acceptance of his revelations clearly follow.
Each of these pieces of evidence has just been introduced here. Many books have been written exploring these arguments and the facts behind them. Obviously, I cannot do justice to any of them in a blog posting, but all of them can be investigated in depth, from both pro and con perspectives, on the Internet if one wants to find the truth for oneself. I encourage you to do so. Christianity has survived every attack against it for almost 2000 years now, and God has been around a lot longer. As we say, "all truth is God's truth", so there is no harm in searching for truth with an open mind.
Once again, while no one can "prove" that God exists, and while one may take exception with some of the above arguments, all of them cannot be discounted out of hand and simply written off as "irrational blind faith". Materialism does a much poorer job explaining many of them than do faith in God and Christianity.
To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, there is enough evidence to satisfy those with some faith, but not enough to convince those without. Perhaps that is the way God intended it to be!
It is openly admitted by all that one cannot "prove" the existence of God, just as one cannot "disprove" it. However, without trying to do that, we can examine evidence pro and con, if only to establish that belief in God's existence is not "blind faith" or "irrational" as some are known to say, ad nauseum. Therefore, I offer up the following list of evidence that can be taken to support the existence of God:
1. The universe had a beginning:
For centuries scientists assumed that the universe was eternal; i.e. had no beginning. When evidence for the Big Bang first arose, it was dismissed and argued against. One telling argument was that if the universe had a beginning, it would need to have been caused by something outside the universe. That idea was uncomfortably close to suggesting the existence of a creator, so materialists could not even consider it. Indeed, they went to some lengths (e.g. steady-state cosmology) to avoid it. And they still do with their various "multiverse" concepts, for which indeed there is zero evidence.
Meanwhile, for thousands of years, Judeo-Christian faith has firmly taught that there was indeed a beginning, and a creator. The Big Bang theory presently used to describe the universe's beginning therefore accords with Christian beliefs.
2. The universe is incredibly fine tuned to allow life:
It has been known for several decades now that if the universe's initial conditions, or any of a dozen or so fundamental physical constants had been different, in some cases by the smallest differences, then elements, stars, planets, life and people could not have existed. To modern physics, most of these constants appear to be arbitrary in that they could just as well have had different values as far as the theories and physical laws are concerned.
Of course, if there is a creator God, then he would have done the fine tuning to get a universe that served his purposes, which presumably include us. That seems like the simplest answer (Occham's razor and all) to the fine tuning question. Again, the best that materialist cosmologists can offer to "explain" this fine tuning is their multiverse concept, which has zero supportive evidence and which only bumps the fine tuning problem up to the next (imaginary) level. After all, what would cause an infinite number of universes to continually pop into existence, each with a random set of physical constants and initial conditions? A multi-creator perhaps?
3. The laws of physics are highly ordered and rational:
Not only is the universe finely tuned, but the fundamental physical laws governing its operation appear to be exquisitely aesthetic and simple enough for mere humans to understand and write down on a single page. It is an existential mystery why the universe should be so well ordered and in such beautiful ways.
Here too, we note that if the universe was designed by a perfectly wise and rational creator, then it would be well ordered, regular and understandable, following clear and aesthetically pleasing rules. And if humans were formed in the image of God, then they would be able to study and at least partially understand those rules.
4. The beginning of life on earth:
How life could begin from non-life on planet Earth has engaged scientists for more than a century. Although numerous clever schemes have been suggested, none of them has born significant fruit, and all have fallen far short of the minimal necessary attributes for a living being to exist, grow and reproduce itself. The time scale between when the newly-formed Earth could have supported life (e.g. water remains in liquid state on the surface) and the emergence of the first living cells is quite short, making the problem that much more difficult.
Now if there were an intelligent creator in the picture, it could have thought about how best to design and make what it wanted out of its universe, and been able to put together the building blocks and create living cells from them. I hope science will continue to look for natural processes that could explain abiogenesis, but I expect that the early conditions on Earth, chemistry, laws of thermodynamics, the lack of probabilistic resources, and so on, will continue to be against them, so that they remain far from a credible naturalistic answer.
5. The appearance of design in life:
Once life gets started, evolution will take over and neatly explain the complexity of life we currently see on Earth, as well as in the fossil record. Or so say the naturalists. While Darwinism is good at explaining how gene allele frequencies change in populations subject to environmental and other pressures, the theory has fallen far short of explaining how complex novel features have come about in plants and animals during the 600 million years or so since the first simple multi-cellular life forms inhabited the planet.
The analyses and tests of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement clearly show that random mutation and natural selection cannot generate novel proteins requiring more than a few amino acid differences. Meanwhile, even the closest proteins with novel functions usually differ by many amino acids. Evolution can only work if each step in the supposed development chain benefits the species in which it occurs, and most small changes in protein sequences render the protein inoperative. ID has looked into many so-called examples of novelty in various species and shown that they arose by the addition of significant new information to the DNA, and not by an accumulation of small, random changes, as demanded by unguided evolution.
With a creator in the picture again, developing new proteins and novel features to living beings is straightforward. Intelligence is the only known source of complex information that specifies useful structures and functionality. Thus, the best cause for the existence of such information, which is what DNA is in essence, is a creator, which of course, points us again to God.
6. The historical existence and person of Jesus Christ:
I now switch from science to history. Several ancient, non-biblical documents refer to Christ or Jesus, so we know he did exist. Most of his disciples were martyred for their belief in the events they saw and in some cases clearly reported. Moreover, the same disciples went from being frightened and clueless, to being bold and certain of their belief in the risen Christ. Assuming the gospel accounts are even partly true (see below), then Jesus is an important historical figure. No one can deny that his existence has changed the world.
Now, to borrow from C. S. Lewis, who can we say that Jesus was? If he was a self-deluded fool, why would people follow him and die for him, even beyond his grave? If he was a malicious or power-hungry man, why did he allow himself to be killed? If he was just a prophet and a "good man", why did he tell his followers lies about himself? The gospels make it clear that Jesus claimed to be the very Son of God. So if that is not true, what was he and how can we square that with the historical records?
7. The existence and accuracy of the bible:
The bible was written over a period exceeding 1000 years, by more than 30 human authors, yet it all hangs together and shows the story of God's ongoing revelation of himself from Moses time, up to the first century Roman world. This is a longer time and more authors in agreement than for other religious writings.
Some of the gospels and epistles were written mere decades after Christ's death around 29AD, while others still living could remember what did (or did not) happen, to corroborate or refute what was written. Moreover, the bibles we have today are in excellent agreement with the oldest copies in existence (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls), and all true modern translations (as opposed to paraphrases) largely agree on the meanings of the passages. Thus, we can be certain that the bible we read today tells pretty much the same story as it did to the ancient Jews and early Christians.
Sure there are occasional minor discrepancies, a few lost words, and some minor uncertainties about word meanings, but the bible books remain the most intensely-studied, attacked but vindicated, and corroborated ancient texts in the world. Together they clearly point us to God as the main actor in creation.
8. The existence of miracles:
It is understandable that many people do not believe in miracles. If you have never experienced one, they seem far fetched at best. On the other hand, a large number of credible people claim to have witnessed or been involved in events which can only be described as miraculous. To write ALL of these off as wishful thinking, hallucination, deception, or confusion, is to make the error of trying to disprove a global negative. You cannot possibly know that ALL supposed miracles are false, and if even two are true, then miracles do exist.
In particular, the Roman Catholic Church investigates supposed miracles very closely and only accepts as miraculous, those which cannot be explained by any other means. Miracles do not usually violate physical laws, but to believers, represent the supernatural realm acting within the natural realm. I have a physical metaphor to describe what happens during some miracles, but will save that for another posting. For now I will just say that there are enough credible reports of seemingly miraculous events that I must take their existence seriously. To deny all miracles out of hand is merely to say that you do not accept the evidence, not that there is no such evidence.
9. Various philosophical arguments:
From ancient Greece, to medieval theologians, to modern philosophers, numerous people at various times have come up with logical arguments purporting to "prove" the existence of God, or at least of some supreme "first cause" or "supreme being". For example since the time of Anselm, there have been various "ontological arguments" put forward, with varying degrees of success. In addition, Thomas Aquinas produced five logical arguments for God, and more recently, Kurt Godel tried to prove a god-like existence mathematically. These are just a few of the many.
While many of these so called "proofs" sound dubious or suspicious to modern thinkers, skeptics have had a hard time effectively refuting them. Sometimes atheists denigrate the arguments without apparently understanding them, or claim that they have been refuted when that is not true. So it comes down to who you believe and what your basic axioms of life are. But it cannot merely be stated that there is no rational argument for God's existence.
10. The existence of morality, consciousness, free will:
A dyed in the wool naturalist has a hard time accounting for universally held moral values, has to conclude that consciousness is an illusion, and must believe that free will does not exist, despite the almost universal human tendency to accept these things as obvious. It is impossible to go through life without applying the concept of right and wrong, without being self aware and introspective, and without believing that you are largely in control of the things you do. On the other hand, these three come easily and naturally (so to speak) when you accept a creator God who gave us each a spirit in his image.
11. The existence of truth, beauty and reason:
Similarly, if we are just bundles of chemicals, come together by chance, with no ultimate purpose, then what (if anything) do these three words mean? Why should we assume that logic and reason are valid when they are just neurons firing in response to stimuli? Why should the abstract words "true" and "false" have any connection to reality (whatever that may be)? And how do we define "beauty" when it is just a collection of sensory inputs to a complex biological network?
Yet we all understand truth, use reason every day, and experience beauty in life. The easiest explanation for this is that God created us and the world that way. That may seem too simplistic, but naturalistic worldviews, if they are consistent, have a hard time with these.
12. The firm belief of the majority of humans:
Finally, truth should not be decided by popular vote, of course, but the fact that the vast majority of the human race has believed and still believes in God, or some sort of supernatural realm and forces, must count as evidence of some sort. Scientism has tried to "explain" religion from an evolutionary perspective, but such stories are shy on real evidence and tend to misunderstand religious belief as it is held and practiced by most people. In contrast, if God exists, then belief in him and acceptance of his revelations clearly follow.
Each of these pieces of evidence has just been introduced here. Many books have been written exploring these arguments and the facts behind them. Obviously, I cannot do justice to any of them in a blog posting, but all of them can be investigated in depth, from both pro and con perspectives, on the Internet if one wants to find the truth for oneself. I encourage you to do so. Christianity has survived every attack against it for almost 2000 years now, and God has been around a lot longer. As we say, "all truth is God's truth", so there is no harm in searching for truth with an open mind.
Once again, while no one can "prove" that God exists, and while one may take exception with some of the above arguments, all of them cannot be discounted out of hand and simply written off as "irrational blind faith". Materialism does a much poorer job explaining many of them than do faith in God and Christianity.
To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, there is enough evidence to satisfy those with some faith, but not enough to convince those without. Perhaps that is the way God intended it to be!
Friday, 31 January 2014
Repulsive Gravity
Everyone knows that gravity is attractive, right? Since Isaac Newton, the universal law of gravitation states that the force of attraction between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Einstein's theory of relativity superseded this for extreme cases, but in most cases, agrees very well with it.
But suppose that gravity was really repulsive; i.e. instead of attracting bodies together, the basic gravitational force actually pushed? Let me explain before you write me off as a completely bonkers. Imagine that gravity consists of a homogeneous, isotropic flux of particles throughout the universe. Let's call them "gravitons", although they would be quite different from the gravitons that scientists are currently searching for, and have not yet found. My gravitons produce a small push on matter when they are absorbed, deflected, reflected, or otherwise interact with it.
Now consider a single object, say a planet, alone in the universe. The gravitons would push against the planet's surface, and some would be absorbed, deflected, or reduced in energy as they passed through. The result would be that anything resting on the surface would be pushed against it (i.e. "down") more than they would be pushed away from it ("up"). The reason is that the gravitons coming up through the planet would be fewer or weaker than those impinging on the surface. So anything on the surface would be pressed down toward the centre of the planet, just as if they were attracted to it.
Now consider adding a second object to this thought experiment, say a second planet some distance away. Each planet would absorb, redirect, or weaken some of the gravitons passing through, and some of those would be in the direction of the other planet. Thus, each planet would feel a push toward the other planet; that is, the push coming from the direction of the other planet would be slightly less than the push from the opposite direction. In this way, the two planets would seem to be "attracted" to each other, when in reality, they are merely being pushed closer together.
Assuming that the gravitons are absorbed, deflected, or weakened in proportion to the amount of mass in the body they are passing through, and assuming that ordinary objects like stars and planets absorb only a very small fraction of the impinging gravitons, then it can be shown that the resulting push behaves just like Newton's law of gravity; i.e. the differential push felt between the two planets, or any two bodies, would be proportional to the product of their masses, and the inverse square of the distance between them. In this way, gravitons could push objects, yet result in a net attraction between them.
This concept might be seen as a simple way to explain the apparent attractive action-at a-distance behaviour that puzzled physicists before Einstein. No need for action at a distance, the action is all in the gravitons pushing on the matter they encounter on their way through the universe. Given the same net result, repulsive gravity can account for orbiting moons and satellites, and most other gravitational effects we observe in the solar system and universe around us.
In principle, repulsive gravity could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. If these gravitons push everything they encounter, then over very long distances, where the attraction effect of the differential push becomes negligible, then bodies would tend to be pushed further from each other, especially if there was some "boundary effect" for the universe due to its finite age and the speed of light limitation on distances travelled. This concept might also help explain the "dark matter" or "dark energy" problems that cosmologists struggle with. If gravitons interact only as a weak gravitational force, yet have even a tiny mass, they could significantly change cosmic theories and models.
Of course, the repulsive gravity concept runs into severe limitations and difficulties when examined more closely. Even picogram quantities of matter are subject to the force of gravity in apparently smooth ways, so the interaction of gravitons with mass would have to be very fine and continuous, implying a huge flux of very small gravitons. Moreover, the wide dynamic range of the force of gravity, from these barely perceptible levels to the huge forces associated with neutron starts or black holes, would require a huge flux and a very low level of interaction for normal sized masses and bodies. It seems unlikely that a graviton flux model could accommodate these extremes.
Worse would be the effect of absorbing or weakening the gravitons. For them to produce any force, they would need to carry some amount of energy, which would be reduced during these interactions. That energy dissipation would have to show up somehow, presumably by heating the bodies that absorb them in ways that do not agree with the measured energy balance for planets. It might be possible to get around this by saying that the gravitons are not absorbed, but merely deflected or reflected, thus losing no energy, yet still applying a push as they change their momentum. But that probably raises questions about resulting flux density non-isotropy for other nearby objects.
There are doubtless other effects of actual gravity (which have been very precisely measured), especially the relativistic ones, that probably cannot be accounted for in this approach. Thus, it seems unlikely that the concept of repulsive gravity will go beyond my few notes here. Indeed, perhaps in Newton's time, some unknown physicist thought of this and quickly abandoned the idea once he had thought through the mathematics and consequences. Oh well, so much for my idea, but it was still an interesting thought experiment.
But suppose that gravity was really repulsive; i.e. instead of attracting bodies together, the basic gravitational force actually pushed? Let me explain before you write me off as a completely bonkers. Imagine that gravity consists of a homogeneous, isotropic flux of particles throughout the universe. Let's call them "gravitons", although they would be quite different from the gravitons that scientists are currently searching for, and have not yet found. My gravitons produce a small push on matter when they are absorbed, deflected, reflected, or otherwise interact with it.
Now consider a single object, say a planet, alone in the universe. The gravitons would push against the planet's surface, and some would be absorbed, deflected, or reduced in energy as they passed through. The result would be that anything resting on the surface would be pushed against it (i.e. "down") more than they would be pushed away from it ("up"). The reason is that the gravitons coming up through the planet would be fewer or weaker than those impinging on the surface. So anything on the surface would be pressed down toward the centre of the planet, just as if they were attracted to it.
Now consider adding a second object to this thought experiment, say a second planet some distance away. Each planet would absorb, redirect, or weaken some of the gravitons passing through, and some of those would be in the direction of the other planet. Thus, each planet would feel a push toward the other planet; that is, the push coming from the direction of the other planet would be slightly less than the push from the opposite direction. In this way, the two planets would seem to be "attracted" to each other, when in reality, they are merely being pushed closer together.
Assuming that the gravitons are absorbed, deflected, or weakened in proportion to the amount of mass in the body they are passing through, and assuming that ordinary objects like stars and planets absorb only a very small fraction of the impinging gravitons, then it can be shown that the resulting push behaves just like Newton's law of gravity; i.e. the differential push felt between the two planets, or any two bodies, would be proportional to the product of their masses, and the inverse square of the distance between them. In this way, gravitons could push objects, yet result in a net attraction between them.
This concept might be seen as a simple way to explain the apparent attractive action-at a-distance behaviour that puzzled physicists before Einstein. No need for action at a distance, the action is all in the gravitons pushing on the matter they encounter on their way through the universe. Given the same net result, repulsive gravity can account for orbiting moons and satellites, and most other gravitational effects we observe in the solar system and universe around us.
In principle, repulsive gravity could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. If these gravitons push everything they encounter, then over very long distances, where the attraction effect of the differential push becomes negligible, then bodies would tend to be pushed further from each other, especially if there was some "boundary effect" for the universe due to its finite age and the speed of light limitation on distances travelled. This concept might also help explain the "dark matter" or "dark energy" problems that cosmologists struggle with. If gravitons interact only as a weak gravitational force, yet have even a tiny mass, they could significantly change cosmic theories and models.
Of course, the repulsive gravity concept runs into severe limitations and difficulties when examined more closely. Even picogram quantities of matter are subject to the force of gravity in apparently smooth ways, so the interaction of gravitons with mass would have to be very fine and continuous, implying a huge flux of very small gravitons. Moreover, the wide dynamic range of the force of gravity, from these barely perceptible levels to the huge forces associated with neutron starts or black holes, would require a huge flux and a very low level of interaction for normal sized masses and bodies. It seems unlikely that a graviton flux model could accommodate these extremes.
Worse would be the effect of absorbing or weakening the gravitons. For them to produce any force, they would need to carry some amount of energy, which would be reduced during these interactions. That energy dissipation would have to show up somehow, presumably by heating the bodies that absorb them in ways that do not agree with the measured energy balance for planets. It might be possible to get around this by saying that the gravitons are not absorbed, but merely deflected or reflected, thus losing no energy, yet still applying a push as they change their momentum. But that probably raises questions about resulting flux density non-isotropy for other nearby objects.
There are doubtless other effects of actual gravity (which have been very precisely measured), especially the relativistic ones, that probably cannot be accounted for in this approach. Thus, it seems unlikely that the concept of repulsive gravity will go beyond my few notes here. Indeed, perhaps in Newton's time, some unknown physicist thought of this and quickly abandoned the idea once he had thought through the mathematics and consequences. Oh well, so much for my idea, but it was still an interesting thought experiment.
Saturday, 25 January 2014
The Limits of Science
Sometimes in discussions or debates regarding science and faith, origins, or atheism vs. religion, people give the impression or even state explicitly, that science explains life, the universe and anything worth knowing, or if not quite yet, then for sure eventually. That sort of hubris, known as "scientism", is unfortunately widespread in the popular media and certain groups of people, even including not a few actual scientists. This view often but erroneously puts Christians and others who believe in a spiritual realm on the defensive.
When looked at closely, scientism is not science at all, but a metaphysical or philosophical position, based on beliefs that cannot be proven, and which are often not even recognized or understood by the person voicing them.
To partially correct this tendency and argue against scientism, I offer the following list of things that science cannot explain or has been unable to understand over the centuries, sometimes despite trying hard, and notwithstanding claims to the contrary. Each one comes with a link to some article or page. You can find more about any one of these by appropriate Internet searching.
1. Science has no fundamental understanding of time.
What is time? Why does it pass, and in only one direction? Is the past real? Is the future fixed? Time has confounded physicists and philosophers alike for millennia. Relativity's "space-time" does not solve the problem, it just repackages it and makes it more mysterious. Cosmology struggles with the "problem of time" and the "arrow of time". http://preposterousuniverse.com/timecourse/
2. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible.
Both are superb theories that explain a lot in their own realms, and have been thoroughly tested in great detail. But the two are incompatible with each other, and various attempts to combine them into one large coherent theory of physics have not yet been successful. This is not a problem for most scientific research, but clearly something very fundamental is lacking in our understanding of physics.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-howwhy-are-quantum-mechanics-and-relativity-incompatible/
3. Science cannot explain the extreme fine tuning in the universe.
In order to make matter, stars, planets and life possible, the initial conditions for the Big Bang, along with the laws of physics and the fundamental physical constants of the universe had to be just so, sometimes to ridiculous levels of precision. However, from a physics perspective many of these parameters seem to be arbitrary and could have been different, so how did they get their values? http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937152.html
The main hypothesis to avoid the concept of a Creator doing the fine tuning, is the "multiverse" concept, but that idea is fraught with difficulties, does not really solve the "God problem", and has zero evidence in its favour. Indeed, it is not clear what evidence we could possibly find to support it. Thus the multiverse is not a scientific theory and science is left with the biggest mystery of all.
4. Science does not know what makes up 96% of the universe.
How can you pretend to understand how things all work if you only understand 4% of the 'stuff' in the universe? Science has evidence for "dark matter" that seems to outweigh the "normal" understood matter that we see in galaxies, gas clouds, stars, etc., by a factor of three or more. While cosmologists are searching, and have managed a rough map of how its mass must be distributed in some places, scientists have not found any candidates for this type of matter, despite having tested various theories.
Worse than that, most of the mass/energy in the universe appears to be in the form of "dark energy" that reveals its existence only through the accelerating expansion of the universe, and some constants in physicists equations. No one knows what this is.
http://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/
5. Science has no credible account of biogenesis, how life began on earth.
Even the simplest life form needs an enormous amount of internal machinery to make it live and reproduce. This machinery requires a large amount of information to specify it, as well as the machinery to turn that information into the machinery itself. The Darwinian process of random change plus natural selection cannot explain how this information arose before life existed.
Various "origin of life" attempts have been made to explain how life might have begun, but they all fall far short of explaining where this information came from. The basic probabilities for natural processes do not credibly support the necessary minimum. Experimental attempts to create life from basic materials have been quite unsuccessful at producing anything close to a self-replicating entity. And studies show that the chemical deck is severely stacked against any naturalistic mechanism.
http://www.nature.com/news/debate-bubbles-over-the-origin-of-life-1.10024
6. Science cannot explain consciousness.
Everyone knows he or she is conscious, but science has a hard time even defining the term, much less explaining it. Naturalistic scientism tries to "explain" it by voting it out of existence; you just think you are conscious, but it is just an "emergent property" of your neurons firing in ways that will eventually be understood. But the internal sense of being yourself, of understanding a concept, of thinking an abstract thought are not explained. The concepts of truth, beauty, morality and love could also fall into this category. "Artificial intelligence" has not produced anything like a conscious computer, and Gödel's theorem suggests that it cannot.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
7. Science does not answer the free-will vs. determinism question:
We all assume we have free will, the ability to make up our minds and choose courses of action based ultimately on our own thoughts. Sure there are outside influences, and our background and subconscious play their parts, but if we seriously believed we didn't have free will, our lives would be absurd jokes. Scientism, being stuck with naturalistic beliefs, needs to assume that there is no such thing as free will, and then somehow has to live as if there is. The debate becomes quite complicated.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/
8. Science cannot explain why the universe is understandable:
Why should mathematics work to capture physics and how the world works in a few equations? Indeed, why do logic and reasoning work at all? And why is man able to explore, measure, theorize about and even explain at some level the world he experiences. Why are their physical laws? Indeed, why is there anything at all? Scientism just takes all this for granted.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Why_Math_Works.pdf
9. Finally, science cannot tell you what you should do.
Science can study what is and how things in the natural world interact and work, and has done a great job of that over the centuries. But nothing in science can tell you what you ought to do tomorrow, or how you should live your years here on the Earth. That is up to you, using your conscious mind and based on your own circumstances, metaphysical beliefs and values.
http://www.aaas.org/page/can-science-answer-our-ethical-dilemmas-exploring-ought-dichotomy
This is not an exhaustive list, there are, of course, many detailed things that science does not know about the world. Science does advance, learning, discovering, analysing and theorizing, but the above are questions that science per se either cannot address, or will continue having problems delving into for a long time. So, I am not against science, indeed, I study it eagerly, but I am against scientism, especially when it presents itself as scientific.
So the next time someone claims that science can explain everything, that science proves atheism, or that science refutes spirituality, toss some of these items their way. True science is inherently humble, recognizing its limitations and ignorance, and sticking to areas it can properly investigate. Scientism is none of those things and needs to be called out when it pretends to be science.
When looked at closely, scientism is not science at all, but a metaphysical or philosophical position, based on beliefs that cannot be proven, and which are often not even recognized or understood by the person voicing them.
To partially correct this tendency and argue against scientism, I offer the following list of things that science cannot explain or has been unable to understand over the centuries, sometimes despite trying hard, and notwithstanding claims to the contrary. Each one comes with a link to some article or page. You can find more about any one of these by appropriate Internet searching.
1. Science has no fundamental understanding of time.
What is time? Why does it pass, and in only one direction? Is the past real? Is the future fixed? Time has confounded physicists and philosophers alike for millennia. Relativity's "space-time" does not solve the problem, it just repackages it and makes it more mysterious. Cosmology struggles with the "problem of time" and the "arrow of time". http://preposterousuniverse.com/timecourse/
2. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible.
Both are superb theories that explain a lot in their own realms, and have been thoroughly tested in great detail. But the two are incompatible with each other, and various attempts to combine them into one large coherent theory of physics have not yet been successful. This is not a problem for most scientific research, but clearly something very fundamental is lacking in our understanding of physics.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-howwhy-are-quantum-mechanics-and-relativity-incompatible/
3. Science cannot explain the extreme fine tuning in the universe.
In order to make matter, stars, planets and life possible, the initial conditions for the Big Bang, along with the laws of physics and the fundamental physical constants of the universe had to be just so, sometimes to ridiculous levels of precision. However, from a physics perspective many of these parameters seem to be arbitrary and could have been different, so how did they get their values? http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937152.html
The main hypothesis to avoid the concept of a Creator doing the fine tuning, is the "multiverse" concept, but that idea is fraught with difficulties, does not really solve the "God problem", and has zero evidence in its favour. Indeed, it is not clear what evidence we could possibly find to support it. Thus the multiverse is not a scientific theory and science is left with the biggest mystery of all.
4. Science does not know what makes up 96% of the universe.
How can you pretend to understand how things all work if you only understand 4% of the 'stuff' in the universe? Science has evidence for "dark matter" that seems to outweigh the "normal" understood matter that we see in galaxies, gas clouds, stars, etc., by a factor of three or more. While cosmologists are searching, and have managed a rough map of how its mass must be distributed in some places, scientists have not found any candidates for this type of matter, despite having tested various theories.
Worse than that, most of the mass/energy in the universe appears to be in the form of "dark energy" that reveals its existence only through the accelerating expansion of the universe, and some constants in physicists equations. No one knows what this is.
http://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/
5. Science has no credible account of biogenesis, how life began on earth.
Even the simplest life form needs an enormous amount of internal machinery to make it live and reproduce. This machinery requires a large amount of information to specify it, as well as the machinery to turn that information into the machinery itself. The Darwinian process of random change plus natural selection cannot explain how this information arose before life existed.
Various "origin of life" attempts have been made to explain how life might have begun, but they all fall far short of explaining where this information came from. The basic probabilities for natural processes do not credibly support the necessary minimum. Experimental attempts to create life from basic materials have been quite unsuccessful at producing anything close to a self-replicating entity. And studies show that the chemical deck is severely stacked against any naturalistic mechanism.
http://www.nature.com/news/debate-bubbles-over-the-origin-of-life-1.10024
6. Science cannot explain consciousness.
Everyone knows he or she is conscious, but science has a hard time even defining the term, much less explaining it. Naturalistic scientism tries to "explain" it by voting it out of existence; you just think you are conscious, but it is just an "emergent property" of your neurons firing in ways that will eventually be understood. But the internal sense of being yourself, of understanding a concept, of thinking an abstract thought are not explained. The concepts of truth, beauty, morality and love could also fall into this category. "Artificial intelligence" has not produced anything like a conscious computer, and Gödel's theorem suggests that it cannot.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
7. Science does not answer the free-will vs. determinism question:
We all assume we have free will, the ability to make up our minds and choose courses of action based ultimately on our own thoughts. Sure there are outside influences, and our background and subconscious play their parts, but if we seriously believed we didn't have free will, our lives would be absurd jokes. Scientism, being stuck with naturalistic beliefs, needs to assume that there is no such thing as free will, and then somehow has to live as if there is. The debate becomes quite complicated.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/
8. Science cannot explain why the universe is understandable:
Why should mathematics work to capture physics and how the world works in a few equations? Indeed, why do logic and reasoning work at all? And why is man able to explore, measure, theorize about and even explain at some level the world he experiences. Why are their physical laws? Indeed, why is there anything at all? Scientism just takes all this for granted.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Why_Math_Works.pdf
9. Finally, science cannot tell you what you should do.
Science can study what is and how things in the natural world interact and work, and has done a great job of that over the centuries. But nothing in science can tell you what you ought to do tomorrow, or how you should live your years here on the Earth. That is up to you, using your conscious mind and based on your own circumstances, metaphysical beliefs and values.
http://www.aaas.org/page/can-science-answer-our-ethical-dilemmas-exploring-ought-dichotomy
This is not an exhaustive list, there are, of course, many detailed things that science does not know about the world. Science does advance, learning, discovering, analysing and theorizing, but the above are questions that science per se either cannot address, or will continue having problems delving into for a long time. So, I am not against science, indeed, I study it eagerly, but I am against scientism, especially when it presents itself as scientific.
So the next time someone claims that science can explain everything, that science proves atheism, or that science refutes spirituality, toss some of these items their way. True science is inherently humble, recognizing its limitations and ignorance, and sticking to areas it can properly investigate. Scientism is none of those things and needs to be called out when it pretends to be science.
Monday, 20 January 2014
One Key to a Good Marriage
Having been blissfully married now for more than 37 years, I would like to share something that seems to me a good way to build a successful marriage. We always hear about the importance of communications, commitment, respect and other good advice, but I have observed that an appropriate division of labour or roles is one easy way to foster and maintain a healthy marriage.
Having separate defined responsibilities in the marriage and home has some great benefits. Both spouses can focus their skills, effort and attention on a subset of household tasks, rather than trying to be good at all of them; a simpler arrangement. We don’t both have to worry about everything, I get to do the things I am good at, and my partner in life gets to do the ones she is good at. Of course there will be some tasks or roles that both or neither are good at and those can be divvied up to balance the work load, each taking on “60%” of the tasks to ensure that 90% get done most of the time. :-)
More important, division of labour builds mutual dependency, appreciation and even admiration for each other as my spouse does things I do not or cannot do well, and I get better at doing the things I do well – the best use and application of available talent! Dependency is important to see the marriage through rough spots. If I cannot see how I could get by without my spouse, then I am less likely to entertain the thought of doing so. Watching your spouse do things for you that you would not do well yourself also provides opportunities for gratitude and appreciation – always a good thing in marriages.
On the flip side, having separate responsibilities helps avoid some serious marital difficulties. For example, squabbles over whose turn it is to take out the garbage, confusion and anxiety about when and how the vacuuming was last done, grumbling about whether or how well the grass was mowed, pointless disagreements about how something should be done, and even competition with your spouse on multiple trivial fronts. These petty issues can lead to disgruntlement, resentment and estrangement if allowed to fester, or when fed every week. Best to avoid them altogether.
Of course, as a married couple, you should still do some tasks together, and an occasional role-swapping will help build your relationship as you come to appreciate what is involved in your spouse’s tasks. This is also important so that you can pick up other duties when necessary, as when your spouse leaves you with the kids for a few days, or to be with her aging parent, is away on business, sick in bed, or heavily into volunteer work.
In our marriage, we have found that this division of labour works extremely well. Thus I thought I would share the concept to see if it could be helpful advice for others.
Later Addition:
If you are young and not yet married, then you should marry earlier rather than later in life. No I don't mean as a teen. Rather I mean don't wait until your thirties to get hitched, for a variety of reasons. At 24 years, you are still figuring out who you are, constructing your personality and life habits after getting out on your own. Thus, your persona and ways of doing things are still malleable or flexible and you can adapt to your spouse, who will be different from you in so many ways. If you wait until 35, then your life will (usually) be much more settled in terms of habits, career, living processes, preferences, etc., and you will find it harder to change and adapt, as you must when you get married. Marrying early allows the two to become one much more easily and closely, growing together their living skills and adjusting to each other -- certainly a good thing for a happy marriage.
For those who are already married, you can pretend you are young enough to change radically, be willing to do so, and thereby build a closer relationship and a stronger marriage.
OK, so maybe engineers should not be giving marital advice?
Having separate defined responsibilities in the marriage and home has some great benefits. Both spouses can focus their skills, effort and attention on a subset of household tasks, rather than trying to be good at all of them; a simpler arrangement. We don’t both have to worry about everything, I get to do the things I am good at, and my partner in life gets to do the ones she is good at. Of course there will be some tasks or roles that both or neither are good at and those can be divvied up to balance the work load, each taking on “60%” of the tasks to ensure that 90% get done most of the time. :-)
More important, division of labour builds mutual dependency, appreciation and even admiration for each other as my spouse does things I do not or cannot do well, and I get better at doing the things I do well – the best use and application of available talent! Dependency is important to see the marriage through rough spots. If I cannot see how I could get by without my spouse, then I am less likely to entertain the thought of doing so. Watching your spouse do things for you that you would not do well yourself also provides opportunities for gratitude and appreciation – always a good thing in marriages.
On the flip side, having separate responsibilities helps avoid some serious marital difficulties. For example, squabbles over whose turn it is to take out the garbage, confusion and anxiety about when and how the vacuuming was last done, grumbling about whether or how well the grass was mowed, pointless disagreements about how something should be done, and even competition with your spouse on multiple trivial fronts. These petty issues can lead to disgruntlement, resentment and estrangement if allowed to fester, or when fed every week. Best to avoid them altogether.
Of course, as a married couple, you should still do some tasks together, and an occasional role-swapping will help build your relationship as you come to appreciate what is involved in your spouse’s tasks. This is also important so that you can pick up other duties when necessary, as when your spouse leaves you with the kids for a few days, or to be with her aging parent, is away on business, sick in bed, or heavily into volunteer work.
In our marriage, we have found that this division of labour works extremely well. Thus I thought I would share the concept to see if it could be helpful advice for others.
Later Addition:
If you are young and not yet married, then you should marry earlier rather than later in life. No I don't mean as a teen. Rather I mean don't wait until your thirties to get hitched, for a variety of reasons. At 24 years, you are still figuring out who you are, constructing your personality and life habits after getting out on your own. Thus, your persona and ways of doing things are still malleable or flexible and you can adapt to your spouse, who will be different from you in so many ways. If you wait until 35, then your life will (usually) be much more settled in terms of habits, career, living processes, preferences, etc., and you will find it harder to change and adapt, as you must when you get married. Marrying early allows the two to become one much more easily and closely, growing together their living skills and adjusting to each other -- certainly a good thing for a happy marriage.
For those who are already married, you can pretend you are young enough to change radically, be willing to do so, and thereby build a closer relationship and a stronger marriage.
OK, so maybe engineers should not be giving marital advice?
Saturday, 18 January 2014
On Global Warming
I don't like the term "climate change" as that seems too vague. Of course the climate is changing; it has always been changing. And what possible evidence could one present to "disprove climate change"? In any case, the "climate change" issue usually devolves to the warming effects of CO2 on the Earth's global climate, and whether this is caused by human activities.
Therefore, for what it's worth, here is my current position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, summarized in four simple questions and my own brief answers:
1. Is global warming occurring?
Well probably yes, over several decades, although rather slowly, in fits and starts, and with some uncertainties. Oh by the way, it was already warming before humans began releasing huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, albeit at a slower rate.
2. Are human CO2 emissions causing the warming?
Perhaps, at least some of it. Although not an expert, I have seen enough of both sides to claim that 50% +/-40% of the current global warming is caused by human activity, but it is not all CO2 related: there are localized heating effects like city "heat islands", jungle deforestation, and nuclear power plant heating that must produce some of the warming. And then there are also various natural processes and cycles which have their effects. Thus, there are lots of drivers behind global warming, of which CO2 is but one.
3. Are increased CO2 and global warming a problem?
For some people and ecosystems yes, for sure, but for others, it will probably be beneficial. Significant sea level rise (unlikely to occur in this century) would cause problems in many places, but higher CO2 levels may increase plant productivity everywhere, and northern regions may become more hospitable. We should not presume that the climate we have grown accustomed to should always remain the same. The world have been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past. Whether any long-term global warming is overall a good or a bad thing, I cannot say.
4. Is there anything we can do about it?
To be pessimistic, given the failure of the Kyoto Accord and subsequent international meetings, it seems unlikely. Even the European countries who were pushing most for changes have seemingly backed away from their own plans and targets. Some of the proposed schemes for reducing CO2 levels are unrealistic, ineffective, or even dangerous in my opinion. Nevertheless, fossil fuels will eventually run out or become expensive again, and renewable energy sources will continue to expand. Some regions have already reduced their CO2 emissions, so the changes people want will eventually happen, just not as fast as some would prefer.
Having said all this, however, I also believe that most of the practical suggestions made for individuals and organizations to reduce their environmental impact and use of fossil fuels are probably good things for people to do anyway: reject, reduce, re-use, live within our means, be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us, buy a smaller house, take the bus or ride a bike, use electricity carefully, reduce our consumption, improve efficiencies, and so on. Let's leave the political hype alone and focus on areas we can agree on and do something about!
If you want to investigate both sides of the issue further, here two key web sites. Both have very long reports with lots of data, or you can just read their summaries to get their gist:
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
For a later article I published on this topic (similar content), see:
https://www.ngtimes.ca/thoughts-and-balance-on-climate-change/
Finally, I am open to change and reserve the right to adjust my thinking without prior notice. 😃
Therefore, for what it's worth, here is my current position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, summarized in four simple questions and my own brief answers:
1. Is global warming occurring?
Well probably yes, over several decades, although rather slowly, in fits and starts, and with some uncertainties. Oh by the way, it was already warming before humans began releasing huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, albeit at a slower rate.
2. Are human CO2 emissions causing the warming?
Perhaps, at least some of it. Although not an expert, I have seen enough of both sides to claim that 50% +/-40% of the current global warming is caused by human activity, but it is not all CO2 related: there are localized heating effects like city "heat islands", jungle deforestation, and nuclear power plant heating that must produce some of the warming. And then there are also various natural processes and cycles which have their effects. Thus, there are lots of drivers behind global warming, of which CO2 is but one.
3. Are increased CO2 and global warming a problem?
For some people and ecosystems yes, for sure, but for others, it will probably be beneficial. Significant sea level rise (unlikely to occur in this century) would cause problems in many places, but higher CO2 levels may increase plant productivity everywhere, and northern regions may become more hospitable. We should not presume that the climate we have grown accustomed to should always remain the same. The world have been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past. Whether any long-term global warming is overall a good or a bad thing, I cannot say.
4. Is there anything we can do about it?
To be pessimistic, given the failure of the Kyoto Accord and subsequent international meetings, it seems unlikely. Even the European countries who were pushing most for changes have seemingly backed away from their own plans and targets. Some of the proposed schemes for reducing CO2 levels are unrealistic, ineffective, or even dangerous in my opinion. Nevertheless, fossil fuels will eventually run out or become expensive again, and renewable energy sources will continue to expand. Some regions have already reduced their CO2 emissions, so the changes people want will eventually happen, just not as fast as some would prefer.
Having said all this, however, I also believe that most of the practical suggestions made for individuals and organizations to reduce their environmental impact and use of fossil fuels are probably good things for people to do anyway: reject, reduce, re-use, live within our means, be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us, buy a smaller house, take the bus or ride a bike, use electricity carefully, reduce our consumption, improve efficiencies, and so on. Let's leave the political hype alone and focus on areas we can agree on and do something about!
If you want to investigate both sides of the issue further, here two key web sites. Both have very long reports with lots of data, or you can just read their summaries to get their gist:
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
For a later article I published on this topic (similar content), see:
https://www.ngtimes.ca/thoughts-and-balance-on-climate-change/
Finally, I am open to change and reserve the right to adjust my thinking without prior notice. 😃
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)