"An Introduction to Buddhism"

The other night Lisa and I were at our favorite Thai restaurant -- there is only one good Thai restaurant in Tucson, near as we can determine. On the counter as I was leaving I spied a stack of booklets titled, "An Introduction to Buddhism." So I grabbed one. I assumed they were free for the taking.

From page 10:

Buddhism is not strictly speaking a religion at all, as it is not a system of faith and worship owing allegiance to any supernatural being.

Then on page 11:

Though flowers, incense and candles may be offered before pictures or statues of Buddha, he is not worshipped as a god.

That made me wonder -- how many of those people offering flowers and incense to statues of Buddha do so with a clear understanding that Buddha was, as the book explains, "an exceptional human being who once said: 'He honours me best who practises my teaching.'" My guess would be not all; perhaps not even many. That's just speculation on my part, I'll freely admit.

It's an interesting little book, written by "Ven. Dr. H. Saddhatissa," M.A., Ph.D, D. Litt -- in other words, one smart dude, no doubt.

The center-piece of the "way of life" seems to be to eliminate desire from the human equation. Absent desire (for anything, I gather), all the bad things that happen in this world evaporate. In that sense it's very much related to the "Thou Shalt Not Covet" commandment.

It is very clearly based on what comes from within, and never from without -- "Man follows the way of Buddhism by his own efforts alone and does not rely on any external agency at all. The true Buddhist is full of joy and hope. He follows a teaching which leads to his spiritual freedom and he recognizes that through his own efforts alone he can reach his goal." (page 11)

It seems to me that the following holds:

• If Christianity is true, then Buddhism is utterly false.
• If Christianity is not true, then Buddhism may be true.

Christianity is based on the idea that by our own efforts alone we can accomplish nothing. But our efforts we are dead in sin. The Buddhist viewpoint is mutually exclusive with this.

Financial Whiz-Kids

I agree with your assessment -- they don't create anything, and they seem to reap enormous windfalls from it. They are paid to come up with ever-more-creative schemes that are little more than a numbers racket. They make their millions, retire at 40, then go and buy themselves a seat in the U.S. Senate. (That's a reference to Jon Corzine of New Jersey. He paid something like $80M of his own money to "purchase" the seat from that state, and now, six years later, he's come to realize that all is not glory in that august body. So he's "retiring" from the Senate and is running for governor of New Jersey.)

* * *
Aside from your daughter, what's the most beautiful thing you've ever seen (or experienced) in your life? It can be a "thing," an event, a moment ... whatever.

I'm not sure I know what my candidate for that would be.

Attitude Adjustment

Hey, that's not bad sir. Maybe there is a role for you as a 'net career advisor - I like it.

Developer:

I am a developer.
I am writing a class library that will save the world.
I am invaluable.

Manager:

This developer is an annoying so and so.
He's writing a class library that will go into a crap product, that may or may not sell.
He thinks he's saving the world - lol.
Hey, it pays my mortgage so I'll go along with it.

***

Did you see that the Goldman Sachs glory boys and girls are getting millions in Christmas bonuses? The Financial Services sector is having a bumper year. But they don't create anything. They are useless, like lawyers and most general practitioners.

Man this world is messed up. It can only lead to trouble for our kids.

Introverts and "B-list" players

If the definition of an "introvert" is someone who needs quiet time alone to "recharge," then I am very definitely an introvert. I think the label carries some baggage, as many people think of an introvert as someone who holes up in a dark room and obsesses over new computer cases with three fans. :-)

Note: I'm just teasing you ... if your new case has achieved 10 degrees cooler temperatures and is quieter and it provides you thrills in your darkened room, then that's great. :-) Hey, did you see that your post received a comment, and not some automated blog-bot comment?

For me, there is no torture more painful than going to a crowded shopping mall with Lisa. The crowds are bad enough, but if I were by myself I could endure by driving straight for my objective and then getting out. But when I'm with Lisa, then I have to double-up my energy consumption -- energy to avoid getting run over by the crowd, and energy to keep an eye on where Lisa is going so I don't become separated from her. After such a journey, I am physically exhausted and often need several hours to recover.

This ties into an article I read about two years ago which addressed the issue of "A-list" workers and "B-list" workers. Considerable attention is paid to the superstar "A-list" employees. They are often (though not always) more extroverted. This is certainly true in a sales-oriented company like ours. The article went on to point out how while having "A-list" superstars is important, having a good supply of rock-solid, steady "B-list" employees is critical. These are the people who fly a bit under the radar, aren't all flash, but get stuff done. They tend to be more introverted.

Way back in college I spent some time as a supervisor for the campus police department. My job was to organize and operate a large staff of students to perform traffic control for campus sporting events. I quickly learned then what I think still applies now -- what is really needed is good, steady, dependable people who don't need a lot of care and feeding. Give them a job to do, treat them with respect, and they'll move mountains.

One of the problems with extroverted people is they tend (this is a gross generalization) to require more attention. Having to spend management energy tending to an employees needs is something that very quickly wears on a manager. If the employee is a superstar then the effort may be deemed worth it. But if the employee is only average, then all effort spent tending to the needs (and often, complaints) of the employee rapidly becomes a "not worth the trouble" calculation.

All of which boils down to this: Attitude Matters.

A good attitude will be seen as an asset for an introvert who otherwise has to operate in the shadows of the higher-maintenance A-list superstars. A poor attitude by a B-list introvert is a death sentence.

That's my management consultant report for today. :-)

News on us introverts

In the press today:

"The signals we get from the world agree that extroversion is valued," says Sanford Cohn, an associate professor in curriculum and instruction at Arizona State University. "A lot of the messages we get from society have to do with being social, and in order to be social you have to behave a certain way."



"It's the different pathways that are turned on that activate the behaviors and abilities we see in introverts and extroverts," says Marti Olsen Laney, a neuroscience researcher and author in Portland, Ore., who is credited with connecting introversion with its underlying biology. "It impacts all areas of their lives: how they process information, how they restore their energy, what they enjoy and how they communicate."

Introverted children need time alone more than do extroverted children, says Laney, whose book, The Hidden Gifts of the Introverted Child, is due in January. "Extroverts gain energy by being out and about," but "being with people takes energy from introverts, and they need to get away to restore that energy."

Laney says introverted kids also behave differently.

They're not slow, inattentive or shy. Shyness is behavior that may diminish as children grow; introversion is a character trait that lasts.

Cool

Hehe - I took delivery of a Coolermaster Praetorian 732 http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=273439 computer case today. Just made the transfer (I know it's past midnight but I had the kids over earlier) and all (cpu, disks, chipset) temps have dropped by 10 degrees c and it's quieter than the previous case - even with 3 fans. Monster. More overclocking here we come. I just had to tell someone :-)

Ahmed's Politically Incorrect Journey

Ahmed sees the goats in his village from a nearby hill. He thinks of the days before Americans came, he notices the foreigners in growing numbers and sees them in fancy houses and thinks of the good old days that he still remembers.

Ahmed holds the chessboard in his quivering hands, he sends it to the American "man". Softly he glides along the streets and alleys then up comes the wind that makes them run for cover, he feels the time is surely now or never - even with Blix (oh, hello Hans!) in pursuit.

The wind in his heart and the literal dust in his head will drive them away though. That night Ahmed plants chessboards all throughout the free trade zone, by doing so he feels the wind is lifting up his people, majestically he calls the wind to guide him on his mission and he knows his friend the wind is always standing by. Ahmed smells the wind that comes from far away and he waits for news in a quiet Mosque gently mounting singing. He feels the presence of the wind around him and feels the power of the past behind him - he has the sweet knowledge of the wind to guide him on.

He walks to a nearby hotel, it's as hot as hell and everything stinks ...

Hans, meet Kim

Hans scanned the room, taking in the people and their faces. "No threats here," he thought to himself. He approached the table and spied the game just starting.

"I never took a liking to chess ... just not my game." He said, as he lit a cigarette. Drawing deeply, he blew out a breath of smoke and flicked his ashes on the floor. "Either of you see that Kim character?"

"Kim?" I asked. "Who's that?"

"You know who I mean." Hans snorted, drawing again on his cigarette.

Just then this tall blonde walked in the room. She was definitely not from the neighborhood. She stood near six feet tall and had piercing blue eyes.

"Who are you?" Blix asked.

"My name is Jong ... Kim Jong. Who the hell are you?" She hissed back. She held a cigarette of her own, waiting for Blix to offer a light. Blix met her eye and said without a word that no such courtesy was coming.

Blix summoned all his Swedish reserve. "You don't look anything like the pictures I've seen. Can't say the live version is much of an improvement." He looked at Ms. Jong through the narrow slit of his eyes.

During this time, nobody had noticed that Ahmed had slipped away, taking the chessboard with him. Like a faint summer breeze, he slipped into the noise and clatter of the Tunisian evening street.

"Damn!" Hans muttered.

...

Kim Jong-il

He was my undercover contact, his name was Gary, but everyone referred to him as "Ahmed".

It was uncanny, the valmorification process had worked completely.

The hand painted board was not what it seemed. Innocuous at first glance t'was really a WMD (weapon of mass destruction).

Now was my chance to end this damn war.

If only America were closer. Just then Hans Blik arrived, looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il

....

Meeting Famous People

Who knows ... your "meeting" these famous people may be a precursor to something bigger. Perhaps in the past meeting such people would have been met with a flush of pride, but now there's a greater humility to your spirit, so the meetings can be used for some better purpose.

* * *
Ah, the old "pawn in the center of the board and checkmate in five as black" gambit. I once used that against an old Bulgarian chessmaster. It was 1952, and I was in Tunisia on a secret mission for the CIA. We met at a dusty coffee house; not much of a place -- a few tables, a small gathering of old men who probably spent every day there. One of the tables had a crude chessboard painted on it. I was mindlessly moving the salt shaker across the board as if it was a bishop.

"You play?" Came the deep voice, thickly accented.

I nodded.

"Play now?" He asked.

Again, I nodded.

He assumed white; I took black ...

(pick up the story thread and let's see where this goes)

Scandinavian success

Just played this game as black, I was completely busted but refused to give up and saw a mate in 5. Doesn't happen that often ! Notice the annoying pawn in the center ...

[Event "ICC 2 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2005.11.28"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest3097"]
[Black "guest1046"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White checkmated"]
[Opening "Scandinavian (center counter) defense"]
[ECO "B01"]
[NIC "VO.17"]
[Time "18:54:01"]
[TimeControl "120+0"]

1. e4 d5 2. e5 Bf5 3. d4 e6 4. Bd3 h6 5. Bxf5 exf5 6. Qd3 g6 7. Qb5+ Nd7 8.Qxb7 Qc8 9. Qxd5 c6 10. Qf3 Ne7 11. Ne2 Nd5 12. Nf4 Nxf4 13. Qxf4 Bg7 14. c3 O-O 15. O-O Nb6 16. Be3 Nd5 17. Qf3 Nxe3 18. Qxe3 Rb8 19. b4 a5 20. a3 axb4 21. axb4 Rd8 22. Nd2 c5 23. bxc5 Rb2 24. Nc4 Rc2 25. Nd6 Qc7 26. Qd3 Rb2 27. Qc4 Bf8 28. Ra6 Bxd6 29. Rxd6 Rdb8 30. g3 Rb1 31. Qa4 Rxf1+ 32. Kxf1 Qb7 33. Rd7 Qh1+ 34. Ke2 Rb2+ 35. Kd3 Qf1+ 36. Ke3 Qe2+ 37. Kf4 Qxf2# {White checkmated} 0-1

But really .. is winning better than losing? And just what is the point of not giving up?

Now I'm worried !

I just "met" another one of my heroes, UK Chess Grandmaster James Plaskett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Plaskett

I saw a person on the chess server under the name "Parsifal", he had a seek out for a "3 0 blitz" - which means you have to make all of your moves in 3 minutes, or else you run out of time. So I got my computer, account name "tribbles" to accept his challenge.

My computer kicked his butt.

But while playing I "fingered" Parsifal and saw that he was one of my heroes so told him so after the game. Then he went off at a tangent and asked me if I knew which of the following had not walked on the moon "Mitchell, Lovell, Irwin, Duke". I immediately responded "Lovell" as everyone knows that Lovell commanded Apollo 13 and that never made it to the moon.

He then said "you win £500,000".

What had happened is that he was on a UK show called "Who wants to be a millionaire?" on Monday. He walked on the above Lovell question. He blew all three of this lifelines on a previous question "What is St Crispin the patron Saint of?" (Turned out to be shoemakers).

So he is beating himself up about failures of NERVE (his capitalization). I told him that he would be dead soon so to enjoy life while he can. He's 250K richer so get out there and have some fun.

He said "cheers", I like to think that he appreciated my pep talk :-)

Man I don't even watch TV, so I miss out on these things! But apparently the show will not be broadcast until Jan 2006 so I have time.

Last time lots of good stuff happended to me I nearly died thus the title of this append.

That's Entertainment

I sometimes wonder if these types of conundrums are sent to us by God. His motive in these matters is not fully understood by anyone. For a long time I felt as if these struggles we go through are designed to "entertain" someone or something. Like in that movie "The Truman Show". But as a Christian I have to believe that these tests are sent to help us and not to entertain God.

George Michael summed this particular conundrum up in a most beautiful 1990 song called "Praying For Time":

These are the days of the open hand
They will not be the last
Look around now
These are the days of the beggars and the choosers
This is the year of the hungry man
Who's place is in the past
Hand in hand with ignorance and legitimate excuses

The rich declare themselves poor
And most of us are not sure
If we have too much
But we'll take our chances coz God's stopped keeping score
I guess somewhere along the way
He must have let us all out to play
Turned his back and all God's children crept out the back door

And it's hard to love, there's so much to hate
Hang on to hope
When there is no hope to speak of
And the wounded skies above
Say it's much too late
Well maybe we should all be praying for time

These are the days of the empty hand
Oh you hold on to what you can
And charity is a coat you wear twice a year
This is the year of the guilty man
Your television takes a stand
And you find that what was over there is over here

So you scream from behind your door
Say "what's mine is mine and not yours"
I may have too much but i'll take my chances coz God's stopped keeping score
And you cling to the things they sold you
Did you cover your eyes when they told you
That He can't come back coz
He has no children to come back for

It's hard to love there's so much to hate
Hang on to hope when there is no hope to speak of
And the wounded skies above say it's much too late
So maybe we should all be praying for time

PS. He stole the "Love On The Rocks" chorus theme from Neil Diamond for this song I think.
PPS. I think you're a Good Person.

Me Fat? Why, yes ... I believe you're correct.

Given my new-found ability to eat -- the medication is really working well -- I may very well get fat. At my lowest point I'd dropped to 154 pounds. I'm back up to 158 after only about 4 days of normal eating. I have to curb my enthusiasm and eat sensibly.

I've noticed a similar kind of sadness in the way people go about their activities in preparation for the holidays (we can't go uttering the C-word, you know). It's almost as if there's a burden of obligation associated with it. Lisa and I don't exchange gifts anymore -- neither of us needs or wants anything that we don't already have, and I can't stand the notion of shopping in general. We still put up a tree and all that ... Lisa loves that stuff. :-)

* * *
I saw a scene today that broke my heart. It was of a woman I'm fairly certain is homeless. She had with her a dog, who was limping along on a front leg that had been bandaged up with duct tape. The dog very clearly needed professional medical attention when the injury first occurred, but the woman probably couldn't afford it, judging by the clearly home-made splint/bandage.

It literally tore my heart -- and still does.

• What could I realistically do?
• Should I feel guilty that I seem to have more concern for the dog than the woman?
• I walked away from it -- and now it's haunting me

There is so much pain and suffering in this world, and I am but one person. :-(

"Christmas is coming, Bagwell's getting fat?"

1. No that was when I got to ask the panel a question on UK TV's BBC1 (like ABC or NBC)program "Question Time" in 1982. That was watched live by 5 million people or so. My mum still has the video tape !

2. Well yes I guess. Although the Prof was not Newton or Einstein, he still was a major league genius and polymath. It's quite interesting thinking about his style, no affectations I could see or hear.

I have been shopping with Katherine today, boy oh boy. People seem so sad in general as you pass them by in the mall as they rush to buy their Christmas presents.

Rappin' With the Prof

That's cool! I'm sure it must have been a good 40 minutes -- an ability to stretch the mind with someone your equal or better. That nobody else tried to pipe up during the time with the featured speaker is very improbable ... it makes me wonder if there was a "reason" for you having that dedicated time with him. :-)

Two questions:

1. Would you say that your meeting Professor Ian Stewart was your closest brush with fame?
2. Would you say that by meeting Professor Ian Stewart, you've met one of those "if you could have lunch with anyone" hypotheticals often played at dinner parties?

Professor Ian Stewart

Today I was fortunate enough to meet a very bright mathematics professor and author (name above). I've listened to many of his contribiutions on Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" BBC Radio 4 programme. There is a brief resume of him at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stewart_(mathematician)

We invited him to speak at a conference and (for a modest appearance fee) he presented on "How mathematics has influenced computing".

He did a superb pitch, but the best thing was that I managed to get talking to him at lunchtime, he gave me 40 minutes of his time and we spoke about many things.

I opened with my time traveller experiment of trying to get the answer to RSA 2048. He thought that it was an excellent experiment but took it one stage further than I had, he said that the experiment was logically consistent and that it didn't even need the time traveller to know the answer to RSA 2048 as he could have got the answer from my sheet of paper. This kind of did my head in.

I asked him his thoughts on John Bell's 1970's experiment showing quantum entaglement and if he thought that it meant that communication could be transmitted at faster than light speeds. His answer (which he suspected was the way things are but could not prove was fascinating). He believes that particles may well contain hidden variables, so things are programmed to be in a certain state if you measure them at a particular time. I understood what he meant, and said "wow, it's like the universe is some shadow of what is really there" and he said "Yes!" and it was very exciting to meet someone that I could talk to at this level.

We were widebanding information (I think!) so I pushed my luck.

I asked if truth were really possible outside of the axiomatic system such as mathematics - he didn't really give me answer but talked about Gödel's Theorem of incpompleteness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

which fortunately I had been boning up on in Fishkill last month, and I threw in "so that's why he committed suicide" to Prof Ian's answer, which was well received :-)

During the presentation he had talked about a set of (binomial) problems that may (or may not be) be solvable. I wanted to know his religious views so I prefixed my question with "I don't want to upset your religion in any way and I know that Hawking does not answer "God" questions so please feel free to ignore me .." and then " .. but if this set of problems are proved to be unsolvable could God solve them?"

And the answer he gave is that if there is an omnipotent diety then by defintion it is outside of the axioms of mathematics so is not subject to the same restrictions. And a Distinguished Engineer, who had been intently listening to the conversation (but had not contributed much as I don't think that he was familiar with what we were talking about) said "and that is how it should be". The DE's a Christian, and I believe that he is correct.

In fact the two people with me when talking to the Prof hardly said a word while the Prof and I were at it, for 40 mins. And between these two IBM people they have 18 + 27? = 45 patents. That made me think that one day I could get a patent. Maybe I'm not so dumb. Or maybe you don't need to be so smart to get a patent?

The Prof did share that he was not religious, which I found a little surprising I guess.

If my daughter ever reads this: go out and find these like minds Katherine, it will make your day. We can do it.

I just documented all that for posterity! Have a great weekend!

Saints and servers

Saints: You'll probably never know just how much I value your friendship and to know that you are out there.

Servers: Yes I think that techies like the multiplicity of servers. It keeps them in a job and reflects the single threaded not integrated ways of our minds. Business people on the other hand would in an ideal world, just want one big server, those are the types that the recent superbowl ads were aimed at. But they live in a world where they know that if they have at least two suppliers they can play those suppliers off against eachother for a better deal, so the businessman mandates "two servers at least". The rest is SOA loosely coupled history.

I saw this "thing", this mass of spaghetti called "the customers IT environment" grow upwards and outwards from the early 90's onwards. There were idiots involved a plenty. They came out with things like distributed client server computing and CORBA.

In those days each of these pathetic little PC's could only run one business function. So they had loads of them all network connected. Now in actual fact, because of advances in technology, these things are fast enough to have one or two in some central place and have thin clients everywhere else.

We'll be back to that model before we shuffle off of this mortal coil I hope.

One Big Intel Server

I saw a web ad for an HP blade server, and a thought popped into my head:

Imagine someone inventing an Intel server with enough power and features so that all the applications run by a corporation could be run on that one Intel server. Would people even want to do that? Or do they like the idea of having separate server instances because it permits a certain relaxation of the discipline required to manage a single server instance (such as was needed in the mainframe days of old) ?

My guess is people like the concept of having single-purposed servers. The downside is management and inter-server communication (complexity, overhead).

You're no doubt sitting there thinking ... "This realization just came to you now?"

I'm a slow learner. :-)

Thanksgiving Day

Today is "Thanksgiving Day" in the United States. Over the years, this has been my favorite holiday. I love the notion of a group of family and friends coming together for fellowship. Perhaps it's because that notion was so absent -- or, more precisely, present but burdened -- in my youth. The idea of a close-knit family coming together is one of the reasons why I love the movie "Moonstruck" so much.

The name of this holiday suggests we are to pause and reflect upon what we are thankful for, and to "give thanks" for those things.

Note: I had always thought that the word "thanks" was a modern construction of "thank you." It only just occurred to me that the name of the holiday -- which goes back 200+ years -- implies that the word "thanks," as in "give thanks," must have been around back then as well.

I am blessed in many, many ways. I am thankful -- though not as sincerely thankful as perhaps I ought be -- for those things.

And though I don't agree with you on many things, and I will never forgive you for thrashing me on the chessboard, I am thankful for you, good friend. :-)

The Historical Jesus

I listened to a portion of the BBC 4 programme you referenced. This quest to find the "historical Jesus" goes on and on ... but I think in the end it is a futile exercise. The Bible seems to suggest over and over that God does not wish for people to have rock-solid proof of Him; but rather to come to him in faith. We've discussed this before.

The ultimate expression of God -- his incarnate self in Jesus -- is no different.

God has left us what he intended to leave us -- the Gospels. There may be further discoveries of manuscripts and such, but nothing is going to "prove" or "refute" the central claim of Jesus. One believes -- to the pro or to the con -- based on an element of faith.

That's my two-cents. :-)

That said, from a standpoint of scholarly interest, the programme was pretty well done -- and the historical aspect was interesting.

Goldberg

I didn't post those quotes to try to upset you ... if you took my having posted it as some kind of deliberate offense, then I apologize. I certainly didn't wish to achieve that result.

The author, Jonah Goldberg. is in fact Jewish, though by his own admission not a very devout one. Over the last year or so he's written columns that suggest (to me) that he's trying very hard to grapple with the question of life, meaning, and God. That may be due in part to the birth of his first child, a daughter, about a year ago.

Perhaps because I've read Goldberg's stuff for the past four or five years I'm a bit immune to the notion of him being "arrogant." He definitely has a style that employs sarcastic humor to make points. But I have come to view him as being fairly even-handed, though clearly conservative.

Note: the reference to "Newdow" in that column is to Michael Newdow, a rampaging atheist who lives in California, and someone who has taken it as his personal quest to scrub any mention of God from the landscape. He files lawsuits as the main tool of his quest. His latest endeavor is to remove "In God We Trust" from the U.S. currency, on the belief that having it there violates the First Ammendment of the Constitution. That ammendment only prohibits Congress from making laws establishing an official state religion. The alternative interpretation is that any reference to God in a government setting -- schools, most notably -- is a violation of this "establishment clause." It's clearly not, but that's what 40 years of liberal activism on the judiciary will do. Oddly, it appears that only the Christian God is targeted. References to Allah appear to be okay in the eyes of these atheistic crusaders.

The idea of "marriage" being between one man and one woman is something that is under considerable attack here in the United States. In the 2004 elections, it became a central animating theme. The gay activists overreached and got a handful of courts in liberal states like California and Massachussets to mandate marriage licenses for gay and lesbians. The backlash was quite intense -- state constitutional ammendment proposals banning "same-sex marriage" went onto the ballot in somethng like 22 states and all passed, most overwhelming ... even in mostly liberal states like Oregon. People seem to have drawn a line in the sand: "We won't persecute gays, we will permit various legal benefits, but we won't allow the very definition of a bedrock societal principle to be undermined."

The line in the sand is ephemeral -- it won't last. In 40 years the idea of "marriage" will have dissolved into nothing. Once the "one man and one woman" definition falls, then it there will be no principled reason to resist polygamy ... or other less savory arrangements.

Note: Don't laugh -- it's already in the pipeline. Lawsuits are already working their way through the courts to allow multiple people to "marry." It's a logical extension of the gay marriage argument.

Here's my bold statement on all this -- the ultimate objective in this fight to "redefine marriage" is not to just redefine marriage ... it's to abolish the principle of marriage. Traditionally understood "marriage" is an impediment to a more hedonistic lifestyle advocated by those who are pushing the cause.

I am not optimistic about the future with regard to these things. Bad things will follow when society unburdens itself of more and more things that have traditionally served to keep the darker aspects of human nature in check. I am convinced that all this is the work of Satan. But I don't argue that point much because those who will not believe that ... will not believe that.

May God have mercy on us all ... honestly.

Arrogance

I read the article that you pointed me at, what an arrogant Christian. It's people like that that I certainly do not want to meet in Heaven. I guess this smug sureness on the part of anyone, be they religious or scientific or both is what I find truly abhorrent in the human race.

Now this perhaps is my problem with human interpretation of The Bible. I believe that The Bible says that one should be sure. This seems to get translated into smugness by many Christians.

Just my 2 cents !

There was a debate on Radio 4 about gay couples gaining some legal rights which I listened to in the car on the way home. It got me to thinking about the terms "wife" and "husband" and I was wondering whether in say 1000 years time, if we would still have those concepts?

Right now I am listening to something else - "In the footsteps of Jesus" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/radio4/int/-/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/footsteps_of_jesus

+++

Kurt is a deity of SF. In my opinion, good science fiction contains "good" guesses at what science may bring. Good (hard) SF doesn't go quite as far as the "science fantasy" genre. Which is ok too, but not my preferrance.

Quotes of the Day

Two from the same article I read today:

• Scientists often fall into a fallacious tendency, after studying and describing something according to the methods of their discipline, to believe that their appraisal of it is somehow more real than the thing itself.
• Science is wonderful at explaining what science is wonderful at explaining, but beyond that it tends to look for its car keys where the light is good.

This was within the context of the debate between science and faith. The author's main point is that science can't possible explain the things of God. Yet many scientists assume that since God can't be determined by science, God must not exist. They don't say that outright, but that's the implication.

The article was:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2005/11/23/176565.html

;-)

What Makes Science Fiction?

What is it that characterizes a piece of writing as "science fiction?" Must it involve space travel or time travel? Or would you categorize Michael Crichton books as "science fiction?"

I was thinking about the last science fiction I read. Other than a book like "Congo" or "Outbreak" by Chrichton, I'd have to say the last ones I've read are some of the works of Vonnegut. I particularly remember reading "Sirens of Titan." I have no idea whether Vonnegut is respected -- then or now.

I am Ender (in my dreams)

I love that book. I had forgotten all about it but now I'm going to have to read it again, as soon as I finish "Microserfs", which won't take long. I think that awful Hollywood movie "The Flight of The Navigator" owed a lot to Ender's Game.

The other one I have not read - I will have to check it out, although so few women are "over focussed" enough to write good sci-fi, they are just too well adjusted :-)

Other Sci-Fi Books

My lovely bride asks if you've read the following:

• Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
• Primary Inversion by Catherins Asaro

If so, what did you think?

Top 20 Geek Novels

Reverance, repect etc. I'm not sure where this comes from, our parents probably. Should we respect someone who is old more than someone who is young, just because they are old?

I am ashamed to say I have not read the ones in red, at least I can make a start, probably around Christmas time (oh now there is a can of worms!). If I go for Microserfs first then at least I have made the top 10!

1. The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy -- Douglas Adams 85% (102)
2. Nineteen Eighty-Four -- George Orwell 79% (92)
3. Brave New World -- Aldous Huxley 69% (77)
4. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? -- Philip Dick 64% (67)
5. Neuromancer -- William Gibson 59% (66)
6. Dune -- Frank Herbert 53% (54)
7. I, Robot -- Isaac Asimov 52% (54)
8. Foundation -- Isaac Asimov 47% (47)
9. The Colour of Magic -- Terry Pratchett 46% (46)
10. Microserfs -- Douglas Coupland 43% (44)
11. Snow Crash -- Neal Stephenson 37% (37)
12. Watchmen -- Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons 38% (37)
13. Cryptonomicon -- Neal Stephenson 36% (36)
14. Consider Phlebas -- Iain M Banks 34% (35)
15. Stranger in a Strange Land -- Robert Heinlein 33% (33)
16. The Man in the High Castle -- Philip K Dick 34% (32)
17. American Gods -- Neil Gaiman 31% (29)
18. The Diamond Age -- Neal Stephenson 27% (27)
19. The Illuminatus! Trilogy -- Robert Shea & Robert Anton Wilson 23% (21)
20. Trouble with Lichen - John Wyndham 21% (19)

In Defence of Cathedrals

[You'll notice I used the proper spelling of defence ... not the dastardly Americanized spelling.]

Back in the old days -- before believing -- I used to think the money spent to construct beautiful and stately cathedrals was a sure sign of hypocrisy. Though I very much appreciated the beauty, grandeur and architecture of the cathedrals, I would manufacture in my mind a sense of moral indignation at all that money having been spent on a building when so many other problems exist in this world.

This past Sunday something happened that made me think of all this. Lisa and I attended the Sunday service at our church, which started at 10:15am. At 10:25am people will still filtering into the sanctuary, were still milling about, some where talking -- all while the pastor was in the process of trying to bring the congregation to worship the Lord.

I got to thinking ... where's the reverence? If we truly believe that the very Spirit of our Lord comes to dwell with us during our times of worship, would we not approach the very act and the location of that worship with a heightened awareness of the presence of the Holy?

This is the tie-in with the cathedrals ... it's difficult for me (and I suspect others) to walk into a tall, stately and beautiful cathedral and not have a subdued sense of reverence. I see it whenever I visit cathedrals, including the beautiful Winchester Cathedral. People are quiet, hushed ... respectful.

Don't get me wrong -- I am definitely not saying that such a building is a prerequisite to proper worship. During the 40 years in the desert, God chose to dwell in a tent. It's clear from Scripture that God does not need a fancy building to be present. But is there something about the human spirit that is assisted towards reverence by such structures? I think maybe yes.

The sanctuary of our church in Tucson is quite lovely. It's no cathedral, but it's quite beautiful. Yet the general atmosphere I sensed was anything but quiet, reserved and respectful. It was -- as you've pointed out -- more social, as if people were coming together for a town meeting or something. I don't wish to be judgmental ... but could it be that one of the things lost in today's world is a sense of reverence for the presence of God?

Evidence of Alien Origins in Bible

I can't think of any overt example of the Bible making a claim that we're from another part of the created universe. Nor, I should add, does it explicitely say that we are not. I think the general weight of the Biblical evidence would argue that we're not -- that is, that God created the universe and the earth, and he populated the earth directly.

The passage in the Bible where most people find a suggestion of the earth being inhabited by something (or someone) other than man himself is Genesis 6:4.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

I'm not Bible expert, but I've read enough commentary and margin notes on this to know that there's no settled consensus on what exactly this means.

From a purely theological viewpoint (and a personal viewpoint), it strikes me that as long as God is the central (and sole) creative force, and that his sovereign rule is maintained, then whether our existence is direct or from another planet is somewhat secondary. But to the extent someone tries to use alien intervention as an argument against the existence and sovereignty of God, then the problems arise.

I would guess if you took a poll out there in the world of Christian believers, the theory of our coming from an alien origin would not be well received.

* * *

We could consume hours and hours of time and gigabytes of disk space debating what is truly meant by the monolith in "2001." I think it's pretty clear that the monolith was placed there -- in other words, it was not the work of natural geological forces. [ Oh no! Evidence of "Intelligent Design!" :-) ]

I think it can be agreed upon that the monolith sparked the development of mankind. It's placement and whatever force it used to act upon the apes present at the time is what sparked the evolution and development of the human race.

But was it an experiment gone awry? Would the beings who placed it there have been pleased or disappointed by the ape who used his new awareness to kill another ape? Could that scene from "2001" be a parallel to the Genesis account of the creation of man, and the fairly rapid fall of man into sin? The creators of the monolith are never revealed ... could it be God himself? Is the monolith just another representation of Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel where God is reaching out his hand to place the spark of life into Adam?

* * *

Your daughter has it right ... geekiness is alright, provided one abides by current fashion norms.

Fashion rules. It appears to always have ruled. I wonder why that is?

Here in the United States we have a show on TV called, "How Do I Look?" The premise is that people who are in desperate shape from a fashion perspective are "rescued" by two close friends and a professional stylist. The show is 1 hour long, and the first 20 minutes is spent trying to establish drama by showing the two friends and the stylist attacking the participant and their present choice in clothes. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then everyone goes shopping, new outfits are assembled, new makeup and hair styles implemented, and in the end of the "new" person emerges, claiming new depths of happiness.

It's a fun 1 hour of wasted time. It's fun trying to guess which of the three outfit ensembles will be chosen -- so in that sense, it's a bit of a participatory show. But if I were to read too much into it, it becomes sad very quickly. I try not to infuse the show with much meaning, if at all.

On the origin of ... er ... geeks?

Nice map site. You're a map geek! Geeks aren't so bad, in fact there is somewhat of a geek chic going around right now. Even my daughter thinks it's ok to be a geek as long as you take care to wear the right clothes.

I'm a science/computer/chess/sci-fi geek. I have all of these movies:

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/spacemovies/result.php?back=&cat=spacemovies

From your reading of The Bible: Is there anything to indicate that we humans might be some long lost colony? I've got the feeling that we're not local to this planet (we're so much more advanced). I don't mean the physical bits we are made of, just our design. We clearly share the same left handed proteins as the rest of life on this planet. Our bodies have common roots with all the animals and plants of the Earth.

Arthur C Clarke really had a nice idea with the monolith coming to help us. Is he completely wrong if one believes in The Bible however?

Cool U.S. Government Map Site

I'm a bit of a map geek. I'm not expert, but I love the things. Always have. In college I even took a class in cartography. Then I came across this:

http://nationalatlas.gov

The United States government has an agency called the "U.S. Geologic Survey" (USGS) and their mission is to compile and collate information on ... well, nearly everything. What we see here is the confluence of several technologies:

• Computer database
• Computer-generated imagery
• Broad-based internet access

They have maps on all manner of things -- geology, precipitation, aquifers, West Nile Virus incidents, presidental elections, etc., etc. And they have a way to "layer" different data types on top one another.

I printed off the precipitation map for the State of Arizona. There are some truly dry regions of the state -- less than 5" rain a year -- but Tucson is not that dry. In fact, the shade of light-brown / green around the Tucson area is not that much dryer than some areas of my old state of Michigan. It would be interesting to "layer" the precipitation map with the ground-water supply map. A third layer of population would show, I'm sure, a strong correlation.

Prayer

Works.

Well, sometimes anyway :-)

Basis for Belief ... in Anything

I'll concede your point about reportedly. I have long held that holding a view of the Bible as true is a critically important anchor for belief in Christ as Lord and Savior. There needs to be an anchor point for knowledge first, then from knowledge comes understanding, from that belief, and finally faith.

I suppose that would hold true for all aspects of life, not just religion.

Question: do you find a similar struggle in other parts of your life? What is the basis upon which you believe anything?

Man: a mischievous ape tearing up the image of God

You will enjoy the style (not content) of this:

http://leoklein.com/itp/somme/texts/tawney_1916.html

I am trying to live my life the way that I believe Christ indended me to live it, but I am failing miserably to be a "Normal 2005 Christian".

You wrote:

"Christianity as taught by Christ himself is the only faith (that I'm aware of) that lacks that at its core."

I would rephrase that as

"Christianity as reportedly taught by Christ himself is the only faith (that I'm aware of) that lacks that at its core."

This is where my major problem with organized religion resides. Getting past it is a challenge for me.

Are Children Capable of Understanding Faith?

There's a part of me that feels that children should not be taught the particulars of any given faith. (By "children" I mean age 3 to 12 or so.) I see in church every Sunday, during the "Children's Moment," a group of kids parroting back stuff about Jesus, but I doubt very much if they really understand what they're saying.

However, that's not to say we should therefore teach them all about the various religions in the world. If they can't truly comprehend the notion of a risen Christ, I think they're equally unable to comprehend the notion of revelation to a 8th-century arabic prophet. Or a philosophy of layered attainment of higher and higher personal realization.

Better, I would think, for parents to "teach" by way of their own personal behavior, the essential teachings that transcend most religions -- control of anger, gentleness, kindness, charity and goodwill. Then, when the kids are 12 or so, they can start to delve into the specifics of a given faith. My preference would be that they delve into Christianity. However, I guess I would prefer that parents who do not live their Christian faith not paint the faith by their personal example.

I realize what I am saying is probably anathema to many. I guess I've been thinking a lot about things lately, and I've been deeply struck by the disparity between who Christ was and what he taught and what today's "Christianity" is all about.

Note: and I'll be the first to confess that personally I am a miserable example of a "Christian." Honestly. This is one of the things that's been troubling me lately. Of course, it is equally possible that I am simply imposing upon myself a dastardly version of legalism. But I don't think so.

* * *
On my trip to Brazil I traveled with a co-worker of mine who confesses to being a sort of atheist. I listened to his argument and did not try to preach. What's occurred to me is this: at the heart of his complain about "organized religion" is the concept of it being a man-made thing designed by the few to control the many. Two things then came to mind:

1. It's hard for me to argue with that, given the history of "organized religion" down through the ages. The Roman Catholic church has a long and not attractive history of this. The Jewish faith is not far removed from that very same thing. The Muslim faith is utterly corrupt in that regard. Evangelical Christianity is as well, to the extent it has taken on the trappings of a political movement.
2. True Christianity -- that taught by Christ -- has no rituals or control trappings at all. It is simply a matter of having a changed heart (true repentance and a trusting faith in Jesus as savior) and an ongoing relationship with Christ. Even the barest of "sacraments" -- baptism and the Lord's supper -- are not "required" in any real sense to be a "Christian."

This thinking is not yet fully formed in my mind. I realize that given this implies that one person's "Christianity" might be utterly different -- and potentially contradictory -- to another's "Christianity." Those points I've not yet worked out. But the point is really this: if the major complaint against history's "organized religion" is their use as a controlling agent, then Christianity as taught by Christ himself is the only faith (that I'm aware of) that lacks that at its core.

Does any of that make any sense? Or am just babbling? :-)

Teaching children

Interesting article. On your counters:

1. If evolution is a "settled fact" then the author of the article you pointed at would say that it is not science. On the other hand if evolution is "a theory" then the author would claim that it is science, and that it would be able to be taught in US schools as such - without legal challenge.

2. To those just say "who designed the process of natural selection then?" Or better, "why on Earth do we have natural selection at all?"

3. Yes I can see that.

4. Actually the article was saying that ID cannot be disproved, so therefore is not science. That's interesting, because in that, ultimately he is saying things that cannot be measured are not science. For instance, take the charge of the electron, everyone who measures it gets the same result - BUT one day it might be measured to have a different quantity. The theory that the charge on the electron is always what we measure it to be today can be disproved - but only by measurement. It remains of course to be seen if it will every vary from what we see today - but the possibility exists.

5. That sounds like a conspiracy theory my friend !

On the subject of what should be taught in schools - why not teach the kids that ID is a possibility, it might be right or wrong -- but like everything we will probably never know. It could be that humans were designed by another intelligence, perhaps the intelligence that also created the Universe.

On the subject of teaching children (either in or out of schools) do you believe that children should be taught "you must believe in faith X because that is the one true faith" ?

I personally do not. I believe that we should teach our children about all of he different religions and let them make their own minds up. For every indoctrinated Christian child I see, and I see many, I know that there is an indoctrinated Muslim child getting the same treatment somewhere else in the world. It makes me very sad. The parents I have broached this with clearly believe that they are saving their children, or giving them more chance of being saved.

This should be joyous, but somehow to me it is incredibly sad nontheless. Maybe I am working for Satan and don't know it?

On my experiment. I wrote on a blank sheet of paper asking The Lord or any time travellers to kindly write the solution to RSA-2048 and placed said sheet under a cushion on the sofa. I even left the back door unlocked to save any time traveller needing to break it (in cast they could not materialize inside of my house) - but no, the sheet was blank the next day I checked it.

Is this science? Hmm, I never really had a theory, but yes I guess if I did it can be disproved. It involves measurement, yes I would say that it is science, and the evidence for The Lord or time travellers is not looking good based solely upon this one experiment. Good job that there is lots of other evidence, well for The Lord anyway.

Is ID Science?

Here is a very good article offering a refutation of Intelligent Design as "science" --

http://techcentralstation.com/111005B.html

But I offer this counter:

• Many people who subscribe to evolution do not consider it a theory, they consider it settled fact. It is not a fact. It is a theory. And, to the point of this article, it will always be a theory because there is no way to "prove" the theory. Showing that some species evolved does not "prove" that all species evolved.
• Those who hold evolution as fact then make the next logical leap, which is a fallacy: if natural selection, then no creator. This has been the core of the enormous damage wrought by this "theory" over the years -- it provides a way to argue for the non-existence of God. It is a logical fallacy to say "If evolution = true, then God = false."
• The purpose of the "ID movement" is to really make this point. If you read the serious works of ID, you find they are not arguing for the Biblical God. They are arguing that the theory of evolution can't explain everything. They are arguing that the best explanation is that there is an intelligent design behind our existence. That's it.
• I agree that it can't be proved -- and therefore by the definition offered by that article it is not "science." But, the competing conclusion -- that if evolution is fact then God does not exist -- can't be proven either.
• Of course, secular and atheist scientists will never admit to that being their conclusion, but it is. Which is why I firmly believe that what we are seeing is very much the work of Satan. The corrosive effect of our thinking of "natural selection" on our faith and trust in God is devious in its simplicity.

* * *

I'm on that challenge for the $200,000! I think the answer is 8 and 16. Wait, neither of those are prime numbers. Rats! :-)

I look forward to the results of your test to magically have the results on the blank sheet of paper. Question -- is your experiment "science?"

An easy $200,000?

You wrote:

I think he holds in his mind an idea that "Intelligent Design" means accepting the literal Genesis account of creation.

Many people do not follow Christianity or The Bible because "science" offers a much more compelling origin of the history of species than Genesis. This is very unfortunate. I often find myself wishing all that stuff about 6 days and ribs had been left out. This is probably heresy of course, but the "Let There Be Light" is in excellent agreement with a Big Bang and scientific theory, but other parts are not. I'm not sure what Moses was thinking, but maybe it is meant to be like this for a reason and I just cannot work it out. I don't subscribe to "it's like this to test your faith". That's like saying "believe in lighties, if you don't then your faith is weak and you are a bad person".

Check out:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2005-11-08/rsa-640/

There is a $200,000 reward if we, or anyone else, can find the two prime factors of a 2048 (binary) digit semiprime.

From your description of your underpowered kit it is unlikey that your Lenovo ThinkPad will give us the answer. However, it struck me that God clearly knows the answer, so can we win the $200,000 through prayer rather than brute force computation? Would this be a latter day "proof" of the magnitude of Jesus Himself walking up to the White House and asking George W. Bush what he's up to?

I guess another possibility is that humans will work out what these factors are at some point in the future. If time travel really is possible then perhaps they could come back into the past and tell us the answer?

Either way I will put a blank piece of paper under a cushion tonight, with a message on it saying "Please write the prime factors of RSA-2048 on the reverse. And see if there is any answer in the morning.

Specie = Different Clockspeed

I think you're correct ... I think we did discuss the specie thing before. I think the definition of a "specie" being a grouping in which breeding is possible is generally accepted, but I think there are exceptions to it.

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that God simply used all the mechanisms of what we call "science" to create us. He created the "science" and used his creation to create us. No problem. The key is that God is behind it. That, to my eye, is the real concept behind "Intelligent Design." Science explains much of the "how," but not all the "how" nor any aspect of the "why." This is why I think it is impossible for someone to be a Christian and reject "Intelligent Design," unless they hold a different definition of that term than I do. But if rejecting "Intelligent Design" means rejecting the idea of higher-power creative force, then rejecting "Intelligent Design" necessarily means subscribing to atheism. This is my primary complaint with John Derbyshire of National Review Online, who scoffs at "Intelligent Design" yet speaks of him being a "lifelong Anglican." In fairness, I think he holds in his mind an idea that "Intelligent Design" means accepting the literal Genesis account of creation. I tried to tease that out of him via e-mail, but he's a slippery chap and I couldn't pin him down. Frankly, I think he's employing inconsistent logic. But bless his heart, he's a good writer on many different topics, so I still like him. :-)

You ... are ... a ... pointy ... headed ... GEEK! All that talk of clockspeeds and voltages. But good for you building a screaming system. I could use that with my XD testing. My Thinkpad comes to an absolute crawl with the minimum server processes started. I have 1GB real memory and the memory demand is over 2GB ... the paging subsystem of Windows (or perhaps it is the access speed of my hard drive) seems to struggle to swap stuff in and out.

Good luck with our friends across the channel.

Only 84 references to God? I would have figured many, many more! :-)

Speciation

Any idea?

You know I have a feeling we have discussed what actually constitutes a species before. Do you recall us talking about mules and horses and chromosomes? Can't think when it was, I searched our blog and couldn't find it. Then again I think the search feature at the top of page is broken, as I searched for "René Descartes" (remember the joke?) and couldn't find it. I was sure I put that joke on our blog. Anyway, there are 84 occurrences of the word God though :-)

Species - I think it's about whether they can successfully breed together, if they can then they are possibly said to be of the same species. There is an interesting article on the subject - well worth a scan read at:

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/1

I think the human brain is evidence enough that we aren't totally local to the planet Earth. We're more likely the outcome of some engineering of something that did evolve on this pretty little blue and green ball.

You wrote:

I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed

Aha! I was on the line a few weeks ago asking "what is randomness"? In a Universe created by God true randomness cannot exist. Therefore all this "random bumping" is actually part of His plan. Randomness and Chance are a real gift from God. This appeals to me from the perspective of quantum mechanics. I suspect if one looks very closely at the concept of "randomness" one sees God looking back.

I'm glad that Brazil is working out, I am on vacation this week and having so much fun building a new PC and overclocking it - it's smoking, literally. New PSU coming tomorrow which should hopefully give me better voltage stability, it has two independent rails. My multiplier is at 10x, I put the HTT down to 4x, RAM frequency is divided at 166, with 2.5-3-3-8 timings, the FSB is overclocked from 200 to 230 using clockgen, giving me a nice boost of 600 mhz (dual core). All this with a stock vcore of 1.35 volts, using the stock AMD HSF. Now, unless you're a pointy headed geek you will not have understood any of that so I apologise, but it had to be said.

I'll be in Germany next week with "our friends".

Safe travels sir !

What Defines a Specie?

I got to thinking more about "evolution," and it occurs to me that how one defines what constitutes the boundary between species is important. If a puppy is born with a mutation that give it a red nose, and that trait is passed along to the next generation and beyond, does that red nose constitute a new species? I would gather not ... but it got me thinking about what truly does define when one species stops and another begins.

This is important because one of the challenges to the proponents of evolution and natural selection is this: show an example where evidence shows the chain of mutations leading to the creation of a new species. Or show me a laboratory experiment where viruses in a petri dish mutate into a bacteria.

The work to show a common genetic link to some long-past humanoid in Africa does not convince me ... how are we to know that was a different species? It may just have been a very hairy human. But again ... the key to this is the definition of a "species."

Any idea?

The Evolution of Brazil

The course in Brazil is coming together nicely. I was initially concerned, as the concept of names within a WebSphere configuration was challenging to the students. But they've come a long way in the last two days. I've learned a dozen or so Portegeuse words. I think my trying -- badly -- to use snippets of their language is appreciated.

* * *
I think the power of a theory can be tested by seeing what it predicted, and predicted correctly. And to that extent, the idea of natural selection (or "evolution" -- I'm not convinced the two are the same thing in some people's minds) seems to bear the scrutiny. But within the context of the more essential argument about creationism or evolution, I'm not sure there's a problem here. The idea of "change over time" isn't contrary to the Bible, or at least in my reading. The idea of things "evolving" over time doesn't shake my faith in God as creator and sustainer.

The idea of natural selection being the explanatory force behind our initial creation is what I reject. I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed. And that stars formed by the collapsing of dust clouds, which then led to conditions creating basic amino acids, which then formed up DNA, which then formed up life, which then formed up a chain of events that led to the complexity of the human ... all by random chance, all without any guidance by a higher power.

To my view, it takes considerable "faith" to believe that.

However, that "faith"is much less threatening than the belief in an omnipotent Creator God that might -- just might -- hold us accountable for our actions.

And that, dear friend, is why I think most who hold so strongly to the theory of evolution do so -- it is a way to avoid thinking about the alternative.

That's just my view ... I freely admit that.

As for natural selection, I am quite comfortable with the idea of God using the mechanism as part of His creation. And even if humans "evolved" from lower forms, I'm okay with that too ... but at some point human beings must have been "touched" by God -- imbued with his "image" -- because we have evolved much more than any other species. Natural selection must explain that, and I'm not sure it does ... or at least not well.

Question: it is said that the human brain -- very large in proportion to the rest of our body, particularly compared to other species -- is only fractionally utilized. If so, then the question is this: why? What reproductive advantage would be offered by having a bigger brain that isn't fully used?

I'm sure some would say that the bigger brain might be used in small, select instances, providing a greater chance of survival and reproduction. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced of that argument ... particularly when I think of the enormous gap in development between humans and all other species.

Well, all species except the dolphin, of course ... or whales. They're the smartest things on the planet, of course. :-)

The Theory of Evolution: Part II

Are these some things that the theory of evolution has predicted, thus adding weight to it's "goodness" as a theory? Or are these people just misguided? (I really do not know).

* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

* Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html [talkorigins.org]

The Theory of Evolution: Part I

A while ago I posted that a good theory makes predictions. This was my defense against those lighties of yours. So I got to thinking - does the theory of evolution predict anything? If not, then it's not a goood theory.

How's Brazil?

Hydrino Energy

Claims to be 20% of conventional energy cost and to disprove quantum mechanics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html

Birthdays

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_16 I share birthdays with

Catherine of Aragon
Ludwig Van Beethoven
Jane Austen
Noel Coward
Philip K Dick
Liv Ullman

and, of course

Arthur C Clarke

I found much delight in the fact that I was born on the same day as Sir Arthur. I only found that out this year. When I was a child/teenager his books were always my favourite. He had a great impact on my thinking, especially with two books "Profiles of the Future" (which I received and read on my 9th birthday) and "2001: A Space Odyssey". I still say that that film is my #1 movie of all time.

"Imperial Earth" and "The Fountains of Paradise" (oh joy at the space elevator we are going to build!) were right up there too. Then Rama of course.

Note that Dec 16 is also Kazakhstan independence day!

How about you good self sir? Who was born on your birthday?

There are moves afoot to print wikipedia by the way, mainly to be distributed in poorer countries (such as some African nations).

I loathe blogger when it's acting up. I now create my appends in winword, and then copy & paste in before the big "publish". I hope I get to see what you wanted to say! Perhaps another method would be to create them in the blogger, but just select all and copy before you "publish post". That way at least if there is a network error, you'll have everything saved in the windows clipboard. Yes thinking about it that may be the best approach.

Bad, Bad Blogger!

I've tried this three times now, and each time Blogger has done something to make me grumpy. First, it threw away everything and reported "server not found." Then it created a post with only the subject line, but no body. The text I had entered into the body was discarded. A third time it did the same thing.

God's logic

You asked:

Elaborate, please. :-)

I take it back, I don't think that God has a nature, scientific or otherwise, these are human concepts after all. I should not be bringing God down to our level.

When He instantiated Himself as Jesus Christ I think he injected energy (and matter, E=mc2) into this Universe. Jesus could bleed. Did He use technology to do that or just "willed it"? Probably the latter.

Questions for you ..

"Can God tell a lie?"

and a subsequent question

"Would God tell a lie?"

The Nature of God

You wrote:

I would counter that everything is within the realm of science, even God. God is not limited by science but God is of that nature.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. See the italicized words. Elaborate, please. :-)

Nothing is Unassailable

You wrote:

" ... evolution fails to explain X; therefore evolution may not fully explain our existence."

Spot on. Your logic is exactly the scientific method. I suggest that you tell the chap what you think that the "X" is that evolution does not explain and then to see what his answer is.

He wrote:

"Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."

Nonsense, that's a [popular] cop out - a failure of nerve. I would counter that everything is within the realm of science, even God. God is not limited by science but God is of that nature. Just look at pi, phi, the Universe etc. Remember Clarke's Third Law as modified by deep.thought?:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".

Very unsatisfying I agree, I need my supernatural! But I am unable to refute it, yet.

Is Evolution Unassailable?

Today I had an e-mail exchange with a writer for National Review Online. He is a fierce critic of "Intelligent Design," claiming it is "not science." Fair enough. I asked him, via e-mail, if using science to question the claims of evolution was itself not science. That, I explained, was how I saw the serious proponents of "Intelligent Design" operating -- not so much "if not evolution, therefore a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is required," but rather something more akin to "evolution fails to explain X; therefore evolution may not fully explain our existence."

His response: "Two wrongs don't make a right. Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."

So, using science to question to the claims of another scientific theory (evolution) is non-scientific.

Either the theory of evolution is completely unassailable, or there's some horribly inconsistent thinking going on out there.

Science FINALLY finds a cause ...

http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-05/departments/physics-of-bras

I'll leave it at that. :-)

The story of Schrödinger's cat (an epic poem)

Dear Deep thought,

DT, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schrödinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, DT, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schrödinger's zoo.

BAGWELL

Dear Bagwell,

Schrödinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schrödinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

DEEP THOUGHT

(Not sure who wrote that but it's brilliant!)

Reciprocity

You wrote:

... we're more likely to respond awkwardly ...

I guarantee you that the root cause of this is that we do not really believe that the compliment from the other person is sincere. This is bred from the McDonald's/USA retail culture of "have a nice day". This is rooted into the general falsehood of today.

You wrote:

Could it be that we tend to shy away from this because there's a fear of a reciprocal obligation? Or perhaps there's a feeling of infringement on our autonomy?

Probably both of these. On the first, as a child we think we have all the time in the world, but as we grow older we realise that we cannot be everything to all people so must use our time and love wisely.

On the second, a child loves all the attention it can get. But as we get older we tend to want our "own space". Again I think this is because we realize that we have a finite time and want to spend it achieving our goals, we realise that we can exist on our own without attention from others.

So it appears to me the root of our not wanting to connect (as adults) to the love offered in the above two examples is a recognition of one's own limitations and one's own mortality.

But there is another reason. Perhaps we don't accept love because we don't want to hurt the person giving us the love? When we are immature children we don't realise the pain that our accepting all the love from the other person does to that other person. But when we grow up into maturity we notice that if we accept this love, and we don't want to reciprocate that love (for any number of reasons) then we end up hurting the other person. So we decide not to accept their love.

You wrote:

I would fall into the category of people who for whatever reason resists "giving in" to the love that God offers

Question: how would you know if and when you had given in to the love that God offers?