Human drivers

You wrote:

Why bother thinking any more?

Excellent, now we are getting somewhere! A very very good question. Why should we bother with anything?

My answer is: I do not know.

I am driven by things which I do not understand. These things create needs that I have to fulfil. One need is to seek. To seek I need to think, another need is to care for my daughter, another one is to love and another to be loved etc etc etc.

I don't know where these drivers come from. Perhaps between us we can work it out? And work it out in a way for all religions and beliefs? Those who believe in YHWH and those who do not, those who believe in natural selection and those who do not, etc.

To really answer the question of purpose, to answer the question of why? I need more information. Either someone needs to slip me the answer or I need to go out and measure it. My prediction is that I'll get better information from those who have gone out and measured stuff from those who sit in a room thinking up stuff.

I do not even know what is driving me to ask "why?"

In Search of Certainty

I'm coming to understand that nothing can be known for certain. Nothing in the realm of music, art, philosophy, history, politics or religion. Nothing in the realm of science -- physics, chemistry, astronomy or biology. Nothing in the realm of medicine. Nothing in the realm of math. Nothing at all.

Every single thing can be argued to have alternatives.

Everything.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to debate any point. Your arguments for are no better or worse than my arguments against. There is also no possible conclusion, so why bother?

And if that is true, then God does not exist. By definition he can't. The moment one person argues he does not, then he must not.

Why bother thinking any more?

Boys keep swinging

You asked:

Your turn -- do you think we're merely programmed beings, whose primary stimulus is the pain/pleasure variables?

Yes. Although I wouldn't use the adjective "merely" -- we are an amazing achievement !!

If we are indeed programmed to pursue self-interest, to the exclusion of all else, then it does leave little room for the influence of moral ideas.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. The examples you gave seem to clearly fit into the pleasure/pain principle. On these moral behaviours you asked:

Where does that come from?

Well I believe it comes from societal pressure. I have seen many people "being nice" to people. I've also sometimes seen how these people "play up" how moral they are in sacrificing something (money, time, etc). I suspect that inside they resent their kindness but do it for the reason that the pleasure they receive from society for doing so is greater than their loss. Or, society does not inflict pain on them for doing their kind deed. Or God may not inflict pain on them for doing their good deed. In all cases their actions adhere to the pleasure/pain principle. To appreciate this one has to be 100% honest with oneself (not something I find easy to do).

My observations of two young children growing up provide the information for my summation above. They need to be told to "be nice" in the altruistic fashion. Interestly though, they usually understand the concept of "treating others how they wish to be treated" though. When they see injustices in the world they recognize them, they do seem to have some innate sense of "right" and "wrong" I will grant you -- but it's rooted in "I wouldn't like that to happen to me".

Imagine a human child from birth brought up by an alien society where something we find abhorrent is common practise. How would that child act if dumped into Earth society?

Question: are you aware of any examples of animals appearing to pause and enjoy a sunset?

My old cat did once. I swear it. Who knows though. I'm a dog person really.

+++

Mustafa wrote: Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter.

Is he mandating a definition of "Cultural materialism" there? I would have thought that there are many things between "living as if there were no God or moral absolutes" and "all that matters is matter" (whatever he means by "matter" in this case). These binary statements remind me of your hero CSLewis. Were it has to be "A" or "B". Hey!!!! What about "C,D,E,F..." etc.

Mustafa, if anyone thinks believing in natural selection precludes (or excludes?) an Intelligent Desinger is most probably not correct. No more debate needed.

Mustafa, you and everyone one else will never know if there in an Intelligent Designer, but you and everyone else, are entitled to their beliefs.

+++

Ah the Lennon thing. I was led astray by a distraught female, I felt sorry for her crying her eyes out at John's departure. Turns out she had ulterior motives. Not a pleasant (first) experience !!

Other Story?

You wrote:

And in fact, Lennon being murdered led me to .... but that's another story :-)

Well ... we're listening. :-)

Intelligent Design ... from a Muslim Perspective

Interesting article by a professed proponent of ID, yet one who is a believing Muslim. I offer it without further comment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol200512020813.asp

Hobbes

Is the "Hobbes" to which you refer the tiger from the comic strip, "Calvin and Hobbes?"

http://images.google.com/images?q=Calvin+and+hobbes&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest

That comic strip is no longer drawn, but in its day it was a true classic. Superior artwork and very, very clever writing.

* * *
You wrote (with my [inclusions])

Hobbes's work: [premise] he possibly thinks of human beings as mechanical objects, programmed as it were to pursue their self-interest. Some have suggested [conclusion] that Hobbes's mechanical world-view leaves no room for the influence of moral ideas, that that he thinks the only effective influence on our behavior are incentives of pleasure and pain.

If I accept the premise, then I've got less argument with the conclusion. If we are indeed programmed to pursue self-interest, to the exclusion of all else, then it does leave little room for the influence of moral ideas. I have stated elsewhere in this blog that on its surface, the "Sermon on the Mount" is pure rubbish. The Sermon, within the context of purely selfish beings, would be rejected out of hand. "Blessed are the meek?" No they're not -- foolish statement, therefore disregard. "Love my enemies?" Don't be ridiculous; they'll slaughter me if I don't keep my guard up.

So, if premise, then conclusion. Yes, I agree with that.

The question in my mind is whether Hobbes' position is sustainable. I think it's pretty clear there's at least an element of truth to it ... as we look around, we see an awful lot of behavior done largely out of self-interest. We respond quite readily (and predictably) to pleasure and to pain.

But is that the whole story? I'm inclined to think not ... and not just because I have a lot invested in that not being the whole story.

If I consider the world of "natural selection" and "evolution," I see no reason why altruism or kindness should exist ... except to the extent it benefits the propegation of my DNA. So acts of sacrifice for my offspring is somewhat understandable within the context of natural selection. But what about kindness to others? Some argue that there's a survival instinct that kicks in at the herd or pack level -- a kind of community altruism. I doubt that ... I doubt that's something that can be demonstrated in the wild. I'm open to being contradicted there, but I don't think there's too many examples where animals in the wild sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others in their wider social structure.

Yet humans do demonstrate that. For instance, kindness and care extended to the elderly. From a DNA perspective, it's pointless -- their contribution to the propegation of the DNA is finished. In that narrow sense, they're worthless. Yet there appears to be a long history of humans caring for their elderly, and even examples of altruism when the elderly kill themselves rather than continue to be a "burden" on the others.

Where does that come from?

Here the theology kicks in ... if indeed we are "made in God's image" -- that is, we possess qualities of being and personality like that possessed by God, then there's something within us beyond the mere programmed pain/pleasure model.

Question: are you aware of any examples of animals appearing to pause and enjoy a sunset? I'm not ... yet we do, almost universally. Why? What's that all about?

But that's the extent of my insights on that topic ... philosophy is not a strong suit of mine. I'm easily tripped up by the dense language used.

Your turn -- do you think we're merely programmed beings, whose primary stimulus is the pain/pleasure variables?

The Pleasure/Pain Principle

LOL @ the soup. It's a fine broth I will agree.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is today best known for his political thought. His vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to contemporary politics (so BBC Radio 4 tells me).

Hobbes's work: he possibly thinks of human beings as mechanical objects, programmed as it were to pursue their self-interest. Some have suggested that Hobbes's mechanical world-view leaves no room for the influence of moral ideas, that that he thinks the only effective influence on our behavior are incentives of pleasure and pain.

Thoughts?

25 years this week since Lennon was shot http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/lennon.shtml
I was living above a shop in London at the time and clearly remember hearing the news on the radio as I was getting ready for sixth form school that morning. I recall feeling shocked shocked shocked and wondered what this news meant for the world. And in fact, Lennon being murdered led me to .... but that's another story :-)

I wonder how long Chapman would last if he ever gets out of Attica State? Less than a week I would guess.

Shameful Admission

I like Campbell's Chicken Noodle soup ... really, I do.

Horsies and Duckies

Good grief ... quantum bytes? Computers based on massive arrays of quantum states?

It's too much ... too much ... too much.

I recall the manual that came with the first IBM PC ... it had cartoon pictures of ducks. Now that is the level of complexity I want to go back to.

Bah ... quantum state computers. Bah!

* * *
With regard to the movie, "War of the Worlds" ... Lisa brought up a good point. If this supposedly superior alien race had been watching us for millions years, you'd think they would have been smart enough to analyze our air and water to make sure they weren't going to expose themselves to harm.

Gosh ... even the original Star Trek series did that! "Class M atmosphere, Captain."

Plus ... why is it every Spielberg representation of an alien species is long and spindly with big slanted eyes? Everyone knows that vastly superior species are going to be elderly white men wearing shimmering white robes that dissipate into a pure energy field. That's what always happened on Star Trek. They're always pacifist, and they sit around in committee groupings. One speaks for the group, the rest sit there mute. Spock is fascinated by the "pure energy, Captain" aspect of it; Kirk ends up having the bemused smirk on his face that says, "They may be smarter pure-energy beings, but I get that hot Yoman Rand chick."

* * *
I tend to like spoken word on my MP3 player (a Rio Forge with 512MB of flash) rather than music. I have music on it, but when I'm sitting on a plane, the best way to occupy my brain is to have something to think about, not just listen to. So I've loaded up on some MP3's from my man R.C. Sproul. :-)

One of the things I like about the Rio is that it takes a single AAA battery. I don't like the idea of a rechargable built-in battery. If I'm on a plane halfway between Dallas and NYC, and my battery goes dead, all I have to do now is go into my backpack and grab another AAA. With the others, I have to think about recharging the built-in battery before trips. No problem, if I remember. But there'll be a day I don't.

"Well," you might say. "You have to remember to have a supply of AAA's."

...

...

...

Oh, shut up.

:-)

Yay!

http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1105/news/byte.html?1133470239046

We'll need one of these computers to solve chess. If Black wins I am not sure what that says about the Universe, if anything.

Adversaries

Man that was a funny diatribe ending with:

You broke me of chess ... you know that, don't you? :-)

"The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have points to gain, and competition or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or want of it." - Benjamin Franklin, 1779

+++

I thought that Cruise acted well in that movie, and I guess they did take a few liberties with the Wells original.

+++

Shopping in the Big Apple? What did you load on the iPod?

Didn't Like This Movie ...

... Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds." Too much implausibility. Typical Spielberg. Lisa is still watching it ... I've retired to the other room where I'm preparing my MP3 player for the trip to NYC next week. :-)

Loving the Unloveable

You wrote:

You can stand someone who is sick right?

Well ... that's hard for me. Without going into a lot of personal detail, I was raised by a woman who was -- and is -- very, very sick. There is a depth of selfishness and manipulation the likes of which I've never seen.

I'm well aware of this not in keeping with the example set by Christ our Saviour.

I'm aware of the specifics of your example. It's an awful situation -- I know from experience. But as I've said before, the key there is for you to be the anchor. Or, to put it into chess terms, you need to be that pawn at Q4 or K4 that buggers up the whole board! :-)

Note: on my death bed, some 50 years from now if the Lord grants me that much time, I will mutter something like, "That pawn ... that pawn ... damn that pawn." One lousy piece ... it's ability to move hindered ... effectively freezing the onslaught that was to be my offensive campaign. My bishops, rooks and knights arrayed ready for battle. And one lone pawn, steadfast in the middle, frustrated the ambitions of an empire! You broke me of chess ... you know that, don't you? :-)

Look ... I'm aware that of all the challenges laid out before us by Jesus, "loving your enemy" is probably the longest stretch. I'm doing well if I can simply cease from criticizing, which in the case of Mr. Moore I failed at. Perhaps in many cases "loving your enemy" can be something as simple as "if afforded the opportunity to attack your enemy ... don't." ???

Loving

You wrote:

I have no idea how to love someone I can't stand.

There are few things harder to do in this life.

For me it comes with a kind of acceptance of who they are, and if they are really horrid then sometimes I tell myself it is because they are "unwell".

You can stand someone who is sick right?

For me, prayer helps, I'm not talking about someone who does abhorrent things in films and media, I am talking about one that is passing on her neuroses to her, to my, children, those that do as they wish without thinking of the ramifications to their kids. After all, they only have their children for a short time (18 years?) before they fly the nest.

Yet still we must love these people that damage our most dear. By not loving them we only hurt ourselves, and our most dear even more so.

We must do this because it is God's plan and He is in charge and it will all work ok. Prayer really does help (me) here.

Changing the World

Perhaps I'm just too much of a cynic. While I agree in principle to the notion of striving for a better world through educating parents so children will grow up "better," I hold no hope whatever that such a thing will ever succeed. The past 40 years (or perhaps more) has been devoted to the notion of "improving" conditions. Things are arguably worse now than before.

I hold no hope whatever that mankind can correct by itself what is its fundamental problem -- a "heart" that is inherently broken by sin. Most people will scoff at that, but history bears the truth of it.

I'm not sure I agree that admiring the attributes of the Marines -- courage, honor, integrity -- is the same thing as "glorifying war." That such people exist in a world that unfortunately requires them is simply an added benefit.

Yes, I suppose I should "love" Michael Moore. That is not, however, the same as being pleased with the type of person he is or the things he does. However, I don't have a clue what the distinction is ... in other words, I have no idea how to love someone I can't stand.

Kirsty McColl

God rest her soul sang a song which went something like:

"I don't want to change the world, I'm not looking for a new England ..."

And she did that great Christmas number with The Pogues too :-)

I never understood her in this song though, everyone wants to change the world - don't they?

When you wrote:

In a perfect world we would not need to have Marines. The world is not perfect ..

I thought of that song again. We don't have to accept the world for what it is. Let's try and teach our children on both sides of a war not to be violent towards eachother. These behaviours are learned while the children are babies. They are not born with them. Education of the parents is of paramount importance. Children copy their parents. It will take a long time to change this world but I believe that we should try and not just accept how it is today. If we glorify war where does that end? We'll get it wrong but anything that leads us towards the Star Trek utopia is goodness in my book.

PS. As Christians we really need to love Michael Moore.

Marines

First, if the "Cambrian Explosion" was due to a species dump by an external source with the intent of populating the earth ... then I would say that was "by design," and it was done with some "intelligence." I don't know if that was really the case, but if so, then it explains things a whole lot better than natural selection explains it.

Randomness is an illusion. There ... I've said it. :-)

* * *

Second, anything produced by Michael Moore is to be suspect. I don't know the specifics of that particular scene, but it was probably edited to maximize the negativity. I don't like Mr. Moore at all ... he is the epitome of a low-class hypocrite. He has made millions off the "ambush" style of "documentary," yet when someone tried to make a movie about him using the same technique, he was very abusive. He complains about "corporate greed" yet makes millions off his movies but does not pay his production company people anything more than the minimum he has to. And for all his talk about Halliburton being an evil company, the man felt it worthy enough to own its stock.

Nope ... don't like him at all.

* * *

In a perfect world we would not need to have Marines. The world is not perfect. Someone once said something to the effect, "I sleep better at night knowing there are violent men ready to do harm to keep me safe." There is truth in that. I don't wish to glorify the "violent men" aspect, but I do think it a useful thing that such men -- who by their nature are probably that way -- are constrained within a ethos of honor and integrity. Otherwise, they might well be the evil men you say makes having the Marines a necessity.

The Cambrian Explosion

Whoops sorry, I don't know how the "pre" got in there.

Evolution: nucleotide sequences are being re-arranged on chromosomes and that happens all of the time. Sometimes these re-arrangements throw up things that are useful in terms of survival. This has the effect of amplifying that particular re-arrangement. Sometimes called "survival of the fittest" it probably should more accurately be called "survival of something that was fitter than the previous". An an example, a creature that mutates in a way that develops it's re-productive organs in a safer place that the previous one.

I'm not sure that my description of evolution would help Tom, but it may do. It's just a theory. And it is very annoying when scientists talk about "Evolution did this. Evolution experimented with that .."etc. Some scientists say "Evolution is true like the sky is blue" -- that's ok, because sometimes the sky is not blue. And you know my views on truth anyway :-)

I do find it rather amazing that Darwin knew nothing about genetics, or the age of the Earth, yet still came up with a remarkable theory that involved inheritance.

On accountability (or avoidance of it), this probably comes from society (our parents). Having observed two children growing up, neither of them were born with any innate "accountability" that I could see. My personal belief is that these people are trying to explain what they see in the Universe rather than attempting to avoid guilt or saying sorry.

You rightly point out that "randomness" is involved in these re-arrangements (mutations). I've been asking folks what randomness is. It pops up everywhere, the Prof didn't have a good answer to the question. Randmonness may be the result of a hidden variables. Or another way of saying it is that probability may be the result of something that is hidden, something that is already chosen. Which is very odd, Scott Adams (Dilbert) wrote:

"Probability is omnipotent and omnipresent. It influences every coin at any time in any place, instantly. It cannot be shielded or altered. We might see randomness in the outcome of an individual coin toss, but as the number of tosses increases, probability has firm control of the outcome. And probability is not limited to coins and dice and slot machines. Probability is the guiding force of everything in the universe, living or non-living, near or far, big or small, now or anytime."
...
"That's right. Our existence was programmed into the universe from the beginning, guarenteed by the power of probability. The time and place of our existence were flexible, but the outcome was assured because sooner or later life would happen. We would be sitting in these rocking chairs, or ones just like them, having this conversation. You believe that DNA and probability are opposites. But both make specific things happen. DNA runs on a tighter schedule than probability, but in the long run -- the extreme long run -- probability is just as fixed and certain in its outcome. Probability forces the coin toss to be exactly 50-50 at some point, assuming you keep flipping forever. Likewise, probability forced us to exist exactly as we are. Only the timing was in question."

Looking at the fossil record, maybe the Cambrian explosion was down to some intelligence dumping life on Earth, if so I hope that they are happy with the results.

+++

I am very happy to hear that you have a good heart. Now get fit ya lazy bum!

+++

Beauty, Marines, and masculine honour and integrity. I know what you are saying. Believe me that stuff is beautiful.

For me this is an unfortunate example however, to me it shows a lack of educationon the part of the Marine -- through no fault of their own I would add.

I say this because there are a few truly "evil" men and women in the world. "Evil" being a shortcut term here to define people like Hitler or Hussein. Most people are not this bad.

As a result, anti-evil (let's call them "good") people have to stop these evil people.

These evil people cause wars by having their versions of Marines come off of their production lines to go conquer.

The good people have to manufacture their versions of Marines to fight the evil peoples Marines. War.

Now the evil folks Marine and the good folks Marine really are the same, they are both probably good, and would much rather be living a peaceful life, drinking beers with their buddies.

The evil folks Marines have tears streaming down their face as they go off to fight for the glorious cause. They have honour and integrity and guess what? They are being lied to.

I didn't like that Michael Moore 9/11 movie, but it did show a scene where a couple of military guys (Marines?) were recruiting undereducated americans in a car park. They were misleading their targets. The smart ones don't go to war, they stay at home and let the men of honour and integrity with tears streaming down their face throw themselves in front of the bayonets don't they? Or they have mandatory service.

Imagine if the few evil leaders could not persuade their people to fight for them? No evil Marines, so no good Marines necessary. Maybe a few evil leaders in the boxing ring, millions of lives saved. But that won't happen, and that's all down to undereducated men becoming soldiers for their evil leaders, misled, lied to, with tears streaming down their faces as they become men.

I would not have fought other soldiers on the lines in Iraq, but I would have gladly participated in a team sent in to take out Saddam. Or even helped to plan the remote missile that destroyed wherever he was located. Quickly and silently removing evil. I don't accept the argument that a war was necessary, and I believe that there are only a few truly evil people.

As I have often said the future is a race between education and disaster, I am not sure who I stole that from either.

Pre-Cambrian Explosion

I read that article as suggesting the following:

• Intelligent Design is not "science"
• Natural Selection is not "fact"

There is sufficient cause for doubt about the "theory" of evolution and natural selection. To me that seems a healthy thing -- formulate falsifying hypothesis and test those hypothesis. I'm not suggesting that the answer, "Ergo, God created it" is a good falsifying response. My primary complaint all along is that so many people simply assume "evolution" (or "natural selection") is a settled, without-question scientific fact. It's not.

You mention the Pre-Cambrian Explosion -- that right there is cause to question the commonly accepted notion of "natural selection." The fossil record shows that suddenly -- suddenly -- there is this massive proliferation of new fossil types. If one subscribes to the "random mutation that leads to reproductive advantage" hypothesis, one would normally expect to see within the fossil record a series of changes, from less-advanced to more-adanced. But we don't see that. We see -- pow! -- all these new things.

My understanding is this is explained in two ways:

1. Earlier fossil evidence of variations in the species development was lost because their structure was not condusive to preservation.
2. A phenomenon called "punctuated equilibrium," wherein the development of new species remains in a suspended state, then suddenly explodes with new development, supposedly in response to some massive change in environmental conditions.

Item #1 is absurd on its face -- there is fossil evidence that predates the "Pre-Cambrian Explosion". Therefore one would expect to see variations on the fossil evidence from that earlier time period leading up to and through the time of the "explosion." But the historical record has a huge unexplained gap. And the burden falls on the advocates of natural selection to explain that gap, and not with buzz-words like "punctuated equilibrium."

Item #2 is is plausible on its face -- changes in environment cause massive changes. Here's where the typical evolutionist falls down. They typically ascribe the changes that occur due to "adaptation" to changing conditions. An amoeba doesn't "adapt" -- it can't consciously decide ... "Hmmm ... I'll modify my protein structure to better accomodate these conditions." Modifications like that only come through random genetic mutations -- not conscious decisions. (Unless the changes are guided by a higher entity. I'll happily give credit to God; Darwinists are less happy to do that ... they credit "nature.") A drastic change in the environment could lead to massive genetic mutations -- increase UV radiation, for instance, could produce such genetic variations. Again, massive mutations would not tend to survive: the ability to reproduce with another like organism is minimized if the mutation is so drastic as to prohibit reproductive options. Mutations that survive and prosper tend to be small, gradual things -- and that would leave a fossil trace. But it has not. Again, the burden is on the natural selection advocates to explain that gap -- if in fact those advocates were interested in science, which in my opinion they are not.

My opinion is -- and it is just my opinion -- that people adhere to the (corrupted) notion of "evolution" because it alleviates the need to feel accountable. That's a wildly debatable point, I'll admit. But that's what I believe.

The book, "Case for a Creator," by Lee Stroebel was a very good discussion of the "problems" with present-day theories of creation. You'd hate it, so I wouldn't recommend you get it. But I liked it because it didn't fall lock-step into "evolution is settled scientific fact" camp.

Note: two years ago, during the closing of my cottage up north, one of the guys on the trip used the example of the domesticated dog as evidence of "evolution." I pointed out that it was an absurd example. By that standard then gene-splicing is evidence of "evolution." Human intervention into the genetic structure of an organism, along with the fostering of that modification into future generations, is not a good example. Can you tell I'm animated about this subject?

* * *

Hey, but on a positive note ... I just got back from the doctor where I underwent a "stress EKG" to investigate chest pains of late. No evidence of a coronary anomoly. I'm pitifully out of shape, but there's no irregularity in my heart pattern or activity.

* * *

More "Most Beautiful" -- about a year ago I was watching a TV show that chronicled the 13-week basic training of U.S. Marine recruits. The U.S. Marine "boot camp" is notoriously difficult. The inductees were subjected to all manner of physical and psychological hardships. But what transpired during that 13 weeks was the replacement of the old ethics -- laziness, victimhood, excuse-making -- into the Marine ethic: honor, integrity, hard-work, sacrifice, teamwork, allegiance to things bigger than one's self. At the end of the training the recruits are subjected to a 72-hour brutual training exercise, after which they graduate and become Marines.

The film showed recruit after recruit receiving their insignia, and being told by the drill sergeant, "Today you are a Marine." And every one of those recruits had tears streaming down their faces, not out of relief that it was over, but out of a new sense of accomplishment and purpose. They were now men -- men of honor and integrity.

That scene will never leave my mind.

I have never met a U.S. Marine -- past or present -- that does not hold to a solid foundation of "God and Country." They are truly different men. I admire them greatly.

Sermon on the mount

Do you have any opinion as to whether the author subscribes to ID or not? I'm really not sure. At one point he equates ID with Darwinism in that they are both untestable hypotheses. I get the impression that he does not like Darwinism, but he is equating ID with Darwinism, so I am left to assume that he does not agree with ID.

The author of that article ends up with:

What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.

My understanding is that Darwin is positing a theory (not a philosophy) to try to explain what is found in the geological record, if you google "pre-cambrian explosion" - is there a better theory than natural selection to explain the diversity of life during this period? A period not covered by The Bible.

But that is a sermon for another day.

I thought that this was a scientific debate, not a religious one? And guess what, no-one really knows what the correct answer is, or maybe you do believe that you have the correct answer Tom? You are very special. I just guess we will need to wait for you to bless us with your next sermon so that us dumb folks can see maybe 1% of what you know already :-)

Bucket of Responses

Most Beautiful

I like that picture. But then again, I've always had a soft-spot for asian women. :-)

I'll measure "most beautiful" based on my emotional response to it. It's not a perfect barometer, but it's certainly one measure, and it'll work for the time being.

• Masculine honor and integrity, particularly when it's done strongly but gently, and most particularly when it's sacrificial. Don't know why ... I'm powerfully affected by this.
• The point in the "Charlie Brown Christmas Special" where Linus finishes quoting Luke 2:8-14. Linus recited that passage in response to Charlie Brown's plea, "Won't somebody tell me what Christmas is all about?" Linus walks back across the silent stage to where Charlie Brown is standing and, in the most remarkably gentle voice I can imagine, says "That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown." In that one portrayal I see selfless kindness (Linus), myself (Charlie Brown), and the touch of God ... all in one.
• The song, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing."
• A cute girl in glasses ... but I digress. :-)

Let X= ...

You seem to be saying that within the realm of mathematics, it's possible to simply assert "Let X = 1" and it is so. Your argument then appears to be that in the physical world saying "Bill is a boy" is more problematic. Further, constructing a logical argument on the conditional if makes the subsequent argument suspectible to collapse. My counter is simply that the same holds true in the realm of mathematics. The assertion "Let X = " can be challenged.

Unless, of course, what you're really saying is that by saying "Let X =" what's really being said is, if X= ...

Intelligent Design

I like this article. It seems to sum up my viewpoint on ID vs. evolution nicely.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bethell200512010829.asp

The most beautiful thing I've ever seen

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.

Well ok it would be my daughters birth by a long chalk .. but there are others, and many.

• The Berlin wall coming down
• Nelson Mandela walking to freedom
• Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon
• When kids are generous to eachother, I once saw my nephew give his last sweet away to his brother, even though he really wanted it. Any acts of unaffected selflessness.
• The letters "IBM" raised by the scanning tunnelling microscope
• Lots of nature stuff, a feotus in vitro, a rose, a snowflake, a sunset in Bermuda, an anthill in my back garden

But the most beautiful thing I've ever seen has to be ....

Zhang Ziyi in this dress -> http://www.helloziyi.us/Galleries/new/memoirs-tokyo-premiere-zhang-ziyi-hq-08.htm

And The Earth from space a close second :-)

And you good sir?

Moonstruck

Loved it. Ah the closure one gets from movie-land.

I'm guessing I picked up maybe 70% of what the director was trying to (subtly at times I thought) communicate.

Questions:

If you had to label it, would it be predominantly a movie for girls, a movie for boys, or neutral?

I'm still thinking about the most beautiful thing .. what's yours? Could you say?

PS. There is something incredibly flexible about human nature, this is why we rarely call for the big knife when things turn out in an unexpected fashion. The will to survive is very strong.

Logic in the real world

Within the confines of mathematics there is no problem with:

Let X = 1

We are demanding that it be so.

There is also no problem with:

Let Bill = Boy.

The problem with your logical assertion as it relates to the real world comes with:

If Bill = Boy.

Bill might not in all actuality be a "Boy". You can build a whole house of logical cards on If but they are just that: prone to be knocked down.

I believe that Bill is indeed a boy. But there are signs out there that he may be much more than just a boy, in fact, there are signs in the Universe that say Bill is both a boy and a girl (like Cher being both flat and bumpy) and that changes the whole world that I built upon the assumption that he was a boy.

Maybe a more accurate logical treatise for the real world starts with:

If Bill can only have one sex in all dimensions
And If Bill is a boy ...

This should come as no surprise to a Christian ..

If Jesus was a man ..
If Jesus was God ..

etc.

Truth Redux

I'm not smart enough to track with you on the finer points of "11th-dimension" projections and such. But I'm not sure I agree with you that the only "truth" is found within mathematical axioms. The same validity offered mathematical axioms can be offered to non-mathematical things as well:

• If Bill is a boy
• and if a child can't be both a boy and a girl
• then we know that Bill is not a girl

The key to that is the two premises established in bullets one and two -- we can argue for some time about what "boy" means, and whether Bill is, in fact a boy. The second bullet might illicit even more debate. But if we accept both assertions as given, then the third bullet follows.

However, if we deny either bullet one or two, then three falls.

If my thinking is false within the confines of multi-dimensional string theory ... :-) ... then I don't see how in the world anyone can have any confidence in mathematical axioms. "Let X = 1." Questions that follow:

• What if 1 is a fluid entity?
• What if X can't change state?
• What if X can't hold a state?
• What if the concept of "equal" is fundamentally flawed?
• What if X refuses to accept 1?
• What if 1 refuses to be labeled as X?
• What if you don't have the authority to assign X a value, but others do?
• What if by the simple act of assigning X a value, you change both X and the value?

* * *

However, I will never agree that just because we may not be able to discern "the truth" in our spatial dimension, that proves truth doesn't exist. We just may not see it. Absolute Truth -- however that may be defined -- by its very definition exists outside any other influence. It simply is. If not, then it's not absolute.

* * *

But maybe there is no absolute truth ... maybe all is truly gray ... ... That leads me to one conclusion ...

Ronnie: "Chrissy! Bring me the big knife!"

Chrissy: "No! I won't do it, I tell you! I won't do it!"

Ronnie: "She won't do it. Do you know about me?"

Truth (again)

I have other points to respond to on, some good points you have raised, but I'd like to offer something against :

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

Rapping with The Prof gave me the overwhelming impression that our Universe is like "a shadow of what is really out there". For example the shadow of a 3D cube can be a flat 2D square. And the shadow of a 4D hypercube can be a 3D cube.

You get shadows by "projecting" nD objetcs into (n-1)D spaces.

I'm currently watching a movie called Moonstruck.

In that movie the actress Cher is flat, she's moving around a thin liquid crystal TFT display. But she's not "really" flat, she's a 3D person with bumps. I wonder what her 4D self looks like? (Current theory says that there are 11 spacial dimensions, there is direct physical evidence for a fourth spacial dimension too).

So to take your logic to the Cher case we get:

If Cher is flat, then to say she has bumps is utterly false.
If Cher is not flat, then she might have bumps.

If I am a flatlander and all I can experience is the TFT display then Cher is indeed flat, or so it would seem. I think such statements on "truth" do not work in the real physical Universe, where things are unknown to us. They only work within the safe confines of a system of mathematical axioms, or in the limited view we have of the Universe. Good movie though.

"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?"