According to modern scientists, our universe began with a gigantic explosion, forcing a “traumatic growth spurt before it was a billionth of a billionth of a second old.” Somewhere in there, a whole lot of matter and debris was scattered, forming our young universe, which is still, even now, rapidly expanding in an outward direction.
So, was there some kind of great big ball of dirt that contained all the elements within itself that now make up the whole of our universe, including those elements that support life on Earth? Were there already tiny microbes there that would one day evolve into the human race, microbes that were in some sort of stasis until some catalyst (the Big Bang) pushed things into a much more manageable, and therefore much less restricted, space to form planets in just the right place around newly formed stars, allowing them to be put into action to start growing and evolving? (Or did some primordial oozish chemicals combine to somehow become the first single-celled organisms?) I guess I wonder a little bit how scientists can form theories like these, when the statistical odds against such an event ever happening are enormous (to the point of being impossible). The other problem with this theory is that it still doesn’t explain where everything comes from (the origins question) because in order for matter to have somehow formed out of an explosion, it had to have already existed in the first place. Exploding gases sure don’t produce matter out of thin air (no pun intended).
Or maybe the goal isn’t to solve the problem of the origins of all matter in the universe. Maybe the goal is simply to solve the question of where Man, and his environment, came from. If that’s the case, then this is a whole different horse-and-pony show because then the questions, and the subsequent sought-after answers, are very different. Still, I can’t see a genuinely curious scientist not being curious about the question of where everything came from. Maybe Mr. Scientist doesn’t really have a hope of answering those questions because he knows science isn’t likely to produce solutions to problems that are billions of years old. Maybe he is simply trying to find out as much as he can before he dies. Maybe he is simply trying to find meaning for his life by figuring out what his infinite reference point is.
Meh, don’t mind me. Just a bit of philosophical rambling that was screaming for attention. (As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.)
Tags: evolution, logic, origins, philosophy, Science
New Scientist Breaking News – Methanol-powered artificial muscles start to flex
Notable quote:
“One day you could find yourself sitting in a bar next to a humanoid robot, who is taking a shot of vodka to give himself the energy to go to work,” jokes Ray Baughman, a nanotechnologist at the University of Texas at Dallas, US.
Oh, I think this might just serve as good fodder for a sci-fi milieu element. I like!
Tags: Science, science-fiction, Speculative Fiction, Technology
Saturn’s watery moon could harbour life
So, Saturn’s little moon Enceladus apparently has liquid water, which naturally has generated quite a lot of buzz in the scientific community, since the existence of liquid begets at least the possibility of life on that moon. This is yet another of those times when you wish you get an actual, live person on a ship out there to take a closer look. The question of the day right now seems to be what heat source is available to prevent the water from freezing.
The question I have, though, is this – does the existence of liquid water necessarily beget the existence of life? Probably not, though it does at least raise the possibility that it could be so. Perhaps only time will truly tell, and if life is discovered, I suspect it will be microscopic.
Related Articles:
Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Life, Not On Earth
Tags: news, Science
One of the coolest things I learned during my psychology master’s program was that your memories are probably stored not just in your brain but throughout your entire nervous system. It was funny to me to consider the idea that I was retrieving a high school memory from my big toe. The science behind this theory is that often we react to a potential danger before we can ever actually process the fact that we might get hurt. For instance, when you touch a burner on your kitchen range, sometimes you will react sharply by withdrawing your hand quickly as though you had been burned, even though the burner itself is cold. That is due to a memory stored in that part of your body of a time in the past when you had been burned, and your reflexes reacted before your brain had the chance the determine that there was no actual danger present.
Another thing that most people are probably aware of is that the senses can often store the most potent memories of all. Say you smell perfume and you are struck with a poignant memory of a former love and are brought to the brink of tears at the vividness of the thoughts and feelings associated with that memory, even though it’s been years since you last saw that individual. Or you hear an old song for the first time in forever and you remember an event you hadn’t thought about in a long, long time. Or you touch a rough board and you can remember as though it was yesterday that time as a child that you worked in the shop with your dad building a birdhouse.
The senses are amazing things, and it’s still amazing to me just what kinds of memories are stored with them and what can be accessed with just the right stimulus. Our bodies are an intricate and vastly complex work, and I think I never cease to be fascinated the things they can do.
Tags: graduate-school, physiology, psychology, Science
hope, faith, choice, belief, truth, reality
Jackal has asked an interesting question going about which of the words above stand as most important and why. What is more perhaps more interesting than the question, however, is the discussion which follows it. Several people have pointed out that all the words are religious terms, but I propose that they are as much philosophical and scientific as they are religious. For this discussion I want to focus on how these terms are also scientific.
hope. The scientist has questions about the nature of the world and the universe, questions that he hopes to have answered through intensive research and experiments. He hopes that his answers will bring truth and enlightenment, that the mysteries of the ages will be opened up and revealed before him, that he will learn something new and fresh and desirable that will change the way people look at things forever.
faith. The scientist also has faith—that his science is reliable and valid, that it can, indeed, perform the rigorous tests of observation accurately and consistently each time, that the information the studies reveal is true and descriptive. He has faith that the answers to the great mysteries are knowable, that they have only to be discovered by he who is brilliant enough to find them. His science is, to some degree, his religion because he places great faith in it that it will provide him with the answers he seeks.
choice. There are a lot of choices in science—what questions to ask, what experiments to perform, what evidence to collect, what information to look at, etc. There are so many choices to make in science, choices that have a great degree of importance on the outcome of each and every study. Every step of the scientific process involves making choices with bad ones leading to misinformation and confusion and good ones leading to truth, answers, and enlightenment.
belief. Belief is also a scientific term because somewhere along the process, the information gathered must be believed or disbelieved, with the former leading to new processes and technologies and the latter leading to more studies and experiments.
truth. Science is, by its very nature, a search for truth. Every study conducted, every experiment run, every microscope and telescope focused, every meter and dial and knob turned is a pursuit for truth, specifically the truth of how the world and the universe functions. Sometimes, the truth is easily found, sometimes it requires years of fruitless labor before truth is discovered, if at all. Yet, it is inherent in the study of science to seek truth.
reality. How can one have science is one does not have reality? Science can only function in the presence of reality. This is, perhaps, a philosophical point, but nevertheless in order for something to be examined, it must first exist.
As always, I believe that science and religious faith go hand-in-hand, with philosophical musings servings as the supplemental goodness that fills out the formula. Science complements faith complements philsophy complements science, and so forth. I see no reason why the three cannot work together in perfect unity, providing us with a richness and depth of discovery that must surely be pleasing to God. After all, why would He have created all this for us if not for us to explore it to His glory and pleasure?
Tags: beliefs, faith, hope, philosophy, religion, Science
Cassandra and franky point out a couple of good questions, ones that have been asked by people for centuries. The questions, as I see them in this discussion, are:
- How do I know that God even exists?
- If God exists how do I know which religion(s) has it right?
Background
Pascal’s Wager. franky refers to Pascal’s Wager, in which Blaise Pascal posits that a rational analysis should lead one to, at the least, wager on the existence of God, supposing that it would be safer to gamble on His existence than on His non-existence. Several criticisms have been levelled at the Wager, and I will mention those that pertain directly to Cassandra and franky’s comments.
The whole of Pascal’s Wager is founded upon a simple matrix, the columns of which are God Exists and God Doesn’t Exist. One criticism of the Wager is that there should be more columns, specifically that the God Exists column should be subdivided into smaller columns, one for every other theistic hypothesis. Pascal’s Wager seems biased toward the Christian God, and critics of the Wager question how it accounts for other religious belief systems.
Another criticism of Pascal’s Wager that is particularly pertinent here is the atheist belief of the zero probability of God. Because atheists believe that God does not exist, it is just as advantageous to disbelieve in God as it is to believe in Him. This effectively renders the Wager moot for this belief system.
Note that Pascal’s Wager is not an argument for the existence of God so much as it is an argument for belief in God. Likewise, the flaws of the argument do not prove that God does not exist, merely that the argument itself has flaws.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Cassandra mentions the FSM, a satirical parody religion started in 2005 by OSU graduate and physicist Bobby Henderson to protest a decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow the teaching of alleged problems with evolution as well as the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. The FSM ‘doctrine’ uses much of the same type of verbiage found in Christian doctrine, pairing it with silliness in an attempt to show the ridiculous nature of teaching ID alongside evolution.
Discussion
Both Pascal’s Wager and the FSM ‘doctrine’ relate directly to question 1 above—How do I know that God even exists? Atheists believe that we cannot know that God exists because He doesn’t exist. By pointing to a noodly monster, as well as flaws in a mathematical proof, the idea is point out logical fallacies and inconsistencies that should debunk the idea of the existence of God, thus rendering religion impotent and unnecessary.
Personally, all the evidence I need for God’s existence surrounds me. I find it extremely hard to believe that all this could have come about by mere blind chance. I was reminded recently of the irreducible complexity argument, which states that certain systems in nature cannot be broken down any further without the system failing to function in its constituent parts, i.e. the systems must have been designed and assembled by intent, rather than by chance. What I find most interesting about this argument is that evolutionists seems to have no scientific counter-argument, only theory and conjecture, the very things that they accuse creationists of using to support their own theories.
The trouble in science, even with the best-designed experiments, is that it is impossible to competely remove personal bias from the design. The experimenter starts with a question from a certain point of view and approaches the question from a given direction that is, to at least some extent, predetermined by his view. Essentially, his presuppositions inform his agenda and influence it, whether he realizes it or not. This can be said for both evolutionists and creationists alike. Both can start with the same data and the same materials and arrive at very different conclusions, depending upon what presuppositions inform their test design and influence from what direction they approach the question (and even what questions get asked). Both then cite ‘irrefutable’ evidence for their conclusion.
I do believe that science is important. But I do believe that the place it runs into snags, for everyone, is in providing proof as to the origins of the universe and the origins of man. For the evolutionist, the universe has existed for billions of years and finding evidence from so long ago to support their hypotheses now is problematic. Similarly, for the creationist, the universe has existed for only 6,000 to 10,000 years, but providing evidence as to why a Creator would have created the universe with age is likewise problematic. It would seem, at least to me, that the best use for science is to find solutions to current problems. The origins problem will probably always be shrouded in theory and questions, rather than tangible evidence for any argument.
How we do know God exists? For me the answer is simple—I exist, the universe exists, and both are incredibly complex with systems that work so intricately together that they can’t be anything but designed. For the atheist, the answer also seems simple—it doesn’t make sense that there could be a Creator or Designer (though the actual philosophical reasoning for that decision eludes me at this point). There are other evidences that I can cite, as well, for my belief. The Christian faith is a beautiful blend of faith, knowledge, and experience. I have faith that God exists because I can see this world around me and I see a creative design in it. I have faith that God exists because His Word, in the Bible, tells me so, and that Word has been rigorously tested, both by myself and many others, and everything written therein has been shown to be true and accurate (or at least enough to assure me that it is a trustworthy source for truth). My knowledge comes from my interaction with the world, from studies done by Christian organizations who have been able to provide answers that both counter those of evolution and are consistent with the teachings of the Bible. And my experience comes from my relationship with God through His Son Jesus, through the peace in my heart and the hope and the joy I experience every day because I know I live for Someone and something beyond myself, through the compendium of events that come together on a regular basis that are the result of more than mere chance. These things together convince me daily beyond shadow of a doubt that God exists, and more than that—that He is a personal God Who interacts with me each and every day. It is a personal decision, and the things that I see as proof will not convince anyone not ready to believe or anyone who does not wish to be convinced. No one has ever been argued into Heaven, and I do not hope to do so now. But this is what I believe and just a little part of why I believe it.
How do I know that Christianity is the one, true faith, that Jehovah God is the only God, and that Jesus Christ is God-made-man and our intermediary? Part of this is experiential, as I mentioned above, but that alone is not enough, even for me, since people of all faiths can say the same. The biggest part of what convinces me is that the Christian God is so completely unique, compared against all the gods of all other religions. Only Jehovah has a perfect balance of love and righteous anger, of peace and justice, of sacrifice and giving. Only Jehovah God grants all the privileges of Heaven, of an inheritance equal to Jesus Christ, to those who accept it—as a free gift! Only Jehovah God gives us everything and expects nothing from us in return. Only Jehovah God sent a part of Himself in human form to do what no man could do so that all men could live with Him in peace. You won’t find that in any other religion in the world. It is unique to the Christian God, and it is so perfect and wonderful that I am compelled to believe and to strive every day to live in a way that is pleasing to a God that would and could be so bountiful and gracious in His love. And I find that even His judgment is fair and loving, when He seeks to discipline me and bring me back to a right relationship with Him.
Tags: atheism, christianity, flying-spaghetti-monster, general-revelation, music, pascals-wager, philosophy, religion, Science, theology
I have this theory.
In his book Insomnia, Stephen King describes a man who is able to see auras surrounding people. The color of the auras reflected the individuals’ moods and relative proximity to death. Additionally, the auras of people who were emotionally close would interweave, changing the overall colors of both
auras.
In the famous Enderseries, a scientific phenomenon is described. This phenomenon is something called a philote, a term coined by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card to describe theoretical rays or lines which have the size of a geometric point and possess no mass or inertia. Philotes make up all particles in the observable universe by combining or “twining”. This twining between loved ones binds them together, no matter how far apart they may be.
Nearly every major religion I can think of acknowledges that Man is a spiritual creature, that part of his being and nature is insubstantial. This spirit is the part that is believed to continue to exist eternally, long after the body has died and returned to dust.
I have heard stories of clairvoyance-like insight that a loved has just endured a life-threatening crisis. Or of the individual who knows the approximate state of a close friend or family member, no matter how far away they are.
What if there is some substance to the speculations of people like King and Card?
Have you ever found your mood altered to match someone else’s, simply by being near them? Have you ever passed someone on the street and felt substantially affected by them, however momentarily? Have you ever just looked at someone and somehow knew what they were
thinking, feeling, experiencing at that moment? Or been able to read their personality? Or gotten a general impression of their past? And then been astonished to find out your impressions were correct?
What about feeling bonded to someone, whether it be a loved one, a spouse, or a close friend? Close fellowship with others that goes way beyond just typical interactions, that extends into the spiritual and leaves a lasting impression on your core?
Larry Crabb, in his book Connecting,
talks about pouring oneself into another who is hurting in order to help heal the pain. It is a spiritual endeavor, the formation of a bond to provide strength and support to another during crisis.
My theory is this: I have come to believe that, while our spirit is perpetually linked to our physical selves, that it is not necessarily completely contained within our mortal bodies, that it
exceeds those borders and touches and intermingles with everyone and everything around us. From personal experience, I have been touched and affected by things and people in inexplicable ways, even though many of those encounters have been cursory at best. I also
have to wonder if we don’t leave a part of our spirits with those we love most, or if maybe our spirits are stretched in a way as to be continually linked to them. In no way do I believe that we have the capability of spiritual omnipresence, but I do wonder if our spirits have a greater capability of connection and perception than we give them credit for. I know that God has given me a gift of perception and insight, for being able to quickly and accurately see what is going on inside people. Often, that insight comes more as intuition than by direct observation, and I have to wonder if my spirit is mingling with that person, thereby providing me with information.
It’s a fascinating theory to me, and I see evidence that says it might be at least somewhat legitimate.
Tags: auras, connecting, ender-quartet, enders-game, insomnia, larry-crabb, orson-scott-card, philote, spirit, stephen-king
Maybe I’m just slow on the uptake, but it suddenly ocurred to me this morning why so many secularists embrace the idea of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and why so many Christians reject the notion. Speaking in strictly general terms, for the secularist, it is statistically impossible for mankind to be alone in the universe. I realized today that this idea is based upon the theory of evolution, and taking that as a premise, it is absolutely true that, statistically speaking, life would only have evolved in one location in the universe. Because this notion is founded so fundamentally upon evolutionary theory, Christians reject it out of hand, as we believe in all life being created, in an intelligent design to all things. (Now, of course, I have also heard the idea from both Christians and ‘religious secularists’ that God would not have wasted anything, and so therefore He must have created intelligent life elsewhere besides on Terra Firma.)
It is entirely possible that non-intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and it is also possible that God created other intelligent life and simply found it unnecessary to reveal it to
Man. I do believe that Man is unique as the image-bearer of God (“Let us make Man in our image…”), so if other intelligent life exists elsewhere, I would tend to think that they would share a position similar to that of the angels—once fallen, forever fallen.
Personally, I tend to believe that Man is alone in the universe (so far as created intelligence goes) because I believe God intended Man to be unique, the only of His creations to bear His image. The Genesis account does not mention life being created anywhere but on Earth. Additionally, Christ came to Earth to pay the price for sin, and not elsewhere, which further leads me to believe that Man is unique. I believe that the rest of the universe was created for His, and our, pleasure and enjoyment, to demonstrate His power, and to draw His image-bearers to Himself.
I won’t die defending this position, nor will I get angry if I am proven wrong. It is simply my opinion based on what little knowledge I possess.
Tags: christianity, evolution, extraterrestrial-intelligence, image-of-god, Science, secularists
14 Jun 04 IQ
Tickle: IQ and Personality Tests – The Classic IQ Test
Your IQ score is 136 This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others. Your Intellectual Type is Insightful Linguist. This means you are highly intelligent and have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual and spatial strengths of an artist. Those skills contribute to your creative and expressive mind.
—————————————————-
Hmm…. I dunno just how ‘scientific’ this thing actually is. It has good face validity, but the number of questions is pretty low (40 questions), which makes it potentially inaccurate because it limits just how much data it can collect. But I do like the outcome…. 
And frankly, the intellectual type does match quite well…. Though there is no way I’m going to pay for a 15-page report from a company I know nothing about, especially when it runs the risk of being wrong…. shrugs Ah, well….
Tags: intelligence, IQ, IQ-test, meme, reliability, validity
[Page No Longer Exists]
Yes, I’ve been rather quiet lately. Hazards of the summer-term graduate student, I fear. I hope to have time to focus on something other than my studies again soon, but in the meantime, the link above should provide something to chew on for a bit.
[Incidentally, I wondered a long time ago why we couldn’t do this to begin with, since we’ve known that even adults carry around their own stem cells…. guess the scientific world finally just caught up with my brilliant mind…. 
]
Tags: Science, stem-cell-research
