Pluto

Is Pluto a planet or not?

I am voting an enthusiastic yes!

As a matter of fact, what I am reading leads me to believe it is a beautiful planet complete with blue skies.

God never ceases to amaze me!

Reactionary Science

We are a reactionary people living in a complex time, and scientists are no different.

The vacuum catastrophe and the response to it point to how our tendencies to react have become even part of science.

Mario Livio, a prominent scientist, refers to the vacuum catastrophe as embarrassing to science because of the  discrepancy between measured results and calculated results.

The story elaborates, " The embarrassment Livio referred to is sometimes known as the vacuum catastrophe. Truly empty space, sucked dry of any air or particles, still has an inherent energy to it, according to observations, Livio said. But when scientists use theories of quantum mechanics to try and calculate this vacuum energy, their results differ from the measured results by about 120 orders of magnitude, or the number 1 followed by 120 zeros."

So, what is science's response to this mistake in calculations? Is it to admit the mistake and examine calculation methodology? Well, not exactly. Read for yourself...

"With three other prominent astrophysicists on the panel, Livio delved into one of the most confounding (and embarrassing) problems in modern astrophysics, which led to a discussion of whether or not our universe might be just one of - an infinite number of multiverses - and whether a theory of the multiverse is good or bad for science."

And the explanation of multiverses is even more reactionary...

"The reason a multiverse might solve this problem is that it could suggest the vacuum energy is "a random variable," Livio said. Meaning, it isn't derived from a physical principle that scientists can figure out, but rather it was determined randomly. If there are many, many other universes in existence (perhaps an infinite number), then with the creation of so many universes, the variables could change a little for each one."

To suggest that vacuum energy is a random variable is, in essence, allowing anything and everything, reducing science to a mystical religion with no consistency or foundation. 

In essence, a theory of multiverses admits no mistake at all and creates a theory that offers a plausible explanation of why their calculations were wrong. This is the perfect snapshot of modern science and why it is as reactionary as everything else.

I encourage you to read the entire story HERE. It is fascinating! 

The Age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism

Welcome to, what I call, the age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism! Let me explain.

You and I are positivists. Yes, its true. You doubt me! Consider this: we have been raised in an age where objective fact and the scientific method rule on high.

In the past, I have found myself taking subjective data and re-orienting it in a way that makes it objective because... well, I am a product of a positivistic age. My assumption was that making the subjective objective would add validity to my theories. While this may help support theoretical issues it does not guarantee truth. What I have discovered is that objective and subjective are two sides of the same coin. Each is equally valid.

But, we are now entering a post-positivist age. There is no longer debate; positivism has won, for now. Modern philosophy empowered science and its methodology in such a way that it is now the undisputed king. We default to the assumption that objective fact equates to absolute truth. But, that just is not true. But, the issue is worse than a positivist dominance as positivism has now matured into a postivistic Bulverism.

What do I mean by Bulverism? C.S. Lewis created this term to describe 20th century thought that began with a false assumption. Lewis stated that Bulverism was the action of addressing an opinion as wrong immediately then pursuing all future thought toward describing why it was wrong without ever discussing whether the opinion was right or wrong. Lewis created a fictitious person to name this after in order to make the point even clearer. Add a Bulveristic ethos to post-positivism and you have our current state... post-positivistic bulverism.

Science rules through objective fact, and anything subjective is immediately dismissed without a thought. All future discussion is spent ridiculing anyone who believes in such nonsense as subjective fact. Sound familiar? Yet, this age of post-positivistic bulverism presents an opportunity as science has advanced beyond its protective covering. There is much in the scientific field that is now subjective and backed by assumptions and speculations with little to no objective factual support.

Listen to any discussion about evolution or about black holes and you will find lots of assumptions and speculation but little objective factual information. Google the topic "black holes," and you will find an article by the folks at NASA telling you there is convincing evidence that black holes exist, but then the next article that pops up is one on Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her paper offers proof that it is mathematically impossible for black holes to ever form. Read the article HERE.

So, which is it? Do black holes exist, or is it impossible for them to exist? Now, just because Dr. Mersini-Houghton has math on her side does not necessarily mean she is right. The folks at NASA have observed, through the Hubble telescope, evidence that strongly suggests there is a black hole in the middle of the milky way. They have seen, with their own eyes, this truth. Then, there is Dr. Mersini-Houghton; her research suggests that what is being seen through the Hubble is not a black hole at all. How can something that is an impossibility be observed? Here is a fine example of a positivistic paradox: two viable alternatives rooted in two of positivism's most trusted allies: empiricism and quantitative analysis, yet they are at odds with each other.

Which do you believe? Qualitative facts do not lie, or do they? Numbers are only as good as the person using them, and observation is only as good as the observer and the instrument used to observe. But, we have known for quite sometime that evolution and black holes are fact; the debate for both is over, or is it? Both are theories at best, according to the scientific method. Yet, we live in the age of post-positivistic bulverism which takes scientific theories, like these, and makes them true because all discussions on both subjects are no longer regarding their authenticity, but instead, they are only about the foolishness of not believing them.

Many reject Christianity on the same grounds yet there is more proof in support of Christianity than in support of both evolution and black holes. Be wary for any debate on science's most protected theories will start with an attack on you and the foolishness of not believing in such theories, but be patient, courteous and respectful and steer the conversation back to the issue, demand factual information and watch what happens. Remember, you live in the age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism. Happy debating!

  


 

Amazing...

That is Curiosity landing on the surface of Mars as picked up by the Mars Orbiter. A stunning photo of Curiosity and the crater it will occupy for the next year. Amazing... 

What is Time?

What is time? Seconds, minutes, hours, even days are all measures of time, but do they define time? I recently read an interested article about Sean Carroll, a physicist who is developing his own theory of time.

Carroll proposes that time is linked to entropy, the theory that the natural order of things moves from order to disorder. Carroll states, "Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy. It’s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing. But why was it ever wound up in the first place? Why was it in such a weird low-entropy unusual state?" Hmm, the universe began in an almost perfectly low entropic state and then moved to disorder and has been moving down that path ever sense? Sound familiar?

Carroll refutes the idea that the universe began with the big band. He states that the big bang was not the beginning; there was something more and something before. He also says the universe is not all that there is; the universe is actually part of something larger. Carroll suggests, "And if that’s true, it changes the question you’re trying to ask. It’s not, “Why did the universe begin with low entropy?” It’s, “Why did part of the universe go through a phase with low entropy?” And that might be easier to answer."

Carroll proposes a multiverse theory, where you have a static universe in the middle. From that middle static universe, smaller universes pop out of the middle universe and travel in different directions, in what Carroll calls, arrows of time. Carroll believes the universe in the middle has no time at all. He states, "There’s different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment you’re talking about. And then there’s the arrow of time, which give us the feeling of progress, the feeling of flowing or moving through time. So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there’s no arrow of time. There’s no future versus past, everything is equal to each other."

So, the question everyone wants to know is this: what is time in that middle universe? Carroll responds,

"Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?” They say, “Yes! Of course it makes a sound!” Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there’s no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There’s still time. It’s still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It’s just that events that happen in that empty universe don’t have causality, don’t have memory, don’t have progress and don’t have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It’s just random fluctuations."

In sum, Carroll states, "the whole point of this idea that I’m trying to develop is that the answer to the question, “Why do we see the universe around us changing?” is that there is no way for the universe to truly be static once and for all. There is no state the universe could be in that would just stay put for ever and ever and ever. If there were, we should settle into that state and sit there forever."

Carroll explains,

"It’s like a ball rolling down the hill, but there’s no bottom to the hill. The ball will always be rolling both in the future and in the past. So, that center part is locally static — that little region there where there seems to be nothing happening. But, according to quantum mechanics, things can happen occasionally. Things can fluctuate into existence. There’s a probability of change occurring. So, what I’m thinking of is the universe is kind of like an atomic nucleus. It’s not completely stable. It has a half-life. It will decay. If you look at it, it looks perfectly stable, there’s nothing happening … there’s nothing happening … and then, boom! Suddenly there’s an alpha particle coming out of it, except the alpha particle is another universe."

All of this is interesting and familiar, especially if you read your Bible regularly. I strongly encourage you to read the entire article, and if you have an interest in time, pick up his book,
From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Blessings!

The Higgs Boson Particle

Scientists claim that they are close to discovering the Higgs Boson particle. Lots of hype came out of the science community anticipating a ground-breaking announcement, and all that was announced, really, was that scientists are now closer than they have ever been, but still have found nothing. What exactly is this Higgs Boson particle?

British physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s postulated a theory hypothesizing that a lattice of sorts, that he referred to as the Higgs field, fills the entire universe. Imagine an electromagnetic field that affects particles as they move through it. We know that when an electron passes through a positively charged crystal lattice of atoms, the electron's mass will increase. That same principal might be true in the Higgs field; particles moving through any field create distortion. The Higgs Boson particle is thought to be tied to a field thought to be responsible for giving all other particles their mass. The operative word is "thought" as scientists do not have any details about the mass of the Higgs Boson particle. Because scientists know nothing about the mass of this "supposed particle," they have no specific parameters for its location. It has been like looking for a needle in a haystack. Supposedly, scientists have now eliminated enough possibilities to consider the Higgs Boson cornered as most agree that the Higgs Boson particle's mass lies in a range between 115 and 130 gigaelectronvolts (GeV).

According to Guido Tonelli, we are still a good distance away from discovering this particle, and there is still a good chance it does not exist at all.

"The excess is most compatible with a Standard Model Higgs in the vicinity of 124 GeV and below, but the statistical significance is not large enough to say anything conclusive," CMS experiment spokesperson Guido Tonelli said in a statement. "As of today what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson. Refined analyses and additional data delivered in 2012 by this magnificent machine [Large Hadron Collider] will definitely give an answer."

The question of mass has always been puzzling, and has left many wondering if the Higgs Boson was the missing particle in the Standard Model, the widely accepted theory of nuclear interactions. The Standard Model effectively describes three of nature's four forces of particle interaction: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Scientists have learned much more about the strong force, which binds the elements of atomic nuclei together, and the weak force, which governs radioactivity and hydrogen fusion (from the sun). Electromagnetism describes fairly well how particles interact with photons, which are tiny packets of electromagnetic radiation. The weak force does a good job describing how two other entities interact with electrons, quarks, neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles. However, there is one very important difference between these two interactions: photons have no mass, while the masses of the other two entities are large in comparison. In fact, they are some of the most massive sub-atomic particles known to scientists today.  

The first assumption, and in science an assumption can be a very bad thing, is to assume that the two entities exist and interact with other particles in normal ways. Here lies our problem according to almost all scientists, the math does not add up; the giant masses of the two entities raise inconsistencies in the Standard Model. In order to make sense of this, scientists postulate that there must be at least one other particle -- the Higgs Boson - to account for the inconsistency.  As I read about the Higgs Boson I  wondered, could this also be explained according to the distortion created as particles move through any field, but according to what I have read, most scientists believe this would not add enough to explain the inconsistencies in the Standard Model; there has to be something more, and that something more would be the Higgs Boson. Some believe that there is only one Higgs, and others believe there maybe more than one. Either way, most believe it is the missing piece and worth all the money, effort and time. And, there you have the reason for all the hype in the last month.

What will they find? I am confident it will be more proof pointing to a Creator! Blessings!

From where do atheists come?

New Scientist magazine has an interesting article on atheism. The article is interesting on several fronts.

The tag line at the front of the article implies that the majority of people think atheism, not theism, is odd. Oxford, to the surprise of no one as it is the home to Dawkins, is a leader in producing those who ascribe to atheism. While the Oxford numbers are of no surprise, the other numbers are. Read for yourself...

"And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic" (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did."

The article digs into the Enlightenment notion that the more educated we become the farther away we move from a belief in God. Apparently, statistics do not back that notion, thus the recent trend away from the factual and toward the narrative. The entire article is worth a read based on the paragraph below. Did you ever think you would see that paragraph is a serious science magazine? I did not. Enjoy!

"What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not "get" the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten - and under what conditions?"

Evolution: Religious or Political?

Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College, writes in a recent post about embryonic stem cell research and the consequence of ideas in conjunction with the appointment of Dr. Frances Collings, a professing evangelical Christian, as the director of the National Institute of Health.

Dr. Nielson raises concern "about how Dr. Collins, a professing Christian whose appointment to this new post has been hailed by many Christians, reconciles his Christian faith with his clear commitment to Darwinian evolution. I questioned the biblical adequacy of his approach, and encouraged believers who hold to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible to look elsewhere." Which moved me to begin to think about evolution in yet another way... political.

I have moved in recent years to this idea that the theory of evolution has more traits that are religious in nature than scientific, but I have never considered the political nature of evolution, until now. I encourage all Believers to read Dr. Nielson's post on this very important matter. I believe he has hit on a very important aspect of the debate... the dignity and sanctity of human life. Others have given this aspect of the debate a cursory wave, but none, to my knowledge, have taken the hard stance Dr. Nielson has. I applaud him for this and encourage all Christians serious about their faith to read his blog post on the subject (click above for it).

In this post, I wish to examine a new thought... evolution that is political. In the past, I have thought evolution to be both science and religion. If we define the word "religion" we will find ... not surprisingly, traits that we can be easily applied to evolution. For example:

"an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth."

But, what if we define the word "political?" We find a similar surprise:

"of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power; "political opinions."

"the process by which groups of people make decisions."

According to a UC Berkley website on evolution, "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)." No matter which strand you choose to explore you will find evolution, religion and politics entwined.

Dr. Nielson's issues with Dr. Collins' mixture of Christian faith and evolution is its failure to register in him an ethical concern for stem cell research. This, in turns, leads to my consideration of the political nature of evolution in addition to the religious nature. As I went over the semantics of both words (political and religious), I found ethical and moral references embedded in the semantics of any word associated with religion, but in words associated with politics, there are no such references. Which may mean that evolution has become more political than religious. At this point, I am not in position to make such a judgement.

Human beings, regardless of political or religious affiliation, know that morality is part of the human fabric and not found in the animal kingdom. Animals do not think rationally or reason in any way despite our desire for that to be a reality as portrayed in movies and cartoons. The lion does not consider whether the gazelle has had a bad day; the lion is hungry, sees the gazelle, reacts and eats.

I do believe it is proper to study evolution in the right context, for it may contain some truth about God's world that needs to be communicated and learned, but my views of it have been altered since reading Dr. Nielson's post. I thought of evolution only in terms of science and religion, and took it for what it is: a religious and scientific theory. I am now persuaded to explore the idea that evolution may be political as well, and may actually be more political than scientific. Blessings!

Climate Change

With the current conference on climate change taking place right now, I thought it worthy of examination... is our climate really changing?

It is true that the earth has warmed in recent years, but where you go to get your information will determine the answer to this question and many more. Al Gore and his supporters will tell you that the earth has been warming for a thousand years or so, but interestingly enough, accurate measurable temperatures have only been recorded since 1850. We can speculate what the temperature was before 1850, but there is really no way to know.

When news broke of the Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, that same source (U. of Illinois) also reported that the Antarctic ice was at its record high, but, of course, this was not reported by most of the media. There is a nice website that actually tries to track accurate data on climate change. On this website, they report that the actual change in climate, since 1850, is 0.3%, hardly what the media communicates.


And then there is Al Gore, a man who won a Nobel Prize for his work in climate change. For all of Gore's fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. Gore received a D his sophomore year in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature), and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences his senior year. If you look at Gore's transcript you will notice that he avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout his four years in college. Would you approve of a man with this record teaching your children science or logic? Yet, this is the spokesman for climate change. Kind of taints the whole climate change agenda and Nobel Peace Prize.


So, what is really going on here? I think it is as Genesis states: man without Christ will always try to be God and proclaim himself as God. What happens when scientists promote man as the cause of climate change? Well, they tend to get power, popularity and fame, and all these allows them to think and feel like... God.


Is the climate changing? Maybe, a little, but there is no way to tell if it is real change or just cyclical change. When reading about issues like these, be warned... the media is not the place to get your facts. Blessings!