Tactics

Ok, here seems to be the real question... How does one talk to a scientist about metaphysics, and how does one convince a scientist of differing metaphysics? Because, the whole evolution/ID comes down to an understanding of the metaphysics behind the two theories. In order to switch theories, it would have to be a major paradigm shift which requires a change in the philosophy behind the theories. Until ID can either A) be so convincing that a self-respecting scientist can't deny it (not likely to happen do to the strong, unwaivering support Darwinism has, even when completely illogical and unsupported) or B) talk to scientists about metaphysics and have it be understood and debated fairly, it seems that they will never win the battle. If ID could have the explanitory power of say the Big Bang, then it might be able to accomplish A, but since that seems unlikely to happen, the discussion needs to tend towards B. So, how does one turn the discussion away from "science" qua naturalism, to a seperation of worldviews from the data? This seems an almost impossible task in the current state of things... I guess Dr. Johnson has attempted this, but it has been met with limited success in the strong scientific realm.

Sigh...if only they had recieved actual, good liberal arts education, I don't think this would be such a problem...

Society

Well, I was cleaning my bathroom, and was thinking again about another of those issues that haunt me all the time. I thought I might as well put that down as well....who needs to sleep. ;-)

How is the church to affect society? Society and the church has never seemed to be happy bedmates. When they are too much intertwined, the society seems to flurish morally, but the church tends to weaken dramatically and get so mixed up in politics that it loses its focus of being the bride of Christ... Yet, morally corrupt societies without a strong church voice tend towards dictatorships and communism and nazism and other such rot...

Our own history has had it's own interesting twists... Around the turn of this century, there seems to have been an abandonment of the realms of higher learning for a more grass roots, revival evangelism Christianity. It almost appeared to a conscious effort to forget about trying to make a Christian culture to reaching out to the individual. I am still not clear on how we got so quickly removed from the echelons of higher education, but the removal was affective, and Christians have struggled to have a voice because of that for close to a half-century. That is why Biola was begun. It was started to help the average Christian get Biblical training so that they could be better equipped to evangelise and encourage their communities and mission fields. This does not seem to be the central focus anymore. Actually, along with such cultural movements as ID, and the philisophical in-roads on post-modernism, etc. there seems to have been a shift once again towards trying to change culture from the top down.

So...which way works the best, and why? There is Tons more to be said about that, but I think I will only become in coherent if I continue much longer... Here's a question: If you had $100 million and were going to donate it somewhere, how do you think it would be best spent and why?
A) Helping build a Christian Tier 1 University (along with a research science school)
B) Build a Christian movie production coorperation
C) Fund missionaries, Gideon Bibles, and Wicliff translators
D) Build a beautiful Church in a huge suburbia
E) ?
If you would do some combination, why that particular combination? What do you think would be most affective?

The state of ID

So, I had the pleasure of listening to William Dembski today in a context lecture. He is a very educated and bright man, if only Biola could snag him, we would have the corner on the ID movement... :-) Anyway, there seems to be a one major flaw in the ID movement that doesn't look like it will be going away soon...

Almost all major paradigm shifting theories must have a "killer" experiment to prove it's explanitory power. Without this major break through in how to understand the universe, an experiment that could not be explained with any other currently known mechanism, then the theory will likely not hold enough clout to pull people away from a convincing theory. We've seen this many times in science... The photo-electric affect, wave nature of light, relativity, even the heliocentric model of the solar system, all were able to explain a major phenomena that the current model could not explain. The problem seems to be, ID has not yet generated any major experiments, nor has it convinced the scientific world that it's model is insufficient to operate under. On one level, it does seem to be almost strictly a philosophical debate based on scientific data. That certainly does not marginalize the movement. On the contrary, any debate that helps people understand Truth better, especially if it can use the powerful scientific structure that dominates society, it a powerful tool. But, there needs to be some theoretical models that can be built off of this natural philosophy that better explain the world. If this is the case, then the rest of science will have to follow, even if they do so shuffling their feet and calling us names (ie. Christians ;-). We can see how this works with the big bang. It seems today most astrophysicists are at least deists, because the major substantiated theory points towards a beginning and a creator. Well ID, now is our chance! We have the world's attention, we have scared the institution, and we have the truth. Let's start to do real science...

I've heard Dembski has a paper on some research areas that could be explored. If anyone knows where I might get ahold of that, I would be beholden to them.

G'night

Information

So it seems that the physical world can be summed up as a combination of mass, energy, and information. But, actually mass and energy are really the same thing as well (see Einstien), so the physical world really comprises of energy and information. The information determines how that energy interacts and is structured. This is the fundamental idea behind entropy, etc. Actually, it is the fundamental idea behind a lot of things... This seems to be why the laws of nature work. Energy is structured in particular information rich ways. Laws are really a strict way of transfering information. I guess I had never thought of information theory as being so fundamental before. This is one reason why computers are so good at representing reality and why they have been so useful so quickly. The universe is structured to help make computers work. It seems that the study of information, including such ideas as Dembski's arguments for intelligence, are extremely useful for science in general, and theoretical physics in particular. We just take such ideas for granted so often... We were modeling the entire hydrogen atom in an equation in class! That just seems unfathomable... And nature is so much better at storing, computing, and utilizing information than anything man has created, it is amazing. So a couple questions come to mind to ponder...

What is the relationships between energy and information really? How tightly are they bound? How do they relate to each other? Are they both fundamentally the same thing too, somehow? Is energy like Plato's plastic or space from Timaeus, with information forming and molding it? Are there laws for the conservation of information? How does information lead to more complex information? (In an open system it seems to be from more energy...how about a closed system?) What really Is the law of entropy? Is there a maximum limit to the amount, or ability of information? And most interestingly of all, what does this type of structure of the universe suggest about God?

It is certainly an amazing world...

On life and news and whatnot

So, I've been informed by multiple people that I have let a month go by without update. I suppose something has happened in that time worthy of note? ;-) Well, if nothing else, my acceptance to the PhD program in electrophysics at USC is worth a post... But, I am not of course really looking for a news blog. If people think that that would be a worth while thing, please post, and perhaps I will move towards that system.
What are some interesting issues that have been currently happening?

Terri Schivo of course was a rather major issue that I never fully sided on. On one hand, we do live in a culture of death (a coined phrased by the late pope), and anything that can encourage life is probably a good thing. On the other hand, we should not put too high a value on extending life here on earth for as long as possible. Our culture is also afraid of death, and seems to use any means possible to avoid it. This too seems improper. But, on top of all of that, it seems that the courts were making the proper decisions based on current laws regarding spousal authority, and it seems that politicians should not be trying to over power the law for "special" cases. So...I don't know, seems a rather complicated solution. Anyone who gives a simple answer probably is not thinking carefully about the issue.

The pope has died. He was a very good man and the world was blessed by his work. It will be interesting to see who the church chooses to walk in his very large shadow.

The economy is not doing so hot. Oil is at all time highs, hurting many people financially. The stock market has dropped by 5-10% this year already. Social security is a big mess, but with our short sighted and self-centered society, I do not know if we have the back bone to fix it. It will hurt, but for the good of our nation and our children something major needs to be done. It is instances like this that make me happy Bush is so dogmatic. ;-) And on top of all of this, the housing market in LA looks like it is finally cooling. Whether this will lead to an actual Drop in prices has yet to be seen, but if interest rates continue to rise, I would not be surprised to see that happen. And, I wouldn't be too sad if it did. Maybe I could afford one then... ;-)

The DNC is having some pretty major internal fights. I will be interested to see what is the outcome.

Google has come out with yet another amazingly cool feature. Go to their www.maps.google.com page, and type in an address. Now, go up to the right corner and press satillite. Now ooh and ahh over their great genius and awesomeness. Repeat at will.

How does one encourage rational thought about an issue while at the same time not minimizing emotional responses? It seems a tough line to walk. I often find myself putting too much of an emphasis on a rational argument for an action. But, I know people are irrational and we should value emotions and often it is more loving to support those desires... I seem to do badly at choosing between those responses... I guess just another example of how badly I love people.

Ok. More later...sometime. Go under the mercy.