Cosmology

There is an amusing article at Science News, describing the current state of cosmology. I would like to go into some of the underlying science at some point (particularly, techniques for measuring distance, and age).

"Inflation became popular, though, because it solves several problems."

These problems being:

1. space (as measured) is flat, although it should be curved (to remove the notion of a "center")
2. space is uniform at the macro level, but non-uniform locally (space should be uniform throughout, or non-uniform throughout - uniformity implies structure or communication)
   

Of course, when data spoils your theories, you could throw out your theories.

“If you want quantum fluctuations to explain all the structure in the universe, you need something like inflation”

Or you could make up a lot of stuff that hasn't been measured (or even better, can't be measured!)

Like inflation, and then dark energy to drive the inflation.

Biological Canon

Canon (from ruler or model) is the definition of what is correct. In post-modern science, this is always up for grabs (no firm foundation).

An interesting article at Science News reviews the canon of "common descent".

The most interesting point being from Norman Pace:

"The whole issue of prokaryote-eukaryote was taken as a truth when it was still just conjecture. Prokaryote was a figment of imagination that got canonized in the institution of biology rather than the question remaining open."

I haven't seen a good counter for that, just "we have new canon now". Now, there are four different stories!

1. Three domain tree - what is at the common root? where is the proof?
2. Eocyte tree - this is closest to the original theory
3. Web of life - this seems to abandon the notion of common descent
4. Ring of life - not sure how this is different than three domain or web

Here we see another tenet of post-modernism - everyone has their own truth!

"'Any discussion of the tabling of prokaryotes should be scrapped until' the origin of eukaryotes is better understood, [Michael] Dolan says."

This is actually quite reasonable - "I don't know" would be a better answer to a lot of questions...

"But Pace says he has enough information to justify relegating prokaryote to the history books. 'It’s got to go!' he says. 'It’s intellectually no longer tenable.'"

Perhaps it is "perverse" to disagree?

Post-modern Truth

I posted a quote earlier on the post-modern notion of truth. We can see it in action at Science News.

The key point is:

"Peking Man date[s] to 780,000 years ago, roughly 200,000 years earlier than usually thought, scientists say"

Here is the Stephen Gould quote again:

"Moreover, 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proof of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

The first part is important, logic and mathematics achieve certainty - because they are not about the empirical world (they are self-contained, and purely in the realm of thought).

The second is my point - "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth". What was true yesterday ("Peking man is 580,000 years old") is today a total lie (because he is now 780k years old). Any "fact" of science could be overturned tomorrow. There is no certainty, no foundation.

The third is the most ironic. Saying it is "perverse" to disagree. The literal meaning is "twisted". Merriam-Webster gives the first definition as "turned away from what is right or good" - a value statement. What is "good"? Apparently, agreeing with evolutionists is good, and disagreeing is evil.

God and Kirk Douglas

I'm always interested in greater insight into a person's theology (because theology influences everything).

A recent interview with Kirk Douglas at CNN reveals some of his theology:

"I have studied religion, and I have concluded that there is some power. We don't understand it. Nobody really saw the Pearly Gates or hell."

"I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth), how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." This is Paul, writing in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Also, we have the words of Jesus, who sees everything.

"you must care for others. That's the correct religion, I think. You have to learn eventually to care for other people. My mother said once to me -- and we were very poor -- but my mother said, 'A beggar must give something to another beggar who is worse off than he.' And that has stuck with me. ... If people give whatever they can give to help other people, we will solve all of the problems of the world."

Two things: one, that's works righteousness (what we do makes us acceptable); two, if it's so simple, why doesn't everyone do it - the problem is sin.

Please pray for Mr. Douglas, that God would convince him that the truth can be known.

America and Islam

Albert Mohler, as ever, has some insightful analysis of President Obama's speech to Muslims.

But, I am most interested in the theology, particularly post-millenialism and what it means to be a "Christian nation".

Can any nation be "Christian"?

A person is a Christian, when he admits he is a sinner (deserving of God's wrath), turns from a life of sin, and trusts in Jesus to have paid the price for sin. At that point, he is an adopted child of God.

Can a nation repent and trust? Does God adopt a constitution or set of human laws?

Is a nation whose majority population is Christian, then Christian? Was Rome, or any Roman city, before Constantine?

Does a Christian nation need to "turn the other cheek" when attacked, to "do good to those who oppress you", to "give without expectation of repayment"?

How would any such nation survive aggression?

I don't believe a nation can be Christian (Christian-based, yes). But nations can be Muslim, as Mohler says...

ASC and Blood Vessels

Another win for adult stem cells!

"'We can select the right stem cells from the patient's own bone marrow and put them back in the area of ischemia to allow these cells to coordinate the formation of new blood vessels.' says Hess"

"a multi-center clinical trial now underway in Houston, Texas, involving 21 patients with end-stage peripheral artery disease"

Pessimism

Some say that dispensationalism is "pessimistic" eschatology (as opposed to postmillenialism, which is optimistic).

I think the charge is largely true. Dispys see no promise from God that things are going to get better (not that they can't get better).

The important thing is, which is true? That is something I will need to go into more depth for.

Albert Mohler (a dispy like me) has several posts pertaining to the ARIS poll. I commented on one. There was a second (on March 27), which I did not comment on. Now, there is a third.

It is interesting to contrast the outlook of dispy's (Mohler and myself) with those of post-mils (like Doug Wilson at Blog and Mablog).

To the dispy, whatever happens is business as usual. We have no expectation that the Church will improve society - in fact, we expect the Church and society to be at odds (if the Church is doing its job correctly).

The post-mil is more vocal (my favorite Wilson quote on why post-Christian Europe has not devolved yet is, "the prodigal son didn't run out of money right away").

But how is a post-mil not depressed by this turn events? After struggling for 1500 years to expand around the world, and 200 years to separate Church and State (in the proper way, where the State acknowledges equal rights come from our equality before our Creator) - now to see the nation backsliding.

I don't get it.

My hope is not in the progress of the Church against the world. Like Mohler:

"Still, I hope I did not reflect too much gloom in my analysis. This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America."

Our hope is in Jesus, and His return.