What it would take to end Climate Change

A report from Google, which confirms what I've said for some time - that even going to zero carbon emissions today will not prevent climate change (as projected by mainstream science).

Population Management and Climate Change

If you think I'm crazy because I draw a line between climate change proponents and those who love death - read this article at CNN:

"Last, however, if we can't control consumption, we can control the number of consumers."

The author points to the same open secret I did four years ago:

"According to the World Resources Institute, to stay on the safe side of a 2-degree Celsius increase, we'd have to go back to the amount we were expelling in 1990 -- and then cut that in half."

Power Generation and Water

An interesting article at Ars:

"In the US, fully half of the water withdrawn from sources such as lakes and aquifers ends up being used for generating electricity."

This creates a wrinkle when looking at using nuclear power to replace carbon dioxide producing plants - nuclear uses a lot of water.

Ars Against Rationalism

A quick post over at Ars, showing how susceptible the human mind is to being fooled.

"Prior to asking the actual number, Mlodinow had asked a question that subtly primed each group. For one half of the audience, he asked if they thought there were more than 180 countries in Africa; this group ended up with a much higher mean. The second half was asked if there were more than five. Their answers were, on average, too low. Although this was a case of conscious manipulation, it's easy to see how a similar effect could be generated accidentally, simply based on (for example) the order of questions in a survey."

Defenders of the Atheistic Faith

It always gives me a chuckle to see atheists arguing that only religion can make people irrational and confrontational (of course, while denying atheism is a religion).

Michael Flynn (who is a Catholic, and an evolutionist) takes a certain pleasure out of ribbing these guys.

He also has excellent depth in philosophy and reasoning.  I can't do justice in summarizing it.  You really must read it.

The really remarkable part is down a ways:

"There is no distance at all between grasshoppers and locusts. The latter are just grasshoppers that have 'gone Hulk.'  If we didn't know up front that they were the self-same critters, we'd be tempted to classify them as separate species.  The same genome is used by both. The difference is that what the genome does depends on environmental cues within which it does it."

Game Theory and Evolution - pt 2

(continuing from the last post)

We've analyzed some simple (always choosing the same) populations (all silent, all squealers, mix of both).

Now, let's imagine some more complex strategies.

In a population of all silents, everything is stable.  Everyone is benefiting equally from each transaction.  We introduced a single squealer, and things got bad for all the silents.

Now, imagine some of the silents have "recognition" - either from communication or remembering some trait (either preventatively, or over time).

So, a "recognizer" will squeal against a squealer, and be silent against a fellow silent or recognizer.

Now, the population is more dynamic.  Pure silents will decrease (are "selected against"), while recognizers win all the time.  Squealers lose to recognizers, but win against silents.  If the silents disappear completely, then this will cascade into squealers disappearing completely.

Thus, a long-time stable population of "silents" will become a stable population of "recognizers" (after a fiery period of transition).


That's the "proof" for evolution (at least, as presented in "The Selfish Gene").


There's a number of things to keep in mind:

1. It assumes an operating ecology (the initial stable population)
2. It assumes a mechanism for new features
3. It assumes that because something might happen, that it necessarily did happen

The fourth point is the main one.  In logic:
if (p) then q
q, therefore p

This is an error (or logical fallacy) known as affirming the consequent.

Game Theory and Evolution

It's been several years since I read Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" (where I mentioned it is an overview of game theory).

I realized that some people might want a tl;dr version of game theory.  I think I can fit it in one or two (longish) blog posts:

First, I play a lot of games (to the point where I consider myself an amateur game designer).  Game theory has little or nothing to do with actual, fun games.  It also has nothing to do with "gaming" (the self-respecting term for gambling).

Game theory deals with logic puzzles.  Both in finding the optimal solutions for them, and dealing with "populations" (numbers of agents all involved in the puzzle).

A classic example is the "prisoner's dilemma":

Two prisoners each have two choices, (0) remain silent, or (1) squeal on the other prisoner.

This yields four outcomes:

00	(Both silent) Each receives a small benefit
01	(One squeals) The squealer receives a large benefit, the silent a large penalty
10	(As above, roles reversed)
11	(Both squeal) Each receives a small penalty

The actual numbers used can vary, and the numbers (and their ratios) will determine the outcome in the later simulations.

The optimal strategy is to remain silent (since both win).  However, if you know the other will be silent, you can "cheat" him and squeal (getting yourself a large bonus).


Now, let's apply that to populations.

Imagine a large population of "silents" (agents who always choose the silent option).  This population is stable, it always generates benefits, which allows it to continue (propagating more silents).

Now add a single "squealer" to the mix.

This squealer will reap large benefits in every transaction, and never have a penalty.

In the next generation, there will be more squealers.

However, the population will never reach all squealers.

This is because when two squealers meet, they are both penalized. The final ratio will depend on the relative values for the four outcomes.

A population of all squealers might disappear (since they are all penalized), depending on the rules of the simulation.

To be continued!

Evolution of Language

One area I have little exposure to is the history of language. This is something I would like to look into more. If the evolution of language supposedly began as soon as the development of the physical structures for making sound and brain capacity (that is, well before the time for "Out of Aftrica") - then there should be one root language (common ancestor).

From Ars:

"The authors were able to identify 19 strong correlations between word order traits, but none of these appeared in all four families; only one of them appeared in more than two. Fifteen of them only occur in a single family."

This was only examining a single feature (subject-verb order).

Death and Evolution

An interesting study at Ars (ignore the stuff about bottomonium, or not, I guess):

"Have an undergrad ponder death and, suddenly, anything they learned in intro to bio doesn't look so hot; they'll feel less inclined to accept evolution (or want to hear about it from Richard Dawkins), and more prone to find intelligent design appealing. The same held true in a random population recruited over the Internet. This didn't hold true for students in a natural sciences program, though.

The authors went on to show that it was possible to reverse this effect with a dose of Sagan (an experiment controlled with what the authors termed a "no Sagan" group). Have people read a passage from Carl Sagan in which he celebrates the wonder of the natural world, and the appeal of intelligent design faded into the background."

So thinking about death is protection against evolution - very interesting!

Also, those in the natural sciences have in some way had their consciences seared (or something).

On Adam and Eve

Right on time for my new analysis... I was reading Todd Wood's blog, and initially thought little of this paper. I'm glad I went back and read the paper.

He launches right in (page 2):

"In this study, I aim to show why we should retain a version of the traditional view, in spite of these [Biologos] pressures."

"Now it is true, for example, that the eastern churches do not talk about original sin the way that Augustine did; but it does not follow that they therefore have nothing to say on the subject."

I've lost count of how many times I've heard people claim that Eastern thinking solves the problem. The Eastern Orthodox have a serious problem with denying total depravity, but they still believe in the Fall.

He gets back to this on page 8:

"However, Towner has distorted Irenaeus' actual view. According to Irenaeus, the first humans were created morally innocent, their innocence being more like that of a child than of a full adult. God's goal was for them to mature into moral confirmation, but the Fall interrupted the process." (emphasis in original)

Page 5:

"A story is 'historical' if the author wanted his audience to believe that the events recorded really happened."

This is an important point. It all comes back to who is the author. Is it truly God, or can we dismiss parts of the Bible we dislike by claiming they are due to some human failing in authoring.

Page 6:

"scholars thinking along these lines might suppose that Genesis 3 teaches that 'humans are sinful.' But this is not a timeless truth on its own. Sooner or later someone will want to know, did God create humans with a tendency (or at least an openness) toward sinning, or did he make them good, only for humans to become sinful?" ... "In other words, the supposed timeless truth, once it interacts with actual human experience, demands answers to historical questions." (italics in original, bold added)

That's exactly it. What is sin? If our nature is now supposedly sinful, but our nature has evolved gradually from the animals (which are supposed to be good, day 5), how does sin work? You are forced to reject the Fall. Probably any notion of sin at all.

Page 7:

"Any telling of the biblical story must include the notion of sin. Humans are estranged from God, and Israel is God’s means of bringing light to the world." (emphasis in original)

He's skipping a bit here (I would have edited things differently). No sin, no need for salvation. No atonement (not to mention no explanation for the "wrongness" in the world).

Page 8:

"If we say that being prone to sin is inherent in being human with a free will, then we must say the Bible writers were wrong in describing atonement as they did, and we must also say that Jesus was wrong to describe his own death in these terms."

Yes, we also make God the author/creator of sin and evil (which he gets to later).

Page 9:

"Further, we have now made nonsense of the joyful expectation of Christians to live one day in a glorified world from which sin and death have been banished."

This is a good point. If death is "good", if there is no sin - then the eternal state is just like the current state. I am immediately reminded of Philip Jose Farmer's "Riverworld". An eternity of struggle, war, death and rebirth. If TE's are right, I'm totally making them all my grail slaves! (just kidding ;)

(still page 9):

"At least in the traditional understanding, humans are to blame for the evil they do and the pain they inflict; here, we can only blame God." (emphasis in original)

concluding:

"Finally, they fail utterly to address one of our deepest intuitions, that there is something wrong with sin and death, and that we need God to help us and to heal us."

The final portion of the paper lays out his theory. Of particular interest is the competing views of what is means to be made "image of God" (page 10).

It's interesting the position he takes, it is unclear to me what he is really gaining compared to the YEC position.

Page 13:

"this particular couple were a fresh start, for whom physical death was not their intended outcome."

Citing John Bloom:

"we can propose that the special creation of man occurred in one of these gaps and that it was not bridged by purely natural means."

Invoking special creation won't win him any favors in the TE/accommodation camp.

What is Evolution?

I am somewhat appreciative of all the drama over at Biologos. In many ways, I believe they are in direct violation of Titus 3:9. At the same time, it is much like an investigation of heresy - it helps to form right doctrine and to determine error.

I've long held that matters of an Old Earth or Young Earth are a matter of conscience. Let everyone be convinced unto himself (and keep it to himself).

However, the more I dig into things in the course of this Biologos dust-up, the more I am convinced that an Old Earth is incompatible with orthodox Christianity.

In that light, I will need to expand out formal arguments and definitions in a series of posts.

First, the Biologos "About Us" page says:

"We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation."

Now evolution means a lot of things, including:

1. Deep time - geological periods and time spans; the geologic column, and fossil record
2. Common descent - the belief that all living organisms descended from a single (very simple) organism or possible a common pool of self-replicating organic material
3. Macroevolution - in the past referred to as "the transmutation of species", or what might be better termed "transmutation of kinds" (to oppose "reproduction within kinds")
4. Stellar evolution - the belief that all matter started originally as hydrogen (one proton and one electron)
5. Microevolution - this is the one thing everyone agrees on. This is "descent with modification" which has been readily observed.
   

I believe #1 is the main problem. Without it, #2 and 3 disappear (similarly, assuming #1 makes arguing against #2 and 3 very hard). #4 is a separate issue altogether (you can have an old universe and a young Earth).

Hawking's Grand Design

I found an interesting debate on CNN, through an article at Ignatius Insight.
(the debate is in three parts at Youtube, hopefully in a lasting fashion)

Part 1 - Larry King interviews Hawking
Part 2 - King gets reaction from a Catholic and Deepak Chopra (the panentheist)
Part 3 - has some back and forth (with the co-author standing in for Hawking)

I have a number of responses in different directions. I will have to expand on most of these in later posts.

First, is that any "God of the gaps" type explanation (or "science is how, theology is why" as it is currently phrased) is ultimately doomed to fail. Physicists are going to continue to push at all edges, until you are left with the god of deism (this is largely where Biologos is now). The "how" does not immediately give us the "why", but it does severely constrain it.

Second, is that Hawking is actually a theist. He is arguing on the nature and attributes of his "god", M-theory (it is eternal, and sufficiently powerful to create everything from nothing; it is explicitly not personal, nor just).

In part 3, near 2:30, Spitzer (the Catholic) has a clear shot at giving the Gospel. He blows it, and mumbles something about a "God shaped hole in our hearts" (not his actual words). Too bad.

In part 2, near 13:20, a blogger says "Thank God for Hawking". We can thank God, although we really should pray that God will break through Hawking's hard heart while there is still time for him.

Also, for Larry King. I know he heard the Gospel when he interviewed Kirk Cameron. He is clearly interested in eternal matters, but it has not taken root.

Geocentrism Again

A lot of material all piling up at once on this (since the last post)...

First, Todd Wood (an interesting YEC biologist) has a report from the "First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism" (not that the Church government approves or is really happy with it).

In part 3, Wood references Galileo's letter, which I am reading with interest. Much fisking shall come of this!

I've also been reading up on the Coriolis force, which will make some heavy statements about geocentrism (specifically, the notion of a stationary Earth).

First, from part 2 of Wood's report:

"According to Wyatt, the whole universe 'rotates' around the earth every day, which is 'kinematically exactly the same' as earth rotation."

This is correct, but brings us to the Coriolis force (also the Foucault Pendulum experiment).

The Coriolis force is best visualized by watching water flow down a drain (although Wikipedia claims the Coriolis force in this case is not the primary cause). Regardless, the force is real, and should be explained.

Now, it is correct (true) to say "the Earth is stationary and everything revolves around it". It is also true that "the Earth is rotating and revolving around the Sun". You can argue about which is "more pleasing" or "makes better intuitive sense". The fact is, the two systems are going to have their advantages, depending on circumstances.

However, the geocentrists would say that their system is the "one true frame" (representative of what is physically happening) - which is wrong according to relativity (I need to do a "Relativity, Causality, FTL - pick 2"). Relativity says that no one frame of reference is absolute (they are all "relative" to one another).

Ironically, many of those who want to use geocentric errors against creationists are also wrong! The heliocentric frame is not "the one true frame" either.

Geocentrism

I'm really tired of people comparing geocentrism and young earth creationism.

1. The motion of the planets is observable and repeatable. Anyone can look at them and see for themselves.
2. Geocentrism (at least certain forms of it) isn't even wrong.

An excellent summary from Michael Flynn:

"Ptolemaic system: geocentric, stationary earth. Worked out in great detail by Ptolemy in his Almagest [title from an Arabic translation]. It was surprisingly accurate, as noted. Relativity theory tells us that the choice of frame of reference is arbitrary, so it is no less true mathematically than any other frame."

The real irony is that Galileo (the guy who pushed the whole controversy into the forefront) wasn't really right - he supported the Copernican model:

"Copernican system [1514]. heliocentric, rotating earth, circular orbits. This system had more epicycles than Ptolemy, and not notably simpler. It produced less accurate results in some cases, partly because it relied on the same inaccurate tables."

Toddler's vs. Atheists

An amusing article from Ars (well, amusing once I put my spin on it :)

"Generally, humans recognize that while animate objects can create order, inanimate objects can only increase disorder"

Unless you're an atheist, who believes mud turns into people...

"There was no difference in the responses of 7-month old children to ordering and disordering events for either the animate or inanimate objects"

That's a good baseline. The first six months, babies focus on interpersonal skills - something most atheists need work on (I'm looking at you, Jerry Coyne).

"However, 12-month old children looked significantly longer when the rolling ball created order than when it caused chaos."

Out of the mouths (or staring patterns) of babes.

Pill Data

In a previous post, I mentioned that the pill can fail to prevent ovulation, and still prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation. This is effectively giving the new embryo a death sentence.

From Science Daily, a little data on how often this might happen:

"Of the 150 women who used the pill consistently, three of the 96 women with normal weight ovulated, as did one of the 54 women with obesity."

Not a huge sample, but 4 in 150 is almost 3%

That's fairly high. At once a month, that is one event every three years.

Creation as Jazz

Biologos seems to have (at least) three main categories:

1. Repeat "Evolution is true" mantra
2. Belittle the Bible
3. Poetry and art (proclaiming how beautiful the deist god is)

An example of the third is the recent post "Creation and Jazz Music".

It really speaks for itself:

"If God has shaped the world as it was from the beginning, the universe seems reduced to a mere puppet stage where God the Puppet Master pulls all the strings."

That's the treatment of the sovereign God of the Bible.

"Instead, God in his wisdom has provided a system in which creatures can make themselves." (emphasis added)

The important point in the creation debate is: "The creator makes the rules". If God created us, we are subject to His rules. If random chance creates us (or we create ourselves) - we are not subject to God's rules.

Finding Darwin's God

It took me a long time, but I finally waded through it!

I picked up this book after getting involved over at Biologos. Kenneth Miller is one of the writers there.

I am looking for a book that pairs a solid scientific understanding of evolution and an old earth with solid theology - this book is not it.

Miller approaches things from the scientific standpoint (he is a cell biologist and professor). His theology is fairly broad, although not well defended or deep. He adds nothing new to the scientific argument, repeating the "evolution is true" mantra repeatedly.

What interests me most is his theology.

The choice quote (you have to get far in to find it, out of 292 pages):

"He [God] wanted these creatures [us] to be free to choose Him or to reject Him" (page 251)

There are aspects of this earlier (and it is much repeated later), but this really captures the heart of Miller's theology.

He has raised human will to the level of God (hyper-Arminianism).

"Free choice" is so important that Miller is willing to sacrifice everything else - God's omnipotence, omniscience, creation, etc. Even the definition of good is up for grabs (for how is "nature, red in tooth and claw" good?).

It is also not surprising to find elements of Open Theism (which is a common failure mode for hyper-Arminians; although it appears Miller has not yet fallen so far):

"The freedom to act and choose enjoyed by each individual in the Western religious tradition requires that God allow the future of His creation to be left open." (p.238)

"Given evolution's ability to adapt,... sooner or later it would have given the Creator exactly what He was looking for - a creature who, like us, could know Him and love Him" (p.238-239)

This is not the God of the Bible. The God who plans and purposes before acting. This is not the God who is the man Jesus Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Given the course Biologos is taking, I doubt I will see reconciliation on these points. I have another book to try.

DNA Frontloading

One of the interesting results of genomic research is the challenge to evolutionary assumptions. From Science Daily:

"report the draft genome sequence of the sea sponge"

"All living animals are descended from the common ancestor of sponges and humans, which lived more than 600 million years ago"

"essentially all the genomic innovations that we deem necessary for intricate modern animal life have their origins much further back in time that anyone anticipated"

Now the evolutionist will say, "See, we use the same proteins; therefore we have a common ancestor!"

However, there is a much more subtle (and damaging) point.

If the earliest life forms have all the complexity - then deep time (the billion year hammer) buys you nothing. Later forms use multiples of these genes, often with slight modifications.

Prehistoric Conditions

One of the most interesting things about uniformitarians is their inconsistency. They insist the present is the key to the past (that current conditions tell us about how things operated in the past).

But the data shows that conditions in the past were unlike anything seen today.

Take this article from Science Daily:

"These elevated [oxygen] concentrations have been linked to gigantism in some animal groups, in particular insects, the dragonfly Meganeura monyi with a wingspan of over two feet epitomizing this." (italics in original)

Insects have an open circulatory system. This system is fairly inefficient, and limits the body size in insects today. In other words insects today could never be so big (they wouldn't get enough oxygen). So, the presence of these insects indicates higher oxygen pressure (either more oxygen or more atmospheric pressure or both).

Current oxygen levels are ~20%, "levels around 30 to 35%, as have been proposed for the Late Paleozoic". High levels of oxygen would also cause large amounts of coal to form.

Things were very different, that much is agreed on. That's what the evidence shows.