Month: April 2009

Remember This Post 10 Years From Now

Lemaitre_University It may come in handy.

Here's why . . .

The gentleman on the left is Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest, physicist, and astronomer who happens to be "the father of the Big Bang." He was one of the first to publish in support of the idea of an expanding cosmos that took its start in a highly compressed state that Lemaitre referred to as a "primeval atom."

Einstein at first dismissed Lemaitre's hypothesis, which radically departed from the intuitions of physicists and cosmologists back then. But then Edwin Hubble's work backed up Lemaitre and Einstein reversed himself.


So why am I writing about this?


Partly just because I like science but also because there is an apologetic issue here.


Ever since the Big Bang theory has become widely accepted, it has been easy for Christians to point to the event as the start of everything and the moment of God's creation. It could be taken as a scientific validation of one part of the Kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence and thus as evidence for the Creator.


And maybe it is.


But maybe it's not.


For a time there was an alternative hypothesis that had a great deal of currency in scientific circles that maybe we lived in a gravitationally closed universe that oscillated between Big Bangs and Big Crunches and that the event that happened 13.5 billion years ago was just one of the cusps in an endless series of them, so that there was no ultimate beginning.


That view's stock fell precipitously a few years ago with the discovery that the universe is not just expanding but that it's expansion is accellerating due to what is now called dark energy, which actually makes up three quarters of all the mass-energy in the universe. 


Because the universal rate of expansion is increasing, it does not appear that gravity can close our universe and cause a Big Crunch, without which one leg of the oscillation cycle wouldn't be there.


Since the discovery of dark energy, Christian apologists have felt on particularly safe ground pointing to the Big Bang as the plausible moment of creation.


And even in the decades before we knew about dark energy, the idea of the Big Bang had so permeated modern Christian thought that it became very easy to read Genesis 1 and identify the Big Bang with the moment that God said, "Fiat Lux"–"Let There Be Light."


Though that's not actually the way Genesis depicts the beginning. 


Here's the way Genesis 1:1-3 reads:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

See what I mean?

Light gets created in verse 3, but we already have a darkened universe–complete with waters–in verse 2. Then, as part of making the world a suitable place for habitation, God turns on the lights and starts making other changes, until everything is ready for man.

Either way, we shouldn't be too quick to try to fit the Big Bang into the framework of Genesis 1. As I've written before, Genesis 1 is best taken not as a chronological account of God's work but as a topical organization of God's work that structures the different categories of what God did around the framework of a week.

I think that's what the ancient author meant the original audience to understand by the text, as a careful reading of it shows.

But if we shouldn't try to fit the Big Bang into Genesis 1, can we at least point to it as the moment of creation from a scientific point of view?

T
here has certainly been a strong inclination on the part of many to do so. Pius XII had such an inclination, which caused Lemaitre to have kittens, afraid that the pontiff would try to do too much theologically with the concept. (HERE and HERE.)

Hypothetically, we could identify the Big Bang as the moment of creation.

But hypotheses can have rival hypotheses, and we should try to test to see which hypotheses are more likely correct.

That's what the folks behind LISA are planning to do.

LISA–the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (INFO HERE)–is a set of satellites to be launched in the next decade or so. They will be placed in a massive triangular formation in space and connected by laser beams which will allow LISA to detect gravitational waves.

This will make LISA the largest gravitational wave detector in existence, powerful enough to detect events within a microscopically small fraction of a second after the Big Bang–far closer than we've been able to measure before.

Now here's the thing . . .

LISA is hypothetically able to find evidence that would allow scientists to distinguish between different pre-Big Bang cosmologies.

In other words, LISA may allow us to "look" beyond the Big Bang and "see" something there. For example, LISA might detect signs that the Big Bang occurred when two of the branes postulated by brane cosmology collided with each other. Or it might reveal evidence of a parallel universe that our universe budded off of.

Or it might reveal nothing of the kind, leaving the appearance that the Big Bang was, itself, Event One.

If the latter is the case then the apologetic use of the Big Bang will be strengthened, just like it was strengthened when dark energy was discovered, as competing hypotheses will be made less likely.

But the opposite could happen, too. The apologetic value of the Big Bang would be diminished if evidence emerges of a pre-Big Bang universe.

That's no threat to the Christian faith. The faith holds that God created the universe in the past but it does not require that the Big Bang represent the moment of creation. Christians held that there was a moment of creation for ages before the Big Bang emerged as a scientific hypothesis, and if it is later shown that the Big Bang was not the moment of creation then we can simply infer that the moment of creation was father back in time than that.

Christian faith is more than capable of surviving any such discovery.

However, in the short run it would shake some people up, just as it shook people up when modern paleontology and biology started to provide support for the theory of evolution.

It certainly helped, at that time, to point out that some authors had been writing about the compatibility of evolution and the Christian faith for quite a while. This wasn't a threat to the faith because it didn't contradict the faith.

The same thing is true for the idea that the Big Bang is not the moment of creation.

So remember this post ten or so years from now when LISA gets launched.

It may come in handy for someone you know.

Caprica Pilot

Caprica_city

For BSG fans going through withdrawal, the pilot movie for the prequel series Caprica is now out on DVD.

It hasn't aired on TV yet, and apparently won't for a while–and you'll have to wait till next year for the series itself to debut–but you can see the pilot on DVD.


Below are some thoughts on it. I'll keep the spoilers light, but just to protect those who don't want absolutely anything spoiled, I'll continue below the fold.

Continue reading “Caprica Pilot”

I Prefer Chocolate… I Think

Tim Jones, here.

"We live in a land where you
can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in
my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should
be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but
that's how I was raised." (FOX News)

This is the tepid and tentative endorsement of traditional marriage that, on the one hand, cost Carrie Prejean (Miss California USA and Miss USA finalist) the Miss USA
crown, and that on the other hand has caused her to be lionized in the
conservative press… neither of which makes any sense, based on what
she actually said. Presidential candidate Barack Obama said essentially
the same thing months ago.

This throws some light on the whole gay agenda and on politics in general here in the U.S..

Carrie
Prejean will be known henceforth in the public mind as "the girl who
would have been Miss USA", but for the presence of a flaming gay
activist judge, and the girl who actually won the competition (does
anyone know her name?) will be forever known as "the girl who beat
Carrie Prejean".

The gay judge, Perez Hilton, got his thong in a
twist because he wanted to hear Miss Prejean say, "Golly, I think
chocolate and vanilla are both just swell…" and she had the audacity
to say "I think… I prefer chocolate. No offense to vanilla people.".

As
Mark Shea has observed time and again, where the gay agenda is
concerned "Tolerance Is Not Enough! You Must Approve!". The message
(and this episode is only its latest incarnation) is very clear: "You
want to make it in the entertainment business? Then…" – I was going
to say, "learn to keep your mouth shut", but the real lesson is –
"learn to parrot the opinions we give you – with enthusiasm – or else".

That's
nothing new, it's just acquired the brashness that is the hallmak of a
bully who has grown accustomed to success. Their fear campaign has
worked, in large measure. "Agree with us, publicly, if you want to
work. Disagree and you will be passed over". It used to be that
aspiring entertainers were passed over in private meetings… now they
are passed over publicly, clapped in irons and pelted with fruit.
Pelted by fruits, you might say. What's troubling is that the same
thing is happening in corporate offices and boardrooms. Learn to say
the right thing, if you value your job.

But then, in the
hinterlands of the right, you have Fox News throwing Miss Prejean a
virtual ticker tape parade, treating her as if she had said, "Mr. Perez
Hilton, tear down this wall!!!", ignoring the fact that her answer was
in fact very meekly pro-marriage, and lacked any moral conviction, that
she took pains to emphasize that this was just her opinion… that she
is, in regard to gay marriage, "personally opposed, but…"

I
know she's young, and that she's no philosopher, and that she was on
the spot and under a great deal of pressure, and I suppose I should be
happy she was able to stammer her way through any kind of half-hearted
endorsement of real marriage at all… but it's not as if she didn't
know the question might come up. The contestants do see them in advance
(though they don't know which one they may be asked).

I'm appalled that she was set up,
basically, by a gossip Queen who (wrapping himself in the PFLAG) was
determined to deny the Miss USA title to anyone not solidly toeing the
line of the gay agenda, but I'm also appalled at the reaction to her
speech at both ends of the political spectrum.

(visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

“Culture of Death” is not a subset of “U.S. Politics”

Hat tip to Jill Stanek, by way of Ryan Sayre Patrico at First Things Blog, for calling attention to Wikipedia's deletion of its former article on the "Culture of Death."

Patrico writes:

“Culture of Death” can still be found as a subheading under “Culture of Life,”
so that might have something to do with it—but the website often has
entries that discuss terms with their own entries elsewhere.

Yeah, Wikipedia still features a “Culture of Death” subhead in the “Culture of Life" article — as a subsection under the heading "U.S. Politics."

Um. No, Sorry, Wikipedia. "Culture of Death" is not a subset of "U.S. Politics." The term was coined by a global figure, Pope John Paul II, to describe a global cultural phenomenon.

If you want to subsume "culture of death" and "culture of life" into one article, that's your editorial look-out. But don't marginalize the concept further by pretending that it's all about the United States. For one thing, it's America-centric. For another, it looks like glaring editorial bias.

P.S. Jill Stanek has screen grabs of older versions of the "Culture of Death" article, and someone else referenced the Wayback Machine. Doesn't Wikipedia have a way to directly reference previous versions of articles? Or does that go away if an article is deleted entirely?

What is cooler than this?

Every day new cool stuff gets invented. But today’s coolest news is going to hold the “coolest thing going” record for a few days at least:

Twitter Telepathy: Researchers Turn Thoughts Into Tweets

What is cooler than that?

Once upon a time, “locked-in” Jean-Dominique Bauby had to blink his one eyelid as a therapist pointed at letter groups in order to painstakingly spell out words and write the book that became the movie The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

Soon patients in his condition will be able to think words onto a computer screen without any direct assistance at all.

Coming soon: Iron Man–like cerebral computer interfaces allowing humans to control robotic devices with a thought? (Note the red color of the helmet in the YouTube video above: Coincidence?)

Energy Secretary Chu: “Run in Circles! Scream and Shout!”

Now, aren't you glad that the Obama administration is taking
politics out of science? That's what enables energy secretary
Steven Chu (nicknamed "Big League" by Obama) to make sober and coldly rational assessments like this;

"Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter
height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where
I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is —
this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous,"

So,
everyone, run out and buy an electric car right now! Form a drumming
circle, ceremonially break all your conventional light bulbs and
replace them with fluorescents! Drink your own bathwater! Most
importantly, though, be sure not to do anything reckless and
irresponsible like having children, because they will suck up resources
that could be better spent on spotted owls and snail darters and such.

Now,
it's true that none of these actions will impact global warming at all,
but they will make you feel better – will give you a vague sense of
having contributed to something – and anyway, that's the way the herd
is going. Polls show that people are concerned about recent polling on
attitudes toward global warming. The voters have spoken!… and as we know, democracy is never wrong… just look at Palestine, and the Weimar Republic… and lemmings (an example from nature, which is also never wrong).

Unfortunately, while President Obama and his sycophantic minions
cabinet valiantly attempt to keep reason science and politics in completely
separate, hermetically sealed envelopes, there are still divisive and
radical voices trying to ruin everything;

"Secretary
Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of 'evidence' of a
looming climate catastrophe, said Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com and former top aide to global warming
critic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. 

"Secretary Chu's assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply
being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12,
2008: There is 'no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.'"

Morano
said hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at
30 years lows and hurricane experts like MIT's Kerry Emanuel and Tom
Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  "are
now backing off their previous dire predictions."

He said Chu is out of date on
the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary.

Kindle Question

Amazon_kindle_21 My eyes are bad–so much so that when I go into the optometrist's office and hand him my glasses at the beginning of the examination, he takes one look at the lenses and says, "Myyyyyy! You *are* nearsighted, *aren't* you!"

I'm also dyslexic.

And did I mention that my family gets cataracts really early?

So I like using audiobooks as much as possible. I'm a subscriber to Audible, and I've blogged before about making my own audiobooks with TextAloud and AT&T Natural Voices, but most books aren't available via Audible, and scanning a book so I can use TextAloud on it is a really time-consuming process.


I was very interested when Amazon announced the first version of its Kindle e-book reader, but it didn't have text-to-speech, so I didn't buy one.


The new Kindle 2, though, does have text-to-speech (even if the voice isn't that great). I almost ordered one, which would allow me to hear numerous books that aren't available in audiobook form.


Unfortunately, Amazon quickly announced–after pressure from publishers and authors–that they were giving publishers and authors the ability to turn off the Kind's text-to-speech function for particular books.


The theory was that this might violate copyrights (wrong!–for a whole host of reasons) and that it might cut into audiobook sales.


I don't buy that because the Kindle voice is pathetic compared to a professionally done audiobook, which you can get for almost the same price as a Kindle book from Audible. Given the choice of listening to an annoying voice reading a book and spending a couple of dollars more for a professional reading, I'd take the latter any day.


And–guess what–you can download Audible audiobooks right onto your Kindle.


So I think Amazon is being shortsighted, and so do a bunch of my fellow shortsighted people. In fact many blind, dyslexic, and other reading-impaired folks have been protesting about this and starting petitions.



I hope they succeed in getting Amazon to change its policy, but in the meantime I've still got a question: How useful would a Kindle 2 be to me with its publisher-controlled text-to-speech function?


If Amazon is going to allow this feature to be disabled then what they should do–but haven't so far as I can tell–is list on a book's page whether or not the text-to-speech feature is enabled. I'd be mighty honked off if I paid ten bucks for a Kindle book download and then discovered I couldn't listen to it.


As a fallback to being able to predict in an individual book's case whether it's listenable, it would at least help to have an idea of how many publishers are turning off the text-to-speech function. It would be one thing if only 5% of them do, but it'd be another thing entirely if 95% of them do.


So I'm hoping there are some Kindle 2 people–or others in the know–who can give me a sense of how widespread the "No speech for you!" problem is on the Kindle.


Any help?