What the crap?

What just happened to this blog?

Scary science

Japanese scientists have captured a giant squid on camera!

That thing is pretty damn scary.

But still not as scary as the comparably sized octopus would be.

Intelligent Design

It certainly doesn't feel like science. I would say that I am sympathetic to the view of many scientists that they shouldn't be forced to teach something in a classroom that doesn't pass scientific muster, or teach something other than science in their classrooms. If intelligent design is not considered to be science by a certain standard in the scientific community, than it ought not be taught in the science room.

However, a problem lies therein. Science does not present itself as an academic discipline meant to be mulled over and deliberated upon, etc, if you get my meaning. Scientists cast themselves as nature's truthseekers, steep in natural wisdom and versed in the nature of the planetary system. It isn't like a scientist would say "Well, evidence of an evolutionary chain that did not progress is this Archaeopterix (spelling), but remember, its only science." Science claims to be this end all of natural knowledge, which creates a frightful dilemma for those that can identify staggering gaps in evolutionary theory. I would hesitate to even classify it as a theory, for it seems to only meet the standards of a hypothesis. Now, it does seem to me that scientific methodology and formulae make very good sense, and I find much of the science related documents I have read or textbooks I have examined to be extremely convincing in non-evolutionary studies or what is called scientific law. I mean who doesn't think the periodic chart is accurate? My basic point is that science, while full of knowledge, has tried to dip too far into wisdom with its near fantical teachings on evolution. And science is simply not good at wisdom.

So, that leaves us with a basic problem. Science cannot provide an adequate answer for the origins of mankind, so it should, buy its own discipline, be moderate in its approach to instructing America's youth. I don't think ID is the answer, in fact, I don't have an answer, only a problem. Generally, I would loathe legislative interference in classroom study, but with the nature and power of many state departments of education, it can be frustrating to see behemoth beraucractic regulation by ideologically driven phonies and underqualified fat cats pushing ridiculous education programs and requirements at monstrous expense to state taxpayers.

So, in any case, it does not appear to me that Intelligent Design as I understand it passes scientific "muster". That really doesn't mean much to me, since I support the basic idea that the Earth is much younger than scientists believe and that evolution requires as much faith to swallow as creation. That is really neither here nor there except to say that sometimes "scientific evidence" doesn't seem like evidence at all, but something else entirely. Therefore, I suggest not watering down scientific exploration with the teaching of either Intelligent Design or Evolution in high school classrooms, for both seem to dull science's appeal to knowledge.

Intelligent Design

It is not science. It offers no testable hypothesis. It endlessly repeats the hopeless logic that because biological, cosmological, and natural process that are highly complex seem to perform a function, this is evidence of design. Design theorists revert to statistics to show the how unlikely it is that these process emerged on their own, with no guidance.

The interesting thing is that, this brand of math originated in Creationists who willfully worked backwards from current accepted scientific numbers (age of the universe, global population) to support thier Creationist views. And yet, it seems to me that Intelligent Design and Creationism are directly opposed--in attempting to gain the foothold in science departments, ID jettisons the-universe-was-made-in-6-days and most other anti-evolution rhetoric. Instead, ID attempts to provide the very thing that Darwinism lacks, purpose, while tacitly accepting evolution in order to weasel its way into the scientific community.

If you believe in god and want to say god's been directing evolution, I say fine. But if you propose to espouse that view (with no scientific evidence to back it up) in mainstream science and demand that it be taught alongside other hard sciences (like the ones that require a lab), I say you and the president can both forget about it. Teach it in religion class, where the students all know exactly how valid that curriculum is and treat it accordingly.

Incidentally, if you're a theologian dabbling in science or a scientist willing to pay lip service to ID, you might able to land some research money here.

Replies....

On Enterprise v. Star Destroyer: So it's all about size, is it? "Size matters not!," quoth Yoda.

On OSU: Troy Smith is the better choice, but he is far from great. He looks to throw second, if at all, and then only looks for one, maybe two receivers before running sideways. Additionally, he can't throw worth a damn; how many open receivers did he hit in the shoes against SDSU? He's going to have to knock that shit off during Big Ten play, or we're screwed.

On "Intelligent Design": Oh, Kris. Haven't you heard? ID is as scientifically reliable as evolution...If you disagree, you must be afraid of "truth"...The scientific community is really divided over evolution...We should rely on empirical evidence and testing and all that, but only until we come to the origins of life...then we should throw up our hands and say, "Oh, well. It looks like science can never handle this one, guys. Rather than pursuing further research, let's just say it was a higher intelligence and go play golf"...In fact, since there are some gaps in understanding the mechanism of evolution, it is just a pseudo-religion...all them there scientists who believe in it are part of the conspiracy to destroy religion...they are on the defensive!...ha! ha! ha!...Peppered moths!...Fossil record...the holocaust never happened!...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...Wha ha haaaa!!!!.....

Intelligent Design

If you hadn't heard, the newest internet fad to sweep the web is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." The website is very funny, regardless of your thoughts on the matter. Anyway, what are your thoughts on these matters such as:
Intelligent design?
Evolution?
Religion?
Belief in God?
Belief in general?

What I think: Intelligent Design is NOT science. Therefore it should not be taught in a science classroom. Evolution is based on testable scientific hypotheses and despite flaws in the theory, IS science and should be taught in a science classroom. Religion has its place (we read The Bible in Senior English) and I am not against teaching of religion in public schools. However, religion (which more or less requires belief) does not belong in science. Intelligent design requires belief. QED and all that. Discuss.

Go Bucks!

I'm still sore from the Texas loss. Damn! They should've walked away with that one.

They bounced back today althought the offense still concernes me. Unfortunately it wasn't the game abc carried down here. I think making Troy Smith the starter was the right call, but they haven't put together many sustained drives yet this year. This is a problem when facing good offenses like Texas or Michigan State, and makes otherwise easy-win games closer than they should be.

Oh, yeah. Forgot to gloat last Sunday. Go Bengals!

Nerdtastic!

I found this, for the nerdier kids here.
I think it puts to rest any Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer arguments.

New bands you've never heard of and MUST check out:
Drive-By Truckers (The Dirty South, Decoration Day, Southern Rock Opera)
Umphrey's McGee (Anchor Drops, Local Band does OK)
Ween (not new, but brilliant nonetheless) (The Mollusk, White Pepper)

And a question for Bert: was your prof implying federalists, Kennedy or the Jeffersonians were bad? Or good? And why didn't you smack him for his asinine comparisons in the first place?

Finally, my thoughts on Harry Potter:
Harry will discover he is the final horcrux and will have to sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort. He may or may not live through the ordeal; I think it depends on how Christian Rowling wants to make the story. He will face Voldemort alone, although Ron and Hermoine (and others) will help him get to the final battle. Snape, I think, will ultimately turn out to be good. As far as I could tell the only person he killed in Book 6 was Dumbledore, who was always a pretty clever guy. The Unbreakable Curse and Dumbledore's final "pleadings" with Snape together seem to indicate (to me) that they knew this would happen. Snape will likely aid Harry in getting to Voldemort.
In all my second favorite book, despite the kissy-makeout stuff. Although I guess that is what the kids do these days anyway. If I were to rank the books I would put them in this order: 4, 6, 3, 1, 2, 5. But I've only read 5 and 6 once each.

Science

Hey Bert, I suppose the first part is for you. I just read an abstract of an article that is supposed to be published in a physical chemistry journal about Pu 238 and its use as an energy source, specifically for long range space satelites and such. I guess some crazy ass group over in germany or norway have built a long range fuel supply system using Pu 238 that supposedly can power a small satelite for upwards of 50 years (I don't know how they calculated that as I am no good at that "math" religion).

Secondly, a group in Japan just published an article on the successful use of fetal stem cells to grow healthy adult cells. If I can find an online version of the article, I will post it.

Go Science!

Bam!

Anybody?

I just joined Netflix and it is swell. Thoughts?

The Chief Justice...

...passed away tonight. RIP

Con Law

yesterday my Con Law professor likened the Federalist Society to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Repulicans--which may be fair--but he went on to liken Jefferson's opponents, the Federalists, to Ted Kennedy. I nearly jumped out of my chair.

Nonetheless, it is an amusing tale of intellectual dishonesty and liberal dominance of higher education.

Sin City

I thought it was pretty good. I had no idea what was going on until about 2/3 the way through...so much jumping around and character overlap...having never read the comics may have set me back a bit...but I expect I would like it more the second time around since I won't be struggling to keep up with the plot. I was actually thinking about buying it. Maybe I should and I can use it to seduce you, Bert.

Harry Potter

I think it's interesting that you all assume Harry is going to survive his encounter with Voldemort and come out whole.

Once more on Potter....

Well said Nick. You make sense regarding Harry/Luke not defeating Voldemort/Emperor with strength but something else, and in order to really defeat the embodiment of "evil" it would certainly take something besides or instead of strength (like the mercy I somewhat jokingly referred to). Think of shitty action movies where the good guy wins by killing everyone else but is still good because he is the one the camera is focused on. I just don't get the sense Harry can survive a fight with Voldemort long enough to pull out a goodness/love trump card.

I thought about one more slight disappointment about books 1-6. I don't feel like the table is set for a true showdown, like when the #1 and #2 football teams in the country square off for a championship game. Remember when Nebraska got into the BCS title game instead of Oregon? Everyone knew Nebraska wasn't that great and would be crushed, which they were. I had hoped to close book 6 and say "Awwwww shit! It's on now!" Voldemort goes in to the Rose Bowl as wire-to-wire #1 and Harry is...#19. On the other hand, it is pretty cool when an underdog dethrones a heavily favored champ ("miracle on ice," Oklahoma beating FSU...or Ohio State v. Miami in 2002...remember how much better Miami was...OSU didn't have a chance...not enough speed...and that Kellen Winslow...dang). I just feel strangely stuck in some limbo between these two possibilities, and I can't really explain why.

Nick, I, for one, love (most) long posts, but could you break up some paragraphs? My crappy eyes keep getting lost in the middle.

Alas...

Law homework prevents me from attempting a decent commentary on Harry Potter. Perhaps I shall get some time soon and make up for my first.

Sin City

It's been a while since this movie came out, but I wondered if anyone saw it and had any thoughts.

Surprisingly, I liked it, and upon a second viewing I liked it even more.

Thanks E-money

Eric has ably pointed out Potter flaw's which were much less formed in my mind as evidenced by my weak post Nick jumped on and flogged. It's good to see that you still derive some malicious pleasure at my expense.

Nonetheless, Nick, I think I agree that it will be more of a suprise if Book 7 does not satisfy. Glad you are enjoying the Helprin. It would do you all good to try some out. I highly recommend Memiors from Antproof Case and Soldier of the Great War.

Moog dies

The pioneer of progressive rock's signature sound has died.

Somewhere, Keith Emerson and Rick Wakeman are playing somber electronic dirges to ease Robert Moog from the shores of this life. Backwards and upside down.

Harry Potter the Hero

Eric takes a hard swing at the series’ namesake protagonist, and while I don’t want to shoulder the task of rehabilitating Harry Potter as hero, I just feel like pouring more words onto this blog, as that seems to get John’s goat.

First, let me say that to a large extent I agree with Eric. Harry Potter hasn’t yet reached the stature of any of our more well-known titular heroes. But to be fair, his understanding of the prophecy and his fate has been evolving over the course of many books, and while I’m not sure when he knew that he would be facing Voldemort with the fate of the world on the line (book 4 or 5, I suppose… sometime after Voldemort became embodied again) he has only just at the end of Book 6 come to terms with the idea that he must face Voldemort. So let’s be fair to the kid, and wipe the slate clean of any previous slackings—if he spends his time in Book 7 guzzling Butterbeer and playing Quidditch I’ll jump on the E-train line of thought, but let’s at least give him the chance to buckle down now that he knows what’s at stake.

Yes, in a world full of strange and fantastical things, Harry is kind of a lackluster character. At times Ron and Hermione (and other members of the supporting cast) are much more interesting, and Harry is merely the spoke of the wheel around which they all revolve. By comparison, his father seems a much more engaging character—a rougish, swashbuckling wizard, perhaps (I imagine James Potter rendered in film or on stage by… wait for it… Timothy Dalton!). If I can make the following point without reverting to psychoanalysis, I’ll win myself a cookie: Harry is a flat protagonist because he serves as the vessel on which the multitudes of readers who are children project themselves. A child reading this book has the nearly-blank slate of Harry to exist in a marvelous world of wizardry, to be chosen for the sports team at the most important position, to inherit a ton of money, to get attention and have stalwart friends. As adults (or… nearly so) we (the posters to this blog) are suitably disappointed by this rendering. It could be that in her construction of Harry, Rowling has been too accurate to the model of the modern teenager, attributing Harry with few worthwhile traits to aspire to.

Growing up without his parents (and then learning of their murderer) should have been a soul-forging type of experience of Harry, and it really hasn’t been. He’s not driven by revenge. I still maintain that Harry’s heroism has and will stem from the same vein as Frodo’s—noble spirit, bravery, and perseverance. It became clear to me in Book 6 that Harry, if not exactly a hero himself, is the anti-Voldemort, in the sense that both came from similar beginnings (no parents, lots of raw talent) and from there diverged along wildly different moral paths. But Lt. Columbo Harry is not. The various mysteries that speckle each book are never solved in time by Harry.

I think its silly toss stones at Harry for being a mediocre wizard—or rather, for not being as accomplished a wizard as you all would like him to be. That characterization is unfair. Harry is consistently right behind Hermione (sometimes far behind… but still ahead of most of the other students) in his studies. In a Hogwart’s ranking, I challenge you to name a student more accomplished than Harry other than Hermione.

I wonder why it is so important that Harry be a very powerful wizard—other power wizards have been killed by Voldemort before. I think it’s pretty obvious that Voldemort won’t be beaten by tossing around a few curses or attacks spells here or there. Luke wasn’t going to beat the Emperor—it took something else. Likewise Harry won’t be defeating Voldemort by use of his wand alone. Eric’s analogy is fun but overly simplistic—it implies that there is a singular method to achieving the desired end (i.e. throwing strikes, Harry’s training in Book 6 was to understand Voldemort and his origins, and it’s a lesson that Dumbledore saw as especially important, more important even than learning curses and Defense Against the Dark Arts.

For those who are upset that Harry’s not the greatest role model for children, I sympathize. But if you’re fretting because he’s a so-so wizard and seems at this stage incapable of realistically defeating Voldemort, then might I humbly suggest that you’re getting ahead of yourselves?

In Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas plainly did not deliver the goods, even though many of us had held out hope after the dismal Ep. 1 & 2. There are many more reasons to expect that Harry Potter 7 will turn out good—the real surprise would be if it falls flat and does not satisfy.