| Friday,
April 18, 2008 0930: Amazing what a good night's sleep will
do!
I have to take Sable to the groomers -- washing her myself is a bit
beyond my abilities without better equipment than I have, and she hates it
anyway -- so I'll be back. But I seem to have energy, and minimum symptoms.
Maybe there is balm in Gilead, or healing, or something.
I have notes from this morning's paper on two things to write up, one
very relevant to my essay on education which I may manage to get done today.
I still have errands, and administrative stuff like paying the bills, but
I may start to catch up today. Hope so, anyway, since this dry spell in my
production not surprisingly has corresponded with a dry spell in
subscriptions (thanks! to those few who were exceptions), which has not
escaped my notice... Don't blame you. Those who sing for their supper are
expected to sing, not just tune their instruments and make promises. Back in
half an hour.
======
The roofers showed up (late, were supposed to be here at 0700) just as I
had put Sable in the Explorer preparatory to taking her to the groomer, so
Roberta is taking Sable and I'm sort of sitting here in case of need. They
seem to know what they are doing.
So I'll see what I can do about getting some work done.
==========
Gods, Earthlings, and
Intelligent Design
I don't usually get into the "Intelligent Design" argument, because I
don't have a lot to add to it; but once in a while poseurs like Professor
Richard Dawkins jump into the fray with such outrageous aplomb that I feel
compelled to answer. See
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
commentary/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,1900872.story for his latest.
Dawkins uses a simple method of argument: proof by repeated assertion,
plus entirely ignoring what the other side says: instead he will tell you
what he wants you to believe they said (if he bothers with the other side's
arguments at all). Then he asserts that anyone who believes that nonsense is
an idiot not worth your attention, and all his opponents are ignorant
buffoons at best, and more likely mendacious scam artists. To say he has no
respect for the other side of the argument is a simple understatement of
fact. Yet, for all that, the arguments don't go away, which causes despair
for Mr. Dawkins, Professor at Oxford University and usually considered the
definitive spokesperson for the modern Darwinist position.
Example of Dawkins arguments:
"Intelligent design "theorists" (a
misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to
distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the
designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off
accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science
classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design
spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the
science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist
creationists they truly are."
This statement is typical of Dawkins. It is also egregiously wrong. Begin
with the last sentence: that only fundamentalist creationists assert the
possibility of evolution influenced by aliens from outer space. This was in
fact an hypothesis put forth by the late Sir Fred Hoyle in his book
Evolution from Space; and let me assure you that far from being a
fundamentalist creationist, Sir Fred had a pretty sophisticated theory of
how evolution might be influenced by extra terrestrials who were neither
gods nor superbeings. Sir Fred's theories would and did horrify
fundamentalists.
They were also theories. By theory I mean statements sufficiently precise
to generate falsifiable hypotheses. Sir Fred's book gives a number of
assertions about Darwinism and natural selection, and gives his reasons for
believing in the high improbability to impossibility that certain known
conditions were the result of random factors. His arguments are complex and
I don't intend to reproduce them here; but they are available in his book.
Whether or not Sir Fred makes his case I leave to others; but I at least
have not seen a definitive refutation of what he said. Mostly Sir Fred has
been ignored.
Nor is Sir Fred the only one I know of to assert what anyone not
beginning with utter contempt for his opponents would call real theories.
The essence of "Intelligent Design" theory is summed up in the statements:
"If you find a watch in the woods, you do not look for a random assortment
of parts that somehow put themselves together; you look for a watchmaker.
And if you find a watchmaker..." In other words, they assert that
there exist features of living creatures that are so complex that they could
not have arisen by chance plus natural selection; that certain steps in the
evolution of those features are, far from giving a species advantage, would
give them an evolutionary disadvantage at one stage of the development.
Now I am not going to get into that argument here. I do point out that
Dawkins certainly doesn't. All he does is assert that his opponents are
fools, and that he, inspired by random selection and the dance of the atoms
which is the only meaning to the universe on his assumptions, is far the
wiser and the purveyor of the only true theory of the ascent of man (only of
course there is no actual ascent). Why those who assert that there is no
intelligent design and that all is a random dance of the atoms, a tale of
sound and fury signifying nothing, are so fervent in their assertions is
probably of interest to psychologists, but not relevant here.
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about intelligent design because I
have never had any concern about the impossibility of reconciling something
like Darwinian Evolution and religion (nor indeed of reconciling reason and
religion). This is probably due to my education at Christian Brothers
College (now Christian Brothers High School) in Memphis during the 1940's.
Brother Fidelis was careful to teach the theory of evolution (although the
Scopes Law had not yet been repealed and it was in theory illegal for him to
do so) along with St. Augustine's and St. Thomas Aquinas's discourses on
reason and science; and the concept that God could easily have created the
universe in germinal causes and fixed laws, and allowed development to
proceed with a bare minimum of miraculous interventions.
Miraculous interventions are by definition outside the general laws of
the universe; outside the purview of science; and rare enough that no
statistics or laws can capture them as theory. In that sense Dawkins is
right: those who rely on a handful of miracles to direct what is usually
lawful evolution do not have anything that a scientist, including myself,
could honestly call a theory. Most of us never claimed that, either.
On the other hand, intelligent design theorists do have scientific
critiques of Natural Selection's ability to explain what we observe. I have
already alluded to one, irreducible complexity, which states that certain
organism or organs are simply too complex to have arisen in stages. One
example often given is the functioning eye as exhibited by humans and
octopi.
The opponents of intelligent design assert that they have computer
programs that do, or soon will, show the steps needed to get from light
sensitive spots on skin surfaces to fully developed eyes in bony sockets,
and Monte Carlo simulations in which those steps take place.
The number of steps varies; the minimum I have seen (and I admit not to
have paid a lot of attention) is about 32. I have never seen a convincing
computer model nor a successful Monte Carlo run of the theory; they have
all, in my experience, needed "adjustments" to come out right. Their
theories also have several parameters and variables not yet observed. This
doesn't negate them: many theories assert the existence of undiscovered
variables. On the other hand, until those variables are observed, the theory
remains no more than a theory; and that, so far as I can tell, is the actual
state of the refutation of the assertion that functioning eyes are an
irreducible complexity. The returns aren't in, and until they are, it is
hardly buffoonery to espouse either side of the discussion; and calling each
other names is not likely to advance our understanding of biochemistry.
To sum up:
- while many "Intelligent Design Theorists" are in fact fundamentalist
creationists, not all of them are, and some like the late Sir Fred Hoyle
are not creationists at all.
- The panspermia hypothesis, which asserts that life originated on a
planet other than Earth and was brought here by either natural or
intelligently directed actions, is hardly ludicrous, has at least some
unexplained evidence in its favor, and holding it as an hypothesis is
hardly evidence of buffoonery. The late Robert Bussard was well known to
believe in panspermia. Several of my science fiction novels make use of
this hypothesis, and I have yet to see any definitive refutation.
- Many of those in Dawkins' camp use proof by assertion: they simply
say that there are no features that demonstrate "irreducible complexity"
and those that seem to are illusions; and while they have not shown the
steps that would lead from easily explained conditions to the complex
feature, they have great confidence that they will find them, and anyone
who doesn't believe that is an idiot.
- In my judgment, reason and science are not in conflict to those
willing to spend the time and effort in genuine study of the apparent
irreconcilable differences. I note that I share that view with His
Holiness Benedict XVI, who has asserted this all his life, most notably
in his Regensburg Speech (Full
Text), which is well worth your attention. Do note that the truth or
falsity of this point is not definitive regarding my critique of
Dawkins. It does, I presume, qualify me as a buffoon in Professor
Dawkins' estimation.
===================
Subject: Every once in a while
the world changes as you watch.
Dr. Pournelle
I am currently sitting at home in Viet Nam watching
the Pope speak to the UN General Assembly about Human Rights on my living
room TV. Yes it is on the BBC. Yes it is in English. Still it is available
to anyone with a dish. That means anyone who has the money to pay for it and
wants it. I don't know if CNN is also carrying this event. CNN is on the
cable and we bought a dish because cable wasn't available in our area back
then.
I do remember invasive censorship, not that many years
ago. Still, watching the Pope on TV in Viet Nam lecturing on Human Rights is
one of those moments.
Sam
The world changes as you watch. Indeed. I like that notion.
Next decade in Tehran...
==========================
And now to work. Column; mailbag; education
discourse; assemble Roxillanna and see what difference a quad makes; get
more of my work over onto the Mac, particularly the MacBook Pro until I can
get a big screen and all up Mac Book to run both Mac OS X and XP; I do seem
to have my work cut out. Thanks to all the recent subscribers. I'm singing
again...
And if you have not seen
http://youtube.com/watch?v=irZmknvOB4I of the US Army chorus and the
Battle Hymn of the Republic, go do so. I cannot see how you can possibly
regret it.
Does anyone have a video and sound of the Battle Hymn at the National
Cathedral during the 9/11 commemoration? I have never seen a good video of
that, and it was very moving.
============
Another good reason to dump
MS Office
<http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2008/4/18/0119/18584>
If you like Windows Genuine Disadvantage, you'll love
Office Genuine Disadvantage.
I'm so glad that I migrated to OpenOffice.org several
years ago. At the time, it was because I needed a word processor that didn't
mangle my documents the way MS Word 2000 did. OOo also has the advantage of
using the open ODF format instead of the proprietary Microsoft DOC or OOXML
formats, and now that Microsoft will be crippling Office with their nasty
disabling software, I don't see any reason at all to use or recommend MS
Office.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson
thompson@ttgnet.com
I have never had problems with Office 2003, or Office XP; I am still
playing with Office 2007. If I have to have Office Genuine Disadvantage to
do that, I will think again, since I am terrified of being somewhere and
discovering that Word doesn't work. I use Word for many thing. I also use
OneNote.
I do believe Microsoft is losing not only its touch, but perhaps its
collective senses. Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad.
I have not yet gone to the extreme of Open Office, and I find Office 2008
for the Mac quite acceptable as a means to do my work -- indeed, as a
reasonable substitute for OneNote. Mac OS X with Microsoft Office 2008 is
Good Enough for a great deal of what I do.
=====================
Flash Sheridan your spam filters have defeated me. I can't send you email
regarding your subscription because every attempt including putting that
number into the subject header is returned and I have run out of time and
patience for dealing with this. Alas. If you have some way to send me email
that I can reply to without having to spend half an hour massaging the
messages, please do so.
This of course applies to everyone else; if you subscribe, please do so
with an address that will not bounce the welcome message containing the user
name and password for closed areas, and the instructions. If you don't have
such an address, I suspect it's not worth subscribing since you'll never
hear from me....
==============
Subject: 9 14 2001 National
Cathedral - Battle Hymn of the Republic
A bit grainy (and one weird tech clitch in the
middle), but it's incredibly moving.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IHVZK7nFYRQ&mode=related&search=
Thrive!
Petronius
=========
Friday TOP
Current Mail
|
