Posts by Theoblogian “Gerald Vreeland.”

April, 2006

What Can Be Said About Scrat

Posted Saturday, April 29, 2006 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

As you know, “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown” is in the theaters.  What you may not know is that yours truly is an unrepentant fan of the bug-eyed saber-toothed squirrel, Scrat.  And so, I would like to write something of a Theology of Scrat.  It may appear as merely slapstick comedy to you; but for those of us initiated into the deep esoteric Gnostic wisdom of Scrat, there is quite a bit of heady philosophy – well, alright, that’s somewhat overstated.  But be that as it may, I’d like to become a Scratologian and write Scratology (not to be confused with scatology – a messier word that doesn’t seem to be nearly so alarming to my spellchecker!).  In addition, I would like to write Scratographically (not to be confused with what I have elsewhere referred to as scatography – or the writing technique of those ideational scatologians).  And so this is the maiden voyage of the good ship Scratology.  Let’s start Scrat-Light. . . . 

Read more of What Can Be Said About Scrat


March, 2006

The Song of the Swan

Posted Monday, March 27, 2006 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

With this entry, I will conclude my treatment of The Privileged Planet.  I hope you have had as much fun with it as I have had. 

 

Gonzalez and Richards Synopsis, Conclusion

And What About Panspermia?

 

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004). 

 

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

 

Their conclusion is subtitled: “Reading The Book Of Nature.”  It is not a very long and involved piece and so I have decided to include a brief discussion on Panspermia or the seeding of microbes from elsewhere.  Because it has been so long, though (and because the Blog-Meister asked me to!), let us begin with a brief synopsis of what has gone before. 
Read more of The Song of the Swan


January, 2006

Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Sixteen

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing

Posted Tuesday, January 03, 2006 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction
Chapter 16 of the book is entitled: “The Skeptical Rejoinder.”  It deals with 14 major objections and so I’ll get right on with the sub-title: “Yes, But What About. . .?”  Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Sixteen


November, 2005

Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Fifteen

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Friday, November 18, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction
Chapter 15 of the book is entitled: “A Universe Designed for Discovery.”  What it deals with primarily are the rules of engagement for ascertaining design and purpose.  For people like me, raised in a family of atheistic existentialists, it is enough that mind-numbing, intricacy and irreducible complexity team up with incredibly fine-tuned rules of order – such things being impossible anywhere else! – for me to arrive at Intelligent Design.  For those predisposed to discount the Divine (usually because He won’t just arbitrarily jump into their intellectual box), it does not seem to be enough.  And so, a case must be made. Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Fifteen



Gonzalez and Richards: Drake Equation

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Wednesday, November 09, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction
In the previous episode, I had remarked that the Drake Equation (an odd attempt to reduce the possibility of finding life “out there somewhere” to statistical terms) is obsolete and ought to fall into disuse.  I seem to remember that, much earlier, I had promised that I would address the issue of Gonzalez and Richards revising the equation to fit what they feel are the advances in modern science.  Trust me, if we are looking for a number between 0 and 1, we will find ourselves much closer to 0. Read more of Gonzalez and Richards: Drake Equation


October, 2005

Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Fourteen

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Monday, October 24, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction
I’ve always thought the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence was misguided.  There seem to be a couple of scenarios.  We all recall when Voyager was infused with the Rolling Stones’ “Can’t Get No Satisfaction.”  That seems to present a face of Western culture best not replicated anywhere, much less out there.  It could have any of several effects: any superior life-forms might deduce that we are not worth the bother to contact or they might think we are ripe for extinction – or run a sub-space turnpike through our star system (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy). Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Fourteen



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Thirteen

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Monday, October 17, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

I went in to Jiffy-Lube on Saturday (9/17/05) and found this science-fascist periodical – it was a lot of fun to read.  There was a news blurb on the Montana T. Regina – and they discovered that she was pregnant.  The collateral damage was that they had no scientific paradigm within which to put the femur soft-tissue problem.  Fun stuff! 

 

Being out of the loop bothers me at times; but having it around my neck bothers me more. . . .  What I really love is when I find out that some kindred spirit is really an incognito scholar.  Reading the same periodical (see all you can learn when you get your oil changed?), I discovered that there was a debate about theistic evolution and whether or not evolution is incompatible with theism.  The scholar naysayer was none other than Alister McGrath. 
Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Thirteen



Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David

1 Kings 1 & 2 When Good Kings End Badly

Posted Monday, October 10, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 10
Show Introduction

1 Kings 1 & 2

The Third Accession/Succession Narrative[1]

Epilogue: The Consolidation Of An Empire

The Narrator Has Come Not To Praise David, But To Bury Him

 or When Good Kings End Badly

Exiles, House Arrests and Assassinations

 

1 Kings 1

Indecision And Adonijah

“His Father Had Never Crossed Him At Any Time”

 

We often refer to King David as "the Man after God's Own Heart."  Is this really the case?  Is this always and only the case?  We know that God is looking for one; but has He found him?  Can one really be found?

 

In 1 Sam. 13:14, we read: "For now your kingdom shall not endure.  The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you."  These are Samuel's words to Saul in the heat of the moment.  There is no Divine precedent as yet in the text of Scripture.  Samuel may be working without a net here – especially in view of the fact that no alternative has been suggested by God.  Samuel has not yet been commissioned to anoint the least of Jesse's sons.  Samuel the seer could be flying blind. 

 

Three chapters and several major events and royal failures later, Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint the next king.  When he sees the oldest of Jesse's sons and says to himself, "Surely the LORD's anointed is before Him (1 Sam. 16:6).  But verse seven says: ". . . the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."  These are God's words to Samuel with respect, of course, to Jesse's oldest son, Eliab.  However, much later when God says, "Arise, anoint him; for this is he" in v. 12, we know that "he" is the king; but we still do not know that this is "The Man After God's Own Heart."  We are left to guess as much – and history will prove us right to question. 


[1] From my forthcoming, The Darker Side of Samuel, Saul and David: Studies in Narrative Artistry; Studies in Flawed Leadership.

Read more of Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David



Introduction to Biblical Grumps round Two: Moses

Numbers 20 - Deaths In The Family - Waters Of Contention And A Holy God - Troubles With The Cousins

Posted Monday, October 03, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Last time, we tried to connect the dots in some of the later years of the Patriarch, Jacob.  In that, we saw that things needn’t end as badly as they’ve begun and we maintained that: Even The Grumpiest Of Grumps Can Reform.  Sometimes, however, history shows us that things do not end well. 

 

In, Numbers chapter 20, we have what constitutes the turning point in the life of Moses: Miriam and Aaron die and Moses, himself, is forbidden from entering the promised land.  In addition, the people must now circumnavigate the land of Edom.
Read more of Introduction to Biblical Grumps round Two: Moses


September, 2005

Deep (Space) Doo-doo

A paradigm red-shift on the origin of galaxies

Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Hi, friends!  I hope you won't forget me while I'm trying to kick-start my regular job.  I have a higher student load this year and that not only takes priority, I'm lovin' it!  But so that you don't forget why I was supposed to be here, you might want to take a look at
New Scientist Space - Massive young galaxy surprises astronomers
the new (ancient) Galaxy that they found buried in the Hubble Deep Field montages.  It is way out there on the edge of our ability to apprehend (they estimate only 800 million years after the Big Bang) and yet it is super-massive (several times the mass of the Milky Way) and it just blows their paradigm to smithereens.  So, we ask, how did galaxies form?  The old fashioned way: massive followed by disintegration; or simple to complex the super gravitational way?  The answer is "up in the air," no?

Read more of Deep (Space) Doo-doo



Introduction to Biblical Grumps: Jacob

Round One: Jacob From The Joseph Narrative

Posted Monday, September 26, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 1
Show Introduction

When I did another “Biblical Grumps” series out at Silverdale, I used the slash and burn method on a DC Talk rap.  This had the simultaneous effect of proving, once and for all, that I could get down with the medium and their need for a real pastor.  So, thanks to me, they now have a real pastor; remember: no matter how bad this gets, you will thank me someday as you look back over your shoulder with a shudder and think of the continuing oratorical nightmares you might have had!  Apparently, you’ve heard the word, since you hired a pastor a week before my first message.  You are wise and take warning well.  Be that as it may, I won’t plug in the keyboard or put on the do-rag – there are some things that are simply more appropriate for the evening service; but here’s the rap. 

 

 

 

Grump Is A Noun

(With Apologies To Toby McKeehan, et al.)

 

Pullin’ out my big red book

‘Caus when I need a word defined that’s where I look

So I move to the “G”’s quick, fast in a hurry

Threw on my specs, thought my vision was blurry

I looked again but to my dismay

It was black and white with no room for gray

Ya see a big “N” stood beyond my word

And yo that’s when it hit me that grump is a noun

 

Introduction to Jacob the Grump

After that we should probably attempt to better redeem the time; so, take out your Bibles and turn to Genesis chapter 37.

Read more of Introduction to Biblical Grumps: Jacob



Introduction to Biblical Grumps

Introduction to the Series

Posted Monday, September 26, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

When it comes to grumps, the gene-pool, I’m told, runs deep.  My nephews used to call my dad, “Gramps” which we, not so subtly, modified to “Grumps.”  What’s in a vowel, after all?  I thought my dad was a pessimistic cynic . . . until I grew up and became what I now dispassionately and objectively refer to as a realist.  My dad was an optimist compared to his youngest son – that would be me.  Although I have considerable faith in God’s word and that His will most certainly will be done, I have very limited faith in human beings separately or in the aggregate.  I am reminded of Mr. Jones’ response to Mr. Smith’s comment in “Men in Black I” that people are bright and could understand something beyond themselves.  K says to J: “A person is bright; people are stupid.”  Well, he was half right – I’ll let you judge which half is correct.  Is the glass half full, or half empty; or is the glass on the floor, smashed to bits? 

 

Being something of a student of history, modern and ancient, I find that the heroes of history are often also the rapscallions of history.  I have found it that way with regard to biblical historical heroes as well.  I must admit, however, and as I’ve often said: “It is dreadfully difficult to dredge up much dirt on the likes of Daniel, Job or even Jonathan.”  But be that as it may, one has no trouble finding grumps in the older testament of the Bible.  The three that I will mention in this Old Testament series are guilty of single episodes of grumpery, iterative – repeated acts of – grumpery, and even longitudinal grumpery – that is, a veritable lifetime of grumpiness.  The three I have selected for this three-part exposé are Jacob, Moses and David.  These are three of the greatest heroes of the nation of Israel.  Jacob, whose other name is Israel, is the progenitor of the 12 tribes called Israel; Moses was the great Legislator of Israel; and David was the great king and mini-emperor of the United Monarchy of Israel.  Yet, they were all given to bouts of grumpiness the effects of which often survived them. 

 

Along the way, I will attempt to prove the following three things:

With respect to Jacob:

 

Even The Grumpiest Of Grumps Can Reform. 

 

With respect to Moses:

 

Even Reformed Grumps May Suffer The Consequences Of Their Grumpery. 

 

With respect to David:

 

Some Grumps Get Worse And Even Grump At Us From Beyond The Grave. 
Read more of Introduction to Biblical Grumps



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Twelve

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing

Posted Monday, September 19, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction
One of the alternatively more annoying or more entertaining things you can do is read letters to editors in scientific publications. Some letters to the editor are simply laughable. In any case, with a little reflection you can determine if the authors and editors are open to honest, constructive criticism, or only print the most mindless presentation of the opposing position to make themselves look brilliant. You can learn if the editors are interested in advancing the cause of science or attracting sycophants – a.k.a. increasing circulation, hence revenues. You can tell if thought or marketing are the highest virtue. Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Twelve



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Eleven

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing

Posted Monday, September 12, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Chapter Eleven, of The Privileged Planet is entitled, “The Revisionist History of the Copernican Revolution.” 

 

Originally, I was going to give up and quit with chapter 9.  As my children will attest, book-report-style evaluations are time consuming.  In the present case, they are tedious and difficult as well.  Sometimes doing the hard things is its own reward.  Where I have misrepresented the authors or given them short shrift, I guess I have to apologize.  Where I have kicked a reader’s puppy, as it were, or their sacred cow for that matter, I care a lot less.  Cosmology is not, at its heart, science; it is philosophy and should probably be treated as such.  A few years ago, I read a Geographic article on the cosmos wherein the author even gave the candid admission that whatever happened before the Big Bang was the domain of Philosophers and Theologians.  Cool!  I have a Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies and so I am uniquely qualified to hack and slash at the subject from two angles.  However, what science cannot seem to admit is that when it makes observations and begins to reason backward through instrumental causes to formal causes, they have entered the domain of metaphysics and philosophy.  That is a game we can all play.  Every human being is a philosopher – that is they will have certain rules of engagement about life and existence – even if it is only their own personal survival and pleasure!  Also every human being (that I’ve ever met) is a theologian.  That is to say they will have certain ways they view supreme beings or a Supreme Being.  Even atheists have to know enough about God to know what it is they deny the existence of. . . . 

 

I was going to quit at chapter nine because it was just too hard.  Chapter ten was even worse!  That done, I looked with dread to Section 3 “Implications.”  However, I discovered that I had much more training in this area and it was actually much more fun to read and to comment on.  I hope it will be that way for you.  I’m much more familiar with the vernacular and so I may gloss over technical nomenclature that will be difficult for you.  Hopefully, we will be able to arrive at some consensus of meaning along the way.
Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Eleven


August, 2005

Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Ten

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing

Posted Monday, August 29, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Chapter Ten, of The Privileged Planet is entitled, “A Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Discovery.” 

I suppose one need not be addicted to the SciFi channel to wonder what it would be like to do the “time travel” thing.  We have probably all said, “I’d have liked to be a bug on the wall when . . . ”  or something similar.  We would like to go back and see how things happened because, well, all history is somewhat “revisionist”: selective observation, selective interpretation, selective evaluation, selective synthesis. . . .  We would like to see it for ourselves.  Following on the character Q from Star Trek, Gonzalez and Richards follow an allegory of beings on the Q continuum as they go back “to the beginning” and observe how things were put in motion that allowed, if not dictated, how things would appear as we observe them today (pp. 195-6).  Q takes us back and shows us a machine that set everything in motion in the Universe.  It has calibrations for such things as: Mass Density, Age of the Universe, expansion Rate of the Universe, Speed of Light, Weak Nuclear Force, strong Nuclear Force, Proton to Electron Mass ratio, Gravitation Force, Cosmological Constant, and Electromagnetic Force.  The question arises then, how precisely do these items on the machine have to be set?  Q and his compadres have not found any setting but the one presently on the machine – that will not exterminate life in the Universe!

If true, this could be a rather startling discovery.  Far from accidental bizarre randomness, the authors will maintain: “the universe, as described by its physical laws and constants seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.”  Remember, though, this will contrast rather shrilly with the notion promulgated by the authors that our set of illustrations for the existence of complex life is rapidly reducing to a group of one – us, here, now.
Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Ten



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Nine

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing

Posted Monday, August 22, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Chapter Nine, of The Privileged Planet is entitled “Our Place in Cosmic Time.”  Regrettably, I think this chapter will prove to be the weakest link in the chain.  It will, most probably, not be regarded as being “wrong” as much as being weak.  In a book wherein I have groused repeatedly about the copious and somewhat tedious end-noting, this chapter is rather annotatively Spartan.  Several things are taken for granted that might otherwise be necessary in a discussion at this level.  Primarily, the lack of documentation and/or explanation regarding Cepheid variables is glaring.  I want to know why these are considered “standard candles” against which to measure distance and redshift.

My theory, without researching it is as follows: using the parallax method (trigonometry using our position at opposite sides of the year, therefore knowing a side and two angles) we have arrived at a reasonably certain distance for some Cepheid variable or other.  We have determined that their periodicity (the “variable” part) is related to how bright they appear to us at that distance (a.k.a. magnitude) and then we establish what an absolute value would be to their brightness (luminosity).  Because we have studied redshifting, we are pretty sure of how much light shifts to the red side of the spectrum at whatever increasing distance.  Hence, when we deduce luminosity from periodicity (the constant) and calibrate the amount of redshift, we can slingshot out into deep space and arrive at some rather remarkable approximations at great astronomical distance.

Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Nine



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Eight

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Monday, August 15, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Chapter 8 of The Privileged Planet is entitled "Our Galactic Habitat."  As you might guess this is at once one of the most fascinating chapters (well, it is to me, anyway) and at the same time one of the most challenging in terms of the science, theory and mathematics.  It seemed necessary for me to read each section four times just to make certain I knew what the authors were trying to tell me.  Part of it, again, had to do with the incredible number of and depth of end notes.  

 

Several of these will be brought forward for comment in the paragraphs to follow.  Be warned, there are two things you will feel from reading this chapter (or its review): you will begin to feel infinitesimally small but at the same time, you may begin to feel incredibly fortunate.

Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Eight



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Seven

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Monday, August 08, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 1
Show Introduction

Chapter 7 of The Privileged Planet is entitled “Star Probes.”  Much of it has to do with how spectrographic research revolutionized astronomy and astrophysics.  We might recall of the place in the Lion King when Timon and Pumba are discussing the stars in the heavens and Pumba comes up with the notion that they are just fiery balls of gas.  Timon dismisses that as absurd.  Of course, in this instance Pumba (“weak minded” in Swahili) was right . . . but there is much more that can be said and spectrography is what has said it.

 

We are reminded that the ancients viewed them as something of a pictorial representation of the gods and mythological heroes.  Then the authors contrast that with the stark description of God’s creation of the heavens as recorded in the Bible (p. 119).  We are told by such Positivists as August Comte that “. . . the temperatures and compositions of stars would lie forever beyond the ken of science”  After all, “Why would the universe be constructed so that we could acquire such knowledge just as reliably as we do with objects we can hold in our hands?” (p. 120).  Positivism: wrong again. . . . 

Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Seven



Gonzolez and Richards Chapter Six

Posted Monday, August 01, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 1
Show Introduction

I hope you get up every morning and ask yourself: “Why do I do what I do?” Without taking yourself too seriously, do you take what you do very seriously? Hopefully, you are one of those who does all that he or she does for God’s glory . . . under His watchful eye, as it were . . . to be noticed by Him. Once upon a time, my pastor boasted that his was the best job in the world. My first thought? Not by half: I’ve got hundreds of my students and former students out there thinking live and very relevant thoughts in front of tens of thousands of people several times a week. It is a privilege, an honor and an awesome responsibility simply to teach something as common as biblical literature. That is my job; that is what I do; that is what I am. But, there is a humility that comes with it: some students can completely derail a lecture, a text, a tradition, with a well articulated question or comment. Any of us with any integrity and intellectual acumen will retreat to our offices and regroup and rethink our positions. Unlike many of my instructors that would never give a student credit for sentience much less an idea, I always try to footnote my ideas with the brilliant – or lucky! – student that happened upon “the right answer.” None of us thinks in vacuum. Every now and again, we all have to come out and make a public pronouncement after which there may be public or private comments or questions. Thinking is a process and nobody has a corner on the market.

Read more of Gonzolez and Richards Chapter Six


July, 2005

Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Five

Posted Monday, July 25, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

A couple of postings ago, I got a bit tart with respect to an article in Astronomy magazine.  Some of the thought – which author Adam Frank judiciously distanced himself from! – was lampoonable.  And so, through world class humorist, Terry Pratchett, I wish further to lampoon:

 

It is now known to science that there are many more dimensions than the classical four. 

Scientists say that these don’t normally impinge on the world because the extra

dimensions are very small and curve in on themselves, and that since reality is fractal

most of it is tucked inside itself.  This means either that the universe is more full of

wonders than we can hope to understand or, more probably, that scientists make things up

as they go along.

 

But the multiverse is full of little dimensionettes, playstreets of creation where creatures

of the imagination can romp without being knocked down by serious actuality. 

Sometimes, as they drift through the holes in reality the impinge back on this universe,

when they give rise to myths, legends and charges of being Drunk and Disorderly.[1] 



[1] Terry Pratchett, Pyramids (New York: HarperTorch, 1989), 263. 

Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Five



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Four

Posted Monday, July 18, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004).  

 

Greetings again Cosmophiles!  Once upon a time, back in the fall of 1996, I had some special international training in BakersfieldCA.  I was with Campus Crusade and I was headed to Nairobi to teach seminary.  I guess Crusade thought that Bakersfield was as close to another planet as they were going to find and so we were trained “cross-culturally” there.  In any case and as it turned out, one of my compadres there had a friend who had recently become a disciple of Hugh Ross.  According to a publication of the American Scientific Affiliation, Hugh Ross is an Astronomer.  This young man to whom I was introduced was a convert from the Recent Earth Creationist position.  His mother, I was told, was the librarian of a geological archive there in Bakersfield and I had to listen to structural inference arguments for a while.  When I didn’t just roll over and play dead, I was handed “Tape Six” of a Hugh Ross lectureship and asked to convert to the religion.  I did not.  The reason was because of what I’ve frequently said in these articles: often, having a Ph.D. in a “scientific” field usually entails the permanent amnesia of that for which the “Ph.” stands.  Unfortunately, Hugh-I-refuse-to-think-outside-the-box-because-it might-embarrass-me-in-the-academe-Ross is no exception.  This has been pointed out rather acutely by William Lane Craig in the area of Christology/Soteriology and multiple dimensions (JETS 42/2 [June 1999]: 293-304).  Nevertheless, Craig cuts him the following slack: “He has vigorously defended scientifically the cosmological and teleological arguments for a Creator and Designer of the universe and has championed progressive creationism over against naturalistic accounts of biological evolution on the one hand and so-called “young earth” creationism on the other” (p. 293).  And the slack hangs him.  I hate to say it but he has not “defended scientifically the cosmological and teleological arguments” because those do not subject themselves to what Craig elsewhere calls “verificationist epistemology” required in the reliability and validity of empirical research – they are philosophical arguments . . . in fact, all arguments are philosophical.
Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Four



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Three

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Monday, July 11, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    None
Show Introduction

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004).

 

This week’s jolly adventure into epistemic na-na-world includes a prelude from the current issue (August [!] 2005) of Astronomy magazine.  Here’s a teaser quote from Adam Frank’s “Seeing the Dawn of Time”: “EARTH EXISTS only because the physical laws in our universe are just right.  That’s a natural result of the multiverse, from which countless pocket universes bubble off from the whole” (p. 38; emphasis, the editors of Astronomy).  Yow!  If there was ever more of a motley juxtaposition of randomness and determinacy in print, I’d like to see it.  (Oh, I already have; but you will have to wait until I get to G & R’s handling of the hijacked Copernican Principle, chapter 11).  One of the headings of the article even presumes the alleged principle of mediocrity: “Our mediocre universe.”  I wonder how it will be when all the math washes out and we find new ways to observe particles that apparently disappear into others of the “multiverse” and we discover that the present universe in 4, 5, or 6 dimensions is all that there is.  Remember that there were a lot of good mathematicians that had the hammer of good math shattered on the anvil of physics.  One might think of Einstein’s defense of the static and eternal universe:

 

In an historical instance of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity had already predicted that the universe was either  expanding or contracting.  Unfortunately, Einstein found the notion so distasteful that he      had introduced a “fudge factor,” a variable called a cosmological constant, theoretically retrofitted to keep the universe in steady, eternal equilibrium.  But upon learning of  Hubble’s discovery, Einstein made a widely publicized trip to California to see Hubble’s data for himself.  As a result of Hubble’s discoveries, and the works of Georges Edouard Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist who had studied under Arthur Eddington, and Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann – whose solutions to Einstein’s theory implied an expanding universe – he repented of his cosmological constant, famously calling it the “greatest blunder” or his career (G & R p. 171; see also Stephen Hawking
The Universe in a Nutshell [New York: Bantam, 2001], pp. 21, 49, 96-97.)

 

One thing that you rarely get in popular level articles is that not everybody agrees on the theories that are trotted out ex-cathedra style by the peoples’ pontiffs of physics.  In defense of Frank, he does leave the doctrine at the level of theory and states plainly that some of the more eccentric assumptions and conclusions are hotly debated.  But in everything from string-theory, to n universes, you get nothing like the monolithic presentations force-fed my high-school kids.  Anyway, lest I be accused of wasting your time, read the article yourself.  The history lesson for the study of cosmology over the last 30 years or so is worth the price of the subscription.  The major problem with the article is that it does not tell you why the three problems (causality problem, flatness problem, magnetic monopole problem) are real problems to inflation theory or Big Bang Cosmology in the first place. 

 

Perhaps in an effort to distance himself from the craziness of the positions, the author of the article quotes Mario Livio: “Inflation naturally produces a multiverse.”  To which I ask, why?  No answer is forthcoming.  “If you believe in some form of inflation, then it is almost inevitable that some form of eternal inflation will occur.”  “Almost inevitable” is not good enough.  You said that it naturally produces a multiverse and now you say that it is “almost inevitable.”  The math must not be very good and the observations nonexistent.  Yep: “The different universes would not be causally connected. . . .”  Frank, now:  “No signals from one pocket universe could ever reach another.  That means there is no way to study them.”  How convenient!  Non-falsifiable!  The multiverse exists because I say so!  I am a “scientist” and can therefore say any crazy thing I want and not be wrong.  Oh, and by the way, that also means that you cannot short change me in government grants.  Along with my omniscience, that would, after all, impinge upon my omnipotence.  It is too bad whenever there is the request for an accountability in respect to their eccentricities, the cretins who would dare question the validity or value of the theoreticians’ product are branded right-wing fundamentalist wackos.  Academicians have insulated themselves, with their inflated salaries, in the tiny bastion of the academe.  Like supreme court justices, they are virtually unimpeachable.  Also like supreme court justices, we question the validity of their opinions.  The beauty of the religion of scientism is that most every assumption they rest on and many of the conclusions they reach for fall to the fallacy of non-falsifiability.  Isn’t it fascinating that this is exactly the same charge they level at theists?  Overall, if you find the article compelling, at least no one will ever fault you for your lack of creative imagination. . . .  But if you’re into the multiverse, I would rather recommend “The Chronicles of Riddick.”  Meanwhile back in the real universe. . . .
Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Three



Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Two

Assumptions and implications are not the same thing.

Posted Wednesday, July 06, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 1
Show Introduction

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004).

One of the fun things about writing is that that cat is out of the bag.  No matter what you say you will find yourself in quarantine.  Were I to categorically claim that I was a recent earth creationist (CRI type), I would find myself alienated from the Intelligent Design folks and ostracized by the “Naturalists.”  That is really too bad, wouldn’t you say?  Having lost every argument, people resort to epithets and ostracism.  The word of post-modernism is quite simply: “Whatever. . . .”  Whatever, if you are not interested in my evaluations don’t read them; if you think I’m stupid, believe me, that is a favor I can return. . . .  Last week (6/22/05), I read a piece by Burt Prelutsky wherein it might be concluded that he believed that “Creationists” as he calls them are knuckle dragging troglodytes.  Fine, my gorgeous wife has two science degrees, a career in a bio-medical field, acceptance to an advanced degree program and a 160 I.Q.  She is a Creationist . . . an articulate creationist.  I have two Masters and a Doctor of Philosophy degree.  Whereas I do not have my wife’s IQ, I have had to deal with the issues all day every day for the last 30 years because I was in preparation for and now teach in the field of Old Testament studies.  On contract days, like my wife, I am a creationist.  Other days I wonder if maybe the ID folks don’t have something to bring to the party and everyday I listen to the secularists and glean what I can that is not so theory laden as to be useless.  Regardless, and unlike many “science” Ph.D.’s I have not forgotten what the Ph. in the D. stands for: we are all, first and foremost, philosophers – we can be good ones or bad ones.  My sense of the history of science is that most of the secularist theoreticians have forgotten that presuppositions and rational argument count.  These are tragic mistakes that I do not wish to replicate.  Therefore I evaluate friends and foes alike to ferret out stuff that is usable and stuff that needs to be fixed or discarded.

Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Chapter Two


June, 2005

Gonzalez and Richards Intro and Chapter One

Posted Monday, June 27, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 2
Show Introduction

Book(s) Review: Dan Brown, Deception Point (New York: Pocket Books, 2001); Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004). 

 

One of the more surrealistic reading experiences you might engage in is to read Dan Brown’s Deception Point and Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards’ The Privileged Planet at the same time.  In the Brown novel, the theory is that, since we cannot, find intelligent life anywhere in the universe (presumably including Earth) a meteorite crashes into earth comprised of sedimentary rock and a colony of – get this – giant fossilized lice.  Bang your head on the desk a couple of times, take a deep breath and warp yourself into another universe wherein we evolved from the primordial slime and Earth was seeded by aliens and – like angels and Demons or The Da Vinci Code – you can just hang on for a Dan Brown kind of ride.  Just ignore the traditional factoid page that always gets Brown into trouble with people who think.  Because it is a novel, I will let you take the rest of the thrill ride without me. 

 

Conversely, Gonzalez and Richards have a riveting introduction to their work, subtitled: “How our place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery.”  After reading a review in Astronomy magazine wherein the book was panned, I went on-line to try and find out what the problem was – the reviewer left me clueless!  I discovered that it is in the genre of “Intelligent Design” and the pseudo-intelligentsia, in its relentless attempt to stifle thinking people, simply lampoons rather than engages.  After firing off a letter to the editor of Astronomy in which I trashed the review and pointed out the lack of credentials of the reviewer, I went right out and bought the book.  I have not been disappointed!

Read more of Gonzalez and Richards Intro and Chapter One



Book Review, Review Rhetoric Criticism of “Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?”

Posted Thursday, June 23, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 3
Show Introduction

Book Review, Review

Rhetoric Criticism of

“Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?”[1]

Reviewer Amy Coombs as seen through the eyes of G. D. Vreeland.

 

I read a review of The Privileged Planet written by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards,[2] and reviewed by Ms. Amy Coombs.  There was so little content to the review that I had to read between the lines to find out what was wrong with the reviewer and right with the book.  Part of it had to do with the pedigree and part of it had to do with the way she panned the book.  Actually, because of the way the book was trashed, I think I will buy the book and read it.  But in the mean time, let us take a look at some red flags she throws up in the attempt to make us believe that the book is not worth the print. 



[1] Amy Coombs, Astronomy (December 2004), 32:12, 104.

[2] Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, 2004.

Read more of Book Review, Review Rhetoric Criticism of “Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?”



Letter To Astronomy

Posted Thursday, June 23, 2005 by Gerald Vreeland
Categories:    Comments: 1
Show Introduction

Dear friend,

Greetings from CommencementBay on Puget Sound!  I am a grump, I know; but I really feel that Amy Coombs' review of "The Privileged Planet" did a certain disservice to a small, but statistically significant portion of your readership as well as the authors.  In the first place she insulted the authors by not noting their credentials.  Secondly, I had to go on line and read other reviews to find out what it was that irritated her so much.  Aha!  They are writing in the genre of "Intelligent Design” and we do not like that – NPR folks certainly wouldn’t!  She indicts them for not “analyzing research,” dwelling on “philosophical statements by Carl Sagan” and not focusing on “peer-reviewed studies.”  Wow!  What a dis on Gonzalez!  He has over 60 “peer-reviewed” publications.  Like it or not, Sagan is our philosophical grandfather and he should be debated.  Who better than someone trained in Modal Logic and Philosophy of Science? 

Read more of Letter To Astronomy