Happy Yule

Season's greetings to you and your family.

I am simply posting an interesting find my father told me about. It appears there is a YouTube for scientists. It is an effort by the NSF, PLoS, and SDSC called SciVee.tv. Check it out; I'm particularly fond of the magic cup demo and the mu-meson experiment on time dilation.

Quantum Gradnamics

Jorge Cham has a very good wit to him. I have enjoyed reading Piled Higher & Deeper comics since my freshmen year. His Quantum Gradnamics series is perhaps one of the funniest series he has yet, in my opinion.

Egg on Netflix's face?

The arXives blog has an interesting post. It seems a group of bored computer scientists have managed to de-anonymize the data set of Netflixes $1 million contest.

I wonder if those bored computer scientists will eventually win the prize. It does put a whole new meaning to the phrase trend setting.

Davies Writes Ridiculous NYT Op-Ed

Society seems to move faster than my ability to comprehend science. As I struggle to understand both the history behind and the solutions to the N-representability problem (eg. utilizing an electron pair representation of the electronic energies to solve many-electron problems) as coined by Professor John Coleman, society seems more than able to confound itself in basic principles. This is no different with Paul Davies, who as a notable popularizer of physics and a college professor, ought to know better than to cultivate confusion in the general populace over what physics says, physics implies, and what physics does not do for either at the moment.

All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

Complete nonsense. When a physicist smacks a molecule with a femtosecond pulse, s/he certainly expects a certain result based on hypotheses rooted in conjecture formulated from prior observations. But our expectancies are not allows the result. Consider the Franck-Condon principle. The FCP is an elegant mathematical model of expected vibronic transitions, yet in photoinonic studies the FCP breaks down at energies in large excess of the energy of a chemical bond. This is due to the effects of Cooper minima on molecular vibrations (an effect of the change in sign of the dipole matrix element versus photon energy). The breakdown of FCP required experimental evidence to indicate the presence in photoionic spectroscopy, and the explanation later came from the mathematical model and how this model does not interfere with the previously established model.

Though physics is not a reduced form of phenomenology, it ultimately requires some phenomena to map mathematically. Certainly a desire of several mathematical physicists is to be able to start from various basic mathematical axioms and derive the entire universe. However, their derivations ignore the history of science which built such principles on established knowledge rather than prior dispositions.

A classic relic from the history of science is the birth of quantum physics during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As physicists discovered the electronic freedoms of hydrogen and other gaseous elements, they found themselves in a quagmire. Classical physics simply failed to account for the electronic freedoms of atoms and molecules. However, classical physics gave a certain mathematical tool set that was able to be adapted and fitted into solving the problems faced by the turn-of-the-century physicists.

Planck utilized his knowledge of oscillators to give a mathematical derivation of the black body spectrum. Einstein used his knowledge of colliding particles to initially describe the photoelectric effect of metals. Bohr incorporated the discretized energies of gas spectrum and Rutherford's planetary model of electronic orbits and fashioned his quantized model that forced electrons into energy orbits and defied the Larmor formula which dictated that accelerating (and thus, orbiting) electrons emit E&M waves.

Sometimes...no, I would say all the time, science is dictated by what is observed and not by what is expected. Scientific knowledge is highly provisional, and we cannot create discrepancies with science due to this provisional limitation. But provisional knowledge is not what the general populace desires, and the acceptance of non-concrete answers to certain questions often invoke confusion and anti-science in audiences. So I can empathize with the scientific popularizer in the difficulties of addressing science to a general audience.

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

I have never been instructed as such. I have always been told that the laws and theories came from observational evidence. As a student I have even tested the various classical laws and theories that are simply time-tested (eg. electron diffraction indicating the wave-like nature of electrons and photoionization indicating the particle-like nature of electrons). I have always been told that these laws are provisional. They could potentially change tomorrow; however, the likelihood is slim. And if they do change, there is a discoverable mechanism that shows how it changed.

Note I did not say why. Personally, I think why questions are unnecessary in science and cannot be answered as precisely and accurately as how questions. Ultimately this leads into a rhetorical battle of words, but this essentially rooted in the previous provisional knowledge of science. Scientific knowledge is rooted in operational language. This is due to two reasons: (1) the heavy reliance of observational data and (2) the heavy reliance of concise definitions. More on this later.

If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life would almost certainly not exist.

Poppycock. I doubt it has been determined that simply changing the permittivity of space would disallow the formation of molecules that look very much like the metabolic process we observe in organisms. Since that is the defining feature of life-- metabolism-- I think it is a bit rash to conclude that only this set of universal constants are necessary for the universe to produce through time intelligent observers.

This is why I like PZ Meyers' summary of the anthropic principle: "[a] tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism." I wish I was a mastery of words like this biologist.

(Note: Peter Woit seems to blame Davies' hang-up on the anthropic principle and multiverses on string theory. I agree. String Theory gets too much hype from pop science authors where there is little experimental linking. But that's a digression.)

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Now we come to the culminating end, and Davies' defeat at supporting his argument. As John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts points out, Davies suffers from two gross fallacies: an enthymeme and a fallacy of reification. Davies takes the universe and assigns it as having the certain property of possessing laws.

I promised to return to the operational description of scientific knowledge and where it was going in this conversation. Wilkins has allowed me to springboard into this discussion. There is a difference between words and the world. As humans, we often believe our words are the world. But they are not. They are our attempts to describe the world through our words. Mathematics is elegant and much of our understanding of the world can be expressed in such elegant terms, but mathematics is not the world. Mathematics is the language, and physics is the study. The laws do not necessarily exist beyond our observations and use of them. The universe simply is, and though that is such profound statement to many, often inciting displeasure and discontent amongst the populace, it creates none where it is understood.

Note: The Edge seems to be gathering a list of responses.

Letters about NOVA:"Judgment Day"

NOVA (viz. PBS) recently aired a wonderful documentary on the Kitzmiller case. Being someone who has followed closely the entire intelligent design movement, the documentary did not really expand much of my knowledge. However, I found it to be a concise representation of the events surrounding the trial and the occurrences within the court room. I highly recommend it to anyone who desires to know more about the so-named Dover trial.

What I find more interesting, however, are the responses to the NOVA film. I figured that there would be both positive and negative feedback on the documentary, but the level of inanity expressed by the responders was unexpected. PBS Ombudsman has displayed several of the responses from viewers. I recommend reading all of them to create a clearer picture of the necessity of adequate science education in public schools. I have chosen a few that I find necessary to address.

Then, there's the immoral implication of evolution. "Survival of the fittest" follows from evolutionary theory. Evolutionists, to be logical and true to their faith (it takes faith to believe in it since there is no clear, unimpeachable physical evidence for macro-evolution) should see nothing wrong with what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., did in the genocides of millions of people. Since the exterminated ones were "weak," in terms of evolutionary faith, evolution proponents should all just shrug off these murders as being inconsequential (which is how the ones responsible for the murders saw them). But most don't, and the reason is we know those were atrocities. We know to murder another human being is wrong. And we know this because we have consciences given to us by our Creator.

I disagree. Why would "evolutionists" be forced to believe that those who lost their life to socially powerful dictators be considered "weak" and their death ultimately necessary or predictable? Also, I doubt the dictators considered the killings inconsequential considering each murder had a specific agenda or goal to acquire. Yes, oddly enough, though somewhat twisted in certain instances, the mass murders had a certain directive to achieve according to the ones who committed such atrocities.

My question to this viewer would be how does evolution require me to allow such actions to occur? I am not one who thinks dictators are deservedly powerful, and their means are often self-destructive to them as well as destructive to the society. Ultimately, why must I agree with the dictator due to me recognizing evolution as a reality?

And do I not murder because Providence forbids murder, or do I not murder because I recognize the humanity within other individuals? I choose the latter. One could argue that the Divine allowed me to recognize such humanity, but that is really on equal footing with my reasoning acquiring such a position independent of such divine revelation. That is, we simply do not know, and I have no reason to provisionally accept the position of divine revelation when other concepts derived from human reasoning cannot be explained by divine revelation.

The recent Nova special on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution was one of the most blatantly biased pieces of so-called "journalism" or scientific documentary. It was extremely insulting to the idea of Design. The whole tone of it was very sarcastic against Intelligent Design and completely victimized evolutionary thought by the evil villains of religious ignoramuses. It gave precious little air time to ID scientists who have plenty of legitimate research, but gave plenty of time towards evolutionary research. This was especially evident during the reenactment of the trial, when all evolutionary thought was propagated without rebuttal. However, the design theory was constantly interrupted with instances of anti-design narrative and arguments from outside the dramatization.

I invite this reader to read up on the details of the case. They will find (as the documentary does point out) that the prominent figureheads of the ID movement (1) had removed themselves off the defense witness list during the trial and (2) refused to hold an interview with NOVA unless unprecedented guidelines were imposed. Secondly, the evolution research discussed was that which appeared in the trial, or that which occurred during the trial (such as the fossil find Tiktaalik).

Intelligent Design is not religion. The end of the lesson does not offer any path to eternal salvation, claim that we are spiritual beings, or delve into supernatural phenomena; it merely states a theory of the origin of humankind that people in any arena should not be afraid to discuss. If public schools are assuming the responsibility of telling students to tolerate alternative lifestyles (which really has no place in the atmosphere of academia), then they should certainly open up the dialogue of alternative theories of evolution.

A religion does not need to address humanity as spiritual beings or address life after death. Though those are the qualities most modern religions have, a religion is simply anything which deals with non-natural phenomena. Despite your claim to the contrary, ID requires a discussion of non-natural entities, notions beyond the scope of testability and measurement themselves, or else such mechanisms are neither intelligent nor design based on the definitions provided by ID. Thus, if nothing else, ID is religion. And to state that ID is on even an equal plane concerning evidential claims is rather laughable.

As to the program's claims regarding Intelligent Design being taught in the public classroom as a violation against the First Amendment — it was completely out of line. The First Amendment says nothing of the "separation of Church and State." It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBIT the free exercise thereof." It protects religion from being persecuted by the State, not the other way around. If anything, the Constitutional First Amendment protects Intelligent Design being taught in school, and anything less is a violation of said Amendment.

The viewer missed the first clause, also called the Establishment clause, which prevents the government from mandating the instruction of religious thought. Ergo, a separation of church and state. And the second clause (the Free Exercise clause) does not extend into a public school setting. That is, it is true that the student can believe if humans emerged from a sea of Pepsi Cola and the student may not be jailed, fined, or censored for such thoughts. However, the clause does not protect the school's ability to teach the Pepsi Cola origins story since the school is effectively the government.

And the theory of evolution has been left wanting in lieu of proven concepts of science such as the Anthropic Principle (design and purpose in the universe), and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (everything unravels into chaos without an outside source of energy to bring order and purpose).

The anthropic principle only accounts for the existence of observers in a universe and our relation to making observations in such a universe. It is more of an application of science to philosophy of mind more so than an actual advent of scientific inquiry. This viewer's definition of the second law of thermodynamics is a bit off the beaten path. The second law is only concerned with the transfer of heat from one body to another. In an isolated system, heat transfers from the hotter body to the colder body. It requires work on the system to transfer heat from the colder body to the warmer body, and this application of work makes the system no longer an isolated system.

The Sun supplies energy and thus work onto the surface of the Earth. Thus, the Earth is not an isolated system (if we were, there would be no need of wind as temperature gradients would not exist across the surface). Also, concerning entropy and biochemical reactions, I think I recall a lecture on the mechanisms involved in DNA replication. Effectively, the reactions follow normal thermodynamic expectancies, and the side-reactions which give rise to genetic mutation also follow normal thermodynamic expectations. The unmutated DNA (aka "product") is more favorable; however, nature is quirky in that simply because one product is more favorable does not mean it is the only product produced. This is a consequence of the statistical nature of chemical reactions occurring at a given temperature. So, effectively, if I recall correctly from the lecture, the biochemical mechanism which gives rise to mutations in DNA replication is, ironically, thermodynamically sound (But, I will look into this further at a later date, and feel free to correct me in my comments).

Isn't it interesting, when evolutionists speak of ORIGINS they go into a long winded explanation of life on earth and how things operate and function, yet never tell you the source or offer a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THEIR TRUE ORIGIN. And according to their own definition of the word science, it's only that which can be TESTED AND MEASURED THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS VALID. You may be able to test, examine and explain many things, yet if you cannot put the ORIGIN OF THE MATERIALS to the same LITMUS TEST OF EXAMINATION AND MEASUREMENT, then your position is just another theory or religion as well. THEREFORE, LOGICALLY, Biological Evolutionists are forced to do one of two things, they are forced to acknowledge and accept that their position ULTIMATELY cannot be tested according to their own DEFINITIONS AND CANNOT STRICTLY BE CLASSIFIED AS SCIENCE. Or, they are forced to accept as VALID, theories that use the same logical reasoning processes like that of Intelligent design TO OBSERVE WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY DESIGN IN NATURE.

The hypotheses concerning the origin of the starting organic materials necessary for organic life are, indeed, simply hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses are rooted in experimental studies, however. For example, it is not an absurd notion that inorganic materials, such as methane, carbon dioxide, water, and ammonia, can give rise to certain amino acids. Similar results have been shown with other simpler organic materials, and it has been shown that certain clays can catalyze various pertinent organic reactions to abiogenesis studies. But it is the humble scientist who recognizes that such searches would never lead to a definitive scenario concerning the source of beginning organic materials. No, but it gives a provisional concept rooted in experimental evidence, and it is this experimental evidence which makes such scenarios more scientific than creationism via the *poof* mechanism. Secondly, evolution in general applies only to populations that reproduce.

I will never understand an individual who believes that ID is an actual scientific avenue. Only time will tell if it falls by the wayside like other preposterous notions in history or it manages to manhandle itself into school curricula by political and legal persuasion.

What Once Was Few Now Is Many

This blog has cameos at -1:16 and -0:23.

(via Pharyngula)

Much Needed Update

I have been a bit overwhelmed with academics and nearly forgot that I had this blog. But, with the dust settling, I can focus more on my passions and less on my obligations.

I have been perusing the internet for decent tutorials on physical chemistry. I was hoping to find something short and concise and would stress the overall importance after the derivations. Yet, alas, I have not found any to my liking. I might be too picky, however.

I simply desire a good reference on the basics I can point newcomers to so any preliminary/elementary questions can be answered there. For instance, in my current line of work, it would bog me down every time to describe the sign problem with the fermion density matrix in the canonical partition function for the Feynman path integral expression.

However, I guess if one is not pleased with the current selection, one needs to fix the situation themselves. It will be odd sprinkling introductory quantum and the necessary mathematics while commenting on current research, but I guess a challenge is necessary for one to grow.

Chemistry GRE Reflection

I have to admit that the last organic class I had taken as an undergraduate was my freshmen year. Granted, that is still no excuse for not refreshing my memory on the reagents necessary to undergo various reactions (eg. anti hydroxylation of alkenes), but what is done is done.

However, was it me, or did there seem to be more protein chemistry than necessary?

I Found Theoretical Chemistry Blogs!!!

So I did find some theoretical chemistry blogs, and a good handful of them. Once the semester slows down some more, I will begin posting weekly links to interesting posts made by these blogs. Hopefully, it will expand the exposure of these blogs (and mine) and establish a community and network amongst us like-minded bloggers.

My New Blog

I will be in the process of moving over my material to my new blog. It is located here:

Chymico-Physico Elucidations

I'll steal from the first entry the intents and purposes of the blog:

I am a senior in chemistry and physics at Louisiana State University. I am interested in theoretical chemistry, particularly the interface of quantum physics and quantum field theory in chemical systems. I am simply trying to survive my senior year, from taking GREs to writing my senior thesis to fulfilling the last of my requirements to graduate in the spring.

I have owned many different types of blogs, ranging from horribly written poems and fan-fiction to deep philosophical musings on life, liberty, and science. The scope of this new, and henceforth permanent, blog is an outlet for me to discuss the science which truly encompasses and surrounds my interests. So, there will be a lot of discussion on quantum chemistry and other aspects of theoretical chemistry. Hopefully, this will be an exercise to fulfill two goals:

1. Increase my capability to convey science to a generally scientifically literate audience
2. Increase my understanding of the very field I am interested in making a career out of

I am inspired by the many different bloggers at ScienceBlogs. Personally, I know of no such blog concerning theoretical chemistry. However, please tell me if you know of any.

Louisiana and the Future of Science Education May Be At Risk

I am a strong proponent of proper science education. Science is an orchestrated methodological study of the occurences and phenomena experienced by both ourselves and our instruments. It rests in operational language based on empircal backings and theoretical frames with no invocation of a priori intuitions or expectancies.

This is the fabric of science. Yet, there will always exist people who desire, whether with ulterior motives or due to their lack of comprehension, to ruffle the very fabric of the scientific enterprise. Science is used to such ruffling, but sometimes the demagogues in control are too convincing for the ignorant and naive public. Thus, their pseudoscience becomes commonly accepted amongst the non-scientific minded, and accepted into the minds of the laymen as if the mechanics of the pseudoscience was how science operated and function.

Intelligent design creationism (IDC) is the major culprit of the modern era, moreso than persistent quantum physics and relativity deniers and people who still think the caloric is a measurable quantity. It plagues this nation like an annoying flea, hopping from location to location to test the waters of local, state, and federal governments.

Through the decades, creationism has tested itself in the higher courts and utterly failed to present itself as a valid source of instruction. Again and again, its blatant errors being pointed out by not only those who are at the top of their fields of speciality but also by their very students. Even I who have had very little formal training in biochemistry and evolutionary biology can see the errors in those respective fields.

IDC is a mockery not only of the sciences which they attempt to represent in their faux mannerisms, but IDC also makes a mockery of the scientific method in general. By attempting to circumvent the necessary requirement of determining the existence of a designer but instead concentrating on hypotheticals of "designed systems", they fail to meet the requirements of developing a proper operational definition backed with empirical as well as theoretical framework for support. IDC is all presentation with no calculation and no attempt to present itself honestly to an informed audience in the fields tangentially addrsssed by the proponents of IDC.

But why do I bring up IDC? Because the governor-elect of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, has stated that intelligent design is on equal footing with the theory of evolution as a scientific topic to be taught in science class. I fear that the flea infestation is about to begin. Though I do plan on continueing addressing modern research concerning the interface of chemistry and physics, I have a deep commitment to proper science education and the future of my state. Expect more diverging topics in the future.

The Templeton Foundation: Purpose of Universe?

I guess I will have to wait twenty or more years before I could get on the list of "leading scientists and scholars" according to the Templeton Foundation, but I would like to chime in on the "Big Questions". This week's question is: "Does the universe have a purpose?"

The answer is simple, really. The universe does not have a purpose. The universe's only concern is to minimize the potential energy across the entire space time continuum. This is the only concern of the universe, and it is from the mechanics of this minimization which arises localized packets of "energy beings" or "energy peaks" such as ourselves. Our thoughts, feelings, friendships, and knowledge are all due to a localized peak in a vastly minimized energy spectrum.

So, there is no ultimate purpose. We could create a purpose for our packet of energy, but this purpose does not transcend ourselves beyond the scope of our humanity and level of sentient thought. We could create meanings from our biological consequences, but they are no more beyond us than our muscles or epidermis are beyond us. No need to invoke immaterial spirits or sprites and forces unable to be studied under scrutiny when the reality faces us squarely in the face.

The universe could obliterate us in a second without a care. The universe existed before we evolved from Cro-Magnon ancestors, and it will exist after we die, and it will continue to exist even if humanity becomes extinct. It seems rather chauvinistic to think the universe cares about us, and it is really disturbing to see people act like it does.

Just some personal reflections on the "big question". Go design your own purpose in life. It is just as correct as the next guy's purpose.

The Chicago Moron on Dawkins and Militant Atheism

I previously mentioned at the beginning of the semester a trend in student journalism toward folly and doltishness. Within a one-week period, Yale, Ohio, and my school managed to publish outlandish claims. I commented on the Yale article. Now, it is time to address an opinion editorial from the Chicago Maroon, the University of Chicago student newspaper. Just like before, I will address each claim developed in the editorial.

The tradition of atheism is certainly long-standing and stretches back at least as far as Western classical antiquity, but the modern trend of liberal, militantly atheist academics and of “scholars” who declare war on religion—or, more simply, a person’s belief in God—is vicious, disrespectful, and an abuse of the scholarly platform.

Somehow, as an academically inclined individual, I am supposed to believe that I am being viciously disrespectful anytime I remark about the inanity of belief in god? If I am, so be it. I would rather be disrespectful to entities and ideas which I see are socially and ethically unhealthy than become an appeaser to the evils wrought by chronic religiosity.

Dawkins insists that our beliefs should be based on evidence, specifically that which can be tested and definitively proven by the scientific method...What Dawkins fails to realize, though, is that no science, however advanced or “enlightened,” can ever prove the existence of God.

Here is a subtle admission made by Lee. To Lee, knowledge is determined by more than empirical methods. That is nice to know forthright. However, if he had realized he made this admission, he would then realize his entire grief with Dawkins is the discrepancy between their epistemologies. As a self-reported "analytic philosopher", I am a bit surprised he did not realize this.

Dawkins, like other like-minded individuals, demand a high level of empiricism in determining knowledge; that is, Dawkins desires a high-level of precise knowledge. I need to make a distinction between precise knowledge and imprecise knowledge. Imprecise knowledge can be considered any constituent which requires accepted definitions or beliefs as opposed to elements which stem from the scrutiny of empiricism. Language is an imprecise knowledge based on this definition. Words have meanings and associations that have been determined through the course of human history. Essentially, our ancestors bequeathed to us their vocabulary and grammar the same manner in which we will give our vocabulary and grammar to the next generation. These meanings are accepted universally. A cat is a cat because we say it fits our definition of being a cat. Thus, any sense of nomenclature is an imprecise knowledge, meaning we simply use such items as tools to communicate and connect patterns of thought together.

Science is a precise knowledge which, like logic, suffers from the aspect of being corroded by imprecise language. As much as we as scientists try and maintain a certain diction and jargon to separate the imprecision of colloquialisms from ruining our ability to communicate science, it is inevitable that imprecision prevails. hence, the existence of Creationism and the persistent mantra of evolution is just a theory.

But I digress some. It is true that Dawkins requires precise knowledge in making epistemological claims, such as knowing the existence of God. To Dawkins, it is better to know
whether something exists rather than simply believe it exists without any ability to determine whether it exists or not. This segues into Lee's next sentence:

Trying to use the limited perspective of humanity and the simple scientific methods we have at our disposal to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists is a waste of time. The nature of God is found far beyond the reach of even the most advanced scientific instrument.

There is one ultimate premise introduced by Lee here: humanity is limited (the claim concerning the scientific method is an easy corollary). Now, this instigates a question: Is humanity truly limited? Indeed, we are limited by our size and physical capacity; we can not do everything ourselves. However, we can develop tools and methods to achieve an expected end. That is the basic premise of engineering. So, as engineers, are we truly limited? I would argue no. Humanity is not ultimately limited. We are temporally limited, but being temporally limited does not easily translate to being completely or truly limited. Let us look at some case examples.

I am walking through the woods and happen to come upon a banana tree. I see a deliciously ripe banana at the top of the tree, but the tree is twenty feet tall while I am only six feet. What am I to do? I could obtain a ladder to help aide in my advent. Or, I could utilize a mechanical cherry picker to lift me to the top branches. In this example, ladders have been around in various shapes and constructs for centuries. The mechanical lift is relatively new in terms of the history of humanity. Where a ladder suffers from certain construction constraints (mainly stress as the ladder becomes "taller" and has more "lean" on a wall), a mechanical lift can be constructed overcome the shortcomings of the ladder. So where medieval man could only climb so high on a ladder (or build a certain level of stairs), modern man can construct a better mechanical lift. It follows that medieval man was temporally limited to the extent of technologies available to him versus modern man who has modern technologies. In the future, I could possess a fuel-efficient jet-pack to springboard myself to the top branches. Thus, my future self is temporally saturated versus the modern me who is, in comparison to the future me, temporally limited.

This occurs throughout the history of the sciences as well as other disciplines. The Native American civilizations knew nothing about the European civilizations until the Spanish conquistadors arrived. Thus, those Native American civilizations were temporally limited in their knowledge concerning Europe. It was not until the arrival of colonists and exhibitions did the Native Americans become aware of the existence of foreigners and distant lands.

So, where am I getting at with this digression? Simple. Were the Native Americans ultimately limited? No, they learned about the foreigners. Was I ultimately limited in those three different time periods to get the banana? No, I was only limited to the variety of technologies available. But overtime, these limitations decreased. Essentially, things expanded beyond the limits.

This is the pursuit of science: to go beyond the limits of human knowledge to forge new knowledge. And the major driving force of science to develop this new knowledge is, indeed, the scientific method. Empiricism is the copilot of science. To science, our only limitations are the available current knowledge and our ingenuity.

Thus, it amazes me for someone to say bluntly and factually that God is beyond human comprehension. Is it perhaps instead that God is simply currently unable to be comprehended due to a temporal limitation? Or, as Dawkins tends to assert which makes people unhappy, science has indeed breached this temporal limitation and have seen the lack of god everywhere?

Moreover, Dawkins incorrectly applies the sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics.

For instance, instead of using evolution and natural selection as examples of a harsh, Godless reality, he should realize that the complexity, intricacy, and beauty of a living organism further reinforce the reality of the supernatural. It also leads someone with an open heart and mind to the unmistakable conclusion that the cell or molecule under observation had to have been designed before it ever evolved to its current state.

We have three gauche concepts expressed by Lee above: complexity, intricacy, and beauty. How is a cell beautiful? How is a conjugated alkane chain complex? How is the Krebb's Cycle intricate? I would have to know the answers to these specific questions before fully analyzing his argument.

However, as a cursory observation, I would like to see what he means by being designed as opposed to having been evolved. Did God simply insert the Krebb's Cycle into a cell? Did God fashion the cell together mechanically, piece by piece, with his own (magical?) hands? Did humans simply appear out of the sky (or from the dirt, as Genesis implies) instantaneously? What is the mechanism by which God "designed" these things which people claim are "intelligently designed"? Those would be standard questions posed by one who demands empiricism to substantiate truth claims over those who desire other methods.

This is what Dawkins and other ID critics ask in their books and criticisms. If those who see design in nature do not desire to speak in terms of science but instead bury themselves in rhetorical devices and imprecise reflections, than so be it. There are people who demand strictness in knowledge and those who do not. One easily sees where the other lies upon the words they choose to answer the questions in the preceding paragraph.

If he wants some rational arguments for faith, I would encourage Dawkins to read some St. Thomas Aquinas before vomiting up his next accusation against religion.

Interesting. For someone who claimed to have read The God Delusion, Lee must have forgotten that Dawkins devoted an entire chapter to deflating the claims of Thomism.

To give an example of one of Dawkins’s logically flawed arguments, one need look no further than the fourth chapter of The God Delusion. One of his main claims is that because the universe is so enormous and contains so much information and substance, God must also be enormously complex. This complexity predisposes God to extreme improbability. I, along with a host of analytic philosophers, do not understand why this has to be so. Must God be infinitely complex to have designed something more complex than himself? Why does his simplicity prevent him from doing certain things? Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, Handel composed the Messiah, and Gustave Eiffel designed and built the magnificent Eiffel Tower. In each of these cases—and there are countless more—one person produced something so much more intricate than himself that the world still marvels at his ability and vision.

No surprise really that I see a hint of Plantinga in Lee's rhetoric. However, Lee, like Plantinga, nearly straw man Dawkins' intent. Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion concerning the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
   
   
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
   
   
3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
   
   
4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.
   
   
5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
   
   
6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

In short, Dawkins indicates that evolution via natural selection explains observable complexities in biology successfully compared to design theories. Then, Dawkins indicates the triviality of nearly improbable statistics for "finely tuned variable" due to the anthropic principle, thereby illuminating such confusions espoused by design proponents. It follows, then, that Dawkins' argument comprises of only the classic "Who designed the Designer" question. That is, Dawkins reduced the entire design argument into question begging: a designer designed the universe because the designer was un-designed. Or, in more succulent terms, Dawkins discredits the notion that the universe is designed as well as questions the aspect that a God is undesigned.

So, I fail to see where Lee gets his "infinitely complex" verbage from. Dawkins presented an argument questioning if God is necessarily uncaused. Though Lee would say yes, strict scrutiny yields otherwise.

I encourage the theists of this campus to stand up against this type of insidious “academic” persuasion and firmly assert the existence of God.

If I do indeed get accepted and attend University of Chicago for graduate studies, I will gladly be the nuisance of a student who will persistently call anyone out who asserts that the existence of God is true and not a mere opinion. As a "peer" in terms of age, it saddens me that Lee presents the foolish side of those who study science. He is no "peer" by my standards, though, because I have enough sense to back up my own words and not expect a student newspaper to publish my trash.

(Hat tip: Pharyngula)

Freshman Inanity at Yale

Note: This post is copied from my former blog The Natural Skeptic. I reposted it for future reference.

---

This month seems to be the month for poorly written opinion pieces at college newspapers. My school had one concerning same-sex marriage, and Ohio University had blatant racism flash their student newspaper. Now, a freshman at Yale places a foot in his mouth concerning atheism and its "lack" of morality.

He writes:

Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That’s not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.

Atheistic philosophers have, indeed, spent time describing a naturalistic morality. Where has this kid been? Our moral tendency develops as a result of our ability to possess empathy toward others. It is a natural human condition to project oneself into the situations experienced by others, because chances are we have experienced said situation. Our knowledge grew not from revelation or "magic" but by human experiences and human observation. We know stealing requires removing possession of property from one individual to another. We know rape involves sexual penetration and violence. We know the result of murder is the vanquishing of a life. We have experience and knowledge of the results and outcomes of given circumstances.

Morality is nothing more or a less than a reflection of knowledge. It is not a gene, and it is not a a deus ex machina. I find it a bit repugnant to declare that the sole reason beings are moral is due to posthumous judgment by a mythical being who supposedly walked the earth and floated into the sky or any other fancy mythology one can contrive. I act righteously because I have the ability to discern how the other individual desires to be treated. I act according to the law because that is what I accept as being a citizen of the nation. No need to call forth Jesus, Zeus, or any other deity of desire.

Concerning our ability to choose to act rightly or wrongly, the author writes:

C.S. Lewis puts the matter nicely: “If a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, ‘in order to benefit society,’ for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for ‘society’ after all only means ‘other people’), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour.”

You are certainly free to disobey the moral tendency and do wrong and violence on to others. However, with every wrong committed a person exists who desires justice for the wrong. Hence, our morality stems from the social contract, an extension of our human empathy.

The freshmen enters into the famous is-ought paradigm: "naturalistic materialism gives no basis for this ought." Indeed, no such system has a true basis for an ought, and he is blinded to think religion does. The simple existence of a system or parameter does not necessitate the individual to follow said parameter. In the Christian tradition, no one is forced to act morally, that is there is no forced reason to commit oneself to ought statements. It is only inner volition which causes one to follow the oughts prescribed by Christianity, Judaism, or any other flavor of theism imaginable. Why limit the is-ought problem to only naturalism when it equally applies across the board? As stated previously, the individual can fall outside of the bell curve for following the natural moral tendency, but our social order determines the reaction to this individual's actions. Again, the social contract is held.

The author fails to convince the reader that morality is dependent upon God. The onus is on him to demonstrate how theism transverses the is-ought problem of philosophy. I am content with my naturalistic morality and its source, and I am content following the ought parameters established. I have no need to call forth supernatural entities to determine not to kill, to bathe every day, and to conserve energy and materials. Does the author only act morally because he is afraid of the lake of fire? What a prick to act out of fear of the unknowable and unseen and then condemn those who act due to their knowledge of the world and humanity.

The NWF in Greenland

During the summer, a few members of the National Wildlife Federation took a a trip to Greenland to observe firsthand the effects of Global Warming on the region. They have produced YouTube videos of their obersvations and time spent. I have included them below.

Studying for the GRE General Test

I am taking the GRE General Test tomorrow, and I wish I had prepared more for the verbal section. If I could redo everything all over again, these are the changes I would have done.

I would have started early on vocabulary. How early? I am thinking starting a vocabulary building excercise when I was in high school. yes, that would not only have helped me for the SAT, but also build my vocabulary for writing assignments and the GRE General. Now, I am reduced to recognizing key roots in words to guess a general meaning. Though not a bad technique, knowing the actual definition would make the analogies and antonym sections a little less difficult.

I would have started early on building my analytical writing skills. ETS gives out the entire pool of topics for both the issue and the argument sections of the analytical writing section. had I known this before a week ago, I would have started giving preliminary answers to each question to develop an idea of what I would address on test day. Also, this would keep building the necessary skillset to answering each anlytical writing section to satisfaction.

I let the GRE General slip by some. Though rumor has it that the GRE General is not as important as the subject tests are, I seriously doubt any school would admit a graduate student who scored below a 400 on the GRE verbal.

Wish me luck. After the GRE nonsense is all done, I'll post some chemistry topics of interest.

Hello World

I am a senior in chemistry and physics at Louisiana State University. I am interested in theoretical chemistry, particularly the interface of quantum physics and quantum field theory in chemical systems. I am simply trying to survive my senior year, from taking GREs to writing my senior thesis to fulfilling the last of my requirements to graduate in the spring.

I have owned many different types of blogs, ranging from horribly written poems and fan-fiction to deep philosophical musings on life, liberty, and science. The scope of this new, and henceforth permanent, blog is an outlet for me to discuss the science which truly encompasses and surrounds my interests. So, there will be a lot of discussion on quantum chemistry and other aspects of theoretical chemistry. Hopefully, this will be an exercise to fulfill two goals:

1. Increase my capability to convey science to a generally scientifically literate audience
2. Increase my understanding of the very field I am interested in making a career out of

I am inspired by the many different bloggers at ScienceBlogs. Personally, I know of no such blog concerning theoretical chemistry. However, please tell me if you know of any.

I have a Technorati Profile, and this link allows me claim it. So, disregard this.

Retiring This Web Log

I am in the process of retiring this web log. I'm changing my scope to reflect the science I am more passionate about (chemistry) than the science which is the primary target of idiocy (biology). So, I'm reviewing what I have written and the ones I like will be moved with me and the ones I do not will remain until I decide to delete everything.

I'll post the URL to my new blog when I come up with a title.

Announcement: Leave of Absence

The semester is picking up for me, and since this is my senior year I have a lot on my plate. Just to give a general idea, here is my To-Do List:

• Take the General GRE and the Chemistry Subject GRE
• Apply to graduate programs that offer theoritical chemistry
• Survive the classes that keep giving me weekly assignments
• Write a 15-page paper on a modern thermodynamic topic for one of my classes
• Finish the rough-draft for the research I did this past summer
• Begin the rough-draft for the current research
• Begin concentrating on my senior thesis project

Yes, there is quite a bit. I must take a leave for awhile. Perhaps I will see everyone in a couple of weeks. I just hope the world hasn't gone to waste by then.

Peanut Butter Goes Well With Bananas

Peanut butter goes well with bananas, especially when anti-science supporters use both of them to indicate their own stupidity on a subject. First the banana could not have evolved, and now peanut butter is supposedly the new enemy of evolution.



I know plenty of smart engineers. How the hell did Chuck Missler ever get far in life with such low comprehension skills?

I Thought Only the South Published Morons

This month seems to be the month for poorly written opinion pieces at college newspapers. My school had one concerning same-sex marriage, and Ohio University had blatant racism flash their student newspaper. Now, a freshman at Yale places a foot in his mouth concerning atheism and its "lack" of morality.

He writes:

Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That’s not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.

Atheistic philosophers have, indeed, spent time describing a naturalistic morality. Where has this kid been? How moral tendency develops as a result of our ability to possess empathy toward others. It is a natural human condition to project oneself into the situations experienced by others, because chances are we have experienced said situation. Our knowledge grew not from revelation or "magic" but by human experiences and human observation. We know stealing requires removing possession of property from one individual to another. We know rape involves sexual penetration and violence. We know the result of murder is the vanquishing of a life. We have experience and knowledge of the results and outcomes of given circumstances.

Morality is nothing more or a less than a reflection of knowledge. It is not a gene, and it is not a a deus ex machina. I find it a bit repugnant to declare that the sole reason beings are moral is due to posthumous judgment by a mythical being who supposedly walked the earth and floated into the sky or any other fancy mythology one can contrive. I act righteously because I have the ability to discern how the other individual desires to be treated. I act according to the law because that is what I accept as being a citizen of the nation. No need to call forth Jesus, Zeus, or any other deity of desire.

Concerning our ability to choose to act rightly or wrongly, the author writes:

C.S. Lewis puts the matter nicely: “If a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, ‘in order to benefit society,’ for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for ‘society’ after all only means ‘other people’), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour.”

You are certainly free to disobey the moral tendency and do wrong and violence on to others. However, with every wrong committed a person exists who desires justice for the wrong. Hence, our morality stems from the social contract, an extension of our human empathy.

The freshmen enters into the famous is-ought paradigm: "naturalistic materialism gives no basis for this ought." Indeed, no such system has a true basis for an ought, and he is blinded to think religion does. The simple existence of a system or parameter does not necessitate the individual to follow said parameter. In the Christian tradition, no one is forced to act morally, that is there is no forced reason to commit oneself to ought statements. It is only inner volition which causes one to follow the oughts prescribed by Christianity, Judaism, or any other flavor of theism imaginable. Why limit the is-ought problem to only naturalism when it equally applies across the board? As stated previously, the individual can fall outside of the bell curve for following the natural moral tendency, but our social order determines the reaction to this individual's actions. Again, the social contract is held.

The author fails to convince the reader that morality is dependent upon God. The onus is on him to demonstrate how theism transverses the is-ought problem of philosophy. I am content with my naturalistic morality and its source, and I am content following the ought parameters established. I have no need to call forth supernatural entities to determine not to kill, to bathe every day, and to conserve energy and materials. Does the author only act morally because he is afraid of the lake of fire? What a prick to act out of fear of the unknowable and unseen and then condemn those who act due to their knowledge of the world and humanity.

Taking Second John too SRSLY

PZ Myers has an interesting account of locally owned print shops refusing service to an atheist to make an advertising poster for a convention (emphasis original):

Ironic note on the poster of Atheist Symbols for the Atheist Alliance International convention: I went to have it made today, at a local shop which specializes in posters, worked happily with the designer -- and then several hours later got a call to come back and pick my stuff up, no poster. They are Christians and cannot do it. Went to another place, same thing. It was simply a poster with symbols to vote on -- but it was for atheists. And they are Christians. One person helpfully explained that they turned down the KKK too. So sorry. But they're Christians.

Well, I'm an atheist, and I've done work for churches. I can understand not making a donation. But throwing someone out of the print shop? Comparing them with the Ku Klux Klan? Oh. Wait. They're Christians.

Let's hear it for Office Max. They were the only ones who would print it. And deal with an atheist.

Yeesh. I do not take kindly for being considered on the same footing as the Ku Klux Klan, which is a Christian white-supremacy organization.

Sounds like these shop owners and workers are taking the Second Epsitle of John too literally:

Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.

Oh, blessed will be the day when people stop making assumptions that atheists are evil monsters that eat babies and rape dead people.

The Freepers are Angsty at SD Mayor

Heaven-forbid an honest individual makes a stand for human rights and dignity. Pam Spaulding has a collection of comments made by Freepers (Free Republic members) concerning the recent show of support for gay rights by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Note the appeals to religion throughout the comments. I guess people will never fully understand that our laws are based on secular theories, such as social contract, as opposed to sectarian morality?

Since these comments correspond very well to recent events , I find it fitting to add this entry to my web log.

America Needs to Stand Against Heterosexual Chauvinism and Appeals to Sectarian Morality

Note: A recent opinion piece on same-sex marriage ran at my university's newspaper. Needless to say, it generated a lot of discussion. Below was my original response to the negative opinion I submitted to the editor. The newspaper ran a redacted version. I plan on expanding the following with proper citations for the science portion and an overall sense of the issue being constitutional as opposed to moral/familial. This is meant to follow-up the recent colloquial held at my university, though the discussion seemed ad hoc and too last minute to have been of any substance.

---

Denton’s recent opinion piece is a remarkable conversation starter for the new semester. It addresses some key issues concerning the GLBT movement and its impact on sexual education and social mores. However, I have to politely disagree with Denton’s presentation.

Denton writes: “No biological cause has yet been discovered to explain homosexuality”. Though no precise biological cause has been discovered per se, there has been some research done in this field since Simon LeVay’s 1991 discovery in gay men of undersized neurons in the anterior hypothalamus, the region of the brain involved with sex hormones and sexual response. For instance, in 1993 Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute discovered that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28) at a higher rate than gay men with straight brothers. This study was the origin of the “gay gene”. One also cannot forget the 2005 Swedish study concerning male response to female urine versus male sweat. In gay men and straight women, the hypothalamus responds to the scent of male sweat similarly. In contrast, the hypothalamus of straight men responded to the scent of female urine.

This leads into a discussion on sexual arousal, where yet again the issue becomes murky. Research at Northwestern University indicates that women are sexually aroused by pornographic images independent of the sex and sexual orientation being presented. That is, the women in the study showed brain activity indicative of sexual arousal with images of sex between a male and a female, two females, and two males all independent of sexual orientation. In contrast, gay men showed higher brain activity to images of two males having sex but showed no arousal patterns to the other images, and straight men showed higher arousal toward lesbian sex. So in men, sexual orientation is linked to a physiological response whereas in women sexual orientation is not as easily linked.

But where does this leave us? Though Denton stressed purely genetics, researchers in developmental sciences in general have abandoned such approaches even earlier than the cited Bailey and Pillard study. For instance, consider fetal development in the womb. The sex of the baby is determined by the presence of X and Y chromosomes. However, a male and female zygote is physically indistinguishable until sex hormones activate sections of the genome for gene expression. In fetuses containing XY chromosome, male features develop, and there is no reason this development is limited to anatomical components but extends to the development of the brain of the fetus.

All it takes is a certain stress to the system and even identical twins can develop differently despite possessing the same genetic sequence. This development difference is made more obvious when one compares the weights of the twins relative to one another. One twin will be born heavier than the other, and this weight difference can be more than a pound in some cases. I challenge the reader and Denton to look into twins where one twin possesses childhood gender nonconformity (CGN). CGN has been a phenomenon of interest in child development circles, and research into it will bring new light on understanding the origin of same-sex attraction and sexual orientation.

Science aside, there are other issues addressed in Denton’s article. Certainly if same-sex attraction can be fundamentally shown without a doubt to be from natural causes then the legal battle for equal rights for members of the GLBT community would enter into the very same setting of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Just as a person cannot choose their ethnicity they would not be able to choose their sexual attraction and orientation. Therefore, discriminating based on sexual orientation, a natural attribute of the individual, would go against the principles of the United States Constitution by restricting their natural rights based solely on attributes uncontrollable to the individual.

At this point I cannot help but comment on one aspect of Denton’s statistics. Denton cites a CNN poll that says only 57 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. Did he know that nearly one year after the famous Loving v. Virginia case which struck down anti-miscegenation laws that 72 percent of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage? Did he know that it was not until 1991 that Gallup found more Americans approved of interracial marriage than disapproved? Now, nearly 50 years from that landmark case, it is still a dismal 3 in 4 Americans approve of interracial marriage. Can anyone imagine how life would be different if civil liberties were dictated strictly by the feelings of the majority instead of the philosophy of equal protection and natural rights granted by the Constitution?

I believe this debate goes beyond the science. The United States was founded by men who believed that the government should not mandate mere opinion. This is the rationale for the First Amendment which protects this very newspaper and my letter from being censored based on content alone, which protects the ability of the missionaries to speak in Free Speech Alley, and which protects everyone’s religious convictions and expressions. The government cannot mandate what we think because that is the very definition of tyranny. As well, the government cannot prefer one opinion over another by granting special privileges to some but not all. This, in my opinion, is the very heart of the GLBT rights movement.

In other words, just as the government cannot regulate what religion I choose, the government cannot regulate my sexual orientation. Just as the government cannot give special rights to religious organizations simply due to their religion, the government cannot give special rights to a sexual orientation simply due to their sexual orientation. However, this is exactly what is happening with the issue concerning marriage. Heterosexual couples are given certain privileges unobtainable to same-sex couples via the ability to obtain a marriage license. Certainly, there are bureaucratic means to obtain a number of similar privileges, such as wills to dictate property upon decease or dual adoption measures. However, such pursuits are costly and timely, require the proper documents at all times, and can be challenged in court. However, all of this is simplified with one piece of parchment which is denied based on the sex of the two applicants, and in turn their sexual orientation. How can we as citizens of America founded on the principal of equality sit back and say that this system does not discriminate or grant special privileges based on mere opinion when, by brute fact, it does?

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Farmer Refuted: “Civil liberty, is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society”. These are the words which echo in the Constitution and in the court cases which address restrictions on our civil liberties. The very foundation of our society is our natural rights and the protection of our opinions, not of our cultural institutions as Denton believes. So I am forced to politely disagree with Denton. Gay marriage does not threaten America; however, maintaining preferential treatment to heterosexual couples does threaten the founding principles and makes a mockery of the accomplishments of our founding fathers.

David Vitter: Adulterer AND a Creationist

What is it with sexually deviant Congressmen being sympathetic with Biblical Creationism? David Vitter added an earmark that would give $100,000 to a local group of fuckwits, the Louisiana Family Forum.

We live in an ass-backwards world when genuine science requires competition to get federal funding whereas denialism simply needs a sympathetic dodo in Congress.

San Diego Mayor on Gay Marriage

Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego, CA shows support for gay marriage. His views are similar to mine.

Stumbling Upon Plantinga

At a local bar I conversed with an undergraduate student in philosophy at my university. She was in one of my math classes ages ago and recognized me. We discussed a plethora of topics ranging from current political affairs, the economy, and our personal philosophical outlook.

Like many of the intelligent girls I know or have conversed with it at my school, she was raised Catholic and still considers herself a practicing Catholic. When we got to the point in the conversation about our philosophical positions, she seemed a bit amazed to be conversing with a metaphysical naturalist. To her, naturalism was self-defeating.

I thought this was odd. How is naturalism self-defeating? Certainly the demand of strict empiricism as the test of demarcation of true beliefs from false constructs cannot be proven without a recourse in circularity, but this circularity is characteristic in all epistemological systems (eg. strict rationalism is unable to justify itself independent of its methodology of using reason and deductive arguments, the very composition which makes the method rational). A quality that is exhibited in all systems cannot, in and of itself, be the sole reason to dismiss one system in favor of another unless one desires to adopt global skepticism, a position which (though plausibly true) does not render itself very well in philosophical conversations.

However, this is exactly what she had in mind. As a Catholic and an intelligent young woman, she takes the theory of evolution as a valid representation of reality. However, from the precepts of the theory of evolution under naturalism (ie. unguided processes), she indicates that there is a low probability of obtaining true beliefs. This result comes from the observation that true beliefs and false beliefs can arise naturally and unguided natural selection would not differentiate between the two. So there is a probability that a false belief could arise and maintain itself as a true belief despite it being false. As false beliefs have a greater potential to arise naturally than true beliefs, the probability of a belief being true becomes low. Therefore, the belief that evolution is unguided cannot be determined as true and, under this system, contain a high probability of being false. Thus, under these conditions, naturalism is self-defeating by positioning itself as a strongly possible false belief.

As she was discussing her view, she mentioned it was not original to her. It was a reworking of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. I have heard that Plantinga developed a rationalist argument against naturalism, but to be honest I never read in detail his argument before. Nor have I read his argument in detail upon writing this post. I do have the PDF downloaded and plan on going to the library tomorrow between classes to check out some books that discuss the argument. But if the philosophy undergraduate student portrayed the argument concisely, then I have some preliminary issues with the argumentation form.

As stated previously, the metaphysical naturalist (particularly my flavor) has a greater loyalty to empiricism over rationalism. To be concise, rationalism leads only to an operational description of reality but empirical observations are reality that, indeed, back-up and trump the previous operational descriptors. But, I digress some.

The empiricist seeks facts which play a role in transparent explanations. That is, the empiricist seeks explanatory clarity to grant us a modicum of confidence in our explanations of the world. In essence, our explanations and beliefs must be naturalized to satisfy this level of explanatory clarity and transparency. Our descriptors must also be parsimonious with respect to the given facts and intersubjective conclusions concerning these facts, or else we lose our sense of transparency. Indeed, as the history of science has shown in the fields of chemistry and physics (to name the ones I work with more closely), parsimony gives a resulting theory of reality that describes reality more closely until more data (ie more facts) are collected.

But how did this mode of thinking develop? Of course, this structure developed through evolutionary processes. In essence, whereas the argument stated denies adaptive beliefs, it is the very practice of empiricism which is adaptive. During the course of our evolutionary history we became selected out by our cognitive ability to model the world. Civilization, which relied heavily upon the development of agriculture, developed from the observations of interactions of the natural environment. We developed clothing as a response to migration into temperate zones. Our history is rich with beliefs developed via an empirical model, and it is also rich with ideas rejected due to failure to adhere to empirical observations. How is one able to determine that this is probably false if, indeed, natural selection favored the population that was able to control their environment via pragmatic methods over the population which was subdued by their environment?

Certainly, the metaphysical naturalist could be mistaken. A god could be actualized via the pursuit of science, but then this god would become naturalized, and in doing so become clearly explainable and parsimonious. These are not the characteristics of any of the revealed gods. Though one could posit a sort of god as an initiator, there is no indication that this initiator plays an overtly active role. Those who adhere to empiricism out of pragmatic reasons and the powerful ability for it to explain reality concisely, whether absolutely or close enough for conventional explanations, demand a posited god to be detectable and predictable. These criteria have not been met by the individuals possessing the positive belief in said entity.

As well, we could all be living a conscious fantasy. However, even if this were true, the rationalist is at no better a position than the empiricist, and the theist is at no better a position than the atheist. As both live in the truly-false world, like a brain in the vat, one would be unable to differentiate the true beliefs developed via supra-worldly help (ie religious revelation) from the beliefs developed by worldly methods. Ironically, this is because the supra-worldly method would be forced to intersect with a worldly entity that is affected by the aspect of being in a truly-false world. In essence, this is a more sophisticated version of the argument from conflicting revelations taken under the assumption of the being existing in a truly-false world.

So, in summary, I find the summation of Plantinga's argument lacking. It seems to assume a certain linear fashion of the development of beliefs despite the observation of various evolutionists that belief develop is non-linear. Also, it seems to fail to address adaptive beliefs that the very survival of the species hinges upon. Plantinga attempts to write-off the beauty of unguided natural selection with appeals to pure rationalism. I'll address his arguments in full at a later date, perhaps, but for now my preliminary review seems strong enough for a web log post.

The Truth

Clck here for the truth.

(Really, I just want an iPod)

Larry Craig: Gay AND a Creationist!

Not only is US Sen. Larry Craig the ideal moral fabric of Republicans, but he is a Creationist!

Hypocrisy always seems to go hand-in-hand with denialism.

Mitt Romney and His Unwarranted Claims

Mitt Romney responded to the recent Iowa district court ruling:

The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a politician has absolutely no clue about the historical foundations of this country, let alone a conservative Republican. Such an amendment would be the antithesis to the philosophy of the founding fathers: the individual's ability to procure life and liberty with equal protection under the law. Of course, I doubt Romney or anyone involved in his campaign actually read the opinion. If they had, they would have been shown that (1) there was a failure to support the rationale between state interests and excluding same-sex couples from legally recognized marriage and (2) a moral perspective, even if supported by the voting majority, is not an appreciable justification.

The Constitution was constructed such that government mandated only social and civil duties; morality is explicitly left to the opinion of the individual. This individual's opinion is protected under the first amendment, but the first amendment also prevents the government from acting on mere opinion alone. There must be a rationality between the particulars of a certain mandate and the interests of the state. Laws against gay marriage go directly against this principle. An amendment goes directly against this principle.

The day American politics become subservient to sectarian ideologies is the day America loses sight of her very history and makes a mockery of the men and women who died in the service of protecting and maintaining our Constitution.

Props to Iowa District Courts

While the blogosphere seems to be all in a stir over Larry Craig, a recent decision by an Iowa District Court will probably get similar attention soon. If not, I'll be the first to point out some interesting tidbits in the rather hefty 63-page decision by Judge Robert Hanson.

Introduction and Undisputed Facts
Six same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. Each couple was denied to due gender restrictions of marriage under Iowa law. The Iowa code reads (595.2): "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid". Reading through the harms of not being able to marry, one major complaint centered around the inability to conveniently care for adopted and surrogate children. The lack of a marriage license puts financial and temporal strains into obtaining legally recognized parent-child relationships, if it is even possible for second parent adoption to occur in a given state. Same-sex couples are also legally burdened concerning medical care, requiring health care proxies to verify the legal ability for health care decisions to be made. Health care proxies prove to be a burden in instances of same-sex couples where honored marriage would be sufficient. The other complaints include financial opportunities not available to same-sex couples who upheld every other condition of being legally recognized as married other than gender, such as spousal pension benefits, inheritance, and recognized economic units for joint or communal property purchases.

From reading through the decision, one sees a laundry list of expert testimony for the defense being thrown out: Margaret Somerville, Paul Nathanson, Katherine Young, Allan Carlson, and Steven Rhoad. The reason for being inadmissible: the individuals were either speaking outside of their area of professional expertise, lacked empirical data supporting their arguments, or both. Some of the plaintiff's expert testimony were also removed due to the accounts being anecdotal as opposed to empirical or specialized knowledge.

I find the following from the section titled "Sexual Orientation and Same-Sex Relationships" (p. 28) interesting:

Interventions aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation have not been demonstrated by empirical research to be effective or safe. They are considered ethically suspect and have generated cautionary statements from virtually all of the major mental health professional associations because such interventions can be and have been harmful to the psychological well-being of those who attempt them.

I know of a few websites with anecdotal testimony. One of the more promising ones seem to be Ex-Gay Watch. For those interested in psychology, perhaps a perusal of the journals would entice your curiosity. Another interesting remark concerning social science (p. 30):

Social science literature demonstrates that children who are reared by a married mother and father have more positive outcomes on a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures...However, same-sex couples are not included amongst the "other adequately studied family structures" referred to above.

Likewise, in the next statement, though children in a stable marriage are likely to exceed in academic attainment and possess fewer behavioral problems, the studies made no distinction between same-sex marriage versus opposite-sex marriage. Likewise, several professional organizations have issued statements that the sexual orientation of parents have no effect on a child's adjustment (eg. healthy development). As well, testimony discredited the notion that research on maladjustment of children concerning one-parent families is equivalent to same-sex families. Testimony showed, however, that this research instead supports the
plaintiffs case instead in that the studies indicate that extending legal marriage to same-sex couples would create family ties necessary for healthy child development.

Pages 37 through 39 give a short history of marriage. Marriage evolved in Iowa and elsewhere in America from the woman becoming property of the man to equal rights granted to men and women in legally recognized marriage. The judge also noted "the removal of criminal restrictions on extramarital and non-procreative sexual activities" (p. 39) during the history of the definition of marriage. This is an important consideration, because many anti same-sex marriage advocates consider the procreative role of opposite-sex couples as an attribute of legal marriage. However, modern medical technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, allows surrogate parenthood to be actualized. As well, such an extension to require procreation upon a committed marriage infringes upon the couple's natural right to refrain from concieving children altogether, whether their abstention be due to medical reasons or of mere opinion.

The opinion also outlines the level of discrimination gays in general receive in both the public and private sector in Iowa, most following the lines of social and civil exclusion due to erroneous preconceived notions perpetuated by the anti-gay movements (p. 40-42). Worth particular notice is the legislature's history of preventing and even aiding in the discrimination of gays, including the reactionary language of Chapter 595.2 of the Iowa Code to a court's ruling on a lesbian couple's civil union and a lawsuit against an "executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in State employment" (ibid.).

The plaintiffs sued the then Polk County Recorder and Registrar for violating the "fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Iowa State Constitution" (p. 43). For reference, the Iowa State Constitution reads: "[N]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Article I, Section 9).

Analysis of Plaintiff Claims
According to Judge Hanson, higher courts have determined that the right to marry is a fundamental right (cf. Loving v Virginia), and when a law interferes with this right the law itself is subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This means that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the law indeed achieves the state's interest via narrow tailoring. Though no precedent for same-sex marriage being afforded as a fundamental right exists, Judge Hanson notes an extensive case history from Iowa courts to show that the protection of Due Process rights does not depend the historical aspect of the right. These cases span the topics of race, gender, and sexual orientation concerning individual rights and parental/custodial rights.

Judge Hanson found that the defendant failed to support the rationales for the gender-specific language of 595.2(1) as well as failed to support the rationales as state interests. The defendant claimed the following rationales: promotion of procreation, healthy development of children, promotion of stable opposite sex couples, "conservation of state and private resources", and maintaining the traditional view on marriage (p. 45). The court failed to see how the absolute prohibition of same-sex marriage is closely tied to the interests of the state due to the inability of the defendant to link the rationales with state interests.

Onto a more interesting note. The Iowa Constitution also has Equal Protection rights (aka the Uniform Operation of Laws):

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Again, Judge Hanson determined that the burden of proof rested on the defendant to show that the current statute rests on state interests. Judge Hanson determined that due to the failures previously expressed, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof to show his five rationales as state interests. To use Judge Hanson's words (p. 48-9):

The Defendant produced no evidence indicating that precluding men from marrying other men and women from marrying other women will promote procreation, will encourage child rearing by mothers and fathers, will promote stability for opposite sex marriages, will conserve resources or will promote heterosexual marriage.

Rational Analysis to Determine Constitutionality
Judge Hanson also ran the gender-specific statute through a rational basis rational. That is, a statute is considered constitutional if and only if it serves a legitimate interest of the state and the means to employ the statute reflects a rational relationship to the interest of the state. Judge Hanson points to Supreme Court case law (cf. Lawrence v. Texas and Callendar v. Skiles) that indicates that moral disapproval is an insufficient justification for state interest. Therefore, the fifth rationale concerning the traditional view of marriage failed as a state interest.

Judge Hanson grouped the first three rationales together under the term "responsible procreation". Judge Hanson stresses that the defendant failed to indicate how same-sex parents cannot provide responsible procreation, specifically in the venue of child development, and in fact the Court indicates that the defendant agrees that same-sex couples give proper adjustment to children under their care. The judge also cites a list of case law that shows the courts refusal "to limit or restrict parents' custody or visitation rights or obligations based upon their sexual orientation". Judge Hanson thusly determined that the current statute actually excludes qualified individuals from marrying if the goal of marriage was responsible procreation. Thus, the statute is over-exclusive in its wording.

Simultaneously, the statute is under-inclusive. As stated previously by my commentary and in the opinion, there is no distinction between opposite-sex couples who either cannot physically
reproduce or possess an opinion contra developing a family and same-sex couples. If procreation was indeed a state interest than the statute would contain those words. By the statute being under-inclusive in only indicating same-sex couples and over-exclusive in removing qualified individuals in being parents than the statute in its current form is unconstitutional, according to Judge Hanson. That is, though the state interest of responsible procreation may be credible, the Court determined that the execution of the law was completely arbitrary and failed the rational analysis.

Concerning the rationale that barring same-sex marriage would conserve state and private resources, the defendant failed to build a case. Instead, he could only build a list denials without evidence against the claims of the plaintiffs. Therefore, Judge Hanson concluded that there is no rational basis between the state interest and the gender-specific language of 595.2(1), and thus the exclusion of same-sex marriage was determined to be arbitrary.

Conclusion
Therefore, Judge Hanson determined that 595.2 must be rewritten with gender-neutral language due to the failure to provide a non-arbitrary rationale. This case will more than likely go on to the Iowa Supreme Court. I am not familiar with the ISC, so one can only guess on the outcome. However, Hanson's opinion and the subsequent case materials is a powerful argument of the unconstitutional nature of limiting legally recognized marriage to opposite-sex couples.