Intelligent Design is not Science

The war between science and religion remains a popular topic on television, and a particularly fascinating battle is the stand-off between evolution and intelligent design.  So of course I feel obligated to weigh in.

Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is presented as a modification of theory of evolution. It says, basically, that although evolution happens, it is guided by the intentions of an intelligent creator.

Pure evolution and Intelligent Design are alternative ideas about how life on earth came to be as we see it.  This much of the debate is legitimate.

However, science is a process, not a theory.  This process is: come up with an idea, devise experiments to empirically test the idea, rethink your idea based on the results; and repeat until you lose interest.  Ideas that survive many such cycles and remain consistent with observation are, loosely speaking, "scientific theories" and, more importantly, if your theory doesn't work, keep looking.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, specifically rejects the process of science.  It says that certain body parts could not have evolved, and moreover that their origins are beyond the reach of science to explain: such parts could only exist if they had been designed by an intelligent creator who had the end result in mind.  In other words, literally, "and then a miracle happens...".

As any cook or doctor can tell you, the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, and yet this remarkable phenomena is never taught in mathematics classes, where the whole is always exactly equal to the sum of its parts.

So why would anyone want to teach intelligent design in a science class? Seriously, why?

Time for a Republican Party to Learn Tolerance

Somewhere between Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan the Republican party went from being the party that freed the slaves to the party of "traditional family values".

So where does that leave people who believe in small government, free markets, and privatization, but also embrace cultural diversity, alternative lifestyles, and personal responsibility?

I think its time for parties to re-align their platforms.  They way views are bundled now there is no comfortable fit, at least not for me.  I am probably most closely aligned with the Libertarian party... but this is a party whose brand badly needs to be remade.

Dear Senator McCain

Dear Senator McCain,

My friend, I've got to be honest with you: you lost me.  I've been fan of yours since your 2000 speech when you declared that no candidate should be defined by extremists, be they religious, political, or ideological.  The "straight talk" made you seem authentic, and your back story is worthy admiration.  You were someone to whom I could relate.

What happened?

Its easy for someone like me to image that the evangelical right-wing conservative-dominated Republican political machine got hold of you and steered you inexorably and inevitably away from yourself.  But I'm sure the truth is both less conspiratorial and more tragic.

I can only say what it looked like. 

First, Sarah Palin?  Really?  I mean, sure, her record speaks of a talented, ambitious, energetic politician who is not afraid to shake things up.  But I am simply not persuaded that she could step in if something were to happen to you.  I mean, she staffed her administration in Alaska with high school buddies -- an unmistakable sign that personal loyalty and familiarity means more to her than competence.  Where is the evidence than she can recruit, organize, and deploy the best and the brighest?  I'm sorry, Senator, but I just can't imagine that you truly believe she was the best choice for America.  No, what seems far more likely is that you accepted her in a cynical attempt to appeal to a bloc of voters who may not otherwise vote for you.  If getting you into office requires that kind of sacrifice of principle, I guess I would rather have you stay in the Senate.

And that leads directly to strike two: what happened to "straight talk"?  You haven't seemed nearly as authentic in the months leading up to the election as you did in the decades before.  Its actually difficult for me to watch you speak now, mostly because it seems like you don't even believe much of what you say these days.  You seem to be selling a story, instead of speaking from your heart.  When you say "I don't care about a washed up terrorist... but we need to know the full extent..." Huh?  That's not straight talk, that's gossip, and its beneath you.

And that brings me to strike three:  the sum of what I've seen from you in the past few months paints a picture of someone who is scrambling to peice together an identity calculated to appeal to enough different groups voters to cobble together a victory.  But the difference between that fagile and fragmented identity and who I thought you were is unsettling.

And so I won't be voting for you.  If the pressure of a campaign can move you so far from away yourself, what would the pressure of holding office do to you?  All I can say is, I don't like what I've seen so far.

Our Enemies or Ourselves - What will define the next four years?

I just finished watching the first presidential debate between Senators Obama and McCain and, in my opinion, it succeeded in sharply defining the choice we face as Americans about to elect a new president: do we want to the next four years to be about defeating our enemies, or about making people's lives better here in America?

John McCain is a soldier, and he sees the world almost exclusively through that lens.  To me this was demonstrated by the contrast in the tone of his responses on economic vs. military issues.  When McCain said "the veterans know I will take care of them" it was clear from the way he said it that he feels this in the marrow of his bones.  Conversely, when he said, several times, "we need to have oversight, we need to have transparency, and all that..." I couldn't help feeling that he was disengaged.  It left me with the impression that, for Senator McCain, it all comes down to "winning the war in Irag is all that matters.  Everything else will take care of itself."

On the other hand, Senator Obama provided less direct evidence of what defines his world view.  For me, it seems to be that government serves the people, in the sense that, as a leader, you frame the issue, gather the best minds you can find, and insist that they craft a solution.

I have a great deal more confidence that Barak Obama will bring together and focus our govenrment on resolving the issues that define our times -- security, energy, the economy, and -- perhaps most importantly -- restoring the United States standing as a citizen in the world, than would John McCain.  I believe that a John McCain administration would continue to focus on winning fights.

I honestly believe that both candidates demonstrated themselves to be serious men who have strong visions for America's future, but I also believe they demonstrated that they are qualified for different jobs: Barak Obama should ask John McCain to be his Secretary of Defense.

Book Review: The Secret History of the World

In The Secret History of the World: As Laid Down by the Secret Societies, Mark Booth presents a way of interpreting major religious traditions as chapters in a single narrative explaining the evolution of the way humans experience the world. The book is part expose: Booth claims to be revealing views he has learned through nurturing relationships with "initiates" in The Mystery Schools, where esoteric wisdom dating to the beginning of time is still taught. In this sense, since Booth cannot cite his sources (who are sworn to secrecy), the book can only be read as speculation and not as a persuasive argument.

In short, the view Booth presents is that the physical world we know has been precipitated from the thoughts of the "cosmic mind". As the world -- and humans along with it -- gradually gathered form, our experience was shaped by waves of successively more material (and less powerful) spirit beings, until the world hardened to the point where the spirit world has been almost completely obscured. The stories of major religious and mythological traditions can be read as literal descriptions of the way humans experienced the world at different stages of this process. This "Secret History" provides a road map to the human mind that forms the basis of rituals that the secret societies use to unravel our material blinders reconnect with the spirit world.

Booth's way of relating and summarizing stories from these traditions is at times masterful. These are complex and subtle themse, and he makes them delightfully accessible. However, when he starts making arguments and drawing conclusions, he loses all grace. The experience is like finding a bitter pill in a delicious meal.

What I find most compelling in this book is the notion that ancient traditions share common themes and contain clues as to why we aprehend the world the way we do. We experience phenomenon all the time (e.g. intuition) that are beyond the current reach of science and reason, and the myths hold clues that can help us penetrate such phenomenon. This is not to say that reason is futile; rather, that esoteric contemplation can compliment reason, much as diplomacy compliments miltary force.

If you're a fan of astrology, or are interested in common themes across religions, you will probably enjoy this book. If you consider yourself to be a religious person, you may find it hard to endure.

Review: The Uncensored Bible

In "The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book" (Amazon) two biblical scholars and a journalist summarize and analyze a series of unorthodox interpretations of selected Bible stories that have been suggested by other biblical scholars. As the title suggests, these alternative interpretations have mostly to do with sex, drugs, depression, body hair, and excrement. Most of these theories hinge on alternate translations of key words from the original Hebrew that have been "sterilized" in modern English translations, or on key phrases that can be read as provocative euphemisms.

What is most clearly illustrated by this book, however, is that the foundation for any interpretation of the Bible is very shaky indeed. Consider the "telephone" party game: guests sit in a circle, and one person whispers a short sentence to the next person, who whispers it to the next person, and so on until the last person says aloud what they heard and everyone shares a good laugh at how unrecognizable the original message has become. Now imagine this game where each person in the circle has to translate the message into a different language before passing it along, and you get an idea of the journey the text of the Bible has taken over the past 3000 years from its original authors through to us.

By comparison, all approximately 4400 words of the US Constitution (the Bible has roughly 750,000 words) were written in modern English by people who are less than 10 generations removed from us, and they still require a panel of nine Supreme Court Justices and armies of constitutional lawyers to interpret their meaning.

The Uncensored Bible was a short, fun, and thought provoking read.

A great mystery solved?

One of the greatest mysteries of the mobile web worker age is: why can't I use my cellphone as a wireless modem? The technology supports it -- Bluetooth has profiles specifically for this application, laptop drivers have it. Why don't vendors enable this?

I recently stopped by an ATT store to check out pricing and service plans for 3G Express Cards. The rate plan for a 3G card is $60/month for unlimited Internet access, which is about what I pay for my iPhone voice+unlimited internet access, also from ATT. "Is there a bundle price, since I already pay for Internet Access for my iPhone?" I asked. Of course not. How naive of me.

So the mystery is solved. If I could use my iPhone to bridge other devices (via Bluetooth) onto the Internet, then ATT couldn't sell Laptop cards. Wireless carriers still hang onto the belief that they can control the user's experience end-to-end, rather then just being a comodity service. But how can one company ever be really great at both operating a national cellular network and providing innovative consumer services? Enabling me to use my iPhone as a wireless modem with my laptop would increase the value of my iPhone, and my cellular service. For an additional $60 per month, its cheaper to just find a Starbucks, plus I get to have a cup of coffee.

There must be an objective way to determine when an industry reaches the point where denial of service takes over from innovation as primary driver (music, telecommunications, oil). This is the point where shareholder interests and customer interests go from being aligned to being opposed. I think it is scenarios like this one that fuel resentment of corporations and capitalism.