Tag Archive for 'debate'

Science, Physics and God

Sometime in the latter part of 2006, Queen’s University (or rather a student body within the group) held a debate. It was marketed under the title “Does God Exist”. In the days leading up to the debate I overheard a fellow classmate saying he’d go to the debate to see the Christian debater get destroyed. That seemed to be the mood of the class in general, well at least the vocal ones.

I showed up at the debate and watched from an elevated position as the debate took place. Both participants in the debate were highly educated with accolades in various fields of study. The participant speaking against the existence of God argued all the classic arguments said by just about anyone who doesn’t believe in Him (I can’t see Him, why does He let bad things happen to good people etc…); the person speaking in favour of His existence focused on the existence of a protein existent in certain organic beings that is so complex that it could not have been produced by common means, which suggests a higher power or intelligence. If he could convince his opponent to admit that then he could then move on to counter arguments as to the nature of God.

I am currently reading a book called Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. As some of you may know, Dan Brown is the author of the book the Da Vinci Code, which follows protagonist Robert Langdon, a specialist on symbology, as he tries to uncover a mystery that affects the very foundations of Christianity. Though it is a fictional book, I did find it rather interesting to read. Anyways, Angels and Demons is a prequel to the Da Vinci Code, introducing Robert Langdon as the protagonist who tries to help when a high ranking physicist working for a physics lab in CERN, located in Geneva, is murdered and branded with the symbol of what is supposedly a long dead secret society of academics persecuted by the Catholic church.

Book plot aside, what I found particularly interesting was how the victim was described. The book’s premise is that, for as long as scientists and churches have existed, there has been a separation of church and state, which still exists to this day. The generally accepted theory of how everything came into existence among scientists and physicists is that of the Big Bang, which accords to The First Law of Thermodynamics (or Conservation of Energy), which states, essentially, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only reformed. And for the vast majority of applications in physics, or worldly applications this holds true.

The creationist theory by the Church is found in the book of Genesis, where God created everything.

The Big Bang theory suggests that at one point in time, there existed a super dense and hot singularity that suddenly exploded and began to expand, creating what we know now as the universe.

The problem with the Genesis theory (which non-creationists love to point out) is that it does not agree with the laws of thermodynamics. Conversely, the problem with the Big Bang theory, which the Church often likes to point out, is that, while the math and physics behind the theory seem to work for history as it goes back, it breaks down as they get to time zero, the very instant of the time of the bang, which they cannot account for (String Theory has a theory for this too but that’s another matter).

Back to the victim. As mentioned before, he was a highly renowned physicist working for CERN who had been responsible for many of science’s breakthroughs in physics. He was also a priest. His belief was that science, specifically the nature of physics, didn’t deny the existence of God, but rather proved or confirmed it. Thus, he was working on an experiment deep underground to create what is known as antimatter.

Antimatter, as the name suggests, is the physical opposite of matter. Theoretically, if everything is composed of matter in this universe, than it’s opposite would be a world composed of exactly the same matter and particles, just with opposite charges. Antimatter, though, is highly unstable as once it is mixed with matter, it destroys the particle of matter it touches along with itself in what is known as mutual annihilation.

In his creation of this antimatter he had succeeded in creating something out of nothing, which was his goal in helping him unify religion and science.

***

So while the book is fiction (some ideas in it are true, some are false; these can be seen on Dan Brown’s website for the book), it does have an interesting concept of using physics to unify religion and state instead of trying to prove one over the other.

The GOP Debate (in short)

I have very little time to post a lot of verbiage about the debate - so I will just mention a few quick observations.

Tom Tancredo
Tancredo really had a lot going for him going into this debate. While everyone could see he was the most outspoken on immigration - he really seemed to stand for limited government. Last night he had the opportunity to discuss the caveat of the English language. Quite frankly, I was appalled. He refuses to have his website in Spanish, and then, in the most outrageous proposal of the year from any politician thus far, declared that all immigration (both legal and illegal) be stopped:

We talk about all the immigration reform we want, and what it’s got to get down to is this: Are we ready for a timeout? Are we actually ready to say, “Enough is enough”? We have to stop all legal immigration except for the — for people coming into this country as family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees.

Granted, Tancredo also had the best statement in the debate on what Role he would have for George W. Bush if Tancredo was president:

Some time ago, 2003 I think it was, I got a call from Karl Rove who told me that because of my criticism of the president, I should never darken the doorstep of the White House. I have been so disappointed in the president in so many ways… I would have to tell George Bush exactly the same thing Karl Rove told me.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Mike Huckabee
The most memorable moment of the night for Huckabee, was his literal sermon on God. I really couldn’t doubt the man’s sincerity. Very eloquent, specific and unashamed about his views on creation.

Duncan Hunter
I think Hunter’s idea about a border fence are all washed up. I watched a great episode of Penn and Teller BS [WARNING: ADULT LANGUAGE] that demonstrated just how weak his fence was (physically and in terms of policy). He hammered on it over and over, making his aluminum fence sound like stone ramparts.

John McCain
As in the last few debates, McCain has had responses more scripted than dialogue from Titanic. I think even God got a little tired of it.

Mitt Romney
Romney got asked directly about his blatantly socialist health care system. He then proceed to write a second book on doublespeak. His system is virtually identical to Hillary’s plan, and identical in principle. Sorry Mr. Romney, but “mandated” and “free market” do not belong in the same sentence.

Democratic Debate Highlights

First of all, watch the entire debate here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
And a transcript here.

The candidates were asked if they would go after Bin Laden even if it meant some civilian casualties. Notice that all candidates raise their hands (except Kucinich) and then realize that maybe they made a mistake… Biden is the first to mention that maybe there is some gray area. Then a chorus of people agree in a quick attempt to cover themselves. Chris Dodd sheepishly tries to make it look like he wasn’t raising his hand, but just scratching the back of his head.

John Edwards made the point that part of his foreign policy would be to provide 100 million children around the world with free US-style education. Don’t be suprised, senator, if they turn that down.

Domestic Policy
The democrats had one common theme in this area – complete ignorance of economic law. There were constant promises to create goods and services by fiat – especially in health care. See specifically how Obama is more interested in attacking profit than he is about solving the issue. No mention about how it’s profits that encouraged those companies to provide insurance in the first place. I don’t think out next president should be so ignorant on basic economics.

Dennis Kucinich showed a lot of shrewdness and courage to say outright: “What Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, Senator Obama are talking about, they’re talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge. They’re talking about continuing a for-profit health care system.” Now, the man is an open socialist, but he is calling it like it is: all the republican and democratic solutions for universal health care simply grant the insurance companies a monopoly. At least Kucinich, while I think he’s wrong, is 100% honest about the facts here.

Coverage
CNN’s coverage has been one of extremes – some useful and innovative, others just plain annoying.

Among things annoying:

  • the amount of time given to mainline candidates was terribly unfair. It seemed like every question had to feature a response from Obama, Clinton and Edwards – while Gravel and Kucinich were ignored. Specifically, after Clinton bragged about her husband balancing the budget, Gravel made the weighty accusation that it was done by raiding social security. The conversation just moved on as though it didn’t happen.
  • The camera angles also were a little over the top. Occasionally they used a camera angle that reminded me of one at a rock concert -shaking, out of focus and definitely not giving me any useful visual information. They should have just blacked out the camera instead.

At time there was anarchy because there didn’t seem to be any time limits or formal means by which candidates were selected to answer questions. It basically seemed like a talk-show with Wolf Blitzer.

Useful:

  • Finally there were calls to stop the applause. I was really impressed with Wolf Blitzer asking the crowd over and over to stop it.
  • Moderator discretion was also generally well done – mostly used to make candidates actually answer questions.

Overall
This debate was a little more insightful than the others. People will claim there was more mud flung among the top-tier, but that really was just at the beginning. In fact, I couldn’t help but notice how many times Edwards would throw praise at Obama - probably looking to lock up a place on the ticket. Like all the others so far, I am very thankful that these debates have featured the lower-tier candidates. Gravel and Kucinich in this debate were willing to throw out ideas and challenges that would never be address by other candidates who need to play it safe. The media may like it because it’s good for ratings. I like it because it’s good for voters.


Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'debate' tag.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'debate' tag.

October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'debate' tag.