The Hubble telescope is named for Edwin Hubble, the astronomer who originally determined that the universe is expanding. This discovery, one of the foundations of modern astronomy and cosmology, made Hubble an excellent choice for the honor of having this telescope named for him.

The concept for the Hubble telescope was originally the idea of Lyman Spitzer back in 1946. He clearly saw that earth-based telescopes were inherently limited in their ability to see into the heavens, since dust, clouds, and even turbulence in the atmosphere interfered with telescopes’ clarity. Which meant that the best way to get a clear image from a telescope was with a telescope that was in orbit around the earth.

After some success with the smaller Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, the plan for a large scale telescope was born. There were some fits and starts however, mostly due to budget constraints, and the project did not really take off until the 1970’s and funding was not approved until 1978. Then, with funding in place, plans were made to launch the Hubble telescope in 1983. However, due to various delays, it was not actually launched until 1990.

After a few early problems, the Hubble telescope finally started sending back clear images. And those images were well worth the effort. The Hubble telescope was able to achieve a sharpness and resolution that was unimaginable with a standard, earth-bound telescope; crisp images that not only showed new detail in known areas of space, but also peered deeper into space than ever before. And with these new images, astronomers have been able to discover new and exciting information about our universe.

However, it is not only astronomers who have been amazed at the images that the Hubble telescope has produced. In fact, the images from Hubble are delights to view all on their own. From the clearly defined galaxies, to pictures of nebulae, to the Apollo 15 landing site, Hubble has been as exciting for the public as it has been for scientists.

As the Hubble telescope ages, its future is uncertain. Corrective software has allowed earth-based telescopes to pick up much of the information previously possible only with a space-based telescope. And as NASA retools itself to follow its mandate to take a man to Mars, money that would be spent on maintenance of the Hubble is being spent elsewhere. However, before the Hubble telescope enters the atmosphere sometime in 2010, it will provide a remarkable window into the universe and all that is in it.

Organic Chemistry

Organic Chemistry has to do with the study of compounds that contain carbon (and sometimes hydrogen). Even though carbon is only the fourteenth most common element on the planet, it produces the greatest number of different compounds on Earth. Not surprisingly then, much of the study of chemistry involves organic chemistry.

The most studied groups of organic compounds are those that contain nitrogen. These organic compounds are important because they are often linked to the amino group. When the amino group combines with the carboxyl group, amino acids are born. Amino acids are important because they are as the building blocks of proteins.

Inorganic Chemistry

Inorganic chemistry involves the study the properties and reactions of compounds that do not contain carbon and which are not organic. Inorganic chemistry studies all non-living matter, such as minerals found in the Earth’s crust. There are many branches of inorganic chemistry, including geochemistry, nuclear science, coordination chemistry, and bioinorganic chemistry.

There is much overlap between organic and inorganic chemistry. For instance, organometallic chemistry studies the use of compounds that are capable of creating a covalent bond between carbon and metal.

Physical Chemistry

As its name implies, physical chemistry has to do with the physical properties of materials. Physical properties that are studied may include the electrical and magnetic behavior of materials, as well as their interaction with electromagnetic fields.

There are several subcategories of physical chemistry. These include thermochemistry, electrochemistry, and chemical kinetics. Thermochemistry studies the changes of entropy and energy that naturally occur during chemical reactions. Electrochemistry is concerned with the study of interconversions of electric and chemical energy of matter, as well as the effects of electricity on chemical changes. Chemical kinetics involves the study of chemical reactions. Specifically, chemical kinetics studies the equilibrium it reached between products and their reactants.

Biochemistry

Biochemistry is a branch of chemistry concerned with the composition and changes of living matter. Biochemists commonly focus on the physical properties and structures of biological molecules. Common biological molecules include carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. Biochemistry is sometimes referred to as physiological chemistry and biological chemistry. Biophysics, molecular biology, and cell biology are research fields closely related to biochemistry.

Analytical Chemistry

Unlike the other main types of chemistry, analytical chemistry doesn’t deal specifically with specific elements. Analytical chemistry is concerned mainly with the various techniques and laboratory methods used to determine the composition of materials. Qualitative and quantitative analysis are the two most basic methods used in analytical chemistry. Qualitative analysis has to do with identifying all the atoms and molecules in a sample of matter, with attention paid to trace elements. Quantitative analysis also involves determining the atomical and molecular structure of matter, but includes also measuring the exact weight of each chemical constituent.

The most visible rock layers in the world are those in the Grand Canyon. For many years young-earth creation scientists have invested a lot of time and research into the Grand Canyon. They believe that if they can find a model to explain the canyon rocks, then their followers will probably accept the rest of the earth’s rocks as young.

Coconino Sandstone

One of the problems that the young earth model encounters in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. I’ve already discussed this in another article, so let me only summarize here. Geologists have stated that this formation of 315-foot thick sandstone was created by a desert environment, and is a deposition of wind-deposited sand dunes.

The problem for the young earth creationist is that this rock layer is topped by two other fossil-bearing marine rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and the Kaibab Limestone. This presents a problem to the young-earth model because if the sandstone originated by wind, then obviously it could not have been produced by Noah’s Flood. The young-earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers. However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell. There were no cyclic water levels, nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer. The desert formation of this sandstone would disprove its formation during the Flood, and would disprove the young age of the earth.

Several young-earth scientists have attempted to explain this away, claiming that this sandstone was created underwater, and thus is not a desert sandstone. I dispute this theory because their model does not have the necessary forces to create the Coconino Sandstone (for more on this, see Coconino Sandstone). However, that is not the purpose of this article.

Other sandstones which are desert in origin will also disprove the young age of the earth. Therefore, the young-earth scientist must discredit every desert sandstone in the world. If one desert sandstone exists with a fossil-bearing ocean-deposited layer on top, it discredits the entire young earth flood model, and proves the old age of the earth.

Let’s look at other desert-origin sandstones. I will continually add to this article as I read through the research and discover other sandstones.

Navajo Sandstone

I’ll start with the Navajo Sandstone. This sandstone is most evident in the tall cliffs of Zion Canyon National Park in Utah. The thickness of this formation varies from 1,600 to 2,200 feet. It is evident from the excellent cross-bedding in this formation and other features that this is created from a desert environment. Below the Navajo there are thousands of feet of rock layers, including the layers of the Grand Canyon. Again, please note…all the layers of the Grand Canyon are below the Navajo.

Looking at the rocks above the Navajo, the problem for the young-earth scientist gets even more complicated.. Looking at the Navajo at Arches National Park, there are at least 1,500 feet of rock layers above the Navajo at this location alone. The first is the Entrada Sandstone, which consists of three units, the Moab and Slick Rock members, (which are themselves desert dune sandstones), and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is about 200 feet of marine deposits. Above this is the thin Summerville Formation, siltstone from a lake/lagoon environment. Then comes the most serious problem for the young earth model…the Morrison Formation. This formation has yielded thousands of dinosaur fossils, supposedly killed during Noah’s Flood. Above the Morrison are the Dakota Sandstone (beach environment) and the Mancoa Shale (shallow marine).

In fact, all the dinosaur fossils are far above the Grand Canyon sediments. The young earth model says the Flood killed most of the dinosaurs1…and according to their model, all the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited during the Flood2. That is over 1 mile of sediment. The first dinosaur fossils appear in the Chinle formation, which is two formations above the Grand Canyon layers.

How did these dinosaurs survive the deposition phase of the flood, which deposited over 8,000 feet of sediment before we see the first dinosaur fossil? Young earth explanations (see sources below) fail to offer a valid explanation of this problem…they make absolutely no sense out of the solid facts of the rock layers.

Given the young earth model, the flood waters must have created all these layers. However, you can’t have Flood-deposited rocks of the Grand Canyon, topped stratigraphically by a desert sandstone, the Navajo, to the north of the Canyon, and then covered by more sea-deposited layers. None of these layers above the Grand Canyon, including the layers above the Navajo, can be accounted for by the young-earth model.

Evidence From Creation Scientists!

Here is the most amazing evidence for the desert, wind-formed Navajo Sandstone. Creation scientists themselves admit it! I don’t know if they are aware of this or not. I’ve done a review of the cornerstone book of young-earth proof of Noah’s Flood and the Grand Canyon (located at the Answers In Creation website) . The book is called Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. It is published by the Institute for Creation Research. This book was put together by 14 of the pre-eminent young-earth creation scientists in the world.

On page 32 of this book, they are making a case for the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. They claim it was deposited not in a dry, desert environment, but in a water environment. Figure 3.10 shows a plot of grain sizes for the Coconino, two modern water environments, and a “Desert Sand Dune.” Through this plot, it is shown that the desert dune plots out to a straight line, whereas the Coconino, and the water environment sands, plot out as jagged, irregular lines. This is used as proof that the Coconino is not a desert sandstone.

The amazing thing is the source of the “Desert Sand Dune” grain size plots. The first paragraph in the right column, first sentence, gives the source as footnote number 44. If you turn to this footnote, the source of the desert sand grain size plot is “Stratigraphic Analysis of the Navajo Sandstone,” published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology! That’s right! These creation scientists are using the desert-created Navajo Sandstone to argue against the Coconino as being desert in origin.

However, the Navajo is overlaid with many fossil bearing rock layers, including the Morrison Formation, with thousands of dinosaurs killed during the Flood of Noah. This can’t be! We now have proof, from young-earth creation scientists themselves, that the Navajo Sandstone formed as a dry, desert sandstone, right in the middle of Noah’s Flood!!!! Without meaning to, they have proved the old age of the earth!

Conclusion

The Coconino and Navajo are only two desert-created sandstones. No doubt the desert formations in China and Mongolia would also disprove the young age of the earth. I will post others here, as I have time to research them. Unfortunately for the young-earth creationist, it only takes one example of desert sandstone to disprove the young age of the earth. As you can see, the earth is old, just like the geologists have told us, and just as God’s creation testifies.

1 Oard, Michael, The Extinction of the Dinosaurs. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v11n2.asp)

2 Austin, Steven (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, 1995

The Age of biotechnology arrives with “somatostatin” – a human growth hormone-releasing inhibitory factor, the first human protein manufactured in bacteria by Genentech, Inc. A synthetic, recombinant gene was used to clone a protein for the first time.

1978:

Genentech, Inc. and The City of Hope National Medical Center announce the successful laboratory production of human insulin using recombinant DNA technology. Hutchinson and Edgell show it is possible to introduce specific mutations at specific sites in a DNA molecule.

1979:

Sir Walter Bodmer suggests a way of using DNA technology to find gene markers to show up specific genetic diseases and their carriers. John Baxter reports cloning the gene for human growth hormone.

1980:

The prokaryote model, E. coli, is used to produce insulin and other medicine, in human form. Researchers successfully introduce a human gene – one that codes for the protein interferon- into a bacterium. The U.S. patent for gene cloning is awarded to Cohen and Boyer.

1981:

Scientists at Ohio University produce the first transgenic animals by transferring genes from other animals into mice. The first gene-synthesizing machines are developed. Chinese scientists successfully clone a golden carp fish.

1982:

Genentech, Inc. receives approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market genetically engineered human insulin. Applied Biosystems, Inc. introduces the first commercial gas phase protein sequencer.

1983:

The polymerase chain reaction is invented by Kary B Mullis. The first artificial chromosome is synthesized, and the first genetic markers for specific inherited diseases are found.

1984:

Chiron Corp. announces the first cloning and sequencing of the entire human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genome. Alec Jeffreys introduces technique for DNA fingerprinting to identify individuals. The first genetically engineered vaccine is developed.

1985:

Cetus Corporation’s develops GeneAmp polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, which could generate billions of copies of a targeted gene sequence in only hours. Scientists find a gene marker for cystic fibrosis on chromosome number 7.

1986:

The first genetically engineered human vaccine – Chiron’s Recombivax HB – is approved for the prevention of hepatitis B. A regiment of scientists and technicians at Caltech and Applied Biosystems, Inc. invented the automated DNA fluorescence sequencer.

1987:

The first outdoor tests on a genetically engineered bacterium are allowed. It inhibits frost formation on plants. Genentech’s tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), sold as Activase, is approved as a treatment for heart attacks.

1988:

Harvard molecular geneticists Philip Leder and Timothy Stewart awarded the first patent for a genetically altered animal, a mouse that is highly susceptible to breast cancer

1989:

UC Davis scientists develop a recombinant vaccine against the deadly rinderpest virus. The human genome project is set up, a collaboration between scientists from countries around the world to work out the whole of the human genetic code.

1990:

The first gene therapy takes place, on a four-year-old girl with an immune-system disorder called ADA deficiency. The human genome project is formally launched.

1991:

Mary-Claire King, of the University of California, Berkeley, finds evidence that a gene on chromosome 17 causes the inherited form of breast cancer and also increases the risk of ovarian cancer. Tracey the first transgenic sheep is born.

1992:

The first liver xenotransplant from one type of animal to another is carried out successfully. Chiron’s Proleukin is approved for the treatment of renal cell cancer.

1993:

The FDA declares that genetically engineered foods are “not inherently dangerous” and do not require special regulation. Chiron’s Betaseron is approved as the first treatment for multiple sclerosis in 20 years.

1994:

The first genetically engineered food product, the Flavr Savr tomato, gained FDA approval. The first breast cancer gene is discovered. Genentech’s Nutropin is approved for the treatment of growth hormone deficiency.

1995:

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center transplanted hearts from genetically altered pigs into baboons, proving that cross-species operations are possible. The bacterium Haemophilus influenzae is the first living organism in the world to have its entire genome sequenced.

1996:

Biogen’s Avonex is approved for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The discovery of a gene associated with Parkinson’s disease provides an important new avenue of research into the cause and potential treatment of the debilitating neurological ailment.

1997:

Researchers at Scotland’s Roslin Institute report that they have cloned a sheep–named Dolly–from the cell of an adult ewe. The FDA approves Rituxan, the first antibody-based therapy for cancer.

1998:

The first complete animal genome the C.elegans worm is sequenced. James Thomson at Wisconsin and John Gearhart in Baltimore each develop a technique for culturing embryonic stem cells.

1999:

A new medical diagnostic test will for the first time allow quick identification of BSE/CJD a rare but devastating form of neurologic disease transmitted from cattle to humans.

2000:

“Golden Rice,” modified to make vitamin A. Cloned pigs are born for the first time in work done by Alan Coleman and his team at PPL, the Edinburgh-based company responsible for Dolly the sheep.

2001:

The sequence of the human genome is published in Science and Nature, making it possible for researchers all over the world to begin developing genetically based treatments for disease.

2002:

Researchers sequence the DNA of rice, and is the first crop to have its genome decoded.

2003:

The sequencing of the human genome is completed.

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. This ancient description of the creation of the universe found in the Book of Genesis may be accurate after all. The big bang theory describes the beginning of the universe as having been precipitated from an infinitesimally small point. In this small volume, all matter and energy was concentrated until its contents exploded in either a smooth expansion or an incredibly violent energetic explosion that formed the planets, stars and galaxies. Originally this theory had competition from what is called the ‘steady state’ theory whereby the universe is forever expanding and new matter and energy is created spontaneously within the space left by the receding galaxies. However, empirical observations have directed astronomers and scientists into the acceptance of the big bang model. But how did we get to this point in our understanding?

In the early part of the twentieth century the American astronomer Vesto Slipher and the German Carl Wirtz made some important astronomical discoveries. Using spectral analysis, Slipher deciphered the mixtures of gases contained in planetary atmospheres as well as nebulae. What distinguishes his findings is the discovery that most if not all galaxies outside of our own demonstrate what is called a ‘Red Shift.’ This shift is simply a change in the wavelength of the light emitted by those objects under investigation towards a longer wavelength. Wirtz similarly catalogued many red shifts of the nebulae which he chose to study. But it was still to early for them to realize the full potential meaning of their observations. That would wait until Einstein’s General Relativity would be interpreted by other scientists through further mathematical analysis.

His contemporaries demonstrated to Einstein that his new Theory of General Relativity published in 1916 was not compatible with a ‘static’ universe of space time. The theory predicted an expanding or collapsing universe but not a fixed cosmos. Because he personally believed the universe to be an invariable space time continuum, Einstein engaged in a degree of scientific legerdemain. To correct what he perceived to be as ‘flaws’ in his theory he added the contrivance of a cosmological constant known as lambda to force the static universe into reality. Einstein’s view of perfection in an unchanging space time continuum had led him down a blind alley as much as Aristotle’s concept of perfection had brought that great philosopher into the error of believing in a static Earth at the center of the universe.

But even with the addition of the cosmological constant lambda, the universe was still found to be unstable and this whole affair would later be viewed by Einstein as his “greatest blunder.” His cosmological acrobatics behind him, Einstein yielded the stage to others for a clearer understanding of his own theory. It fell to Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann to consider the consequences of General Relativity without the constant lambda interfering with his study of these relationships. In doing so, the Russian mathematician and cosmologist derived the solution which predicts an ever expanding cosmological structure (1922), a prediction which was disagreeable with Einstein’s concept of universal perfection. A couple of years later, Friedmann published his findings in “About the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space.” But the entire hypothetical construct still lacked a complete verbalization mathematically and theoretically.

Enter the Reverend Father Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest from Belgium. Rev. Fr. Lemaitre provided the equations necessary to formulate the basis of Big Bang theory in his work entitled “Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.” He postulated that the universe began as a primordial atom of infinitesimal volume and enormous mass energy as well as space and time and everything else comprising the future universe. At some point the universe began with the explosion of this super atom. Lemaitre published his theoretical ideas between the years 1927 and 1933 and speculated that the movement of the nebulae demonstrated the validity of the explosion of his cosmic super atom. Unfortunately, he also wrongly believed that cosmic rays might be an after effect of the super atom’s big bang. These are now known to be generated not from a universal conflagration but from galactic sources unrelated to the big bang.

However, the new theory still lacked a major source of observational support. This would be provided by Edwin Hubble’s observations of the redshift of galaxies. Taking up where Slipher and Wirtz left off, Hubble employed a novel technique to discern the properties of the galactic movements. By choosing to observe stars that are known as Cepheid Variables he could more accurately make measurements. Cepheids are a type of star that brighten and darken and lighten back up in regular periods of time that are well known. Cepheids that have identical cycle times of brightening darkening and brightening again also have identical or nearly identical luminosity. Thus, if one compares the length of the cycle to the amount of light apparent to the observer it is possible to accurately prepare an estimate of the distance to the cepheid.

In this manner, Hubble had found that the nebulae or galaxies exhibited a galactic red shift; in other words, that galaxies were receding away from ours at a speed which is correlated directly with the distance between our vantage point and the galaxy being studied. The further away the galaxies were the faster they appeared to be going in moving away from us. The results of these investigations is now known as Hubble’s Law. Essentially, this law states that universe is in an ever expanding mode whereby the intergalactic distances continue to grow without bound into infinity. Hubble’s Law depends upon the shifting of the wavelength of light and after having been delineated in 1929 has been subsequently proven over and over again. Further, Hubble’s constant has been recalculated to a more ‘perfect’ value and retains a great probability of being ‘recomputed’ in the future based upon new observations.

Thus, it should be clear to the reader that our scientists have a fateful habit of introducing their preconceived notions of beauty into their models. From Aristotle’s static Earth to Einstein’s greatest blunder, the constant which forces a static universe, we proceed only from the wisdom of our weak minds. The more things change the more things stay the same. Man’s hubris knows no limits in our attempts to understand things without the wisdom to comprehend its underlying meaning. Humble we are not. We are making the same mistakes we always have. Back to the future. To be continued…

Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, 1931
The debate between realism and anti-realism is, at least, a century old. Does Science describe the real world – or are its theories true only within a certain conceptual framework? Is science only instrumental or empirically adequate or is there more to it than that?

The current – mythological – image of scientific enquiry is as follows:

Without resorting to reality, one can, given infinite time and resources, produce all conceivable theories. One of these theories is bound to be the “truth”. To decide among them, scientists conduct experiments and compare their results to predictions yielded by the theories. A theory is falsified when one or more of its predictions fails. No amount of positive results – i.e., outcomes that confirm the theory’s predictions – can “prove right” a theory. Theories can only be proven false by that great arbiter, reality.

Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Maybe so, but there is little doubt today that beliefs are somehow involved in the formation of many scientific ideas, if not of the very endeavor of Science. After all, Science is a human activity and humans always believe that things exist (=are true) or could be true.

A distinction is traditionally made between believing in something’s existence, truth, value of appropriateness (this is the way that it ought to be) – and believing that something. The latter is a propositional attitude: we think that something, we wish that something, we feel that something and we believe that something. Believing in A and believing that A – are different.

It is reasonable to assume that belief is a limited affair. Few of us would tend to believe in contradictions and falsehoods. Catholic theologians talk about explicit belief (in something which is known to the believer to be true) versus implicit one (in the known consequences of something whose truth cannot be known). Truly, we believe in the probability of something (we, thus, express an opinion) – or in its certain existence (truth).

All humans believe in the existence of connections or relationships between things. This is not something which can be proven or proven false (to use Popper’s test). That things consistently follow each other does not prove they are related in any objective, “real”, manner – except in our minds. This belief in some order (if we define order as permanent relations between separate physical or abstract entities) permeates both Science and Superstition. They both believe that there must be – and is – a connection between things out there.

Science limits itself and believes that only certain entities inter-relate within well defined conceptual frames (called theories). Not everything has the potential to connect to everything else. Entities are discriminated, differentiated, classified and assimilated in worldviews in accordance with the types of connections that they forge with each other.

Moreover, Science believes that it has a set of very effective tools to diagnose, distinguish, observe and describe these relationships. It proves its point by issuing highly accurate predictions based on the relationships discerned through the use of said tools. Science (mostly) claims that these connections are “true” in the sense that they are certain – not probable.

The cycle of formulation, prediction and falsification (or proof) is the core of the human scientific activity. Alleged connections that cannot be captured in these nets of reasoning are cast out either as “hypothetical” or as “false”. In other words: Science defines “relations between entities” as “relations between entities which have been established and tested using the scientific apparatus and arsenal of tools”. This, admittedly, is a very cyclical argument, as close to tautology as it gets.

Superstition is a much simpler matter: everything is connected to everything in ways unbeknown to us. We can only witness the results of these subterranean currents and deduce the existence of such currents from the observable flotsam. The planets influence our lives, dry coffee sediments contain information about the future, black cats portend disasters, certain dates are propitious, certain numbers are to be avoided. The world is unsafe because it can never be fathomed. But the fact that we – limited as we are – cannot learn about a hidden connection – should not imply that it does not exist.

Science believes in two categories of relationships between entities (physical and abstract alike). The one is the category of direct links – the other that of links through a third entity. In the first case, A and B are seen to be directly related. In the second case, there is no apparent link between A and B, but a third entity, C could well provide such a connection (for instance, if A and B are parts of C or are separately, but concurrently somehow influenced by it).

Each of these two categories is divided to three subcategories: causal relationships, functional relationships and correlative relationship.

A and B will be said to be causally related if A precedes B, B never occurs if A does not precede it and always occurs after A occurs. To the discerning eye, this would seem to be a relationship of correlation (“whenever A happens B happens”) and this is true. Causation is subsumed by a the 1.0 correlation relationship category. In other words: it is a private case of the more general case of correlation.

A and B are functionally related if B can be predicted by assuming A but we have no way of establishing the truth value of A. The latter is a postulate or axiom. The time dependent Schrödinger Equation is a postulate (cannot be derived, it is only reasonable). Still, it is the dynamic laws underlying wave mechanics, an integral part of quantum mechanics, the most accurate scientific theory that we have. An unproved, non-derivable equation is related functionally to a host of exceedingly precise statements about the real world (observed experimental results).

A and B are correlated if A explains a considerable part of the existence or the nature of B. It is then clear that A and B are related. Evolution has equipped us with highly developed correlation mechanisms because they are efficient in insuring survival. To see a tiger and to associate the awesome sight with a sound is very useful.

Still, we cannot state with any modicum of certainty that we possess all the conceivable tools for the detection, description, analysis and utilization of relations between entities. Put differently: we cannot say that there are no connections that escape the tight nets that we cast in order to capture them. We cannot, for instance, say with any degree of certainty that there are no hyper-structures which would provide new, surprising insights into the interconnectedness of objects in the real world or in our mind. We cannot even say that the epistemological structures with which we were endowed are final or satisfactory. We do not know enough about knowing.

Consider the cases of Non-Aristotelian logic formalisms, Non-Euclidean geometries, Newtonian Mechanics and non classical physical theories (the relativity theories and, more so, quantum mechanics and its various interpretations). All of them revealed to us connections which we could not have imagined prior to their appearance. All of them created new tools for the capture of interconnectivity and inter-relatedness. All of them suggested one kind or the other of mental hyper-structures in which new links between entities (hitherto considered disparate) could be established.

So far, so good for superstitions. Today’s superstition could well become tomorrow’s Science given the right theoretical developments. The source of the clash lies elsewhere, in the insistence of superstitions upon a causal relation.

The general structure of a superstition is: A is caused by B. The causation propagates through unknown (one or more) mechanisms. These mechanisms are unidentified (empirically) or unidentifiable (in principle). For instance, al the mechanisms of causal propagation which are somehow connected to divine powers can never, in principle, be understood (because the true nature of divinity is sealed to human understanding).

Thus, superstitions incorporate mechanisms of action which are, either, unknown to Science – or are impossible to know, as far as Science goes. All the “action-at-a-distance” mechanisms are of the latter type (unknowable). Parapsychological mechanisms are more of the first kind (unknown).

The philosophical argument behind superstitions is pretty straightforward and appealing. Perhaps this is the source of their appeal. It goes as follows:

There is nothing that can be thought of that is impossible (in all the Universes);
There is nothing impossible (in all the Universes) that can be thought of;
Everything that can be thought about – is, therefore, possible (somewhere in the Universes);
Everything that is possible exists (somewhere in the Universes).
If something can be thought of (=is possible) and is not known (=proven or observed) yet – it is most probably due to the shortcomings of Science and not because it does not exist.

Some of these propositions can be easily attacked. For instance: we can think about contradictions and falsehoods but (apart from a form of mental representation) no one will claim that they exist in reality or that they are possible. These statements, though, apply very well to entities, the existence of which has yet to be disproved (=not known as false, or whose truth value is uncertain) and to improbable (though possible) things. It is in these formal logical niches that superstition thrives.

APPENDIX – From “The Cycle of Science”

“There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time… On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics… Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’, because you will get ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”
R. P. Feynman (1967)

“The first processes, therefore, in the effectual studies of the sciences, must be ones of simplification and reduction of the results of previous investigations to a form in which the mind can grasp them.”
J. C. Maxwell, On Faraday’s lines of force

” …conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.”
John S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

“It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about ‘results of measurement’, and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of ‘measurer’? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system … with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less ‘measurement-like’ processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time?

The first charge against ‘measurement’, in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics, is that it anchors the shifty split of the world into ‘system’ and ‘apparatus’. A second charge is that the word comes loaded with meaning from everyday life, meaning which is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context. When it is said that something is ‘measured’ it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some pre-existing property of the object in question. This is to disregard Bohr’s insistence that in quantum phenomena the apparatus as well as the system is essentially involved. If it were not so, how could we understand, for example, that ‘measurement’ of a component of ‘angular momentum’ … in an arbitrarily chosen direction … yields one of a discrete set of values? When one forgets the role of the apparatus, as the word ‘measurement’ makes all too likely, one despairs of ordinary logic … hence ‘quantum logic’. When one remembers the role of the apparatus, ordinary logic is just fine.

In other contexts, physicists have been able to take words from ordinary language and use them as technical terms with no great harm done. Take for example the ‘strangeness’, ‘charm’, and ‘beauty’ of elementary particle physics. No one is taken in by this ‘baby talk’… Would that it were so with ‘measurement’. But in fact the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion, that I think it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics.”
J. S. Bell, Against “Measurement”

“Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they co-operate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”
J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

“…in physics the only observations we must consider are position observations, if only the positions of instrument pointers. It is a great merit of the de Broglie-Bohm picture to force us to consider this fact. If you make axioms, rather than definitions and theorems, about the “measurement” of anything else, then you commit redundancy and risk inconsistency.”
J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

“To outward appearance, the modern world was born of an anti religious movement: man becoming self-sufficient and reason supplanting belief. Our generation and the two that preceded it have heard little of but talk of the conflict between science and faith; indeed it seemed at one moment a foregone conclusion that the former was destined to take the place of the latter… After close on two centuries of passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its adversary.
On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith.”
Pierre Thierry de Chardin, “The Phenomenon of Man”

I opened this appendix with lengthy quotations of John S. Bell, the main proponent of the Bohemian Mechanics interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (really, an alternative rather than an interpretation). The renowned physicist, David Bohm (in the 50s), basing himself on work done much earlier by de Broglie (the unwilling father of the wave-particle dualism), embedded the Schrödinger Equation (SE throughout this article) in a deterministic physical theory which postulated a non-Newtonian motion of particles. This is a fine example of the life cycle of scientific theories.

Witchcraft, Religion, Alchemy and Science succeeded one another and each such transition was characterized by transitional pathologies reminiscent of psychotic disorders. The exceptions are (arguably) medicine and biology. A phenomenology of ossified bodies of knowledge would make a fascinating read. This is the end of the aforementioned life cycle: Growth, Pathology, Ossification.

This article identifies the current Ossification Phase of Science and suggests that it is soon to be succeeded by another discipline. It does so after studying and rejecting other explanations to the current state of science: that human knowledge is limited by its very nature, that the world is inherently incomprehensible, that methods of thought and understanding tend to self-organize to form closed mythic systems and that there is a problem of the language which we employ to make our inquiries of the world describable and communicable.

Kuhn’s approach to Scientific Revolutions is but one of a series of approaches to issues of theory and paradigm shifts in scientific thought and its resulting evolution. Scientific theories seem to be subject to a process of natural selection as much as organisms are in nature.

Animals could be construed to be theorems (with a positive truth value) in the logical system “Nature”. But species become extinct because nature itself changes (not nature as a set of potentials – but the relevant natural phenomena to which the species are exposed). Could we say the same about scientific theories? Are they being selected and deselected partly due to a changing, shifting backdrop?

Indeed, the whole debate between “realists” and “anti-realists” in the philosophy of Science can be thus settled, by adopting this single premise: that the Universe itself is not a fixture. By contrasting a fixed subject of the study (“The World”) with the moving image of Science – anti-realists gained the upper hand.

Arguments such as the under-determination of theories by data and the pessimistic meta-inductions from past falsity (of scientific “knowledge”) emphasized the transience and asymptotic nature of the fruits of the scientific endeavor. But all this rests on the implicit assumption that there is some universal, immutable, truth out there (which science strives to approximate). The apparent problem evaporates if we allow both the observer and the observed, the theory and its subject, the background, as well as the fleeting images, to be alterable.

Science develops through reduction of miracles. Laws of nature are formulated. They are assumed to encompass all the (relevant) natural phenomena (that is, phenomena governed by natural forces and within nature). Ex definitio, nothing can exist outside nature – it is all-inclusive and all-pervasive, omnipresent (formerly the attributes of the divine).

Supernatural forces, supernatural intervention – are a contradiction in terms, oxymorons. If it exists – it is natural. That which is supernatural – does not exist. Miracles do not only contravene (or violate) the laws of nature – they are impossible, not only physically, but also logically. That which is logically possible and can be experienced (observed), is physically possible. But, again, we confront the “fixed background” assumption. What if nature itself changes in a way to confound everlasting, ever-truer knowledge? Then, the very shift of nature as a whole, as a system, could be called “supernatural” or “miraculous”.

In a small way, this is how science evolves. A law of nature is proposed. An event or occurs or observation made which are not described or predicted by it. It is, by definition, a violation of the law. The laws of nature are modified, or re-written entirely, in order to reflect and encompass this extraordinary event. Hume’s distinction between “extraordinary” and “miraculous” events is upheld (the latter being ruled out).

The extraordinary ones can be compared to our previous experience – the miraculous entail some supernatural interference with the normal course of things (a “wonder” in Biblical terms). It is through confronting the extraordinary and eliminating its abnormal nature that science progresses as a miraculous activity. This, of course, is not the view of the likes of David Deutsch (see his book, “The Fabric of Reality”).

The last phase of this Life Cycle is Ossification. The discipline degenerates and, following the psychotic phase, it sinks into a paralytic stage which is characterized by the following:

All the practical and technological aspects of the discipline are preserved and continue to be utilized. Gradually the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings vanish or are replaced by the tenets and postulates of a new discipline – but the inventions, processes and practical know-how do not evaporate. They are incorporated into the new discipline and, in time, are erroneously attributed to it. This is a transfer of credit and the attribution of merit and benefits to the legitimate successor of the discipline.

The practitioners of the discipline confine themselves to copying and replicating the various aspects of the discipline, mainly its intellectual property (writings, inventions, other theoretical material). The replication process does not lead to the creation of new knowledge or even to the dissemination of old one. It is a hermetic process, limited to the ever decreasing circle of the initiated. Special institutions are set up to rehash the materials related to the discipline, process them and copy them. These institutions are financed and supported by the State which is always an agent of conservation, preservation and conformity.

Thus, the creative-evolutionary dimension of the discipline freezes over. No new paradigms or revolutions happen. Interpretation and replication of canonical writings become the predominant activity. Formalisms are not subjected to scrutiny and laws assume eternal, immutable, quality.

All the activities of the adherents of the discipline become ritualized. The discipline itself becomes a pillar of the power structures and, as such, is commissioned and condoned by them. Its practitioners synergistically collaborate with them: with the industrial base, the military powerhouse, the political elite, the intellectual cliques in vogue. Institutionalization inevitably leads to the formation of a (mostly bureaucratic) hierarchy. Rituals serve two purposes. The first is to divert attention from subversive, “forbidden” thinking.

This is very much as is the case with obsessive-compulsive disorders in individuals who engage in ritualistic behavior patterns to deflect “wrong” or “corrupt” thoughts. And the second purpose is to cement the power of the “clergy” of the discipline. Rituals are a specialized form of knowledge which can be obtained only through initiation procedures and personal experience. One’s status in the hierarchy is not the result of objectively quantifiable variables or even of judgment of merit. It is the result of politics and other power-related interactions. The cases of “Communist Genetics” (Lysenko) versus “Capitalist Genetics” and of the superpower races (space race, arms race) come to mind.

Conformity, dogmatism, doctrines – all lead to enforcement mechanisms which are never subtle. Dissidents are subjected to sanctions: social sanctions and economic sanctions. They can find themselves ex-communicated, harassed, imprisoned, tortured, their works banished or not published, ridiculed and so on.

This is really the triumph of text over the human spirit. The members of the discipline’s community forget the original reasons and causes for their scientific pursuits. Why was the discipline developed? What were the original riddles, questions, queries? How did it feel to be curious? Where is the burning fire and the glistening eyes and the feelings of unity with nature that were the prime moving forces behind the discipline? The cold ashes of the conflagration are the texts and their preservation is an expression of longing and desire for things past.

The vacuum left by the absence of positive emotions – is filled by negative ones. The discipline and its disciples become phobic, paranoid, defensive, with a blurred reality test. Devoid of new, attractive content, the discipline resorts to negative motivation by manipulation of negative emotions. People are frightened, threatened, herded, cajoled. The world without the discipline is painted in an apocalyptic palette as ruled by irrationality, disorderly, chaotic, dangerous, even lethally so.

New, emerging disciplines, are presented as heretic, fringe lunacies, inconsistent, reactionary and bound to lead humanity back to some dark ages. This is the inter-disciplinary or inter-paradigm clash. It follows the Psychotic Phase. The old discipline resorts to some transcendental entity (God, Satan, the conscious intelligent observer in the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism of Quantum Mechanics). In this sense, it is already psychotic and fails its reality test. It develops messianic aspirations and is inspired by a missionary zeal and zest. The fight against new ideas and theories is bloody and ruthless and every possible device is employed.

But the very characteristics of the older nomenclature is in its disfavor. It is closed, based on ritualistic initiation, patronizing. It relies on intimidation. The numbers of the faithful dwindles the more the “church” needs them and the more it resorts to oppressive recruitment tactics. The emerging knowledge wins by historical default and not due to the results of any fierce fight. Even the initiated desert. Their belief unravels when confronted with the truth value, explanatory and predictive powers, and the comprehensiveness of the emerging discipline.

This, indeed, is the main presenting symptom, distinguishing hallmark, of paralytic old disciplines. They deny reality. The are a belief-system, a myth, requiring suspension of judgment, the voluntary limitation of the quest, the agreement to leave swathes of the map in the state of a blank “terra incognita”. This reductionism, this avoidance, their replacement by some transcendental authority are the beginning of an end.

Consider physics:

The Universe is a complex, orderly system. If it were an intelligent being, we would be compelled to say that it had “chosen” to preserve form (structure), order and complexity – and to increase them whenever and wherever it can. We can call this a natural inclination or a tendency of the Universe.

This explains why evolution did not stop at the protozoa level. After all, these mono-cellular organisms were (and still are, hundreds of millions of years later) superbly adapted to their environment. It was Bergson who posed the question: why did nature prefer the risk of unstable complexity over predictable and reliable and durable simplicity?

The answer seems to be that the Universe has a predilection (not confined to the biological realm) to increase complexity and order and that this principle takes precedence over “utilitarian” calculations of stability. The battle between the entropic arrow and the negentropic one is more important than any other (in-built) “consideration”. This is Time itself and Thermodynamics pitted against Man (as an integral part of the Universe), Order (a systemic, extensive parameter) against Disorder.

In this context, natural selection is no more “blind” or “random” than its subjects. It is discriminating, exercises discretion, encourages structure, complexity and order. The contrast that Bergson stipulated between Natural Selection and Élan Vitale is grossly misplaced: Natural Selection IS the vital power itself.

Modern Physics is converging with Philosophy (possibly with the philosophical side of Religion as well) and the convergence is precisely where concepts of Order and disorder emerge. String theories, for instance, come in numerous versions which describe many possible different worlds. Granted, they may all be facets of the same Being (distant echoes of the new versions of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

Still, why do we, intelligent conscious observers, see (=why are we exposed to) only one aspect of the Universe? How is this aspect “selected”? The Universe is constrained in this “selection process” by its own history – but history is not synonymous with the Laws of Nature. The latter determine the former – does the former also determine the latter? In other words: were the Laws of Nature “selected” as well and, if so, how?

The answer seems self evident: the Universe “selected” both the Natural Laws and – as a result – its own history. The selection process was based on the principle of Natural Selection. A filter was applied: whatever increased order, complexity, structure – survived. Indeed, our very survival as a species is still largely dependent upon these things. Our Universe – having survived – must be an optimized Universe.

Only order-increasing Universes do not succumb to entropy and death (the weak hypothesis). It could even be argued (as we do here) that our Universe is the only possible kind of Universe (the semi-strong hypothesis) or even the only Universe (the strong hypothesis). This is the essence of the Anthropic Principle.

By definition, universal rules pervade all the realms of existence. Biological systems must obey the same order-increasing (natural) laws as physical ones and social ones. We are part of the Universe in the sense that we are subject to the same discipline and adhere to the same “religion”. We are an inevitable result – not a chance happening.

We are the culmination of orderly processes – not the outcome of random events. The Universe enables us and our world because – and only for as long as – we increase order. That is not to imply that there is an intention to do so on the part of the Universe (or a “higher being” or a “higher power”). There is no conscious or God-like spirit. There is no religious assertion. We only say that a system that has Order as its founding principle will tend to favor order, to breed it, to positively select its proponents and deselect its opponents – and, finally, to give birth to more and more sophisticated weapons in the pro-Order arsenal. We, humans, were such an order-increasing weapon until recently.

These intuitive assertions can be easily converted into a formalism. In Quantum Mechanics, the State Vector can be constrained to collapse to the most Order-enhancing event. If we had a computer the size of the Universe that could infallibly model it – we would have been able to predict which event will increase the order in the Universe overall. No collapse would have been required then and no probabilistic calculations.

It is easy to prove that events will follow a path of maximum order, simply because the world is orderly and getting ever more so. Had this not been the case, evenly statistically scattered event would have led to an increase in entropy (thermodynamic laws are the offspring of statistical mechanics). But this simply does not happen. And it is wrong to think that order increases only in isolated “pockets”, in local regions of our universe.

It is increasing everywhere, all the time, on all scales of measurement. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that quantum events are guided by some non-random principle (such as the increase in order). This, exactly, is the case in biology. There is no reason why not to construct a life wavefunction which will always collapse to the most order increasing event. If we construct and apply this wave function to our world – we will probably find ourselves as one of the events after its collapse.

Appendix – Interview granted to Adam Anderson

1. Do you believe that superstitions have affected American culture? And if so, how?

A. In its treatment of nature, Western culture is based on realism and rationalism and purports to be devoid of superstitions. Granted, many Westerners – perhaps the majority – are still into esoteric practices, such as Astrology. But the official culture and its bearers – scientists, for instance – disavow such throwbacks to a darker past.

Today, superstitions are less concerned with the physical Universe and more with human affairs. Political falsities – such as anti-Semitism – supplanted magic and alchemy. Fantastic beliefs permeate the fields of economics, sociology, and psychology, for instance. The effects of progressive taxation, the usefulness of social welfare, the role of the media, the objectivity of science, the mechanism of democracy, and the function of psychotherapy – are six examples of such groundless fables.

Indeed, one oft-neglected aspect of superstitions is their pernicious economic cost. Irrational action carries a price tag. It is impossible to optimize one’s economic activity by making the right decisions and then acting on them in a society or culture permeated by the occult. Esotericism skews the proper allocation of scarce resources.

2. Are there any superstitions that exist today that you believe could become facts tomorrow, or that you believe have more fact than fiction hidden in them?

A. Superstitions stem from one of these four premises:

That there is nothing that can be thought of that is impossible (in all possible Universes);
That there is nothing impossible (in all possible Universes) that can be thought of;
That everything that can be thought of – is, therefore, possible (somewhere in these Universes);
That everything that is possible exists (somewhere in these Universes).
As long as our knowledge is imperfect (asymptotic to the truth), everything is possible. As Arthur Clark, the British scientist and renowned author of science fiction, said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

Still, regardless of how “magical” it becomes, positive science is increasingly challenged by the esoteric. The emergence of pseudo-science is the sad outcome of the blurring of contemporary distinctions between physics and metaphysics. Modern science borders on speculation and attempts, to its disadvantage, to tackle questions that once were the exclusive preserve of religion or philosophy. The scientific method is ill-built to cope with such quests and is inferior to the tools developed over centuries by philosophers, theologians, and mystics.

Moreover, scientists often confuse language of representation with meaning and knowledge represented. That a discipline of knowledge uses quantitative methods and the symbol system of mathematics does not make it a science. The phrase “social sciences” is an oxymoron – and it misleads the layman into thinking that science is not that different to literature, religion, astrology, numerology, or other esoteric “systems”.

The emergence of “relative”, New Age, and politically correct philosophies rendered science merely one option among many. Knowledge, people believe, can be gleaned either directly (mysticism and spirituality) or indirectly (scientific practice). Both paths are equivalent and equipotent. Who is to say that science is superior to other “bodies of wisdom”? Self-interested scientific chauvinism is out – indiscriminate “pluralism” is in.

3. I have found one definition of the word “superstition” that states that it is “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.” What is your opinion about said definition?

A. It describes what motivates people to adopt superstitions – ignorance and fear of the unknown. Superstitions are, indeed, a “false conception of causation” which inevitably leads to “trust in magic”. the only part I disagree with is the trust in chance. Superstitions are organizing principles. They serve as alternatives to other worldviews, such as religion or science. Superstitions seek to replace chance with an “explanation” replete with the power to predict future events and establish chains of causes and effects.

4. Many people believe that superstitions were created to simply teach a lesson, like the old superstition that “the girl that takes the last cookie will be an old maid” was made to teach little girls manners. Do you think that all superstitions derive from some lesson trying to be taught that today’s society has simply forgotten or cannot connect to anymore?

A. Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Superstitions permeate our world. Some superstitions are intended to convey useful lessons, others form a part of the process of socialization, yet others are abused by various elites to control the masses. But most of them are there to comfort us by proffering “instant” causal explanations and by rendering our Universe more meaningful.

5. Do you believe that superstitions change with the changes in culture?

A. The content of superstitions and the metaphors we use change from culture to culture – but not the underlying shock and awe that yielded them in the first place. Man feels dwarfed in a Cosmos beyond his comprehension. He seeks meaning, direction, safety, and guidance. Superstitions purport to provide all these the easy way. To be superstitious one does not to study or to toil. Superstitions are readily accessible and unequivocal. In troubled times, they are an irresistible proposition.

Experiential narratives can and do interact with evidential narratives and vice versa.

For instance: belief in God inspires some scientists who regard science as a method to “peek at God’s cards” and to get closer to Him. Another example: the pursuit of scientific endeavors enhances one’s national pride and is motivated by it. Science is often corrupted in order to support nationalistic and racist claims.

The basic units of all narratives are known by their effects on the environment. God, in this sense, is no different from electrons, quarks, and black holes. All four constructs cannot be directly observed, but the fact of their existence is derived from their effects.

Granted, God’s effects are discernible only in the social and psychological (or psychopathological) realms. But this observed constraint doesn’t render Him less “real”. The hypothesized existence of God parsimoniously explains a myriad ostensibly unrelated phenomena and, therefore, conforms to the rules governing the formulation of scientific theories.

The locus of God’s hypothesized existence is, clearly and exclusively, in the minds of believers. But this again does not make Him less real. The contents of our minds are as real as anything “out there”. Actually, the very distinction between epistemology and ontology is blurred.

But is God’s existence “true” – or is He just a figment of our neediness and imagination?

Truth is the measure of the ability of our models to describe phenomena and predict them. God’s existence (in people’s minds) succeeds to do both. For instance, assuming that God exists allows us to predict many of the behaviors of people who profess to believe in Him. The existence of God is, therefore, undoubtedly true (in this formal and strict sense).

But does God exist outside people’s minds? Is He an objective entity, independent of what people may or may not think about Him? After all, if all sentient beings were to perish in a horrible calamity, the Sun would still be there, revolving as it has done from time immemorial.

If all sentient beings were to perish in a horrible calamity, would God still exist? If all sentient beings, including all humans, stop believing that there is God – would He survive this renunciation? Does God “out there” inspire the belief in God in religious folks’ minds?

Known things are independent of the existence of observers (although the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics disputes this). Believed things are dependent on the existence of believers.

We know that the Sun exists. We don’t know that God exists. We believe that God exists – but we don’t and cannot know it, in the scientific sense of the word.

We can design experiments to falsify (prove wrong) the existence of electrons, quarks, and black holes (and, thus, if all these experiments fail, prove that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist). We can also design experiments to prove that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist.

But we cannot design even one experiment to falsify the existence of a God who is outside the minds of believers (and, thus, if the experiment fails, prove that God exists “out there”). Additionally, we cannot design even one experiment to prove that God exists outside the minds of believers.

What about the “argument from design”? The universe is so complex and diverse that surely it entails the existence of a supreme intelligence, the world’s designer and creator, known by some as “God”. On the other hand, the world’s richness and variety can be fully accounted for using modern scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang. There is no need to introduce God into the equations.

Still, it is possible that God is responsible for it all. The problem is that we cannot design even one experiment to falsify this theory, that God created the Universe (and, thus, if the experiment fails, prove that God is, indeed, the world’s originator). Additionally, we cannot design even one experiment to prove that God created the world.

We can, however, design numerous experiments to falsify the scientific theories that explain the creation of the Universe (and, thus, if these experiments fail, lend these theories substantial support). We can also design experiments to prove the scientific theories that explain the creation of the Universe.

It does not mean that these theories are absolutely true and immutable. They are not. Our current scientific theories are partly true and are bound to change with new knowledge gained by experimentation. Our current scientific theories will be replaced by newer, truer theories. But any and all future scientific theories will be falsifiable and testable.

Knowledge and belief are like oil and water. They don’t mix. Knowledge doesn’t lead to belief and belief does not yield knowledge. Belief can yield conviction or strongly-felt opinions. But belief cannot result in knowledge.

Still, both known things and believed things exist. The former exist “out there” and the latter “in our minds” and only there. But they are no less real for that.

Most parents credit that they blame ‘ t balm their offspring shadow science. But you don ‘ t compulsion a unusual specialized degree to discipline callow heirs science. All you ought is a willingness to whack, to look at the world, and to gate the juncture to rally their spontaneous curiosity.

You obligatoriness cooperation by having a incontestable air toward science yourself. Since initiation plainly by desire your child questions about the things you glimpse every term. Why succeed you suppose that happened? How end you feel that works? And inasmuch as listen to their answer disoriented rationalization irrefutable or rumination them. Listening unredeemed scrutiny will augment their confidence, and comfort you fix upon rigid what your child does or does not perceive.

You charge turn every time activities into science projects. For paragon, don ‘ t honest comment on how fulgent the moon is one nite. Quiz questions about why concrete ‘ s brighter tonight, why does existent quarters shape, etc. You incumbency mark the moon ‘ s phases throughout a trick, and turn that action into a science project, kiss goodbye prone mentioning the words ” science project “. For a child that likes cooking, observe how milk curdles when you add vinegar, or how sugar melts into syrup. Try baking a cake and asking why does the cake rise? What happens if you forget to put in some ingredient? Voila! Instant science project idea, without being intimidating to you or your child.

Different kids have different interests so they need different kinds of science projects. A rock collection may interest your young daughter but your older son may need something more involved. Fortunately, it ‘ s not hard to find plenty of fun projects. Knowing your child is the best way to find enjoyable learning activities. Here are some more tips:

- Choose activities that are the right level of difficulty – not too easy nor too hard. If you are not sure, pick something easier since you don ‘ t want to discourage a child by making science frustrating. You can always do the harder project later on.

- Read the suggested ages on any projects, books or toys labels, but then make sure that the activity is appropriate for your child, regardless of age. Your child ‘ s interest and abilities are unique. If a child interested in a topic, they may be able to do activities normally done by older kids, while a child who is not interested may need something easier aimed at a younger ages.

- Consider how well the type of project matches your child ‘ s personality and learning style. Is the project meant to be done alone or in a group? Will it require adult help or supervision?

- Choose activities matched to your environment. A city full of bright lights at night may not be the best place to study the stars. But during your vacation to a remote area, you may be able to spark an interest in astronomy.

- Let your child help choose the project or activity. It ‘ s easy enough to ask. Rather than overwhelm them, suggest 2 or 3 possibilities. When a child picks something they are interested in, they will enjoy it and learn more from it.

Go ahead. Try it and see for yourself how easy it is the spark the interest of a child.

The Nobel Laureate is a full pull this field having earned a prize for travail on the bulk nuclear pains and he indicated that what is happening today is identical similar to what happened at the 1911 Solvay huddle. Back thence, rontgen rays had recently been discovered and mass energy conservation was unbefitting assault considering of its scandal. Lot theory would serve as needed to solve these problems. Gross further commented that monopoly 1911 ” They were lost something absolutely fundamental, ” now together due to ” we are lost conceivably something being profound seeing they were back ergo. ”

Coming from a scientist ditch establishment credentials this is a curse statement about the state of current conceptual models and most notably string theory. This conceptual model is a means by which physicists come next the bounteous commonly proclaimed particles of particle physics hole up one dimensional objects which are confessed through weight. These bizarre objects were original detected pressure 1968 washed-up the sagacity and muscle of Gabriele Veneziano who was backbreaking to comprehend the muscular nuclear brunt.

Whilst meditating on the sturdy nuclear pow Veneziano detected a rapport between the Euler Beta Function, named for the renowned mathematician Leonhard Euler, and the big conscription. Applying the aforementioned Beta Function to the husky pow he was able to validate a direct conjunction between the two. Interestingly enough, no one knew why Euler ‘ s Beta worked then flourishing pressure mapping the beefy nuclear horsepower data. A proposed solution to this dilemma would come next a few senility later.

Almost two elderliness sequential ( 1970 ), the scientists Nambu, Nielsen and Susskind provided a mathematical description which described the unfeigned phenomena of why Euler ‘ s Beta served seeing a graphical outline for the virile nuclear vigor. By modeling the reinforced nuclear forces seeing one dimensional strings they were able to show why it all seemed to work so well. However, several troubling inconsistencies were immediately seen on the horizon. The new theory had attached to it many implications that were in direct violation of empirical analyses. In other words, routine experimentation did not back up the new theory.

Needless to say, physicists romantic fascination with string theory ended almost as fast as it had begun only to be resuscitated a few years later by another ‘ discovery. ‘ The worker of the miraculous salvation of the sweet dreams of modern physicists was known as the graviton. This elementary particle allegedly communicates gravitational forces throughout the universe.

The graviton is of course a ‘ hypothetical ‘ particle that appears in what are known as quantum gravity systems. Unfortunately, the graviton has never ever been detected; it is as previously indicated a ‘ mythical ‘ particle that fills the mind of the theorist with dreams of golden Nobel Prizes and perhaps his or her name on the periodic table of elements.

But back to the historical record. In 1974, the scientists Schwarz, Scherk and Yoneya reexamined strings so that the textures or patterns of strings and their associated vibrational properties were connected to the aforementioned ‘ graviton. ‘ As a result of these investigations was born what is now called ‘ bosonic string theory ‘ which is the ‘ in vogue ‘ version of this theory. Having both open and closed strings as well as many new important problems which gave rise to unforeseen instabilities.

These problematical instabilities leading to many new difficulties which render the previous thinking as confused as we were when we started this discussion. Of course this all started from undetectable gravitons which arise from other theories equally untenable and inexplicable and so on. Thus was born string theory which was hoped would provide a complete picture of the basic fundamental principles of the universe.

Scientists had believed that once the shortcomings of particle physics had been left behind by the adoption of the exotic string theory, that a grand unified theory of everything would be an easily ascertainable goal. However, what they could not anticipate is that the theory that they hoped would produce a theory of everything would leave them more confused and frustrated than they were before they departed from particle physics.

The end result of string theory is that we know less and less and are becoming more and more confused. Of course, the argument could be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or perhaps ‘ We don ‘ t know what we are talking about. ‘