Justin on Science: It's about time for a real rant

Alright, it's on. I've been thinking about writing something on this topic for a while, and the time is now.

The following is a quote from this article in Time magazine:

It has been said that the spread of the scientific spirit in the 17th and 18th centuries was one of the things that stopped the burning of witches. Learning how the universe is governed by the impersonal principles of a final theory may not end mankind's persistent superstitions, but at least it will leave them a little less room.

I don't think I've ever read a more wholey arrogant and offensive comment. Just so we're all on the same page, I am assuming that by "mankind's persistent superstitions" the author is referring to belief in a creator God. If you think that is too generous an assumption, feel free to let me know, but personally I think the statement is particularly pointed.

I have, over the last little while, taken a particular interest in the evolution vs. Intelligent Design(ID) argument. It was inspired by reading a debate on another blog site about this issue. I was trying to refind the site to read some more but I'd lost the address, and so I did a Google search using some keywords that were relevant to this particular topic. As you'd imagine, the list of results was quite enormous, but what particularly caught my eye was the two or three lines of text that Google displayed for each page in the search results.
Result after result began by flaming the crap out of Creationists, who apparently invented ID as a means to bring their hokey ludicrous theory back into battle against evolution, which almost every page held up as being the most solidly proven fact science has ever discovered. All this, in 3 lines of text. I read through a few pages, and discovered that most of the results were all people stating the following, without providing any reliable evidence:

1. Evolution is fact, as it has been proven by science
2. Creation and Intelligent Design are superstition/hokey religion/crap
3. All scientists who advocate Creation/ID are non-credible
4. None of the above mentioned scientists' research can be referenced as evidence in debate, due to the previous point.
5. Science will eventually know/explain everything

The last point is more inference from discussion the actual statement made in my reading. However, it is the most interesting. All debate I read is based on people's faith that not only is present scientific practice infallible, but that science will eventually have explanations for everything we could possibly want to know.

Horse crap, my friend, with a capital C.

I wrote a post on the blog I mentioned previously pertaining to this discussion, and I've quoted it for your reading pleasure below:

You know, I think life is like a game of Quake 3. When I boot up my computer, and I start the game, there are characters running around a world which has a set of clearly defined rules. If you suddenly gave them intelligence, and then could ask them what their origins were, they would probably begin to investigate their environment and draw conclusions about how it came about - none of which would be even remotely like the truth. Why? Because from within the reality they exist in, they cannot comprehend or discover anything outside. They can test, and investigate, and probe the rules of their environment, but there is no possibility that they could "scientifically" discover ANYTHING beyond the bounds of the world they exist in, simply because the rules do not allow them to do so. However, it is possible that they could observe changes instigated by an outside force (me), and conclude that there must be something beyond themselves and their environment.

Science is all well and good, but it only acknowleges discoveries that hold true to it's beliefs. ...one of the rules says "if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist." This is why you won't see articles on creation or intelligent design in science journals - what reputable atheistic scientist would concede that science won't ever supply the answers? None of them would. To do so would be to dissolve their own worth. If God is the creator, then science will forever be at odds with this idea, as God exists outside the realms of provability and scientific observation. It's like trying to prove a third dimension to a 2-dimensional world. It just can't be done.

Now, the observations I received back from this comment were twofold: 1.) not all scientists are atheists, and 2.) we are aware of more then 3 dimensions. I'll leave number 1 alone, as I'm well aware of this fact and the guy was just fumbling for something to disprove. I was talking specifically about the subset of scientists who are atheists, not labeling scientists as atheistic. Number 2 however, interests me. Someone, anyone at all, prove a 4th physical dimension to me. Not using the logic of "we can't explain something, and a 4th dimension would explain it", but actually show me how it works. YOU CAN'T DO IT. Why not? For the same reason that there is no physical object that is truly 2 dimensional, and that if you pretend that pencil lines have no height on paper, you couldn't construct a truly 3 dimensional shape by drawing it. We can assume or guess or theorize that there are more dimensions, and they may well exist, but I think it's highly unlikely we could ever actually prove it, as it would be beyond our ability to observe.


Here's what I think about all this:
Science is great for explaining things that are within the realm of the observable. You can observe the effects of penicillin on bacteria, or of reactions between various elements and compounds. You can even reproduce these things. However, you can't observe macro evolution. You can't observe the creation of the universe. You can observe the current state of animals and plants, or of planets and stars, but all you can do with that is theorize about what might have happened. And yet for some reason completely unbeknownst to me, scientific types think they can prove these things, and that they should be held up by all as fact. It's like the Quake 3 example - the actual truth could literally be anything, and yet by observing the inside of the box, they're trying to explain what the world outside looks like. Well, in this case they're trying to prove it doesn't exist.
I'm not out to discredit all the work science has done to better the human race. I'm just out to express my dissatisfaction at people insulting those who won't just blindly accept evolution as fact.

Shmer. OK, I'm done. Go nuts, people who feel it's important to defend the scientific faith.

You wanna see something gross?

What you're looking at (if you're game) is the evilest mouth ulcer to ever form in someone's mouth. Currently it's making me speak as if I have a rather bad speech impediment AND have just been fitted with braces AND have just got my tounge pierced. It sucks. I'd like to thank my mother, for passing on to me whatever it is that makes the tiniest of oral injuries turn into a painful monster of a mouth sore. I swear, the pain is driving me mental.

More when I'm sane again.

That button I mentioned...

As it turns out, I can't modify the code for the navbar at the top of my blog, so here's the image I created to replace the "Next Blog" button:




And here's a large size version, for the hearing impared:






I was planning to also include a mouse-over image so the button said "3 in 5 wins!" or something when you pointed at it, but I didn't get to that seeing as how it's now useless anyways.

Ah well, let this be the last of the "Blogger is full of pr0n" statements from me. In the mean time, I'm actually joining a friend of mine in trying to drum up readership by commenting on other's blogs. It's a fun side-track while I'm at work and bored off my tree. If you're inclined to the occasional deep thought on the origins of life, the universe and everything can I recommend this blog for your reading and commenting pleasure.

Click here for Pr0n!!

Some of you may have noticed that on most Blogspot blogs, there's a nifty little button in the top right-hand corner of the screen labeled "Next Blog". Having experimented with this button for the first time today, I've decided it should be re-labeled "Click here to play porn roulette" with perhaps a subtitle of "3 in 5 clicks get porn!"
You see, within the space of about 7 clicks of said button, I'd been to 3 blogs that simply consisted of links to porn, one that was the blog of a French hardcore porn producer (including photos), one that consisted of links to buisness loan information, and 2 legitimate blogs of people who may possibly like porn, but chose not to talk about it, so I guess we won't ever know.

I'll set about the task of re-labeling the button later. In the mean time, have a good evening.

Game music is w00t

Game music is so cool.

Nobuo Uematsu has been a hero of mine for a while. I had a real passion for music, and studied it for a semester at uni, but withdrew because I couldn't deal with the crazy and almost incomprehensible mix of traditionalism and post-modernism that pervades music at an academic level. Things aren't allowed to change, unless it's within the current definition of modern music.
For example, Beethoven's music is great, but music written in 2005 that sounds like music from Beethoven's period and is about the beauty of creation is not great. Great music in 2005 needs to sound like someone driving a truck through a scrap heap, and have some relation to the plight of feminists or homosexuals in oppressive modern society.
You see? There are clearly defined boundaries for what is "acceptable deviation". Anyway, enough about my opinions...

Nobuo Uematsu is a hero of mine, because the music he writes is outside of any box that people would like to put it in. It's like movie soundtracks, and yet not attached to the "acceptable" medium of film. Not only that, but unlike movie soundtracks, it has an enormous cult following. I was a bit surprised to learn following the "Night in Fantasia" concert in 2004 which featured music from the Final Fantasy games, that the members of the orchestra for that event were not bored geeky conservitorium students, but rather world renown professional musicians. Many of them have played in orchestras all over the world. See, I never put myself in the "bored and geeky" category, but figured that the vast majority of people who would be interested in listening to video game music must be part of that demographic. However, I've learnt over time that I'm very wrong. Video gaming is becoming a staple of EVERY teenager's years, and depending on their personal preferences, many of them have played Final Fantasy games and other RPGs with similarly epic soundtracks. And as a result, many of them enjoy listening to the music, as it not only is fantastic music, but it relates to a particular moment that they experienced while playing the games. Whether it was an emotionally climactic point in the story, or an exciting and rewarding accomplishment, the relationship between the experience and the music is forged, and that makes for a fantastic listening experience when enjoying the soundtrack.

Anyway, I could write pages on this, but I have to stop now. Lunch calls. Hope you all enjoy.