Science, Fiction, Reality and Religion

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Evolution Vs. Religion

As I have stated in previous posts, I've never understood why religion and science are considered mutually exclusive. A friend sent me two of the following links regarding the evolution vs. intelligent design and they are well worth the read.

A quote from one of the articles:

"The truth is that many scientists accept evolution and believe in God -- and in a natural world so complete that it strives toward perfection all on its own, without need of a supernatural designer to keep it going."

'Monkey Girl' by Edward Humes

Forum: Distorting Darwin

Scientific Books and Movies

I am still struggling through "Galileo's Daughter." It is an excellent biography of the man, but it is dry and boring.

On the other hand, I picked up the DVD "What the Bleep?" Down the Rabbit Hole." I can't wait to watch it. It has the theatrical version and the randomly generated version. The random version creates a new movie for you every time you watch it. The movie's run time varies from 15 minutes to 300 minutes. For reviews, go to Amazon. com. The movie's web site charges $80 for the three DVD set, but you can get it on Amazon or ebay for around $20.

Update July 16, 2013

I've been reviewing older blogs.  Hindsight is funny.  Turns out that "Galileo's Daughter" is now one of my favorite books.  Recently, I donated around 100 books to Goodwill.  I kept "Galileo's Daughter."  I couldn't part with it.

"What the Bleep" is an entertaining movie.  I was a bit upset with it though. It does an excellent job presenting scientific fact and crossing it with the metaphysics.  It gives you a different and new way to view the world and your place in it.  Unfortunately, one of the people used as a resource in the movie is a crackpot.  J. Z. Knight, born Judith Darlene Hampton, claims to channel a 35,000 year old warrior named Ramtha.  She has been debunked in the past and can't be taken seriously.  Yet "What the Bleep" through her into the mix.  I don't understand what they were thinking.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Recommended Reading

For the amateur, there are plenty of books that explain the basics of physics and our universe.

Stephen Hawking's, "A Brief History of Time," is a must. It initiates the nonscientist to the wonders of space and time.

Brian Greene's. "The Elegant Universe," delves into string theory. I found it more difficult to read than Hawking, as he delves into quantum geometry as well as explaining the mystery of strings. It is worth the read as his imagery allows the reader to visualize other dimensions in space and simplifies complex concepts.

If you feel that these books maybe a bit over your head, try "The Planets," by Dava Sobel. Sobel intertwines scientific fact into an amazing narrative that is so lyrical and poetic, you forget you are learning about our solar system.

There are a number of books that I haven't touched yet, but plan to do so in the near future. Hawking's, "A Briefer History of Time, " and "The Universe in a Nutshell" are on my list, as well as Sobel's, "Galileo's Daughter."

These books allow the beginning science aficionado to explore our world and the universe without being overwhelmed by a barrage of tedious facts. You will be amazed at the end of your journey how much you have learned.

Monday, October 02, 2006

String Theory

Scientific bandwagons come and go. The latest is String Theory. Lately, a number of scientists (and bloggers) are claiming that since String Theory is not verifiable, it is invalid.

The problem with String Theory is not that it is invalid, but it is not testable. We haven't the technology to verify it. Since it is not verifiable at the moment, it can be called more of a philosophy than a theory. That doesn't make it false. We don't have the ability to go beyond the math and the speculation.

Einstein searched for the Theory of Everything as well as other well known scientists. The problem is that Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity do not jive with what is well known about the subatomic world (quantum mechanics.)

Scientists like things to fit neatly so it is understandable that so many jumped on the String Theory bandwagon. Now it is popular to slam it. Scientific bandwagons are just that. It takes time to determine whether they hold up or not.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Is there a God?

In recent posts, I have dealt with the controversy regarding Religion vs. Science. I was raised Roman Catholic and although I disagree a great deal with the policies of an European male dominated bureaucracy, I still attend mass regularly (whether out of guilt or habit, I haven't decided.) Having said that, it doesn't keep me from speculating about other possibilities.

What happens when we die? No church can claim to know for sure. No one has ever come back to tell us.

My mother witnessed my grandmother's death. She said that at the moment she passed a pulsing light emanated from her body. At that moment, my grandmother, a southerner, said, "Ooo-eee" and passed. "Ooo-eee" is an old southern expression of excitement. It made me think. What happens to the electrical energy that is us?

The first law of thermodynamics is that one can neither create nor destroy energy. Our body uses electrical energy in order to function. Where does that initial energy that becomes us come from? In the womb, does the zygote take a small amount energy from its parents? Or does it borrow it from the universe?

At the quantum level, energy is borrowed, frequently, but it must be returned very quickly. Is that what happens to us? Is the energy that is us borrowed from the universe, only to be returned when we die? My mother, a very down to earth woman, wasn't hallucinating. I believed her account of my grandmother's passing. Is that what happened at the moment of her death?

The bible says that we will "know everything" when we die. If our energy returns to the universe, we become one with it. I won't speculate as to whether we are cognizant at that point. I haven't a clue if our consciousness is able to sustain itself without the support of the biochemistry of the brain, but it is a fun thought.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Science isn't Perfect

I get tired of people like Bill Maher, who hold up science as the answer to everything. Science can be bastardized so easily.

Scientific bandwagons abound. For example, there are other theories as to why the dinosaurs became extinct, but have you heard of them? The asteroid theory has become politically acceptable and to dispute it leads to ridicule from the media and other scientists. This happens a great deal in the scientific world.

Funding has a big influence on scientific research. The results of research can be slanted, because of the influence of the financial backer. You hear of major car companies funding car safety studies. If the big three are paying your salary, you are going to be awfully tempted to give them the results they want.

Also, research can be stretched out or delayed or results slanted so that more funding can be requested. It is amazing how a lot of grants are for a period of five years. I wonder how that research would turn out if the researchers were told that they were only receiving funding for five years and not another dime after that.

Of course, all scientific research is open to interpretation. What do the results mean?

Then there are statistics which can be played with and manipulated like a magician with a deck of cards.

Scientific theories abound, as well. Some can be proven using clear cut scientific guidelines, but others are pure speculation.

I am not against science and scientists. I revere Stephen Hawking, Michael Green, Richard Feynman and others who have shown us the intricacies of our world and the universe. I am just saying that to say that it isn't perfect and to say that the end all of everything is absurd.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Ghost, Goblins, and Ghouls

Could there be a scientific explanation for the things that go bump in the night? People who believe in the supernatural refuse to believe those that don't and visa versa. Could both be right?

String Theory has opened the possibility of other dimensions, besides the four we know about (three physical dimensions, plus time.) In fact, according to String Theory there are eleven dimensions. Our perceptions of reality are based in the three dimensions we understand. How would we appear to a race of two dimensional people? Picture this, a two dimensional world would look like a sheet of paper. Stick your finger through that paper. From the two dimensional view, we would look like a cross section of that finger, nothing more.

There are a number of explanations for ghosts. Some people who are highly susceptible to suggestion will see things that aren't there. There is thought that many sightings are the result of visual stimuli that are produced in a dreamlike state. Occasionally, there is a supernatural event that can't be rationalized or understood. Why can't a ghost be an interdimensional event? How would beings from dimensions beyond our comprehension appear to us?

Why is it so easy to believe in ghosts, yet not in a scientific explanation for them?

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Science Vs. Religion

This blog is open to all who are interested in the latest developments in science. I would like to start off with a big question? Why is there the assumption that science and religion are mutually exclusive?

Despite the strides we have made in the past century, we know so little about our universe. Quantum Physics and Einstein's theories of relativity have been well investigated and verified, yet they do not agree. Michael Green, Stephen Hawking and other physicists have searched for a theory of everything. String theory is an attempt at reconciling the differences between the two, yet, we do not have the technology to either prove or disprove it.

To say that religion and science can not coincide is ridiculous. Our minds are too small to grasp either. We have a long way to go.