Throw Out Those Math Books

Quantum mechanics is weird stuff. I don't claim to understand it. (Someone--Richard Feynman maybe?--said that if you think that you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.)

Anyway, as described by news@nature.com:

Researchers have shown that removing a photon from a laser beam can lead to it containing more photons than it had before. This result, along with a few other mathematical tricks, is the first practical demonstration of one of the basic principles of quantum physics — the quantum non-commutative effect — and it is leading the way towards controlling light at the quantum level, and to quantum cryptography.

The result of adding, then removing, a photon was different from doing the opposite. Nature is very weird at small scales--something that pseudo-scientists, con-men, and New Age-types try to take advantage of. They love to use the word "quantum."

---

Continue reading...

Of Disbelief and Silliness

Philosopher of science, Ian Hacking, wrote an article in The Nation that reviews several recently published books on evolution/creationism/Intelligent Design. I liked this paragraph:

I have said nothing about the second sticking point for the anti-Darwin movement, that chance variation and natural selection have sufficed to produce the living world as we know it. It is an incredible doctrine. Darwin himself was pretty cautious about it. I respect anyone who says he cannot believe it. But that is where one should stay, in a state of disbelief. Once you start arguing against it, you end up being silly.

I regret that ID folks (and other creationists) have turned respectable disbelief into silliness.

He also describes another view, which I find attractive:

Leibniz proposed that the actual world is the one that combines the maximum of variety with the minimum of complexity for its fundamental laws. The "best" world, the world sought by the most intelligent designer, is one that maximizes variety in its phenomena and simplicity of basic law. Such a world has no place for a specific set of plans for the Arctic tern. The upshot is not attractive to those who favor intelligent design. It is in effect a proof that we live in a world of quantum-mechanical laws that are counterintuitive (to humans) but intrinsically simple--a world that, once these laws are in place, is then allowed to evolve out of a very few raw materials by chance and selection into unendingly complex patterns, including life on earth as we know it. It is a fact that you will get complex structures if you just let such systems run.

The wisest designer would choose the governing laws and initial conditions that best capitalized on this mathematical fact. A stupid designer would have to arrange for all the intricate details (the Arctic tern again) that anti-Darwinians eulogize, but an intelligent designer would let chance and natural selection do the work. In other words, in the light of our present knowledge, we can only suppose that the most intelligent designer (I do not say there is one) would have to be a "neo-Darwinian" who achieves the extraordinary variety of living things by chance. [italics in original]

God using simple means to bring great things to pass...I like the sound of that.

---

Continue reading...

Francis Collins Interview

Francis Collins was interviewed on the Point of Inquiry podcast. Point of Inquiry is part of the Center for Inquiry, a secular humanist organization. Dr. Collins is a bit of a departure from the usual line up, so I was glad to listen to his perspective and enjoyed some of his comments. But I think he does himself a disservice with some of his arguments.

For example, Collins says that if our moral sense of right and wrong is a product of evolutionary development rather than instilled by God,

...why do the atheists insist that we should get over religion and try to be good to each other? Who cares about being good? If they're right, we should all shrug off the whole idea and be just as darned selfish as we possibly can, because there is no driving force behind this. We've all been hoodwinked by evolution into thinking we're supposed to be good, and we should rebel against that. [my transcription; ~min 18]

That looks like a non sequitur to me. How does that make any sense? Why should we necessarily rebel against something established by evolution? And who would want to live in a world where everyone was as selfish as they could be? Answer: nobody (except maybe a few sociopaths). You don't need God in order to realize that total anarchy and a world full of jerks would result in a serious decline in quality of life.

Collins may be expressing fear that some would justify their behavior with that argument. I can't say that such a fear is unjustified, but if someone decides that they are an atheist, I would hope that they have other good reasons not to do violence to me, my family, and my property, and that Collins would not take those reasons away. On the other hand, perhaps this is just Collins trying to score rhetorical points. But Point of Inquiry is not the local church group. It is an organization of people who pride themselves on critical investigation. Such rhetoric only serves to undermine his position, in my opinion.

I don't mean to be excessively negative. I applaud Dr. Collins for being willing to stick his neck out.

---

Continue reading...

Duane Jeffery Speaks [Spoke]

Sunstone has made their audio recordings of symposia presentations pre-dating 2005 available for free. I did an author search for Duane Jeffery and have listened to a few of his presentations.

Duane Jeffery has been a professor of zoology and genetics at BYU for over 30 years. (He is also a director of the NCSE.) I don't know him personally (I wish I did), but from my reading I get the sense that he has been one of the point men in the relationship between BYU biological sciences and Church headquarters. When he finally leaves BYU--or dies--I wonder who will fill his shoes. Anyway, enough of the love-fest.

In the Q&A after his presentation on Noah's flood, someone asked about evolution and Church magazines. After a few comments, including mentioning the BYU packet, he said (my transcription):

In February of '98 [actually 2002], I think it was, the Ensign republished the 1909 statement as though it were something authoritative. We pursued that to the top and we were assured that, as one general authority put it to me, "I don't think the Ensign's going to do anything like that again for a very long time." But we were given [a] formal letter from the First Presidency that that was NOT to indicate a change in position, and assured that the documents we have in the BYU packet, which leave that issue open, are the official position of the church.

I think what the Ensign ought to do is--oh, I don't know--publish the BYU packet with an explanation as to how it came about. I know that's crazy talk, given that the First Presidency stands by it, but I can dream.

---

Continue reading...

Dialogue: Noah's Flood

Clayton M. White and Mark D. Thomas have published an article in the latest BYU Studies Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought on Noah's Flood. The article is "On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Stories: The Noachian Flood Story," and is free (Thanks, Dialogue).

Clayton White is a professor of Plant and Wildlife Sciences at BYU and Curator of Birds at the M. L. Bean Museum. The article itself principally focuses on biological problems that are raised by the traditional, worldwide flood interpretation. I think it is best read along with Duane Jeffery's Sunstone article (also free). Or listen to Jeffery's Sunstone presentation here.

Speaking of Duane Jeffery's article, White and Thomas write:

This is the article mentioned at the beginning of Duane Jeffery, "Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Tradition," Sunstone, Issue 136 (October 2004): 27-45. He describes two Brigham Young University faculty members who wrote the article and submitted it to BYU Studies. After some three years and about five major revisions to suit the editor, BYU Studies essentially accepted the article. After yet another review by another panel, the article was rejected.

I feel bad for the authors, having apparently been jerked around for three years. I have no knowledge of the deliberations that led to the final decision, and I recognize that BYU Studies has to play CYA more than other publishers of Mormon Studies. However, it is difficult for me to not view this as a black mark for BYU Studies. If there is such a thing as "faithful science," I think this is probably about as good an example as any, and I am left to wonder what this says about BYU Studies. I would like to think that they wanted an even better article that laid out additional historical, linguistic, and doctrinal arguments, but I have my doubts.

---

Continue reading...

HIV Denial

You may find this hard to believe, but there are people who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, some don't even believe HIV exists. A commentary in PLoS Medicine, "HIV Denial in the Internet Era," gives some basic background on this movement. In addition to their day jobs, Tara Smith blogs at Aetiology, and Steven Novella is the host of the great podcast, "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" (I've been listening for about a year and a half, now).

HIV denial is not uncommon among the leading lights of Intelligent Design. Of course, it would be a logical fallacy to say that because they are wrong on HIV, they are also wrong on ID. But I think it is suggestive of being a contrarian crank.

---

Continue reading...