A Shared Sense of History

To some social commentators, it seems that in America the social fabric is a little frayed at the seams. Perhaps the reversal of the ever increase trajectory of prosperity has exposed an underlying weakness. Writers have written that there is a malaise in the land. The idea of living in a small village where people are connected with each other and support each other has an almost universal appeal. I would like to suggest the source of this appeal is, in part, that ther

e is a lack of a shared sense of history in our more modern society. A diverse and pluralistic society brings a vitality of energy and ideas but how do we retain a shared sense of history and destiny and why is that even important? Michael Creighton, the popular author, is quoted as saying “If you don’t now [your family’s] history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of the tree.” So what is the importance of the leaf knowing it is part of the tree. Here are four reasons.

1. First it give us solid place to stand. Unlike the a Canadian birling competition (seen on the right photo), a (metaphorically) solid place to stand gives us the balance to meet the unpredictability of life. We less likely to be “blown over” with the storms of life.

2. When we are connected to the past and future, we are connected with certain expectations of living. We have an identity which we tend to live out. We have a calling which we live up to.

3. Sense of trust is more easily built when there is a shared sense of history. Indeed, trust is only built over time. These days our social communication seems as though we are speaking past each other. Without trust, communication is strained and awkward. Built on a history of trust, communication become effortless.

4. We can better understand life itself. Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th century Danish gadfly, writes “life must be lived forward but can only be understood backward”. Life will then feel less chaotic.

To anyone who feels their life to be drifting, I encourage you to consider the fellowship found within the Christian church. From the outside there does not appear to be anything appealing but within this community you will be welcomed. You will be connected to a shared history of thousands of years and a shared destiny. In this way, life can be better understood without leaving the modern day world but rather living in it. You will have a firm place to stand. As John Calvin writes, "In this way our [destiny] rests on a foundation so firm and sure, that though the whole fabric of the world were to give way, it could not be destroyed." You will know that you are " part of the tree" and are planted firmly in good earth.

Not a Chance

With this blog entry, I am concluding the long series which puts forth evidence to the question, “How did we get here?”. As anyone can see, I am providing evidence for the existence of a designer for our world. In this respect, I am on the opposite side of the fence of most who would believe our world, and indeed ourselves, is the result of purely natural processes, that is, by chance. However the evidence I have presented in this blog is pointing to a different conclusion. In the past blogs, I have provided evidence from a variety of sources and viewpoints as follows:

Evidence from mathematics
Evidence from astronomy, the Universe
Evidence from astronomy, the Earth
Evidence from Physics
Evidence from the fossil record
Evidence from biology
Evidence from biological information

The cumulative evidence from all these areas points to a designer. Each of these blog entries provides links for those who want to investigate further. One can read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) or the Grand Designer (Hawking) that argue for the appearance of design but the world, in fact, is a result of chance + time. I have responded to Hawking’s new book in another blog entry. While the evidence for a designer will not convince everybody, no one can say that there is no scientific evidence for a designer. That is, no one can say this unless they refuse to consider this evidence which is a response of the will and not the intellect. So let the debate begin - at least in those forums where opposing opinions are not silenced.

What is the significance of this information? The significance is that the big questions in life relate to origins, meaning, morality and destiny. Any credible world view must provide a coherent response to these four questions. That is, one’s view of origins must be coherent to one’s view of morality, meaning and destiny. Without this coherency, a specific world view is not intellectually significant. In this respect, the questions of origins is very important. As this series comes to a conclusion, I will move on to discuss these other questions.

The Origin of Us

Where did we come from? It is not a question we think about during the course of our days which are filled with more practical matters. Given that is the question even important at all? I get to that question is a later blog. For now I want to explore the science of origins - the origin of life itself. In the 19th century, it was assumed that creating life would be rather easy. The intricacies of cell biology were unknown. Biologists tends to see the cell (in Haekel’s words) as a “homogeneous globule of protoplasm”. The thought in those days was that all the was necessary was to mix some basics ingredients into a “soup” add time and life emerges. It was only in the 1930s that scientist began to see the the cell was quite complex. Scientists repeatedly underestimated the cells complexity. It was only in the 1950s that the true complexity of the cell was starting to revealed as the structure of DNA was beginning to be understood. What we now know today is the enormous amount of information which is encoded in DNA. Not just biology but information theory must be studied. The cell has information but it is specified information, that is, it specifies functionality. It is not just random information but highly specific information. Therefore any origin of life theory must explain how the “software” programming” of the cell came to be. We now know that this type of specified complexity is beyond the reach of chance (refer to Scientific American, “The Constraints of Chance”, Jan 1996). Even a short 100 amino acid chain has a random probability of form which a chance of 1 in 1060 which is vanishingly small as there are only 1065 atoms in the universe. Other speculative theories have arisen that deal with self-organizational scenarios but all have come up short in explain how the information in even the simplest cell could arise. There is no naturalistic explanation at the current time. The only theory which has any credibility as this time is the argument from intelligent design. This is not an argument from ignorance but rather an argument from the evidence. This background information and the case of the intelligent design inference is now well documented. For those who want a detailed, long but readable article on these matters, refer to Dr. S.C Meyers article “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation".

Homer Nods

While we can appreciate Dr. Stephen Hawking’s previous contributions in the area of theoretical physics, it appears his affirmations have overstepped his knowledge. Dr. Hawking has made the news lately as excerpts of his upcoming book, The Grand Design, have been published. He has been quoted as saying that there is no need for God to create the universe because the universe can be created from nothing. He is quoted as saying “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Certainly he could not mean that the universe pops into existence from absolutely nothing. This would defy basic logical principles; nothing + nothing = nothing. An uncaused cause is a logical absurdity. Elsewhere he affirms that the natural laws like gravity were eternally existent. However, he merely moves the problem. WHY do the natural laws allow for spontaneous creation? WHERE did the natural laws come from? HOW did the initial energy come to be that started the universe.
Dr. Hawking also talks about the multiple universe theory (mulitverse). In a previous blog I have written about the dubious nature of this theory. At least we can say this, there is absolutely no evidence of multiple universes and as such it is not science. In fact the multiverse theory affirms that other universes cannot be detected. As such it is not verifiable and not falsifiable and is therefore not science.
The book The Grand Design tries to address the obvious fact that, at least, the universe appears to be designed for human life. I have also written about this in previous blogs. Those who are predisposed to reject intelligent design are now rather tongue-tied in explaining the fine-tuning of the universe which even the atheist physicist observes. I actually welcome this book since it will bring to the public attention something that has not been focused on before, namely, the fine-tuning of the universe and the improbable events that had to occur such that life exists at all.
One thing that all readers of Dr. Hawking should recognize is that he has stepped away from actual science and into metaphysical speculation. While physicists have done a admirable job in creating models and predicting the behaviour of matter and energy, they still have not even approached the underlying ontology of matter and energy. We look back into the history of science and laugh at some of the theories that have now been thrown away. In wondering which one of today’s theories will be laughed at in the future, I think we have just found the answer.

Irreducibly Complex

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology states, “Today biology is revealing the importance of ‘molecular machines’ and of other highly organized molecular structures that carry out the complex physico-chemical processes on which life is based.” Likewise, a paper in Nature Methods observed that “most cellular functions are executed by protein complexes, acting like molecular machines.” The molecular machines that we find are exceedingly complex and perform many of the functions our body requires even if we don’t have any awareness of them.
In 1996, Michael Behe published a book Darwin’s Black Box. Dr. Behe is a biochemist at Leheigh University. His thesis is that these micro-machines are not only complex but also demonstrate a property of irreducible complexity. Irreducibly complex means a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. For example the mousetrap is a simple machine that will not work unless all the parts are in place. If the latch were only half in length, the whole machine will not work. Using the mousetrap example, there is no pathway for the mousetrap to be developed is a gradual, step-wise path. Behe argues that the same it true for the micro-machines that we find in biological systems. It is not just that they are complex but also that all the parts have to work completely for the machine to work at all. There is no logical theory of how these machines could have developed through a process of evolution. In fact, Behe shows that they cannot. Darwin himself made the following statement: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” At that time, Darwin was not aware of the complex micro-machines that are in the body. Now as Behe has shown, these could not have been developed in a step-wise manner. Of course Behe's idea is rejected by many biologists since there is an implication to this theory. There is also a refusal to even talk about the available evidence. I’ll talk more about that reaction in a later blog. For now, here are some irreducibly complex systems. There are many more.


1. Bacterial Flagellum: The flagellum is a rotary motor in bacteria that drives a propeller to spin, much like an outboard motor, powered by ion flow to drive rotary motion. Capable of spinning up to 100,000 rpm, one paper in Trends in Microbiology called the flagellum “an exquisitely engineered chemi-osmotic nanomachine; nature’s most powerful rotary motor, harnessing a transmembrane ion-motive force to drive a filamentous propeller.” Due to its motor-like structure and internal parts, one molecular biologist wrote in the journal Cell, “more so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” Genetic knockout experiments have shown that the E. coli flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its approximately 35 genes. Despite the fact that this is one of the best studied molecular machines, a 2006 review article in Nature Reviews Microbiology admitted that “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.”

2. Eukaryotic Cilium: The cilium is a hair-like, or whip-like structure that is built upon a system of microtubules, typically with nine outer microtubule pairs and two inner microtubules. The microtubules are connected with nexin arms and a paddling-like motion is instigated with dynein motors. These machines perform many functions in Eukaryotes, such as allowing sperm to swim or removing foreign particles from the throat. Michael Behe observes that the “paddling” function of the cilium will fail if it is missing any microtubules, connecting arms, or lacks sufficient dynein motors, making it irreducibly complex.

3. Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases (aaRS): aaRS enzymes are responsible for charging tRNAs with the proper amino acid so they can accurately participate in the process of translation. In this function, aaRSs are an “aminoacylation machine.” Most cells require twenty different aaRS enzymes, one for each amino acid, without which the transcription/translation machinery could not function properly. As one article in Cell Biology International stated: “The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical ‘hardware’ capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message ‘receiver’. But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein ‘workers’ produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.” Arguably, these components form an irreducibly complex system.

4. Blood clotting cascade: The blood coagulation system “is a typical example of a molecular machine, where the assembly of substrates, enzymes, protein cofactors and calcium ions on a phospholipid surface markedly accelerates the rate of coagulation.” According to a paper in BioEssays, “the molecules interact with cell surface (molecules) and other proteins to assemble reaction complexes that can act as a molecular machine.” Michael Behe argues, based upon experimental data, that the blood clotting cascade has an irreducible core with respect to its components after its initiation pathways converge.

Exploding a Theory

I remember some time ago watching an episode of the TV sitcom. One of the characters was doubting Darwinian evolution at which point the main character said “What about the fossils?”. Well, what about the fossils. It is not talked about very loudly but the present state of paleontology is that, well, the fossil record just doesn’t support the theory of neo-Darwinism. Specifically, the Cambrian explosion defies this theory despite on-going research. Indeed the recent findings in Chengjiang, China have proved quite shocking. But let’s step back. The Cambrian explosion was a geological event that took place about 500 millions years ago and lasted (based on recent) evidence, about 5 million years. During this time period almost all the major phyla appeared in the fossil record. What is now unexplained by evolutionary theorists are the following main features of this time period.
1. Geologically sudden appearance of many advanced species with no transitional intermediate species. There is not record of gradual, stepwise development with transitional species. Although 5 million years is a long time for us, all evolutionary theorists agree that this is too short a time for gradual development. One explanation is that the precursors to these advanced species were not preserved in the fossil record due to their soft-body structure. This explanation has been now discredited especially by the very fine soft-body fossils found in China.
2. The forms of species observed are very different and are isolated from each other. If evolutionary theory is correct, the “tree of life” would begin with very small diversity and then “branch” out over time. This is not what is seen in the record. The number of phyla should increase over time but this is not what is seen.

Charles Darwin in his writings recognized that the fossil record of the Cambrian age did not support his theory but assumed that as more fossils were discovered in would fill in the gaps. As it turns out, as more fossils are discovered, the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories are even more in trouble. The analysis is somewhat scientific and detailed and not suitable for a one-liner on a TV sitcom. Apparently it is also not suitable for a public school science class. A reference is given below for the educated non-scientist who is genuinely interested in reading further.

Reference for further reading: The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang

The Privileged Planet

In my recent blog posting, The Razor's Edge, I wrote about the fine-tuning of the universe. Now let's travel a little closer to home. For years astronomers thought the Earth was a rather ordinary planet - nothing exceptional. As Carl Sagan wrote in 1994, the earth is "a lonely speck in the great enveloping comic dark". However the modern day astronomical thinking has been turning in a different direction. Dr Peter Ward and Dr. Donald Brownlee wrote a book, The Rare Earth, which makes a case that the conditions for life on Earth are very rare indeed. As they say, it is "inescapable" that "Earth is a rare place indeed. Astronomer David Levy agrees by writing "As we know it on Earth, complex life might be very rare, and very precious. Astronomers Jay Wesley Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez recently authored a book called The Privilege Plant also records astounding evidence which shows how many things had to go right to support life on Earth. Here are some of those conditions.

Earth is located in the Milky Way galaxy which is suited to supporting life. You can't find life in old globular clusters due to 1) lack of heavy atoms needed for life, and 2) unstable orbits due to the density of stars.

The Earth is in what is know as the "inhabitable zone" within the Milky Way which about half-way out in the spiral arm. Near the center of the galaxy there are too many exploding stars and black holes to be safe. This would not only be dangerous in itself but the increased amount of radiation which is not hospitable for life. If positioned farther out on the arm there would be insufficient heavy elements for life.

If we look at our solar system we see the earth with a nearly circular obit. If earth had a highly elliptical orbit, the temperature extremes on earth would be too extreme for life. Also, if the massive planets such as Jupiter had eccentric orbits, this would disrupt the earth's steady orbit.

The larger, more massive planets such as Jupiter shield our planets from comet impacts. This was shown in 1994 by George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution.

The earth is just the right distance from the sun to sustain life. 5 per cent closer or father and life would be be possible.

Our sun is quite unusual. It is just the right size and type. About 80% of the stars are red giants which would not be suitable to support a life-sustaining planet. This is due to many factors including 1) the planet must be close to a red dwarf to get enough heat but that that exposes to the planet to solar flares and also cause the planet to be in rotational "lock" 2) the sun's output is very stable which is essential for life, not so for many other stars, 3) our sun has the perfect balance of red and blue hues for heat and for photosynthesis.

Our extremely large moon stabilizes the earth's axis. This was only discovered in 1993. Also, the tide cause by the large moon are very benefical since it nourishes the ocean and keeps the ocean currents going. If the moon were more massive it slow down the earth.

The earth's mass produces a optimum gravitational field; large enough to hold the atmosphere but not too large like Jupiter.

The Earth has the optimum carbon dioxide - rock cycle to regulate the greenhouse gases.

The Earth's molten core produces a magnetic field which shields the Earth from dangerous radiation.

There are many more elements of earth's design for life. For futher reading, refer to these two books.

The Rare Earth

The Privaleged Planet

As a postscript, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure due to the his science leading him to conclude the earth was designed for life.

For more on this postscript, read this.

Two streams from the same source?

I have already written about the mysterious origin of the several Chinese characters. Today I want to think back to beginnings of recorded history and ancient legends. The Hebrew Torah records some the earliest events near the origin of man. Is there any record outside of this book that would provide additional corroboration? Amazing yes and from a very unlikely source - ancient Chinese writers. The Chinese scholar Yuan Zhimin has made a major contribution by connecting these two ancient sources. For more on Yuan Zhimin's work, go to the China Soul website.

Here are some amazing parallel accounts.

1. In the book of Genesis we read about the first man and women, Adam and Eve. In Chinese legends they are known as An Deng and Nu Wa.

2. The creation story in Chinese writings does not appear but the Chinese poet Qu Yuan raised the questions "Who made An Deng the ruler? How was Nu Wa's body made?"

3. God finished his creation and rested on the seventh day. The Chinese classic Zhou Yi states "the way of the heavens comes around in seven days".

4. In Genesis, a river flowed from Eden that water the garden and it separated in four headwaters. In the Chinese classic Huai Nan Zi, there were four headwaters under the heavens - divine springs for the sustenance of herbs and nourishment of all things.

5. Genesis records two tree in the garden: the Tree of Life that gave immortality and the Tree of Good and Evil made one wise as God. The Chinese text "The Book of Mountains and Seas" tells us that in the beginning was a tree of immortality and tree of sacredness - also known as the Tree of Wisdom. Whoever ate of it's fruit would be as wise as God.

6. When Adam and Eve sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, the were banished from the garden with a flaming sword to guard the entrance. Two Chinese classics, Shang Shu and Guo Yu, tell us because of sin, God instructed an angel to block the way to heaven thereby cutting of interaction with between God and man.

7. The Bible says God flooded the Earth to cleanse it from evil. Several Chinese classics refer to a person name Gong Gong who led a revolt that provoked divine judgement. The columns supporting heaven collapsed and the cables holding the earth broke and water covered the earth.

8. After Noah, the Bible describes the world as having one language which was later confused by God due to man's pride. Beijing Television station excerpt tells of ancient Chinese legends that speak of a world wide language call Yashi. The Loulan inscriptions shed light on this mysterious age.

John Calvin writes in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis "It is indeed probable that shortly after the building of Babel, the memory of [mans origins] ... was obliterated." and "... no nation, the posterity of Abraham excepted, knew for more than two thousand succesive years, either from what fountain itself had sprung, or when the universal race of man began to exist." But had Calvin been informed by this research highlighted above, he may ask as Yuan Zhimin asks "Could the two ancient cultures of Israel and China be mysteriously linked? Could the wondrous tales of God and man told along the banks of the Jordan and Yellow River flow from the same source?"

Falling Up?

Today I am taking the role of a motivation writer but this writer is actually writing to himself and not to others. In physics there is a quantity call entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with a system. To put it more commonly, amount of disorder in a system increases unless there is energy put into the system. That is, the natural path is toward disorder. We can all see this everyday life by just looking around our room; the natural path is towards disorder. Applied to life, I notice that my natural path is not toward knowledge and improvement. Even at my advanced age I feel there is room for improvement. Therefore I need to be more intentional about these matters. I am involved in my work at Rockwell, Chinese language, Bible study. Not satisfied with mediocrity, I need to be more intentional about rising above the ordinary. The natural path will not get me there. I need to look for the time-wasters in life and use that valuable time wisely. I need to carefully read one technical article each day to expand my knowledge at work. I need to be disciplined to read 30 minutes a day from my Chinese elementary reader. I need to be more purposeful in Bible study. All these sound like New Year's resolutions which no one can keep therefore I put it in writing to remind myself. I know this, I won't drift into excellence.

Whatever our desires, maybe we should all reflect on being more intentional and avoid drifting into mediocrity. I know if I drop a stone, the natural path is to fall down. I have decided to fall up.

The Razor's Edge

The normal person goes here and there not aware of the physical laws around us that make everything possible. This is how it should be. But the abnormal person, i.e. physicists, think about such things. One reality of the universe that is known by all Astrophysicists is the "fine-tuning" of the universe. By "fine-tuning" scientists mean this: the fundamental laws of nature and the parameters are physics are exactly as they must be for life to exist. The exactness and the number of parameters that are as the must be is shocking. One physist said "there are more than 30 septate physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to product a life-sustaining universe". Here are some examples.

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
PARAMETER	Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons	1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity	1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe	1:1055
Mass of Universe	1:1059
Cosmological Constant	1:10120

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. Without these parameters set to where they are, life - any life - would be impossible. There are many more examples that are listed in the addendum to this blog posting. All these are known by all astrophysicists regardless whether they are theists for not.

Former professor of theoretical physics Paul Davis, "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it has a brute fact. I cannot believe the our existence to this universe is a mere quirk of fate, and accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama."

Cosmologist Edward Harrison, "The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design."

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, "I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they product inside stars"

Discover Magazine, "The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely."

1. Strong nuclear force constant
   if larger : no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller : no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. Weak nuclear force constant
   if larger : too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller : too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. Gravitational force constant
   if larger : stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller : stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. Electromagnetic force constant
   if greater : chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser : chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger : all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller : all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger : chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller : same as above
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger : electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller : same as above
8. Expansion rate of the universe
   if larger : no galaxies would form
   if smaller : universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. Entropy level of the universe
   if larger : stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller : no proto-galaxies would form
10. Mass density of the universe
    if larger : overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller : insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster : stars would be too luminous for life support if slower : stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. Age of the universe
    if older : no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger : solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. Initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform : stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform : universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. Average distance between galaxies
    if larger : star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller : gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. Density of galaxy cluster
    if denser : galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense : star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. Average distance between stars
    if larger : heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller : planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger : all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller : all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. Decay rate of protons
    if greater : life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller : universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12 C to 16 O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger : universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller : universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. Ground state energy level for 4 He
    if larger : universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller : same as above
21. Decay rate of 8 Be
    if slower : heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster : no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher : neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower : neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater : radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser : matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. Polarity of the water molecule
    if greater : heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller : heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. Supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late : radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon : heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. White dwarf binaries
    if too few : insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many : planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon : insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late : fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger : universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller : no galaxies would form
28. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger : quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller : same result
29. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller : electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger : same result
30. Mass of the neutrino
    if smaller : galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger : galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. Big bang ripples
    if smaller : galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger : galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller : certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger : same result
33. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller : oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger : oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. Cosmological constant

if larger : universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Source: http://www.designanduniverse.com/articles/fine_tunning_parameters_for_universe.php

Older and Wiser?

As are getting older, we are getting wiser. We have observed many things; youth and age, success and failure, health and sickness, high position and low position. We have seen cycles of fashion and ideas come and go. There is no need to rant and rave about every event; no need to complain about this person or that person. Things are not so black and white but rather shades of gray. Situations and people are always more complicated than surface appearances. If we condemn too quickly we make ourselves look foolish. Therefore we become slow to condemn and quick to forgive. As Steven Covey once remarked "seek to understand before you seek to be understood."

Think of an individual or organization that has upset you. Write an email to them saying that you understand the situation. For example, has the oil leak made you upset at BP? Don't swim with the crowd; be counter-cultural. Instead write BP an email thanking them for their efforts and encourage them in the difficult work it is to extract oil from the ocean floor. Has a public servant annoyed you? Tell them you understand how difficult their job is and encourage them in their work. Have you experienced poor service in a restaurant? Tell them you understand the pressures they are under and thank them for their efforts.

If you do this, notice how this makes you feel.

Who is pulling the strings?

Who is pulling the strings?

The March Discover Magazine has an interview with Columbia physicist Brian Greene regarding the very esoteric theory of the universe called "String Theory". For those PBS watchers, we can remember Dr. Greene had a special program on string theory with very good graphic illustrations. Both for the physicist as well as others the theory is plenty esoteric. In fact, one has to wonder where science ends and where speculation begins. String theory is an attempt to bring together quantum theory and general relativity. This theory attempts to unify all theories and some people say it the theory of everything. For those wishing to read more here is the link to the string theory wiki. One of the strange results of this theory is that there is (at least) 11 dimensions along with multiple universes. One of the peculiar things to me is the lack of scientific verification. In the past science has been influenced by the philosophy of logical positivism which requires all science to be either verifiable or falsifiable. Most of the confirmation of this theory is purely mathematical. See this quote from Jim Holt concerning string theory.

"For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing." -- Jim Holt.

Here is how Brian Greene responds in the Discovery magazine interview.

"Critics of string theory have called it unscientific because it is not falsifiable. How can we evaluate string theory?
Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable. There are aspects of a theory that you can go out and look for and confirm, and that’s another way to gain confidence in it. For instance, it’s really hard to falsify the statement that there is life on another planet, but you can verify it by finding one example. We’re hoping that certain features of string theory are confirmable."

Yet despite the lack of evidence string theory it is a hot topic in theoretical physics. It is ironic that 50 years ago scientists criticized theists for believing in a transcendent world (universe) that is not detectable by instrumentation. Today scientists believe in an undetectable transcendent universe because the math points to it. Could it be that naturalists and theists are coming closer together?

The World is Spinning

Let's begin my stating the obvious. Listening to the media whether on TV or the internet, one encounters a great degree of "spin", that is, P.R. Of course the job of marketing and advertising is to persuade. Politicians have been highly trained in the art of "spin" over many years. Business want to inform the public in the best possible light. Then there are the political and cultural pundits, driven by ideology, "spinning" their ideas on news shows and blogs. There is nothing wrong with having a underlying ideology, indeed everyone has one. But a person's ideology must be confronted with all the facts not just the convenient facts. Individuals can also "spin" their personal information to put themselves in the best light.

What is spin? It isn't direct lie but rather a half-truth. It's also the creative use of language of create an impression that isn't totally accurate. I am reminded of the Yiddish proverb that "a half-truth is a whole lie." The communicators in the areas mentioned above are people just like you and me. Put the ordinary person in a political or business job and it is their responsibility to put their organization in a good light. This puts them in a conflicted position. Certainly they feel the pressure since they know lying is wrong yet they know their responsibility. There is no one size fits all answer. Everyone must judge the right path for themselves.

How then shall we live in a spinning world? Here are some suggestions, maybe you have more.

1. Turn-off the TV. No need to watch commercials and political pundits. Borrow a DVD from the library if you like.

2. When we hear spin, judge softly. It's an issue within organization systems and there is no use complaining. Treat the people within those organizations with respect because they have been put into that position.

3. On a individual level, be scrupulous for the truth even if it exposes a weakness. There is no need for us to hide all our faults. Use discretion and err on the side of truth. You will travel much lighter. I am reminded of Jesus upon seeing Nathanael for the first time saying "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." Let's live so this can be said of us as well.

A Mystery in the Chinese Characters

It is thought that originally the Chinese migrated from the Mesopotamia region based on similarity in arts and government (ref 1). The Chinese written characters are very ancient indeed dating back to about 2650 BC. It is the oldest continually used system of writing in the world. See this link for more background on the history and origins of Chinese characters. The surprising mystery I want to highlight in this blog is a very strange connection between several Chinese characters and the historical Hebrew record dating back to before 2500 BC. This early time is at the threshold of recorded history and the record is not clear. However I would like to illustrate this with several characters. Before I do that let me explain something about Chinese characters. These characters are call sinographs (or ideographs) that have a meaning and are usually made up of individual elements that also have a meaning. Again, click this link to read more about this on Wikipedia. For now, let me illustrate a mystery that connects several characters with Hebrew history.

造 This character is pronounced zao4 and means "to create". The interesting thing is about the individual elements of the character. The left element (called a radical) means to walk, the top right character relates to the earth and the bottom characters means mouth or person. Put these all together and it appears to fit into the Hebrew creation account where God made man from the dust of the earth into a living being to could walk.

船 This character pronounced "chuan2" means boat or ship. The left element means "vessel". The top right element means "8" and the bottom right element means mouth or person. It is interesting the the Hebrew account of the ancient flood records 8 people getting on Noah's ark.

The last two characters date to about 2500 BC the time of dispersion of peoples from the Mesopotamia region. The Hebraic account could have very easily migrated to the east. These next two characters are even more mysterious since they pre-date the New Testament account of Jesus life. It appears that God was not absent from China in those very early years. These next two characters point to time that had not yet come.

樣 This character pronounced "yang4" means "pattern" or "model". The left element means tree, the top right element means "lamb" and the bottom element means "forever". The Bible tells us that Jesus was the lamb Jesus was the lamb of God, he was hung on a tree and he is our model forever.

義 This character pronounced "yi4" means "justice" or "righteousness". The top element means "lamb" and the bottom element means "I". The Bible teaching is that the lamb is the righteous one and I am under the lamb.

These are not the only characters but simply several examples. For further study, see The Discovery of Genesis by C.H. Kang and Dr. Ethel R. Nelson. I admit that this may sound like a lot of religious talk but it seems to more than a coincidence. How many coincidences in life are we simply going to dismiss. Are we going to say it "just happened"?

1. The Language of China before the Chinese, Terrien De La Couperie, p114

2. The Discovery of Genesis, C.H. Kang and Dr. Ethel Nelson

Having just returned to the U.S. from my 5th trip to China, I thought I would share some cultural insights. I decided to comment about social relationships. This idea came to me after my return from China while visiting a neighbor's house here in the U.S. to discuss a small matter. The entire conversation took place through the screen door. It seemed strange. Here are some interesting points about Chinese friendships.

1. Any visitor that comes to the door is immediately and enthusiastically invited in. Of course offers of drink and food will follow. This is before any questions of why you came.

2. Often visits are un-announced or perhaps a quick phone call just before you come over. If un-announced and if nobody is home, that OK, just keep going. To the Chinese person in the US, arranging a visit one week in advance sounds very strange.

3. The in the U.S., many of our relationships are separated into groups. That is, we have our co-workers on the job and most time we don't socialize too much with co-workers outside of the workplace. We have a neighborhood, family, church, special interest groups. Usually our acquaintances in these groups do not know each other. In China, it is common to socialize with your co-workers outside of the workplace. This is even arranged by the managers in the workplace. Since everyone lives closer together, people in your various circles will often meet each other.

4. Anyone who has been to China know that this is a culture of hospitality. On any occasion and often without much preparation, a feast is prepared at home or arranged in a restaurant. Anyone who has visited China definitely does not go hungry. In the restaurant, it is common for one person to pay the check even if there is 10 people eating. How to decide who pays? You must argue with one another over who pays. Everyone wants to pay the check. For the Chinese person looking at Americans in the restaurant carefully calculating how much everyone pays seems very strange. It seems that there is some distance between them.

In summary, the Chinese spend much more effort in developing and maintaining social networks. There is a wider circle of friends and people know each other's life much more. This is beneficial when the difficulties of life come. I am not referring to the much written about guanxi which is more formal dealing with position and status. In writing these observations, I am not judging one culture over another but rather just pointing out the differences I have seen. I am an American and much more individualistic which is culturally comfortable for me.

The desert off limits to solar energy?

With all the talk about renewable energy sources, one would think that the Mojave dessert would be the ideal place for a large, solar energy site. The suns shines 360 days a year. There are businesses ready to get financing for large scale projects. California has aggressive goals for development of renewable energy sources. This sounds like a project that's a win-win for everyone. Wrong. Apparently these large desert areas are not suitable for large scale solar projects because the delicate ecosystem may be disturbed. (see this link) It appears the desert tortise needs 5.8 million acres to live in. The Mojave ground squirrel get 1.7 million acres. A scientist from the Joshua Tree National Park is concern about light pollution of the desert sky. Some nocturnal wildlife may be affected. This all sounds a little bizarre to my mind. This is the desert! Virtually nobody goes there! Virtually nobody want to go there! If it take this much red tape to install solar panels out in the desert, let' just forget about solar technology and drill for more offshore oil. The same kind of environmental fights are taking place off Cape Cod in Massachusetts regarding a wind farm about 6 miles from the shore. It seems there is a chance a bird may fly into the blades. This is environmentalism going over line.

I think we can proceed with these green energy projects without undue worry. I think the desert ground squirrel will be just fine. I predict the shady area under the solar collectors will create a whole new ecosystem. If he could speak, the Mojave ground squirrel would probably welcome the shady areas. If the squirrel could think, he would wonder why we didn't build this earlier and give him some relief from the sun.

Leonhard Euler was a famous 18th century mathametician and physicist is possibly the greatest mathematician of all time. One formula he is known for is the Euler identity (shown on the left) which is a specific instance of Euler's general formula.

e is the base of the natural logarithm and is used to describe natural effects like a normal distribution and radioactive half-life. It is an irrational and transcendetal number.

pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. The circle or sphere is a perfectly symetical shape and this ratio of the circumference to the diameter is constant. pi is also a irrational and transcendental number.

i is the square root of -1 which is a number which cannot even be visualized. Indeed this number by itself is a paradox and is call an imaginary number.

And now the amazing part, these irrational, transcendental, imaginary and fundamental constants are related in a very simple way by Euler's identity. Starting with a irrational number and raise it to the power of another irrational number multiplied by an imaginary number and you get -1! No one can explain this mystery.

I remember it was amazing to me when I first encountered it in a class on complex variables. This relationship between these variable is astounding and profound. A reader poll conducted by Mathematical Intelligencer named the identity as the most beautiful theorem in mathematics. Another reader poll conducted by Physics World in 2004 named Euler's identity the "greatest equation ever", together with Maxwell's equations. The book Dr. Euler's Fabulous Formula [2006], by Paul Nahin (Professor Emeritus at the University of New Hampshire), is devoted to Euler's identity; it is 400 pages long. The book states that the identity sets "the gold standard for mathematical beauty." Constance Reid claimed that Euler's identity was "the most famous formula in all mathematics." After proving the identity in a lecture, Benjamin Peirce, a noted nineteenth century mathematician and Harvard professor, said, "It is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth." Stanford mathematics professor Keith Devlin says, "Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."

If this formula is not astounding then you do not understand mathmatics deeply enough. We cannot call this formula a coincidence. We cannot call this a fluke. We cannot even say that this is just interesting. We must use adjectives such as "mystery", "paradox" and "beauty". It is not too much to call this identity "supernatural". For those who will not believe in God unless they see a miracle with their own eyes, here is that miracle. You may observe this miracle whenever you like and be amazed. If you cannot see this miracle, it is not the fault of God, it is your knowledge that must expand. Study, see, then believe.