Most.. adorable.. thing.. ever..

A little 3 yr. old girl recounts the plot of Stars Wars Episode I IV (thanks to Chris for the correction!).

This just oozes cute.

“But don’t talk back to Darth Vader, he’ll get ya!”

$900

-Random personal update since this is, you know, my blog. –

Just thought I would inform the world: I spent $900 to fix my car’s power steering today. And it snowed. And WFB died. And I have an impossibly difficult geography exam tomorrow.

Life is.. mediocre. And yet I dare to be happy. Being mopey is too easy.

William F. Buckley, Jr. | 1925-2008

Today the world lost one of the most important men of the last century.  In the leftist dominated post WWII environment, Bill Buckley took conservatism and made it the respectable, formidable political force which it is today. To put things in perspective, if there had been no William F. Buckley, there is a good chance there would have been no President Ronald W. Reagan, no Rush Limbaugh (and therefore no conservative talk radio), and no National Review Magazine (and perhaps an absence of the host of other conservative periodicals out there).  At least, they would not exist in the same way they do today.

A sad day indeed.

Abortion kills more than children

Feminism. Pro choice. Safety. Health. Doctor. All empty words when it comes to this story [via KJ Lopez].

Abortion kills more than children.

Mike Huckabee is funny!

I don’t mean to sound surprised- he’s proven himself very light on his feet when it comes to comedy the past few months. But on the first Saturday Night Live episode since the writer’s strike, he either had some coaching or has some real natural comedic talent. Check it out:

Kind makes me sad that I disagree with him so vehemently that I started an anti Huckabee group on facebook. It’s amazing what comedy does. I wonder what I’d think about ol’ McCain if he possessed one funny mitocrondria in his entire body.

Big Bang Badda Boom

Be warned that this post gets a little heady. If you skip to the end, there’s a really interesting, general-population oriented video explaining what is meant (at least by one scientist) by ’10 dimensional string theory’. It’s a fun, short video. Skip to the end and watch it if you want.

If I may be allowed to put on my nerd hat (which begs the question: do I ever remove it?), it may surprise some that this idea actually makes sense to me (I’ve butchered the article text into a smaller form):

For decades, physicists have accepted the notion that the universe started with the Big Bang.. (but) physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model… Turok theorizes that neither time nor the universe has a beginning or end… According to Turok, …the Big Bang represents just one stage in an infinitely repeated cycle of universal expansion and contraction…

Within a school of string theory known as m-theory, Turok said, “the seventh extra dimension of space is the gap between two parallel objects called branes. It’s like the gap between two parallel mirrors. We thought, What happens if these two mirrors collide? Maybe that was the Big Bang.”

And now the most interesting part:

Turok’s proposition has drawn condemnation from string theory’s many critics and even opposition from the Catholic Church.

Ah, nothing like crack-pot physics theorizing to bring together string theorists and the Catholic Church.

Now, I say that it may surprise some that I, a religious Christian theist, find this to be an acceptable idea because it seems to fly in the face of the traditional Christian view of creation; a view which dictates that God created the world ex nihilo. I’m sure this is precisely the reason the Catholic Church is upset. Yet it is short sighted, oh my dear fellow religious devotees, to react to this sort of theory with animosity and distrust toward science and scientists.

I have my problems with string theory and much of modern physics, but I do not run from it. Indeed I consider it a healthy, Biblically sound attitude to lend equal weight to faith/scripture and science, and Turok’s theorizing is a case in point. If he is correct, then it must be admitted that instead of the Stephen Hawking position where the world suddenly comes into existence, the universe has always been and always will be. And this is where the Christian theist gets the last laugh.

One critique of Christian theism from a purely materialistic world view, whether it is steeped in a humanistic or Nihilist approach, avers that faith in an infinite God is an untenable position. It has been much more tasteful (and I don’t mean emotionally- for most materialists, the non existence of God is emotionally distasteful) for the materialist’s intellect to be able to say that the universe had a definite beginning in and of itself, and that it will have a definite end. Inexplicably- and I honestly have never entirely understood why- Christians have come to embrace the concept of the Big Bang, on the basis that it establishes that the universe did indeed have a beginning, as scripture teaches; and not only a beginning but a Beginner, since logic implies such things like the Big Bang can’t happen on their own. Christian theists and the Stephen Hawkings of the scientific community have found themselves in a sort of odd agreement about this theory, each for their own reasons. Unfortunately most Christians do not realize that as a result of this unholy alliance, they are victims of a recondite fraud; the entire point of the Big Bang theory is to allow physicists to postulate a framework where the universe could have a beginning on its own, without a Beginner. Philosophical afterthoughts by amateurs are of no import- they are not at all scientific.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating wholesale abandonment of Big Bang theory based on this one Wired article, neither for Christians nor for physicists. For one thing, Wired’s reputation (at least with me) is sketchy at best, and for another, I am suspicious of string theory and think the whole idea is a bunch of metaphysical claptrap anyway. And as I said before, I am very comfortable with the idea of harmony between science and faith: they are not mutually exclusive. However, if Turok is right and the materialist is forced to admit the universe is an infinite entity past and future, it is hard to ignore the scientific implications this would have on belief in God. As things stand, the materialist can ascribe to a finite universe based on credible scientific theory and at least try to make himself appear on a higher intellectual plane than the theist, who must have faith in an infinitely existing God. There are answers to this riddle, though they are complicated. If this situation were to change- if the infinitely existing universe were an established principle of scientific observation- the materialist no longer has a leg on which to stand. He must evaluate a body of evidence that leads him to have faith in an infinitely existing universe, exactly as the Christian theist evaluates a body evidence (some of it the same evidence) which leads him to faith in an infinitely existing God.

The materialist will complain that his idea is based on scientific observation, and that this theory of metaphysics (defined as the mechanics of first cause) does not necessitate an infinite God anymore than the Big Bang necessitates a Big Banger. I have no argument in response except to say that he is correct, but the point is not that it proves the existence of an infinite God. The point is that the classical critique against Christian theism, viz, that Christian theism demands a step of faith which is not insisted on by materialism, is rendered moot. We are now both on the same page.

And now as promised, here is the fun video:

It pains me to say it

But George Will might be right about supporting John McCain. I’m getting used the idea of potentially voting for this man who I really don’t care for.

Video.

However, I haven’t yet decided.  Dr. Dobson, a man who I respect, has made it known that he will not vote for McCain no matter what.

Ladies and gentlemen, Charles Barkley

Barkley says conservatives are just “fake christians”
(click for video)

Yeah. Um, well, he’s entitled to his beliefs, but good luck getting elected the governor of Alabama- an overwhelmingly conservative state- with that kind of vitriol Mr. Basketball. It might be just me, but I don’t think “I believe in abortion” or “I believe in gay marriage” fly very well down there.

Just sayin’.

Need a roommate

My roommate is moving out, and in the interest of living with someone I at least sort of know rather than a total stranger selected by my landlord, I am seeking out a replacement. It’s a nice place over off Tates Creek Rd in Lexington with your own bathroom, large bedroom, dishwasher, etc etc. $350/month all utilities included, just $20 extra for cable internet.

So, if you or someone you know are not, say, a Branch Davidian or addicted to meth, and need a place to live, send me an email. I’m not too picky.

Thoughts of the future

Speaking as an aspiring engineer, this is a really lame list. I mean, some of these areas are admirable goals, but after reading the title of the Wired article, And the 14 Grand Engineering Challenges of the 21st Century Are…, I was disappointed.  It seems like nothing more than an exercise in a bunch of guys trying to sound smart and not much else.

Would a 20th century list made circa 1900 have even been worth making? Would it have included the computer? internet? television? radio? interstate highway system? antibiotics? space shuttle? radar? A36 steel? plastic? polymers? artificial textiles? secondary water treatment? quantum mechanics? A foresighted one might have included the airplane.

I realize the intent isn’t to try to predict and instead to try to focus efforts, but that’s just my point. From a technological and engineering perspective, we are so clueless about what the coming decades hold that a bunch of ‘the smartest guys in the room’ trying to draw up an admittedly informal but still quasi-centralized focus on research efforts is silly at best, perhaps even arrogant, and at worst misguided.

Look, I’m not against planning, but we rarely are able to plan the future or even for future problems anyway; the only things we can plan are solutions for current problems. And that’s all this list is trying to do. If I was a gambling man, I’d say that at most 4 of these 14 things will be at all close to the top of the most important feats of the century we so recently embarked on.

Anyway, here’s the (lame) list:

• Make solar energy affordable.
• Provide energy from fusion.
• Develop carbon sequestration methods.
• Manage the nitrogen cycle.
• Provide access to clean water.
• Restore and improve urban infrastructure.
• Advance health informatics.
• Engineer better medicines.
• Reverse-engineer the brain.
• Prevent nuclear terror.
• Secure cyberspace.
• Enhance virtual reality.
• Advance personalized learning.
• Engineer the tools for scientific discovery.