Kaku for President!

Terraforming Mars? Frankly, I didn’t know this was even an option. That's how behind I am on the issues. Thank goodness for youtube, right?

Michio Kaku is one of the most interesting people I’ve ever heard speak. His PR campaign is awesome and he always finds imaginative theories to present. It’s incredible to me that this physicist has spent his life developing physical theories so concise that they make the instructions to using a toaster seem like a Tolstoy novel, and so exact that they make the life sciences embarrassed to use the word theory. Yet all in one breath he can explain dark matter, string theory, quantum physics, and how they relate to an objective that would make even Columbus do a double take.

Yet, this genius is surprisingly down to earth. He has not attempted to overreach the science with his explanation of the process. He openly admits that it will take hundreds of years to terraform mars. Even so he has an economical plan that will make this fiscally plausible. Apparently some fool out there (probably a congressman) has suggested shipping pumps to mars to evacuate CO₂ trapped below the surface of mars (it is unclear if the operators of the pumps would be granted amnesty upon the terraformation of the planet). This will clearly be too expensive (it will cut spending by 4 million dollars over the next 350 years, never mind that the budget will grow 700 trillion percent over the same period). Kaku suggests we simply heat the planet up with a couple of well aimed A-bombs, thereby releasing the greenhouse gas previously mentioned into the atmosphere and jump starting martian global warming. In practically no time we’ll be enjoying the fruits of a second habitable planet in this solar system. To hell with population control, we’ll just get some new planets. This man is an innovator.

Intelligent Design: Common Misconceptions

In an article written by Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch in 2002 for the National Center for Science Education, many misconceptions are used as reasons for not including the theory of intelligent design (ID) in educational curriculums. It is my purpose to explain what the theory is by correcting these misconceptions.

Many believe that ID is, for all intents and purposes, creationism. This point is made in the article, “ID and creation science…both involve an intervening deity”. This is only true if you believe that intelligence is equivalent to deity, in which case you must believe the average human to be divine. ID is the theory that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” As you can see from this statement no deity is invoked.

The authors also make the point that... “ID proponents are tactically silent on an alternative to common descent”. While the statement is true, it mischaracterizes the theory by implying that the theory seeks to explain common descent. As stated above the theory is applied only to certain features of living things, not to the origin of species. The best application for the theory of which I know, is the explanation of the origin of DNA. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has written an excellent book on this topic entitled Signature in the Cell.

“ID has been called an ‘argument from ignorance,’ as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion”. This statement was also made in the article. However, in reality the opposite is true. ID is an inference to the best explanation using available evidence. Inference is how broad theories are made to explain large quantities of deducted facts. This is the same method that was used by Charles Darwin, and that continues to be used by current evolutionary biologists. This evidence, as far as the origin of life is concerned, is explained in the aforementioned book by Dr. Meyer using the principles published in The Design Inference, by Dr. William Dembski. Basically these principles are specified events of small probability, and are only observed in two types of systems: the genetics of life and intelligently designed information (computer codes, language, etc.). Thus, the best explanation we have for the origin of life is intelligence.

In reality, the impossibility of life having arisen on this planet by undirected processes is widely accepted by even the greatest champions of evolution theory, as evidenced by this short video. Dr. Dawkins concedes the presence of an intelligent signature in the details of molecular biology and biochemistry, but gives a caveat that the seeding intelligence itself must have evolved in a Darwinian fashion. Unless he is withholding evidence gathered from extra-terrestrial life forms, this caveat is scientifically unfounded.

Global Warming? Yes, please.

On a planet in an obscure solar system of the Milky Way galaxy I sit in a small office of an old building at the following latitude-longitude: 41.74179,-111.812636. This means that for 3 out of 12 months I experience freezing to near freezing temperatures. For 4 to 5 months I experience cold temperatures, and if I wish to grow a garden or begin farming I can be limited to a 3 to 4 month season. Huddled in my office reading Hyperwarming climate could turn Earth's poles green, I’m besieged by a voluminous cloud of particles just outside my window that are barely moving fast enough to register 31 F (-0.5 C) on a thermometer. A light snow, and at times freezing rain, slowly covers the ground, the trees, the grass, and furry woodland creatures. As I sit 4,500 feet above sea level I ask myself, “Am I worried about global warming?”

According to the article, as global warming continues, the effects could result in positive feedback loops that cause temperatures to rise even higher than expected. One of these problems, “hyper-warming”, is caused when sea levels rise and cover larger portions of the continents. With more area covered by water, temperatures rise. Researchers have predicted that if warming continues, global temperatures could return to levels not seen since the Eocene era. For those unfamiliar with the Eocene era, as I was, this means a stable tropical climate, forests and a plethora of species thriving even in polar regions, and possibly even new species of whales. These heinous conditions lasted for approximately 22 million years.

In all seriousness, I am puzzled by the intentions of the article’s author and the scientists interviewed. Can it be true that they want to stop global warming from happening?! The policy of preventing the world from spiraling into a state of paradise seems to be based on the gloomy predictions of “scientific” prognosticators. However, all of the historical-scientific evidence points to a fabulous future if the globe can attain Eocene conditions once again. Using the ingenious human mind and our advances in science, we can find a way to restore the earth’s paradisiacal status if we can only eliminate the attitudes that hold us back. Considering the snowball alternative, I vote “nay” for stopping global warming.