BoldUlysses.com

I’ve been writing a lot lately. I think part of that is because I’ve simply been alone a lot lately. When Erin and I were dating my posts weren’t nearly as frequent, for the most part because I’d just tell her a lot of what I write in here. Writing in here allows the concepts to develop to a fuller degree than they did when I talked with her, but on the other hand, having somebody to bounce thoughts off and interact with is just irreplacable. I’d take the latter most days (not exclusively) over solace and the ability to just write and write all the tripe that passes through my brain. But I think sometimes I just like the mental exercise of arranging my thoughts into sentences and paragraphs.

My parents are in Portugal this week. My dad (who works for IBM) had a presentation to give near Lisbon, so they took advantage of the oppotunity to make a mini-vacation out of it. They’re going to visit Seville and Gibraltar and Moorish country in southern Spain too–I’m sure they’ll hit all the highlights. What this means for me is that I have to cat-sit Cleo after work. Well, I have to come home and feed her at least, but she’s always a little wound up from being cooped up inside all day so we play with the string a little bit too. And I always end up staying longer than I think I will…fish something out of the cupboards for dinner and pop in a movie. And write a journal entry–that’s contributed to my frequent posting of late too.

I’ve decided that when I sit and think about past romantic interests and mull over the fact that I’ve been quite single for the past two and a half years–that’s when I’m not doing enough. That’s when I’m being lazy and allowing my mind to wander and drift. It’s actually a pretty good low-productivity indicator, especially at work. When I reach the level of googling old girlfriends–that’s when I have to snap back to reality and focus on the task at hand. All it takes is a little self-awareness.

I have a bone to pick with the current focus on Intelligent Design (or ID) in science. I read the article in Newsweek and thought it was well-rounded and fair and have been at quite aware of the theory as it makes its rounds in the news. I’m obviously a proponent of that viewpoint–I believe the biblical account to be true, but–I don’t think it has validity as a scientific theory. From the February 19 issue of World (Christian news magazine):

“Historically, said Mr. Meyer [scientist under investigation by his peers for publishing an article on ID], science has sought ‘the best explanation, period, whever the evidence leads.’ But now the scientific establishment is requiring something else: ‘the best materialistic explanation for phenomenon [sic].’ That rules out non-materialistic explanations from the onset, demanding adherence to the worldview that presumes the material realm is all that exists.”

Well, doesn’t science (excluding the viewpoints of individual scientists who may of course believe in a Higher Power) as a discipline take that very worldview with regards towards which hypotheses are worthy of further investigation? If you explain a materialistic phenomenon in preternatural terms, what is science supposed to do with it? The mechanism for scientific progress, its method, depends on the ability to gather empirical data with our senses or extensions of our senses. But doesn’t publishing a theory invite investigation and testing? If it purports that non-material means were at work, where’s the testability? Isn’t that a cardinal criterion for a good scientific theory?

Not considering ID a fit hypothesis for scientific query doesn’t compromise its intrinsic validity as a viewpoint, but science as a discipline has boundaries of investigation and inquiry. Of course, those boundaries have certainly been infringed upon in the past (with hypotheses and theories that were twisted and distorted to make them compatible with scientific method), but it doesn’t undermine their worth.