disoriented

What Kind of God do You Want to Be?

The disoriented author is not a computer gamer. I used to enjoy playing Zork or Ultima back in the day and I have spent some time flying the F-16 sim Falcon. Wait a minute, I do remember lunchtime Doom matches at a previous employer's shop. I discovered that since I was the only player without sound, I was at a distinct disadvantage. I wondered how the other guys always seemed to be able to find and kill me so quickly.

This week in Newsweek, I saw a review of a video game. The review had the provocative pull quote:

What kind of god do you want to be?

It turns out that in the game the player decides how life evolves. The idea behind the quote is of course that if you are the creator — you are God.

I have watched with interest the Creation/Evolution and Evolution/Intelligent Design debates but the truth of the review is a poignant one. If there is a creator he/she/it is god. Creation is a fundamental part of Christianity. If God did not create the world as the Bible declares than the Bible is suspect. John 1:1-3 describes the Creation:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In Christianity, if God is not Creator then He is not God. Thus to Christians, the question of origins is essential. This is why Christians are willing to circle the wagons around Creation Science and more recently Intelligent Design.

Likewise, if you are an evolutionist, then life must have evolved. The evolutionary world view depends on an evolutionary foundation. If the foundation were pulled away, the structure would crumble. Scientists have invested their careers in this foundation so they are certainly willing to circle the wagons around evolution.

It is therefore no surprise that the conflict is coming to a head in our schools.

I firmly believe in Creation but for me personally the jury is still out on Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the theory that the intricacy of design in the Universe implies a Designer and by implication the Designer is God.

I did not come to believe in Creation by experiments done in the lab (or even by mathematical proof). I believe in Creation because I accept the natural revelation that there is a god. I accept the revelation of the Holy Spirit in my life. Thus on the basis of the Bible, which I know to be authoritative, I  believe in Creation. What I am still not sure of is how that translates into the classroom.

Scientia Rex — The Debate Over Stem Cell Research

In college I had an essay question on a history exam about the key issues in the presidential election of 1800 the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Bank of the United States, alliances with Britain or France, etc. 200 years hence when students write about the election of 2004 they will discuss tax policy, Terrorism, the so-called War in Iraq, and embryonic stem cell research.

This article is meant to neither support nor oppose embryonic stem cell research. Rather this article is an attempt to frame the debate rationally.

John Kerry who supports embryonic stem cell research has gathered acoterie of celebrities to support his position. In a recent New Hampshire appearance Kerry appeared with Michael J Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Kerry said that President Bush's policies, "sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology". Kerry's certainly sounded as if he was advocating the advancement of science without the fetters of ideology.

While I believe in scientific inquiry — I posit that science can only truly advance in a moral and ethical framework.

Of course those who believe that science is king — Scientia Rex — will point to famous incidents in history where moral authority served to censor scientific inquiry. Of course Galileo comes to mind first.

Galileo was the primary proponent of Copernican cosmology in the early 17th century. His view of the universe was that the sun was just one star among many and not (as held by the Ptolemaic view) the center of the universe. His prominence as a scientist and mathematician eventually earned him the scrutiny of the Inquisition. At first he was protected by Pope Urban VIII. Eventually Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and he was forced to recant his views.

But what of other examples? There have also been infamous times when science has marched on without the restraining influence of ethic and morality. The results in these instacnes have been disasterous. In an era when Nazi Scientists performed experiments on twins, prisoners, Gypsies and Jews to further their study of genetics. These experiments typically resulted in the subjects' death and dissection.

Today there are ethical guidelines that govern human drug tests, psychological and solialogical testiong of children, animal research, etc. The pursuit of science advances the frontiers of human knowledge. This advance must however occur within moral and ethical grounds. John Kerry claims that there should be no bounds when it comes to scientific research. He is really making the wrong argument. There must be bounds — there always will be bounds.

This election is not about whether there are moral or ethical bounds — it about where to draw the boundaries

Sir Isaac's Revenge

Sir Isaac Newton is regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of all time. He (along with Liebniz) is recognized as the father of the Calculus.

Now don't get me wrong, I graduated from college with majors in Mathematics and Computer Science — I enjoyed Calculus. I used to teach Computer Science part-time at a community college. Someday I would like to teach the whole Calculus series; Calculus I, Calculus II, Calculus III, Differential Equations and Partial Differential Equations. Perhaps I will get the chance when I retire.

The issue I have with Sir Isaac is; how did Calculus become synonymous with advanced math? Of the nineteen subjects offered in Advanced Placement courses and exams, the only math offered listed is Calculus. In many universities, students must complete one ot two semesters of Calculus to get degrees in Computer Science or Engineering. Some schools reuire a single semester of Calculus to get any Bachelor of Science degree.

So why Calculus?

Calculus is essential to advanced study in several areas. Theoretical economics, physics, chemistry and engineering. It has applications in both the physical and social sciences. But it is not essential to all fields of study.

For example, in Computer Science, most graduates are required to have two semesters of Calculus. If you ask working computer programmers most will tell you that they never use anything they learned in their required Calculus classes. I have nothing against learning math for learning's sake but why Calculus?

ABET an organization that accredits Computer Science and Engineering programs. ABET membership includes the major Computer Science and Engineering societys like IEEE and ACM. ABET's certification criteria for programs in Computer Science include the following:

IV-10 Course work in mathematics must include discrete mathematics, differential and integral calculus, and probability and statistics.

My suggestion is that for those majors where Calculus is not part of the core requirements, that a choice be offered. Instead of a two semester Calculus sequence, students should be allowed to substitute a two semester sequence in mathematics of equivalent difficulty. Some suggestions: Number Theory, Geometry, Logic, Algebra (advanced), Network Theory, Set Theory etc.

Computer Science students generally consider Calculus to be a weed-out course. In fact my school offered both Computer Science and Management Information Systems majors(MIS). What was the difference? MIS was for students who could not hack Calculus.

Making Calculus a core requirement when it is not really core to the field of study, prevents students from taking courses that might be more applicable to their major and turns many of them off to mathematics in general.