Voyage Through The Cosmos: Science’s Grand Expedition

 

One of the most elegant aspects of science is how, with mathematical modelling, we can infer universal truths from limited data. Often direct measurement isn't possible, but mathematics provides a reliable and consistent framework for exploring and understanding complex systems. Some things are obviously objective. Take, for example, Newton's F = ma - it is a fact (in macroscopic systems) whether you're a man in Nepal or a woman in Sweden. The reason being, it has nothing to do with subjective opinion, because force is equal to the time derivative of momentum, so the relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma wherever you are in the world (assuming Euclidian space).

Suppose a crank in Chile decided to opine something different about the quantitative calculations of dynamics, and he came up with a different, but provably wrong, idea about how velocities change when forces are applied. It's an opinion to which he can claim no justifiable entitlement, because objective facts about reality transcend the culture and geography in which they are discovered. The theory of evolution by natural selection is always based on factual accounts of billions of years of biochemical history, irrespective of whether you live in England, India or Brazil.

We know that the nuts and bolts of creation is assessed objectively because the language of mathematics reveals objective truths about physical reality. For example, in the early 1800s, astronomers set out to improve the tables of predictions for planetary positions they had created from Newtonian mechanics by undertaking calculations of the orbit of planets in relation to their neighbouring planets. At the time, Uranus was the farthest planet, but its calculations were proving to be inconsistent with the rest of the planets in our solar system. One suggestion made by several astronomers was that perhaps Uranus's behaviour proved that Newtonian mechanics is not universal. But with further mathematical calculations, a better proposition was offered; one that demonstrated the predictive power of mathematics.

By taking the discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus, astronomers were able to speculate about the possibility of a further planet, and use Newtonian predictions to calculate the possible size and location of a possible adjacent planet that would explain the anomalies with Uranus's behaviour. Using Newtonian mechanics, we could predict the potential whereabouts of a further planet (which we would later call 'Neptune') simply by assessing the behaviour of Uranus, and that is what we did.

For another way to capture the essence of how mathematics allows us to extrapolate from what we can measure to what we cannot directly observe, let’s return to Newton’s second law of motion:

“A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. “

Force is equal to the time derivative of momentum, so the relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma, where acceleration and force are vectors, and the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. This enables us to make quantitative calculations of dynamics, and measure how velocities change when forces are applied.

Newton’s laws were formulated from observations that were made on local objects; for example - dropping objects from high places, calibrating acceleration of gravity for a falling object, observing motional trajectories, and looking at planetary positions. Although Newton's laws are formulated as universal statements, we can infer universality from what we observe locally (although this isn’t an irrefutable claim).

When Newton gave the formula for gravitational force, he claimed the law to be true for any two masses in the universe. But what warrants that leap of induction, and how would one develop certainty about the universality of it? For example, one doesn't directly observe the force of gravity between the earth and the moon - it is evidenced from things like tidal effects, lunar orbit and satellite measurements. Yet we gain evidence for scientific statements that are universal and cannot be measured directly. Mathematical models rely on established principles and constants (like the gravitational constant) that have been empirically derived.

What is required must be described in terms of mass and distance – this gives us the force. However, we cannot measure the force between the earth and any other object that we cannot weigh on a scale. We can weigh any easy to handle localised object (a football, or a snooker ball, or a cannonball, etc) and determine the attractive force of gravity between the earth and the localised object, but we cannot do this with the moon. However, what we can do in the absence of being able to hold the moon in our hand is work it out with simple mathematics, where we can infer this force through indirect measurements, and applying Newton's laws to predict their trajectories.

F = G*M(moon)*M(earth)/distance^2 where G is the gravitational constant, 6.67x10^-11 m^3/kg/s^2, the mass of the earth is 6x10^24 kg, the mass of the moon is 7.3x10^22 kg, and the distance between them is about 3.84x10^8 m.

The force is measured because gravitational force decreases inversely by the square of the distance, so by measuring the distance between the earth and the moon (it varies but its average distance is approximately 239,000 miles), and then the earth’s radius, followed by dividing the earth’s radius into the distance between the two objects, one gets the square result. Using mathematics we have accomplished something that we couldn’t achieve with physical testing.

Not only does a scientific theory work best when it is formulated such that in the Popperian sense it produces highly falsifiable implications, one must also distil from a theory a vast nexus of predictability – in the case of Newton’s laws - a web of implications on the behaviour of all masses under forces including gravity*.

Given that we can distil from this theory a vast nexus of predictability, we can infer this web of implications from the mathematics underpinning the law – we do not have to put a body in various regions of space and repeat-test this theory. We cannot, of course, put the moon on a set of scales, but we do not have to, there are easier methods. We know that the only possible orbit under Newton's Laws is an elliptical one, and we also know that the stronger the gravity of a planet, the farther an object can orbit. By sending a satellite to orbit the moon, we can measure its mass quite accurately – something Newton couldn’t have done in his day, of course.

Nowadays, we can even work out the effect the moon has on our seas and calculate its mass, but there would be greater margins of error if this was the only method we had. In the past, the moon and the earth were closer together (they are moving further apart each year at a rate of about 3cm per year) so the gravitational force would have once been much stronger.  Now of course simple calculations would tell us that if that were the case the tides would have been higher than they are now. Once again, levels of consistency are found in such theorising; geologists frequently find fossilised tidemarks that demonstrate tides were higher in the past – and of course, subject to other earthly consistencies, future tides should become lower as the earth and moon separate further.

Given the position of an orbiting body at two points in time, Newton's laws will also tell us where that object will be at any point in the future. The better a theory, the greater its predictive value, in so far as it produces accurate and useful forecasts that one can anticipate, test and then verify or falsify. With theories such as motion, gravity and evolution, our predictions are always confirmed with localised evidence and simple mathematical equations. In the case of Newton, all orbits for anything we observe are forbidden to act in a way that departs from the predictions and implications of his own laws.

However, Newton's laws did run into trouble in the late 1800s, as Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism was propounded describing all electromagnetic phenomenon and predicting the presence of electromagnetic waves. The electromagnetic field is a field that exerts a force on charged particles. Naturally, the presence and motion of such particles affects the outcome. Once it was discovered that a changing magnetic field produces an electric field, and that a changing electric field generates a magnetic field, we were able to discover electromagnetic induction - the discovery of which laid down the foundations for the vast array of electronic innovations (generators, motors and transformers) that followed. 

Again, the predictive value here is essential - there must be uniformity and regularity for such endeavours to occur. The theoretical implications of electromagnetism brought about the development of Einsteinian relativity, from which it was evident that magnetic fields and electric fields are convertible with relative motion – that is, the perception of these fields changes depending on the observer's frame of reference, particularly how electric fields can transform into magnetic fields and vice versa depending on the relative motion of the observer and the source - allowing us to (among other things) correctly predict how forces increase exponentially for particles approaching the speed of light (this led us further to knowledge of how Euclidian geometry is challenged with the knowledge that space-time does not quite correspond to our own Euclidian intuitions, nor our intuitive view of past, present and future). This (the electromagnetic force) is one of the four fundamental forces of nature - it shows that the electromagnetic field exerts a fundamental force on electrically charged particles. Add to this the other fundamental forces; the strong and weak nuclear forces (the former is what holds atomic nuclei together), and the aforementioned gravitational force, and we have the four fundamental forces of nature, from which all other correlative forces (friction, tension, elasticity, pressure, Hooke's law of springs, etc) are ultimately derived. Aside from gravity, the electromagnetic force affects all the phenomena encountered in daily life - that is, all the objects we see in our day-to-day life consist of atoms which contain protons and electrons on which the electromagnetic force is acting. The forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to electric charges occurring inside the atoms.

But even though Newton’s laws were improved upon, they were still good approximations to reality. Newton's universe was a mechanical universe which has been supplemented by the likes of Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg, who themselves laid down the foundations for all the 20th century physics and cosmology that was to come. Newton appeared to be right for over three hundred years, but 19th discoveries caused us to reassess his theories and, in this case, augment them.

The main two measures we have of a theory’s veracity is the ability to make accurate predictions from it, and the localised evidences for it. As Newton has shown us, all scientific theories are only approximations of what is really at the heart of a complex nature. Approximations are not necessarily inaccurate, but are instead simplified models that apply under certain conditions. Newton's laws still work in situations that are non-relativistic (that is, at speeds much less than the speed of light), but Einstein’s theories work for both non-relativistic and relativistic situations. Einstein, Maxwell, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and any subsequent physicist and cosmologist all owe Newton a great debt – we are observing that science is progressive and that theories are there to be developed upon.

Once a theory is reached that reconciles quantum mechanics and general relativity, we may see that Einsteinian relativity in its current form will be viewed as inadequate. Just as special relativity the provided a framework that included both Newtonian mechanics (as an approximation at low speeds) and Maxwell's equations, demonstrating how they coexist in a broader relativistic context, so too a future theory (perhaps even a theory of multi-dimensions) will almost certainly resolve the current tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity. And any such theory that unifies the two would have to be consistent with separation of scales between high and low ends of the complexity spectrum – that is, the quantum effects which mostly deal with the "very small (that is, for objects no larger than ordinary molecules) and the relativistic effects that deal mostly with the "very large". Aspects of string theory, superstring theory and quantum gravity suggest progress, but the grand theory that unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity eludes us at present. 

Applying this to epistemology, we can see that all these theories have provided provisional approximations of nature that produce highly accurate and useful predictions, but that by themselves they do not encapsulate a self-consistent whole. Newton’s approximations are better at slow speeds, but once we approach the speed of light the discrepancies start to show, and we require what is called a "relativistic correction" to Newton's predictions. But although we do not accept scientific theories as if they are the final word on a cosmic universal truth, we know that because we can test their implications with degrees to which certainty prevails at the greater universal levels than at the local levels (we rely on mathematics to prove this) we actually possess greater degrees of certainty about the universal levels than we do the local levels.

If we were merely non-mathematical creatures relying on local evidential observations the best we could do is postulate simple deduction with some further intrepid attempts at induction. But with laws, axioms and the vast nexus of contingency that is woven into the mathematical fabric we can make grand theories at the universal level that we know will apply at the local level too. Because of our mathematical fecundity we have made predictions about, and found consistency in, masses, motion, and forces, and we are as certain about these as we are about most localised discoveries.

There is an important balance to be stuck between the broad applicability and predictive power of universal laws and the localised contexts. For example, Newton's the law of universal gravitation applies to all objects - it applies equally to planets, apples, and snooker balls. But when observing a snooker ball on a table, local factors such as friction, air resistance, and imperfections in the surface of the baize can introduce uncertainties. These local conditions can make precise predictions about the ball's motion more challenging than applying the general laws to predict gravitational interactions between celestial bodies. The cosmological model of the Big Bang provides a framework for understanding the cosmic narrative of the universe as a whole, predicting phenomena like cosmic microwave background radiation and the large-scale structure of the universe. But at the local level, when trying to model the formation of a specific star or planet, numerous local variables (such as the presence of nearby stars, gas density, and magnetic fields) can introduce complexities and uncertainties that unsettle the potential accuracy of predictions. Or the laws governing radioactive decay are consistent and can be predicted with high accuracy over large populations of atoms (for example, calculating the half-life of a particular isotope). But predicting the exact moment when a specific atom will decay is inherently uncertain due to quantum mechanics. These local uncertainties does not detract from the reliability of the universal law; they simply illustrates how local predictions can be less reliable despite the overall framework being robust.

Science may not provide us with all the answers, but its own rewards are evident by the human progress it has ushered in; science by its very definition should always lead to progression, and every Kuhnian paradigm shift ought to qualitatively supersede the last. It is easy to look back into history and be under the illusion that many of these advancements were quick and easy, but they were not. Einstein’s relativistic standpoint didn’t swiftly refine the framework of classical mechanics to accommodate Maxwell’s electromagnetic standpoint, yet the retrospective viewpoint may give us the illusion that these transitions were smooth.  When one thinks of the many other transitions; not just from Newton, Maxwell and Faraday to Einstein, Schrödinger and Heisenberg, but from the Ptolemaic cosmological view to the Copernican view; from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics; from Becher’s phlogiston theory to Lavoisier's caloric theory of combustion, right through to the science of thermodynamics; from Lamarckian inheritance to Darwinian natural selection and the reconsideration of Lamarck’s ideas with ‘epigenetics’ which identify possible inheritances of acquired traits - what these shifts (and many others) ought to tell us is that we are always in transition and ought to be prepared for black swans and new knowledge that will augment our present foundations. 

Four Steps To Sharpen Your Critical Thinking

As uncomfortable as this truth is, I’m afraid it is true to say that most people are not very competent at critical thinking. Even people I love and value dearly frequently make attempts at critical thinking that range from somewhat inadequate to absolutely hopeless. If you’re curious about where you stand on this matter, I can offer some quick-fix methods for sharpening your critical reasoning skills in a matter of minutes.

If you get these first two steps right, it’ll eliminate maybe 80-90% of your errors:

Step 1
Define your terms precisely, and be clear about what you’re trying to conclude or understand. Unless you get step 1 right you can’t be sure you’re on the path to understanding the situation or solving the right problem. 

Step 2
It’s essential to understand that an argument becomes irrational not simply by containing fallacies but by relying on them to reach its conclusion. If a person’s argument can stand on its own without the fallacious reasoning, then the argument is rational even if fallacies are present. The key takeaway is that the conclusion itself is not dependent on these errors in reasoning. This is important because in many discussions, people may inadvertently include fallacious reasoning, yet their overall argument remains logically sound without it. Rational belief or argument, when stripped of fallacies, should still have evidence or logical reasoning that makes it probable or plausible. Conversely, an argument that collapses when fallacies are removed is highly likely to be defective, reflecting an irrational position. Awareness of this is an effective way to discern whether an argument is grounded in logic or only appears plausible to you due to fallacies you’re not noticing. So, the statement is valid in that it differentiates between an argument that merely contains fallacies and one that depends on them, with rationality hinging on whether or not the conclusion can stand on evidence and reason without these fallacies. This distinction helps avoid what’s called the ‘fallacy fallacy’ (the mistaken belief that an argument with any fallacies is entirely invalid). Here are a couple of examples.

Example 1
Argument: Exercise leads to a longer life.

Fallacious reasoning: Everyone who lives past 90 exercises regularly.

Conclusion: This line of reasoning obviously involves a hasty generalisation, because it exaggerates the role of exercise in longevity without considering other factors. However, extensive evidence does support that regular exercise can improve lifespan and quality of life, meaning the argument is sound without needing to rely on this fallacy.

Example 2

Argument: Reducing government regulations helps businesses grow and stimulates the economy.

Fallacious reasoning: All regulations are bad because they restrict growth and freedom.

Conclusion: All regulations are not bad; some help promote growth and freedom. However, targeted deregulation often correlates with reduced costs and increased flexibility for businesses, which can stimulate growth.

These examples show how fallacies can be present in an argument without making it irrational, as long as the argument’s core conclusions can stand without relying on these flawed reasoning paths. Conversely, an argument that collapses entirely without its fallacies (such as those using only exaggerated fears or appeals to emotion) would lack rational basis.

With a clear understanding of fallacies, let’s move to examining assumptions - which is another key part of critical thinking:

Step 3
Identify the fundamental assumptions underlying your initial beliefs or arguments, and question their validity. Assumptions are often invisible, but they usually heavily influence conclusions. By scrutinising and testing them, you reduce the chance of being blindsided by hidden biases, or of going askew by faulty underlying assumptions.

Step 4
Do your best to present an honest, well thought through set of counter-arguments – as if you were arguing for the view you claim to reject. Not only does this add the finishing touches to steps 1-3, it also sharpens your critical reasoning skills, and invites you to either reconsider your own position, or strengthen it further if it can’t easily be counter-argued.

In summary, the core guidance is to define your terms and arguments clearly, understand that you’re in need of a re-think if the argument depends on fallacies to be convincing, look for underlying assumptions that might be skewing or undermining your argument, and be thoroughly cognisant of all the best counter-arguments to your position. By following these steps, you’ll develop a more rigorous approach to evaluating arguments. 

A Profound Observation About Love

 

There’s a really profound thought about love, from the psychologist Eric Fromm - he says: 

“If I truly love one person I love all persons, I love the world, I love life. If I can say to somebody else, "I love you," I must be able to say, "I love in you everybody, I love through you the world, I love in you also myself.”

Fromm meant that to love someone fully is to embrace their interconnectedness with others, with a regard to a kind of shared humanity – which I agree is true, but I think it’s even deeper than that. If it’s true that “If we truly love one person then we love all persons”, then the corollary gives us two even deeper truths; 1) that we have to love all persons before we can love our beloved in the way God intends, and 2) that if we don’t love all persons, then we don’t love our beloved in the way that God intends, which means we love them inadequately, and not at the level required to be the greatest blessing to them.

That is complex, and takes a lot of unpacking, but if it’s correct – and I can conceive of the possibility that, at the Divine level, it probably is correct – then it’s a simultaneously challenging and wonderful thing to comprehend. The capacity to love universally (love neighbour as oneself) reflects emotional maturity in understanding that love is not confined to people who offer individual benefit, but as expansive force that spreads across humanity, finds its origin in God, and is revealed through Christ. And one doesn’t have the maturity or capacity to love a beloved as required by God unless one has the maturity and capacity to love universally.

In understanding what is required to truly love a beloved, one comprehends universal love regarding everyone’s infinite value; and in comprehending universal love regarding everyone’s infinite value, one understands Christ’s call to love our beloved Divinely as He loves all of us. The truest love for a beloved grows from an ability to see them not only as an individual but as part of a greater humanity. And the more we embrace a Christ-like, universal love, the more completely we can love our beloved—both through the deeply intimate connection in exclusive, romantic love, but through their connection to everyone else in the world.

The Science of Your Political Soapbox

 

One of the other most important things we’ve learned in the past 20-30 years about humans as political thinkers is just how much the left and right are genetically predisposed to their beliefs. In other words, when someone annoys you with their dodgy, ill-conceived political opinions, seek solace in the fact that they often can’t help it, because a significant part of what they think is likely to be ingrained in their mental hardware.

Our moral judgments arise from a set of psychological foundations shaped by evolution to help us thrive in social settings – and there is strong evidence that left and right wing adherents tend to prioritise these moral foundations differently. I said in a recent blog post that leftists tend to more strongly emphasise values like care/harm and fairness/reciprocity, while conservatives consider a broader array of moral considerations - adding loyalty, authority, and sanctity to their core concerns. And personality traits, such as openness to experience and conscientiousness, are partly heritable, and they also correlate with political orientation. Openness to experience is associated with liberal or left-leaning views, and conscientiousness is associated with conservative or right-leaning views. This is especially backed up by twin studies, which have shown that identical twins (who share the same genes, of course) are more likely to have similar political views compared to fraternal twins, who share only about half their genes (I say ‘around half” because the specific combination of DNA inherited by each sibling is random, which leads to slight variations around the 50% average). These findings suggest that genetics potentially accounts for around 30-40% of the variation in political attitudes, with environmental and cultural factors (like upbringing, life experiences, and social influences) making up the majority of the rest of the percentage.

Don’t get me wrong, political beliefs are not fixed and unchangeable – there is a complex interplay between genes and environment – and all dubious political views have the potential to be revised with better reasoning and stronger empirical analysis. But, given that we know that these differences in moral priorities appear to have a heritable component, where genetics predisposes people to certain orientations and beliefs, it ought to make us wiser in how we discuss politics – and also encourage us to take the political rants we see with a huge dose of salt. In fact, when we see our friends waxing lyrical about politics and social justice online, perhaps we can amuse ourselves with the thought that they may have a degree of limited control over these views like they do limited control over preferences for spicy food or their fear of heights.

Left Turn to Ruin: The Decline of Modern UK Society

 

It’s well-documented across various research areas that, from the perspective of an average leftist and an average conservative, the latter consistently demonstrates a better understanding of the former's viewpoint than vice versa. In social experiments, conservatives were more accurate in predicting how leftists would respond to moral and political questions, whereas leftists were less accurate in predicting conservative responses (I have a blog post from 2016 discussing this discordance, focusing on the Ideological Turing Test).

The evidence suggests that conservatives are better at taking the perspective of leftists, because they tend to emphasise and balance a broader range of moral foundations, including loyalty, authority, sanctity, in addition to care and fairness. Because conservatives are more cognisant of all five foundations, they should be better equipped to understand the perspectives and the consequences of political theory better than the narrow range of considerations upheld by the left.

I’m also fairly confident that the average conservative is more intelligent than the average leftist. And I should imagine that the evidence that shows conservatives tend to balance more moral dimensions in their reasoning is because, on average, conservatives display higher cognitive abilities, particularly in conservative values in economics and the foundations for a stable society. But that said, as I laid out in my Blog on three dimensional left and right wing politics, while conservatives often display a preference for order, structure, and stability, leftists are often more open to novelty, complexity, and change – which means a thorough political analysis from any UK citizen must involve reflecting these different ways of processing information.

All that said, I’m fairly confident that the fact that leftists tend to balance fewer moral dimensions in their reasoning, and exhibit a narrower set of perspectives on how the world really works, sheds light on certain political dynamics in the UK, particularly when considering the left’s approach to socialist policies, climate alarmism, and woke ideology. Most leftist commentary on wealth redistribution, extreme climate activism, and identity politics is undermined by the same defects as demonstrated in the Ideological Turing Test. And a lot of this is driven by misguided views about care and fairness – both of which are noble qualities (and, of course, key tenets of conservatism too – something many leftists miss, which is a further part of their moral dimension problem) – but they are frequently abused by being taken into excess at the expense of other important values, or often just simply used as virtue-signalling shibboleths as markers of ideological identity without deeper engagement or consideration of the broader picture.

One of the problems in the UK right now is that, as the Conservative Party has become a centre-left party, it now mirrors many of the same errors that undermine the political left, gradually destroying its own core values in the process, and diluting its own ideological foundation as the party of small government, free market values, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.

And the excessive leftist influence on UK society extends way beyond the woes of the Conservative Party. We have a state that’s far too large for the size of the economy (which, alongside Gammon’s Law, is the main reason why public services are in crisis), an overly-regulated, bureaucratic society, economic stagnation and increased welfare dependency, a sickness and mental health crisis, the continued erosion of free speech and open debate, a widespread identity crisis, a cost of living crisis (exacerbated by bad government policies), an immigration crisis (remember to heed Comte’s famous warning that ‘demographics is destiny”), a decline in educational standards, half-witted environmental policies that result in significant economic burdens for businesses and households alike, and waning trust in institutions and political leadership.

A continuation of this will inevitably lead to collapse, as it did in the 1970s. The seeds of economic stagnation and societal disintegration have been planted, the current public services will buckle under these unsustainable costs, businesses will continue to be choked by perverse over-regulation, and myopic environmental measures will sow the seeds of their own destruction. Things will get worse before they get better – and years henceforward, we’ll look back on this period with lament.

If we ever do wake up, it must be to the reality that the only societal forces that have consistently fostered human progression, liberty, and stability are the free-market principles of trade and competition, personal responsibility, a smaller state, fewer regulations, equality before the law*, egalitarianism, meritocracy, and the protection of individual freedoms.   

*Equality before the law has historically been the cornerstone of justice – it is literally the only kind of equality that a society needs as its bedrock. With equality before the law, the natural concomitant is equality of opportunity; because with equality before the law, it should mean there are no artificial barriers to equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, equality before the law is increasingly being undermined by laws tailored to favour certain minority groups through mechanisms like positive discrimination and identity-based policies. These approaches create new forms of inequality before the law, where the majority is unfairly discriminated against, unjustly (and artificially) elevating group identity over individual merit and fairness.

My Definitive Guide to Understanding Evolution and Debunking Creationism Myths: A Full Resource for Evidence, Education, and Rebuttals

Over the years, I’ve dedicated significant effort to the field of biological evolution, clarifying the scientific facts and truths, while also defending it against the misconceptions and challenges posed by young earth creationists and other fundamentalist groups

To streamline access to my contributions, I've decided to create a comprehensive resource page that consolidates all the links to my articles and videos in one place—a thorough hub for evolution education and critical analysis of YEC arguments.

This will serve as a single, convenient source that I can share when needed, functioning as a portal to all my relevant material.

So, where to start? I’ll offer some suggestions for navigating this page, although if you prefer, feel free to move around at your leisure in any order you wish. Articles are in blue and Videos are in purple

For comprehensive coverage on the basics of the evolution and creation topic, both from a scientific perspective and a Biblical perspective, I’d start with this talk I gave:

An Evening With The PM #6: Creation & Evolution Talk + Q & A

Then you might wish to follow it up with this video:

Simple, But Irrefutable Evidence For Evolution

Then I think I’d recommend my eight part series It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution, which takes the reader on a comprehensive journey through the key elements of the creation/evolution topics: 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Part II - Alleles & Genetic Algorithms 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Part III - Assigned DNA Codes 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Part IV - On Speciation 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Part V - How & Why We Evolved Two Sexes 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Part VI - The Origin Of Life 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Part VII - On Interpreting Scripture 

It's Impossible To Love The Truth And Deny Evolution: Final Part - How We Know It's A Tree Of Life, Not An Orchard

Then, it might be good to suggest some more niche or specialised articles on evolution:

My Favourite Metaphor For Evolution 

On The Evolution Of The Eye

On The Myth That You Can't See Evolution Happening 

We Did *Not* Evolve From Apes. We *Are* Apes, Silly! 

Next, a few articles on God’s creation may help appreciate His Divine handiwork: 

Creation was very good, but was it perfect? 

God's Genius in Evolution 

Understanding the nature of God’s creation 

Evolution helps us marvel in the extraordinary

The Mathematical Bias Theory Redux: Why There Probably ‘IS’ a God – in 20 Steps  

Then, here are a few deeper, philosophical articles on evolution: 

On Evolution & Random Walk 

Irrreducibly Complex Society, Biology & All That Mathematical Jazz 

A Fascinating Twist On The Theory Of Our Evolution 

God, Evolution, Genes, Morality, Altruism, Grace & Sacrifice 

What Would Happen If We Rewound Evolution?

Then, some general criticisms of creationism and of the denial of evolutionary theory: 

Going 12 Rounds With An Evolution-Denier 

Sunday Faith Series: The Fundamental Error Of 'Creation Science' 

The Base Rate Errors of Young Earth Creationism

Probing The Answers In Genesis Cult 

There's No Greater Abuse Of Knowledge In Christianity Than Young Earth Creationism 

Dodgy Belief Bandits: The Hawks, Pigeons and Sparrows 

Why Intelligent Design Fails As A Theory 

The Wrong Adam: Why Stories Are The Deepest Part Of The Text 

Putting creation myths up against real science 

The similarities of creationists and atheists

How Science Decodes The Past 

Exposing AIG's Ken Ham & Nathanial Jeanson: The Dangerous Cult of Lies 

Young Earth Creationists Deny Themselves The Most Astounding Evidence For God 

Why It's Absurd To Take Adam & Eve's Fall Literally 

Ask The PM: If You Were Forced To Defend Young Earth Creationism 

An Evening With The PM #17: Going Head To Head With A Creationist 

Last, but by no means least, here are some conversations I had that are worth exploring – in the first 2 videos, we hear from ex-YECs who’ve seen the light; and in the third video, I have an interesting discussion with Herman Mays, professor in genetics at Marshall University: 

An Evening With The PM #14: Former Young Earth Creationists Who've Seen The Light 

An Evening With The PM #15: Former Young Earth Creationists Who've Seen The Light  

An Evening With The PM #7: A Discussion With Dr. Herman Mays On Creationism

Edit to add: Here is a great resource from my friend Kristine Johnson, entitled Basics of Evolution, which is full of excellent material on a wide range of topics, with input from a wide range of good contributors. 

The Two Categories of God's Truth

 

We are told that Christ is the Truth - but what is the nature of His truth?

In philosophy, true propositions are often classified into two main categories: necessary and contingent.

Necessary Propositions: These are propositions that are true in all possible worlds and cannot be false under any circumstances. For example, "2 + 2 = 4" is a necessary proposition because its truth is independent of any particular situation or context.

Contingent Propositions: These are propositions that are true in some possible worlds but not in others. Their truth depends on the way the world is. For example, “property x will expand when heated." is a contingent proposition because its truth depends on the specific physical properties in nature.

It’s probable that necessary truths are also connected to who God is, in that they couldn’t be any other way; and contingent truths are connected to God’s creation, which could have been different, but constitute truths about the specifics of the world He chose to create. Therefore, in being called to seek the truth at all times, we are being called to assent to truthful, necessary propositions (which will bring us closer to God) and to truthful contingent propositions (which will enhance our understanding of God’s creation).

The Game of Words

In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argued against the idea that every concept has a strict set of "necessary and sufficient conditions" that define it. Instead, with his 'Language Games' and his 'Family Resemblance Principle' he understood concepts through shared features that overlap in various ways, rather than through a strict set of essential criteria. Here's a passage of note, in which he compared language to being like describing various games:

“There must be something common, or they would not be called ‘games’”–but look and see whether there is anything common to all. For if you look at them you will not see something common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don’t think, but look! Look for example at board games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost. Are they all ‘amusing’? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.”

Let me say, in using the term ‘games’, Wittgenstein is not being in the least bit trivial or frivolous here – he is stating something rigorous about the entanglements into which humans get themselves through their misuse of language. The precise definitions and contextualisations in our language are not strictly and clearly demarcated – they seamlessly integrate like the characteristics of a family integrate. Choosing the language we use to discuss a particular topic is like choosing a game and adhering to its rules. Just as we shouldn’t use the rules of chess when playing tennis, equally we shouldn’t apply the wrong kind of language to the wrong discussion. When Wittgenstein talks of our seeing a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing, he means that some of the terms used are used carelessly, and as such, these errors militate against fruitful discussion.

The trouble that underlies many discussions is that those jointly sufficient terms are often misused, and this amounts to people criss-crossing their communication and getting their language entangled in knots. So, while some misunderstandings may arise from misuse, Wittgenstein was more focused on the idea that people often expect language to function with fixed meanings when, in fact, meanings shift based on context.

I think this is a useful thing to learn from as young an age as possible – apprehending the importance of the Wittgensteinian method of using language like we use tools, where words are jointly sufficient for many disciplines, and discerning the extent to which language evolves in a fluid, context-dependent manner, even within individual dialogue over time. In religious discussions, for example, words like God, soul, spirit, proof, evidence, morality, purpose, good, evil, fact, miracle, beauty, heaven, hell, faith and sin are good examples of this. In political discussions, words like fair, justice, freedom, equality and rights are also good examples of this.

I would say the main reason discussions frequently result in needless discord is because we construct our language in a proprietary way in an attempt to make sense of the reality with which we interface – and as such, we are always operating within one particular language game or another, which changes when we change subject. The trouble is, there is no meta-structure from which we can stand back and appraise the language games, because even in appraising a particular language game, we are still operating from within a language game when doing so.

Finally, even more importantly than science, philosophy and politics, marriage is a shared language game between beloveds. Successful relationships often rely on couples developing their own set of shared meanings and language, where they can understand each other more effectively through clear communication. Due to different backgrounds and experiences, what one beloved means by “support,” “honesty”, “listening”, “love,” "commitment,", "happiness or “respect” is likely to differ from another’s interpretation of those terms. These words, and many like them, don’t have fixed meanings – they must be shaped by the couple’s evolving experiences and honest development of mutual understanding.

Imagined Beauty, Real Love

 

An age-old question in philosophy is, “Is beauty in the mind or in the object?” We know that in most cases it is in the mind as a result of what’s in the object – in the eye of the beholder, internally constructed by the first-person state of consciousness. The sounds of great music, the mathematical proportions in classical architecture, the stunning natural sunsets, and so forth, are configurations of physical reality that are reified by the fecundity of our sophisticated cognition.

This leads me to profound questions about the differences between a beautiful fictional character and a beautiful real person. So, consider the following question: Which film or TV character of the opposite sex have you desired most, in a way that simulates a desire for a real person you might know? I don’t know if it’s possible to fall in love with a fictional character. One may fall for the ideal, or acknowledge compelling physical and mental traits in the character that one finds desirable – but whether that’s really just the case of falling for the actress or actor’s portrayal is a complex question. It might not be possible to fall in love with a fictional character like one does a real person one gets to know, on account of the fictional character not being a real person. Perhaps one could be seduced by their qualities so much that one could wish they existed, but I fancy that real love for those who exist is on a different plane to the ersatz love in fiction.

Given the foregoing, if we think about what loving someone is, it’s a complex, multi-faceted response to qualities we value. If we love honesty, or beauty or creativity, and someone has those things, this may induce desire for them, that turns into affection, and then love. So, if all good things come from God, then loving good things is a way that humans love God, even if some of them don’t acknowledge it as love of God. Here’s an example. God is truth. Suppose a man who doesn’t believe in God nevertheless passionately loves the truth, to the extent that he is willing to seek it throughout his life and go wherever it leads him (intellectually, morally, psychologically, philosophically, politically and emotionally). Now, I am certain that such a man would find God eventually – but even before he does find God, you can say that in loving truth he is loving God (at least to some extent).

Perhaps it’s like how a lady who loves wit is really loving intelligence, because of how wit is a fundamental property of intelligence; or how a teacher’s love of perseverance is really a love of determination, because of how perseverance is a fundamental property of determination. Similarly, I can conceive of how an individual’s love for justice offers love towards God’s righteousness; how their love of beauty offers love towards God’s creativity; how their love of compassion offers love towards God’s mercy; how their love of wisdom offers love towards God’s Omniscience; how their love of harmony offers love towards God’s order; and how their love of forgiveness offers love towards God’s grace.

How To Talk About Politics

Jonathan Haidt’s elephant and the rider metaphor develops Hume’s famous “reason is the slave of the passions”, and illustrates the elephant as the powerful, emotion-driven part of the mind, while the rider symbolises rational, controlled thought trying to steer it. However, the elephant often steers the rider, as emotions, instincts, and ingrained beliefs influence our actions and shape our reasoning. While the rider may believe they are in control, they frequently justify decisions the elephant has already made, highlighting how emotional impulses frequently overpower rational thought, particularly in tribal areas where the beliefs of your in-group are what you feel compelled to defend, even if there’s no empirical basis for them.

Consequently, most political commentary we read in newspapers and on social media is a reflection of an individual’s tribal and emotional biases, rather than thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis. Because of which, most political opinions are not really edifying – and I think you’re only likely to offer worthwhile contributions if you can master your elephant as a competent rider and transcend the litany of prosaic in-group discourse. I think the most compelling perspectives are those where the agent has tried to transcend instinctive allegiances, in an attempt to cultivate a clarity that allows meaningful engagement beyond the pull of predictable ‘them vs. us’ tribal partisans.

A Little Note Of Encouragement

 

There is an old maxim that goes 'The longer I live, the less and less I believe in, but the little I believe in, I believe in more and more.' I think that nicely reflects what I feel about so much of the worldly affairs that predominate our news channels, as I try to grow more maturely in my faith. The above maxim is a good algorithmic sentiment about focussing on the most important things in life, where the bigger they become, the smaller the less important things become. If we believe more and more in the important things, and prioritise them, the more trivial things fade into the background.

The stronger my relationship with Christ, the more that strength dwarfs my worldly problems; the more we invest in people who are valuable to us and have our best interests at heart, the less our lives are affected by shallow connections; the more we anchor our hearts in love, the more we reflect the light of Christ in the world; the deeper we grow in gratitude, the less we dwell in negativity and cynicism - that sort of thing.

The more we focus on what truly matters, the better our lives will be, and the clearer our purpose will become. 

Your Individual Vote Won't Affect The Outcome

 

People who think we are compelled to vote in elections use ethical persuasion (namely, civic duty and the value of participation), but they never use mathematical probability, because then they wouldn’t have a good argument. Their thinking is roughly; before an election, without knowing the margin of victory, it’s theoretically possible for any vote to be decisive if the race turns out to be exceptionally close, so you should vote, because all votes count.

But there’s a lot wrong with that reasoning, because all votes do not count in a way that they would need to, to make it worth your while voting. In my constituency, the Norwich North seat was won by a margin of 10,850 votes. That means the chance that a single vote in Norwich North could change that outcome would be one in 10,850. It’s so unlikely for a large lead to be reduced to a margin of just one vote, the probability of an individual vote deciding the outcome here is actually much lower than one in 10,850. In fact, it’s closer to being so rare that it’s practically negligible.

Even more so across the pond - the chance of your vote making any difference to the US Presidential Election result is even smaller.

So, I don’t think we have a civic duty to assent to the value of participation, when the actual value of participation in terms of a probability estimate is close to zero.

Other than that, enjoy the Election. 😅

Further reading that elaborates much more on this subject: 

A Radical Way To Change Politics For The Better

Some Things You May Not Have Considered About The Process Of Voting

Why It's OK Not To Vote

Why You Probably Shouldn't Have Bothered Voting

On Truth, Beauty & Simplicity: Literary Greats

 

In yesterday's Blog post, I explored the relationship between beauty and simplicity in scientific laws – and how, while simplicity offers clarity, beauty often reveals deeper truths by connecting seemingly disparate concepts. We also saw that beauty doesn’t always mean simplicity, as demonstrated by complex systems like general relativity – and that, ultimately, beauty can uncover profound insights that simplicity alone may overlook, further enriching our understanding of reality.

Now I want to examine this theme from the perspective of writers I highly value. Obviously, everything can be as simple or as complex as we choose, but some of the best expressions of literary greatness, in my view, are writers who explored complex subjects with elegant simplicity, and those who, at the other extreme, explored simple subjects with profound but creative and accessible complexity. Both appeal to me for different reasons.

Perhaps my favourite example of the former would be C.S. Lewis, who tackled complex theological and philosophical themes - Christianity, faith, and morality - with the kind of stylish and accessible prose to which all Christian apologists should aspire. His ability to convey intricate spiritual truths in intelligent, modest and relatable works, coupled with wonderful analogies and profound allegorical narratives is, in my view, unmatched. Lewis was invaluable to me when I was an agnostic exploring the Christian faith in the late 1990s.

At the other end of the scale, I love Kierkegaard for the almost opposite reason; he takes ideas - like faith, love, and suffering - and delves into them with beautifully complex, layered prose, and profound multi-dimensional philosophical explorations. Yet at the same time, Kierkegaard’s personal, intimate, existential style makes his works consistently accessible and relatable, which is a delicate balance to achieve.

Similarly, writers like Orwell, Dickens and Austen excel in their accessible handling of complex subjects - like power, poverty, justice, love and social status. By contrast, writers like Proust, Woolf, Camus and Kafka delight in their unpacking surface-level themes with deep insights, multitudinous layers of meaning and profound existential allegories.

And if, in my personal opinion, C.S. Lewis was the best I’ve read at exploring complex subjects with elegant simplicity – I think Dostoevsky is perhaps the best I’ve read at exploring simple subjects with profound but creative and accessible complexity. The way he takes matters like crime, guilt, justice, faith, humility and redemption, and infuses them with the rich layers of philosophical and psychological complexity, are remarkable feats in literary history. Dostoevsky’s use of profound dimensions through his exploration of faith, struggle and, ultimately, human nature offer literary experiences I’d encourage everyone to have at some point in their life.

I don’t necessarily mean these two are the ‘best’ by any objective measure (they have tremendous competition) – but they have touched me in the profoundest ways at pivotal different stages on my journey (especially C.S. Lewis).

It would be lovely to wax lyrical about writers I admire all day long. But ultimately, in summation, the interplay between beauty and simplicity in literature reflects the full range of profundities of human experience itself, just as the scientific laws we explored in the previous post reveal profound truths about nature through their elegant formulations. The literary journey and the scientific methods are invitations to embrace the depth and richness of existence itself. With this dance of words in literature, and this web of investigation in science, we find a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world, reminding us that both beauty and simplicity have their places in the structure and order of truth, enriching our lives in ways that resonate long after we turn the final page of the book.