Today I Will Utter the M Word

That's right, readers, I am going to say it in print. Here it comes, "Meta-transcendental." I know, it has way too many syllables and probably should be shortened to something much more user-friendly. So if you prefer the short version, just say "Bible." However, there is a little something to the longer version, which, with a little explaining, can render the lengthier counterpart helpful (believe it or not).

Now, normally, as you have seen, I advocate the Ockham's razor principle for good re-writing. Keep it short, silly-head. But I also noted that there are times for rule-breaking, and this is one of them. But before we can make any fair sense of the M word, we need to take a brief look at the idea of a "transcendental." So what, pray tell, is a "transcendental?" A little etymology helps here. You will note the word, "transcend" built into the latter term.


To transcend usually carries the sense of "exceed" or "go beyond." The basic idea behind it, is that the things which transcends (at least in theological uses of the word) overflows, fills up the category we are considering, and then keeps going beyond something we only analogies (word-pictures) for. So when we say that God "transcends" the created order, we mean not that He is not here with us now (the word for this is "immanent.") But that He is that and so much more.



The God of the Bible is "immanent" (with and in) his creation. As Paul the apostle says (quoting one Epimenides of Crete), "In Him we live and move and have our being." Now we must carefully distinguish this from a view called "pantheism," which formally agrees with this, but whose proponents mean something quite different by it than we.

Now our shorter catechism says that "God is a Spirit" (from John 4:24), which means He does not take up space like we do. He is present at all places, and at all times, but not visibly or materially. But He is not identified with His creation, so that to eat a slice of pizza, one must in some way affect Him (pantheism denies this).

But God does not have the limits of the creation. So He in many ways, not only fills it, but goes far beyond anything we might compare Him to, although the Bible warrants many such comparisons. God is glorious like the Sun shining at midday in its strength. He acts like the wind, which blows where it wills, and you see its effects, but not the wind itself. You have never seen the wind. And yet we all know the wind exists, now don't we?

I will save this bit of trouble for the materialistic atheist for later. We all believe in things we cannot see: from the wind, to people who leave our presence (and yet we do not assume that because we cannot now see them that they have ceased to exist), ideas other people have, electrons, neutrinos (which the atheistic science world swears on a stack of Bibles do in fact exist), triangles (you only see images of triangles, not actual triangles), quantities (we represent these with numerals, but the numerals are not the quantities themselves -- you may have eaten two apples once, but you never ate the quantity "two" by itself, or all of us would now have to count from 1 and go straight to three).

You get the point. God is not material, tangible (you cannot touch Him -- like rainbows), but we know He exists just the same. How? We know Him by His Word and Spirit. He speaks. How do we know He speaks? We hear his voice in nature and in the Bible. "My sheep hear my voice," Jesus said.

This means that, although God is "transcendent," yet we still hear his voice, and see His goodness around us. His goodness, wisdom, power and eternity have been revealed clearly from what has been made so that men are without any excuse whatever for disbelieving His clear testimony.

A "transcendental" has to do with both God's transcendent and immanent attributes, as they affect the created order. So these can be stated as simple propositions. Here are a few of them:

1. Human language is objectively meaningful (it actually tells things about the real world -- when used well -- and communicates ideas in my head to form ideas in yours. This is happening right now. To be sure, there are philosophers who have argued the opposite of this. For now I will simply assume they are mistaken.

2. Laws of logic are real entities. These are not just conventions or agreed upon rules between me and someone else for the sake of being able to argue or debate about them. Specifically, these are "universal, invariant, abstract, and extralinguistic entities." If you do not know what that means, consider yourself lucky. Some people actually have to study this stuff in class. For now, the point is that these are as real as the Snickers bars I like to eat now and again.

Remember, just because you cannot see, taste, touch, smell or hear them, does not mean they aren't real. You haven't eaten "three" yet either, but we still need it in order to count. These are a bit like laws of science too, if that helps for a picture of what kind of thing we are talking about.

So a transcendental is something you must have as a feature of this world in order to make sense of the world around you. If language were not meaningful in what it communicated about the world around us, we would not have logic, science, morality or other rational enterprises. In other words, without transcendentals -- the most basic features needed to explain this world -- we would in effect be deaf, dumb and blind -- unable to make sense out of anything we experienced.

So as one person put it, transcendentals are the "necessary PRE-conditions for the intelligibility of human experience. " The short version of this is these are necessary -- without them you cannot make sense of things we take for granted in everyday life -- like having a pleasant conversation, or blogging. The are called PRE-conditions, since the world must have these features BEFORE we can understand what it is, and why it appears as it does. "Intelligibility" refers to the state of making sense out of something, rendering it "sensible" or clear to the mind (meaningful).

"Human experience" simply refers to what you and I wake up to in the morning, or the things we encounter mundanely - flies at barbecues, curry on Indian food (let us hope), presidential faces on coins, and lemonade (or a wine cooler, or beer) on hot days. You know, we call this "reality."

So transcendentals are those most basic features of reality that enable us to explain things. Without any one of them, we would not be able to explain anything at all. This is why they are "necessary."

Now a meta-transcendental, is the ultimate explanation for the existence of the transcendentals. Why are these propositions so basic to explaining, and not others? How are they related to each other? How do we explain the existence of the many transcendentals and "fit them together" into a larger package, an ideological unit we usually call a "worldview"?

So by slapping the prefix "meta," which is plainly stolen from the Greek tongue, on the word "transcendental," I mean to ask, what is the more basic (ultimate) explanation, for the very basic explaining units we all know and love?

The reason for asking this question -- of how to explain the many tiny explainers, in an all in one package deal -- is that someone somewhere must be able to tell us why transcendentals behave as they do, and how they fit together. Otherwise, we still have a really big mystery on our hands -- namely everything -- and that just won't do, since it is the job of worldviews to explain, and since it is never optional whether or not you will have a worldview.

We have them because in order to take dominion as God has commanded, we need to know why things appear as they do, and act as they do, under this or that set of circumstances. This is why scientists always poke and prod bugs in a laboratory, point very large looking glasses as the sky, and do all manner of other kinds of discovery-oriented projects.

Knowledge is not optional, and so neither are worldviews. And so the "meta-transcendental" question (which I will simply call the MTQ hereafter) is this, "what one worldview enables us to know all the things we know now, and might know later?"

Another way to ask it is, "which worldview alone provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience?" (enables us to grasp what we wake up to in the morning). This is why I say that transcendentals are like intellectual coffee -- before each exists to the pallate, the world is just one big haze.

Now later, and I am sure you saw this coming, I will argue (if the Lord wills) that only the Christian worldview -- all the things taught in your Bible taken as a single unit of thought, not each proposition in isolation added to others step-by-step -- can provide the foundations of knowledge (transcendentals), the bases for logic, science, morality, math, history, education, and even breakfast. And I will be using the various parts (elemental components) of Atheistic materialism to show this. Atheism is the whipping boy. This explains why the Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no god.'"

The Bible sees itself (correctly) as the meta-transcendental, the foundation of all knowledge and fountain of all wisdom. Thus, its rejection entails folly (only fools reject it, and all who reject it are fools for so doing) and madness. Folly is the precursor to madness of a particular kind. You could in principle make one mad by interfering with his brain functions. But this is not what the Bible has in mind. It means a very specific kind of madness, the formal and necessary conclusions, which follow validly from folly (any non-biblical position).

This is not chemically-induced madness or brain damage. A person may be quite intelligent in this fashion, and yet be foolish in the extreme. The pre-eminent example of a fool in the Bible in a spirit named "Satan." Yet the Bible affirms his extreme intelligence as well. He is not unintelligent. He is a hate-filled psychotic of a particular kind. He hates fully and indiscriminantly. His hatred is not measured, qualified or restrained. And yet he remains extremely cunning, meaning that we need God's protection. Fortunately, God appoints beings very much like Satan regarding his strength and intelligence, which are holy, and filled with charity toward God's people. They hate Satan, the way he hates everyone. But theirs is restrained, measured, holy, and righteous.

This means that the fallen world is just a little off its rocker, as we say. Even God's people, in the resurrection, will look back on this life and wonder how it was that they could not see the obvious -- most of what they did not know. For now we see as through a glass darkly because of sin. This means, if even Christians are not as intellectually sound and consistent as they might be (though more so all the time as they learn to submit to God's Word), that we cannot and dare not look to the non-Christian world as any kind of norm or standard for what it good, acceptable or right behavior, because well, they're nuts -- which explains why Ph.D.'s can actually believe in and preach evolution on the one hand, and argue vehemently against unethical behavior on the other.

This is contradictory nonsense. It is bizarre, and it is typical on college campuses all over the world. Don't let this happen to you. I freely confess that when I started cataloguing the contradictions I regularly encountered on college campuses, it took me a long time to realize that this was not just folly. That much was obvious immediately. But the fact that when you SHOW people these contradictions -- plain as the day is blue in the sky -- they hem and haw and make really weird excuses for them, supposing these to be arguments, which no one in any court or classroom would ever entertain for their obvious absurdity.

It finally dawned on me after thinking on it for a long time. These people are willing, no matter what the logical consequences -- even if they end up teaching that your children are really no different than frogs (just more advanced frogs), they will never take this stuff as a sufficient reductio ad absurdum to their position. They will, we say, "Bite the bullet."

And then after 4 decades of teaching evolution in public school classrooms, they will complain that the schools are violent, and the students behave like .... like .... ANIMALS!!!

Hello? Is anyone still driving the bus? This is not brain damage. This is not from drugs. This is not because pagans are not intelligent. Many of them are very intelligent. But many of these intelligent people are ethically and logically -- crazier than cat pizza -- which by now has probably evolved into Country-fried Rats.

It is no wonder to me that the public university system cannot manage answers to any of the difficult - for some but not others - traditional, historical, scientific, and philosophical problems. They simply do not have the right equipment. They lack the meta-transcendental which God has given to His people, which alone is fully and finally sufficient not only to provide the preconditions for, and answers to, all that is raised in the various disciplies, but which is capable of developing wholly new disciplines not yet discovered (but which reside latently and implicitly in the Word of God), and which could literally transform history from its unlimited ethical and intellectual resources.

All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are Hid in Christ. And the Word of Christ provides to us all that we need and so much more, for personal, ecclesiastical, domestic, civil, national, and international righteousness and wisdom.

And the future belongs to the wise. You have His Word on it.

A Great Resource For Biblical Studies, Ancient History and Archaeology

Here, I have located a very interesting source of the results of many archaeological digs, catalogued inscriptions, coins, and all manner of interesting artifacts with some explanation to boot.

For the interested students of Bible backgrounds, this should prove very helpful, and alot of fun. You can see for instance, the famous Behistun monument of Darius I (515/16 B.C.), king of the Medo-persian empire.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/

Snoop around. Enjoy.

A Very Brief Introduction to Heinrich Hertz And Your Radio

Here is the wikipedia entry summarizing the importance of this man to the physical sciences:

"Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (February 22, 1857 - January 1, 1894) was the German physicist and mechanician for whom the hertz, an SI [standard international] unit, is named. In 1888, he was the first to satisfactorily demonstrate the existence of electromagnetic radiation [commonly, "EMR" in the sciences] by building an apparatus to produce and detect UHF [Ultra High Frequency] radio waves. Another of his important contributions was to the field of contact deformation and mechanics. [Contact deformation has to do with the changes imposed upon objects in collisions]."

Now the unit of measurement typically used for radio waves today reads in "Megahertz" (1 million cycles per second) or "Kilohertz," (one thousand cycles per second). The unit, 1 hertz, simply names one cycle -- reaching [or starting from] a wave top [called the peak] and then a bottom and then a new top. Picture a simple oceanic wave as it moves across the water. I used to jump over these as a child when they moved hard into shore. You get sand in your pants every time, but it's well worth the trouble. The good ones are a little further out. But watch out for the jellyfish. They may be spineless, but man can they do a number on your vacation.

When a wave builds, it reaches a top, and then a bottom, as it falls. You can even do this experiment in a bath tub with a few good floating toys, watching them rise and fall to note the wave patterns or cycles (one complete rise and then fall is one wave cycle). So one Hertz in simply one wave cycle per second. One thousand cycles in a single second then means that the waves occurs with a much higher frequency (a thousand times more often than just one Hertz). Thus, the Hertz measures wave frequency, and waves may be of higher of lower frequencies, depending on just how many highs and lows they reach in one second.

The distance from the top of the wave to its bottom can vary. Some waves in EMR are taller than others (just like people). This is called the wave "amplitude." To change the size of the wave is called "modulation." When you modulate to a higher amplitude, the cycles get bigger for each one Hertz measured.

Now if we put this altogether, we can read the dial on your radio at home. Homeschoolers, man your radios. You will notice that each radio station is either listed as AM or else FM. The first means "Amplitude modulation." And the second refers to "Frequency modulation."

You will please notice that one of these frequency bands ("band" is short for "bandwidth") comes in Kilohertz (AM) and the other in (88 to 107) Megahertz (FM). The first is categorized as medium wavelength and the second as VHF (very high frequency). UHF is the next bump up, and many Television broadcasting systems use the latter.

So here are a few questions for today to have your homeschoolers answer:

1. Who was Heinrich Hertz and why do we care?
2. Which band -- AM or FM has the higher frequency?
3. What does the word "frequency" refer to?
4. What does AM stand for?
5. What does FM stand for?
6. If you have one -- perhaps cat country 103 -- name your favorite radio station, and be sure to note its frequency on the radio dial window.


7. Find two other stations. One should be classical. The other can be news. It matters little. Now look at the dial and answer, "which has the higher frequency, and by how many Hertz"?

Teachers may need to help younger students with the math. Fine. The point is to get across the significance of just what radio waves are, and how we measure them (and why radios have such weird markings on them which need our deciphering). Also please note that all EMR is a form of light, even though most of it we do not and cannot see with our eyes.

Radio broadcasting -- in AM or FM amounts to shining a big light in all directions (by way of a helpful picture for students). These radio waves start off as generated electricity, which is attenuated (tuned) to a very specific frequency (electrical patterns of just a certain number of wave cycles each second of transmission), and then transmitted across long distances through the air (atmosphere). AM travels farther and it can "bounce" or "skip" between the ground and the upper atmosphere (ionosphere), especially at night. FM tends to be what they call "line of sight" radio transmission. It cannot make it past the hills in most cases, supposing you live in a valley.

Then your radio picks up the sounds -- the wave patterns traveling your direction -- and converts these electrical impulses into sound vibrations on a speaker. So they travel as electrical patterns and interact with your radio to become sounds. And you hear the sounds by the speaker beating out a vibration in the air, which travels to your ears -- especially if the sound vibration is rock and roll.

When you turn the dial to escape the noisy used car commercials, you are listening for electrical patterns (waves) that occur at either a higher or else lower frequency.

Early broadcast radio (as we know it) was coming into its own as late as the early 1920's, though individual operators had been at it for about two decades by then. The sinking of the titanic, for instance, was relayed around the world by radio. The Pictorial History of Radio (Irving Settel, Citadel Press, New York, 1960, p. 31) has a picture of David Sarnoff, a young Nantucket Island (MA) wireless operator, who received news of the Titanic's sinking in 1912. He looks concerned.

Radio has been a powerful tool -- the internet before the internet -- throughout its brief history, and has proved especially crucial to the speedy transfer of news around the world, and has been of great importance in the military efforts of both world wars.

In terms of biblical theology, we have the radio as men submitted in part to the light of nature, submitting to and working to understand it rules and regulations, which the sciences make every effort to quantify when possible. While its ethical laws are just as much a part of the real world -- and the sciences would not be possible except that men obey them (i.e. you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor also means "do not falsify research," and only to the extent that scientists do this is real science possible).

Thus, by borrowing upon Christian capital in the light of nature, and written more clearly, comprehensively, and particularly in the written Word of God (The Bible), even pagans are able to make great strides for furthering the better control over our environment and enable a higher standard of living for all. Without giving proper credit to the God of the Bible for their ability so to do, however, this amounts only to ideological theft, not actual borrowing.

In short, it is because of the truth that the Word of God actually describes the world as we know it, and how it came to appear as it does (and how science is even possible) that you have a radio in your homes. Because the contrary to the Christian worldview is logically impossible, because it denies the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of radio waves and broadcasting (which depend on laws, and our knowledge of laws upon logical induction), the radio sitting in your homes amounts to another significant proof that God is faithful, speaks only the truth, and gives good gifts to men, even when they (at times) might abuse those gifts (i.e. Howard Stern and shock jocks).

Jesus is the Lord of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 3:2), and the light of nature which testifies of His goodness and glory is coming in "loud and clear" on AM and FM.

Taking Science For a Spin: Professor Michael Faraday, the Electric Motor, and Biblical Science

Michael Faraday taught physics at the University of Massachuesetts, and at Dartmouth, long ago. The wikipedia entry gives a very succinct overview of why Mister Faraday is worth noting:

"Michael Faraday, (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was an English chemist and physicist .... who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry. Faraday studied the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a DC [direct current, as from a battery] electric current, and established the basis for the magnetic field concept in physics. [His father, James Faraday, was a blacksmith, and so was employed in a quasi-scientific craft. This may be where Michael's interest in such matters originated].

"He discovered electromagnetic induction .... [and] established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena. His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology, and it was largely due to his efforts that electricity became viable for use in technology."

Alan Hirschfeld's insightful biography (The Electric Life of Michael Faraday, p. 80) recounts the first instance of his success with creating what would be the prototype for electric motors later on. "On September 3, 1821, with his wife Sarah's 14 year-old brother, George Barnard, at his side, Faraday cobbled together a crude apparatus from materials in the lab. First, he secured a bar magnet upright in a cup of mercury, leaving only the top part of the magnet exposed (mercury, a liquid metal conducts electricity; thus the space around the immersed magnet was a metal "sea," able to conduct the battery's current). From an electrical terminal above, Faraday suspended a short length of wire, bouyed by a cork, so that the wire's lower end dipped into the mercury. The dangling wire and mercury now formed an unimpeded path for electrical flow.

... He and George looked on expectantly as power was applied from a battery. The wire started to whirl in a conical path around the magnet, [And Faraday shouted] "There they go! There they go! We have succeeded at last!"

The flexible, current-carrying wire "felt" the force of the upright magnet, nudging it around the conical path ... the magnet circled the upright electrified wire. Faraday's rough-hewn experiment marked the first time that electricity had been harnessed for continuous motion. Here was the forerunner of the electric motor."

Faraday was extremely astute, even for a scientist, in which one might expect above average cognitive acumen. He even studied the use of language in its applications to describing science, as well as its uses for developing technical vocabularies. For instance, he wondered about the usefulness of using technical words which had connotations from an older scientific vocabulary, which he saw as outdated, and therefore (in some ways) unnecessarily misleading.

While Faraday was necessarily unaware of the more basic components of later atomic theory -- electrons and other subatomic particles with names which burden the mind -- since the more modern atomic models (see Niels Bohr and the Bohr model of the atom from the early 1900's) came much later, yet his experimental science projects proved enormously successful.

In the study of the decomposition of solutions in electrical currents (electrolysis), Faraday also deduced two of it fundamental principles. For today's brief post, the details of this are not important. In Biblical language, Faraday's extraordinary success was in large part due to the fact that he proceeded upon the bases of:

1. Repeated and varied experimentation. The man "went nuts" with the toys in the lab.
2. Careful observation, and (sometimes only mental, not necessarily written) notation of the results in each instance
3. Classification of types of experiments, and of their results
4. The careful use of induction (no pun intended) and deduction, or logical inferences from his varied factors, conditions and results

This is called, "Pulling a Solomon." In the ancient world, not everyone had leisure time. Kings were thus among those most interested in both the study of the natural world, and the logical relationships found in their studies. This is something of what we have in the wisdom literature, what the ancients called "natural philosophy." Proverbs 25 says as much: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [not peasants working in the field from dawn to dusk] is to search out a matter."

Each of these elements of study, though not necessarily the use of the same tools, can be identified in the copious studies of King Solomon. In fact, the Proverbs indicate this fairly clearly. One can almost see Solomon studying the ants, yelling at some point or other, "There they go!" when he exposed them to this or that substance.

The making of the Proverbs is indicated in the Proverbs themselves. Chapter 24 is highly instructive in this regard, and shows the observational basis of their inductions and constructions. Proverbs 24:30-34 shows us a proverb in the making:

"I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down. Then I saw, and considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction.

Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man."

Here we should note several points. First, Solomon notes the details of the situation he studies, isolating particular details as the most relevant from the entire scene he takes in. He notes the field, the vineyard, thorns and nettles. These are the striking or unusual features. Second, the verbs "saw," "considered well," "looked upon" and "received instruction." Third, he posits the punchline, or ethical maxim of most value to be learned by noting the cause (sloth) and the effects of it. He isolates the most relevant causal feature and consequences of the scene investigated. This is C.S.I. without the fancy forensics.

This raises some important questions about the roles of observation and theorizing in the sciences, and what the Bible regards as a sufficient warrant for reaching proper conclusions (meaning true conclusions). Now Solomon's study is scientific, but you will note that he is not exactly -- at least not here -- doing science. His goal is ethical in nature, not simply the isolation of cause-effect relationships, but ethical cause-effect relationships. Solomon is doing scientific ethical studies from the light of nature.

We know this because he uses traditional wisdom and rabbinical language, "received instruction," as though from a Rabbi, who would pass down his teachings to his students for verbatim memorization. Solomon was, in a word, one part Rabbi, one part Einstein. But his studies have clear implicates for warranted (and unwarranted) views of the sciences.

For instance, from other such examples of Solomon's stated (and implied) practices, we can deduce that the Bible views proper science -- if one uses its conclusions to form the basis of obliging knowledge (knowledge claims one has the right to require of others) -- necessarily find their root in observation and induction, not merely theorizing on a chalkboard. This is consistent with the Deuteronomic observation requirement of two or three witness to establish any matter. This implies that a scientist working alone will have to show his work again to someone else. The Bible thus requires repeatability of experimental results to confirm a scientific claim.

Note above please that I have said that Faraday was doing -- in essence -- biblical science, and that this in large part forms the reason why his researches proved so fruitful, and in so many different fields. He also contributed standard units of measurement, the "faraday" and the "farad" to name two. The rest I will keep -- if the Lord is willing -- for another post.

The Bible has the answers, but we need a very careful, systematic and detailed approach to its study. If the common features of the world deserve such care (as the Proverbs show us), how much more what is Holy? But, alas, students have other things to do too besides read blogs. There are so many toys and so little time.

Just ask a scientist.

We could do far worse then in this very brief introduction to science than to follow the example of Doctor Faraday in forming the budding student's approach to the sciences. And remember, science motors.

Solomon spent a good deal of time on such matters, and this -- given his extraordinary heavenly wisdom -- sufficiently warrants the scientific enterprise and the time taken to explore God's creation for His glory and the benefit of all. 1 kings 4 (vv. 29-34) says of Solomon:

And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.

And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And [in his proverbs and songs] he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall [all manner of botany]: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes [biology, including avian and marine biology].

And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings [these kings were "searching out a matter" as kings are wont to do] of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom."

In Solomon's day, we can say (as a gross understatement) that the sciences were experiencing a Renaissance (a strong renewal of interest among kings from many nations), and their kings a Reformation. Solomon was teaching experimental and observational (scientific) ethics, by way of highlighting the teachings of natural revelation. So his goal was different than the scientist typically, but not his methods. For kings need most to know of mercy and justice, or charity and righteousness. But science cannot hurt.

Solomon recognized no segregation of theology and the sciences, but saw the former as the basis of the latter. He wasn't buying the modernist package. This means that when Christians study the sciences, we must go one step further than the secularist. We must ask, in light of the teachings of all the Word of God, what can we learn from our studies of how God expects us to be diligent as the ant, courageous as the lion, clever as a serpent, and gentle as a dove (that is, like the Lord Jesus). The bees can (and do) preach, and honey is a mouthful. But only if we listen. Here, we must look on, consider well, and receive instruction.

As a final note: for those beginning the study of the sciences, one of the best ways you can do this -- as I have proclaimed from my pulpit earlier -- is by taking a diachronic, or at least biographical approach. Here, "diachronic" means to show how the sciences developed over time, starting with earlier scientists and young sciences, and moving toward the later scientists and more mature sciences.

Choose a scientist worth studying, and study his achievements in light of his life and worldview. The two must never be separated. Personal influences always stand behind ideas, "discoveries," and inventions. And recall that no theory of any science, should it state or imply some error in the Bible, is at any time to be believed. But you can still use it to accomplish great, or at least, very fun, scientific experiments. Many scientists took this anti-realist approach to the sciences -- just because it works well does not make a theory true -- and they did just as well as any other scientist (Ernst Mach is a classic example of this type of scientist).

Take your study of the sciences only in historical context. This way you can also focus on whatever part of the scientist's life and work appropriate to the ages of your students too. Younger students might only need to know about the kinds of fun things he did (you thus introduce them to this or that field of science and some of the more fun side of the sciences, without all manner of difficult -- did I mention boring -- math or other technical jargon, which can come later).

Avoid getting lost in technical stuff -- until students are more mature. BORRRING. Tell the youngest ones the stories of successful scientists, and all the fun and sometimes kooky inventions they tried. I like the earlier attempts to build airplanes that shake themselves apart a few feet off the ground. Marconi invented the radio. Now THAT is a story worth telling. Alex bell came up with the telegraph, and it played a MAJOR role in the westward expansion of the United States. Every child should know about the telegraph and that funky Morse code they used to tap out (see also Samuel Morse). The history of the sciences is filled with great stories. Storytelling is a form of history everyone loves. This is how the Lord Jesus taught in form. Railroads and trains come alive with a good story.

This may call for field trips to go see the cool stuff they have at the exploratorium and other like exhibits, but only after some of the great stories about how we got the first laser. The word abbreviates "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation,' which is why they call it a "laser." They are too scared to try the longer version. Laser light shows make for great field trips after children have been told the story behind them, and seen a few pictures.

And try all manner of supervised experiments. Radio Shack sells several electronics boards, with bells and whistles galore -- simple experiments anyone can do to learn about everything from solar power cells to the basics of current flow. These are really fun and come with a numbered projects book. All you have to do is connect one of the wires to the right number at one end, and then as directed at the other.

They have great chemistry sets too at most hobby stores. Just don't blow up the kitchen, or you will likely end up a highly successful scientist -- a "lifer."

Here are a few names you might wish to use for studying the history of the sciences. You might wish to delve a little further into Faraday's accomplishments.

Lord Kelvin, James Joule, Niels Bohr, Louis Pasteur (very interesting man), Antoine Lavoisier, Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, James Watt (steam engines are cool), and under "sciences" by their various names (astronomy, geology, botany), the wikipedia listing has a very long list to finish this job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

And one palaeontologist is worth noting because he never makes the textbooks. Here's why. Richard Owen staunchly resisted -- and well refuted -- every major point of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species shortly after its publication. Printing presses could not keep up with demand for Darwin's book, which proved so popular it even scared Darwin. The publishers shelves emptied almost overnight. And Owen and a few scientific friends went to work with exceedingly scholarly critiques, winning the day among their contemporaries -- with all but a few. It was the NEXT generation of students that adopted Darwinism almost wholesale.

But this staunch defender of what was then scientific orthodoxy, the creationist account, utterly overthrew Darwinism within a few years of the presses being overrun by demand for it. only Swiss-American Naturalist, Asa Grey and a few others had reservations about Owen's ruthless scientific critique of Darwinism's evidentiary failure. Owen won the day among scientists against Darwin. I know of no biology textbook which offers this information at any university. It's the history of science guys that tell you this stuff. Owen was as scientific as they come; he was irritated; and he was Scottish. Darwin was toast. Here's a short UCB Owen page: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/owen.html

Now sooner or later you will simply have to have your students make match rockets. Books detailing all sorts of fun experiments like this propulsion experiment you can do with common household objects are really fun too. Did you know you can make batteries from lemons? Solar ovens to cook things from styrofoam and tin foil? At some future time, if the Lord is willing, I shall attempt to hunt some of these catalogs of home-made experiments down online and post them here.

Have fun, but not too much fun.

If You Made Money in the Stock Market, Blame It on the Puritans

What is a stock?

The term "stock" usually abbreviates "common stock," which represents the total of a company's assets and liabilities in the form of "shares." There is also such a thing as "preferred stock," but this does not trade on the open market like common shares.

1 share of a company thus represents ownership of the company in tiny slices. Imagine you could break up a company (and all its holdings) into fractions. Each fraction you might call one "share" of a given company. Then you can sell such shares individually, or together in "lots" on the open market.

The shares you buy or sell are then given a special number on the back of a certificate, held at the place (exchange, with a copy sent to the brokerage) where you bought them. Your broker buys them either from the exchange or from a recognized middle man company that act as clearinghouses for the exchanges. This stock certificate bears a "CUSIP" number, and it certifies that you own the shares of stock bought in such and such a purchase on this or that day.

What sets the price of a stock?

Supply and demand pressures, known as the "bid" and "ask" prices (where the bid price represents what the buyer wishes to pay, and the "ask" portrays what the current owner wants for his stock) display electronically on a trading window. These set the price. The window looks like a flashy spread sheet, with data changing moment my moment to keep pace with the trading activity -- the intersection of these (the bid and ask) produces (triggers) a transaction between two orders placed by this method.

If you set a limit order -- an order set in advance which indicates you only wish to buy (or sell) at a specified price -- you could be out playing golf when the order fills. If the stock for which you submit the order never reaches the price you set, you lose and gain nothing -- unless your golf swing improves. Now that would be something.

You can also place "market orders" if you want. These buy "at the market," meaning the best price available as soon as possible. This means -- in computer-ese -- right now. Most market orders fill within 10 seconds. Most of the ones I have seen filled in less than two seconds.

But things did not start off nearly this efficiently. In 1602, shares of common stock began trading on the Amsterdam exchange. This involved very few companies. Later the British employed a few variations on this theme to subsidize (pay for) what later became called the "Industrial Revolution."

By dividing up companies -- or exploration ventures as was common in the 1600's --and selling them in traded parcels (common stock shares), this enabled all sorts of people (who otherwise had not the means to invest in such lofty expenses) to invest in the future of capitalisitic projects they believed likely to succeed. This gave rise to "Joint Stock" companies. The poor (well, poorer) could now become stake holders in many kinds of productive ventures to fulfill what students of the Bible call the "dominion mandate."

The historical trajectory of our current markets then took a route best described as Dutch-British-American. And what do these -- for $400 please, Alex -- nations have in common? They were Calvinistic (Biblicist-filled) nations.

So if you made money recently in the markets, you can blame the Puritans. If you lost money recently, you probably did not diversify your assets sufficiently like a Puritan would have, or else may not have done your research. Puritans do research and are notorious book-aholics.

Don't get me wrong. We can quit any time we want to. We just don't want to. Puritans love books because they became Puritans through books, starting with the Bible. Even during the Renaissance (a Christianized, but not Christian, series of historical trends), Desiderius Erasmus was quoted as having said, "When I get money, I buy books. If I having anything left over, I buy food and clothing." At least his pocketbook was Puritan.

The wikipedia article on the topic says,

"The Dutch 'pioneered short selling, option trading, debt-equity swaps, merchant banking, unit trusts and other speculative instruments, much as we know them' (Murray Sayle, "Japan Goes Dutch", London Review of Books XXIII.7, April 5, 2001)."

These simply name special ways of buying and selling shares or commodities at the market. A commodity names the more common goods one might buy in bulk (for instance, you can buy options or futures for) cocoa, sugar, orange juice, wheat, corn, pigs, cattle, gold, silver, platinum, copper, lumber and the like. These tend to be what you might think of as "natural goods."

You can buy and sell these in lots by way of "contracts," which have expiration dates, so that you must sell them -- if you want to sell them -- by a particular date. If you buy and do not wish to sell -- because you love BACON! -- you can opt to take delivery of all those hogs at a location named in the contract. But most people who buy such contracts have no intention of actually ever seeing the stuff the contract names. They just buy the contract and hold it long enough for the price to go way up and then sell it, to get the profit from the difference between the purchase and sale prices.

This is called "speculating." Historically, speculation drives the markets as the prime mover. People who buy securities (like stock) or commodities to use as insurance against a future unfavorable change in prices are called "Hedgers." Speculators buy to try to obtain profit, and Hedgers buy to obtain price insurance.

For example, suppose company A puts out a catalog, with the clothes they sell and their prices. These have to be good for a certain period of time - say six months. But what if in that time the price of wool shoots up? Now making and selling the clothes they have promised is going to COST them money to sell! so they can buy a contract that guarantees the price of wool to them at a set price, or else purchase a futures contract on that commodity so that they make money on the rising price of wool, and can use the profit to offset their losses on selling it at a lower price to their customers as promised. That's "hedging" against the rise in price of wool (or cotton, whatever).

How many cocoa futures contracts do you think Hershey Chocolate Co. owns? Nestle? Ghirardelli? The biggest hedgers are businesses and nations. With the development of stock markets springing up across the globe (almost every nation has one now), this tends to intertwine the economies of nations isolated from each other a good deal in the past. I believe that churches could -- and should -- learn a good deal about investment opportunities here and abroad (the Christian Church is an international body by nature, and there is no good reason for its economic practices to avoid reflecting this feature of its inherent constitution).

Anything the pagan world did, the Puritans did better. Think "Harvard," "Yale" and "Princeton." These were originally Puritan institutions.

In any case, like the song says, everybody wants to rule the world; and now they can do it in shares. Thanks to the Puritans, you can take over the world one slice at a time. And why not? They did. Happy conquering.

A final note for my Puritan readers: The current price for owning a slice of the biggest online bookstore -- Amazon.com -- is $87.26 per share. You can worry about food and clothes later.
If you want to check it yourself, click here http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=amzn

Hero of Alexandria, Greeks and Mystery of the Missing Revolution

Hero of Alexandria invented the first steam engine ever. The year was something like A.D. 50 if the historians of technology have not been drinking again. Hero's Alexandrian contemporaries found his invention fascinating like a Smithsonian display of static electricity inside a glass ball that can make your hair stick straight out in all directions. They treated it as a mere museum- piece, a notable something symbolizing to them "man's greatness" (or at least Greek greatness) and a portent of great things to come.

But those times would have to wait. And wait they did for a thousand years, and then another eight hundred. Finally, one Robert Fulton -- when the steam engine had been "re-discovered," and quite a bit improved -- fitted it onto a fairly large boat to travel the waterways of the United States in about A.D. 1807. Arguably, what was then called the "Watt Steam Engine" [after James Watt] formed the singularly most important feature to propel the industrialization of the West forward.

This monstrous gap in time, between the invention of the steam engine, and its first notable use for the purpose of helping to transport large numbers of people and goods (to build a nation), offers a historical quirk of biblical proportions. Why the huge gap in time?

The ancients had fairly advanced ships, and they (from about the time of the writing of 1st Corinthians) also had steam powered machines. They also had carts one might power with steam also (making an early version of the automobile). This was entirely possible by A.D. 100 at the latest. But there would be no model T's for almost 2 millenia. Again, how comes this?

The industrial revolution in England and the United States came on with extraordinary vigor , such that times ever since then (1760-1830) have been filled with people complaining about the rapid pace of cultural change, dislocation of workers in some industries (changing markets), and the like. Another way of asking our question is this: Why didn't the Industrial Revolution take place in the Roman empire at or before A.D. 350? The Wikipedia article on the topic says "Technological innovation was the heart of the industrial revolution and the key enabling technology was the invention and improvement of the steam engine."

Economic historians assure us that four preconditions must obtain -- called the 'economic take-off' point in the jargon of socio-economic development -- before a society displays the characteristics requisite for an industrial revolution.

The wikipedia entry for the industrial revolution explains that:

"The Industrial Revolution was a major shift of technological, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions that occurred in the late 18th century and early 19th century in some Western countries. It began in Britain and spread throughout the world, a process that continues as industrialisation. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human social history, comparable to the invention of farming, or the rise of the first city-states; almost every aspect of daily life and human society was eventually influenced in some way.

In the latter half of the 1700s the manual labour based economy of the Kingdom of Great Britain began to be replaced by one dominated by industry and the manufacture of machinery. It started with the mechanisation of the textile industries, the development of iron-making techniques and the increased use of refined coal.

Once [it was underway], Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, [and] improved roads and railways. The introduction of steam power (fuelled primarily by coal) and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity. The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines, for manufacturing in other industries. The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world."

The four critical socio-economic components include (to reach the industrial take-off point):

1. Sufficient labor capital (one must have many workers to specialize in this or that work)
2. An adequate market economy (potentially flourishing trade)
3. Sufficient Natural resources
4. Intellectual capital (a sufficient number of gifted thinkers and a certain level of cultural achievement)
5. Transportation networks help (but this feature sometimes does or does not appear on the take-off lists, since you can build one; nevertheless, it is noteworthy).

As early as the 5th century, B.C. the Greeks began to distinguish themselves as among the greatest thinkers (aside from Solomon, and previously Egypt). But by the 3rd century B.C. Alexandria, both Egptian (geographically) and Greek (culturally) showed all the 4 major take-off preconditions. For this and other reasons, economic historians have often pondered the question we are posing: why no industrial revolution in classical antiquity?

I will not bother to dispute many of the reasons they have offered, since they are busily doing this themselves, as each critiques another. The primary difference, between England-America and the world of Classical antiquity is called "Calvinism."

In short, the intellectual capital responsible for the development of the early stock markets (composed of commonstock companies and tradeable securities) and the value system which drove the dominion impulse behind the western migration across the U.S. (and its consequent development) bears the name "biblical Christianity." This is why, even though all the characteristics -- noted above -- were present in the ancient world (more or less), the industrial revolution had to await the Reformation, and its most refined confessional formulation in England. This is why we find such a revolution, not only absent from classical antiquity, but also from all other cultures, even ones with brilliant thinkers like the Chinese, who had gunpowder long before anyone else.

It is the Word of God, taken as a unit, or the "Christian worldview," which provided the social and economic preconditions and wisdom necessary for the development of the industrial and technical West. No one else had this. Thus, only the wisdom of the word of Christ enabled the sharpest rise in the general standard of living the world has ever seen. For in Him "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

I guess we know who the real "Hero" is. For all the Law and the Prophets speak of Him. And yet much, very much, remains to be recovered, newly-understood and systematized from the Bible. The next Reformation will doubtless dwarf anything ever seen (or probably imagined) as the intellectual capital of the Bible once again takes center stage in western thought as the educational foundation for the arts and sciences.

Be assured of this: righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces any people (Proverbs 14:34) You have God's word on it. And the historical record concurs. Intellectual righteousness is called "sound doctrine," and social righteousness "mercy and justice." Each of these presupposes necessarily an infallible and absolute standard the Enlightenment project has been unable to deliver upon. In the end, there can be only one Hero. And no one but the Christians has such a perfect standard; for the law of the Lord is perfect.

So long as they diligently and wisely cling to this standard, studying and applying its teaches to every area of life, cultural and economic victory is inevitable. Progress is sure. And true enlightenment is just around the corner. This does not mean the ride won't be bumpy. History shows that it is. But there are clear, covenantal patterns, and fixed connections between obedience to God's word and national and international prosperity - the Wealth of Nations. It is only a matter of obedience, and a matter of time.

There are presently 100 million Evangelicals in America (people who self-identify that way). This means 50 million and 1 more and we have the majority, or at least our children will. Obviously, this trend is subject to everything from immigration patterns, to conversions to the Christian faith.

We hold the key to the next Reformation, because, as Paul said it, "We have the mind of Christ" (in writing). And the next Reformation -- like the previous -- will form the basis of the next (probably a capital) revolution -- the reformation of economic practices. We must be ready to provide a comprehensive alternative for those wishing to abandon ship when more people begin noticing that the postmodern "elightenment" ship is taking on water fast. Both the Repubicans and Democrats are running out of answers quickly. And this is becoming increasingly obvious. Theonomy -- the biblical political paradigm -- will eventually win the Christian mindset over by default if by nothing else. They cannot beat something with nothing. And Dagon is falling.

We must develop the alternative. A self-conscious Christian world-view forms the only logically possible answer to problems raised over the last 200 years -- with no success whatever from the secular establishment. So teach on Christian parents. Full steam ahead.

The Bible has the answers.

Finally, We Have Found The WMD's -- In Vietnam. They're Ours.

The History News Network has a fascinating -- and fairly brief -- piece on the continuing legacy of death and mayhem left behind in Southeast Asia long after the U.S. withdrew its troops there. U.S. veterans are among the victims of the growing misery index, which continues unabated.

I consider this a must read, especially for those less familiar with the "unauthorized version" of this war. To be sure, the early protests uncovered many abuses, but the longer term effects -- which continue -- both of ordnance and toxic chemicals -- which ARE staying the course -- a course of maiming and killing even children, needs highlighting. The original orders given by President Nixon -- William of Agent Orange -- are particularly instructive -- "[Hit] Anything that moves with anything that flies."

Early reports simply could not have noted the ongoing statistics. These are real people dying. This should give pause to any rational person who hears President Bush argue that many lives were lost by pulling out of Vietnam early, as an intended analogue for his continuing refrain that we must "stay the course" in Iraq, a nation where we should never have been in the first place. Almost everyone has figured this out. Almost.

His nearly unbelievable recalcitrance at this point is just embarrassing. Okay, it is deadly and costly too, not just embarrassing. But you get the point. You might wish to note that the piece names one of the authors as a veteran. The President would have to consider this article friendly fire, were he to bother with it at all (But he has important things to do, like find his watch).

Here is the article: http://hnn.us/articles/42104.html