 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From California comes word that prevailing scientific assumptions about the true nature of the universe appear to be "logically flawed." Explains one news account: "An ever-more-rapidly expanding universe is destined to repeat itself, says Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, California, and his colleagues. But the chances that such re-runs would produce worlds like ours are infinitesimal…The incomprehensibility of our situation even drives Susskind's team to ponder whether an 'unknown agent intervened in the evolution [of the universe] for reasons of its own.'" A miracle of god, the correspondent says, may have set the stage on which Dubya, Saddam, Janet, etc. now perform their antic dance — though the writer quickly cautions that "even a god such as this can't explain how things got so strange." One might wonder on what grounds our correspondent assumes knowledge of what god can or cannot explain, or for that matter if the universe is strange at all. But that's to quibble. Assumed knowledge of Divine Ability and Intent is hardly rare in our tragic species; such assumptions are at least partly to blame for the spectacular horrors of the past year and the desert war to come. More to the point, at times like these it is nice to consider how the ball got rolling rather than where it seems likely to go. Meanwhile the Washington Post reports on a phenomenon dear to many hearts: How humans developed the ability to speak. This unfortunate development (as it sometimes seems) may be the result of two "critical mutations" that swept through the human race about 200,000 years ago, says the paper, quoting a study soon to be published in the journal Nature. A "mounting body of research suggests that the mutant gene conferred on human ancestors a finer degree of control over muscles of the mouth and throat, possibly giving those ancestors a rich new palette of sounds that could serve as the foundation of language." It may be somewhat unsettling to some humans, especially members of the chattering classes, to contemplate the possibility that their highly valued talents are the result of a mere bit of genetic mutation. It may be generally assumed that the words humans think with and live by are the product of forces much grander than the development of muscle control in the cabbage-chomping apparatus. On further reflection, however, this explanation is not entirely impossible to believe; some days it seems to hit the nail squarely on the head. If this theory be true, a blind accident of nature has allowed humans (said to have originated in similar circumstances) to chatter about a universe formed by intent. Could such a development occur outside intent, or is there a method in these mutations? There's a great deal of chatter on both sides of that question — and not nearly enough space left for the definitive answer. I'm put more in mind of a conversation between J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis about the nature of language (a conversation included in a book by Humphrey Carpenter). "You call a tree a tree," said Tolkien to Eliot, "and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a 'tree' until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth. We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God." It was Tolkien, adds Carpenter, who played a central part in steering Lewis back to his youthful faith, though Lewis was not immediately overwhelmed by the man or his message. He described Tolkien in his diary as "a smooth, pale, fluent little chap" who was a bit of a whelp. "No harm in him: only needs a smack or so." Both men, of course, did well by words. A recent item on Forbes.com ranked Tolkien richer than Frank Sinatra and Jerry Garcia among dead celebrities. And so it is pleasant enough to entertain the possibility that both these gents are chattering away far beyond our horizon. But these days we are drawn back to reality, so-called, by a well-worn word. Whatever its origins, we know its meaning all too well. That word of course is "war." — Dave Shiflett is coauthor of Christianity on Trial. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
ecent reports
from the world of science offer a nice break from the daily contemplation
of desert wars, bus bombings, executive-suite scams, and Janet Reno's
accelerating slide toward political oblivion. There are, we often forget,
much greater subjects to consider — such as how things came to be.
