« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 27, 2006

The IAU. (Dude. I'm actually posting about the IAU. Wow.)

Until this year, I could never have thought for a moment that I would be especially intrigued by the workings of the International Astronomical Union.

But teaching Astronomy this year (with the absolutely indispensable help of one Joseph McCauley, now now lab coordinator at Georgia Highlands College) slapped my head around something fierce, and offered respect for this astronomy stuff, seeing as it's one of the great ancient sciences and all that. There's something about looking at stars and figuring out that, with a good telescope, you can actually observe the planets move in the sky and see Jupiter's moons that just rocks the world.

And it made me appreciate all the more that there is actually some fundamental understanding about the universe that came out of one of these talks this week.

But more on that in a moment. First, I want to discuss this Pluto thing.

I want to go on the record as saying that I think the IAU made the right call on "demoting" Pluto the way they did, even if their logic was too clever by half. Honestly, I don't know what's so complicated about this. We have these eight planets. Four of them are inside the asteroid belt. They are pretty dang dense, made of rocky matter, metals, minerals, "earthy stuff" if you will. We call these the terrestrial planets. We have for quite some time. Four planets are outside the asteroid belt. They are all huge planets but pretty light as far as huge planets go, tons o' hydrogen and helium running around, all of them have rings and satellites a go-go. We call these the Jovian planets. We have for quite some time.

And then there's Pluto. Pluto's made of rock and ice, closer in density to the terrestrials, but outside of the orbit of even the Jovians. Its own orbit is irregular, out of the plane of the other eight. Its moon is pretty huge in comparison to Pluto's size, and you can even argue that if Pluto's a planet, Charon has to be a planet too. (In fact, the original IAU proposal said as much.)

In short: Pluto doesn't fit.

And science is all about explaining power. All the protest, even from some of the smartest people I read, that because all the astronomy-fascinated little kids have nine glow-in-the-dark planets hanging from the ceiling, there ought to be nine planets, dang it misses the point, in my opinion. (And if that's the argument, I will counter that even my eldest daughter, who has only begun her middle-school astronomy training, can see clearly that Pluto doesn't fit. But I digress.) [1]

In all honesty, Pluto hasn't really been demoted at all. Here's the take from the IAU themselves, conveniently missed by most commentators:

The "dwarf planet" Pluto is recognised as an important proto-type of a new class of trans-Neptunian objects. The IAU will set up a process to name these objects.

What Pluto will be is the standard-bearer for these new "dwarf planets", which we've already started discovering, and not just one of 'em either. One of these, 2003 UB313 (a/k/a Xena), would have been promoted to planetary status had Pluto retained its own status. We honestly don't know how many more of these guys, of Pluto's size and perhaps bigger, might be in the Kuiper belt. They're important, and until I taught Astronomy, I didn't know how important and how well-characterized they were.

So Pluto's not a planet anymore. Yippee. But don't expect Pluto to leave your friendly neighborhood astronomy textbook anytime soon. Pluto's discovery is still a marvelous story, a triumph of observational astronomy, and the first hint that there was a lot more beyond Neptune than any of us had bargained for. In fact, I think it's even worth keeping up in that glow-in-the-dark model of the solar system. (Just find some room for Xena, too.)

One other footnote. The chair of the IAU Planet Definition Committee is a Harvard boy by the name of Owen Gingerich. Gingerich is not only a respected astronomer and historian of science, but he is a Christian and one of the more widely respected philosophers on the interface between science and faith, which is a field I'd dearly love to break into one of these days. Here's some theological perspective on Gingerich's work.

Okay, now, let's get to the real news.

Phooey. It's late. I have no time to get to the real news.

I'll just link back to a previously-cited take on the existence of dark matter and jabber more about what I think that means later.

[1] My eldest daughter has requested the right to weigh in with a her official opinion. I've placed it after the jump.

Pluto cannot be really considered a planet. Most people think that the IAU has gone completely berserk by cancelling out Pluto. I disagree. Pluto is a weirdo in space. It has always been an oddball. There are three reasons why Pluto cannot and will not be a planet:
  1. Pluto and Charon orbit around each other. This, therefore, breaks the rule that moons orbit around planets! If Pluto is considered a planet then Charon has to be a planet too. And Charon is not a planet.
  2. Pluto has an irregular orbit. Well, to some of us, that doesn't matter. But to me it does. Pluto orbits closer sometimes, overlapping with Neptune, Then it goes way out, almost into the Kuiper Belt!
  3. Pluto is tiny. If Jupiter were the size of a quarter, then Pluto would probably be about one one-hundredth the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

As you might see, Pluto doesn't fit. For those of you who use those shortcuts to remember things, start thinking, instead of:

My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas

start thinking
My Very Evil Mother Just Served Us Nothing!

(Note: I take the blame for the missing "Mother" in the second mnemonic earlier.)

Posted by Chuck at 03:52 PM | TrackBack

August 26, 2006

Um, good Sunday School teachers don't grow on trees

News item: Church Fires Sunday School Teacher For Being Female.

For 60 years, Mary Lambert has worshipped at Watertown's First Baptist Church.

She has served on numerous church boards and taught Sunday school there for 54 years. She was married - twice - in the sanctuary of the gray stone building at the edge of the city's Public Square, and her three children were baptized in the church's pool.

Two weeks ago, Lambert received a letter informing her the church had fired her from a volunteer teaching position because of her gender. Her last day teaching an adult Sunday school class was Aug. 6. She hasn't been at the church since.

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, pastor of the American Baptist congregation, said Lambert is welcome at church, but not as a Sunday school teacher.

Fifteen elected leaders at Watertown's First Baptist Church unanimously voted Aug. 9 to formally accept an interpretation of an excerpt from the Bible that says women should remain silent and have no authority over men.

I offer hat tips to Charles Pierce at Tapped (nice name, BTW) and Ed Kilgore, the New Donkey for their links. Pierce responds, in anger, that it's time to "run St. Paul's sorry ass out of the New Testament the way they snuffed the Gospel of Thomas." Kilgore responds with a relatively nuanced attack on inerrancy (I hate it when that word comes up, it always hacks more people off than it enlightens) cloaked as a defense of Paul.

I propose both men are missing the point, at least where the Church is concerned.

The point is: IT'S DADGUM HARD ENOUGH TO GET GOOD PEOPLE TO TEACH DADGUM SUNDAY SCHOOL WITHOUT TOOLS LIKE THIS LABOUF DORK AND HIS HATCHET MEN AT WATERTOWN GIVING THE REST OF US CHURCH LEADERS A BAD NAME.

I mean, come on! Let's just assume the BEST scenario here, that you're a young pastor eager to leave your imprint on a congregation and get it on the theological straight-and-narrow, as you see the theological straight-and-narrow. Let's just ASSUME that this move is simply built out of concern that there is a tradition-laden group in your congregation that simply wants things to be the way they've always been, to never change, and you are forcing the church to take scripture more seriously by making an example out of one woman (whatever benefit you get out of "making an example", I'm not sure, but let's go here just for argument).

And so you SEND A LETTER. You DON'T EVEN HAVE THE BRASS ONES TO DO THIS FACE TO FACE. FIFTY-FOUR YEARS, AND YOU SEND A LETTER.

Congratulations. You have made the nation aware of two things.

And who will want to take up this gig? Will they have running around in the back of their minds the next theological fine point that will become your crusade? Once you've beat on the fine letter of the law on this point, which point will be the focus of your next vendetta? And won't they know that you'll engage in whatever tactics necessary to prove your next point?

I'm sorry, this makes me absolutely furious. I know too many women of that generation who are absolutely PASSIONATE about their study of scripture, who take it far more seriously than I ever have. They don't presume that they have anything to say to a larger group, but they do. They are a rich, rich asset that most churches do not employ anywhere near as successfully as they should.

And if somebody wants to throw one or two of Paul's passages about how women shouldn't be allowed to hold authority (while quite conveniently ignoring the massive laundry list of passages about women who had absolutely vital roles to play in the development of the faith), then I'm going to throw a note from a slightly more authoritative figure back:

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field."

And you just told one worker with 54 years' experience that what she had to offer wasn't good enough.

Nicely done.

(UPDATE: After a little thought, there is probably a role for fairness here, especially since the church insists that other issues were in play and "scriptural rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting was only a small aspect of that decision" (never mind that, if they do admit that they considered 1 Timothy 2:12, that pretty much undermines every other argument they're trying to make). If you'd like to investigate this more fully, visit the church's website.)

Posted by Chuck at 09:31 AM | TrackBack

August 19, 2006

EPIC. (I mean, literally.)

I've been looking for pastors other than this guy with takes and ideas that I could learn from, so that at the point where I start actively teaching, I won't sound like repetitive ho-hum boy. And if I can get more pastor's blogs (or, even better, loudmouthed lay leadership blogs, since loudmouthed lay leadership really is what I do) over there to ther right, that would rock even more.

Bryan has been trying to turn me on to Ben Arment for a while; I'm not sure I totally get Arment and what he's trying to communicate with his very random blog (maybe it makes me uncomfortable to see somebody whose attention span is as short as my own!), but there's enough there that I'll read every now and again.

In all the random, I read a hammer-to-head statement in there this morning:

Talked with my good friend Robb Overholt this morning. He made a powerful statement about church outreach ~ "Half the battle is helping our people talk positively about their church." Eurkea. That's it.

And I think I see something about the power of Arment's style of blogging. That's the statement. That's all that's said. The challenge to dig deeper is placed on you, the reader. You have to look at your own church situations. You have to question where you stand and why you walk in the door of your church week in and week out and how you talk up that blessing that you get from your church to others. (And, if you aren't getting blessed where you're at, if it really does make you feel that low and that beaten down, why are you still there?)

Nice one.

Hrm, what about this Robb Overholt guy?

He seems to lead this joint called Epic City Church in Virginia Beach. (It meets in a theatre. What is it about churches meeting in theatres lately?)

Online sermons. Quality. (He doesn't call 'em sermons. Even better.) Of course, because I'm blogger boy, the moment I read this message description...

"Getting connected." These are words that just about all of us are familiar with now. Be it via IM, MySpace, a BlackBerry, or even an old-fashioned Cellular. Within the context of this culture, it would seem that we are constantly exploring and discovering new and improved ways to connect with one another faster than ever before. So why does it seem so difficult to connect with our Creator?

...oh, I am so there.

If I can find a way to get that kind of atmosphere in anything in the church that I'm a part of...yeah. wow.

Of course, Overholt also mentioned Blue Like Jazz in that message and triggered a whole new round of DANG IT I KNOW I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE BLAME BOOK YET AND I STILL NEED TO READ IT STOP REMINDING ME.

sigh

Posted by Chuck at 11:14 AM | TrackBack

August 16, 2006

And awaaaaaay we go

Classes start tomorrow morning at 8:00 AM.

I am so not ready. Nonetheless, I shall wing it to the best of my ability, and I might even say something intelligent on the way.

I've found that I read something somewhere this summer - I think it was this bit on Inside Higher Ed on the expectations that we place on our students (and that we usually don't communicate nearly well enough). Of course, instead of being a gentle encouragement to communicate better, reading this caused me to go completely emo over every single expectation I've ever had of a student and attempting to figure out how to communicate that expectation set better. It's the reason that my syllabi are progressively getting longer, and that in Biochemistry the handout that describes the group project will be five pages in length.

What this means, of course, is that I have effectively not practiced what I preached. I have "let the best become the enemy of the good", as my old doctoral advisor once said, and I've been so psycho about getting the best possible information and completeness into my syllabi that I'm up against the very semester itself and they're not DONE, and they've taken away from me worrying about, you know, the actual stuff I'm TEACHING.

Which means, enough writing about not being ready and more actually getting ready.

Posted by Chuck at 09:15 PM | TrackBack

August 12, 2006

Christian Higher Education

I never clean up well, because I always find things while cleaning up and wind up thinking. Thinking and cleaning up do NOT go hand in hand.

What I found on this round of cleaning out the office is an essay I printed out a year ago, and that is slapping me upside the head all over again. It's called Christian Academe vs. Christians in Academe, by Kenneth Elzinga, who teaches economics at the University of Virginia, of all places. It was thoroughly exciting to find it now because I've been getting comments lately about what it means for Shorter to be a Chrsitian school. It's a good question, honestly. It's a question that demands asking.

If you are interested in how Christians and education come together, you need to read the whole thing. It's not an argument that I can pull little bits here and there out and have them stand on their own; the whole thing is the argument. (Which is why I printed it out but never posted it anywhere. I couldn't post it without posting seven pages' worth!) But let me pull out two takes in particular.

First, I've gotten a lot of people grumbling around me about the morality of the students around them, and marveling that some students 'round here don't even go to church and believe, and what's up with that?

Elzinga tells you exactly what's up with that:

Christian higher education does not start with Christian students. That may surprise you. But I would hope Christian institutions do not have a Christian litmus test for students.

If students want to be a part of Christian higher education, they should be welcome. The Christian faith is defensible; the Christian faith is compelling; the Christian faith is true. So let unbelievers live and learn in the environment of Christian higher education and test the faith.

Jesus did not throw out Doubting Thomas. Christian higher education should be a place that welcomes Doubting Thomases, as students.

But Christian higher education should be dominated by a faculty who are followers of Jesus. The majority of faculty at a school of Christian higher education should be Christians. The institution makes no sense if that is not the case. Students are transients; they come and go. Christian higher education is defined by a core of faculty who believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:16), that every thought is to be made captive to Him and they are not ashamed of the gospel.

And second, if you were to ask me the one thing that I am proudest of in being at Shorter, it's that I see so much tangible evidence that we fulfill a vision of this sort:

I would expect Christian higher education to be full of professors who mentor students. Not just teach them chemistry and accounting; not just teach them biology and Spanish; but model out for them how to walk with Jesus. Not because these faculty members have mastered how to do this, but because they have been pilgrims longer, because they have experienced more often the consequences of sin and redemption.

I have been surprised, in my travels, at how few faculty members in Christian higher education mentor students. When I have asked why, the answer I have heard is: well, that’s for the Dean of the Chapel to do, or that’s the job of the Dean of Students office.

I am an economist, so I appreciate that answer. It is right out of Adam Smith; it appeals to what Adam Smith called the specialization and division of labor.

But I can restrain my enthusiasm for the answer. To me, it means that Christian higher education has professors who are not investing in the lives of students beyond teaching them chemistry and accounting and biology and Spanish.

But you can learn chemistry and accounting and biology and Spanish anywhere; and probably at less cost than in Christian higher education.

The implied answer, of course, is that some things are way more important than money. And may my own priority set never change.

Posted by Chuck at 01:57 PM | TrackBack

August 08, 2006

Two sets of links...

...for your early academic year consideration:

Advice for the new freshman at Learning Curves. Annotation by Chad Orzel of Uncertain Principles. Pearson adds: They both speak truth about video games. And even if you don't have the X-Box (or, from my day, the NES), it doesn't mean you're immune; while my freshman-year hall-mates lost hours on end to Mike Tyson Punch-Out, I was losing hours on end to SimCity and F-19.

(Note: Orzel has since reiterated his point.)

And darn near the funniest MySpace criticism I've ever read at Danger West (warning: military-style potty-mouth enclosed, read with care). "GeoCitites with a guestbook!" I now have something I can toss at everybody who tells me how superior MySpace is to everything on the planet. "Where were you when I had my first GeoCities page?"

Posted by Chuck at 10:09 AM | TrackBack

HAM!

And among the webcomics I read and enjoy, Ctrl+Alt+Del doesn't even enter the conversation.

But I absolutely ADORE seeing Tim Buckley's hands made of ham.

(And if you're just getting into the weird and twisted world of webcomics, the roll of comics on the left side of that page is a pretty good must-read guide. Some you will love. Some you will despise. Some will offend you. And at least one will excite you so much that you will wreck a day - or two, or three - going through the comic's archives.)

Posted by Chuck at 06:56 AM | TrackBack

August 06, 2006

Once more, with feeling

I don't know about these other guys
There's something in the back of their eyes
But Billy, you're the man
Who don't use sleight of hand
Ain't wearin' no disguise
I love you, Billy

I love the simple things you say
You never seem to get in the way
No one is quite like you
Passionate and true
Just as I am, I say
I love you, Billy

- Terry Scott Taylor, 1990

(Second in a series.)

Posted by Chuck at 01:40 PM | TrackBack

August 03, 2006

Can I be forgiven...

...for wishing this dude was my president? Because he's about a thousand times more literate than George W. Bush.

In the end, even the issue of Israel is just part of the same, wider struggle for the soul of the region. If we recognised this struggle for what it truly is, we would be at least along the first steps of the path to winning it. But a vast part of the Western opinion is not remotely near this yet.

Whatever the outward manifestation at any one time - in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iraq and add to that in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, in a host of other nations including now some in Africa - it is a global fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and outside of it; it is about whether our value system can be shown to be sufficiently robust, true, principled and appealing that it beats theirs. Islamist extremism's whole strategy is based on a presumed sense of grievance that can motivate people to divide against each other. Our answer has to be a set of values strong enough to unite people with each other.

This is not just about security or military tactics. It is about hearts and minds about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values at their best stand for.

Just to state it in these terms, is to underline how much we have to do. Convincing our own opinion of the nature of the battle is hard enough. But we then have to empower Moderate, Mainstream Islam to defeat Reactionary Islam. And because so much focus is now, world-wide on this issue, it is becoming itself a kind of surrogate for all the other issues the rest of the world has with the West. In other words, fail on this and across the range, everything gets harder.

I mean, you're allowed to disagree with that if you see fit. You're even allowed to loathe the tactics that have been employed in that effort if you see fit. But you can't tell me that argument isn't clearly and coherently made, and provides a compelling purpose. Which pretty well trumps, um, anything the W has said since late 2001.

Just saying. Again, if I've blasphemed, so sorry.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

Posted by Chuck at 12:28 AM | TrackBack