Columbia University - Panel Discussion on the Higgs Particle Research at CERN

Ask Brian Greene: Why Do We Think the Higgs Particle Exists?

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/ask_brian_greene_why_do_we_think_the_higgs_particle_exists

About This Video

Brian Greene explains why the theoretical Higgs Boson is so important to the

Standard Model of Physics, the backbone of how we understand the world around us.

Image courtesy of ATLAS; Recorded June 2011; Posted December 2011

Brian Greene is a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University,

and is recognized for a number of groundbreaking discoveries in his field of superstring theory.

Event Link -

http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/events/what-if-we-find-higgs-particle-and-what-if-we-don039t

Vid Link - A 10 min. Intro with pictures; then the panel discussion begins on a new vid screen (my unofficial transcript follows below so you can read along) - http://news.columbia.edu/higgs

If Broken go here - http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=columbia

Panel Members

MT - Michael Tuts, Columbia University Professor of Physics and U.S. ATLAS Operations Program Manager at the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN laboratory in Geneva.

BG - Brian Greene, Columbia University Professor of Physics and Mathematics.

DO - Dennis Overbye, The New York Times science reporter covering physics.

MDC - Mariette DiChristina, Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American.

[Unofficial Transcript]

MDC: What is the Higgs-Boson particle? (hbp/hb)

MT: In Geneva, Switzerland, is the CERN large Hadron collider which houses one of seven particle detectors. One is the ATLAS accelerator which is like a large sub-atomic microscope that can measures things like light (photons), plot particles trajectories when they smash, and take pictures of 100 billion protons  traveling towards another 100 billion in the opposite direction, where only some particles will smash into each other. When they smash new particles will be created. The Atlas is like a 100 million pixel camera taking 40 million pictures across a 100 million channels instantaneously.

We study things like quarks, leptons and electro-magnetic forces found in the world of the small. And have been studying these and many other particles and forces over the last 40 years trying to determine their relationships with one another, their undergirding structure, the antimatter twins, and have been relating these particles to non-particles called strings which seem to best describe the 124 basic particles which we have been able to determine. MT then discusses individual particles and forces and what they think they see with a Higgs particle decaying upon impact.

Summary of interactions between particles described by the Standard Model

Left-handed fermions in the Standard Model

Generation 1
Fermion (left-handed)	Symbol	Electric charge	Weak isospin	Weak hypercharge	Color charge [lhf 1]	Mass[lhf 2]
Electron						511 keV
Positron						511 keV
Electron neutrino						< 0.28 eV[lhf 3][lhf 4]
Electron antineutrino						< 0.28 eV[lhf 3][lhf 4]
Up quark						~ 3 MeV[lhf 5]
Up antiquark						~ 3 MeV[lhf 5]
Down quark						~ 6 MeV[lhf 5]
Down antiquark						~ 6 MeV[lhf 5]
Generation 2
Fermion (left-handed)	Symbol	Electric charge	Weak isospin	Weak hypercharge	Color charge [lhf 1]	Mass [lhf 2]
Muon						106 MeV
Antimuon						106 MeV
Muon neutrino						< 0.28 eV[lhf 3][lhf 4]
Muon antineutrino						< 0.28 eV[lhf 3][lhf 4]
Charm quark						~ 1.337 GeV
Charm antiquark						~ 1.3 GeV
Strange quark						~ 100 MeV
Strange antiquark						~ 100 MeV
Generation 3
Fermion (left-handed)	Symbol	Electric charge	Weak isospin	Weak hypercharge	Color charge[lhf 1]	Mass[lhf 2]
Tau						1.78 GeV
Antitau						1.78 GeV
Tau neutrino						< 0.28 eV[lhf 3][lhf 4]
Tau antineutrino						< 0.28 eV[lhf 3][lhf 4]
Top quark						171 GeV
Top antiquark						171 GeV
Bottom quark						~ 4.2 GeV
Bottom antiquark						~ 4.2 GeV
^ a b c These are not ordinary abelian charges, which can be added together, but are labels of group representations of Lie groups. ^ a b c Mass is really a coupling between a left-handed fermion and a right-handed fermion. For example, the mass of an electron is really a coupling between a left-handed electron and a right-handed electron, which is the antiparticle of a left-handed positron. Also neutrinos show large mixings in their mass coupling, so it's not accurate to talk about neutrino masses in the flavor basis or to suggest a left-handed electron antineutrino. ^ a b c d e f The Standard Model assumes that neutrinos are massless. However, several contemporary experiments prove that neutrinos oscillate between their flavour states, which could not happen if all were massless. It is straightforward to extend the model to fit these data but there are many possibilities, so the mass eigenstates are still open. See neutrino mass. ^ a b c d e f W.-M. Yao et al. (Particle Data Group) (2006). "Review of Particle Physics: Neutrino mass, mixing, and flavor change". Journal of Physics G 33: 1. arXiv:astro-ph/0601168. Bibcode 2006JPhG...33....1Y. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/numixrpp.pdf. ^ a b c d The masses of baryons and hadrons and various cross-sections are the experimentally measured quantities. Since quarks can't be isolated because of QCD confinement, the quantity here is supposed to be the mass of the quark at the renormalization scale of the QCD scale.

BG: How significant is the HB discovery? If found it will be huge. If not then that will be huge too.

HB says that space is filled with a glue like substance. This is all mathematical right now without verifiable objectification still undergoing for its discovery. If not there what other theories out there? Technicolor is another approach for generating mass from the super-microscopic realm… a deeper level of structure. However, the HB is more elegant in its structural hypotheses.

MT: Can the Technicolor be verified? We are already looking at this possibility along with looking for tiny black holes, etc.

MDC (Scientific American): What is the next particle to be found?

BG: “Where did the Higgs come from!?” J …in an endless stream of discovery and speculation.

MT: We are probing for everything out there that has been theorized.

DO (NYT): Nothing new has been discovered in the last 40 years… why is that?

BG: Isn’t that unfair to say? What about the discovery of the “top quark?”

MDC: However the particle/force table has been filled out…

DO: CERN and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a massive, jointly national project that has been enormously expensive but now proving to be very helpful in detailing the birth of the universe and the energies that make it up. So then, my question is this… 125GeV energy level have shown the bumps in the detection. It’s this “bump” or nothing which can be massively awkward.

MDC: Whether true or not, this stream of discovery must be undertaken to rule out further errant theories. Super-symmetric particles were found to NOT be in a certain energy range which is a necessary discovery, not a meaningless discovery.

DO: Brian, please talk more about the Higgs field and how it affects the universe.

BG: The larger story beyond the Higgs will be the idea that a new form of matter will have been discovered for the first time with the difference being that the Higgs is uniquely different from all other particles found. Higgs is a particle of spin 0. No other particles have been found with no spin. This is therefore exciting to find. As example, the Big Bang theory leaves out the “Bang” in the theory… we get inflationary cosmology but no Higgs which we think is the compulsory “push” outwards cause the “bang” in the BB theory.

MDC: Everything looks promising but how will you know when you have verified the Higgs?

MT: The number of standard deviations driven by statistical results will tell us. Data is counted in inverse phantom bars? which we wish to quadruple our data at higher energy levels (from 7 trillion electron volts to 8 trillion electron volts). The higher energy levels have helped us in our research. Will it be enough? We don’t know.

Audience 1 (A1): How do we justify our massive expenditures to the public?

MT: By communicating our discoveries through the press. Through sharing our scientific discoveries and processes with the scientific community at large. By helping profit-based products be successful. By inspiring the next generation of global youth towards exploration.

BG: Not everybody has to be excited by CERN’s discoveries. Many want more practical objectives, services, and products.

MT: A particle physicist? Oh… discussion done. With the Higgs it can generate a bit more discussion.

A2: How long do you continue your search?

MT: This year should tell us through our data sets. But expect about the next 20 years to focus on this at CERN.

A3: Does the Higgs have mass?

BG: Yes. 125X more massive than a proton. Is it made up of more stuff? We don’t know just yet.

MT: Spin 0 particles need clarification. Is it the thing (a HBP) that we think it is. Does it decay into things that we thought it would decay into.

A4: The Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP)

BG: Physics is a field written generally in the language of mathematics. This field constantly critiques itself in a never-ending process of qualification and predictive discovery. From the math physicists go out and test those mathematic models. Gravity, super symmetry, Technicolor, string theory, are constantly proved and re-proved from a number of different angles.

A5: Strong and Weak nuclear forces.

BG: Energy levels are known at speculative force levels. Yes links are being examined from exotic theories. But the Higgs has a linkage that grab at our imaginations.

A6: Does the exact mass teach us anything? Does the Higgs exist anywhere in the world?

MT: The Higgs decays very, very quickly once it is seen. The SMPP teaches us a lot. But it is still being explored.

DO: If the Higgs is at 125 GeV what does that tell you?

BG: Yes, it proves the supporting math being it. If found to be at 142 GeV than we have the wrong math.

DO: This value is torture for theorist according to one physicist.

MDC: If not at 125, then what?

BG: It can affect super-symmetric theories, yes.

A7: null

A8: How can you deny conclusively the HB if you can’t prove it?

MT: We will find range-bound observations that will be conclusive relative to whether the Higgs exists at 125 or not.

BG: Other ideas would then arise that would be examined for helpfulness.

MT: Moreover, on the downside, the LHC will be found not be large enough to prove this theory by at least 3x.

A9: null

BG: We will go from mathematical theory to mathematical theory and in so doing better integrate our physical models.

Conclusion

MDC: Why should people care? “It’s always about where have we come from and where are we going.”

DO: null [Gawker.com]

BG: My mind is always open to discovery. Especially in linking the world of the small to the world of the large. Proving exotic ideas. Building big machines. Finding astronomical data that can be helpful to microscopic physics. Background radiation, [dark matter, and dark energy].

MT: Proving the Higgs theory is one goal. Improving precise measurements. Being open to the next frontier of discovery.

End

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

"God particle" redirects here. For the book, see The God Particle (book).

For the "Oh-my-God particle," see Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. It belongs to a class of subatomic particles known as bosons, characterized by an integer value of their spin quantum number. The Higgs field is a quantum field with a non-zero value that fills all of space, and explains why fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state.

The existence of the Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass.^{[Note 1]} Its discovery would further validate the Standard Model as essentially correct, as it is the only elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not yet been observed in particle physics experiments.^[2] The Standard Model completely fixes the properties of the Higgs boson, except for its mass. It is expected to have no spin and no electric or color charge, and it interacts with other particles through weak interaction and Yukawa interactions. Alternative sources of the Higgs mechanism that do not need the Higgs boson are also possible and would be considered if the existence of the Higgs boson were ruled out. They are known as Higgsless models.

Experiments to determine whether the Higgs boson exists are currently being performed using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until its closure in late 2011. Mathematical consistency of the Standard Model requires that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of elementary particles become visible at energies above 1.4 TeV;^[3] therefore, the LHC (designed to collide two 7-TeV proton beams) is expected to be able to answer the question of whether or not the Higgs boson actually exists.^[4] In December 2011, Fabiola Gianotti and Guido Tonelli, spokespersons of the two main experiments at the LHC (ATLAS and CMS) both reported independently that their data hints at a possibility the Higgs may exist with a mass around 125 GeV/c² (about 133 proton masses, on the order of 10⁻²⁵ kg). They also reported that the original range under investigation has been narrowed down considerably and that a mass outside approximately 115–130 GeV/c² is almost ruled out.^[5] No conclusive answer yet exists, although it is expected that the LHC will provide sufficient data by the end of 2012 for a definite answer.^[1][6][7][8]

In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community as media hyperbole that misleads readers.^[9]

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, the current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995) and the tau neutrino (2000) have given further credence to the Standard Model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a theory of almost everything.

Still, the Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of dark energy nor of the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity. The theory does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not correctly account for neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses). Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent, it has several apparently unnatural properties giving rise to puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem.

Nevertheless, the Standard Model is important to theoretical and experimental particle physicists alike. For theorists, the Standard Model is a paradigmatic example of a quantum field theory, which exhibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative behavior, etc. It is used as a basis for building more exotic models which incorporate hypothetical particles, extra dimensions and elaborate symmetries (such as supersymmetry) in an attempt to explain experimental results at variance with the Standard Model, such as the existence of dark matter and neutrino oscillations. In turn, experimenters have incorporated the Standard Model into simulators to help search for new physics beyond the Standard Model.

Recently, the Standard Model has found applications in fields besides particle physics, such as astrophysics, cosmology, and nuclear physics.

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN

CERN

The European Organization for Nuclear Research (French: Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire), known as CERN ( /ˈsɜrn/; French pronunciation: [sɛʁn]; see History), is an international organization whose purpose is to operate the world's largest particle physics laboratory, which is situated in the northwest suburbs of Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border. EWikiMiniEstablished in 1954, the organization has twenty European member states.

The term CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory itself, which employs just under 2400 full-time employees and hosts some 10000 visiting scientists and engineers representing 608 universities and research facilities and 113 nationalities.

CERN's main function is to provide the particle accelerators and other infrastructure needed for high-energy physics research. Numerous experiments have been constructed at CERN by international collaborations to make use of them. It is also the birthplace of the World Wide Web. The main site at Meyrin also has a large computer centre containing very powerful data-processing facilities primarily for experimental data analysis and, because of the need to make them available to researchers elsewhere, has historically been a major wide area networking hub.

The CERN sites, as an international facility, are officially under neither Swiss nor French jurisdiction. Member states' contributions to CERN for the year 2008 totaled CHF 1 billion.

The Atlas Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment

Computer generated cut-away view of ATLAS detector

showing its various components.

ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) is one of the seven particle detector experiments (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, TOTEM, LHCb, LHCf and MoEDAL) constructed at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a new particle accelerator at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland. ATLAS is 44 metres long and 25 metres in diameter, weighing about 7,000 tonnes. The project is led by Fabiola Gianotti and involves roughly 2,000 scientists and engineers at 165 institutions in 35 countries.^[1][2] The construction was originally scheduled to be completed in June 2007, but was ready and detected its first beam events on 10 September 2008.^[3] The experiment is designed to observe phenomena that involve highly massive particles which were not observable using earlier lower-energy accelerators and might shed light on new theories of particle physics beyond the Standard Model.

The ATLAS collaboration, the group of physicists building the detector, was formed in 1992 when the proposed EAGLE (Experiment for Accurate Gamma, Lepton and Energy Measurements) and ASCOT (Apparatus with Super Conducting Toroids) collaborations merged their efforts into building a single, general-purpose particle detector for the Large Hadron Collider.^[4] The design was a combination of those two previous designs, as well as the detector research and development that had been done for the Superconducting Supercollider. The ATLAS experiment was proposed in its current form in 1994, and officially funded by the CERN member countries beginning in 1995. Additional countries, universities, and laboratories joined in subsequent years, and further institutions and physicists continue to join the collaboration even today. The work of construction began at individual institutions, with detector components shipped to CERN and assembled in the ATLAS experimental pit beginning in 2003.

ATLAS is designed as a general-purpose detector. When the proton beams produced by the Large Hadron Collider interact in the center of the detector, a variety of different particles with a broad range of energies may be produced. Rather than focusing on a particular physical process, ATLAS is designed to measure the broadest possible range of signals. This is intended to ensure that, whatever form any new physical processes or particles might take, ATLAS will be able to detect them and measure their properties. Experiments at earlier colliders, such as the Tevatron and Large Electron-Positron Collider, were designed based on a similar philosophy. However, the unique challenges of the Large Hadron Collider—its unprecedented energy and extremely high rate of collisions—require ATLAS to be larger and more complex than any detector ever built.

Large Hadron Collider

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/large_hadron_collider/index.html

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

Valerio Mezzanotti for The New York Times

Updated: Dec. 13, 2011

Call it the Hubble Telescope of Inner Space

The Large Hadron Collider, located 300 feet underneath the French-Swiss border outside Geneva, is the world’s biggest and most expensive particle accelerator. It is designed to accelerate the subatomic particles known as protons to energies of 7 trillion electron volts apiece and then smash them together to create tiny fireballs, recreating conditions that last prevailed when the universe was less than a trillionth of a second old.

Whatever forms of matter and whatever laws and forces held sway Back Then — relics not seen in this part of space since the universe cooled 14 billion years ago — will spring fleetingly to life. If all goes well, they will leave their footprints in four mountains of hardware and computer memory that international armies of physicists have erected in the cavern.

After 16 years and $10 billion, on March 30, 2010, the collider finally began its work of smashing subatomic particles. The day was a milestone — delayed a year and a half by an assortment of technical problems — and brings closer a moment of truth for CERN and for the world’s physicists, who have staked their credibility and their careers, not to mention all those billions of dollars, on the conviction that they are within touching distance of fundamental discoveries about the universe. If they fail to see something new, experts agree, it could be a long time, if ever, before giant particle accelerators are built on Earth again, ringing down the curtain on at least one aspect of the age-old quest to understand what the world is made of and how it works.

“If you see nothing,” said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN, “in some sense then, we theorists have been talking rubbish for the last 35 years.”

Looking Back in Time

Machines like CERN’s new collider get their magic from Einstein‘s equation of mass and energy. The more energy that these machines can pack into their little fireballs, in effect the farther back in time they can go, closer and closer to the Big Bang, the smaller and smaller things they can see.

The new hadron collider, scientists say, will take physics into a realm of energy and time where the current reigning theories simply do not apply, corresponding to an era when cosmologists think that the universe was still differentiating itself, evolving from a primordial blandness and endless potential into the forces and particles that constitute modern reality.

One prime target is a mysterious particle called the Higgs that is thought to endow other particles with mass, according to the reigning theory of particle physics, known as the Standard Model.

In December 2011, two teams of scientists sifting debris from high-energy proton collisions in the LHC said that they had recorded “tantalizing hints” — but only hints — of the long-sought Higgs boson. It is likely to be another year, however, before they have enough data to say whether the elusive particle really exists, the scientists said.

The putative particle weighs in at about 125 billion electron volts, about 125 times heavier than a proton and 500,000 times heavier than an electron, according to one team of 3,000 physicists, known as Atlas, for the name of their particle detector.

The other equally large team, known as C.M.S. — for their detector, the Compact Muon Solenoid — found bumps in their data corresponding to a mass of about 126 billion electron volts.

Over the last 20 years, suspicious bumps that might have been the Higgs have come and gone, and scientists cautioned that the same thing could happen again, but the fact that two rival teams using two different mammoth particle detectors had recorded similar results was considered to be good news.

Read More...Cosmic Leapfrog

The advent of the CERN collider cements a shift in the balance of physics power away from American dominance that began in 1993, when Congress canceled the Superconducting Supercollider, a monster machine under construction in Waxahachie, Tex. The supercollider, the most powerful ever envisioned, would have sped protons around a 54-mile racetrack before slamming them together with 40 trillion electron volts.

For decades before that, physicists in the United States and Europe had leapfrogged one another with bigger, more expensive and, inevitably, fewer of these machines. The most powerful American accelerator now operating is the Tevatron, colliding protons and their antimatter opposites, antiprotons, with energies of a trillion electron volts apiece, at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. It is presently expected to run through 2010 or 2011.

Once upon a time, said Lyn Evans, who led the building of the CERN collider, “There was a nice equilibrium across the Atlantic. People used to come and go.”

Now, he said, “The center of gravity has moved to CERN.”

The Development of CERN

CERN was born amid vineyards and farmland in the countryside outside Geneva in 1954 out of the rubble of postwar Europe. It had a twofold mission of rebuilding European science and of having European countries work together.

Today, it has 20 countries as members. Yearly contributions are determined according to members’ domestic economies, and the result is a stable annual budget of about a billion Swiss francs. The vineyards and cows are still there, but so are strip malls and shopping centers.

It was here that the World Wide Web was born in the early 1990s, but the former director-general of CERN, Robert Aymar, joked recently that the lab’s greatest fame was as a locus of conspiracy in the novel “Angels and Demons,” by the author of “The DaVinci Code,” Dan Brown. The lab came into its own scientifically in the early ’80s, when Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer won the Nobel Prize by colliding protons and antiprotons there to produce the particles known as the W and Z bosons, which are responsible for the so-called weak nuclear force that causes some radioactive decays.

Bosons are bits of energy, or quanta, that, according to the weird house rules of the subatomic world, transmit forces as they are tossed back and forth in a sort of game of catch between matter particles. The W’s and Z’s are closely related to photons, which transmit electromagnetic forces, or light.

The lab followed up that triumph by building a 17-mile-long ring, the Large Electron-Positron collider, or LEP, to manufacture W and Z particles for further study. The United States started and then abandoned its plans for an accelerator, which would have been named Isabelle, but in the meantime, CERN physicists had been mulling building their own giant proton collider in the LEP tunnel.

The Collider’s Cost Problems

In 1994 CERN’s governing council gave its approval. The United States eventually agreed to chip in $531 million for the project. CERN also arranged to borrow about $400 million from the European Investment Bank. Even so, there was a crisis in 2001 when the project was found to be 18 percent over budget, necessitating cutting other programs at the lab. The collider’s name comes from the word hadron, which denotes subatomic particles like protons and neutrons that feel the “strong” nuclear force that binds atomic nuclei.

Whether the Europeans would have gone ahead if the United States had still been in the game depends on whom you ask. Dr. Aymar, the former director, who was not there in the ’90s, said there was no guarantee then that the United States would have succeeded even if it had proceeded.

“Certainly in Europe the situation of CERN is such that we appreciate competition,” he said. “But we assume we are the leader and we have all intention [in the world] to remain the leader. And we’ll do everything which is needed to remain the leader.”

Sunken Cathedrals

The guts of the collider are some 1,232 electromagnets, thick as tree trunks, long as boxcars, weighing in at 35 tons apiece, strung together like an endless train stretching around the gentle curve of the CERN tunnel.

In order to bend 7-trillion-electron-volt protons around in such a tight circle these magnets, known as dipoles, have to produce magnetic fields of 8.36 Tesla, more than 100,000 times the Earth’s field, requiring in turn a current of 13,000 amperes through the magnet’s coils. To make this possible the entire ring is bathed in 128 tons of liquid helium to keep it cooled to 1.9 degrees Kelvin, at which temperature the niobium-titanium cables are superconducting and pass the current without resistance.

Running through the core of this train, surrounded by magnets and cold, are two vacuum pipes, one for protons going clockwise, the other counterclockwise. Traveling in tight bunches along the twin beams, the protons will cross each other at four points around the ring, 30 million times a second. During each of these violent crossings, physicists expect that about 20 protons, or the parts thereof — quarks or gluons — will actually collide and spit fire. It is in vast caverns at those intersection points that the detectors, or “sunken cathedrals” in the words of a CERN theorist, Alvaro de Rujula, are placed to capture the holy fire.

Detectors And Their Quarry

Two of the detectors are specialized. One, called Alice, is designed to study a sort of primordial fluid, called a quark-gluon plasma, that is created when the collider smashes together lead nuclei.

The other, LHCb, will hunt for subtle differences in matter and antimatter that could help explain how the universe, which was presumably born with equal amounts of both, came to be dominated by matter.

The other two, known as Atlas and the Compact Muon Solenoid, or C.M.S. for short, are the designated rival workhorses of the collider, designed expressly to capture and measure every last spray of particle and spark of energy from the proton collisions.

Or as Katie McAlpine, who writes about science for the Atlas group, put it in “The L.H.C. Rap,”

“LHCb sees where the antimatter’s gone.

Alice looks at collisions of lead ions.

CMS and Atlas are two of a kind,

They’re looking for whatever new particles they can find.”

The last two, Atlas and C.M.S., represent complementary strategies for hunting one of the prime targets of the collider, a particle known as the Higgs boson, which is expected to disintegrate into a spray of lesser particles. Exactly which particles are produced depends on how massive the Higgs really is.

One telltale signature of the Higgs and other subatomic cataclysms is a negatively charged particle known as a muon, a sort of heavy electron that comes flying out at nearly the speed of light. Physicists measure muon momentum by seeing how much their paths bend in a magnetic field.

It is the need to have magnets strong enough and large enough to produce measurable bending, physicists say, that determines the gigantic size of the detectors.

The Compact Muon Solenoid weighs 12,000 tons, the heaviest scientific instrument ever made. It takes its name from a massive superconducting electromagnet that produces a powerful field running along the path of the protons.

Conversely, the magnetic field on Atlas wraps like tape around the proton beam. At 150 feet long and 80 feet high, Atlas is bigger than its rival, but it is much lighter, about 7,000 tons, about as much as the Eiffel Tower.

The two detectors have much in common, including “onion layers” of instruments to measure different particles and the ability to cope with harsh radiation and vast amounts of data. The central C.M.S. detector is made of strips of silicon that record the passage of charged particles. It is in effect a 60-megapixel digital camera taking 40 million pictures a second.

To manage this onslaught the teams’ computers have to perform triage, and winnow those events to a couple of hundred per second. Even so, the collider will produce the equivalent of 3 million DVDs worth of data every year, and a grid computing system of more than 100,000 processors from over 170 sites in 34 countries has been constructed to cope with it.

*The competition between Atlas and the C.M.S. is in keeping with a long tradition of having rival teams and rival detectors at big experiments to keep each other honest and to cover all the bets.

At the Fermilab Tevatron, the teams, several hundred strong, are called CDF and D0. In the glory years 20 years ago at CERN, they were called UA1 and UA2. Over the years, as the machines have grown, so have the groups that built them, from teams to armies, 1,800 people from 34 countries for Atlas and 2,520 from 37 countries for the C.M.S. The other two experiments — Alice with 1,000 scientists, and LHCb with 663 — are only slightly smaller.

Cocktail Party Physics

The payoff for this investment, physicists say, could be a new understanding of one of the most fundamental of aspects of reality, namely the nature of mass.

This is where the shadowy particle known as the Higgs boson, a.k.a. the God particle, comes in.

In the Standard Model, a suite of equations describing all the forces but gravity, which has held sway as the law of the cosmos for the last 35 years, elementary particles are born in the Big Bang without mass, sort of like Adam and Eve being born without sin.

Some of them (the particles, that is) acquire their heft, so the story goes, by wading through a sort of molasses that pervades all of space. The Higgs process, named after Peter Higgs, a Scottish physicist who first showed how this could work in 1964, has been compared to a cocktail party where particles gather their masses by interaction. The more they interact, the more mass they gain.

The Higgs idea is crucial to a theory that electromagnetism and the weak force are separate manifestations of a single so-called electroweak force. It shows how the massless bits of light called photons could be long-lost brothers to the heavy W and Z bosons, which would gain large masses from such cocktail party interactions as the universe cooled.

The confirmation of the theory by the Nobel-winning work at CERN 20 years ago ignited hopes among physicists that they could eventually unite the rest of the forces of nature [known as the Theory of Everything, or TOE].

Moreover, Higgs-like fields have been proposed as the source of an enormous burst of expansion, known as inflation, early in the universe [the Higgs particle is what gives the push to the Bang - res]; and possibly, as the secret of the dark energy that now seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe. So it is important to know whether the theory works and, if not, to find out what does endow the universe with mass.

But nobody has ever seen a Higgs boson, the particle that personifies this molasses. It should be producible in particle accelerators, but nature has given confusing clues about where to look for it. Measurements of other exotic particles suggest that the Higgs’s mass should be around 90 billion electron volts, the unit of choice in particle physics. But other results, from the LEP collider before it shut down in 2000, indicate that the Higgs must weigh more than 114 billion electron volts. By comparison, an electron is half a million electron volts, and a proton is about 2,000 times heavier.

The new collider was specifically designed to hunt for the Higgs particle, which is key to the Standard Model and to any greater theory that would supersede it. The Tevatron [near Chicago] is also searching for the Higgs.

Theorists say the Higgs or something like it has to show up simply because the Standard Model breaks down and calculations using it go kerflooey at energies exceeding one trillion electron volts. If you try to predict what happens when two particles collide, it gives nonsense, explained Dr. Ellis. 

Particles in physics Elementary Fermions Quarks u ·u · d ·d · c ·c · s ·s · t ·t · b · b Leptons e− ·e+ ·μ− ·μ+ ·τ− ·τ+ ·ν e ·ν e ·ν μ ·ν μ ·ν τ ·ν τ Bosons Gauge γ ·g ·W± ·Z Others Ghosts Hypothetical Superpartners Gauginos Gluino ·Gravitino Others Axino ·Chargino ·Higgsino ·Neutralino ·Sfermion Others A0 ·Dilaton ·G ·H0 ·J ·m ·Tachyon ·X ·Y ·W' · Z' ·Sterile neutrino Composite Hadrons Baryons / Hyperons N (p ·n) ·Δ ·Λ ·Σ ·Ξ ·Ω Mesons / Quarkonia π ·ρ ·η ·η′ ·φ ·ω ·J/ψ ·ϒ ·θ ·K ·B ·D ·T Others Atomic nuclei ·Atoms ·Diquarks ·Exotic atoms (Positronium ·Muonium ·Tauonium ·Onia) ·Superatoms ·Molecules Hypothetical Exotic hadrons Exotic baryons Dibaryon ·Pentaquark ·Skyrmion Exotic mesons Glueball ·Tetraquark Others Mesonic molecule ·Pomeron Quasiparticles Davydov soliton ·Exciton ·Hole ·Magnon ·Phonon ·Plasmaron ·Plasmon ·Polariton ·Polaron ·Roton ·Trion Lists List of particles ·List of quasiparticles ·List of baryons ·List of mesons ·Timeline of particle discoveries Wikipedia books Book:Hadronic Matter ·Book:Particles of the Standard Model ·Book:Leptons ·Book:Quarks

Cosmic Dreams

If the CERN experimenters find the Higgs, Nobel Prizes will flow like water. But just finding the elusive particle will not be enough to satisfy the theorists, who profess to be haunted by a much deeper problem, namely why the putative particle is not millions of times heavier than it appears to be.

When they try to calculate the mass of the Higgs particle using the Standard Model and quantum mechanics, they get what Dr. Ellis called “a very infinite answer.”

Rather than a trillion electron volts or so, quantum effects push the mass all the way up to 10 quadrillion trillion electron volts, known as the Planck energy, where gravity and the other particle forces are equal.

The culprit is quantum weirdness, one principle of which is that anything that is not forbidden will happen. That means the Higgs calculation must include the effects of its interactions with all other known particles, including so-called virtual particles that can wink in and out of existence, which shift its mass off the scale.

As a result, if the Standard Model is valid for all energies, physicists say, they are at a loss to explain why the Higgs mass isn’t a quadrillion times bigger than it is. Another way to put it is to ask why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces — the theory wants them all to be equal.

Theorists can rig their calculations to have the numbers come out right, but it feels like cheating, and they would like to have a theory in which the numbers emerge naturally.

One solution that has been proposed is a new principle of nature called supersymmetry that, if true, would be a bonanza for the CERN collider.

It posits a relation between the particles of matter like electrons and quarks and particles that transmit forces like photons and the W boson. For each particle in one category, there is an as-yet-undiscovered superpartner in the other category.

These superpartners cancel out all the quantum effects that make the Higgs mass skyrocket. Supersymmetry also fixes a glitch in the age-old dream of explaining all the forces of nature as manifestations of one primordial force. It predicts that at a high enough energy, all the forces — electromagnetic, strong and weak — have identical strengths.

For several years, supersymmetry has been a sort of best bet to be the next step beyond the Standard Model, which is undefeated in experiments but has enormous gaps. The Standard Model does not include gravity or explain why, for example, the universe is matter instead of antimatter or even why particles have the masses they do, and so few physicists think it is the end of the story of the universe.

But so far there is no direct evidence for any of the thousands of versions of supersymmetry that have been proposed. Indeed, many theorists are troubled that its effects have not already shown up in precision measurements at accelerators.

Physicists say the best indirect evidence for supersymmetry comes from the skies, where the galaxies have been found to be swaddled by clouds of invisible dark matter, presumably unknown particles left over from the Big Bang. Astrophysical and cosmological calculations suggest that this dark matter makes up 25 [23% - wikipedia] percent of the universe by mass. By comparison the atoms of which people and stars are made comprise only 4 percent of nature [the remaining 73% is dark energy, as yet undetected - res].

The Higgs is expected to occur once in every trillion events, and it is expected that it will take a couple of years of running in order to get enough data to say if it exists. But some supersymmetric particles, if they exist, should be produced abundantly and could thus pop out of the data much sooner.

The prospect of discovering the identity of a quarter of the universe, or even something more surprising and fundamental has sustained physicists over the decades it has taken to build the collider and its detectors. Without these experiments, said Jim Virdee, of Imperial College, London, and spokesperson for the C.M.S. team, “this field which began with Newton just stops.”

“When we started, we did not know how to do this experiment and did not know if it would work,” he said. “Twenty-five hundred scientists can work together. Our judge is not God or governments, but nature. If we make a mistake, nature will not hesitate to punish us.”

The Collider in Operation

The first experiments with the collider were delayed by over a year when an explosion vaporized an electrical connection and spewed tons of helium underneath the Swiss-French countryside in the fall of 2008. The explosion took place only nine days after the physicists celebrated threading the first protons around the 17-mile underground racetrack by drinking Champagne. The incident exposed a weakness in the connections between the collider’s thousands of magnets that will mean a longer wait until it is ready to operate at peak power.

On Nov. 23, 2009, the first collision was produced in a test of the collider systems’ ability to synchronize the beams, in which bunches of protons travel along at nearly the speed of light, and make them collide at the right points. The protons were at their so-called injection energies of 450 billion electron volts, a far cry from the energies the machine will eventually achieve.

Four months later, the collider went into full operation for the first time, whipping protons to 99 percent of the speed of light and to energy levels of 3.5 trillion electron volts apiece. That was cause for great celebration, but the machine is still operating at half of peak power.

Because of the defective joints and some mysteriously underperforming magnets, the collider will not run at or near full strength until at least 2012. According to theoretical models, that would stretch out the time it should take to achieve the collider’s main goals, including producing a particle known as the Higgs boson, which is thought to be responsible for imbuing other elementary particles with mass.

The results from two collider teams announced in December 2011, giving hints that the Higgs boson existed, led to predictions that scientists there would be able to answer the question one way or another by the end of 2012.

 For more Information go to:

Biologos: Particle Physics of the Universe & Multiverse, Parts 1-4

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/biologos-universe-multiverse.html

The Higgs-Boson God Particle Found

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/12/cern-physicists-find-hint-of-higgs.html

CERN physicists find hint of Higgs boson

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/12/cern-physicists-find-hint-of-higgs.html

Brian Greene Hosts "The Fabric of the Universe" on NOVA

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/brian-greene-hosts-fabric-of-universe.html

Alan Guth on Inflationary Cosmology

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/12/alan-guth-on-inflationary-cosmology.html

Biologos Video Series - From the Dust

From The Dust

Series

Evolutionary Creation

Expanding the Paradigm

Framing the Debate

From Chaos to Order

History of the Worldview

Paul’s Adam

Requiring Certainty

The Book of Genesis

The Fall

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 2 of 2

Which came first -

human consciousness or eusociality?

Or, put another way, which created which?

Introduction

Here's an interesting take on humanity's evolutionary roots combining the evolutionary concepts of natural selection with group selection. From an Evolutionary Creationist standpoint, a Christian can look at this evolutionary process as yet another evidence of God's amazingly intricate involvement with the development of the homo sapien line of hominids. By coaxing forth a trait, gene, or tendency, towards sustaining/promoting "the group over the individual' the homo sapien line became the predominant species to survive and build itself into like-civilizations dedicated to protecting its community against all other forces. Apparently, man is not only social but "eu-social," behaving beyond mere self-interest to the promotion of a bonded group dedicated to one-another's survival through altruism, sacrifice of self-interests, division of labor, and become super-cooperators.

A Biblical Idea that is Evolutionary

Running with this idea a bit further in a theological direction (since as a Christian I must view humanity's origins from a Godward viewpoint, rather than as an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint) I might suggest some additional theologic observations.... In Scripture we read that God cautions time and again to sacrifice oneself for the promotion of one's neighbor (love one another); or, God directed His people towards assemblage and community as federated tribes such as is seen in the Jewish tribes of Israel; or that eusociality is seen in Jesus' works of social justice and benevolence towards others unlike himself; or even in God's sacrifice of Himself through crucifixion for the ultimate survivability of mankind's eternal future (in biblical terms); or in the resultant church's communal worship, witness and ministry evidenced over the past 2000 years; and finally, resulting in a future everlasting Kingdom made up of a society of converts super-cooperating with one another by providing humanitarian services described in terms of peace, harmony, good will; moreover, this Kingdom community further projects itself through a mutually determined co-existence with nature by nurturing the earth in a massive ecological reconstruction requiring the maintenance and preservation of all biological, geological, and cosmic subsystems. A final observation might be added in observing the Bible's usage of the significant Greek terms of koinonia (= "community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy") and allylon (= "one another") found throughout New Testament passages. Hence, the church celebrates Jesus' resurrection through the eucharist in a koinonia memorial of remembrance. Likewise, Christians are to devote themselves to one another in a whole host of services that focuses on practices and attitudes that would preserve unity, harmony, peace, love and forgiveness within the walls of the church made up of converts emerging from dissimilar environments to one another.

An Evolutionary Idea that is Biblical

Of course the downside to all this is that in order to get from "there to here" on an evolutionary scale the hominid line would fight and struggle for its survival over that of other lesser-enabled hominids (including its earlier apelike ancestors). However, sin being sin, one could mundanely state that "individual (natural) selection" was what was required in order to survive against a primordial world evolving apart from a later developing ethical and moral consciousness that would arise within both the animal kingdoms and hominid lines. So that a corresponding type, or kind of, prehistoric "self-consciousness" was also evolving within this very same prehistoric time of burly, bloody, self-interest, self-promotion, and survival. A consciousness that most probably had a very low-level (if at all) awareness of the ethical/moral possibilities occurring within this newly-arisen and social hominid being found in its earliest developmental stages.... And if one accounts for free will both within the animal/hominid line, as well as within creation itself (more popular known by the older term, natural law(s)), especially a free will that tended towards death and destruction (the Christian term for this is sin), than it gives us an even more amazing picture of the intricate involvement of a Creator-God in directing a disorderly cosmos (and animal kingdom) towards order and restoration through a formative consciousness and ethical responsibility. Even an order that would someday create a self-consciousness that could contemplate the ethereal, metaphysical concepts of morality and ethics - especially in social and existential terms! - relative to oneself, one's society, and even of a Deity as Sovereign/Creator. Amazing indeed when considering prehistoric man has arisen from the primordial soup of star dust to someday realize his very place amongst the stars themselves with the Lord of creation. Mankind's eternal North Star and heavenly compass sovereignly directing away from sin's death-and-destruction to life-everlasting by the very work of this Creator-God through His Son Jesus. Called in the Bible as man's bright Morning Star of redemptive rebirth and divine re-creation.

Conclusion

This apparently is what sets humanity apart from the animal world... that we have evolved - at the hand of God - into sentient beings. And even more than this... into sentient beings who can work together, live together, and host one another's interests over our own. Giving hope that even now, amidst today's societies where brutality and selfishness still exist, that we as a species are rapidly evolving in our eusociality capabilities (sic, through recognition, accommodation, and adaptability) into a super-sentient species wishing to massively cooperate with one another (as evidenced by technology's rapid promotion and ingestion of social networking and inter-cooperative social paradigms) from freedom campaigns and revolutions in despotic worlds of injustice, to the provisioning of social justice and equality to the needy, destitute, poor and socially outcast. All this despite our darker natures of individual self-interest. It gives one pause to wonder aloud the possibilities of our species at the hands of God (even now!) should we not destroy ourselves in the process.... a possibility that can give rise to greater and greater integration of mutually assured, and mutually promoting, complex organization within humanity's increasingly inter-dependent societies. It is the Christian hope. Even as it is a biblical truth that sin, death and destruction will remain against this hope until Christ comes again to put all right (both ecological and sociologically). But in order to put all things spiritually right, a repentance and rebirth must first occur, as provided through Jesus' atonement. And through this redemption will come the infinite possibilities for re-creation and re-newal down into the very depths of our personal beings and social orders. Verily, even into our sinful hearts and minds. A rebirth that would at once remove the internal disorders of sin within the human breast of lusts and temptations, and rebirth an abandoned divine order lost eons ago at the dawn of creation. An ancient primordial creative order that the ancient Jews would call "Shalom" - and we would acknowledge as "life and blessing" - wherein the image of our Creator God is birthed, mirrored, realized and brought into cosmic re-alignment and daily experience. Even so may God's shalom be our peace this very day through His Son Jesus Christ. And may that shalom become our evolving spiritual reality day-to-day personally, socially, ecologically, and with the very God of Creation Himself. The Redeemer and Lover of our souls.


R.E. Slater

April 16, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Edward O. Wilson’s New Take on Human Nature

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Edward-O-Wilsons-New-Take-on-Human-Nature.html

The eminent biologist argues in a controversial new book that

our Stone Age emotions are still at war with our high-tech sophistication

By Natalie Angier

Smithsonian magazine, April 2012

Wilson says our instinct to settle down both ensures our success and dooms us to conflict.

Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University knows the terrifying power of the nest firsthand—and first-ankle, crook of the knee, any patch of skin that happened to be unsheathed as the eminent evolutionary biologist has crept through tropical rainforests studying some of the most aggressive ant species in the world. Ants are a wildly successful sector of nature’s bestiary, accounting for maybe a quarter of all terrestrial animal matter—the same percentage of biomass that we humans can claim. They’re found on every continent save Antarctica and in just about every possible setting, and though you may dislike ants at a picnic, you’d dislike even more a park that was scrubbed antiseptically ant-free.

As Wilson has learned through painful experience, ants will defend their nest vigorously, violently, to the death if need be; and the more elaborate the dwelling, the more ferocious the homeland security system. In the forest canopies of equatorial Africa and Asia, weaver ants construct spectacular swaglike nests of leaves stitched together with silken threads extracted from the colony’s larval ranks. Should any creature venture within smelling distance of the nests, weaver ant soldiers will boil out to bite and spray bullets of formic acid. In the Solomon Islands during World War II, Wilson writes, “marine snipers climbing into trees were said to fear weaver ants as much as they did the Japanese.”

In his newly published The Social Conquest of the Earth—the 27th book from this two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize—Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too. Ants rule the microhabitats they occupy, consigning other insects and small animals to life at the margins; humans own the macroworld, Wilson says, which we have transformed so radically and rapidly that we now qualify as a kind of geological force. How did we and the ants gain our superpowers? By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. There are plenty of social animals in the world, animals that benefit by living in groups of greater or lesser cohesiveness.

Very few species, however, have made the leap from merely social to eusocial, “eu-” meaning true. To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson’s definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice “at least some of their personal interests to that of the group.” It’s tough to be a eusocialist. Wouldn’t you rather just grab, gulp and go? Yet the payoffs of sustained cooperation can be huge. Eusociality, Wilson writes, “was one of the major innovations in the history of life,” comparable to the conquest of land by aquatic animals, or the invention of wings or flowers. Eusociality, he argues, “created super­organisms, the next level of biological complexity above that of organisms.” The spur to that exalted state, he says, was always a patch of prized real estate, a focal point luring group members back each day and pulling them closer together until finally they called it home. “All animal species that have achieved eusociality, without exception, at first built nests that they defended from enemies,” Wilson writes. An anthill. A beehive. A crackling campfire around which the cave kids could play, the cave elders stay and the buffalo strips blacken all day. Trespassers, of course, would be stoned on sight.

As Wilson sees it, human beings are eusocial apes, and in our brand of extreme togetherness we stand apart—from other living monkeys and apes, and from the many hominids that either preceded or coexisted with us and are now extinct, including Homo neanderthalensis, who apparently weren’t much for constructing elaborate campsites or other nest equivalents. Against the impetus of a Homo sapiens united front, forged at the campfire and undoubtedly amplified through the frequent singing of “100 bottles of mead on the wall,” the Neanderthals may well have been as helpless as grasshoppers in the path of army ants.

Yet our eusocial nature, Wilson emphasizes, is nothing like that of the robotic ants. It developed along an entirely different route and is bound up with other aspects of our humanity—our anatomy, our intellect and emotions, our sense of free will. He takes us on an elegant spin through our prehistory, highlighting the stepwise rules of engagement for achieving total global dominance:

Rule No. 1: Be a terrestrial animal. “Progress in technology beyond knapped stones and wooden shafts requires fire,” Wilson says. “No porpoise or octopus, no matter how brilliant, can ever invent a billows and forge.”

Rule No. 2: Be a large terrestrial animal. The vast majority of land creatures weigh barely a pound or two, but if you’re going to have a big brain, you need a large body to support it.

Rule No. 3: Get the hands right. Forget standard-issue paws, hooves or claws. To hold and manipulate objects, you need “grasping hands tipped with soft spatulate fingers.” With our flexible digits and opposable thumbs, we became consummate kinesthetes, sizing up the world manually and enriching our mind. “The integrative powers of the brain for the sensations that come from handling objects,” Wilson says, “spill out into all other domains of intelligence.” That goes for social intelligence in spatulate spades. With hands we can wave hello, seal a deal, keep in touch or join in a circle, unite the many as one.

Our hypersocial spirit is both a great blessing and a terrible curse. Experiments have shown that it is shockingly easy to elicit a sense of solidarity among a group of strangers. Just tell them they’ll be working together as a team, and they immediately start working together as a team, all the while attributing to each other a host of positive qualities like trustworthiness and competence—an instant five-star customer review.

Yet we are equally prepared to do battle against those who fall outside the fraternal frame. In experiments where psychologists divided people into groups of arbitrarily assigned traits—labeling one set the Blue team and another the Green, for example—the groups started sniping at each other and expressing strong prejudices toward their “opponents,” with the Greens insisting the Blues were untrustworthy and unfair. The “drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group membership easily translates at a higher level into tribalism,” Wilson says, and can spark religious, ethnic and political conflicts of breathtaking brutality.

Wilson also traces what he considers the tragedy of the human condition to the private struggle of us versus me. He sees us as a kind of mixed economy, the complicated fruit of a sharply disputed process known as multilevel selection. By this reckoning, some of our impulses are the result of individual selection, the competition of you against everybody else for a share of life’s goodies. Other traits are under the sway of group selection, prompting us to behave altruistically for the sake of the team:

* Individual Selection - It appears our individually selected traits are older and more primal, harder to constrain, the ones we traditionally label vices: greed, sloth and lust, the way we covet our neighbor’s life and paper over our failings with pride.

* Group Selection - However, our eusocial inclinations are evolutionarily newer and more fragile and must be vociferously promoted by the group if the group is to survive. They are the stuff of religions and Ben Franklin homilies and represent the virtues we admire: to be generous, kind and levelheaded, to control our impulses, keep our promises and rise to the occasion even when we are scared or disheartened.

* “The human condition is an endemic turmoil rooted in the evolution processes that created us,” he writes. “The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be.”

Not all biologists agree with Wilson’s ideas about the source of humanity’s dominance or existential angst. Some resist calling humans eusocial, preferring to restrict that term to animals like ants, in which just one or a few group members reproduce and the rest attend to the royal ones’ brood. Other biologists dislike invoking group selection, saying simpler, time-tested models based on individual genealogies will do. Still others have adopted a remarkably sunny view of humanity and its prospects. The social scientist Steven Pinker, also of Harvard, argues in his recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature that war and violent conflict have been declining steadily and may soon be obsolete. Like Wilson, Pinker believes that evolutionary forces have shaped human nature into a complex amalgam of the bestial and heroic, the compassionate and pitiless (although in Pinker’s view, those forces do not include group selection). Yet Pinker argues that, even while we retain our base and bloody impulses, historical trends such as stronger governments, increased prosperity, literacy, education, trade and the empowerment of women have allowed us to effectively tame them.

For his part, Wilson cultivates a beautifully appointed gloom. “We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions,” he says. “We thrash about” and are “a danger to ourselves and the rest of life.” Our conquest of earth has happened so quickly that the rest of the biosphere has not had time to adjust and our heedless destruction of species shows scant signs of abating.

Nevertheless, Wilson says, “Out of an ethic of simple decency to one another, the unrelenting application of reason, and acceptance of what we truly are,” we may yet turn earth into a “permanent paradise for human beings, or the strong beginnings of one.” We’re not ants, and we can do what ants can’t: pull up to the nearest campfire, toast a marshmallow, sing a song.

Go to Part 1 -

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 1





For further reflection on Evolutionary Creationism -

Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?





God's Role in Creation
What role could God have in evolution?





Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 1 of 2

Which came first -

human consciousness or eusociality?
Or, put another way, which created which?
 

Introduction

Here's an interesting take on humanity's evolutionary roots combining the evolutionary concepts of natural selection with group selection. From an Evolutionary Creationist standpoint, a Christian can look at this evolutionary process as yet another evidence of God's amazingly intricate involvement with the development of the homo sapien line of hominids. By coaxing forth a trait, gene, or tendency, towards sustaining/promoting "the group over the individual' the homo sapien line became the predominant species to survive and build itself into like-civilizations dedicated to protecting its community against all other forces. Apparently, man is not only social but "eu-social," behaving beyond mere self-interest to the promotion of a bonded group dedicated to one-another's survival through altruism, sacrifice of self-interests, division of labor, and become super-cooperators.

A Biblical Idea that is Evolutionary

Running with this idea a bit further in a theological direction (since as a Christian I must view humanity's origins from a Godward viewpoint, rather than as an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint) I might suggest some additional theologic observations.... In Scripture we read that God cautions time and again to sacrifice oneself for the promotion of one's neighbor (love one another); or, God directed His people towards assemblage and community as federated tribes such as is seen in the Jewish tribes of Israel; or that eusociality is seen in Jesus' works of social justice and benevolence towards others unlike himself; or even in God's sacrifice of Himself through crucifixion for the ultimate survivability of mankind's eternal future (in biblical terms); or in the resultant church's communal worship, witness and ministry evidenced over the past 2000 years; and finally, resulting in a future everlasting Kingdom made up of a society of converts super-cooperating with one another by providing humanitarian services described in terms of peace, harmony, good will; moreover, this Kingdom community further projects itself through a mutually determined co-existence with nature by nurturing the earth in a massive ecological reconstruction requiring the maintenance and preservation of all biological, geological, and cosmic subsystems. A final observation might be added in observing the Bible's usage of the significant Greek terms of koinonia (= "community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy") and allylon (= "one another") found throughout New Testament passages. Hence, the church celebrates Jesus' resurrection through the eucharist in a koinonia memorial of remembrance. Likewise, Christians are to devote themselves to one another in a whole host of services that focuses on practices and attitudes that would preserve unity, harmony, peace, love and forgiveness within the walls of the church made up of converts emerging from dissimilar environments to one another.

An Evolutionary Idea that is Biblical

Of course the downside to all this is that in order to get from "there to here" on an evolutionary scale the hominid line would fight and struggle for its survival over that of other lesser-enabled hominids (including its earlier apelike ancestors). However, sin being sin, one could mundanely state that "individual (natural) selection" was what was required in order to survive against a primordial world evolving apart from a later developing ethical and moral consciousness that would arise within both the animal kingdoms and hominid lines. So that a corresponding type, or kind of, prehistoric "self-consciousness" was also evolving within this very same prehistoric time of burly, bloody, self-interest, self-promotion, and survival. A consciousness that most probably had a very low-level (if at all) awareness of the ethical/moral possibilities occurring within this newly-arisen and social hominid being found in its earliest developmental stages.... And if one accounts for free will both within the animal/hominid line, as well as within creation itself (more popular known by the older term, natural law(s)), especially a free will that tended towards death and destruction (the Christian term for this is sin), than it gives us an even more amazing picture of the intricate involvement of a Creator-God in directing a disorderly cosmos (and animal kingdom) towards order and restoration through a formative consciousness and ethical responsibility. Even an order that would someday create a self-consciousness that could contemplate the ethereal, metaphysical concepts of morality and ethics - especially in social and existential terms! - relative to oneself, one's society, and even of a Deity as Sovereign/Creator. Amazing indeed when considering prehistoric man has arisen from the primordial soup of star dust to someday realize his very place amongst the stars themselves with the Lord of creation. Mankind's eternal North Star and heavenly compass sovereignly directing away from sin's death-and-destruction to life-everlasting by the very work of this Creator-God through His Son Jesus. Called in the Bible as man's bright Morning Star of redemptive rebirth and divine re-creation.

Conclusion

This apparently is what sets humanity apart from the animal world... that we have evolved - at the hand of God - into sentient beings. And even more than this... into sentient beings who can work together, live together, and host one another's interests over our own. Giving hope that even now, amidst today's societies where brutality and selfishness still exist, that we as a species are rapidly evolving in our eusociality capabilities (sic, through recognition, accommodation, and adaptability) into a super-sentient species wishing to massively cooperate with one another (as evidenced by technology's rapid promotion and ingestion of social networking and inter-cooperative social paradigms) from freedom campaigns and revolutions in despotic worlds of injustice, to the provisioning of social justice and equality to the needy, destitute, poor and socially outcast. All this despite our darker natures of individual self-interest. It gives one pause to wonder aloud the possibilities of our species at the hands of God (even now!) should we not destroy ourselves in the process.... a possibility that can give rise to greater and greater integration of mutually assured, and mutually promoting, complex organization within humanity's increasingly inter-dependent societies. It is the Christian hope. Even as it is a biblical truth that sin, death and destruction will remain against this hope until Christ comes again to put all right (both ecological and sociologically). But in order to put all things spiritually right, a repentance and rebirth must first occur, as provided through Jesus' atonement. And through this redemption will come the infinite possibilities for re-creation and re-newal down into the very depths of our personal beings and social orders. Verily, even into our sinful hearts and minds. A rebirth that would at once remove the internal disorders of sin within the human breast of lusts and temptations, and rebirth an abandoned divine order lost eons ago at the dawn of creation. An ancient primordial creative order that the ancient Jews would call "Shalom" - and we would acknowledge as "life and blessing" - wherein the image of our Creator God is birthed, mirrored, realized and brought into cosmic re-alignment and daily experience. Even so may God's shalom be our peace this very day through His Son Jesus Christ. And may that shalom become our evolving spiritual reality day-to-day personally, socially, ecologically, and with the very God of Creation Himself. The Redeemer and Lover of our souls. 

R.E. Slater

April 16, 2012

Wilson says our instinct to settle down both ensures our success and dooms us to conflict.

Biologist E.O. Wilson on

Why Humans, Like Ants, Need a Tribe
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/01/biologist-e-o-wilson-on-why-humans-like-ants-need-a-tribe.html

by E.O. Wilson
Apr 2, 2012

Religion. Sports. War. Biologist E.O. Wilson says our drive to join a group—and to fight for it—is what makes us human.

Have you ever wondered why, in the ongoing presidential campaign, we so strongly hear the pipes calling us to arms? Why the religious among us bristle at any challenge to the creation story they believe? Or even why team sports evoke such intense loyalty, joy, and despair?

The answer is that everyone, no exception, must have a tribe, an alliance with which to jockey for power and territory, to demonize the enemy, to organize rallies and raise flags.

And so it has ever been. In ancient history and prehistory, tribes gave visceral comfort and pride from familiar fellowship, and a way to defend the group enthusiastically against rival groups. It gave people a name in addition to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It made the environment less disorienting and dangerous. Human nature has not changed. Modern groups are psychologically equivalent to the tribes of ancient history. As such, these groups are directly descended from the bands of primitive humans and prehumans.

The drive to join is deeply ingrained, a result of a complicated evolution that has led our species to a condition that biologists call eusociality. “Eu-,” of course, is a prefix meaning pleasant or good: euphony is something that sounds wonderful; eugenics is the attempt to improve the gene pool. And the eusocial group contains multiple generations whose members perform altruistic acts, sometimes against their own personal interests, to benefit their group. Eusociality is an outgrowth of a new way of understanding evolution, which blends traditionally popular individual selection (based on individuals competing against each other) with group selection (based on competition among groups). Individual selection tends to favor selfish behavior. Group selection favors altruistic behavior and is responsible for the origin of the most advanced level of social behavior, that attained by ants, bees, termites—and humans.

Fierce weaver ants (in Malaysia)
work and fight together

Among eusocial insects, the impulse to support the group at the expense of the individual is largely instinctual. But to play the game the human way required a complicated mix of closely calibrated altruism, cooperation, competition, domination, reciprocity, defection, and deceit. Humans had to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions.

As a result, the human brain became simultaneously highly intelligent and intensely social. It had to build mental scenarios of personal relationships rapidly, both short term and long term. Its memories had to travel far into the past to summon old scenarios and far into the future to imagine the consequences of every relationship. Ruling on the alternative plans of action were the amygdala and other emotion-controlling centers of the brain and autonomic nervous system. Thus was born the human condition, selfish at one time, selfless at another, and the two impulses often conflicted.

Today, the social world of each modern human is not a single tribe but rather a system of interlocking tribes, among which it is often difficult to find a single compass. People savor the company of like-minded friends, and they yearn to be in one of the best—a combat Marine regiment, perhaps, an elite college, the executive committee of a company, a religious sect, a fraternity, a garden club—any collectivity that can be compared favorably with other, competing groups of the same category.

Their thirst for group membership and superiority of their group can be satisfied even with symbolic victory by their warriors in clashes on ritualized battlefields: that is, in sports. Like the cheerful and well-dressed citizens of Washington, D.C., who came out to witness the First Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War, they anticipate the experience with relish. The fans are lifted by seeing the uniforms, symbols, and battle gear of the team, the championship cups and banners on display, the dancing seminude maidens appropriately called cheerleaders. When the Boston Celtics defeated the Los Angeles Lakers for the National Basketball Association championship on a June night in 1984, the mantra was “Celts Supreme!” The social psychologist Roger Brown, who witnessed the aftermath, commented, “The fans burst out of the Garden and nearby bars, practically break dancing in the air, stogies lit, arms uplifted, voices screaming. The hood of a car was flattened, about thirty people jubilantly piled aboard, and the driver—a fan—smiled happily ...It did not seem to me that those fans were just sympathizing or empathizing with their team. They personally were flying high. On that night each fan’s self-esteem felt supreme; a social identity did a lot for many personal identities.”

Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong. Even when the experimenters created the groups arbitrarily, prejudice quickly established itself. Whether groups played for pennies or were divided by their preference for some abstract painter over another, the participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. They judged their “opponents” to be less likable, less fair, less trustworthy, less competent. The prejudices asserted themselves even when the subjects were told the in-groups and out-groups had been chosen arbitrarily.

The tendency to form groups, and then to favor in-group members, has the earmarks of instinct. That may not be intuitive: some could argue that in-group bias is conditioned, not instinctual, that we affiliate with family members and play with neighboring children because we’re taught to. But the ease with which we fall into those affiliations points to the likelihood that we are already inclined that way—what psychologists call “prepared learning,” the inborn propensity to learn something swiftly and decisively. And indeed, cognitive psychologists have found that newborn infants are most sensitive to the first sounds they hear, to their mother’s face, and to the sounds of their native language. Later they look preferentially at persons who previously spoke their native language within their hearing. Similarly, preschool children tend to select native-language speakers as friends.

The elementary drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group membership easily translates at a higher level into tribalism. People are prone to ethnocentrism. It is an uncomfortable fact that even when given a guilt-free choice, individuals prefer the company of others of the same race, nation, clan, and religion. They trust them more, relax with them better in business and social events, and prefer them more often than not as marriage partners. They are quicker to anger at evidence that an out-group is behaving unfairly or receiving undeserved rewards. And they grow hostile to any out-group encroaching upon the territory or resources of their in-group.

When in experiments black and white Americans were flashed pictures of the other race, their amygdalas, the brain’s center of fear and anger, were activated so quickly and subtly that the centers of the brain were unaware of the response. The subject, in effect, could not help himself. When, on the other hand, appropriate contexts were added—say, the approaching African-American was a doctor and the white his patient—two other sites of the brain integrated with the higher learning centers, the cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral preferential cortex, lit up, silencing input through the amygdala. Thus different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness, as well as to mediate this hardwired propensity.

When the amygdala rules the action, however, there is little or no guilt in the pleasure experienced from watching violent sporting events and war films in which the story unwinds to a satisfying destruction of the enemy. The horrors make the fascination. War is the strong life; it is life in extremis. Literature and history are strewn with accounts of what happens at the extreme, as in the following from Judges 12: 5–6 in the Old Testament: the Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’?” If he said “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time. Research has shown that tribal aggressiveness goes well back beyond Neolithic times. And there is a good chance that it could be a much older heritage, dating beyond the split 6 million years ago between the lines leading to modern chimpanzees and to humans, respectively.

The patterns of collective violence in which young chimp males engage are remarkably similar to those of young human males. Aside from constantly vying for status, both for themselves and for their gangs, they tend to avoid open mass confrontations with rival troops, instead relying on surprise attacks. The purpose of raids made by the male gangs on neighboring communities is evidently to kill or drive out its members and acquire new territory. The entirety of such conquest under fully natural conditions has been witnessed by John Mitani and his collaborators in Uganda’s Kibale National Park. The chimp war, conducted over 10 years, was eerily humanlike. Every 10 to 14 days, patrols of up to 20 males penetrated enemy territory, moving quietly in single file, scanning the terrain from ground to the treetops, and halting cautiously at every surrounding noise. If they encountered a force larger than their own, the invaders broke rank and ran back to their own territory. When they encountered a lone male, however, they pummeled and bit him to death. When a female was encountered, they usually let her go. (This latter tolerance was not a display of gallantry. If she carried an infant, they took it from her and killed and ate it.) Finally, after such constant pressure for so long, the invading gangs simply annexed the enemy territory, adding 22 percent to the land owned by their own community.

Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are. In prehistory, group selection lifted the hominids to heights of solidarity, to genius, to enterprise. And to fear. Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled. Throughout history, the escalation of a large part of technology has had combat as its central purpose. Today, public support is best fired up by appeal to the emotions of deadly combat, over which the amygdala is grandmaster. We find ourselves in the battle to stem an oil spill, the fight to tame inflation, the war against cancer. Wherever there is an enemy, animate or inanimate, there must be a victory.

Any excuse for a real war will do, so long as it is seen as necessary to protect the tribe. The remembrance of past horrors has no effect. It should not be thought that war, often accompanied by genocide, is a cultural artifact of a few societies. Nor has it been an aberration of history, a result of the growing pains of our species’ maturation. Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture. Overall, big wars have been replaced around the world by small wars of the kind and magnitude more typical of hunter-gatherer and primitively agricultural societies. Civilized societies have tried to eliminate torture, execution, and the murder of civilians, but those fighting little wars do not comply.

Civilization appears to be the ultimate redeeming product of competition between groups. Because of it, we struggle on behalf of good and against evil, and reward generosity, compassion, and altruism while punishing or downplaying selfishness. But if group conflict created the best in us, it also created the deadliest. As humans, this is our greatest, and worst, genetic inheritance.

Go to Part 2 -

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 2





For further reflection on Evolutionary Creationism -

Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?





God's Role in Creation
What role could God have in evolution?





Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

N.T.Wright - "What Sabbath was, What it is now; and What it isn't any longer"

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/06/01/tom-wright-scripture-and-gods-authority/

by Scot McKnight

posted June 1, 2011

The biggest problem many of us have with how we frame the “doctrine” of Scripture is that it isn’t adequate to how Scripture arose as our Sacred Text or how it operates either in the church or with us as Bible readers. Here’s the traditional model: it’s a top-down deposit or transmission of information. In other words, Scripture is framed as revelation.

I, too, would place Scripture within a framework of revelation, but that’s not enough, nor is it the primary framing. [Handmade chart with Penultimate app on the iPad.]

What is your model? What model is most “biblical” for you? And, what do you think of Tom Wright’s take on Sabbath as an illustration of how his model of Bible reading works?

Scripture flows out of the Trinitarian inter-communicative Logos and it is connected to the Holy Spirit and it is a “product” as well of the church. The revelation model has a top-down model that moves from God to revelation intent to inspiration and author/text and inerrancy and authority and reading. It’s all framed as a top-down revelation. It’s inadequate because God chose to manifest truth and grace and redemption through history, at specific moments and over time and through authors and through a community, and that history is nearly eliminated in the revelation model. The model needs supplementation to frame a view of Scripture that is organic to how Scripture came into existence. This top-down model is too much golden tablets dropping from the sky.

But Scripture at the organic level emerges from authors who are part of God’s People (Israel, Church), and the books in Scripture arise out of particular circumstances and are written by authors with intent and agenda, and the individual authors interact with one another (Micah, Isaiah, Matthew, Romans, Hebrews, Revelation) and carry the Story forward so that the last version of the Story can reframe the former versions. And then there is the ongoing life of the church — and tradition. Many of us think the revelation model tells us very important things, but it is inadequate.

That is why so many of us value the voice of Tom Wright in this discussion. His newest book, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, is both a revision and an expansion of his former book The Last Word.

This book of Tom’s both revises and expands and, in particular, adds chapters that are test cases for how his theory of Scripture works out. He examines two topics, Sabbath and Monogamy. Today I will look at his Sabbath chapter, but first a brief on the big ideas of the book.

The expression “authority of Scripture” is shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through Scripture” (21). There is something important here, for Wright acknowledges that authority is God’s — and derivatively of Scripture. Any time someone equates the two, there opens the possibility for idolatry to occur. Furthermore, Wright is keen on showing that this authority of God is God’s authority in working out the Kingdom mission for his people and creation. Scripture, then, is a sub-branch of mission, the Spirit, eschatology, and the Church itself (29). Again, very important.

When Wright comes to sum up his entire argument, on pp. 115-116, he says this: The authority of Scripture is “a picture of God’s sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically inaugurated by Jesus himself, and now to be implemented through the Spirit-led life of the church precisely as the scripture-reading community.” Thus, the “authority of Scripture” is put into action in the Church’s missional operations. Scripture, he says, is more than a record of revelation and was never simply about imparting information — it is God’s word to redeem [and involve!- res] his people as God works out his plan for the entire created order. And you may know how the Bible teaches what Tom calls a 5-Act play: creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, Church. We are in the 5th Act now....

The Sabbath -

What it was, What it is now, and What it isn't any longer

Now to Sabbath. Tom provides an exceptional illustration of how both to read Sabbath (i) in its OT setting, (ii) what Jesus and Paul “did” to that teaching, (iii) how the Jubilee principle extends the Sabbath principle, and (iv) how Jesus is the transition to a new kind of time — death and resurrection and new creation, and thus how the Sabbath principle finds fulfillment in Jesus himself, and then he probes (v) how to live that Sabbath principle out in our world. Here are some highlights:

1. In the OT Sabbath was a strong commandment, it was the day YHWH took up abode in the temple of creation (here he chimes in with John Walton) and asked image-bearers to enjoy that same rest.

2. Sabbath shows that history is going somewhere, it is a temporal sign that creation is headed toward that final rest, and it is sacred time.

3. Sabbath has to be connected to Jubilee, and therefore to justice and compassion for the poor, and that means Sabbath and Jubilee point us toward the restoration of creation.

4. Jesus thought the entire Sabbath principle pointed toward himself. Time was fulfilled in him; a new kind of time begins with him. Paul does not seem to care about Sabbath, and he observes its absence in Romans 13:9; Col 2:14-16; Rom 14:5-6. I have to be brief: it’s about time’s fulfillment. Sacred time finds its way to Jesus Christ and new creation.

5. To continue celebrating sabbaths is to focus on the signposts when we have already arrived. Thus, “Come to me and I will give you rest.” You don’t need the alarm clock when the sun is flooding the room with its light. [Sabbath has occurred. Restoration has come. - res]

6. The early Christians didn’t transfer Sabbath to Sunday. [Nor do we - res].

7. We don’t need to back up into a Sabbatarianism. [sic, Christians do not need to become Seventh Day Adventists; nor Judaise or prosyletize their Christian faith backwards into the restrictive/antequated OT regimes and lifestyle observances; etc. - res].

8. We “celebrate” instead of “rest” — a kind of celebration rest. We reserve this day for new creation life. Music, the meal, family, service, peace, justice, love — these are the notes of Sunday for those who see the fulfillment of Sabbath in Jesus.

We live in a perpetual sabbath.

*res = re slater

Accepting the Complexity and Ambiguity Inherent in Scripture, Part 2

Topical References and Sidebars related to Part 1

Blog Sidebars

Anything found under "Bible..."
Anything found under "Hermeneutics..."
Anything found under "Theology..."


Specific Blog Articles

Accepting the Complexity and Ambiguity Inherent in Scripture, Part 1
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/accepting-complexity-and-ambiguity.html


What Is Narrative Theology? "The Grander Story of God and Creation"
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/02/christian-narrative-grander-story-of.html


The Infallibility and Multi-Vocality of Scripture
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/infallibility-and-multi-vocality-of.html


Why Inerrancy Doesn't Matter
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-inerrancy-doesnt-matter.html


Text & Culture - The Relevancy of God's Word to Contemporary Culture
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/10/symposium-text-and-culture.html


How Should We Read the Bible?
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-should-we-read-bible.html


NT Wright on "Scripture and God's Authority"
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/06/scripture-and-gods-authority.html


Jesus, the Fulfillment of God's Revelation to Man
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/12/jesus-fulfillment-of-gods-revelation-to.html


Which Hermeneutic Do We Choose? Christological or Trinitarian?
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/08/christological-exegesis-for.html