Pandamonium.

So I’m back in Princeton at last. The last four days have been pretty crazy in ways that I better not elaborate on. While the idea of a Princeton sans-classes is really tempting, it’d be nice to have a little bit of regularity back into things again. Besides, I have an interesting, if painful, schedule coming up this semester. I found out tonight that I’ll be having Bob Dondero as my COS 217 preceptor, which means – according to the testimony of friends and kind upperclassmen – that every Tuesday and Thursday at 1:30 PM, I’ll be experiencing holy rapture. Here’s a typical comment on SCG:

Bob Dondero is the ultimate preceptor. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone who has ever set foot in his classroom. His precepts are jam-packed from start to finish with everything you need to know to complete the assignments. His handouts are comprehensive, his stack traces thorough and clear, and his emails legendary. I cannot think of another preceptor, nay, another human being who performs his job with greater care and consideration. When I saw that the SCG was back online, the first thing I thought was, “I’ve got to write something about Bob Dondero!”. What more can I say…. If you want to learn the C programming language (fast), plus some nifty things about low-level stuff like assembly language and memory management, take this class and make sure Robert Dondero Jr. is your preceptor.

Crazy, right? There are 9 reviews for the class, and 8 of them have uninvited Dondero cheering. Often, these come with heavy capitalization and deification. At this point, if Dondero doesn’t come into his first precept dressed in a coat of armor and/or slays a dozen dragons, reality can scarcely match my expectations.

Also, I’m signed up (or will soon have signed up) for 7 classes and will need to drop 2 of them. I think I’ve mentally prepared myself to drop one, but that second one’s going to cause me much pain.

Also also: why won’t people on campus respond to my e-mails? If I have a turnaround time of 90 seconds, you should too.

• Stumbling on Happiness – Pg. 83 of 263
• The Second World War – Pg. 8 of 286
• A Random Walk Down Wall Street – Pg. 62 of 396
• America: Democracy Inaction – Pg. 10 of 220

Let’s see what tomorrow’s sun brings!

1) The primary problem with Intelligent Design, as I see it, is that it aims to seek refuge in a science classroom when, in fact it lacks a key tenet of any scientific theory: it must be falsifiable. That is, it must clearly predict what will happen in a spanking new laboratory experiment we perform tomorrow. If the prediction fails, the theory falls. Evolutionary theory allows us to do just this. Based on the principle of natural selection, it predicts that if you expose bacteria to a narrow range of antibiotics, assuming natural conditions, the strain in your petri dish will eventually be resistant. I’m curious to know what a theory based on the idea that “some things happen because of an intelligent being” would predict about the bacteria sample. How do you tell if this is one of the “some things”? If it is, how can we use this to predict what our intelligent agent will do next with this bacterial sample?

2) It strikes me as regrettable that the religious base which has supported ID over evolutionary theory sees it as a zero-sum game where the existence of one idea weakens the other. Just because creationism or ID cannot live within the realm of strict science doesn’t mean there’s no home for spirituality or metaphysics in the broader sense, given how few of our deepest philosophical questions have convincing answers. I’d expand on that thought, but I’ll save my points for until I read the Dalai Lama’s The Universe in A Single Atom (apparently, the guy says that if science changes, our view of the world has to change with it, regardless or prior doctrine… how often do you hear such a statement from a religious leader?) . In any event, I think it’s unfortunate that there’s a misconception in some circles that evolutionary theory “disproves” God.

3) Props to ID proponents for not only their modest victory in the classroom, but also – especially - for their PR victory in the media. If you take a survey of prominent biologists, I’d venture to guess that over 95% of them support solely teaching evolution. You’d only expect, then, that ID would stand no shot, that it would immediately be ridiculed and crushed. Yet we’ve seen large nation wide debates. I think the biggest victory of ID advocates has been the creation of a debate to begin with – to give the impression that this is a largely unresolved issue. If you define winning as success in getting local, state, and even national policy makers talking about what really should be a non-issue, there’s no loss here. I may not agree with their position, but I recognize their genius when I see it.

4) When I see liberals make arguments pro-evolution on Facebook groups and places like Digg, it disheartens me that these are the guys on my camp. Even with the facts seemingly on their side, liberals tend to be fairly bad at convincing others, if only because they often argue condescendingly. Conservatives tend to be far more articulate and organized with their arguments. And indeed, this is something whose importance that some conservative camps – notably evangelicals – recognize already.

5) Apple has a killer PR machine. For one, they have Steve Jobs, whose charisma is remarkable and probably played no small part in the success of the iPhone (which even my Mom wants). They’ve also been quite aggressive at striking out against NBC in the latest controversy over pricing. And just take a look at the top Digg stories of the day.

Seven of the top ten stories. If their engineers are half as sharp as their marketing folks, maybe I should’ve purchased a Mac after all.

6) Really looking forward to Princeton. I have big plans for next year, starting with a very busy first week. See you Princetonians there!

Enough said.