Second Breakfast

This is a dead-simple and quite delicious pasta recipe, and mine is a slight variation on the one I found at Epicurious, which is a fabulous food site.

Items

• 1 lb spaghetti
• 1/2 cup olive oil
• 2Tbsp unsalted butter, melted
• 3 large or 4 medium cloves of garlic, grated fine or minced
• 1 1/2 Tbsp cumin seeds, toasted and ground, or 1 1/2 Tbsp cumin powder
• 1/4 tsp cayenne pepper
• 1/2 cup flat leaf parsley, chopped
• 3/4 cup grated Parmagiano-Reggiano cheese (good Romano would work too)
• Fresh ground black pepper and salt to taste

Method

Toasting the cumin seeds in a small skillet over medium heat until they start to brown slightly will open up their flavor and make them positively perfumy. I have a small mortar and pestle I keep on my counter to grind spices. The tiny bit of extra work is quite worth it.

1. Mix the olive oil, butter, garlic, cumin, cayenne, and parsley in a small bowl and set aside.
2. Cook the pasta in salted water according to package directions. When the pasta is done, reserve 1 cup of the pasta water and drain.
3. Add half the water to the sauce bowl and combine. The heat will cook the garlic a little. Pour sauce over pasta and toss until coated. Add a bit more water if it still looks dry.
4. Add the cheese and toss until coated.
5. Season with salt and pepper to taste.
6. Serve with more cheese as desired.

Serves 4.

As a followon to yesterday’s post, I bring you this observation, courtesy of holysmoke.org:

Thermodynamics according to Isaiah

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26, describing Heaven: Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, Heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the Earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty-nine) times as much as the Earth does from the sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the moon is 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stephan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation, we have (H/E)4 = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the Earth, 300 K (27 C). This gives H, the absolute temperature of Heaven, as 798 K (525 C)! (For old-fashioned Americans, that’s close to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Your kitchen oven won’t get nearly that hot.)

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed. However, Revelation 21:8 says: But the fearful and unbelieving… shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. A lake of molten brimstone (or sulfur) means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6 C (above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake). We have, then, that Heaven, at 525 C, is hotter than Hell, at less than 445 C.

So who says that the Bible has no accurate and useful scientific data?

Mark Maynard made a humourous observation in his blog that Ken Ham, a well-known creation science guy who blogs at the “Answers in Genesis” site, looks a lot like Dr. Zaius from Planet of the Apes. You be the judge.

So I perused the AIG site, and I have to say, I’m really impressed in a way by the tenacity with which creationists (or “creation scientists”, or whatever they want to call themselves) construct and reconstruct reality to support their beliefs. We all do this of course, but I’ve never seen such an elaborate construction of a defensive belief system before. Its really quite astounding.

Basically it all depends on this: the Bible, is, and must be, literally true. Now this is of course a problematic starting point for many folks (did God speak in modern english, for example), but for some folks, it is the only starting point that they can accept. The Bible is, of course, a fabulously complex document, written by many authors, speaking to many different audiences, and representing many different, often widely conflicting points of view. And not surprisingly, the task of reconciling this to support a completely literal reading is, well, rather monumental.

Of course even literalists don’t claim to be complete literalists. When John says of Jesus “Behold, the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) they don’t mean that John saw a wooly quadruped coming towards him, but rather was speaking figuratively. But to the extent that anything can be taken literally, they insist that it must be so. And we’ve been arguing this debate for the last hundred and twenty years or so. Shall the Fundamentalists win? I don’t think so, but its certainly painful to watch and suffer along with.

What interests me more is the underlying spiritual needs that it exposes. I don’t claim to understand the fundamentalist movement, and to demean a people because of their beliefs is arrogant, but it seems to me that at some level this need for such a literalist approach is something of a fear-based, reactionary theology. Its as if they’re saying “This all must be literally true. If its not, then none of this makes any sense, and maybe God doesn’t exist.” And so, when confronted with extensive empirical evidence challenging their claims to a 6,000-year-old Earth, or the reality of the evolutionary process and timescales, or whatever else, some people construct these elaborate systems to try and reconcile the two. They envision vast left-wing conspiracies devoted to hiding the “truth of God”, a truth to which only they have access. Behind everything is Satan, the horned guy with the goatee who snickers and polishes his hoofs in the corner.

The pseudo-science is quite astounding, and very bad, but it is formulated with enough complexity that the casual reader might say “Gee, this sounds convincing. They must know what they’re talking about.” For example, apparently God created starlight 6,000 years ago to appear as if it were on its way for billions of years. God apparently loves to deceive us, so He created a universe designed to do exactly that, including creating a completely consistently mathematical system that our brains can manipulate to produce amazingly accurate predictions against a universe designed to deceive us (I thought Satan was the Great Deceiver, but apparently not). The site even provides scientific papers to support these ideas, none of which of course have been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (vast left-wing conspiracy and all). Maybe the speed of light is decaying? Maybe the universe has an edge (apparently a hard edge where “matter just stops”, or this guy doesn’t understand the concept of bent space, despite his claims that these notions just “fall out of general relativity”.

Basically its all a huge mess, but a convincing mess if you close one eye and don’t look too closely. It is a completely self-reinforcing worldview, and is quite impossible to challenge on its own terms.

I am a faithful Christian, and I am also a believer in the power of science and technology to help us better understand our universe. I see no conflict between the two. The historical and religious writings of a bronze age people are not intended to be a reliable guide to the origins of the cosmos, but rather a record of their encounters with the Divine, and their development as a people, and as a reflection of humankind’s development. The story of the Bible is as much as story of how these people saw God as how God saw them.

Science and religious have different purposes and aims. Science asks “what is the Universe made of, and how does it work?”. Religion asks “what is the purpose of our lives, and how do we create meaning from that Universe?”. Asking scientific questions of religion, or vice-versa, generates nonsensical answers, since they operate against two completely separate cognitive frameworks. This entrenched inability to reconcile the two is mostly, I think, the result of a lack of imagination.

I pray that God continues to inspire us with the creative drive to understand the Universe, and the imagination to not be afraid of the answers. The Universe is truly “fearfully and wonderfully made”. (Psalm 139)

This is my veggie variation on shepherd’s pie. Technically “shepherd’s pie” refers to a lamb dish, and “hunter’s pie” the beef variation, but in more common usage refers to any layered dish with ground meat, vegetables, and topped with mashed potatoes. My veggie version uses burger-style textured vegetable protein, which is quite yummy, and you can get the Morningstar brand at your local supermarket in the frozen foods section. Or you can use ground beef instead. Its your call.

This recipe makes a lot for leftovers, or serves a crowd (6-8). This would halve very easily.

Items

• 3lb (about 15 medium) redskin potatoes, skins on, washed and cut in half
• milk, salt, pepper, and butter to taste. You’ll need at least 3/4 cup of milk and 2Tbsp butter for the potatoes.
• 18oz textured vegetable protein (TVP) crumbles, equivalent to 1 1/2lb ground beef. I like mixing the Morningstar “sausage” style with the “ground beef” style. You don’t need to thaw.
• 2Tbsp olive oil
• 2 large or 3 medium carrots, peeled, quartered lengthwise, and chopped
• 3-4 medium leeks (white part only), cleaned, halved, and sliced thin
• 2 celery stalks (hearts only), sliced in half and chopped
• 1 can (15 oz or whatever) corn, drained
• 1Tbsp butter
• 2 cups vegetable broth
• 1/2 cup of cold milk or half and half mixed until smooth with 2 Tbsp corn starch (just use a small fork in your measuring cup)
• 1/2 tsp dried thyme
• 1 tsp paprika
• 1/2 tsp dried rosemary
• 1 bunch of scallions, sliced thin, top green parts only
• 2 cups cheddar and monterey jack cheese

Method

If you’re an experienced cook you’ll know how to multi-task this and you can do this in parallel to save time (and dirty more pans!). If you’re not, do the potatoes first, then the TVP, then the veggies, and assemble and bake.

1. Simmer the potatoes in enough salted water to cover until tender, about 15mins. Don’t overcook. Drain.
2. Mash the potatoes, and blend in the milk and butter (you’re just making mashed potatoes). A hand mixer helps to get a creamy consistency. Add salt and freshly ground black pepper to taste. Set aside covered to keep warm.
3. Preheat the oven to 400F. Set out a 9×13″ glass baking dish.
4. Heat the oil in a nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add the TVP and brown, stirring occasionally to prevent from burning. Although the TVP doesn’t need to cook, its flavor and texture intensifies when its browned. When its dried a bit and looks like cooked ground beef its done. Add salt and pepper to taste.
5. Layer the TVP in the bottom of the baking dish. Layer the corn on top of the TVP.
6. Put the skillet back on the stove, heat over medium heat, and add 1Tbsp butter. When its melted, add the leeks, and sweat the leeks, covered, for 5 minutes.
7. Add the celery and carrot. Cook for another 8-10 minutes or until the carrots and celery are almost tender.
8. Add the broth. Bring to a boil, and add the herbs and paprika, plus salt and freshly ground black pepper to taste.
9. Stir in the cornstarch and milk mixtured slowly to prevent clumping. Turn the heat down and cook 5 minutes. You’ll have a nice thick gravy. Adjust the seasoning to taste, and thin with a little more broth if too thick.
10. Layer the veggies and sauce on top of the corn and TVP.
11. Spread the potatoes on top of the veggies. Start by putting the whole batch in the middle of the pan, and use a spatula to spread to the edges. Cover the veggies completely with the potatoes.
12. Cook in a 400F oven until bubbling, about 15 minutes.
13. Take the dish out, spread the scallions and the cheese on top.
14. Return to the oven, and broil for another 5 minutes or until the cheese is melted and just starting to brown.

I so thoroughly enjoyed Greene’s “The Elegant Universe” that I was excited to pick up this book when I saw it came out in trade paperback. I think this is an even better book than its predecessor, and Greene’s lucid explanations of our current understanding of space and time are both passionate and entertaining. I found this book to be immensely satisfying, and it didn’t suffer from the “tough slogging” feeling that gave the previous book its rough spots.

This book takes a slightly different direction than Elegant Universe and focuses instead on the “texture of reality” as the title suggests. What are space and time? Are they fundamental? What are they made of? Does time exist? Does it have an “arrow”, as our common experiences would have us believe? Or are they illusory, or indicative of a deeper reality?

Greene uses both thematic and historical organization, so in typical “history of science” we see the development of ideas, and the changing, yet increasingly precise answers to these fundamental questions as our notions of the constituents and elementary properties of our universe have evolved. Greene has an amazing ability to construct vivid metaphors and illustrations of terribly abstract and mathematical ideas. He’s also fond (as I am) of the Simpsons, so we are treated to accounts of wormholes at the Kwik-e-Mart and Bart and Lisa’s relativistic adventures.

What’s great about really good science writing is the ability of the author to create a real sense of an unfolding story. Science isn’t about known facts and dry ideas, but a living enterprise that is constantly changing, a human story always unfolding. Science is as much about the people who do it as the knowledge and new ideas they uncover.

This kind of science writing really gets me excited about science, and I hope that Greene is turning on a new generation of readers to the excitement of one of humankind’s most interesting pasttimes.