Bill's Comments

In a thinly disguised Jeramiad, this article in New Scientist points out that a significant portion of the aerosols in the atmosphere are produced by living organisms. Certainly the spin is to blame it on people.

As far as I am concerned, it only shows how stupid we really are collectively about atmospheric phenomena, about which we routinely legislate.

Yesterday, TCS published an essay by Dr. Pat Michaels that critiques a publication in Science, the premier US primary publishing venue for scientific articles. What is important is that the comments Dr. Michaels makes are those of a good reviewer. The conclusions of the paper, unchallenged, indicate support for global warming. However, as Dr. Michaels points out, if one takes a different approach to the validity of the data, it does not necessarily support such a conclusion.

I have had the opinion for years that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) who publishes Science, has been more atune to political correctness than scientific "truth". Here we have in no uncertain terms the demonstration that it is so. Not only are the editors corrupt but so are the reviewers. Almost the entire science establishment is now corrupt.

In 10 to 25 years, we will see the eclipse of American science, the pride of the 20th Century. Some country, more interested in real results than in who is offended, will suddenly deluge the world with a product based on new discoveries that will destroy a major segment of our economy.

Understand very clearly, it does not matter whether it is Galileo suppressed by the religious right, or Joe Smith suppressed by the secular left, whenever science is controlled and acceptable answers dictated, it is no longer science, it is quackery.

I noticed that both Fox and Drudge posted complementary rather than recent pictures of Terri Shiavo when announcing her death. Their sensitivity is to be commended. When someone dies is not the time to go for the jugular. All that will be remembered is the tastelessness and the viciousness. Gentleness when death occurs is to be sought. Any unresolved issues are either now moot or able to be put off for a few days, weeks, months or even years. Let us comfort the bereaved or pray for their healing and peace and Terri's soul. Regardless of the merits of either side of the issue, Death in Its usual way has decided all issues for the moment. So put down the banners, the picket signs, the lawsuits, the interviews. Take some time to mourn for Terri, her parents, her husband, her family.

[Yes, mourn for Michael whether you believe he is sincere or not. Either way he needs mourning.]

I have posted Northwest Winds and TeaFizz as new members of the blogroll. Both are interesting, but very different from one another.

Just this week I thought that secularists have no Pope. Then I thought, "They have the Supreme Court--9 Popes."

In USA Today, March 29, page 3A, this subtitle appeared concerning an article on the renovations at the Supreme Court building:

"After 70 years, our nation's marbled temple of law receives major makeover".

"Temple of law"? Since when did we worship law? Respect it, follow it or suffer the consequences, but never worship it. Only one who sees the Supreme Court as the ultimate Ace-in-the-hole, last minute hero, righter of wrongs, performer of miracles, could refer to the Supreme Court building as a "Temple of law."

WAKE UP! slap....slap....slap...

It is a COURT HOUSE. The biggest and baddest court house in the country, but still a court house, with lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, defendants, bailiffs, and police.

Read some decisions and then tell me it is a temple. Yeah, about as much as the one for the Oracle of Delphi.

There is much good that comes from the Supreme Court, but in this day of the politicization of law, much bad comes as well.

It is time for a bit of a power struggle between Congress and the "Supremes". May Congress win this round.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness." --James Madison, Federalist No. 14

....does the quotation of European law in Supreme Court decisions fit?

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The freedom and happiness of man...[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government." --Thomas Jefferson

...the perpetuation of power?

21 March 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-12
Monday Brief

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will." --Adam Smith

....Kofi Annan ring a bell?

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them." --Tench Coxe

....incumbency and heredity seem to be synonymous. They possess power merely because they held it before.

My middle son in the Navy sent me this by email. Rather than continue it as a chain letter, I will post it here.

Maybe you'd like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh. Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First Lieutenant(now Captain) in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero.

The secretary of the Navy said so yesterday. At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.

That's a big deal. But you won't see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian's hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing. Oh, sure, there's a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we're almost on a first-name basis with the jerks who abused the
Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.

We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.But we don't hear about the heroes.
The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue. The ones we completely ignore.

Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee. When all hell broke loose. Ambush city. The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it
was up to him. So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire. It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them. Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.
And he ran down the trench. With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers. And he killed them all. He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.

At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion. When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more. But that's probably not how he would tell it. He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he
got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.

"By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service."

That's what the citation says. And that's what nobody will hear. That's what doesn't seem to be making the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity. It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform or to depress - to report or to deride. To tell the truth, or to feed us lies.
But I guess it doesn't matter. We're going to turn out all right. As long as men like Brian Chontosh wear our uniform.

I have found two kindred souls in approach to cooking, the Maverick Philosopher who once said "seasoned with experientially honed intuition." and the Maximum Leader who stated today, "...He measures many ingredients by sight, texture, or smell."

I read recipes to learn principles of seasoning, preparation, presentation. I am happiest when flying by intuition. I cook as an artist paints, by what feels right. My reputation in the family is secure. I have only one rival in fame, my brother-in-law, who has such a totally different style, but yet the same approach, that we gladly act as sous-chefs to each other.

Today I attended class at company headquarters, in Cary, NC. We broke early for lunch and after a quick bowl of chili, I was off for a walk in the 70 degree, sunny weather. The campus is beautiful, sidewalks on both sides of the streets, hilly, full of pine trees. I headed for the lake to walk around it.

Now comes the ugly confession: the company is building a hotel by the lake, there is a crane with a 60 foot by 12" diameter drill drilling footers. I didn't want fresh air and sunshine, I wanted to watch CONSTRUCTION! Unfortunately I couldn't get closer than 200-300 yards, however, I watched this drill sink into the dirt at about a foot a minute, and cement mixers pour concrete into the footings after the rebar was installed.

To any one else it was probably like watching paint dry. I loved it. I paid attention to the trivia, the footer holes looked to be about 10' apart. The drill bit actually is quite fragile, with a 60:1 length to diameter ratio. It had a support in the middle of its length that moved proportionately with it to support it and prevent buckling.

I spent 45 minutes watching with the sun on my back and the wind blowing around me. I came back to class the most relaxed I have been in a long time. At one time I wanted to be a civil engineer. Though I have done well with my life, I would have been a good one.

The AnalPhilosopher once again (as he did several months ago) has questioned the sincerity or perhaps the orthodoxy of most of the Christians he knows, because they do not behave any differently from him in matters of day to day living. He then pulls out a set of biblical quotes concerning the desirability of giving to the poor. In his answer to a comment, he says he wants Christians to be good Christians and he doesn't think they are. He also says he doesn't think Jesus would like what he sees in Christians.

Here is his punch line:
"I'm not sure they're good Christians, since they live lives that are indistinguishable from those of nonChristians."

In what way does he determine indistinquishability? Purely on the appearance of socio-economic indicators? Does he think Christians to be "true" Christians should sign up to some communist-like pact that says nobody gets anything unless all have it? How does he know what his Christian acquaintances are doing? Has he seen their checkbooks to know how much they do or don't contribute? Does he monitor their time to know how much service to the church and others they give?

For that matter, as an atheist, who is he to sit in judgement over Christians? Christians are judged by God, and to God they will answer. With the exception of the religious, who voluntarily take vows of poverty, no Christian denomination that I know of requires total self-abnegation. Beyond a tithe (one tenth of one's income, some say net other say gross) and serving to one's ability, there are no biblical injunctions on giving up one's wealth. Keith made a collection of extracts from the Bible on this subject. One that particularly stands out is the story of the rich, pious young man who when he asked Jesus what else he should do was told to sell all. The whole point of that story was not an absolute command to divest himself of all his worldly goods, so much as to make the point that the young man was more enamored of worldly goods than of spiritual ones, despite his piety.

I consider Keith's expressed concern over Christians being good Christians to be disengenuous. I consider it more of a self-righteous baiting of Christians. There are millions of quietly devout Christians that never condemn others of different belief. I think their example is wise to follow.

I had planned to post on this topic today. However, TCS published this excellent essay by the philosopher Edward Feser on the same subject.

I strongly recommend reading it.

...unless you have the verbal equivalent of tone-deafness. This is beautiful:

Climbout on Easter Sunday
"Once past V1, the pilot must commit the plane to flight."

WE RISE in a banking curve of pure velocity
over fallow fields and arid grids of neighborhoods,
arcing up over ponds painted with the slick scum
oozing from the oil pans of countless sunken cars,
from punctured sacks of toxic trash, from fleshless jaws
of unsolved murders, of missing persons filed in muck.

WE RISE welded to first-class armchairs,
clutching the crisply printed sheets
of yesterday's most meaningful events,
rise up above our lies and lives,
above, away, alone, alas, good-bye
to families and all terrestrial ties,
our very cellulars, by law, silenced
so that our murmurs not unbalance
the delicate electronics on which so much
at this tremulous moment devoutly depends
that we dare not think on it, and so select
music of our choice from mid-heaven's jukebox.

WE RISE in the faltering dark
into the pale flicker of a cosseted sun
slatted in flashes through fingers of cloud,
up into the white blood of the sinewed sky --
and so our days and worlds slip by.

WE RISE UP to where all breath is snow,
so far that all above becomes below,
up until the sky is seen as vapor
smeared white on rough construction paper
wrapped around the dawn we race.

WE RISE UP, that from the Earth we only seem
a fading gesture, an echoed trace
of fog, distinguished only by direction,
onward over ancient seas, past all reflection.

AND STILL WE RISE, our lush ascent
thrust by ageless diatoms' descent
into the ooze between the fossilized stones,
the shattered crypts of shells and bones,
above the planned green autumn fields
of pasture, silage, grain that yields
the bread we break in our floating meal.

WE ARC ABOVE the fresh turned loam and weeds,
splotching with dark ochre a continent of seeds,
over the Van Gogh's carved by clumsy tractors
where all strokes are formed by sunflowers
that, loitering, turn toward the sun spinning west,
as our sudden shadow slashes that coiled canvas
keener and quicker than hunting hawks,
and flashes on before us without rest.

AND STILL we rise, resurrected,
through the thinning strands of sky reflected,
until the edge of day the stars deny,
and where all the worlds we knew slip by,
tangled below in a mapless maze of rivers,
our passing but a whisper that shivers
the dream of a drowsing owl, a silver splinter
caught in a facet of the eye of winter,
and, unremarked or written, quickly glides
beyond the reach of records or of guides.

WE RISE until at last held still
in that white hand that grasps the sky,
alone within our tube of paper steel,
our ascent breaks and we slide
out onto the silent lake of granite ink,
over the steaming waters of absolute zero,
reflecting the empty gaze of God,
beyond warm hands and touch of earth.

NEVER NOW to stagger or slip
back to the shadows and rain,
back to the warm musk of day,
but, keen as an iron blade
touched to the tongue,
we sail out on these slate seas
to the far edge of imagine,
and on, still beyond,
into the heart of the stars,
into the silence of their songs.

Vanderleun @ Mar 26, 2005 11:43 PM
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/005367.php

Gerard Van der Leun writes some of the most moving poetry and prose I have ever read and certainly the best I have read in blogs. This one needs to be broadcast.

Go see the pictures that accompany the original.

From Quantum Thoughts in its entirety:

Mexican Gang Vows They Will Target And Kill US Citizens Trying To Stop Illegal Immigration On Border!
- WASHINGTON TIMES
NACO, Ariz. -- "Members of a violent Central America based gang have been sent to Arizona to target 'Minuteman Project' volunteers, who will begin a monthlong border vigil this weekend to find and report foreigners sneaking into the United States, project officials say." Full Story

Well there we have it. Our cowardly President (that I voted for) crawled on his knees to President Fox, kissing his foot and promising to do nothing to stop the illegal invasion of our country by his unwashed millions. Bush then further stated that any attempt at stopping this invasion by American civilians, he disgustingly labled as "Vigilantes", would be met with law enforcement crackdowns by jack booted, black helmeted authorities. (That image sticks in my mind. I must have seen it before someplace in the history books)

Bush further increased border patrol strength a ridiculous 210 people after promising a figure of 2,000. Ya' got to love Bush's total disregard of past promises. Am I alone in calling this guy a "Super wimp"? Someone show me where I'm wrong. After all, with an IQ of only 46 I tend to miss a lot of things.

So then the Mexican criminal cartel of smugglers, drug runners and kidnappers states openly that, what the heck, since nobody is going to stop them they are going to come onto American soil and murder our civilians trying to defend the border.Sound like fun huh? Murdering gringos.

President Bush just shrugged his shoulders and winked.Winked? What the... What's going on here?

Sitting here in the dayroom of the Institute For The Very Nervous I can hear the screams of those receiving their electroshock treatments down the hall. When they wheel them back into here I know they will have a much clearer understanding of the problem than Bush does. I think I'll to wheel over to the library and pull out the big dictionary. I want to look up the word "reality" and see if there is some part of that definition I missed.

- posted by Norm Weatherby @ 9:30 AM

....and I am pissed. I'd say call out the Army but they are in Iraq.

The AnalPhilosopher has again resurrected (pun unintentional) the argument from evil against the existence of God. Once again, he uses a definition of God that automatically wins the argument. I consider his definition a strawman and have commented on it before--

Let’s keep in mind that God is understood to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

The issue is with all three qualities qualified as "omni-". If any one of them is not qualified as such, then the argument can fail. The most common attempt at change is from omnibenevolent to benevolent. However, to repeat my position which negates the argument from evil,

1)God is subject to the laws of nature, therefore is not omnipotent
2)God knows far more than any of us, but does not know all, and therefore is not omniscient
3)God is benevolent to the degree He is capable, but not omnibenevolent.

With respect to 1), the Maverick Philosopher early in his blog, posted an item pointing out that God could not go back in the past. This observation automatically removes the omnipotence.

The first time Keith and I had this discussion, he pointed out that most if not all theological philosophers accepted his definition. Since in this area I claim status as a theological philosopher, even if of extremely low stature, not all accept the definition.

Easter:
Today is Easter Sunday, and our church celebrated with all stops pulled out (trivia question: what is the source of that phrase?). The choir sang a 16th century hymn a capella as a call to worship, and used a very nice arrangement of "The Day of Resurrection" as a processional. We had a full processional, with banners, the Bible, the choir, and all the children with crosses around their necks. The choir sat behind the altar in robes. We had a phenomenally powerful arrangement based on Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" with Organ, Piano and choir. The hymns were standard Easter hymns. Everything was designed to create the feeling of triumph. [One downside note: For all you liturgical conservatives, such as I, the setting was by Peter S. Kemp, which I call nursery rhyme liturgy. The contrast between the choral pieces and the liturgy was jarring for me.]

What I want to focus on tonight is the feeling of triumph. To traditional Christians, this triumph is supposed to be a victory over death. I have posted before on the nature of death and dying in relation to religious practice. What is apparent is that one cannot escape dying, so how is Easter supposed to be a victory over death?

[There was an intermission here. The radio was playing Rimsky-Korsakov's "Russian Easter Festival Overture". It grabs and holds me like no other piece in the entire classic repetoir. I hear nothing but the music. I air conduct. I even weep sometimes. It speaks to my soul.]

It is the interpretation that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, and thereby conquered death for us, telling us that we may be resurrected also. In effect, the victory of death is temporary. This has been interpreted to mean the literal physical resurrection of the body by many denominations.

As you can already guess, this renegade protestant [thanks to the SoDakMonk for the appellation. I wear it with pride.] does not agree with the interpretation or the reason for the triumph. However, I do agree with the feeling of triumph. Without the resurrection, Jesus death on the cross set the world on a new course. It started a new approach to dealing with one another. Where the letter of the law was important, now the spirit of the law controlled. Where only a select group were the chosen of God, everyone who would follow God's commandments could be chosen of God. Where expediency had ruled, one man showed that it is proper to do the right thing even unto death. Death was vanquished, but not as the ender of life, but as the controller of behavior. We were shown that one can and should die for ones beliefs, and that in so doing the example would create stronger belief in others. True martyrs provide a thought-provoking example. Even those who execute them often take pause at their willingness to die rather than compromise their core beliefs.

As I have said before, I do not ascribe to the atonement for our sins by Jesus' death on the cross. I do not consider sacrificial lambs as anything other than magic or superstitution. However, Jesus' example as a human gives us the standard by which to live. He has shown the way, all we have to do is follow.

Martyrdom:
Today on the plane I was reading the forward to a book by Dietrick Bonhoffer, a Lutheran pastor and theologian that was incarcerated by the Nazis and eventually executed only a few days before he might have been freed by the allies. Bonhoffer is considered a martyr for the cause of religious and political freedom and the role of the church in promoting both. It was his overtly traitorous acts against the Nazi regieme that caused his death. As I read the passage, it occurred to me that too often Christians make a big to do about martyrdom, as if it were a desirable state. The ultimate would be the Rev Jim Jones and 700+ cyanide suicides in South America.

It is important to be very clear that there is a difference between dying to be made holy and dying because one is holy. The former is what the suicide bombers and the men that hijacked the planes on 9/11 were pursuing. They thought that death doing something they thought was ordained by God (Allah) would create holiness in them enough to enjoy the after life. Note that they were not holy men or even truly devout men to begin with. The act of terrorism was to confer on them the holiness.

This is in stark contrast to Bonhoffer, Jesus, or any of the other true martyrs, who started by doing holy things and when they were told to cease and desist continued to do so, believing there was a greater law than the secular law being dictated to them. As a consequence of their beliefs they were killed. Their martyrdom was a consequence of their holiness not a means by which to acquire it.

Smallholder has posted a small piece about the military never leaving a body behind. He considers it asinine to risk the life of a live soldier to recover the body of a dead one.

Though I can see where he is coming from, I think he does not understand the deep emotional needs of many people to know that if they die they will have a proper burial. Their loved ones want to feel that, if their loved one is dead, they can pay proper respects. Though honor is involved in the promise the military makes to never leave a body behind, the need for that promise is very deeply held in most people's emotional makeup.

Part of our humanity is the respect we show the dead. We are the only animals that hold funerals. Part of what horrifies us about mass murdering tyrants is the disregard that they hold for their dead victims--dig a trench, line them up, kill them, push them in if they didn't fall, and bulldoze it over. Non-humans walk away from dead to leave them to be carrion for buzzards, vultures, etc.

No, it is not asinine. It is necessary to maintenance of pride, honor, and morale.

Fox News reports that soft tissues have been recovered from a T. Rex skeleton that is about 70,000,000 years old! Even if all they end up with is structural information, to have that at a microscopic level is very important in placing the dinosaurs in the evolutionary lineage and determining if they were indeed the ancestors of birds. If they have any kind of biochemical information as well it will be a major bonanza.

Molecular techniques have become as important if not more important than morphology in determining phylogenetic relationships. This is because there are numerous instances of convergent morphology, where totally unrelated species come to resemble one another because of adaptations to the same type of environment. Also closely related species are often difficult to differentiate. [Yes, race is more than a social construct.]

The news is all Terri Shiavo, all the time. I have a quick observation or two.

1) This poor woman is a pawn in a personal powerstruggle between her husband and her parents. Otherwise the husband would have divorced her and let them keep her at their own expense. I think he also is probably trying to justify himself in his own eyes.

2) Legally it is a mess. There are conflicting legal principles at work, as well as people trying to use the law to force their particular points of view. Hopefully it will eventually lead to some better law.....but I doubt it. Political grandstanding is usually a good path to bad law.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The deliberate union of so great and various a people in such a place, is without all partiality or prejudice, if not the greatest exertion of human understanding, the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen." --John Adams

...You live in the most diverse country in the world. Pull your collective heads out of your collective recti and look around.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come." --Peter Muhlenberg

...who will never fight, even as they are being rounded up and executed. It is only by virtue of the life we have in the US that they have survived.

16 March 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-11
Wednesday Chronicle


Rights do not come from government

"Freedom is independence of the compulsory will of another, and in so far as it tends to exist with the freedom of all according to a universal law, it is the one sole original inborn right belonging to every man in virtue of his humanity." --Immanuel Kant

"Freedom is not a gift received from the State or leader, but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all." --Albert Camus

To our liberal friends...

"Young man, the secret of my success is that at an early age I discovered I was not God." --Oliver Wendell Holmes

Whether the religion is theistic or atheistic....

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal

For all those who want to have the government do for us....

"The first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who first gave them bounties and largess." --Plutarch

For the risk-aversive.....

"Do not be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Note how long these ideas have been around. Albert Camus is the most recent and he has been gone over 50 years. I guess some of us don't listen.

For three days I have been unable to get online. Won't stay at that hotel again. Due to that and the job, I am unable to post any Sunday Notes this week. However, I will start with a few riffs on the Federalist quotes.

On the road this week, and spending 10+ hour days at a customer and a high priority project to work on in the evening. Posting will be almost non-existent for this week. In the meantime, read my co-bloggers on the blogroll. Use a different approach every day. Make sure you hit them all.

Bussorah of Wicked Thoughts fame has a new blog called Strange Justice. The subtitle is:

"Justice" from the crazy to the deeply disturbing

It is now in the blogroll. It looks to be interesting, the first two posts are good.

Smallholder, the Minister of Agriculture at Naked Villainy, made the best summary of the Terri Shiavo case and the issues. Several of my favorite bloggers have weighed in. I had a post lost by blogger that would have said essentially what Smallholder said. And in all the posturing in the press and public....

THERE IS NO CLEAR STATEMENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINER(S).

If she is truly brain dead, then she feels no pain, no agony, etc. Continuing her life from a purely objective viewpoint is wasted resources, but if someone wants to, enough that they will pay what it takes, let them. Too many people want to be right here.

If she is not brain dead, then to let her die is murder.

LET'S GET SOME OBJECTIVE DATA HERE.

It might actually help everyone.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The pyramid of government-and a republican government may well receive that beautiful and solid form-should be raised to a dignified altitude: but its foundations must, of consequence, be broad, and strong, and deep. The authority, the interests, and the affections of the people at large are the only foundation, on which a superstructure proposed to be at once durable and magnificent, can be rationally erected." --James Wilson

...when the people don't care, or become enamored of bread and games and demagogues, the foundations become as shifting sand. Based on this, the most magnificent edifice will crumble early.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry." --Benjamin Franklin
[emphasis mine, bk]

....that Ben was a socialist.

It does puzzle me, wasn't Ben a business man? and doesn't business count as commerce? Speak for thyself, Ben....

After a rough time at her bridge tournament, Peg is back blogging! Welcome, back. Her first post is right on target, discussing charity.

Eskimo is closing down the Igloo. I am sorry to see him go. I enjoy his particular view on the world. However, I can understand the time pressures he is under. If I had young children instead of grown ones, it would be almost impossible for me to blog.

Good luck, Steve. You will be greatly missed. I hope you can return again.

Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna has posted quite a number of items on the treatment of women under Islam. This latest is one more tale, but its tragedy hit harder than many. Please go read it, and then you will also see....

THE MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF FEMINISM.

This very interesting article is from New Scientist.

Spies infiltrate zombie computer networks
18:42 16 March 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever

Fake "zombie" computer spies are infiltrating zombie networks and recording online exchanges between the networks and their human commanders.

The fake zombies are deployed by members of the German Honeynet Project, which started collecting data on zombie armies in November 2004 and released the first paper detailing how to spy on zombie networks on Monday.

"With the help of honeynets we can observe the people who run botnets - a task that is difficult using other techniques," says Thorsten Holz, a researcher at the RWTH-Aachen University, Germany, and founder of the German Honeynet Project.

Zombies are ordinary PCs infected with a piece of malicious code - known as a bot - that instructs the PC to secretly log onto an online chat room and obey the instructions issued by the chat room's controller. The bot may have been deposited into the computer by a virus such as SoBig or MyDoom, downloaded from a bogus website or inserted by a hacker directly.

Holz's fake zombies have enabled him to spy on over 100 different botnets, some comprised of up to 50,000 zombie computers - PCs under the control of hackers. But he has noticed a new trend towards groups of smaller botnets, all controlled by the same person. This is probably an attempt to make botnets more difficult to infiltrate by distributing their control over multiple servers.

Gang wars
He has also recorded botnet controllers plotting to take over rivals, evidence of botnets being bought and sold, and comments that indicate that not all botnet controllers are necessarily tech savvy, such as: "How can I compile?"

"This work is really valuable. This is the only way to find out these details," says Johannes Ullrich of the SANS Internet Storm Center in Quincy, Massachusetts, US. He says the information could be used by law enforcement to prosecute botnet controllers and by researchers to develop more appropriate tools to thwart the spread of botnets.

Zombie networks give hackers access to huge amounts of distributed bandwidth and processing power and have been blamed for recent increases in spam, denial-of-service (DOS) attacks, blackmail attacks on companies and other organised cyber-crime.

Honeynet uses sacrificial, unpatched computers running Microsoft operating systems to attract and "trap" malicious programs that are constantly scanning the net, searching for new PCs to infect.

The sacrificial PC is converted into a zombie and records the exchange between the PC and the commander. This information is then used to build a fake zombie spy that can infiltrate that particular network.

Self-destructing bots
Previously, internet service providers entered chatrooms by "reverse engineering" the malicious code to extract log-ins and passwords, and then shut them down. But reverse engineering is time-consuming and often fails because virus writers design the bots to self-destruct if they detect interference. "Our approach bypasses that problem," explains Holz.

Instead of using the bot provided by the botnet controller, the spies use software designed by the Honeynet team called "Drone". This is very similar to the bots, but is programmed to record all commands in one file, while filtering out less interesting information and saving it to another file.

The spies do not participate in spam or DOS attacks because they are programmed not to understand these commands. But this failure to send spam could raise suspicion. Holz told New Scientist his spies have been detected on several occasions, often resulting in a ban from the chat room and once prompting the botnet commander to retaliate by launching a DOS attack.

But Honeynet makes such detection more difficult by using software that spammers often employ to hide their tracks. This routes communication with the commander through so-called "proxy" servers, so it cannot be traced back to the Honeynet server.

I found the link to this test via Peg at What If?.

The Lord You scored 15% Cardinal, 51% Monk, 47% Lady, and 70% Knight!

You are of the intellectual breed and yet you are also very interested in war. You are of the aristocracy and head the cavalry a safe distance from the carnage of the front lines. You believe in defeating your enemy with not only might, but also wit. You scored high as both the Monk and the Knight. You can try again to get a more precise description of either the Monk or the Knight, or you can be happy that you're an individual.

Link: The Who Would You Be in 1400 AD Test written by KnightlyKnave on Ok Cupid

This one would be a good one for all the ministers at Naked Villainy.

Maybe Ally should try it as well.

To Dennis Mangan, who reached the big five-oh!

Many happy returns, Dennis. May you live much longer.

Now wake up and think about what you are saying, that youth is wasted on the young. No, no, a thousand times no. The whole purpose of youth is to make mistakes and learn from them, not to have some older person tell them what to do. Hindsight thinks it is perfect. What if I had..... causes more heartburn than any other concern, and of the multitude of concerns is the least profitable. It only leads to regret and depression.

If we had lived our lives as we think we should have, would we be any better off? Probably not, since we only focus on a few of the many factors interacting at the time. for that matter are the things of concern to us now, what was or should have been of concrn then?

We live our lives as best as we know how. Most likely, there can be little improvement from a different provider.

UPDATE: The last sentence above was written as I fell asleep posting. I think I hit the publish key by reflex. I woke up to a successfully posted screen. The last paragraph should read:

We live our lives as best as we know how. What look to be errors in retrospect seemed perfectly reasonable in the light of knowledge AT THAT TIME. If we learn from our errors, we have progressed. And, who is to say that what we think is the correct course of action in retrospect really would have been at the time. Youth is to enjoy youth, old age is to enjoy the memories of youth.

the preceding bullshit post went clean. the one I can't possibly recreate on Terri Shiavo was lost.

For the fourth time in two days, I have had my post lost by blogger and, of course, wasn't sufficiently paranoid to have saved it before hitting the publish button. I complained and got a bullshit reply about waiting and reposting. That assumes I could recreate the post or had it saved.

Yeah, I know, I should have prepared a backup, afterall it is a computer. Well, I am suddenly seeing a major change in reliability. So I need to change my writing habits.

Always compose outside of blogger. Their making the changes to allow WYSISYG posting, has become a null effort. Who is going to use it when there are high odds of losing it?

Once again I got what I paid for.

More on Intelligent Design:

The SoDakMonk has posted one of the better supports for the study of Intelligent Design. I would like to make a reply.

[I]n the course of my searches I cam upon these lines from a Professor at Brown University:

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999).

I have heard people say this in other ways - basically it comes down to them saying "Certainly someone can believe in evolution, and still believe in God." Even I would agree with that statement, in the proper sense. But it touches on the philosophical side of the debate over evolution, and shows why the ID movement continues to gain ground, and why it is needed. Because all the "scientific refutations" (which I find more polemical than scientific) of ID still do not touch on the larger question. Do you believe that evolutionary theory is compatible with belief in God? If you answer yes to that question, are you not admitting that on some level, life has purpose and meaning? And therefore are you not also admitting that God has a design for the universe that includes life? I know that many scientists who are also theists could answer yes to both those questions. Now... here's the biggie. If you agree that God has a design for life and the universe, why would anyone insist that God's design can never be studied scientifically? Can anyone give me a scientific reason why God's design would have to be ignored in the realm of science? (Remember, you agreed that life has a purpose from God.)

Fr Matthew makes some assumptions about the nature of God up front. If you agree with him that God is compatible, you have already lost the argument, because his concept of God includes a purpose for the universe and for man and a design for them. Actually one can say the design is being studied scientifically in that the results of the design are the subject of intense scientific research. What Fr. Matthew wants is the explicit inclusion of God in the statements of results. If one says that God and evolution are compatible, but that there is not a purpose and design, then one has rejected Fr. Matthew's definition (and almost all the rest of monotheism's definition) of God.

This is precisely what the neo-Darwinists are claiming; that any attempt to see design in the physical universe is unscientific. But why? If you believe in God, why would any evidence of God in the physical universe have to be ruled out? There is no scientific reason for this! There could be a philosophical reason for it: if you really don't believe that God exists. This is exactly the Naturalist assumption that underlies evolution by natural selection. Phil Johnson exposes this naturalist fallacy in his book The Wedge of Truth. Anyone can see how the Neo-Darwinists have been caught in a fallacy here: if they claim evolution is compatible with Theism, they are admitting that a design does exist at some level. But many of them would like to restrict this design to the metaphysical world. What scientific reason is there for that? If they claim it is simply because no scientific proof of God has even been found, they are begging the whole question of Intelligent Design. Because it is not impossible, in principle, for scientific evidence of God's design to be found.

As my comments above indicate, there is an assumption of a particular flavor of Theism and that it is the only acceptable flavor. Considering that God is a metaphysical concept and science is essentially an epistomological process, I do not think that it is possible to see scientific evidence for God without including God as a presumption to start. Then the argument becomes circular.

Actual vs. factual:

This phrase is one used in discussion of Biblical verse that is obviously allegorical in nature. Actual in this sense would mean, "Does it contain a meaning that is outside the explicitly stated events." The example where I heard this was at our Men's Breakfast last Saturday, when we read the passage from Ezekial about the valley of dry bones (source of the spiritual "D'em Bones"). The reason the phrase was used, was not because any of us considered the passage to be historical in a literal sense, but rather to focus on what meaning could be ascribed to it. In this case there is the obvious allegory of the Nation of Israel being dead and God breathing life into it. However, one of the participants, a retired pastor, considered that it was insufficient to only consider it as an allegory and go on. In his case, he was looking for people to obtain a personal connection with it. In my case, having been an atheist/agnostic for so long and now believing in God, the passage had a connection.

This is an extension of the meaning of "actual" well beyond the normal. Though it makes a good rhetorical device, I don't recommend it.

Wicked thoughts posted a great story today. Go read it.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

11 March 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-10
Friday Digest

"You can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home." --CBS's Andy Rooney, from his commentary "Our Soldiers in Iraq Aren't Heroes."

It's time to fire this bastard. Of course it is CBS (Can't Be Sensible).

It is a good thing I have no possibility of meeting him on the street. I'm not very civilized.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. ... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened." --Benjamin Franklin

Left/liberals love class warfare.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. ... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened." --Benjamin Franklin

the favored are the welfare recipients and the oppressed are the middle class. Then the assumption is that the producers will produce no matter what.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties, and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates...to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them." --John Adams

public schools and state universities were what he had in mind.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate." --James Madison, Federalist No. 14

Improve is another story.

Yesterday I marked my deceased son's 24th birthday. Today I would like to give an example of his gift of writing. Where I went for science and mathematics, Adam loved philosophy, politics, and economics. He had a rapier wit, and I was frequently left sliced and diced so quickly that it often took a while to realize it. The exercise below was a school assignment. He had to choose a word and write on the denotative and connotative meanings. He fulfilled the assignment with a wonderful parody of the assignment. At the same time, there are quiet indications that he understood the deeper structure of English better than most. These three paragraphs have a prominent place on the wall of my office. Enjoy.

CHEESE

The MacMillan Dictionary defines cheese as, "Any group of dairy products, variously prepared and flavored, usually ripened and made from the pressed curd of milk." The word "cheese" is a noun pronounced chez and come from the Old English word, "cese," the dairy product, going back to the Latin word, "caseus." And example of this word in a sentence is, "I ate so much cheese I burst!"

The connotation of the word cheese, however, can be either as an insult or a compliment. For instance, if some jerk called me a "cheese head," I would be sincerely wounded, because the person would be saying my head was a bunch of old mold. But say somebody called me the "Big Cheese," I would thank the person, because he or she is saying, "Look, there is Adam, a very important person." Also the word cheese can be used as an excellent substitute for those nasty swear words and phrases, such as, "You son of a cheese doodle," or "Don't make me kick your cheese."

In conclusion, cheese is really whatever you want it to be. For me, it is a dairy product, an insult, a compliment, and a substitute for swear words, but for you or the next person, who knows? But don't try pondering what it could mean, because surely one will go mad, and will lose their appreciation of the word. May the Cheese be with you.

---Adam Keezer

Bill Vallicella has some interesting comments on this topic.

It's like candy to a baby or catnip to a cat. I can't resist them. I have yet to be surprised by one, but after as many years of living and as much therapy as I have I wouldn't expect to.

I taste like Bread. I am a staple in almost everyone's diet. Friends like me are a complement to any other friends I get on with almost everyone, remaining mostly in the background, but providing substance when it would otherwise be lacking. What Flavour Are You?

Note: That was my here-and-now persona. Here is my wishful thinking persona.

I am Vanilla Flavoured. I am one of the most popular flavours in the world. Subtle and smooth, I go reasonably with anyone, and rarely do anything to offend. I can be expected to be blending in in society. What Flavour Are You?

The comments told me that if I were not bread I would be vanilla. I'm DOOMED to be what I am and no other. [Truth is I like myself.]

We conservative men are HEROES in the bedroom:

We don't read Playgirl magazine, but thank goodness Matt Drudge does, or we wouldn't know about the fascinating revelation its editor, Michele Zipp, makes in the April issue. Drudge reports Zipp acknowledges that she is a Republican:

How could a member of the media who produces adult entertainment for women possibly side with conservatives from the red states? Zipp spells it out. "Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed--two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they'll do anything to get it. And I'm not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I'm talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all."

"The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?" asks Zipp.

Thanks to James Tarantino's "Best of the Web Today" in WSJ Opinion Journal.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32

By now the states only have the powers EXCLUSIVELY delated to them.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government." --George Washington

Kerry fawns over France, the Supremes are starting to quote foreign law, the grounding of most left/liberalism came from continental philosophers in the 19th century, the MSM is in love with the UN.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election.... They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9

Bureaucratic power struggles, log-rolling, unquestioned judges, purchase of votes with public largesse, are the modern analogs.

I have just added two new members to the blogroll.

One is The Unexamined Lifeboat. I discovered this blogger from a comment he left on one of my posts. His blog is interesting in that he is in the early stages of trying to work out morals, personal philosophy, and religion for himself, and is not afraid to post where he is. He has some lively comments to his posts as well.

The other is Without Excuses Creations. This is not quite a blog, but has fairly frequent posts in the essay section some of which are poems. The blogger is an artist and he has thumbnails of his work on the site as well. The viewpoint is definitely traditional Christian and Creationist.

Both of these sites have a different flavor from each other and from the other blogs in the roll.

Weddings and Marriage:

Saturday, my niece was married in a church wedding. It was a beautiful occasion. There were all the elements of the largest weddings, four bridesmaids and groomsmen, ring bearer and flower girl, matron of honor and best man, and the bride, the groom and the minister. There was both an organist and a singer. Everyone was formally ushered in, with semi-assigned seating. Massive flower arrangements, and a truly spectacular bridal gown. My niece is a pretty girl to start with, so the “beautiful bride” description was quite true.

This ceremony has a massive emotional impact and also a major solemnity, because it is predicated on promising a life-long commitment to each other in front of all the important people in their collective lives as well as a Christian-defined God. This latter is important in that traditionally having promised to God, one can be subjected to harsh judgment in the afterlife if the promise is broken.

All of the various trappings have a long tradition associated with them, from the white gown and the veil, to the chosen music, almost always Lohengren coming in and Mendelssohn going out.

It is this emotional and traditional aspect of a church wedding that defines marriage in the minds of most people. In fact, the term marriage almost always conjures up a church wedding or at least a promise before God. Since this was a Christian Church denomination, the Bible is taken more literally than in some other main-line protestant churches. This intruded itself in that the minister couldn’t resist making some prefatory comments on what a marriage was and wasn’t with thinly veiled reference to same-gender or non-religious marriages as “counterfeit.” However, he also provided quite a number of both Old and New Testament references for the characterization of a religiously sanctioned marriage.

Once that was done with ,the marriage took place along the standard lines, with vows on both parts, and the exchange of rings.

What I came away with, besides the joy for my niece, was a full understanding that marriage as referred to by the particular word, “MARRIAGE,” will always be thought of as a ceremony such as this. As a thought experiment, I tried imagining George and Joe in tuxedos and men on both sides of them, and realized that the images in us are too strong to allow it. (The same incongruity occurs if it is Jill and Jane.) As an exercise in pure intellect the modifications are minor, but as an emotional event, it cannot happen.

I have posted before on some ideas that homosexuality may not be the horrible sin that it is designated by many, but I don’t see that as negating the standard definition of marriage or requiring churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples. I realize that there is a co-mingling of legal and religious thought in the way laws are written on this subject. I have posted on that as well, but don’t want to reopen those thoughts at this time.

The majority of people in this country have a view of marriage that corresponds to my niece’s wedding. Without being “homophobic” they also view same-sex unions as not being marriages. It really has nothing to do with commitment or love between the partners. It has to do with the cultural and not legal definition of marriage. Although the last election found 33 states making the constitutional definition of marriage the same as the cultural one.

There are ministers that will perform same-sex marriages despite the rules of their larger organizations. They have become, in effect, their own theologians and have determined that their assessment of love and commitment overrides the biblical strictures. But just because they have performed the ceremony does not guarantee that it will be recognized by most people. In fact, I suspect in do so they marginalized their ministries.

There is a value to the traditional way of creating unions, courtship, long engagement, and formal ceremony. At every step of the way there is opportunity to examine and make more certain the life-long commitment of the couple, or to realize that it won’t work before it is really hard, legally, to break it off. It is necessary for the commitment to be there to assure the proper environment for the rearing of children (that some unions do not produce children not withstanding). Also that God is requested to bless the marriage adds further security and strength to the willingness to continue despite difficulties, because the belief in God’s approval also allows the asking for help from God when the going is rough.

Some value to biblical teaching on sex and marriage:

As I have gotten older, I have become very aware of our attempts to deny the emotional side of our natures in a quest for rationality in everything. As a consequence we rationalize and justify many decisions that intellectually seem correct, but emotionally have profound consequences. Sexuality and marriage are two of those, probably the most important two. I do not advocate trying to re-institute rules of the past, in a world where many of the old consequences no longer exist, eg., unwanted pregnancy, untreatable disease. But the emotional impacts still do exist, and perhaps religious belief and values still have importance here. They discourage quick and easy sex, or living together out of marriage. They also discourage infidelity.

I am not so naïve as to believe that healthy young adults don’t have sex out of marriage. But anything that at least makes them consider the importance of it is of value. Even if using birth control, it is a good dictum to not have sex with someone one wouldn’t marry or have kids with, because of the powerful emotional effects of sex. The Old Testament looks on virginity as a property issue, not a moral issue. But the New Testament specifically condemns any sex outside of marriage. It may not be enough to prevent non-marital sex, but if it at least gives pause, it is of value.

Though they may generally be taken with less seriousness than when originally written, the biblical exhortations on marriage provide some pretty good guidance on what is necessary to successful marriage. And they are not sexist garbage either. It is becoming clearer, despite feminist attempts to ideologically dictate study and results, that there are fundamental differences between men and women besides anatomy. Much of the biblical writings take that into account. If they are not taken as absolutes, they can be of great value in providing a basis for thought and action.

On Intelligent Design arguments:

I am currently reading, “The Right Questions,” by Phillip E. Johnson. Mr. Johnson is a lawyer who has become an advocate for the presentation of ID. So far I would say that his comments on the culture surrounding evolution theory are fairly accurate. I think he misrepresents scientific findings and their interpretations, vastly oversimplifying and inaccurately stating them. The one thing he has definitely zeroed in on is the failure of Naturalism and Scientism to provide fundamental premises or normative judgments within the system. As a traditional Christian, he considers the normative premises to come from God, and then also argues that the universe was created by God. He works hard with what I consider inappropriate analogy to reinterpret the meaning of findings such as the DNA code as evidence of a designer. And to be blunt about it, despite the disingenuousness of ID supporters, and intelligent designer is simply a synonym for God.

However, I consider his desire to open discussion between evolutionists and ID advocates of value. I know of weaknesses in Evolution Theory, and it would do well to have them discussed, just as a proper discussion of ID is good. However, my impression is that both sides tend to talk past each other.

We are back home from the wedding, which was very good. But from all the sleep deprivation and emotional ups and downs over the weekend and the preceding week, my mind is nothing but Silly Putty (How many are old enough to remember it?). Continue to visit my co-bloggers. I should be back in commission tomorrow.

are totally family-consuming. For the last 36 hours there has been nothing done in our family that does not pertain to my nieces wedding tomorrow afternoon. My wife and daughter needed new outfits, my oldest son and I needed additional clothes, we had to arrange for the care a feeding of the dogs, while we were gone, "et cetera, et cetera, et cetera."

So maybe sometime Sunday I can get back to some blogging. In the meantime try some links to the right. Just for fun start at the bottom and work up.

I finally decided to have a constant title for my religious post that I try to write on Sunday, though it is more frequently posted later in the week, such as today. By calling it Sunday Notes, the heading is more in keeping with the nature of it, rather than a specific subject title each week.

God will provide:

This phrase was used by a young man who needs to raise $26K to go on a religious internship to Turkey. It was in response to my comment that it was a lot of money. There are those who would consider his faith admirable, that he believes that God will somehow cause him to have the $26K that he needs. He has no plan to actively pursue acquiring the money. In thinking about this, I realized that many people have a vision of God that is akin to the Genie in the Bottle. They think that God can provide any wish of theirs if He chooses to, sort of a perpetual “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE ” card.

There is no consideration that God may have to play by the same rules of nature as we do, or in the case of those who believe in an omnipotent God, chooses not to violate the laws of nature.

I feel sorry for the young man, because he has been led to believe that miracles are an everyday possibility. When he finally realizes that God won’t miraculously provide the $26K, the shock will be horrible. It will definitely cause a major case of self-doubt, since he believed he was called and then God didn’t give him what he needed to follow the call. He will question whether he was called, whether there is a God, or worse yet, come to believe he was unworthy and totally destroy his self-esteem.

My view is much more akin to “The Lord helps them that helps themselves.” Actually I take it further, God will only provide help to the extent he can give us comfort and suggest or make us aware of alternatives. [In my theology, God only works through people. He cannot violate the laws of nature.] The work of choosing and doing is up to us. Otherwise, free will in the religious sense is meaningless verbiage.

We will all meet in Heaven:

I attended another funeral this week. One of the big comforts offered the family was that they would eventually all meet in Heaven again, since they all professed Jesus as their Savior. So what if one or more of them had not accepted Jesus as their Savior? Sorry about your luck?

This is what I consider one of the uglier sides of the standard versions of Christianity, the double-edged promise of Heaven, IF you believe a certain way. I am a subscriber to forgiveness through God’s Grace. I am not a subscriber to the belief that the only way to obtain that grace is to believe in Jesus as ones Savior, through his death as a sacrifice. Though it is through grace and not works that we are brought to Heaven, to require a belief in Jesus as the Savior is to condemn many good people to Hell. It is so exclusionary, that I cannot reconcile it with a concept of a loving, forgiving God.

The nature of Heaven:

The vision of Heaven presented at the funeral this week was one of a big family reunion—everyone sitting around swapping stories and talking about things that mattered to them. Other visions I have heard over the years include having a robe, angel wings, and a harp, spending all ones time worshipping God, face to face, an entire hierarchy of angels, and a set of entrance gates made of pearl staffed by St. Peter.

I really don’t think its anything like that. All those visions are based on what someone thought the perfect life would be. Suppose that like my concept of God, Heaven isn’t perfect? Suppose it is an analogue of our current world? That all the souls that go to Heaven have work to do? That God is more a CEO than an object of worship? That we will all meet in Heaven, but on our own time, not during working hours?

Why is it, when we speculate without data, we tend to go into a mode of wishful thinking rather than true speculation based on reason?

My friend, the AnalPhilosopher, has posted some comments on anonymity in blogging. Read and understand--there will be a test.....of your personal moral convictions.

Dennis has done an excellent job of wrapping up our discussion on longevity. If you haven't read it yet, please do so.