Bill's Comments

This was too much fun, I couldn't quit at five.

Pick five of these and complete them:

If I could be a musician...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a justice on any court in the world...
If I could be a world famous blogger...
If I could be married to any current world politician...
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be an actor...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be an agent...

If I could be a farmer...I would follow Smallholder's example and raise livestock humanely, and grow crops in an ecologically sound manner. I would create food that was as healthy as possible for people to eat, because it came from healthy livestock and plants.

If I could be a missionary...I would preach a God of love and forgiveness. One that was more concerned with a right spirit than a defined behavior or exact belief. I would preach that helping others to help themselves is more virtuous than simply giving money or things. I would preach that money is not a substitute for service which requires time and energy.

If I could be an actor...I would portray men of strength and character, that face the unknown bravely. Such as the Mayor in The Moon is Down who did not try to dissuade his fellow citizens from resistance though he knew he would die as a consequence.

If I could be a writer...I would write novels of the struggle of right to succeed in the secular/relativist world of today. Novels that would show the triumph and worth of absolute values. The characters would be believable as so-called common men and women doing what is right and thereby becoming uncommon and heroic.

If I could be an innkeeper...My inn would be known for comfort and ease, not frills and magnificence. It would be subdued on the outside, set in a grove of trees. It would have a well-stocked bar, and an excellent restaurant, known for well-prepared, but not exotic food. The lounge would be condusive to quiet conversation, reading and writing. Children would either not be allowed or else be required to be mannerly and quiet. The rooms would have a desk for those that had to work, and comfortable chairs and ottomans for private relaxation. My ideal would be to adapt much of the British club to an American format.

I tag these three: Steve, Norm, and Mike.

Craig at North Coast Online has tagged me with this:

Pick five of these and complete them:

If I could be a musician...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a justice on any court in the world...
If I could be a world famous blogger...
If I could be married to any current world politician...
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be an actor...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be an agent...


If I could be a musician...My goal would be to become either the music director of a symphony, or the choir director and music director of a large church. Though I would not close my mind to modern works, there would be an emphasis on the accessible classic and romantic works. I would have an over-arching theme of music as a noble thing, from the early chants to the latest discordss. I would work to make my patrons understand music. Every year would be a review of the history of music, starting from the classic period and working back and then working forward. I would produce program notes designed to explain the purpose of the music not just its history. Not all modern music is good, but some good modern music requires work to appreciate and enjoy. I would lead my audience through that effort.

If I could be a chef...I would have my own restaurant that would be known for a quiet, comfortable atmosphere, and high quality of food. The market I would aim for is the middle class who have good taste but relatively modest means. The food would be cooked with the greatest of precision, but not of the most expensive ingredients. Many of the items would appear on any chain restaurant menu, but their preparation and presentation would be far superior to the chain restaurant. The staff would be courteous and well-mannered, and cell phones would be forbidden. Children would be expected to be well-behaved and quiet, and it would be made known up-front that persons could be expected to be asked to leave if bothering other customers.

If I could be a professor...I would expect my students to be able to write clear, accurate papers, and to be able to reason properly from premises and data. I would accept any position on an issue as long as it is well-reasoned from acceptable premises. A major project for the class would be to argue both sides of the evolution/intelligent design debate. There would also be a major term paper on a topic of the student's chosing from a broad range of topics. Every student would have to deliver their paper to the class and accept questions. I would give tests that are all but impossible if the student tries to memorize data, but easy if they understand principles. I would be in hot water with the rest of the faculty and the administration for demanding real work to real standards. I would never get tenure.

If I could be a scientist...[Though not an active researcher, I still consider my self a scientist. It is properly a way of life, not a vocation.] I would return to the biochemistry I left, and research the biochemistry of soft corals and evolutionary chemistry, in particular pre-biotic chemistry.

If I could be a painter...I would continue the themes I tried to expound in my earlier statuary--the dignity and excellence of being human and the joy of living. I am a Romantic by nature. I believe in the greatness of mankind. My paintings would express that. My subjects would be both conventional and unconventional--women in all roles and men in all roles. The focus would be on individuals not groups.

I tag these three: Smallholder, Peg, and Ally.

Warning: This was in all, a most interesting exercise. I may pick five others and write on them and tag three more of my co-bloggers.

The best statement to date I have read on traditional vs modern liturgical practice is here. The comments are also interesting.

Amazing...but not surprising. Our US Senate has cut a deal where the losers win and the winners lose. What it boils down to is the Republicans don't want to lose their opportunity to filibuster when the Democrats are in power. So they sacrifice judicial appointees to their political issues.

I thought that when a filibuster went on, it was one person speaking non-stop. I gather that isn't the way anymore. Now it can go on forever, in installments.

Shakespeare was wrong, first we shoot all the politicians.

....the republic was lost.

What military aircraft are you? EA-6B Prowler You are an EA-6B. You are sinister, preferring not to get into confrontations, but extract revenge through mind games and technological interference. You also love to make noise and couldn't care less about pollution.

Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

....look out, don't mess with us. We will get you, one way or another.

Today an essay in the WSJ Opinion Journal very clearly and precisely showed what is occurring in this country with respect to judicial activism. The author also presented a solution. Here are some quotes:

The essential irrelevance of the Constitution to contemporary constitutional law should be clear enough from the fact that the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law; and nearly all of them purport to be based on a single constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment--in fact, on only four words in one sentence of the Amendment, "due process" and "equal protection." The 14th Amendment has to a large extent become a second constitution, replacing the original.

...The problem is that the Supreme Court justices have made the due process and equal protection clauses empty vessels into which they can pour any meaning. This converts the clauses into simple transferences of policy-making power from elected legislators to the justices, authorizing a court majority to remove any policy issue from the ordinary political process and assign it to themselves for decision. This fundamentally changes the system of government created by the Constitution

...

Plato argued for government by philosopher-kings, but who could argue for a system of government by lawyer-kings? No one can argue openly that leaving the final decision on issues of basic social policy to majority vote of nine lawyers--unelected and life-tenured, making policy decisions for the nation as a whole from Washington, D.C.--is an improvement on the democratic federalist system created by the Constitution. Yet that is the form of government we now have.

The claim that the court's rulings of unconstitutionality are mandates of the Constitution, or anything more than policy preferences of a majority of the justices, is false. Rule by judges is in violation, not enforcement, of the Constitution. Ending it requires nothing more complex than insistence that the court's rulings of unconstitutionality should be based on the Constitution--which assigns "All legislative Power" to Congress--in fact as well as name.

What military aircraft are you? F-15 Eagle You are an F-15. Your record in combat is spotless; you've never been defeated. You possess good looks, but are not flashy about it. You prefer to let your reputation do the talking. You are fast, agile, and loud, but reaching the end of your stardom.

Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

Thanks to the Maximum Leader for the link.

I am sick and tired of any sympathy for Saddam Hussain. The bastard killed thousands of his fellow countrymen and women, and let his sons do the same. It is not our way to kill him on sight, and in the long run it may be better that he is humiliated and tried as the coward he is, but to be sensitive to his dignity is disgusting. He should consider himself extremely lucky to have been found by US troops and incarcerated in a US-controlled prison facility. I'll let your imagination consider his treatment if in an Iraqi-controlled facility.

.....where is the sympathy for the families of the hundreds of thousands of his victims?

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence." --Joseph Story

....of left/liberal/secular thought is exposed.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"It is not honorable to take mere legal advantage, when it happens to be contrary to justice." --Thomas Jefferson

....lawyers are not generally considered honorable. Winning, not justice, is the goal in today's courts.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies, by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities." --Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, Federalist No. 20

....remind you of something?

This wonderful quatrain comes from, Mike Gilleland. If you do not read Mike's blog you certainly should. Genuine scholarship and love of the classics are rare these days.

Freedom and Slavery
Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762):

Born to be slaves, our fathers freedom sought,
And with their blood the precious treasure bought;
We their mean offspring our own bondage plot,
And, born to freedom, for our chains we vote.

In response to this article, here are some comments:

This was a pretty even-handed presentation. I find it interesting that the ID folks did not attack the two weakest links in the evolution chain, from non-living chemicals to living organisms and from Precambrian primitive forms to Cambrian phyla. I think both have answers but currently those answers are weak and sketchy and readily subject to attack. Norm at Quantum Thought has jumped on the Cambrian phylogenetic explosion lately.

Because of the breadth of my science studies, I have yet to see an ID argument that is convincing. I always see selective isolation of examples, concepts out of context, abuse of statistics (I have answered at least one of those in detail lately) and distortion of findings.

I was reminded through some reading today or yesterday that one of my heroes, Richard Feynman, preferred to have unanswered questions than wrong answers. The ID crowd seems to prefer answers, right or wrong, to indeterminate positions. Proponents of ID can find almost an infinite number of specific examples where there are issues with evolution and hope that the cumulative weight will be convincing. However, they never seriously challenge the theory at a deeper level or provide one of their own that is testable.

I am for presenting ID as an example of the abuse of science, or the opposite of the scientific method. But then I am always ready for a big challenge. Few teachers have the pedagogic skills to present science in such a way, and even fewer have truly studied evolution enough to answer its critics. Hence, evolution has become a secular religion. It becomes based not on an understanding of its foundations but a faith that science always has the right answers. They forget the Third Reich, when science was subservient to the politics of persecution and was used to find the most efficient way to kill people and engaged in "experiments" that were simply the desire to desecrate the human body.

There is a holy war going on in our society, and it is being fought inadequately by the good. Just as the radical Muslims want to destroy all other religions simply because of their existence (and success) so the secularists wish to destroy religious belief and its insistence on an absolute code of morals. Most religious people either cannot believe they are under attack or else take an attitude that I can still practice my belief, they are unimportant. Unfortunately, the people who are aware are farther to the fringe, and so are not taken seriously. By the time the mid-stream religious believers wake up, it will be too late. However, the attempts of the ID people to "prove" or demonstrate God's existence fall flat every time. They must because one cannot prove a metaphysical concept with epistemological methods. At the same time, the secularists with their scientism cannot provide normative values from scientific data, only comparisons. This scares them, because they have no way of arguing one moral code as superior to another in absolute terms. I made a post based on a paper by Dallas Willard on this topic back in December or January.

This has become a debate between true believers, and as such will create much heat and little value. Except for the more egregious abuses of science, I prefer to let the ID crowd go their way. I have other things that are more important, such as a witness that there is a God who acts through the Holy Spirit, and doesn't require the subjugation of knowledge to belief in Him.

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Cultural Creative 69% Existentialist 63% Materialist 56% Idealist 44% Romanticist 44% Postmodernist 31% Fundamentalist 31% Modernist 13% What is Your World View? (corrected...hopefully) created with QuizFarm.com

This loyal minion thanks the Maximum Leader for the link.

Pentacost
Today was Pentacost Sunday, the day described in Acts 2:1-21, where the apostles and disciples spoke to a large diverse crowd in the individual languages of the people in the crowd. A proper study of this passage of scripture is not in my current plans, but some observations can be made.

It is very difficult to explain this bit of text. Taken literally, it does not make sense. There were 12 apostles, but over 15 different peoples were described. One apostle would have to produce 2 languages simultaneously. The closest thing in my experience to “tongues of fire” is lightning which is mostly fatal. We do not see clearly, with a close reading of the text, whether the apostles, only, or the apostles and disciples spoke in tongues.

Whatever actually happened, something did. Either as narrated or over a period of time, the disciples went from a group of men frightened for their lives to an aggressive evangelical group.

I will support the metaphorical meaning of this scripture: God’s message is for all the world, literally, and that all of us can be bearers of that word in thought, word, and deed.

My most sincere thanks and appreciation go to my friend Jim Carson and the Men’s Breakfast Group of our church for posing the scripture, the questions, and the willingness to listen to my explication, which might or might not be considered an exegesis of the text.

Speaking in tongues
The Pentacostal scripture mentions speaking in tongues and specifically defines it: every person hearing the message in his/her own tongue. There is another form of speaking in tongues called glossollalia (sp?), which is nonsense syllables, supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit. One of the members of our breakfast group made the following observation:

I went to a church that had speaking in tongues. The pastor asked at one point, if anyone wished to do so. No one did, and he gave a subtle nod to a member of the choir, who then spoke apparent gibberish for 20 seconds. The pastor then interpreted for 20 minutes.

My co-breakfast participant was too charitable to draw any conclusions. Being the person I am, I am not the least hesitant. Glossollalia is a con. First of all, the Holy Spirit does not come on any schedule. I can witness to that. Second, the Holy Spirit does not come at a pastor’s convenience. Third, I would bet a significant sum that whatever was mouthed would be given the same interpretation.

For those who are considered part of the Pentacostal group of denominations, that believe they can handle rattlesnakes safely, speak in tongues, drink poison safely, etc.--angels will protect fools. Their own ignorance and faith in their pastors’ interpretations make them fools. For the pastors who make their way preying on such, every one of their parishioners that are harmed by such preaching will be held to their account when they are judged. (Oh, yeah, surprise! I do believe in Judgment, but at the time we die not when some apocryphal event occurs.) For those who fear, almost all of humanity is good in general. There are only a minority that merit the status of evil and condemnation to Hell. Those of us who will get to heaven, may or may not meet with delays, but we will get to Heaven.

Purgatory
The concept of purgatory is a particularly Roman (and possibly Orthodox) Catholic idea. However, it has some appeal. Our real-world sense of justice doesn’t want the guy that was a real-world ass-hole to get to heaven as fast as a real-world saint. Applied as given, God’s grace does exactly that—you go to Heaven now, or you go to Hell now. We as humans are not particularly forgiving, nor given the realities of our world should we be. But Jesus preached a gospel of immediate forgiveness, without consideration of the gravity of the sin (or to quote that most excellent, practical, non-theoretical theologian, my wife—no rate-a-sin.)

I think the RC Church has institutionalized the idea a bit much, but if we have remorse for our sins, and don’t get the chance to fully work it out on Earth, there needs to be an in between place, at least in our concepts, that allows for the final remorse and penance. If such a place were to exist, there would not be the opportunity to pray a soul out of purgatory. The only remission of God’s judgment of time in Purgatory would be a genuine forgiveness by the victim(s). Such an act of virtue would remit the sentence, to the degree that it applied to those particular victims.

Blessing
One of the practices of mainline Protestant churches, at least the Episcopal and Lutheran branches, is the blessing of inanimate objects as well as persons. In preparation for this particular note, I again asked that wonderful, down-to-earth theologian, my wife, what she considers blessing things as. She said. “It is a nice ritual, and it makes us feel good.” This was a most refreshing insight on ritual. She did further explain that it was a way to remind us of from where everything comes—God.

At this point, my wife and I part company. For the regular readers of this blog, you are well aware that I don’t consider God the creator of the universe. For newer readers, you now are forewarned—I am a heretic. Be that as it may, unless we take the idea of blessing to be in two different flavors, we are guilty of believing in magic [see last week’s post on belief and magic]. What my wife’s comment in combination with my own approach indicates, is that blessing applies in two different ways, depending on whether the object is a thing or a person.

When one blesses an object, the only approach that can be taken without invoking magic is that the object does not change, but our relationship to it does. Having been blessed the object now assumes an important part in our life. It now requires the focus of energy from us to fulfill our personal meaning ascribe to it, or to fulfill our perceived purpose for it. The object itself does not change. It acquires no different properties from being blessed.

If we ask that a person be blessed, however, we are asking something entirely different. As I have said before, God works through people. Asking God’s blessing on a person is to ask that He pay special attention to that person, that He assist their choices, open their eyes to different opportunities, enable them to make decisions with greater clarity and confidence. We may in effect also be asking that they see their world differently, in a more positive light. In so doing, their lives may change for the better—they will be blessed. But there is no guarantee. A person so filled with their own importance and self-satisfaction will not receive the gentle message being directed, and so will not be blessed.

We may all be blessed, repeatedly. It only requires an inner humbleness and quietness.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
One of the loudest criticisms of evolution leveled by the ID supporters is the demand for transition forms. The whole concept of transition means it was temporary. We find millions of examples of the successful varieties and few if any of the transitions. Evolution can work fast, and in a few thousand years produce new forms leaving few or no transitions along the way as they were exactly that--transitions. To expect a few members of a transition that may have occurred over a few thousand years to be readily found in a fossil record that covers hundreds of millions of years is unreasonable.

Evolution as a theory is exactly that, a theory, and subject to continual revision and study. The theory of evolution is not perfect. It has its problems, just as ID has problems, especially in the way statistics is abused and the way many findings of science are taken from context. There are many controversies among the various groups studying evolution, with respect to validity of methodology, and interpretation of evidence. This is standard, healthy science. It does not mean the main concepts are invalid.

Lack of absolute proof does not constitute proof of falsity.

As a theist, I consider the attempts of ID to "prove" or demonstrate the existence of a designer, i.e. God to be corrupting for both science and religion. Science is a method of studying the world, thinking about the data, and organizing it. It is epistemological in nature. Religion and religious belief are metaphysical concepts and ideas about the nature of reality and man's relationship to it. One cannot use epistemology to prove or disprove metaphysics, unless the metaphysics makes a testable prediction. This is the error the Naturalists have made, that epistemology can substitute for metaphysics, that somehow facts are normative. Conversely, one cannot use metaphysics to determine the validity of fact. It may tell us how to use the facts, and may provide normative guides for their use, but it cannot invalidate them.

Those who believe in God's creating everything by divine edict, may well use ID to support their belief. But it is almost impossible to build a convincing case without presupposing the designer to begin with, thus creating a circular argument. The things that I use to support my belief in God are subjective and came after the belief. I chose to believe and then found things that were due to God's activity in my life.

When one takes the Bible literally instead of metaphorically, there is an immediate conflict with science and even known history. When one tries to make facts normative there is an immediate conflict with morals and values. Neither stand is necessary. My belief in God requires neither the abrogation of my scientific knowledge and process nor does it demand that my science "prove" my belief.

Many if not most supposed believers in evolution, do not understand it, and accept it unthinkingly. I will make the claim that from years of study I do understand it, but do not accept every statement as absolute.

The unthinking have made evolution into a form of religious belief, and are as zealous in their blind defense as those who accept their standard religious beliefs unthinkingly and refuse to listen to questioning.

The last week has been hectic and the reminder of this one promises to be as well.

Last weekend our daughter (in the exact sense she calls us her surrogate parents, but emotionally she is ours) graduated from college with a Bachelor of Arts in Theater cum laude with University Honors. Her major was technical theater, not performance. Her career goal is stage management. She does that very well and also does great set design. She is competent with shop tools, including MIG welders (a special source of pride for me, given my love of welding and fire). On top of that she is brilliant and beautiful. (That's not just the proud papa, my counselor has met her, and she said my daughter is incredibly beautiful). I am unbelievably proud of her, as I am of all my kids.

In addition to graduating she had to move out of her apartment by Sunday afternoon, and we had a party for her at my in-laws that day as well. My middle son, her brother, flew in for the weekend as well and we picked him up, got his car registered, and then back to the airport on Monday. Now I have 22 display easels to get built by Friday. Fortunately the stock prep is done on them.

Maybe by next week I can return to blogging on a more regular basis.

Wicked Thoughts has published The Bill of Non-Rights, which I have on the wall of my office but had lost the e-form of it. I of course made copy. Go read it.

Karl, the Right Wing TechnoPagan, has a good post that more fully counters some of the claims of the anti-evolution crowd. I strongly recommend reading it.

Dennis Mangan has posted an excerpt from the Telegraph concerning the refusal of the top two primary science journals in the world to publish contradictions to global warming.

....of the corruption in science, and in particular the National Academy of Sciences, the publisher of Science, and the journal Nature from Great Britain.

From The Weekly Standard we have this review of the new National Academy of Sciences Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

...The purported purpose of Guidelines is to create voluntary ethical protocols to govern human embryonic stem cell and therapeutic cloning research-- "to assure the public that such research is being conducted in an ethical manner." Setting aside for the moment whether human cloning and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) can ever be ethical--a matter that remains heatedly controversial--the NAS Guidelines clearly don't deliver the goods.

...

With most polls now friendly to ESCR, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research completely drops the leftover-IVF-embryos-only pretense. Indeed, in a major expansion of policy that was either ignored or dramatically downplayed in media reports and editorials about the guidelines, the NAS explicitly opens the door to using embryos "made specifically for research" both through fertilization and nuclear transfer cloning.

This is big news: The most respected science organization in the country is now formally on record as supporting the creation of new human lives explicitly as harvestable and, perhaps, patentable commodities.

...

The NAS's position on human cloning and embryonic stem cell research can best be described as "anything goes in slow motion." Most of what can be done today, the NAS recommends be permitted today, while that which can't be done, the NAS agrees to prohibit "at this time." But these guidelines are intended to be ephemeral. When today's permitted research expands the capacities of the biotechnological enterprise tomorrow, we can expect the NAS's suggested "ethical guidelines" to "mature." Thus through a cynical process of policy creep the NAS intends to take us down that long and winding road that leads from embryonic stem cell research, to human cloning, to whatever human biotechnological research scientists decide they want to do next.

.....in a few years there won't be any scientists capable of this. [see preceding post]

When philosophy and religion are ignored for scientism and secularism, this is the result--no standards, no boundaries, no respect for life--pure scientific egotism.

From The Weekly Standard comes this horror story.

[There are several paragraphs of examples of the dreck passing as science.]

If it's the states that impose multiculturalism, however, they're only doing the bidding of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1995, the academy published the National Science Education Standards, which, according to academy president Bruce Alberts, "represent the best thinking . . . about what is best for our nation's students." The standards (which explicitly place religion on a par with "myth and superstition") counsel school boards to modify "assessments" for students with "limited English proficiency" by, for example, raising their scores. They tell teachers to be "sensitive" to students who are "economically deprived, female, have disabilities, or [come] from populations underrepresented in the sciences." Teachers should especially encourage "women and girls, students of color and students with disabilities."

...

A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001 found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85 percent of the students in the country. One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States. Individual scientists draft segments of these books, but reviewing the final product is sometimes left to multicultural committees who have no expertise in science.

"Thousands of teachers are saddled with error-filled physical science textbooks," wrote John Hubisz, a physics professor at North Carolina State University at Raleigh and the author of the report. "Political correctness is often more important than scientific accuracy. Middle-school text publishers now employ more people to censor books than they do to check facts."

...

Members of the scientific elite are occasionally heard blaming religion for the sorry state of science education. But it isn't priests, rabbis, or mullahs who write the textbooks that misrepresent evolution, condescend to disadvantaged groups, misstate key concepts of physics, show the equator running through the United States, and come close to excising white males from the history of science. Young Americans need to learn science, and they need to distinguish it clearly from Algonquin myth.

....and found to be worse than I thought. It is not just poorly taught, wrong things are taught. My prediction of the eclipse of American science in 10-25 years stands.

Oh yes, would you want your doctor to be trained to these standards?

This inside look at the terrorists that inhabited Fallujah provides a very clear view from someone ostensibly on their side of what the so-called insurgency consists.

The pandering of the left/liberals, their squeamishness with the realities of war, and refusal to see the nature of what we are fighting demands that their noses get rubbed in this until they either wake up or choke on it.

Thanks as always to the Baron and Dymphna for their continuous publishing of the reality of Islam.

Study: Only 3 Percent of Americans Live Healthy Lifestyle
By LiveScience Staff

...only 3 percent of Americans are living the healthy life, according to a new study.

The research examined data from surveys on 153,000 adults in all 50 states. Specifically they looked at whether the subjects were eating five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day and getting regular physical activity.

While many of the people did well in one or more category, only three percent met the basic requirements of all four. The details:

76 percent didn't smoke
40 percent maintained a healthy weight (these tended to be younger and better educated)
23 percent ate five or more fruits and vegetables a day
22 percent got at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity at least five times a week

No matter what we do it will never be good enough for some people.

Thanks to Live Science for the article.

From New Scientist, this article is very troubling.

Voters empowered by internet swap shop
10:30 30 April 2005
Special Report from New Scientist Print Edition
Celeste Biever

(UK)"EVERY time I vote Labour, I know I am voting for someone who is going to lose," says Martin Allison, a teacher from Guildford, Surrey, where the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties vie for power, but Labour has hardly any support. So in the UK's general election on 5 May, he and his wife Christine will do something different - they will swap their votes on the internet.

"It's an ingenious way of getting better value for your vote," says Essex teacher Jason Buckley, who set up the anti-Conservative www.tacticalvoter.net, one of several vote-swapping websites, before the 2001 general election. This online political matchmaking has its roots in the US. But ironically, while it has failed to make much of an impression there, it has already had an impact in British elections and could well do again next week.

...

Vote-swapping sites are meant to answer the frustration created by the "first past the post" electoral system used in UK general elections and US presidential elections. Votes cast for a losing candidate have no further influence once the winner in a state or constituency is announced. "Many people are stuck in a position of not being able to cast a meaningful vote," Rob Richie, director of the Center for Voting and Democracy in Washington DC, told New Scientist.

...

Within days so-called "Nader trader" websites had sprung up, offering to pair Nader supporters in close Bush-Gore states with Gore supporters in landslide states. Everyone knew that Nader could not win, but trading meant that his supporters could register their ballot without posing a risk to Gore. "Vote swapping is a form of do-it-yourself proportional representation," says Stephen Coleman, an expert on e-democracy at the Oxford Internet Institute. "It is a public strategy to outwit the voting system."

But by 31 October, Bill Jones, who was then California's secretary of state, obtained a court injunction to close the sites down. He likened vote-swapping to selling a vote, which is illegal.

...

Whether vote-swapping is revived in the US, though, will depend on a legal challenge to the California judgement by the American Civil Liberties Union, based in New York. If successful, vote-swapping could be particularly important in primary elections, where there are almost always more than two candidates.

.....only about winning and being on the winning side. This is more sloppy thinking designed to promote a particular agenda, not advance democratic forms of government.

There is no such thing as a meaningless vote, merely people who are sore losers.
This is the same thing as importing voters to a state only via technology. In effect, a non-citizen of a state is voting in the state.

From TCS, a new article on recent publications by Jim Hansen, the man who testified to Congress that a global warming disaster was in the making, has this exerpt:

Here's what Hansen wrote in 2003 in the Journal Natural Science.

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate…scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.

(The logical parsing of that paragraph was that it was OK for scientists to lie to gain policies they wanted, and that they weren't being objective).

....were created by corrupt science.

My friend <Mike Gilleland has posted his disappointment with clerical activism. He sees it as I do, but expresses it much better. He also makes an excellent point about politicians trying the reverse.

....render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, not that which is God's.

Today in Quantum Thought Norm was taking Richard Dawkins new book to task. Norm is a staunch defender of Intelligent Design theory. However, this defense is wrong.

The odds of arriving at the same 64:21 (64 codons:21 amino acids) mapping twice by chance are less than one in a million million million million million. Yet the genetic code is in fact identical in all animals, plants and bacteria that have ever been looked at. These odds aren't just difficult, they are impossible. A fact attested to and readily accepted by the worlds mathematicians and computerized probability studies.

So it is reasonable to use probability to indicate that the code could not have arisen twice, but there is no discussion of the probability of the code arising by chance even once. A curious omission! If one tried to counter with such a question, Dawkins would predictably fall back on the assumption of naturalism, that since we know only natural processes are available for the origin of anything, the genetic code must have somehow beaten the odds. I would like to see Dawkins demonstrate such a concept at Vegas. Should be interesting don't you think? Sort of like how you would have to hit "OO" on the roulette wheel a billion billion times in a row. Sure...no problem...I can see it...can you?

The error here is in this statement:

"there is no discussion of the probability of the code arising by chance even once."

Norm has made the implicit assumption that the existing code is the only possible code. That is not correct, in that it is the one that happens to be of all the many possible codes. The odds change drastically downward if one does not specify a particular result. For this particular genetic code the odds are 1:0 since it is the one existing. For all other codes they are 0:1 since they don't exist. That is the difference in applying statistics to individuals vs. collections.

It is also possible that 64:21 is not a magic number. 64 is the number of possible combinations of four items taken three at a time where order counts. 21 is the number of natural amino acids. To my way of thinking, it is entirely possible that originally there was no code and that it migrated through many permutations, during the first several billion years, until selection finally found something usable and efficient. That was the point at which we then get the Cambrian explosion, because there was finally a means by which diversity could occur and be preserved.

Problems with education of children are further advanced in Great Britain than here. Roger Scrutton's perspective on them and their relationship to our issues is very enlightening as is the first comment. A must read for all of us that care about education.

Thanks to the Maverick Philosopher for the link.

We've regimented this new generation, controlling their every move -- from soccer practices to music lessons to the kind of algebra they take as ninth graders. Maybe our kids haven't yet learned to think for themselves.

We've sat by idly, as schools have eliminated civics education. Today, only 29 percent of our high schools offer some kind of civics or government curriculum, according to the Institute for Civic Education.

We've been quiet as schools have silenced student media, dismissing youth voices as a nuisance. Parents have been silent as principals operate their high schools as personal dictatorships, not the democracies that would prepare their students to understand their rights as future citizens.

....in some of my criticism of modern education. Thanks to the AnalPhilosopher for the link to this article.

Blessing and Magic
A week ago was Rogation Sunday. On that day our church blesses seeds, water, and soil, and then passes a packet of seeds and a small bag of the blessed soil to each family in the congregation. As I was watching this it struck me that one must be even more careful than with prayer candles how this is approached. Approached in the wrong way, it is another form of magic as opposed to religion.

First, here is description of what occurred. The Pastor held up a jar of seeds and asked for God’s blessing on the seeds that they may be fertile. He then held up a jar of water and asked for God’s blessing on the water, and finally he held up some soil and asked for God’s blessing on the soil that it would be fertile. Then a member of each family in the congregation came up and received a packet of seeds from a basket that had been on the floor near the altar, and some soil from a large pot of soil that was also on the floor near the altar.

Here is where the problems arise, what do people believe occurs when something is blessed?

If I pray that someone be blessed by God, I am asking that God, or His representative, pay some extra attention to the person and provide some gentle guidance into the best possible paths among her/his choices and the choices of those that interact with him/her. This is consistent with my belief that God works only through people.

When others ask for God’s blessing on persons, they may well have, and most likely do have, a concept of God actually causing things to be different than they might otherwise be by direct action in making things change from their original paths of existence, e.g., by causing others to change their behaviors. They may even believe that God will cause physical objects to change their courses in order to provide a blessing.

Here is where I see the problem occurring, and a religious practice becomes a form of magic.

Magic is the attempt to obtain a physical result in the world through the use of non-physical means, e.g., incantations, verbal formulas, ritualistic actions. One of the more sensational examples of magic is voodoo dolls. A doll representing a specific person is subjected to destructive actions in the hope that the same will occur to the person being represented. Voodoo dolls are supposed to work by two principles, similarity and contagion. The principle of similarity is supposed to work because the magical object is similar to the represented object. The principle of contagion is supposed to work by creating a link between the object and the subject via some part of the subject being incorporated into the magical object, e.g. hair, fingernail, skin, saliva, etc, in the case of voodoo dolls.

To see how this works let us take the most extreme possible example from Rogation Sunday. Someone takes the seeds and the soil home, puts the soil in their garden, and plants the seeds. They now consider all the soil in their garden blessed, and the seeds they planted to provide a particularly special plant. Since generally, we pass out vegetable seeds on Rogation Sunday, they may also expect the vegetables to confer special blessings to them when eaten.

Underlying this example is the idea that God controls every detail, every moment, and if one asks, He will change the rules to provide special treatment. However, if we look at the process we see the use of magical belief. The particular seeds the person sowed, and the package of dirt were not directly part of the specific seeds and dirt that was held during the blessings. Thus to believe they were also blessed, where the pastor is considered the channel for the blessing, is to engage in magic by similarity—seeds to seeds, soil to soil. The soil to soil may be more potent a connection because the soil used in the blessing may have come from the same batch of soil in the pot at the altar. Considering the soil of the garden blessed from adding blessed soil is magic by contagion in a very direct sense. Blessing water is magic by similarity.

But supposes the person obtains superior results that year, is it not proof or demonstration that the blessing worked? Not in the way believed. The belief in the blessing most likely altered behavior so that special care was taken of the garden, leading to a better result. Or it simply was one of the best years for gardening, weather-wise, and it was a chance happening. Suppose the seeds died and the garden was blasted, does that mean that God withdrew His blessing and condemned the person? To be consistent in belief it would. But this gets into the questions surrounding theodicy and its problems, which I have said quite a bit on at other times.

Most believers, to one degree or another, believe all or a part of what I just described. So how does one avoid treating this as a form of magic?—by considering the blessing to be upon us as stewards of the seeds, soil, and water. These are powerful symbols of the overall fecundity of the earth, reminders of our dependence on it for life. To receive them is to acknowledge our desire to grow and care for plants and the earth and the life it supports. It is from becoming agricultural that humans developed the time to create culture. And it is now agricultural practices that support most of humanity; hunter-gatherers are a tiny minority of all humans. To recognize and pray for our crops, land and water, is appropriate as long as we consider it a reaffirmation of our responsibility and not some external boost that will make it happen despite ourselves.

Book of Revelations and the money to be made
LaHaye and Jenkins are not the first to make money off the Book of Revelations, and the new TV show will not be the last. This apocalyptic vision, which has been subject to so much discussion and interpretation, and upon which whole denominations have been built, for some reason, resonates in large numbers of people. It is taken literally and then attempts are made to apply it to current events. I think it is because many of the symbols can be generalized to include much of the world at any time. Once the partial similarity is found, then the rest is forced into the comparisons. As long as one believes one is in the saved, or can be brought into the saved, it becomes a comforting vision of the bad guys finally getting theirs. Reinforcement of such beliefs is then a natural to be exploited for money, just as MTV exploits teenage desire to rebel.

This was sent to me this weekend. I remember this well, as I started having to take my shoes off when going through airline security after this. This still remains one of the best statements of Freedom vs terrorism I have ever read. If I posted it in the past, it is worth posting again.

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and
tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?
Didn't think so.
Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.

Ruling by Judge William Young US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I ought not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below, a stinging condemnation of Reid in particular and terrorists in general:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other.

That's 80 years. On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist coconspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, where we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist...And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal.

You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.