Lunatic, Liar, Lousy Scientist, or Politician

Modern Christians fall in one of the following categories:

Lunatic: Believes in the bible literally.

Liar: Claims 100% belief but does not practice the dictates of the text.

Lousy Scientist: Picks and chooses the "good" stuff and admits that there is no logical necessity to accept the bible as genuine, but falls short of coming to the conclusions that the evidence supports.

Politician: Is aware of their true feelings, doubts, or downright disbelief but does not act on it out of fear of social pressure.

Projections Anyone "Golden Compass"

The religious right isn't upset about thinly veiled religious propaganda that passes as children's fiction, but forbid that there be a talented author who shows a humanistic perspective.

This is easy to solve. All these books are portrayed as fantasy. The armoured polar bears aren't intended to be taken literally so perhaps neither is the supposed mockery made of the creator.

If you and your family are convinced by an older book than this then you'll see Pullman's book as exactly that--a fictional fantasy.

I'm not a huge fan of fiction or fantasy writing, probably some deficiency on my part, but for the last few years, when asked what the last piece of fiction I read was, I answered "the bible". Then I read "Hannibal Rising" so I suppose I need to go back to good ol' book of John . . ...

Happy Holidays (MLK Day)

Happy MLK Jr. Day. In the spirit of the holidays I'd like to remind myself of the overwhelming benefits of Martin Luther King Jr's suprisingly secular philosophy. He did not rely on divine intervention, postpone the hope for improvement to the hereafter, nor discriminate on the basis of religion. His hope for turning our world neighborhood into a brotherhood based on nothing more than shared humanity and compassion is inspiring.

He spoke of service and everyone's capacity to serve not a god directly but rather their fellow humans. In a classic paradigm shift he encouraged those who viewed the parable of the good Samaritan as an admonishment against doing nothing for fear of punishment into a completely humanistic call to action. The question is not "If I do not help this man what will happen to me; it is rather if I do not help this man what will happen to him?"

http://www.thekingcenter.org/

Wollemi Pine casts doubt on evolution?

A living tree which seems to be, or resemble, a member of a species of tree which was last seen in the fossil record about 150 million years ago exists in a small population in Australia.

Some creationists see this as evidence for creationism and a fact that casts serious doubt on the theory of evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/tree.asp).

Let's assume that the trees found (approximately 38 examples) are in fact living representatives of the exact species previously thought to be extinct for 150 million years. Creationists ask us to explain 1 ) why none have been found in intervening strata of fossils and 2) why these trees have not "evolved" in 150 million years?

Since their hypothesis is that modern formed human remains should be found in most strata I would ask why their are no confirmed human remains found existing 150 Million years ago (or much less as a young earth proponents would argue) with these trees and other animals. Their answer might rely on "the flood" or if they are more logical they might say the human population was small then, since we started from just 2 humans, and therefore we have not searched enough of the fossil record to find them. The same argument holds, more convincingly, for the Wollemi Pine. If only 39 exist today it's coverage over the globe, and accordingly it's representation in the fossil record, would have diminished over time. The evolutionist would answer that if these are in fact the same trees thought to be extinct 150 million years then we should find fossil records of them in intervening strata near the only known living specimens and then we could work our way back through time to tell when they became so localized. In brief answer to 1) We haven't found them for 150 million years because the population dwindled and we haven't searched absolutely every layer of earth, perhaps if all the creationists started digging we could get a portion of the earth catalogued now.

In answer to question 2) it is a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution to say that "everything evolves all the time." The existence of any organism in it's apparently "unevolved" form for a period of time is merely a testament to the versatility of the last adapted form.

The theory of evolution admits the existence of the Wollemi pine as a living thing even while accepting the accuracy of the dating methods which show it absent of the known fossil record for 150 million years.

Intelligent Design

Here are a few questions for the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) as a science.

ID proponents, at least some of them, agree that life has changed or evolved over the course of the planet's history, however some of the complex structures which are so clearly required for organisms to function as they do are "irreducibly complex" i.e. any minor alteration would negate the main benefit of the organ or system.

Is it the case that more complex structures can evolve from less complex?
Is it the case that any structure can be labeled as "irreducibly complex" or "not irreducibly complex"?

intelligent Design implicitly posits the existence of a designer, is this designer "irreducibly complex"?

QLink

The success of QLink, the EMF equalizing pendant being pushed to golfers, may be proof that we're a gullible population.

One testimonial on the QLink infomercial states, loosely "you'll never reach your full potential unless you get one [QLink] and hang it around your neck" is this not snake oil sales?

3-2-1: Cooperation

For those of us who grew up with "3-2-1: Contact" and it's theme song "Contact, it's the reason--it's the answer, it's why everything happens--contact" the entirety of the physical processes of our world were summed up by this catchy song. When I was six years old this seemed to make sense even though I knew something other than "contact" per se was responsible for the television signal that brought the show to my living room.

In trying to explain values to a community that overwhelmingly equates morals with mainstream religion I believe that "cooperation" can be that simplifying term for the society of six year olds who need to learn how, and why, to respect others. Religions commit the fallacy of appeal to false authority and they rely on indoctrination and fear for their continued existence. Shouldn't values and morals be based on something simpler and universal to human experience?

As individuals humans are a thin-skinned, practically toothless, and weak species with only a couple of redeeming qualities that have maintained our place on the planet versus the faster, stronger, fiercer species that would win almost any one-on-one battle. Our claim to fame is the ability to learn, share knowledge, and COOPERATE. Without these traits we are very ineffective.

Our survival relies on society. To take care of ourselves we must foster and protect a whole network of others. Pondering some of the usual "commandments" in this light it seems reasonable to follow them without the overarching religions to which they are traditionally attributed.

To Wake

perchance to Think