Lemming Post of the Month

Taken from FSTDT.com:

"I appreciate your recommendation, and it is intriguing, but as a pro-lifer, I cannot support an organization that is opposed to the death penalty."

Originally posted here.

Catholic Church Sides with Science

Although not an "official" position, the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has published an article written by biology professor Fiorenzo Facchini in which he states that intelligent design is "...not how science is done."

Rev. George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory, says that, "Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be."

Though I realize that they have myriad other issues that they are totally backward on, I have always commended the Catholic Church for their willingness to think reasonably when presented with overwhelming evidence contrary to established church canon. This is no exception. I just wish the born-agains would get their act together.

The article referencing the above quotes can be read here.

California ID suit settled

A rural CA school district that intended to use ID as the subject for a philosophy class, has settled with parents who sued them claiming that the class would be used to teach a religious ideology to students. NBC.com posted an article here.

The teacher of the class was also the wife of a local minister. In a letter that she wrote to a local newspaper she said, "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach."

Well, okay then... I think their (at least her) motives are pretty clear. Chalk up another, albeit small, victory for science.

Since it's clear that the ID proponents are going to fairly well lose their ass when it comes to shoe-horning ID into science classes, I expect too see more attempts to "teach the controversy". In this case, their effort consisted of moving ID into a philosophy class in which the curriculum consisted only of videos that purportedly presented creationist ideology as science.

Dumb football players?

I am not a huge football fan, but I enjoy the game with friends as much as anyone else. I have also known several professional football players and believe that in many cases the label often applied to them as all being "dumb jocks" is often unfairly applied. Good players need to think their way around the field in order to be successful against myriad offensive and defensive schemes. However, Joey Porter of the Pittsburgh Steelers isn't helping their cause. In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (the article is posted here), he's asked about the Indianapolis Colts (another NFL team) and this is what he had to say:

"They don't want to just sit there, line up and play football. They want to try to catch you off guard. They don't want to play smash-mouth football, they want to trick you. ... They want to catch you substituting. Know what I mean? They don't want to just call a play, get up there and run a play. They want to make you think. They want it to be a thinking game instead of a football game."

Joey Porter got paid $ 2,751,600 in 2004. I'd like to think that someone that makes that kind of money should have to think, at least a little. I know this isn't representative of all football players, so step down from your soapbox right now, please. I guess the thing that bothers me most is that Joey seems to think that being smart isn't a good thing. To him, using your brain is a waste of time and something, it seems, to be made fun of.

Arguments that won't go away

Kathleen Newman of Flagstaff, AZ recently recently wrote a letter to the editor at the Arizona Daily Sun stating that evolution is no more than a belief and further stating that "both laws of thermodynamics contradict the theory of evolution."

(AZ Daily Sun archives its stories after only a few days. Please see the complete text copied below)

I don't know why this particular "argument" won't go away. It was first proposed in the early 80's and quickly dismissed as yet another attempt to unjustly use science against itself. Realizing the folly of their arguments, creationists are now trying to unite evolution and creationism by creating something new - ID. Kathleen may never read my blog, but we'll cover the 2nd law one more time.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in short, states that disorder, or entropy, increases over time in any system free from outside influence. Creationists state that evolution proposes more order over time - that things become more organized and this is in direct conflict with the above law. Actually, evolution proposes adaptability by those species which are able to change the fastest relative to their environment, but for sake of this piece, we'll stick with disorder.

Creationists who use this argument always make one very large and very false assumption: that our environment is free from outside influence. Increasing disorder in a "closed" system is inevitable and is what the 2nd Law addresses. However, we are not in a "closed" system, we have a very large outside influence. Locally, our own star provides us with a sustainable energy input. With the Sun's energy, we move from a "closed" system to an "open" system. As long as the Sun is there and we don't blow ourselves up, life will continue to adapt to its environment, with or without Homo Sapiens. The 2nd Law doesn't apply.

Anyway, that particular creationist postulate is pure bullshit. I don't know why she brings the 1st Law into question. I've never heard that one before, so please pass it on to me if you have.

Kathleen states that "Natural selection does not prove macro-evolution...but rather the amazing ability for a species to change within its own kind to adapt to the environment."

She only addresses the part of the theory that makes sense to her. I doubt that she has examined the evidence, else she would have seen many examples of transitional data to backup "macro-evolution". Or, perhaps more likely, she doesn't have an adequate understanding of the scientific method and what the word "theory" truly means in the case of evolution and science in general.


Text from the Arizona Daily Sun follows:

Evolution not a fact

10/09/2005

To the editor:
Joan Ryan in her Oct. 2, 2005 editorial manages not only to state belief as fact but also criticizes those with beliefs other than her own. The theory of evolution is no more than a belief. It has not and cannot be proven through the scientific method, nor is there any "corroborating" evidence for the theory. The creation of the world or life cannot be recorded or observed by scientists and therefore cannot be proved. Modern scientists have stated that there are less transitional forms in the fossil record than in Darwin's time, yet Darwin said that he had none.

Natural selection does not prove macro-evolution, as Ms. Ryan indicates, but rather the amazing ability for a species to change within its own kind to adapt to the environment. Furthermore, both laws of thermodynamics contradict the theory of evolution. These few facts, and hundreds of other evidences, create a "legitimate dispute." It further amazes me that evolutionists cannot defend their belief without name calling or slander of those who believe differently. I would much rather be a "wing nut or boob" than ignorantly believe an absolute negative. It is a known fact that an absolute negative cannot be proven. If anyone out there can prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is not an intelligent creator, I would love to hear.

KATHLEEN NEWMAN Flagstaff

Today's "Bushism"

These folks have done a fantastic job of documenting our president's linguistic ineptitude.

I once had a friend try to explain to me that Bush often seems flustered and incoherent when speaking because there is so much going on in the man's mind that he is always thinking several steps ahead. With a noticeable absence of compelling evidence to support that hypothesis, I must disagree and offer the following statement for your enjoyment.

Here, our president explains the benefits of privatizing social security. I implore you to comment if you can decipher what the hell he is saying.

"Because the-all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those-changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be-or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the-like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate-the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those-if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."-Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

Welcome

Welcome to my blog. I don't have a lot to say, but what I do have to say is important to me. That doesn't mean that it should be important to you or even that you should agree with it, but it should be fun nonetheless!