religion vs. science: the political front.

mccain also declined to participate. Clinton and Obama Talk Religion, Not Science

an impressive resume.

Mr. McCain is far enough ahead in the delegate race that his advisers have said it would be all but impossible for anyone else to win the nomination...But Mr. Huckabee, a pastor before he became governor of Arkansas, said, “I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them, too.”

read

really?

here's what mitt romney says:

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

I agree that religion requires freedom, but how exactly does freedom require religion? I guess romney isn't able to imagine all the people living for today.

the perils of cafe culture.

this is an interesting study. however, its importance is overshadowed by the hilarity of this line:

“I ordered the Caffe Vanilla Frappuccino Light,” Sperber explained. “This”—he pointed at his half-consumed beverage—“is a Vanilla Bean Frappuccino.”

fantastic.

I came across many things to riducule today, but this one trumps everything else. An art teacher was fired for taking the students to an art museum. Awesome.

a compelling argument.

Says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya:

"When you use evolution as God's tool in creating man in his image, you have to reckon with the fact at what stage in the evolution process does man attain to that image?" he said. "The conclusion is either God's image is evolving or God Himself is evolving or every creature has God's image. God could be anything and I'm afraid I cannot put my faith in a 'changing God' or an 'anything God'.”

Note that he's not really addressing evolution here, but evolutionary creationism, or the idea that evolution is the method by which God created mankind. This belief is often presented as a way of bridging the gap between science and religion, a way of asserting that the two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, there are many scientists who see their work as a way of understanding God's handiwork. The most elegant mathematical proofs are thought to come from God's book. And when the Grand Unified Theory is finally uncovered, we can throw our hands in the air and shout "Hallelujah!", for only the prescient vision of God could have seen the magnificence and complexity of the universe in the simplicity of M-theory (and the M will then stand for Moses, who initiated the study in his seminal book Genesis.). I agree with Bishop Adoyo. There's no way to reconcile the assertions of science with those of the bible. And when the Leakeys show their collection, they won't need to use the words "scientific evidence"; the proof is in the bones.

the ingredients of life.

this article in the ny times says:

Life requires at least three ingredients — water, heat and carbon-based molecules — and Enceladus may possess all three. As Cassini flew through the plumes of vapor and ice crystals rising into space from the eruptions, it also detected simple carbon-based molecules like methane and carbon dioxide, which suggest more complicated carbon molecules may lie on the moon's surface. The lack of a crater suggests that the heat is not the result of a meteor's impact. Based on initial observations, some scientists think that this warm region near the south pole may have persisted for billions of years, sufficient time for life to arise.

first of all, I swear that earlier in the day it didn't include the words 'at least'. maybe I'm just imagining things. still, I wonder why nasa isn't getting more flack for its clearly anticreationist (or, anti-intelligent-designist, if you wish) stance. children are watching the satellites with wonder and, in the process, hearing that life arises from water, heat, carbon, and billions of years. does the bible proclude life from existing (read: having been created) on other planets? a quick google search reveals the following responses to the question:

• (biblestudy.org)

  The Bible states that at least 100 million living non-human creatures exist that are not earth bound ( Revelation 5:11). Other places in the scripture indicate that the amount of non-earthly life forms are innumerable ( Hebrews 12:22). Some of these creatures have animalistic forms such as: ox, eagle, lion, while other have a more humanlike appearance. Many of them are winged with multiple eyes ( Revelation 4:6-8). These beings have many times visited the earth ( Hebrews 13:1-2). They visited the earth and met with Lot shortly before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ( Genesis 19). They talked and ate a meal with the great patriarch Abraham ( Genesis 18:1-8).

  awesome! no doubt they wanted to get some hardcore earthling action before the party was over. on the other hand...
• (christiananswers.net)

  The Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe. Although our all-powerful God could have created such life had He desired, it seems rather obvious from Scripture that He did not. The timetable for this present universe is measured by God's dealings with us. It appears that God has created the human race, on the planet called Earth, as the sole beneficiary of His fellowship. This fellowship is of such a unique design that we are told that God's only true extra-terrestrial creations -- angels -- are eager to observe it in action. It is our privilege to be the center of attention in our vast and wonder-filled universe.

yea, the mark of a good religion is that its teachings can be interpreted to suit whatever conclusions you're looking for. if I recall correctly, in jainism one of the tirtankara is said to have lived, and achieved enlightenment, on another planet. scientology aside, that's probably the only religion that specifically asserts life of an equal nature to ours on other planets.

teach the controversy. is pluto a planet? is h20 a gas or a liquid? perhaps concepts cannot explain. I hereby demand that all high school science textbooks come with the following disclaimer:

This book states that there are nine planets in the solar system. In fact, the number of planets, much like evolution, is a subject of debate in the scientific community. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

read the article

nonsense is the new common sense. bin laden gives bush a boost ok, imagine that it's mid 2004, and you're in a strategy meeting for the kerry campaign. it goes something like this: "alright, so what's the biggest failure of the bush administration?" "it's certainly his inaction on intelligence reform. it's been almost 3 years, and we still have basically the same intelligence structure that failed us before." "but he adamantly declares that we're safer now. no way the public is going to understand the complexity of this problem. let's pick something more obvious." "we haven't found the WMD. and we haven't found bin laden. dude, we haven't found the guy who was responsible for all this in the first place." "but we can't make a big deal about that. what happens if september comes around and they capture him?" "ok, then it's settled. we won't criticize him at all." this blog was intended to be about science and intelligent design. obviously it's also about politics. in general, I'd say it's about truth. my primary assumption is this: that meaningful truth (of the nontautological sort) allows for the possibility of being challenged by real data that can either support or deny the claim. I will write more about this later. for now... I can't imagine any hypothetical scenario that would cause the public to conclude that the president is not successfully fighting terrorism. if he catches bin laden, he's a hero. if he doesn't catch bin laden, he's the right man to be searching for him. if there is no new attack, then his policies are working. if there is a new attack, all the more reason to support his policies. finally, this: the hero effect doesn't last long. when the enemy is captured, the people can start thinking about more proximate issues. it always pays to keep an enemy at the gate. I'm not saying that bush is pussyfooting around bin laden because it helps his ratings, but I am saying that bin laden's continued existence gives bush "political capital", so he does have that motive. of course, in all honesty, the most probable scenario is that bin laden is still out there because of ineptness, and not some conspiracy.

move over, oprah. bin laden's book club