Amen!

A quick link before I bug out to the dentist.
Libby Purves of the Times takes on Nazis, all major religions and the shrill atheist Dawkins. I like her humour.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2452315,00.html

'Mudge, you obviously need to check the loo for the Webcam JA installed...

:-)

AAAAAAA-ooooooooooooooooo-gahhhhhhhhhh

Captain this is the engine room! We're taking on water! Bwooeep, Bwooeeep, Bwooeeep!

there is a catholic priest, Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete, who is also a physicist. He has some very interesting thoughts on the relationship between science and religion in his book God at the Ritz. I looked for a copy of that section of the book online, and I couldn't find it.

Rubber ducky on the starboard bow, range 1,800 yards. Ready tubes one and two.

Oh crap, I think I bent my firing pin.

'Mudge, you could always command hard to port and bring your stern tubes to bear...

Waitaminit, we're approaching Weingarten territory again...

:-)

Shrieking Denizen, you mention " the shrill atheist Dawkins." Perhaps it is a mere quibble, but I feel compelled to disagree with your assessment of Richard Dawkins. I would have gone with "smugly self-satisfied and infinitely conceited." After all, it seems he can be a bit over-certain of himself in arenas besides religion and religiosity. Regarding the jury system, for example.

On the other hand, he is married to Lalla Ward. In the camp of male heterosexual science fiction geeks, that definitely enhances his status. We'll be discussing this important issue at our very next meeting, I'm sure.

i did find some good stuff from Einstein:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men. "

"But Science has given us a beautiful universe, one of marvelous complexity and magnificent scale."

Wrong. God has given us a beautiful universe, one of marvelous complexity and magnificent scale. Science has given us the ability to comprehend what that complexity is, how it works, how it has evolved over time. Science is a means by which I interpret and understand creation. I am one of those "religious people [who] fully embrace the truths of science as part of the Creation they revere."
I can't prove that God created anything, or that he/she exists. True. I conceed that. But you can't prove that he doesn't, nor that she did create create matter. Where does matter come from? No one knows. To say that there could not be a God, much less a creative one, to completely rule out that possibility, strikes me as being, well, unscientific.

I know that the majority of you disagree with me on this. But if you do respond, please respond to what I have written, not a preconceived caricature of Christianity.
Sorry I'm a bit snarky, but after a certain boodler's constant diatribes, I feel a tad defensive.

I got us all in trouble last time I boodled about religion. I'm sticking with my soap suds and rubber ducky.

The current chairman of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences is Fr. Dr. Guy Consolmagno, S.J. -- a Jesuit priest and physicist. He is funny, articulate, good at what he does (astronomical investigations of asteroids), possessed of a truly comfortable presence, with well-developed diplomatic skills. If he weren't, like, a celibate male of unspectactular looks, I would totally have a crush on him.

Two-minute live warning!

I'm just glad that the universe exists, wherever it came from. Where would I be without it?

Repost from previous kit. Kit changed while I was posting.

Yes Loomis I saw the story in SFGate this morning. The article has a couple of photos but they don't show any damage. I was in the Coast Guard when the big one hit in '64. We had a 95 footer stationed at Crescent City. The wave took out the CG pier and all the crew lost their automobiles.
Mudge, Shriek, John Wayne solved the torpedo problem. I know it's true because I saw the movie.

Tim
I would like to add that Dawkins was a pal of Douglas Adams. I can't imagine Adams hanging out an *.

Sam Harris writes:
"Science is, in fact, the one domain in which a person can win considerable prestige for proving himself wrong."
Maybe this is why geeky science-type men turn out to be such babe-magnets -- they know how to say they were wrong.

An understanding of Science truly can make the universe seem a much more wonderful place. The oft repeated observation that all the elements that compose our bodies were made in the hearts of long-dead stars is a good example. Plus, the beauty of a blue sky is enhanced, and not detracted, by an understanding of Rayleigh scattering.

The problem is that Scientific Rapture, as it were, is a lot harder to come by for many than the comforts of religion.

Further, as beautiful and elegant as a purely scientific universe may be, at the end of the day you must face the realization that it doesn't really care a hoot about you.

So the question becomes, how hard are you willing to work to maintain the comforts of faith while earnestly embracing the rationalism of science?

It can be done, but it is a lot of work. It is like having two operating systems for your brain. At some point the need to constantly reboot can cause some wicked headaches.

I can't believe I just self-vetoed a possible comment as being too obscure...

*L*

Does anyone else think it's funny that Hal's link is wrong? (replace the "newsweek" with "www")

Tangent, I think you have misconstrued Joel's intent in the line about "Science has given us..." I believe that the two of you are addressing the same point: the universe is here, regardless of our beliefs about how it got here. What science has given us is an awareness of the universe, and ever-increasing comprehension of its "marvelous complexity and magnificent scale." To denigrate and cast aside science is to willfully ignore the glory of the universe.

I would claim that we can disagree on the source of the universe, and come to differing interpretations about "what it's all there for", but we can concur on simply admiring the universe and remarking upon its beauties, its horrors, and its quaint absurdities.

I think accordionist and yodeler Kerry Christensen is looking for a backup singer, Joel.

I bet you that Mudge and Shriek are probably just fartin' in the tub and then pretendin' they're playing with U-boats.

bh, if you can dredge up memories of Crescent City in '64, my hat's off to you! So, how close to Crescent City were you in '64? Were you personally affected or knew others who were?

After all Mudge, a rubber ducky does make bathtime "oh so fun."

Boko, I'll grant you that Dawkins probably is not a great a$$ in private. I comment only upon his public persona, the attitude he projects when he is "on", which is one of illimitable self-satisfaction and certainty. That kind of thing always makes me very uncomfortable.

I have a funny feeling the male ego is involved in formulations of absolute truths. After all, uncertainty is a sign of weakness. Supposedly.

Whereas honesty is said to be a sign of... honesty.

Beyond that, I can say with ironclad, even steely, certainty, that honestly, I just don't know.

*SIGH*

RDP, I should have had more faith in the Boodle to get an Ernie reference...

:-)

One of the places I teach geology is a small, rural Methodist school in the RoVa mountains. "Christian ideals" is mentioned in the first line of their mission statement, and I think (I only teach there part-time) all the students are required to attend church, take religion classes, and participate in a confirmation ceremony as incoming freshmen.

Last night I gave a lecture on evolution.

We had a very lively 2-hour discussion--not wasted debating creationism, but discussing the details of how evolution works.

At one point near the end of the lecture I showed a slide of Mrs. D.'s dental X-rays, showing her impacted wisdom teeth. Before I had a chance to say it, one of the students (and not an "academic star") volunteered that the impacted wisdom teeth indicated that we had an ancestor that had longer jaws, making more room for the extra teeth. I was so proud of her!

Lectures like that give me hope that I'm not wasting my time.

Jeez. This must be Three Daughters Day. Steny Hoyer just pointed out he has three daughters. Cong. Jim Clyburn, new Demo whip now speaking, said he has three daughters. Joel has three daughters. I have three daughters.

Shriek, move your foot, please; that tickles.

ScottyNuke - I have concluded that there is no cultural reference too obscure for this crowd.

When I lived in Wyoming, local geology was a wonderful spectator sport. Monster landslides! New species of wild carrot living on end-of-Cretaceous Lance Formation! Weird fossil leaves at Red Lodge. And Bentonite--volcanic ash fallen into saltwater and slowly dried into marvelous grey mud, which God clearly designed for use as drilling mud. The stuff was exported worldwide. Out in the wild, it looked vaguely lunar, with little moon plants living on it. Saltbushes, Atriplex gardneri.

Nothing is too trivial for the Boodle, Scottynuke.

bc

Somebody could have some fun with Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" lyrics...

First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned how to carry on
and so you're back
from outer space

http://www.lyricsdomain.com/7/gloria_gaynor/i_will_survive.html

while i won't go as far as to assert that god gave us the universe (although i personally believe it was not a complete accident), i agree with tangent that saying "science gave us a beautiful universe" attributes an agency to science that is not there.

i'd be interested to hear a scientific explanation for beauty - for all the flowers, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other intricacies of nature that have no functional, i.e. evolutionary, purpose. science allows us to appreciate our fascinating universe, but it doesn't cause or explain things like beauty.

I have three daughters too, Mudge.

bc

Tangeant, that was quite the gauntlet you just threw down! You can make a categorical statement (clearly intended as a challenge) of your perceived 'truth' but everyone else has to be careful not to offend you with their views or, rather, 'diatribes?'

In that case...

'Mudge, how much did Ernie have to shell out to lease that ducky, anyway? And did Henson ever share the royalties?

:-)

I'll agree with that Tim. It's more the capitol "S" which, to me, reflects the difference between our ideologies. But the appreciation for the universe is something that we share.

L.A. Lurker while science cannot give specific explanations for beauty(due to individual perception issues) there are mathematical theorems that show commonality between basic common perceptions of beauty.

LAL said "all the flowers, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other intricacies of nature that have no functional, i.e. evolutionary, purpose."

Who said they have no evolutionary purpose? What about sexual selection, including attracting pollinators?

As for the question of beauty, it need not be an a priori concept implanted in us by an outside agent, it can be a perception resulting from brain evolution.

Ah, but Lalurker, beauty is a cultural phenomena (or is that phenomenon?) far more than anything else.

When we lived in the bald prairie that is southern Alberta there was an older couple who moved into a home just down the street from ours. The yard was filled front and back with big trees, junipers, all sorts of shrubbery, and to my eyes beautiful, an oasis of green in the brown. First thing they did was take all the trees and shrubs out. They hated them, said they got in the way of seeing anything.

dr, guess they couldn't see the prairie for the trees?

I hate to tell you guys, but I was 30 FREAKIN' YEARS OLD when Ernie first sang that song. I was between SPOUSES, fer crying out loud; most of you guys were between lunch and afternoon nap. Gerald Ford was president. There were only 9 planets back then. Electricity had barely been invented. We had to walk nine miles through snow drifts to get to school. Oh, wait, that's a different story.

Now...I'm between lunch and afternoon nap.

It was a catchy tune, though, wasn't it?

This is gonna get good. Hang in there gang, I'm off on a beer run.

Yoki, Tangent...c'mon now. Make nice nice. Give each other a hug. C'mon.

Forgot to post before the kit changed--

SciTim, re ScienceSister's story on the toad-licking spaniel: I've heard about dogs addicted to toads, sometimes they do die from it.

On the other hand, that article gives a new meaning to "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride."

Ba-ba-ding.

Tangent-- "Science has given us a glimpse into a universe...." Would that be better?

As it is, check out the coffee table book: "What's Out there"

I'm looking at the Great Nebula of Orion right now. Lovely lavendar-purple, it's making me think of Orion slave girl outfits right now for some reason.

And Betelgueuse, aka "Big Red".

And this crazy picture of Venus, color-coded mosaic of radar images, it makes Venus look earth-like under that poisonous carbon dioxide cloud. I thought all the water had vaporized off its surface? I'm not sure what the blue and purple stand for, then.

And the white dwarf is a speck ringed by of a huge red nebula which looks kind of like the eye of Sargon. Cue an urge to watch hot hunks in fanasty armor in some movie, I forgot what it was called.

Science Fiction has given me an irreverence to big gorgeous pictures of the universe's majesty.

NASA should apply for supplemental art grants if it's short on funding. It might get it. I love Hubble pictures.

Both Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins defended Issac Newton against Keats' charge that Newton has destroyed the beauty of the rainbow by explaning it.
I think their basic answer was "Nuts"

Ernie is (was?) a great character. But Burt was my favourite of all. He is a man of hidden talents and depths. The girls and I used to drop in on Sesame Street from time to time when they were pre-schoolers, and I'll never forget Burt being able to exactly reproduce the most complicated rhythms Ernie tapped out on his drum set. Also, Burt's surprise when there was a fish he didn't know in his tank. Ah, happy days.

Have you any idea what listening to the rubber ducky song over millions of miles does to human mind? In a car? With 3 small boys? Its not a wonder...

Now that I think of it, it wasn't just the song it was the whole freaking album. Yes I actually had the album, and a cassette for the car besides.

All good things must come to an end, and it did just in the nick of time.

Yoki, is there a Canuckian spelling I'm not aware of.

And don't forget, Bert is Evil. http://www.bertisevil.tv

:-)

I'm not sure about the "safe for work" status of Bert is Evil...

Sowwy.

"I can't prove that God created anything, or that he/she exists. True. I conceed that. But you can't prove that he doesn't, nor that she did create create matter. Where does matter come from? No one knows. To say that there could not be a God, much less a creative one, to completely rule out that possibility, strikes me as being, well, unscientific."

Tangent,

I'm hardly a scientist, but it seems to me that the existence of God isn't something that Science can address. Science doesn't "rule out [the] possiblity" that God exists. Science seeks to explain that which we can observe.

Saying that non-believers can't prove that God doesn't exist is an old argument, and an invalid one. We are unable to prove the nonexistence of many things, but that doesn't mean they actually, in fact, exist.

But I think that all this is missing the point. To truly have faith in the existence of God requires just that -- Faith, in the absence of any physical evidence that would convince Science. Faith in something unseen is one of the beautiful mysteries of religious belief, and anyone running around claiming some sort of "proof" just seems to demean the whole process, in my view. (I realize you weren't claming any sort of proof, but many believers do so.)

Somebody just e-mailed me the photograph of the space shuttle launch taken from the space station: boy, that is one spectacular photograph. Anybody know where it is on the Internet, to link to?

dr, you are excused any form of nostalgia for SS! We didn't have that cassette; instead, I was persecuted with Sharon Lois & Bram (until I diverted their musical interest to Mozart, the Beatles, Stan Rogers, The Traveling Wilburies and George Thorogood, which I accomplished by the time #2 was 19 months old).

In fact, I hauled both #1 and #2 from the West Island to Place des Arts on the commuter train to see S,L & B live. I must have been mad.

One phenomenon, two phenomena. When speaking, it's often useful to cultivate a habit of blurring the two words together: "phenomenungh." That way, the listener can't quite tell WHAT you said.

On Beauty, oddly enough I just finished reading a thing in WaPo by David Von Drehle, promoting the (old) idea of the Golden Ratio being a key to beauty. I must say it's not a complete theory. Sometimes I'm a little impatient with what I think of as childish concepts of beauty. Although I don't want to give up the freshness of being able to see beauty with the eyes of a child, a child sees absolute fascination with, and beauty in, say, a simple spiral. And also I think, an overemphasized love of symmetry. Which led me to write this haiku a few years ago:

Symmetry is fun
Beautiful is different
It's not the same thing.

It's said the Japanese appreciate asymmetry as crucial in "true" beauty. So do I. Consequently I suspect that physicists constant attempts to make the universe, and space-time-matter-energy and the rules that control them, symmetrical, are perhaps a waste of time or at least no guarantee of rightness. Or beauty.

Looking at the Seyfert Galaxy, I think NASA should scrutinize the Lord of Rings more carefully to see if they can sue over theft of imagery. ;). Anything to keep NASA afloat...
I mean, didn't NASA photograph rings long before these movie makers put funny furry feet on actors?

...speaking of science and beauty...

The Catholic Church gave us "spontaneous generation" as the answer to shells within strata.

Thank goodness, there were no such prohibitions against logic in the Muslim world centuries ago:

Five hundred years [before Leonard Da Vinci's artworks], a mystical sect of Shiite Muslims in Syria who called themselves the "Brothers of Purity" knew full well what rock strata were all about.

The Brothers' motto, "Shun no science, scorn no book, nor cling fanatically to a single creed," made them unpopular with the local authorities, so they had to operate in secret. Still, sometime near the end of the tenth century they managed to publish an encyclopedia of knowledge, called "The Aim of the Sage." In it was a brief disertation on geologic lore, including the following on strata:

Know, O my Brother, that all rivers and streams arise from mountains and hills. In their flow they move towards the seas, ponds, and marshes...then [the mountains] break up, especially under the effects of storms, and become stones, and rocks or pebbles and sand...Then the seas, due to the force of their waves, the intensity of their spouting, deposit these sands, this clay, and these pebbles on their beds, layer upon layer, in the course of time and over the ages. Then [these layers] are heaped up, one on the other, and thus are formed and raised, a the bottom of the seas, mountains and hills in the same way as sand dunes are formed in plains and deserts by the effect of winds.

pp 94-5, Alan Cutler's "The Seashell and the Mountainside"

Thank goodness for the modern-day rise of the Internet and telecommunications the loosening grip of the Catholic church! And here's a toast to curiosity!

*blushing.* Bert is evil! And I can't spell!

Yoki: In terms of diatribes, I was refering to SF's constant, pernicious, categorical condemnation of anything remotely religious. I am expressing my views, which happen to contradict what you believe. Please, by all means, tell me where my argument is wrong. I am not offended by your ideology, but I am offended when someone (SF) calls me, and my fellow Christians, stupid for believing what we do. You are putting words in my mouth by suggesting that I asked people "to be careful not to offend [me] with their views or, rather, 'diatribes'" Views do not equal diatribes. Sure, I am challenging the assertion that science is the ultimate purpose and creator to all of existance. I am not challenging your right to disagree with me; but I do have a problem with you, deliberately or not, assigning my words meaning that is clearly not evident. I ask again:
"if you do respond, please respond to what I have written, not a preconceived caricature of Christianity."

Scotty, on Canadian Sesame Street "Burt" runs the leather fetish shop. Oh, and Big Bird doesn't have to hide his "invisible friend" Snuffalupocus.

Wilbrod;

Something's wrong with furry feet???

'Mudge, do you mean http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/shuttlelaunch.asp ?

:-)

SoC;

I thought as much.

Think I will stick with the children's songs, Ernie/Bert stream, my girls went to sleep with a variety of tapes, Ernie and Bert, classic lullabies, S,L & B. The sad thing after while, I would be listening to the monitor and think to myself, I really like this song.

We have now progress, my youngest once asked me to turn up a jazz song on the radio, tears came to my eyes, she also likes Nickleback. My efforts at classical music have been relegated to Barbie movies, Swan Lake, Nutcracker - at least it is a start of course they think that is where the music originated.

Yoki - Thorogood I am very impressed, any David Wilcox?

Responding to what Tangeant wrote (and I'm glad SF is banned if he was calling people stupid!): "Wrong. God has given us a beautiful universe..."

This is the categorical statement I find purposefully challenging. It is not wrong that non-supernatural processes can give rise to the universe (even if we don't know what they all were/are). You simply don't believe it. "I disagree" or "I don't believe" would be more accurate than "wrong."

I think I know from where the confusion arises. Jehovah did not create the Universe!

It was another, different God. But with the same Name.

I hope this explains everything.

phenomenungh, de de de dedee
phenomenungh de de de
phenomenungh de de de dedee
de deede, de dedee,
de dedee
da duh duh duh da duh

Two items about Bert (because everyone wants to know):

1. Remember when the pro-Taliban and anti-cartoonist Islamist demonstrators found the picture on that Bert Is Evil site of Bert with Osama Bin Laden and used it on their posters and signs? They were apparently downloading pictures of OBL and didn't realize what the Bert character was doing there (or didn't care).
( http://www.bertisevil.tv/img/osamabinladen/bertandbin.htm )

2. My favorite Bert & Ernie vignette: Bert is playing checkers with his pidgeon, Bernice. Ernie says something like, "Wow.. You taught Bernice to play checkers! That's great!"

To which Bert replies, "Oh.. she's not very good. Out of the ten games we've played, she's only won two."

Loomis, I was stationed at Yerba Buena Island in the middle of San Francisco bay. All the ships and large boats put out to sea and they didn't see or feel anything. We waited on the dock to watch our small boats and all we saw was like a three or four foot tide went out and came back in in about twenty minutes. The water is pretty deep at YBI so we didn't have the rolling wave effect like they had up around San Rafel where a lot of boats got swanped. We had a forty footer up there that was temporarily grounded when the water ran out from under it.
Crescent City harbor's beach had lot of old redwood stumps and logs on it and most of the damage was caused by the wave taking them up a creek behind town and washing back down 101 taking out the bars along the street and killing the dopes that were partying waiting to watch the wave come in.
I was the Industrial Manager at YBI and our only involment in 'repair' was installing the lighting after the new pier was constructed.

Is there something funny in the Alberta air today, dr, kerric, Yoki and SoC - thanks for all the chuckles.

I haven't thought about David Wilcox in years!

I saw him live at L'hibou in Ottawa on a very cold night in, I think, about 1976. He was just finding his independent musical feet after leaving Ian & Sylvia. I think it was the next year that he got his first record contract with Capitol. Wow, if I'd ever picked up a guitar, I would have become discouraged by his talent; fantastic.

And just to close the circle, I was meeting a friend at a pub in Calgary the other afternoon, and in walked Ian Tyson to meet with the co-owner of the place, Tom Jackson.

Yup, that's it, scotty, thanks (u da man). The pix labeled "9."

Yoki: Ok, I see where you're coming from. I was, far too subtly, alluding to Joel's "Wrong." in the column.

per ticklishturtletoe's request: pax?

SCC da da duh duh duh da duh

I am such a putz.

Not only pax, but apologies for my obtuse missing of your satirical and very clever allusion to Joel's wrong. And also a big hug.

The golden ratio can be used to describe a spiral; the fibonacci series can be used to describe the whorls of a daisy.

Fractals can be used to describe (and produce artifical clouds on computers).

Chaos theory is also pretty. Topology and knot theory I rather like as well.

My dad used to say there was so much math in music. Maybe our love for beauty is a love for math, rather than symmetry (which is after all only a declaration that certain parts are equal, homologous, and mirror each other etc. ;).

*Ducking tomatoes*

Ian Tyson and Tom Jackson - very cool. Which reminds me of the Huron Carol - a little early for Christmas but so beautiful.

Joel, you've been called out on an ambiguous turn of phrase.

Science didn't give us the universe, we've been learning since the world's been turning....

And now I'm gonna have to try and stop myself from trying to look up that tune cootie because I can, heaven help me, only remember Doris day! Doris Day! over and over again from that song, like my brain is stuck on "rap".

I found a parody written for psychology...

http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2004/PsychologySong.htm

and for mythology...

http://www.swampfox.demon.co.uk/utlah/Humour/Furballs/fire.html

and for religion...

http://www.alexandriacentral.org/highschool/writing_song.html

But none for the Achenblog?

Wilbrod, I was also going to comment on Joel's kinship with His Excellency as misunderstood bloggers.

Mind you, it's probably fair to say that the Schemer that Khatami sends his work to takes scheming to a whole different level.

Wheels within wheels
In a spiral array
A pattern so grand and complex

Time after time
We lose sight of the way
Our causes can't see their effects

"Natural Science," Peart, Lee & Lifeson

:-)

Tom the Butcher, Hal the Schemer...

Hmm, those Washington Post editors have names that remind me of Homer or old English Literature.

Those are names to take into warfare, or sing out to fill meter as needed, not names to take home to the wife and kids.

"Hector, the tamer of horses;
Odysseus the fox, Hera, the ox-eyed goddess..."

We must guess at Joel's and Gene's Homeric nicknames that they take up with their pens as they rally forth into warfare with battle cries.

Loomis, you should hear Cake's totally groovy cover of "I Will Survive". I'm not sayin' it's better than Ms. Gaynor's, but hearing a man sing it puts a very interesting spin on the lyrics.

Joel, I can't believe you didn't mention the crown jewels of your repertoire; your performance art cooking pieces, the "It Looks Like a President" Punch and Judy show, the "A Grand Idea" sock puppet play, and finally, the piece of resistance, the "Captured by Aliens" mime act.

bc

Has anybody else seen the Answers In Genesis website before: www.answersingenesis.org? I went to one of their one-day conferences several years ago, when I was only half a toe (dating the future other half of the toe).

We listened to some very interesting ideas about how various scientific studies have cast doubt on some popular evolutionary theories. And they pointed out (among other things) examples of various animal species that evolutionary scientists said were not in existence today. But later they discovered that some large population of that species still exists.

Anyways, it was a real eye-opener for me, as I grew up knowing nothing but evolution. I found their viewpoint refreshing.

Of course, I wrestled with evolution when I first became a Christian. If the Bible says that God created everything (including man) in 6 days, then it clearly disagrees with evolution that says that everything is a jillion years old. But Answers In Genesis provides some startling evidence that casts some doubt on the old earth theory.

//"But Science has given us a beautiful universe, one of marvelous complexity and magnificent scale."
Wrong. God has given us a beautiful universe..//

Tangent- Do really believe that the writer of the first sentence meant science had created the universe? Or did he mean it in the sense:
//Science has given us the ability to comprehend what that complexity is, how it works, how it has evolved over time//

How nice. You agree.
There's really no reason to argue like a creationist or a Republican.

I only have one daughter. But she does her best to overcompensate.

Since my self-administered Achendiction withdrawal program only allows me one post during business hours, I will make it count:

Put me on the list for the AchenCruise. Themed cruises are big business with great kick-backs to the organizer. Throw in another published pointy headed science type and any obscure British SF series costar and we're a sell-out.

I had to Google™ Lalla Ward and hereby relinquish my geek credentials. In all honesty, I could never watch a whole episode of Dr. Who (even the Tom Baker ones) unless it involved Daleks. I have to admit the one episode I've seen of the new series wasn't bad.

Boko999: Does the "*" mean what I thing it means? I call it the Vonnegutian Assterisk. I have a real one (actually a couple). I keep taunting kb with the promise to scan and post it someday.

dr: I will trade the Rubber Ducky song for an entire CD of Barney's Favorites. The Sesame Street songs were at least original. Barney songs, even the ones without nursery rhyme lyrics, are outright copyright violations.

And I cannot hear Bert and Ernie without the entire soundtrack of Avenue Q unfolding in my head.

See y'all after five.

Sally Brown put on her skates,
Upon the ice to frisk.

Her friends all thought that she was brave,
her little *.

http://www.lyricsdir.com/david-wilcox-god-is-on-a-bender-lyrics.html

LOL at yellojkt.

I can relate. I think the Achenblog is bad news for family values. I find myself hiding how much I'm on this thing.

Rubber Ducky, you're the one!
You make bath time lots of fun.
Rubber Ducky, I'm awfully fond of you.
[squeak! honk! squeak! honk! squeak!]
do-do, di-yo.

Rubber Ducky, joy of joys!
When I squeeze you, you make noise.
Rubber Ducky, you're my very
best friend, it's true.

(from memory)

As someone who has always been filled with awe when studying nature (either sitting in a camp in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming -- or reading Paul Davies or Roger Penrose) Ive always felt the ineffable around me.

Dawkins' crusade to obliviate religion is as puzzling to me as the most fervent creationist's crusade to obliviate evolution (and all science with it).

Tangent and Yoki -- I'm glad the pax was found early in the discussion. SF is gone -- I don't think anyone here would take on his stridency.

Actually, Dawkins is more puzzling to me. Why such vociferous, smug attempt to "prove" the non-existence of god?

I think scientists are at their best when sticking to scientific principles -- exposing the flawed "logic" in creationism and intelligent design. Stephen Jay Gould style. To jump the lane and attack religious belief is not exactly scientific.

ScienceTim -- thanks for adding Fr. Dr. Guy Consolmagno, S.J. -- a Jesuit priest and physicist -- into this discussion. I wish we had more ecumenical minds like his in the world right now.

Dave of the Coonties -- ah, old Atriplex! I miss the smell of saltbush, rabbit brush and most of all Artemisia tridentata -- the sagebrush that isn't a sage!!!

Williamsburg is drowning. We're getting a milder version of the storm that caused such damage and loss of life in N. Carolina (Cassandra -- did you get hit by this storm?). They are calling for one to two inches of rain.

We got nearly 3" of rain one day last week. On top of Ernesto and the Nor'easter that came in October.

Standing water is everywhere. Trees are keeling over. My lungs are stewing in mold.

We are under flash flood and tornado warnings -- although the winds haven't been as strong as predicted.

All in all a good day to stay inside and boodle.

Wonder which dictionary will be the first to recognize "boodle" as a verb?

the post by nelson's cat was actually by nelson. I think my cat may have rigged the automatic word-fill on the computer.

:-)

That for instance "fossil species" have been found still living doesn't mean evolution doesn't work.

It's a common misconception that evolution means that the older species must go extinct. If you look at America right now, you will see that fireflies do not exist west of the Mississippi because it is a natural barrier, and also other geological features prevented the spread of fireflies west of the Mississippi.

Likewise, there are some distinct animal species on each side of the grand canyon that are very similar but already in the process of divergence.

In general it is an axiom that specialist species are the most prone to evolutionay pressure and split into new species. You will see more species around the Tropics for that reason-- the stability of the climate and the ecology means competition is intense, reproductive success is low, and specialization is the way to go.

On the other hand, in a new, disrupted, destroyed environment, nature favors the speedy generalists. Many plant species now endangered in North America are those who thrive on clearing, forest fires, etc. to clear the way of competitors so they can use their one advantage-- grabbing and germinating quickly.

Likewise, generalist animal species are very likely to drive specialist species extinct very quickly if they compete for scarce resources-- the generalist can always find other sources of food, the specialist can't. Starlings have become a great pest for native bird species and farmers alike.

But even in ONLY 120 years since they were brought here, they have begun splitting into distinct populations with distinct plumage. That may be "minievolution" at work, but 120 years is not that long.

"Although there are approximately 200 million starlings in North America, they are all descendants of approximately 60 birds released in Central Park, New York, by Eugene Schieffelin, who headed an acclimatization society trying to introduce to North America every bird species mentioned in the works of William Shakespeare.... The giant flocks of these birds are often compared to the even more massive flocks of the now-vanished passenger pigeon, and they may indeed fill a similar niche."

I have seen the black sun of a starling flock settling around my house in the past.

I think the problem I have with the Genesis viewpoint personally, is that it really doesn't lay much faith in God's having the will that life answer and solve the problems caused by a changing world, and I think it breaks the spirit of Genesis.

We know that when Adam and Eve were expelled, God laid new duties on the serpent and Adam and Eve that they never had before. And the animals also were now to kill and eat each other-- new duties for them as well. Indeed, if we believe the literal account, lions grazed like sheep until the Garden of Eden was closed. They no longer do so, in fact lions are positively ill if fed grass as a sole diet.

Just as an example; the biblical evidence for believing that all species are created from the very beginning, to me, is as strong as the evidence that evolution started after the exodus from Eden.

Indeed, if you read Genesis carefully, you will realize that the chronological order does not agree with each other between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. It's logically impossible no matter how you try to see them both as the exact same story with the events happening in correct order.

It calls you to elieve that God made human, plants, rivers, and the animals of Eden on the first day that he made the heavens and earth... and then he made all the creatures etc. on the third and forth days and THEN man on the sixth day.

It's a matter of how you believe. I really don't think there is a very good reason to use Genesis as a guide to the details of how the world was created.

It is enough to know that God is the one responsible for all the details, that for instance, there was and is no God in charge of animals, no god in charge of plants, and so on, like in many polytheistic religions. I think this is in fact the real point of this story as told by the Hebrews.

I am not sure how Answers in Genesis would explain all the bizaare forms of fossil elephants that are extinct. The difference in appearance between those elephants are very dramatic, but fits very well in the doctrine that specialist species are the most apt to change and go extinct-- one reason is that their numbers are smaller to start with, and the pressure to survive and adapt also greater.

Nelson, I am molding along with you, it is raining again, has been for the last almost 24 hours. Just saw a report they may close a major highway in Toronto at rush hour tonight due to flooding - the result will not be pretty.

My poor dog didn't even want to go onto the grass this morning it is so soggy.

Nasty weather in the Pacific NW as well.

I need days of sunshine or more Ernie and Bert which ever come first. :-)

I try to keep all the statements as ambiguous as possible. That makes deniability easier later. But yes, that sentence should be read in the same tone as "telescopes have given us lots of stars" without implying that star formation is associated with Galileo's invention. There were bacteria before there were microscopes. You get the drift. And I agree with the general thrust of Tangent's point, that the scientific method can't answer every question we might come up with. "Why is there something rather than nothing" remains a question not easily answered by science.

Now back to work.

Down periscope.

I cannot comment upon Barney and also maintain a calm demeanor; my face becomes suffused with blood, my eyes become distended, my teeth grind. I become tetchy. And pedantic. Therefore, I must recuse myself from offering details.

Sesame Street rules! Kratt's Creatures = darned fine television (much better than Zooboomafoo). Arthur is excellent. I'm a big fan of The Magic School Bus (Little Richard, gittin' down for the elementary-school set! Righteous!).

But, man; even the horrific Kidsongs was better than Barney.

My wife once received an e-mail with the following Lovecraftian bit in the signature block:

Beneath an alien Sun, Dead Barney waits.

Hey nelson, that storm went over us in the wee hours and would have passed Cassandra around 6, I'm guessing. Sometimes it's a good thing to be in an urban area where there are hills and other topographical irregularities to prevent a tornado from doing its worst. Land is flat on the coastal plain, and from what I hear they have a real mess in Columbus County. I hope they have good emergency services.

StorytellerTim, do you have Popular Mechanics for kids in the US - my girls like it a lot.

No matter how hard I tried could not get the girls to appreciate Franklin the Turtle as much as I did.

On fibonacci numbers and Catholicism.

I don't have my book to look up the exact society -- but in Eli Maor's book on Fermat's theorem, he states that the current head of the Fibonacci number society is a brother in a monastery -- I think in California.

My books are coming home this weekend. I'm finishing repainting the shelves and the brackets. Will mount them and get the books on Saturday or Sunday. It's an empty house, one with only a scattering of books.

dmd -- hang in there in the rain and the closed freeway. I hope you're all bundled up warm somewhere. I'm also surprised that Toronto is getting rain this late in the year. Snow seems more likely to me -- is rain unusual for mid-November in Toronto?

Dawkins doesn't try to prove god doesn't exist he just says there's no evidence that he does. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bertrand Russell pointed out that while he couldn't prove there isn't a teapot in the orbit of Mars he wouldn't organize his life around the assumption there is.
After 9/11 Dawkins decided it was time to take the gloves off and demand proof for silly, unsupportable beliefs, and about time too IMO.

Book recommendation:

Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation by Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith.

Godfrey is a paleontologist who was raised as a creationist. Smith (his brother-in-law) is a Baptist preacher.

slyness - last I saw there were 7 dead in NC from the storm. A trailer park got slammed by a tornado.

Very sad stuff. The rain prediction here is a washout (uggh). We're getting light rain and the wind has died completely.

Dawkins eulogy for Douglas Adams.

http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html

Rain was once an oddity in Canukistanian November. However, in recent years it has become more and more normal. It rained here in Edmonton for about five minutes this morning. It also is expected to hit nearly 7 degrees by Sunday.

yellojkt, I think they're like opinions; everybody has one.

Was that subtle enough? Hey, any crudeness is entirely in your own mind.

You did decorate your website with "Vonnegut references" didn't you?

As a family the Yokis, fortunately, missed the whole Barney phenomenungh. Although when she was in grade 1, #2 developed an age-inappropriate and inexplicable passion for the Teletubbies and inflicted them on us once or twice a week for about 6 months. Its only redeeming character was the vacuum-cleaner dog, who reminded us all of the spaniel we had at the time.

Milton Freedman has died.

Friedman

Boko999 -- there is a difference between scientific evidence and faith.

The best interpretation of a belief in God is precisely this: -- Faith. One can't prove the existence of a deity -- a creator god, or any other beings.

One can't disprove it either. But to have faith is different. The best of religious traditions don't require evidence of a god. They work on faith --

The best traditions also respect science and all it implies. Many people of faith have room for both their belief in a god and the way this belief orients their life towards compassion and "good works," and for science.

To harden an already black/white dialog by requiring evidence for what exists in the realm of faith is a wrong-headed approach, IMHO.

I realize the tone and unyielding ideology of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu fundamentalists imperils our world, our peace, and attack science.

I just don't view it as helpful for scientists to apply scientific standards to the unmeasurable, unquantifiable, unknoweable world of faith.

One can question fundamentalism without falling prey to the same kind of thinking.

Wilbrod:// That for instance "fossil species" have been found still living doesn't mean evolution doesn't work.

It's a common misconception that evolution means that the older species must go extinct.//

Are you sayin' that that's what I'm sayin'? 'Cause that ain't what I'm sayin'.

What I'm saying is that evolutionary scientists have occasionally determined that a certain species of animal was both extinct and had evolved into something else. And later discovered that there's an abundance of that extinct species living off the coast of Australia or something.

Only with Christ's return are we likely to see the truth about evolution. Until then, the best a creationist can hope for (scientifically) is evidence that casts doubt on a specific aspect of the old earth theory. And there's an abundance of that.

Re. Science and Religion (and/or Spiritual Mysticism), I'd recommend reading (and I have in here previously) Ken Wilber's collection "Quantum Questions".

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681/sr=8-1/qid=1163706239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6227165-4566307?ie=UTF8&s=books

Wilber's book consists of a thought-provoking introduction followed by spiritual writings from some of the most accomplished physicists of the 20th century (Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Eddington, etc.) on the topics of science, faith, religion, spirituality, and mysticism.

I won't belabor this post far beyond my strong recommendation, but it's very interesting to read what a lot of great scientific minds thought of the questions of science and faith.

bc

kerric -- ah, the warming thing. It was 81 degrees here last week. It's actually 73 degrees(F) as I write.

Williamsburg is supposed to be a Horticultural Zone 7, which means winter lows down to 0 degrees F. Last winter it never got below 20.

It's never been below 10 since I've lived here -- ten years now.

I am going to take an unpopular position here. One sure to incite wrath and disdain.

I liked Barney the Dinosaur.

There, I said it. I liked him because he spoke to little children in the way they were comfortable with. He was like Mr. Rogers in a big padded suit. There was no wink and nod to the parents, no attempt at satire or parody. It was all about the kids. There is a kind of integrity there.

Of course, my high opinion of Barney is also based on his unique ability to keep my son entertained. My son was about a year old when Barney came on the scene, and it was love at first sight. When Barney visited the Springfield Mall, we took my son to see him. Although he is embarrassed about it now, at the time the glee in his eyes was unmistakable. It is a very happy memory for me.

Sure, Sesame Street was more educational, and clearly had better music. And there is no doubt that the cultural footprint of Barney will quickly fade. But I will always remember the big guy fondly.

bc -- I've read some short article about Ken Wilbur. I really like what I read.

Thanks for reposting that link. Methinks I'll check it out this time.

Have fun with your submarines and your rubber ducky!! :-)

yello-Yes

Heisenberg! Are you sure?

No, Nelson, November is a dull month here. We can get snow but it doesn't last long. Snow that stays doesn't really happen til January or mid December. We generally have a green Christmas and often a wet mild New Years.

wow -- the storm is really bad.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15747102/

There were depth charges in the boodle and I missed them? Bummer.

One of my most entertaining but surreal work experiences as a junior programmer was getting background for some underwater mine simulations I was doing. The little old lady physicist doing the brief had the perfect grandmother mannerisms and look, but the subject matter was gas bubbles and keel failure. I'm just as happy nowadays to not work on anything that blows up.

Geek pop/rock:

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/mandelbrot-set

"...If the series of Z's should always stay
Close to Z and never trend away
That point is in the Mandelbrot Set...."

***T.O-bashing ALERT***
dmd be honest. Toronto isn't green even in the spring time.

Sorry couldn't help it.

Wilbrod:// Indeed, if you read Genesis carefully, you will realize that the chronological order does not agree with each other between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. It's logically impossible no matter how you try to see them both as the exact same story with the events happening in correct order.

It calls you to elieve that God made human, plants, rivers, and the animals of Eden on the first day that he made the heavens and earth... and then he made all the creatures etc. on the third and forth days and THEN man on the sixth day.//

I've heard many objections to the Genesis account of creation, but no one has ever questioned its chronology. There's no mistake of chronology in it. Genesis 1 gives a more detailed description of creation. Then Genesis 2 starts off saying that God rested on the 7th day. Then it summarizes creation and focuses in on man's creation. It's similar to overlapping paint strokes.

Okay, first things first. Wilbrod, if there are no fireflies west of the Mississippi, what the heck are all those lightning bugs infesting my place all spring and summer?

Warning: Barney rant. At our house we refer to Barney as the Antichrist (the Teletubbies were the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse). As a toddler the Boy would say, "Look, Mommy! The Antichrist!" I think, RD, some of our quarrel with Barney was what you considered a positive attribute. He did speak to little children in a way they were comfortable with. However, Ivansdad & I felt that his main message was that it was fine not to stand out or challenge yourself, and remain in ignorance, as long as you feel good about yourself and share. We neither one believe that this is a good message for children. [Parenthetical rant against the evil children's book "Rainbow Fish", in which the beautiful fish is ostracized and condemned until it is denuded, giving a single scale to each other fish, telling children it is antisocial to be outstandingly beautiful, talented, or extraordinary in any way.] Besides, he stole songs.

Of course, we could have been reading too much into it. Except for the stealing part.

We wish, Kerric. The flowers bloom decades earlier out there than they do here. Its May till tulips bloom here.

I cannot believe you said that RDP. I am suffering just thinking about it. You are lucky though. Just a little later and you would have had to like the Teletubbies.

You mean it is *not* antisocial to be outstandingly beautiful, talented, or extraordinary in any way?! Had I known that, my high school career would have been much happier.

I really can't believe the lack of sophistication in children's programs that I'm seeing on this boodle. Were you really that deprived as children?

Is there no memory of Captain Kangaroo???

Bob Keeshan was a genius!

I really shouldn't be invovled in this discussion without my 'baccy crutch but what the heck I'll count to 10 before I islam.(Atheists are cranky 'cause they're the only ones without an imaginary friend)
Nelson mentioning tradition twice within the space of a few words sets my BS antennae atwitchin'. Whenever someone can't give a good reason for doing, not doing, or believing something they fall back on tradition. An institution at least usually has a reason for its existence.
I don't know who wrote "Tradition is the tyranny of the dead", but I completely agree.
Church was the first place I realized I was being lied to.

Exactly, Nelson.

The first few songs in the Sikh book, the Sri Granth Sahib expressly warn against fundamentalism, ascetism, and believing you know what God has in mind for the universe. You can see the clear influence of Christianity (and Judaism), as well.

It is impressive how brilliantly the songs speak of monotheism in the cultural context of India.

The first few verses:

"One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent.

True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True.

By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times."
...
O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All. || He cannot be established, He cannot be created. He Himself is Immaculate and Pure.

Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words.
there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him!
...
You created the vast expanse of the Universe with One Word!
...
From the Word, comes destiny, written on one's forehead.
But the One who wrote these Words of Destiny-no words are written on His Forehead. "

"Virtue and vice do not come by mere words; actions repeated, over and over again, are engraved on the soul....

Pilgrimages, austere discipline, compassion and charity; these, by themselves, bring only an iota of merit.

And I like this:

"What was that time, and what was that moment? What was that day, and what was that date? What was that season, and what was that month, when the Universe was created?
The Pandits, the religious scholars, cannot find that time, even if it is written in the Puraanas.
That time is not known to the Qazis, who study the Koran.
The day and the date are not known to the Yogis, nor is the month or the season.
The Creator who created this creation-only He Himself knows.
How can we speak of Him? How can we praise Him? How can we describe Him? How can we know Him?
O Nanak, everyone speaks of Him, each one wiser than the rest.
Great is the Master, Great is His Name. Whatever happens is according to His Will.
...
O Nanak, one who claims to know everything shall not be decorated in the world hereafter."

"Only one as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State. Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself."

...If anyone presumes to describe God,he shall be known as the greatest fool of fools!"

And my favorite:

"No one can estimate His Worth. By speaking of Him, His Greatness is not increased."

www.srigranth.org

This book is completely in verse, being comprised of ragaas (devotional hymns/songs) of poets from 3 different religions (Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism), and it is much, much longer than the bible.

Kerric you will note I very carefully note that I live on the western fringes of the GTA, actually I believe where I live is considered just outside the GTA, close enough to enjoy the benefits Toronto has, theatre, sports, dining, museums etc., but only when I want to.

And here I was ready to admit how much I love Edmonton - very true - loved the trees, what I missed in Calgary was trees, also being despised for where I lived wasn't fun either. The bashing doesn't faze me but I find it funny to ask the bashers where they grew up or where their family is from. :-)

Turtletoe, I don't think "evolutionary scientists have occasionally determined that a certain species of animal was both extinct and had evolved into something else. And later discovered that there's an abundance of that extinct species living off the coast of Australia or something" does not accurately reflect what the scientists say. What they do say is that there can be fossil evidence of a species that is still existing (even if living examples aren't known at the time the fossils are first identified) *and* that there can co-temporally be other living species that evolved from that common ancestor. Nothing very surprising about that, I don't think.

When I typed the e-word just now, I got it wrong and it appeared as "eloving." Maybe that would reconcile the faith and science communities!

Read it again, Ticklishturtletoe. The details differ. I had to point it out to a preacher friend of mine when we were in college together, and she was surprised she had never noticed it before.

It didn't hurt her faith any.

The fact "it's two stories, overlapping brush strokes" (nice way to explain logical fallacies, hah)-- that is a very good reason to consider Genesis as a story meant to be read allegorically, not as a logical or literal blueprint about creation in ANY sense.

It is very obvious if you read Genesis 2 and then Genesis 1.

dmd, *hugs.* Kerric really was just joshing.

ps: I don't like Calgary for the lack of trees or the east-bashing, either. There are lots of things I do like, but neither of those are among them.

And Sesame Street really didn't need Elmo. I'm sorry, the little red furry market-driven beast just isn't in Bert & Ernie's class.

Stumbling briefly on topic, I must admit I didn't automatically interpret the phrase "a cold, callous, unsightly and indeed frightening world" as referring to a world which respects science. I did recognize that this is a familiar indictment of science. However, Ayatollah What's-His-Name (I can only scroll back and forth so many times) is relatively moderate, and Islam hosted some early scientific and mathematical discoveries. While some later sects appear to wish to turn back that clock, I've never thought of Islam as anti-science per se (and Iran sure is embracing nuclear technology). I took His Whatsit's remarks to refer more to a world dominated by secular culture, with TV & movies and pop music and nekkid folks (especially women, it is very dangerous to look at us) and I-Pods and Grand Theft Auto et alia ad infinitum (that is lawyer talk). I don't wish to derange the faith vs. science Boodle thread, but perhaps science was not his focus. Of course, I probably looked at it like this because, while pointy, I'm not really a sciency type.

I break my embargo to announce that Carl Hiaasen is making his only area appearance at Politics and Prose tonight at 7 pm. Unfortunately I already have other commitments and really don't want to be out in this weather.

Sorry dmd I really couldn't help it. I tried but every time I looked away that post was on my screen again. I blame the little shoulder deevil. He shares the same name as my older brother, who constantly put me up to no good as a child.

I would love to actually travel through Ontario as there are many beautiful places to see both in and out of the GTA. but I can justify the expense with all the bills that need paying. I've

Yoki I miss Calgary. Mostly for the easy to navigate roadways when compared to Edmonton.

And I miss Edmonton (where I did a fair bit of my growing up) for its intellectual life and vibrant arts culture. I prefer the winters in Calgary, though.

Bingo, ivansmom. He's talking about the "world without God", not the "world of science". A casual observer will notice that even here that there are different interpretations of how much those concepts overlap.

There is only one word that describes the whole universe, and that word is not found in any book, is it?

Science seeks to identify and describe what we do know of it. What we can describe is forever outstripped of what we cannot. That is the nature of science; that is the nature of our existence. Science is not intended to serve a spiritual purpose, although it can, by accident.

What SPIRITUAL purpose does belief in creation science serve?

How does analyzing and wringing Genesis dry beyond recognition in an distorted effort to explain thousands upon thousands of things the Bible never was meant to explain....

How does that bring you any closer to feeling the majesty of creation than leaving the Bible be and letting us honestly realize that we are as a fly speck on the broad face of the universe and even that is not permanent nor infinite?

I'm into science for the rush of discovering what I didn't know before, and mathematically there are infinite things to know even about a finite universe, let alone God.

I see no personal appeal in arguing that everything is already known and in the bible somehow. We may know whodunit, we are interested in what was done.

Kerric, ZERO umbrage taken, actually made me laugh. I know what you mean about travel I want to go west again, and east and south but for some reason you have to pay to do these things.

Different topic, what ever happened to Grover, somewhere between when I watched Sesame Street and my kids did Grover faded away.

ticklish - Captain Kangeroo was great right up there with Mr. DressUp and the Friendly Giant.

SCC: outstripped BY...

My confusion over the need to make Genesis, somehow, a basis for science is not scc'able though.

I think Grover went to South America!

Grover was still on SS when #1 was tiny, but not when #2 joined us. Nonetheless, at our house when one is very very happy and excited about something, we still do the Grover arm wave.

Wilbrod, not to quibble, but *I* live west of the Mississippi and we do, indeed, have fireflies.

As a Wyomingite not enjoying a month of minus 20 to minus 30 degree(F)nights, I wondered about the High Line communities of Montana, not to mention Edmonton.

It's very dangerous to call anything a "living fossil." You don't know what's hiding under the hood, beneath that obsolete sheet metal. We certainly have some very conservative-looking trees, shrubs, and water lilies (of all things), but the've presumably all been waging evolutionary chemical warfare on their herbivores and fungal pests for ages. Thomnas Eisner might be the biologist to read (or interview).

The baby Dioon cycads from Mexio that I have in the yard belong to an ancient group, but there's every indication that the genus has been doing the normal things in ecological space and time--probably splitting into new species, fitting into ecological niches, etc. It looks like you can Dioon in Washington:
http://www.usbg.gov/plant-collections/conservation/Dioon-edule.cfm

dmd, you will get the answers here.

http://www.zeroboutique.com/grover/

Grover is still with SS, but as a global (g)rover..

"Your loveable, blue, and furry friend Grover is now in the spotlight with his very own section of Sesame Street. Each day Grover takes viewers on a journey to a new spot on the globe, thus giving him his new name, Global Grover! He introduces children in the U.S. to children all over the world who are also learning and growing; mastering new dances, making new things, and playing with friends and family. This section of the show evolved out of a desire to feature curriculum addressing global awareness, understanding of others, and an appreciation of both similarities and differences."

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Grover

Since Grover, like Kermit, is originally a Muppet, I believe he might have been off SS for a while in the math of Jim Hensen's death and the muppet/sesame street licensing dispute.

I know I don't see Kermit on SS much anymore.

Whoops-- Wheezy and Ivansmom-- I've heard it from a few others that missed fireflies when living in Washinton. One told me there were no fireflies west of the Mississippi.

Which is why it pays not to take personal accounts as fact ;). What do they know, they didn't go checking every square mile ;).

Toronto in the '70's George's Spagetti House, The Gasworks, el Macombo, Yonge Station, the O'Keefe, the Royal Ontario Museum.
Ottawa in '70's le Hibou, the Spark's St. KFC, John's Place Carleton U

The Carl Hiaasen signing is the same time as Andrew Sullivan signing his new book at Lambda Rising. Decisions, decisions.

Jim Henson. Now there is a genius who did not worry much about religion, or science. He just made people happy. We need more people who want to make happiness.

Would you settle for bad puns instead, dr?

dr, too funny.

Boko Sparks St - KFC? Going for beers then greasy chicken? John's Place I don't remember renamed by early 80's. I hung out at Olivers/Roosters/and the little bar in between the two.

Your Toronto list great places only two remain, one under a different name (don't get me started on the renaming of buildings drives me insane), and the other undergoing massive reno.

Miss the Gasworks and el Macombo.

Edmonton in the 70s: The Power Station, HUB, the Sidetrack

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes -- our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead." -- Gilbert K. Chesterton

sky report: (1st ever for me)

it's been cloudy for the past 4-5 days here. Rain off and on, poured today just as I was walking back from class, got completely soaked. But, it was one of those rains that is kind of warm (I know: in November!), so I didn't really mind that much. But the clouds, combined with the clock change, means that it is already well dusky now, at 4:20. It's a day like today that makes you want to curl up, with a book or movie, dog at your feet, and cup of tea or hot chocolate in your hand. If it stays like this too much longer, I'm going to have to start talking in a British accent. The coolest thing though, is the low fog that comes off the water. We have several ponds on campus: have you every seen the tendrils of fog skating across the water, through dead reeds, just barely illuminated by the moon or star light? Eerie, but beautiful.

Best fireflies: at my grandmother's house in Western PA. She lives right next to a farm, so there are acres upon acres of fields with thousands of them doing their thing. An inverse sky.

I feel so sorry for Andrew Sullivan.
Hey.
I'm over it.

Yoki, Heisenberg's writings are the first section of the book after Wilber's introduction. Might be the largest part of the book IIRC. Check the link above, and you can actually scroll through parts of the book...

bc

Tangent, your description of the mist on the ponds is beautiful.

When I lived in the interior of BC, in the depths of the mountains, it fascinated me to see clouds desending and getting caught on the inky-green branches of the pines just below the treeline.

Sky report imagery:

The bunnies out back built an ark and sailed it downhill with the storm run-off.

My dog was devasted when we waded uphill through pawdeep water and found the discarded cardboard box the ark came in, and no cottontails anywhere. We stood there, in the heavy deluge and wordless cast-iron sky above.

He sniffed, "where have all the bunnies gone?"

sorry bc, I was making a very small (and clearly not at all funny) joky reference to the uncertainty principle.

ticklishturtletoe said: "Only with Christ's return are we likely to see the truth about evolution. Until then, the best a creationist can hope for (scientifically) is evidence that casts doubt on a specific aspect of the old earth theory. And there's an abundance of that."

[Okay, I have to join this debate. It's too juicy a target, and ticklishturtletoe has posed the issue in a particularly straightforward way. Let me note that I am not specifically arguing in opposition to TTT (after all, I don't know much about TTT or the fabric of his personal beliefs), but neither am I arguing against a straw-man version of creationism invented by myself. This is the real stuff, as I have seen it put forward in various fora.]

Au contraire, mon ami!

That may be the best a creationist can hope for, but it is based on a misunderstanding of how the evidence works, thus the creationist hopes for too much or hopes inappropriately. There really is no question but that the Earth is old. One need not resort to the concept of evolution to demonstrate that fact. We can observe the rate at which sedimentary layers are formed and eroded and deduce therefrom that the Earth is at least millions of years old. We can examine the distribution of radioactive elements and nonradioactive elements at the end of known radioactive decay chains, and deduce therefrom that the Earth is at least 3.7 billion years old. We can play the same analytical game with meteorite samples and deduce that the oldest of them cluster at about 5.2 billion years old. You may choose to believe that the Earth is only 5680 years old, or 10 minutes old, but you are confronted by a world in which physical laws work and which is built to be CONSISTENT with a planetary age of 5.2 billion years, within a universe of 13.6 billion years, according to the physical laws that describe present-day reality. Whether it is actually that old, or not, is irrelevant. It is consistent with that age, so you might as well learn more about the structure of the world as it exists.

Evolution is not the argument for an old Earth. That is solidly established by other means, by direct quantitative measurement. Evolution is not a theory -- it is an observable fact. Gene frequencies vary over time and location. That is evolution. We can look at the fossil record (whose ages we know quite well from geophysics) and observe the variation over time of species. Most of this sort of evidence is not based on the charismatic megafauna so beloved by an adoring public -- the dinosaurs, the pterosaurs, the giant crocodiles, the super-rhinos, the cute little primates -- which are spectacular, but which fossilize so rarely that they provide only a rather spotty fossil record, with all those "missing links" that are so beloved of the "god of the gaps" theological school. Most of it is based on things like seashells and snail shells, which fossilize easily and which are sufficiently numerous in all periods after they first appear that they can provide good statistical information. Quantitative paleontology involves a lot of shell classification and counting (or so I am told). These creatures may seem lowly and boring to the common person, but they are the backbone (humor! irony!) of evolutionary science and such refined theories of evolutionary processes as Punctuated Equilibrium (Dooley, slap me down if I am getting out of line here).

Getting to the point, finally: What is in contention is the Theory of Natural Selection as the description of a mechanism to coherently interpret the many, many pieces of evidence that refute a literalist reading of Genesis and similar creation stories. Each piece of fossil evidence can accomodate many, many possible theories. TWO pieces of fossil evidence can accommodate far fewer theories. THREE pieces of fossil evidence -- even fewer. And so on. When you find an extant "living fossil", it does not even partially disprove the old Earth hypothesis, it only disproves some category of competing hypotheses derived from specific evidence, narrowing the field for acceptable hypotheses. For EVERY fossil, there is a null hypothesis -- "this species is extinct" -- which can be summarily disproved by finding a living critter. It is not all that shocking. If a creationist wishes to argue about evolution, then he must confront the fact that practically every prediction one might take from a literalist reading of Genesis is disproven by specific fossil or extant evidence. For instance, the null hypothesis from a literalist interpretation of Genesis would have to be "there can be no evidence of life older than 5680 years (plus or minus some modest wiggle room), because the Earth did not exist before that time." Right away, the discovery of numerous fossils, worldwide (we're talking billions), in many sedimentary layers that can be confidently dated to much more than 5680 years old, invalidates this reading of Genesis as a source of predictive hypotheses about geology, physics, and biology. One could go on, but it would be cruel. Genesis is a powerful metaphor; it is not predictive science.

My point is not to argue that religious faith is inconsistent with science, or is disproven. If you feel faithful -- more power to ya. My point is that a religious faith based upon current gaps in scientific understanding is a faith that is doomed, a faith that claims that God is so simple that we can understand Him perfectly; talk about arrogance! The "God of the gaps" is a conception of God based on pointing to all the current missing bits in scientific arguments and saying "that's because of God. You need God to explain that bit, there." But science keeps filling in those gaps, so that such a conception of God keeps getting smaller and smaller. To claim that the gaps in scientific theories are God-shaped is silly, arrogant, and trivial.

Yeah, Heinsburg opined after a few dozen beers that there's no way to be sure where you are at the SAME time you're aware of how fast you're going.
Physicists since have claimed this as a drunk-driving defense. The most famous one was: "Y'honor, I knew I was at a red light, but I didn't know I was NOT at zero velocity."

The aliens on Sesame Street were my favorites...the one where they try to communicate with a telephone is a classic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yip-Yips

Whew. While I was bloviating, a zillion other posts were made. I'm signing off now, as I seem unable to restrain myself from posting. I urge you to enjoy tearing me up.

Yoki, you got me. It *was* funny, and I'm trying to do several things at once, not focusing.

I'm tired, and now I'm irritated that I didn't know Hiaasen was in town, and can't get down there (not too far from where I am right now) at that time to ask him about bonefishing. Crap.

bc

"My God"

People -- what have you done --
locked Him in His golden cage.
Made Him bend to your religion --
Him resurrected from the grave.
He is the god of nothing --
if that's all that you can see.
You are the god of everything --
He's inside you and me.
So lean upon Him gently
and don't call on Him to save you
from your social graces
and the sins you used to waive.
The bloody Church of England --
in chains of history --
requests your earthly presence at
the vicarage for tea.
And the graven image you-know-who --
with His plastic crucifix --
he's got him fixed --
confuses me as to who and where and why --
as to how he gets his kicks.
Confessing to the endless sin --
the endless whining sounds.
You'll be praying till next Thursday to
all the gods that you can count.

Sorry that's Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull-- if I was a christian-well

Wilbrod, your 3:59 hit the nail on the head for me.

Boko999 -- there are traditions in science and other academic disciplines as well.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to get at -- traditional or no.

Religion and science are two different ways of knowing. The best of both *traditions* recognizes the existence and yes, even the legitimacy, of the other.

At the least, I do believe many in science, even if they are atheist, understand that religion does play a signigicant role in the life of many human beings. A postive role.

There is a difference between religious dogma and spirituality. *This* is what I'm trying to say. Dogmatism can be the source of horrific actions and misunderstandings.

Many, many people find a way to be spiritual, or religious without getting caught up in the fiercest dogmas.

Yes, some religious traditions -- interpreted in a new, modern, fundamentalist way (and fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon) are tearing parts of the world apart. Fundamentalist Islam is for the most part of 20th century creation (Wahhabism dates back to the late 18th century). Fundamentalist Christianity arose as a direct consequence to the Higher Criticism. And the 18th and 18th century Great Awakenings.

The loudest and most violent religious fundamentalists get all the attention.

I feel that attacking religion as bad, not being evidenced-baased, "traditional" or stupid, is the same as creationists attacking science because it threatens the book of Genesis and a literal interpretation of the bible.

I am not religious, in the sense that I hew to a dogma or a doctrine. I too, struggled greatly with what I heard in Mass every Sunday as a kid.

But I do have a sense of something in this world and universe that is greater than myself. A sense of the mysticism and spirituality that Wilbrod has mentioned. I have evolved a way of engaging the world that completely integrates my scientific training (and endless curiousity) and my spiritual needs.

I guess I live in the subtle grey areas of life.

Wilbrod, bad puns make me happy. I'm always game, lame but game.

Boko999 -- I think you unwittingly posted in Ian Anderson's lyrics what I've been getting at:

"He's inside you and me." It's the misuse of god and religion that Anderson is writing about.

It's and inside job. :-)

SCC: It's an inside job.

And to my 4:51 -- 18th and 19th century.

*Cough cough! Cough cough!*
*Sticks finger down throat to try to regurgitate the words that Wilbrod and ScienceTim stuffed in his mouth.*

Nelson, do you perceive what I said as "attacking science" or were you just speaking in general?

I too am miffed that I won't see Carl Hiassen this evening. I wouldn't ask him about bonefishing; I'd ask him where Skink came from (wonderful character!) and how on earth his editors let him get away with the hilarious and disgusting image of the 'roid-crazed security guard trying to free himself by chewing off his own leg in, was it, Native Tongue?

Tim, there are about 8 or 10 of us who can resume breathing again. Thanks.

Hear, hear, SciTim!

I suppose I am completely simple and naive, but I am under the impression that faith and science have no contradictions with each other. Science answers How, faith answers Why.

I am a Christian but I am NOT a fundamentalist. The moral absolutism of that creed seems to me to lead to a complete dead end, both for faith and for science.

By no means do I have all the answers, but my goal is to be the person God means for me to be, as best I can. Arguing about creationism is a diversion that keeps me from focusing on that goal.

As far as I am concerned, life itself is a prima facie miracle. Most of the time, I'm grateful for that! Let us get beyond arguing about evolution and set our sights on learning about the world, so that we can make it a better place for all.

There are much more subtle, supple, and schooled minds here on the boodle than mine but excuse me if I don't accept mystisism and spiritual experience as anything more than delusion. I've had my brain fool me too many times for me to accept anything as real until I have at least some evidence.
What a t