Polymathematics

You Go, Brother!

And by that, I literally mean "Brother" in the Catholic holy man sense.  This article reports on a Vatican astonomer who thinks that creationism is basically a pagan belief system.  That is, the pagans have natural gods who intervene in everyday, natural events (like lightning or growing crops).  The Christian god, he says, is a supernatural god who lets natural events unfold according to laws that are not in any way divine (other than being divinely created, I suppose).  In other words, seeking the laws of nature is in no way an inherently religious endeavor.

I know that the fundamentalists don't really consider Catholics to be "real" Christians (though I have little enough interest in the arcana of either religion to worry about why), so they might not be swayed by this astronomer.  But I hope that the horror of being compared to the dreaded "pagans" gives some of them pause.

At Least His Logic is Consistent

Kent Hovind is a major spokesman for creationism and one of the more extreme Christian zealots around.  He's also jaw-gapingly out of his mind.  (Thanks to Pharyngula for the link.)  You know, when we see terrorists making a mockery out of the beliefs of Islam, we wonder where the moderate Muslims are, and why they're not speaking out against them out as loudly as they could be.  And even though I'm not very sympathetic to most Christian tenets, I still wonder the same thing:  Where is the loud, strident denunciation of people like this from reasonable, mainstream Christians?

Offending Islam

All the talk about the recent cartoons that have offended Muslims has missed what I think is an important point.  Sure, maybe the newspapers that printed the cartoons were just being provocative, which they probably shouldn't have done.  Or maybe they had been censoring themselves for years, which they also shouldn't have done.  And the protesting Muslims who are setting churches and embassies on fire, should definitely also not be doing that.

But this is what worries me:  The protesters are shouting, "Death to Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish, French, and Norwegian governments.  And the governments keep saying, "It was an independent newspaper!  We think they were idiots to print those cartoons, but we can't speak for them!"  And the protesters keep shouting, "Death to Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish French and Norwegian governments.  And the goverments keep saying, "Uhhhh, it was stupid, but uhhhh it wasn't us."  And the protesters keep shouting, "Death to Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish French and Norwegian governments.  And the governments keep saying, "That's not how a democracy works, guys."  And the protesters keep shouting, "Death to Denmark" and demanding apologies from the Danish French and Norwegian governments.

Now, I know that the fundamentalist protesters don't represent all or even most of the Islamic world.  But they speak so loudly with their actions that they become the de facto voice of Islam.  And that voice is currently saying that Islam doesn't recognize the difference between the government of a country and its other institutions (like the press).  And this confirms one of the worst fears of the West, which is that the nations of the Middle East will hold free and fair elections, and willingly elect governments that do not recognize the difference between themselves and the other institutions of the country (like the press and the mosque).

It just convinces us more that democracy as we know it just a poor form of government for that part of the world.  I don't know if that's true or not.  If it is true, it's not because they're "not ready for democracy yet"—I find that horribly condescending (what makes us so sure that democracy is a "higher" form of government?).  Rather, I think that that if democracy can't work in the Middle East, it's simply because the fundamental tenets of democracy and the fundamental tenets of their brand of Islam just don't mesh.  So fine.  But if that's the case, then the current U.S. military operation is doomed to failure, whether you think they should be there or not.

I don't think I have a logical conclusion here.  But I do think that this conflation of a government with its country's press is a disturbing one.  This fundamental difference in how the protesters and the West view the press feels like a major obstacle to resolving this and other future potential problems.  Any thoughts?

This Ought to be the Final Word on ID

Not much to add to this.  I'm sure the fundamentalists won't ever heed this advice (possibly because it came from a Catholic), but I found this great quote by St. Augustine, who really ought to have the final word about the evolution vs. intelligent design non-debate (thanks to commenter Dan S. on Pharyngula for bringing it up):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

Unless we are supposed to doubt St. Augustine's faith, it's clear that it is possible to maintain faith and believe science at the same time.  Hello?  Mr. President?  Mr. Frist?

What's a Pharyngula?

I'd better let the website explain it.  But if you don't want to go there yet, you might want to watch this really cool nature video that they linked to.  Pretty good for a "mere invertebrate", huh?

The pharyngula website is associated with The Panda's Thumb, which seems to be one of the central locations for the pro-evolution side of the evolution vs. "intelligent design" debate.  The name is a reference to one of Stephen Jay Gould's books on evolution.  I'm a fan of Gould.  His writing about evolution is clear without being dumbed down, and his insights into evolutionary debate give non-biologists a real understanding of the issues.  The linked article discusses some of the controversial aspects of his writing.

But that's not my main point.  My main point is that I'm glad that Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb exist.  Because standing up for evolutionary theory over pseudo-scientific "intelligent design" is something I a) don't know enough about and b) don't have the patience for.  The whole argument about what to teach in a science classroom is almost too emotionally charged for me to take part.

Before I go on my little rant to get it out of my system, let me assure you that I fully understand that there are millions of devout, practicing Christians who believe that species evolved over millions of years according to principles generally accepted by evolutionary science.  They see no contradiction in reading the Bible metaphorically when it contradicts scientific understanding, and they see God's hand in the beauty of a system that He created and that allows for the development of the incredible range of biological diversity on our planet.  I know that ranting about the Religious Right can make me seem anti-religious, and I assure you that I'm not.

But having said that (and knowing that I'm coming to the depressing part later), I just have to say that the "intelligent design" (ID) proponents are just totally full of shit.  There...I did it.  My first real swearword on my blog.  Whew.

The ID "theory" (which it isn't, because it's not testable or falsifiable) is that some biological systems are too complex to have arisen incrementally over millions of years, and that this must mean that some intelligent force was behind their creation--randomness and selection being given too much credit for their power to create those structures.  Of course, all of the proponents of this "theory" are Christian, and their vision of the nature of this intelligence is always the Christian God.

So first of all, this runs into the common problem of all omnipotent god theories.  If God is so powerful, isn't it just remotely possible that He created the mechanism of evolution to be so efficient that it indeed could cause the diversity and complexity we see in the planet's biology?  I mean, the obvious way to reconcile a belief in God with a belief in evolution is right there, ready for the plucking.  But no, apparently God in His omnipotence can't do that.  He has to just go and create species or structures of species out of nowhere.

They're very clever, those ID "theorists".  They try to couch this in neutral language that doesn't seem on the face of it to be inflamatory.  "Teach the controversy" they say.  "Don't just teach kids about evolution because there's dissent about that--teach both sides."  Of course there isn't really any dissent about the basics of evolution in the scientific community, but the ID proponents suggest that maybe science is a little too smug about their methods, and they should be more flexible and admit the possibility that ID is correct.  There's just no way out of their argument.

So instead of trying to argue it, some people have suggested that we take their arguments further in logical ways.  Why only teach the Christian creation myth?  How about the Hindu view?  Or the Navaho view?  Or the Giant Spaghetti Monster view?  (Do NOT leave this page without checking out that link if you don't know what it is already!!!)  At this point in the discussion, the evolutionist point of view is just too clearly right, so I can't even get myself to listen to the counter-arguments to this reasoning.  I honestly don't know what those counter-arguments are.  I recognize that this is a character flaw on my part (impatience with idiocy), but I just get too riled up.

But that brings me to the depressing part.  Despite all this antipathy towards teaching ID (don't even get me started on separation of church and state issues), I can understand how they feel.  They really believe creationism/psuedoscience in the same way I really believe that the scientific method is the right way to understand the world and that it tell us unambiguously that evolution was at work to create all modern species (even if some of the details are still incomplete).  And if they really believe that the world is that way, why shouldn't they argue tooth and nail to have it mentioned in schools where people are supposed to learn the way the world is?  I honestly can't blame them.  They want the same thing I do:  students should learn what's correct, not what's incorrect.

There's no way for me to convince them with scientific evidence, because they don't accept the scientific method.  There's no way for them to convince me with Biblical evidence, because I don't accept the Bible as a document about the way the physical world works.  The problem is at the very root of what it means to be a "fact" or to be "correct".  Is all "fact" really just a belief?  I know that's part of the post-modern, deconstructionist thought process, but I can't get my brain around the idea that the whole idea of "evidence" only goes to prove a belief, not a fact.  Maybe it's my theorem-proving math brain.  Or my livelihood as a teacher.  But it seems to me we all need some facts.

As Charlie Brown would say, "AAAARRRGGGHHHHH".

Nauseating, fun, fun

Three links to keep you busy.  The first is truly nauseating, the second ones are fun.

For the first link, an analogy in the spirit of the old SAT questions:

Islam:Al Qaeda::Christianity: ?

In other words, what small subgroup of Christians has perverted the religion far beyond what was ever intended in a way that preaches hate?  Check out the link below.  I wrote out the punctuation because I don't want there to be any chance that they can trace where the link came from and then come back here and spam me or something.  You'll have to cut and paste and replace the punctuation:

(Warning:  This is so bad I really thought it was a joke at first.  It's not.)

http[colon][slash][slash]www[dot]godhatesamerica[dot]com
[slash]ghfmir[slash]main[slash]index[dot]html

Okay, now for the fun ones.  One for word-people, the other for puzzle-people (you can actually do the puzzles by clicking the links):

Word-people
Puzzle-people

Have fun...