My New Favourite Term:

Sheeple.

Just When You Thought...

Just when you thought the Christian film industry couldn't sink any lower, comes The Bike King and the Ten Commandments. Possibly the worst Christian film of all time, and that's just from seeing the trailer. Although, I must admit, the broken-record, CD-pooping God Tree is intriguing, and I actually quite like the anaconda Satan ("You can call me... the Prince of Darkness") those are more bonuses of irony, not of directorial intent.

Check it out.

Edmonton Adventures

I've come home for two weeks, only to be encountered by mystery here.

My second day home, we got an envelope in the mail. "A. Thorne" was all that was on the front, and it was not mailed but dropped off. It was thick in the middle. We opened it to see if we could find further identification inside since none of us know anyone by that name. Inside was a folded piece of paper filled with a slightly off white powder. Written on the paper was "See Message Above - From A. Thorne"

We did what most sane people would do if they found a package of white powder in the mail - we phoned the cops. They were going to send a car out, but since we were leaving the house, we said we'd drop it off. We brought it to the police station and after filling out the proper forms, etc. we took off.

Later that night we got a phone call from the police saying they had analyzed the powder. It was general mill flour.

The next day we got another envelope addressed to the "Household at 12..... Ave". Opening it up we were told that we were now subscribed to a website on astro-physics, which would cost us 1280 AstroMarks. Weird.

My mom started phoning the neighbours to see if they had gotten weird mail, and it turns out our next door neighbour's 14 year-old son was bored and playing practical jokes. He thought the flour would make a mess when we opened it, and so would be funny. The website was fake, and so would be funny.

He got quite a talking to from his parents, and came over to apologize looking pretty upset. I felt bad. It makes me wonder what kind of world we live in, when a practical joke immediately gets police involvement. Then again, what do you do when you find white powder in your mail box?

Frustration!

I've just been reading in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as he tries to pull apart why "Theistic Evolution" is wrong. First, he completely screws up its definition, including general evolution but with interventions along the way. (This would be progressive creationism). Then he ridicules them for their inconsistency with Genesis ("And God said 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds' and after three hundred eighty-seven million four hundred nintey-two thousand eight hundred seventy-one attempts, God finally made a mouse that worked"). What kind of uninformed junk is this? All it does is show his own ignorance of both the genre and intention of the author(s) of Genesis and his own ignorance of Darwinian theory. Even worse is later when he starts pointing out the issues with Darwinian theory. Especially the classic micro-macro distinction. THERE ISN'T ONE!!! If you observe micro distinctions, those are the same thing that lead to the so-called "macro" evolutions. Even back in 1953, one of the guys who coined the third (and rather ignored) term of "megaevolution" (Simpson) said "At present I am inclined to think that all three of these somewhat monstrous terminological innovations have served whatever purpose they may have had and that clarity may now be improved by abandoning them." The only difference between them is time frame. Yes, yes, I hear you saying "but macroevolution is one species to another, and microevolution is within a species." Fine. Define a species for me then. "Why," says you "it is a reproductionally isolated family of animals". Great! Good definition! Unfortunately it is often impossible to tell if certain species can be crossed or not, and often (especially with plants) there is a range between 0% and 100% success rate in cross-breeding species. So if a plant has only a 3% chance of breeding (but can be crossed) with another plant, is it a separate species? Especially if compared to another plant with which it has a 90% success rate. All the same species? Not likely. There is also the problem of birds whose mating song changes. Physically they can reproduce, but because the song is different, the females won't mate. Different species? Technically, yes. Physically, no. The science books go with the technical answer.
Here's the deal: no one can define what exactly a species is because it is a false delineation, and like other distinctions we like to make (fruit/vegetable, animal/plant, living/non-living) nature just loves throwing things in that don't fit. Darwin didn't believe in "species" as a hard and fast delineation, and a comparison of numbers of species in any animal or plant encyclopedia will always disagree. So give it up!

Woo, ok, done ranting. Sorry. Got a little carried away there. I just can't stand smart people using their excellent brains to screw over people who don't have the chance to study at Harvard and Cambridge, etc.

I wonder if Grudem thinks the sun moves around the earth, as the Bible "clearly teaches"....

Procrastination!

... Don't put it off today!

Seriously though, I should be working on my thesis. But it is that mid-afternoon lull when my mind is not very sharp, and trying to introduce the issues that plate tectonics brings into theodicy is just not working well. I also sat in on an interesting round table discussion today: "Agonies and Ecstasies: Women in the Church, Academy, and Society". Suddenly, I've been inundated with feminist thought and I'm not sure what to do about it. Part of me wants to stay away from the whole debate and just go on with what I'm doing without trying to look to close at it. Maybe I'd rather not know.
On ther other hand, it feels a good deal like it did right before I got into the science/religion debate... standing on the edge of a huge and tangled issue, not sure if I want to get involved, but realizing that I'll probably find it immensely fascinating and hugely frustrating.

Do I want to go there? Don't know yet.

Well, back to work.

Thesising

I've been thesising for two weeks now. I'm not quite sure if I like it or hate it. It is nice in terms of the amount of focus on just this one area. There are no little assignments, no reading logs, no distractions. Yet, that almost makes everything a distraction. I've put myself on quite a definite schedule -- two weeks per chapter. I've finished chapter 1 within the time frame, though there are a couple of flow issues that need editing. Yet, I feel too close to the material to properly interact with it at this point. I'm scattered, trying to figure out how to talk about several different issues that are very close to each other, without actually repeating myself, and yet allowing the argument to build over the pages. Instead of one cohesive argument, it feels kind of like herding cats. Each cat is a part of the argument, but it has its own mind and only wants to serve its own particular interests. Argh! How do you make this come together?

One chapter at a time. Keep the later chapters in mind, but don't try and write them now. Let them wait. How do I make this chapter flow? I'm not sure. The last third is fine, but there is repetition amongst the first two sections...

Hmm... sorry folks, I'm getting carried away with my "inside thoughts", and using this as a stream of consciousness which I am sure you are not interested in. Instead, listen to this:

If you get an e-mail warning you about the dangers of eating processed pork due to the swine flu, feel free to ignore it, it's just spam. (hehe...)

Seeing yourself though another's eyes

I just had a moment of clarity.

I've been reading a variety of material for my thesis on evolutionary theodicy, and one of the articles was Wesley J. Wildman's in the book Physics and Cosmology. Basically, he holds that people (like me) who hold to a good, personal, and omnipotent Creator are self-deluded, optimistic folk who ignore the fundamental realities of the world we live in. The violence inherent in nature, the dog-eat-dog world, and the lack of divine intervention should undermine any confidence in such a God. However, after reading his well-written article, I find myself still convinced of the truth of my "wildly-optimistic", but caring, God. Even in the face of the reality of the world. Perhaps (as I argue in my thesis), partly because of it, and because of my commitment to the words of Scripture as faithfully portraying God.

Then, I started reading Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, where he describes how Henry Morris holds to a Young Earth Creationist scheme in the face of all available evidence to the contrary because of his committment to Scripture. To my mind, it looks ludicrous, and fails to understand even the basics of biblical interpretation. To Wildman, however, I look as ludicrous as Morris does to me. Optimistic, fundamentalist, and unable to face the facts of life.

My only defence comes in the form of holding that science and religion hold separate arenas of inquiry into truth. Observing nature can no more tell us the ethical nature of God or the world than smelling can tell us the colour of an object. Perhaps I am wildly optimistic to believe in a caring, personal God. But that God has interacted with us in history, in the person of Jesus Christ. This is something a ground-of-being god could and would not do. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Still, it is somewhat discomforting to see myself reflected in someone like Morris. Brings me back to the "everyone is logical in their own mind"... it is just a matter of understanding them before condemning them. Though, I still completely disagree with YEC, just for the record.