Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

2008-06-12T18:11:00.004-04:00

Book Interview: The Cell's Design by Fuz Rana

Dr. Fuz Rana, the author of The Cell's Design, kindly agreed to answer interview questions about his new book via email. Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University. He currently serves as the vice president for science apologetics at Reasons To Believe.

There are some formatting irregularities due to the process of copying the text received from Dr. Rana. For that, I apologize, but it is still pretty readable.

1) What is
the central thesis of your book?

In the last decade or so molecular biologists, biochemists, and biophysicists have developed a wide range
of new techniques that give us an unprecedented view of life’s operation
at a molecular level. In my opinion, these new insights provide some
of the most compelling evidence that life must stem from the work of
a Creator.

The Cell’s Design
is my attempt to communicate the breadth and depth of these discoveries
and organize them into a formal argument for intelligent design (ID).
To make my case, I utilize a form of analogical reasoning called pattern
recognition.

I attempt to define an intelligent
design pattern using the behavior of human designers as a guide. Remarkably,
the defining characteristics and features of life’s chemical systems
closely correspond to the intelligent design pattern.

In my view, this analogy compels
the conclusion that life stems from a Creator. It’s not that life’s
chemistry appears to be designed. But it appears to be designed
in the same way that a system or object created by a human designer
appears to be designed.

2) Why did you feel The Cell’s Design needed to be
written at this time?

In my opinion, the scientific
evidence for the work of a Creator and the reliability of the Old and
New Testaments abounds in all areas of science. As a biochemist, I think
the most compelling evidence for ID is found in biochemistry, the study
of life’s most fundamental systems.

I find that very few people
appreciate the power and extent of the biochemical evidence for ID.
Most science apologetics works are quick to jump on the problems with
evolutionary explanations for life’s origin, including the information
content of living systems. These works might make some mention of Behe’s
concept of irreducible complexity (IC), but that usually is about it.
A small number of apologetics works give the appropriate attention to
the case that can be made for a Creator’s existence using biochemistry.

Of course the two chief exceptions
are Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and his new work
The Edge of Evolution. Both of these seminal works focus
on the biochemical case for ID. Still, much of Behe’s attention is
focused on explaining why evolutionary processes can’t yield IC biochemical
systems or trying to define the boundaries of biological evolution at
a molecular level.

The two goals I had for
The Cell’s Design were to:

Make a positive
case for ID from a biochemical perspective—without spending a lot
of space discussing what evolution can and can’t do. Without question,
this discussion is critical, but I felt that there needs to be a work
that focuses on the evidence for ID, not the problems with natural process
molecular evolution.

Communicate the
broad range of biochemical evidence for a Creator. Behe’s concept
of IC is powerful, but in my view, it is only one category of biochemical
evidence that can be marshaled in favor of ID. Oddly, I feel that
The Cell’s Design is incomplete. I could have written volumes
and still not exhausted the examples of intelligently designed systems
in life’s chemistry. The Cell’s Design
is just a sampling of the evidence for a Creator’s handiwork observed
at the biomolecular level.

3) How does your book use, go beyond, etc.
irreducible complexity?

In many respects, Behe pioneered
the biochemical case for intelligent design in Darwin’s Black Box.
In The Cell’s Design I continue the journey started by Behe,
and hopefully make the biochemical case for intelligent design that
much more pronounced.

Though compelling, irreducible
complexity does not necessarily represent an iron clad case for the
intelligent design of biochemical systems. Many skeptics feel that they
have an objective basis for rejecting Behe’s argument. Even though
Behe does an admirable job responding to his critics, many remain unmoved.
Their objections motivated me, in part, to write my book.

Irreducible complexity stands
as just one of an ensemble of biochemical features that individually
and collectively evince design. In The
Cell’s Design I attempt to go beyond irreducible complexity and
communicate the full range of amazing design features that characterize
life’s chemistry and use them to extend the biochemical case for intelligent
design.

By looking at the weight of
evidence, I hope to convince the reader that it is not a single piece
of evidence that points to intelligent design at the biochemical level.
Rather, it’s the collective body of data. While skeptics may not be
impressed by the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems, I hope
that they will respond differently to a growing collection of evidence
that points to the same conclusion—a supernatural basis for life.

4) Could you give an example of some of the design patterns we find
in the human cell and how they support your thesis?

One of the things I find absolutely
mind-boggling is the recognition that the salient characteristics of
biochemical systems are identical to those features we would immediately
recognize as evidence for the work of a human designer. In The Cell’s
Design I argue that the close match between biochemical systems
and the artifacts produced by human designers logically compels the
conclusion that life’s most fundamental processes and structures stem
from the work of an intelligent agent.

For example, biochemists have
discovered that many of the proteins that operate in the cell function
as molecular-level machines. Remarkably, many of these molecular machines
bear an eerie resemblance to man-made machines replete with drive shafts,
cam shafts, turbines, clamps, lever arms, bushings, stators, and rotors.
As I argue in The Cell’s Design, these discoveries re-invigorate
William Paley’s Watchmaker argument.

The production of these molecular
machines resembles a manufacturing process with the proteins produced
in an assembly-line fashion. I find it astounding that the manufacture
of proteins employs quality control checkpoints at key points in the
process. (For a preview of the chapter that discusses this in The
Cell’s Design check out this link, www.cellsdesign.com.)

Even though the biomolecular
pathways responsible for protein synthesis are well-designed, mistakes
inevitably creep into the operation because of the inherent nature of
chemical and physical processes. This makes quality control procedures
necessary.

Biochemical quality assurance
further highlights the remarkable ingenuity that defines the cell’s
chemistry and reinforces the conclusion that life has a supernatural
basis. Effective and efficient quality control procedures don’t just
happen. Rather, intentional foresight characterizes them. Sound quality
control systems require careful planning, a detailed understanding of
the manufacturing process, the product, and the way that the product
will be used. All of these features are evident in the quality control
activities in the cell. In protein biosynthesis, the placement of quality
assurance checkpoints occurs at strategic stages in the production process
in a way that ensures reliable protein production while generating manufacturing
efficiency.

The close correspondence between
the quality control operations designed by human engineers and the quality
control procedures found in the cell strengthens the biochemical intelligent
design analogy. In this context, the cell’s quality assurance systems
logically compel the conclusion that life’s chemistry emanates from
the work of a Divine Engineer.

Protein production is also
a chicken and egg system. Proteins are needed to produce proteins. Chicken
and egg biochemical systems add to the biochemical intelligent design
analogy. Human designers and engineers frequently face chicken and egg
problems. These problems can only be resolved by the strategic and simultaneous
implementation of interdependent components. In like manner, the biochemical
chicken and egg systems must have come about through the work of a Creator.

5) Do we find or do we expect to find software design patterns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns) in the cell's genetic code?

I’m not a software engineer,
so in many respects I don’t feel fully qualified to address this question.
Having said that, my sense is we will find software design patterns
in the cell’s information systems.

In The Cell’s Design,
I propose what I call the Watchmaker Prediction. Accordingly, as human
designers develop new technologies, examples of these technologies,
which previously went unrecognized, will become evident in the operation
of the cell’s molecular systems. In other words, if life stems from
the work of a Creator then it’s reasonable to believe that life’s
biochemical machinery anticipates human technology advances. The Watchmaker
Prediction applies to software design.

Something quite interesting
along these lines is recent work by a chemist from Trinity University
(Dublin, Ireland). It turns out that when adenine, guanine, thymine
(uracil), and cytosine are incorporated into DNA, they impart the double
helix with a unique structural property that causes the information
contained in this biomolecule to function like a parity code. Information
scientists and technologists use parity codes to minimize error in the
transfer of information. None of the other nucleobases that could have
been used to build DNA impart this biomolecule with this special quality,
only the specific combination of A, G, C, and T/U.

Every time the cell’s machinery
transcribes a gene or replicates the DNA molecule information is transmitted.
Transmission errors have disastrous consequences for the cell. Error
minimization during information transfer, and consequently, DNA’s
parity code, exists as a critical structural feature of the cell’s
information systems.

This extraordinary structural
property of DNA indicates to me that a Mind bears responsibility for
the cell’s information systems. The even parity code found in DNA
is identical to the ones used by information technologists. It as if
an intelligent agent carefully selected of the nucleobases, A, G, C,
and T (U) to optimize DNA’s structure so that errors can be readily
detected and minimized when information is transmitted.

6) What are evolutionary explanations for those patterns and why
are they insufficient?

Most evolutionary biologists
would evoke chemical selection as a way to explain the origin of information-rich
biomolecules, (proteins and nucleic acids, like DNA and RNA). As astronomer
Hugh Ross and I show in Origins of Life, chemical selection seems
to play a minor, almost negligible, role in the formation of information-containing
molecules.

Because of the limited role
that chemical selection plays, the formation of biochemical information
systems, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a probability problem.
And based on what is currently known, it appears to be astronomically
improbable for the essential gene set to emerge through natural means
alone. Still, this probability analysis is incomplete, since the fundamental
relationships among sequence, structure, and function are still not
known for proteins and DNA.

When these relationships are
better understood, it may turn out that it is much easier for mechanistic
processes to generate information-rich molecules than anyone thinks.
But these future insights also could make the probabilities of producing
functional biomolecules more remote. The bottom line: Current knowledge
about the capability of evolutionary processes is insufficient to either
establish or rule out an evolutionary origin of biochemical information
systems.

While it is not completely
possible at this point in time to calculate the probability of functional
proteins emerging through natural means, it is possible to rigorously
access the likelihood that the genetic code arose through natural processes.
The genetic code is the set of rules the cell’s machinery uses to
translate proteins from the information stored in DNA.

Simply put, there does not
appear to be enough time for evolutionary processes to stumble upon
the universal genetic code—a code which displays exceptional levels
of design in terms of its error minimization capacity. As I describe
in The Cell’s Design, biophysicist Hubert Yockey has determined
that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10⁷⁰
different genetic codes to discover the universal genetic code found
in nature. Yockey estimated 6.3 x 10¹⁵ seconds is the maximum
time available for the code to originate. Natural selection would have
to evaluate roughly 10⁵⁵ codes per second to find
the universal genetic code. On this basis alone, the universal genetic
code, which defines biochemical information, can’t have an evolutionary
origin.

7) How does the evidence you mention point to the God of the Bible,
not just evidence for design?

The significance of the argument
I make for biochemical intelligent design extends beyond the notion
that life’s chemistry stems from the work of a Creator. The close
analogy between the characteristics of human and biochemical designs
points to a resonance between the human mind and the Mind responsible
for creating biochemical systems.

This connection finds explanation
in the biblical text which declares that humans are made in God’s
image. The Genesis 1 creation account (and Genesis 5) teaches that God
created human beings (male and female) in His image. This declaration
implies that humans bear a similarity to God, at least in some ways.

Just as God is a Creator, so
too, human beings, which bear God’s image, are mini-creators. This
implies that the hallmark characteristics of humanly designed systems
will mirror those of divinely designed systems, if, again, the Divine
Artist is the God described in the Bible.

8) If Darwinism is defined as all life is descended from a
common ancestor by means of blind natural forces (natural selection)
acting on random mutations for variation in a step-by-step process,
I see major significant negative critiques in the greater ID and Creationist
movements. The first is that life can't get off the ground in the first
place, best exemplified in your Origins of Life book. The second
is that you can't explain a lot of structures with a blind step-by-step
mechanism (irreducible complexity). The last major critique I see is
William Dembski's concept of Complex Specified Information. If life
has it that means life can't be brought about by blind forces. Do you
see your book complementing these negative critiques?

As I mentioned in response
to an earlier question, the primary focus of The Cell’s Design
is to present a positive, comprehensive weight-of-evidence case for
ID. Still, I do raise questions about the validity of evolutionary explanations
for the origin of biochemical systems. For example, I argue (with some
mathematical rigor) that the universal genetic code—the set of rules
that the cell’s machinery uses to make proteins from the information
harbored in DNA—can’t arise on Earth at any time in its history
through undirected processes. I also argue that the origin of cell membranes
is inexplicable through chemical evolutionary processes. I also point
out that the widespread occurrence of molecular convergence fits awkwardly
within an evolutionary framework. Theses critiques discussed in The
Cell’s Design complements the major criticisms raised by Behe
and Dembski against the evolutionary paradigm.

Of course, the positive case
I make for ID gains strength from the work of Behe and Dembski (and
others who have raised significant questions about the validity of naturalistic
explanations for the origin of life and life’s fundamental features
at a molecular level).

9) What are your plans for further research or for your next book?

I
just signed a contract with Baker Books to write a book on the quest
to create artificial and synthetic life in the laboratory. I plan to
describe the most important and high-profile scientific work done in
this arena and to explore what these efforts mean for evolutionary and
creation/ID paradigms.

10) Do you have any plans to tackle the biological case against universal
common descent (which would be the major item not yet comprehensively
addressed within the greater ID movement)?

I don’t have any overly ambitious
plans for addressing the problem of universal common descent at this
point in time. This doesn’t mean that I haven’t paid attention to
this challenge to ID, nor that I will forgo this challenge in the future.

One arena I have given a lot
of attention to along these lines is “junk” DNA. One of the most
compelling evidences for common descent are the shared junk DNA segments
found in the corresponding regions of the genomes of organisms that
appear to be related. This argument for common descent, in my mind,
is being actively eroded by advances that indicate that nearly every
class of junk DNA has function. I document a number of these discoveries
in Who Was Adam? in the context of human origins, and also touch
on these discoveries in The Cell’s Design in the context of
“bad” biochemical designs. I also write updates about junk DNA discoveries
for the Reasons To Believe website (www.reasons.org) as part of the Today’s New Reason
To Believe feature. (Here is a link to one of more recent articles
on pseudogenes, http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/05/28/an-unexpected-find/.)

I have also done some work
on convergence. In my mind, convergence undermines the notion of common
descent. This term refers to the widespread pattern in nature in which
unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical, physiological,
behavioral, and biochemical characteristics. The wings of birds and
bats represent one textbook example. According to the evolutionary paradigm,
undirected natural processes yielded the identical outcome (wings, in
this case) because the forces of selection channeled evolutionary pathways
to the same endpoint.

This explanation doesn’t
square up, however. If biological systems are the product of evolution,
then the same biological systems should not recur throughout nature.
Chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental
level. Evolutionary pathways consist of a historical sequence of chance
genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which, too, consists
of chance components. The consequences are profound. If evolutionary
events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different
every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same
path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical
designs should repeatedly appear throughout nature.

The concept of historical contingency
embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould’s book
Wonderful Life. To help clarify the concept of historical contingency,
Gould used the metaphor of “replaying life’s tape.” If one was
to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and then let the
tape run again, the results would be completely different each time.
The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes
non-repeatable.

And yet, over the last decade
or so, evolutionary biologists have discovered a number of examples
of convergence at the organismal and biochemical levels. (For more information
on this topic check out articles I wrote on convergence (http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue04/index.shtml#convergence_evidence_for_a_single_creator ) and repeated evolution

(http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue04/index.shtml#repeatable_evolution_or_repeated_creation

).)

In The Cell’s Design,
I document over one hundred examples of convergence at the biochemical
level and argue that the widespread occurrence of the multiple repeated
origin of a wide range of biochemical systems raises significant questions
about the validity of evolutionary explanations for life’s origin
and diversity, and along with it the case for common descent.

As I argue in The Cell’s
Design, designers and engineers frequently reapply successful strategies
when they face closely related problems. Why reinvent the wheel? It’s
much more prudent and efficient for an inventor to reuse the same good
designs as much as possible, particularly when confronted with a problem
he or she has already solved.

The tendency of engineers and
designers reuse the same designs provides insight into the way that
a Creator might work. If human engineers, made in God’s image, reutilize
the same techniques and technologies when they invent, it’s reasonable
to expect that a Creator would do the same. If life stems from the work
of a Creator then it’s reasonable to expect that the same designs
would repeatedly appear throughout nature. Use of good, effective designs
over and over again would reflect His prudence and efficiency as a Divine
Engineer.

2008-05-26T07:45:00.000-04:00

Iran Paid Insurgents to Kill British Soldiers

If I can fault the Bush administration for anything vis a vis Iraq, it has been on two things. 1) They didn't clamp down on Iranian influence early enough. 2) They did not make it clear to the public Iran's role. We're basically fighting a proxy war against Iran like the Soviets were fighting a proxy war against us in Afghanistan.

So the question is, what is anyone going to do about what is essentially an act of war. My guess is that the "stop before I say stop again" type of diplomacy.

2008-05-24T00:03:00.002-04:00

Is Being a Single Mother a Good Thing?

I was recently called to task for saying that one of the biggest problems facing America is single parent households. The person thought I was attacking single parents. Of course not. I wish them well, but the situation is not ideal. And if it can be avoided should be avoided.

I recently ran across this Chris Rock quote:

In Mr. Rock's HBO special, a performance taped at the Apollo Theater, he maintains his reputation for outrageous cutting-edge comedy by taking Dan Quayle's side of the Murphy Brown debate. ''A bunch of girls say you don't need no man to help you raise no child,'' he says, and promptly dismisses them.

''Yeah, you can do it without a man,'' he says. ''You could drive a car with your feet if you want to. That don't make it a good [expletive] idea.'' Mr. Rock excoriates deadbeat dads and laments the lessened importance of the traditional father.

2008-05-20T23:07:00.002-04:00

If You Vote Against Obama You Are a Racist

I saw this on a LA Time blog (in the comments):

I have a Master's Degree, 30 years of social work experience and a daughter at Harvard. I am not a "redneck" or "hillbilly", you condescending Obamites. But I am a woman who has spent years watching shallow young men being promoted over hard working women based on their ability to BS.

Is it so hard to see why I don't want to vote for a candidate with no experience, unbelieveable arrogance and a sense of entitlement. I am no racist but I resent being told by Black pundits that I have to vote for an "empty suit" or Blacks will be rioting in the streets. That is called blackmail and I won't be intimidated.

I see a lot of Obama supporters saying stuff like "everyone knows Kentucky is filled with racists." Yeah, keep that talk up.

2008-05-20T22:57:00.002-04:00

Obama the Naive

Obama has some problems. First, he freaks out when President Bush comes out against appeasers. "Hey, stop talking about me!" So he admits he's an appeaser. Not good.

Then he tries to say that Kennedy talked to the Russians, what's the big deal with talking to the Iranians? Kennedy's first meeting with Kruschev made him think that Kennedy was a light-weight. Kennedy then brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Does anyone seriously think that the Iranians are going to take Obama seriously if he threatens them?

I have no problem with talking with our enemies. But this "stop before I say 'stop' again" stuff has to go.

2008-05-07T19:42:00.003-04:00

Pushing for Plants Rights

In my college and high school newspapers, I wrote an article where I said something along the lines that they should give maple trees rights instead of dolphins. You never see maple trees being caught in tuna nets.

I guess I was ahead of time.

2008-05-03T17:11:00.002-04:00

Sabremetrics Coming To Basketball, or At Least the Celtics

When I heard Michael Lewis give a book talk while he was promoting 'the Blind Side', Lewis mentioned that NFL and NBA teams had contacted him about his book. While this article makes it sound like baseball teams are rushing on the stat bandwagon, Lewis said he hadn't heard much from baseball teams.

My guess would be that several teams are getting into sabremetrics, but only a handful are true believers.

2008-04-28T20:32:00.002-04:00

Just Waiting for the Dog Food

Good thing I buy my Lab high-end dog food.

In an otherwise interesting article about food choices in harder economic times, the New York Times has this gem:

Burt Flickinger, a longtime retail consultant, said the last time he saw such significant changes in consumer buying patterns was the late 1970s, when runaway inflation prompted Americans to “switch from red meat to pork to poultry to pasta — then to peanut butter and jelly.”

“It hasn’t gotten to human food mixed with pet food yet,” he said, “but it is certainly headed in that direction.”

Well, yes. If we GDP goes down 1 percent it isn't economic doom, but it is headed in that direction. The Red Sox might lose one game. That doesn't mean they'll miss the playoffs...yet. But it is headed in that direction.

Burt, I hope you were taken out of context.

2008-04-24T22:14:00.002-04:00

Imagine No Possessions, It's Easy If You Try

Yoko Ono is suing the makers of Expelled for using the song Imagine in their documentary. They should be protected by Fair Use.

2008-04-15T21:06:00.000-04:00

Is Barack Obama the New Adlai Stevenson

2008-04-07T22:34:00.001-04:00

The Day Beer Flowed Again

Sounds like that was a very good day.

2008-04-05T10:02:00.002-04:00

WSJ Doesn't Want Obama to Raise Capital Gains Rates

Barack Obama recently released his tax records, and it was notable how little he and his wife appear to invest in the stock market. That may explain the Senator's odd belief that a significant hike in the capital gains tax rate won't matter to shareholders or harm the economy.

Or so Mr. Obama's replied to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo when she asked how much he'd increase the cap-gains tax, something he's said is necessary to restore "fairness" to the tax code. Thanks to the 2003 tax cuts, the top rate is currently 15%.

"When I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, you know, what's – how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25%, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making," he said. He concluded that a higher rate would boost federal receipts, which would allow the government to redistribute "relief to middle class and working class families."

With apologies to economists Buffett and Obama, the history of this tax isn't on their side.

The interesting thing to me, at least, is their references to JFK and Clinton. Well, maybe not JFK. He seems to have been a tax-cutter.

The capital gains rate is crucial to investment decisions; higher rates make capital more expensive, dampening incentives to invest and reducing economic growth. John F. Kennedy understood this, as he proposed a capital gains tax cut. Bill Clinton joined with Republicans in 1997 to sign legislation lowering the rate to 20% from 28%.

Critics howled this would reduce tax revenues, and they howled when Republicans cut the rate to 15% in 2003. What followed in both cases was an enormous "unlocking" effect, as investors sold more stock and assets to take advantage of the lower rate. Capital gains realizations soared to an estimated $729 billion in 2006 from $269 billion in 2002. This goosed Treasury receipts from capital gains, to an estimated $110 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.

Mr. Obama doesn't have to guess what sort of "distortion" would come from significantly raising the cap-gains rate. In 1986, the tax rate jumped to 28% from 20%, a 40% increase. Tax revenues spiked briefly in anticipation of the hike (as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate), then dropped precipitously. Four years later, in 1990, the federal government was still taking in 13% less revenue at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 at the 20% rate.

That history seems pretty damning to Obama's position.

I would like to say that Warren Buffett's positions on the estate tax and capital gains tax are curious. I guess if you have $40 billion you don't really care much. But as others have pointed out about the estate tax, Buffett benefits from a higher estate tax because it forces people to sell...to him.

2008-04-03T23:45:00.002-04:00

Presbyterian Thoughts About Issues, Etc.

Issues, Etc. was a confessional Lutheran radio show on KFUO, a station run by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. It was cancelled recently which has caused a storm on the Internet, since it was a popular show.

I should know. I've been listening to it since 2004 and have been a regular caller to the show since 2005.

As a Presbyterian (PCA), I feel this show not only was great for getting across Lutheran theology. It was incredibly valuable resource for the larger body of Christ.

Recently, I needed to respond to someone promoting the Zeitgeist movie. Lo and behold, Issues, Etc. did a half-hour interview on it and it is in my iPod.

In early 2006, they interviewed Bart Ehrman. On the show, he admitted (contrary to what he says on NPR) that we pretty much know what the New Testament authors wrote. That will always be a highlight for me.

While I would love the show to come back, I don't think it should. Rather, it shouldn't come back to where it was. It should be independent. It should be its own ministry.

I'm not sure what that would look like, but I would definitely donate to its efforts.

2008-03-30T15:53:00.001-04:00

Lord of the Rings as Seen Through Property Law

Hat tip to InstaPundit.

2008-03-30T15:50:00.002-04:00

"White Folks' Greed Runs the World"

Obama's pastor has real issues, and this will continue to harm Obama. Primarily because Obama answers seem less than forthright or consistent.

2008-03-21T00:05:00.001-04:00

Did the Resurrection Really Happen?

2008-03-19T19:56:00.003-04:00

Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

Not to mention throwing Grandmom under the bus. You got to hand it to Obama. Equating a pastor saying the US government is intentionally spreading the HIV virus in the black community to 5000 church members with a grandmom saying she was scared by a black man...that's definitely a new kind of politics.

And people are starting to point out how he handled the Imus situation. It appears hypocritically.

This isn't nearly the worst political gaffe ever. But if you portray or allow others to portray you in glowing other-worldly Messianic terms, this is a problem.

2008-03-14T01:16:00.000-04:00

Pentagon Report Supports al Qaeda - Saddam Links

2008-03-08T11:15:00.001-05:00

Philly Beer Week Events

Click the above link to see what's going on.

2008-03-08T11:11:00.002-05:00

Philly Beer Week

If you are near Philadelphia and love good beer, this is a great time to be alive. For those not in the know, there are beer events happening all over the place celebrating this area's wonderful beer culture. Go here.

And the news just gets better and better. The General Lafayette is opening up a tied house in Center City.

If a brewpub opens in South Jersey, I'm going to faint.

2008-03-02T13:21:00.000-05:00

Canadian Television Says Obama Demogoging NAFTA, Names Names

2008-03-02T13:11:00.001-05:00

Highlight of Barry Bonds Grand Jury Testimony

While the entire Bonds transcript is worth a read, we particularly enjoyed his answer to a question posed by one juror about Greg Anderson, the athlete's beleaguered friend and trainer. "With all the money you make, have you ever thought of maybe building him a mansion or something?" Bonds replied, "One, I'm black. And I'm keeping my money. And there's not too many rich black people in this world. And I'm keeping my money. There's more wealthy Asian people and Caucasian and white. There ain't that many rich black people. And I ain't giving my money up. That's why."

2008-03-01T22:28:00.004-05:00

What's the Problem with NAFTA?

The article linked above talks about how the current Democratic candidates are trying to throw NAFTA under the bus. One of the better things to come out of the Clinton administration was the bipartisan understanding that free trade is beneficial for the country as a whole. It is a shame that this understanding doesn't appear to be accepted by the population as a whole.

Here is how Obama talks about NAFTA:

His rhetoric is increasingly heated. In a "major economic address" in Janesville, Wisconsin, on February 13, Obama said that "decades of trade deals like NAFTA" included "protections for corporations and their profits," but none for "our workers," who have "seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear." In Youngstown, Ohio, on February 18, Obama said "NAFTA didn't put food on the table." On February 24, in Lorain, Ohio, he said "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs" in the Buckeye State.

That "one million jobs" figure should not be overlooked. It has become Obama's mantra. It is, upon close inspection, the most specific piece of evidence to which he can point when he claims that NAFTA has been "devastating." And it is almost certainly bunkum.

The figure comes from the folks at the left-wing Economic Policy Institute. In a 2006 "briefing paper" entitled "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Working for North America's Workers," the institute's director of international programs, economist Robert Scott, wrote that "growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have displaced production" that would have supported "1.0 million (total) U.S. jobs since the agreement took effect in 1994." The jobs number is a hypothetical, in other words. And a silly one at that. Scott assumed that the trade deficit between the United States, Canada, and Mexico would have remained frozen at 1993 levels had it not been for NAFTA. In Scott's view NAFTA is solely responsible for the trade deficit between the three countries. And the trade deficit has been solely responsible for job loss. Nothing else has mattered.

Economists call this a "partial equilibrium" analysis. By assuming that everything else stays the same except for imports, you can plug numbers into U.S. Commerce Department models and see how many jobs those imports--had they been produced in domestic factories--might have sustained. Whatever its uses as an analytical tool, however, it is not a good picture of the real economy. Most economists agree that other factors--the business cycle, productivity gains, monetary policy--affect unemployment much more than trade. And most economists point to several other studies that show NAFTA contributing small but real job gains to the United States.

But here is the key line: "The manufacturing sector has lost jobs, but it is producing more goods than it was in 1993."

Manufacturing jobs may be down, but manufacturing activity is not.

2008-03-01T14:43:00.002-05:00

Elephant in the Room: Obama a Harsh Idealogue Hidden by a Feel-Good Image

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.
...
[C]onsider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

2008-02-27T00:11:00.001-05:00

Anti-depressants Are Not the Death of the Soul

2008-02-24T07:25:00.002-05:00

Time to Switch to a Mac

Ever since 1990, I have been using PCs. I am all too familiar with Microsoft. Late last year, it was time for a new computer, and I decided to take the plunge into the realm of Macs.

I haven't been disappointed at all. I have an Unix background from work and college, and the ability to have an Unix-based machine with a great GUI very much appealed to me. You have the stability of Unix.

More than that, unlike Microsoft, Apple has far fewer legacy applications to maintain. Since Apple controls makes (or assembles) all of their hardware, they run into less issues than Microsoft does.

But the biggest surprise, which shouldn't have been a surprise, is all of the great multimedia software that comes standard in the Mac. The iLife software package has a very decent photo tool, iTunes, and a music tool. But I have to say that iMovie is fantastic. It gives you a decent video editing tool. Combined with Apple's DVD tool, you have a very good resource for home movies, school projects, etc.

While some things act differently and take some minimal research and getting used to, I would recommend the switch to a Mac.

Now, some people will object and say they can get a PC for around $600. To that I would say spend the extra $500. Besides all the good software that comes standard, you won't have to be constantly fighting viruses or slowdowns or cleaning up the registry. In three years, your Mac will most likely still be useable. I doubt your $600 PC will be.

2008-02-14T12:37:00.002-05:00

So What Will the Excuse be Now?

Iraq is making political headway towards reconciliation.

The Surge is working. Al Qaeda in Iraq is in collapse.

So what will the excuse be now for abandoning Iraq? Maybe they figure Iraq will be stable, they'll pull out, and can claim credit to the anti-war people while not causing a humanitarian disaster.

2008-02-11T23:39:00.000-05:00

Conflating Illegal Immigration with Immigration

Two things popped up in the news recently.

First, Mexican President Calderon said:

"The worst thing that happened in this country is this anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant perception of people. We need to contain this," Calderon said after a speech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Then there was this article which quoted an illegal immigrant leaving Arizona:

"Here, they let you work. Over there, they won't. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn't -- it's better," Ortiz said of Houston.

Now, I can't speak to his experiences. But being against illegal immigration doesn't make you racist nor does it mean you don't support immigration.

I would like immigration and a guest worker program. I would like the maximum amount of immigrants and guest workers which is deemed feasible.

But I'm against illegal immigration. It is illegal and erodes respect for the law.

I could care less what their nationality is. I'm more concerned about their political beliefs from their home country than anything else.

2008-02-11T18:54:00.000-05:00

Chavez on the Wane

Looks like Hugo Chavez is being shown for the poor economist that he is.

From the New York Times:

These should be the best of times for Venezuela, blessed with the largest conventional oil reserves outside the Middle East and oil prices near record highs. But this country’s economic and social problems have become so acute lately that President Hugo Chávez is facing an unusual onslaught of criticism, even from his own supporters, about his management of the country.

It doesn't take much to figure out why Venezuela is doing poorly even with high oil prices. Socialism doesn't work.

Here is a snipit from a Jackson Diehl column:

Venezuelans not worrying about war are increasingly obsessed with the remarkable result of Chávez's disastrous economic policies: worsening shortages of consumer goods and soaring prices, a combination previously seen only in such benighted places as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Almost every day, newspapers report another addition to the items missing from store shelves: from milk, bread, sugar, chicken, eggs, rice and cheese to auto parts and over-the-counter drugs. A black market thrives; food is smuggled across the border to Colombia, while cocaine in increasing quantities is trafficked back to Venezuela. Chávez recently raised the price of milk 37 percent, contributing to an inflation rate that hit 22 percent in 2007 and 3.4 percent in just the month of January. But he also threatened to seize private banks, farms, supermarkets and food distributors, thereby ensuring that the investments needed to end the shortages will not take place.

That pretty much sums it up in a paragraph. When you impose price controls, you will get shortages.

Not being able to handle, conceptually, the dynamic nature of real-world economic behavior is a pattern of the global Left. Probably not exclusive of the Left, but I usually notice it there.

Here is an example of leftist thinking which I predict will backfire:

Venezuela's seizure last year of several heavy oil projects, including Exxon's, is the latest example of emerging oil producers placing greater demands on global oil giants. The heavy oil projects are based in Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, a basin near the Orinoco River, which is believed to hold up to 235 billion barrels of recoverable crude. Global oil companies were awarded contracts in the 1990s to take the extra-heavy crude, which has the consistency of tar, and refine it to higher, more profitable blends for export. Venezuela began changing its royalty agreements with the oil companies in October, 2004. At that time, companies were paying 1% of the value of oil extracted from the ground. That was unilaterally raised to 16.67%, and then to 30%. Last July, Venezuela forced six oil giants to hand over equity stakes of 60% or more in four important ventures to PDVSA. Four of the companies agreed to the handover, but Exxon balked—and went to court to seek what it considered just compensation.

And another, again, from the New York Times:

Pedro E. Piñate, an agricultural consultant in the city of Maracay, said: “We live in two countries, one inhabited by officials who think they can alter reality by sending soldiers to intimidate citizens. The other country is where the rest of us live in fear of being killed or kidnapped or of our businesses being seized.”

Capitalism requires risk. People invest money. They may lose it. But for that risk, they get rewards. If you threaten the return on investment, you have a lose-no-win proposition. People will stop investing money.

And that means that Venezuela will have problems.

2008-01-30T00:55:00.000-05:00

I May Not Vote for McCain in the Fall

Campaign Finance Reform is an unconstitutional mess. I don't trust McCain to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court.

The reasons to vote for him are two:
1) pulling out of Iraq early will lead to genocide, etc.
2) he won't be as bad in regards to the oncoming nanny state, although I think the march of the nanny state seems inevitable.

Not a ringing endorsement.

2008-01-10T21:50:00.000-05:00

Anti-Clinton Film Declared as Advertising

I don't care who this film is about. Campaign finance reform restricts free speech.

2008-01-05T00:59:00.000-05:00

When Evolution Doesn't Happen

Animals suddenly appear ... and after that nothing much happens. Why?

2007-12-28T18:51:00.000-05:00

The Death of High Fidelity

Rolling Stone ran a fascinating article on the audio quality of professional music today. The interesting part wasn't that MP3's are poorer in quality. The format was created to reduce file sizes. That's expected.

But the albums today are mixed louder in anticipation of their being ripped into MP3's or being played in loud settings.

Here is an interesting thing. Look at a snapshot of the volume level for Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit.

Now look at the volume signature for an Artic Monkeys song.

2007-12-22T08:54:00.000-05:00

Stand by Steyn

Actions like the one against Steyn threaten the foundation of free society. Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people -- whoever they may be -- must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Canada is a different case -- but wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. That is no less so in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.

2007-12-16T15:10:00.000-05:00

Muslims Trying to Silence Mark Steyn for Saying Muslims Want to Silence People

If not so sad, it would be funny.

If Maclean's, Canada's top-selling magazine, is found “guilty," it could face financial or other penalties. And the affair could have a devastating impact on opinion journalism in Canada generally.

As it happens, Canadian human-rights commissions have already come down hard on those whose writings they dislike, like critics of gay rights.

Nor should Americans dismiss this campaign against Steyn and Maclean's as merely another Canadian eccentricity. Speech cops in America, too, are forever attempting similar efforts - most visibly, on college campuses.

When people say I oppose hate crimes because I don't care if blacks or gays are attacked, they are wrong. I just don't want to end up like Canada.

2007-12-11T22:29:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 11

The New York Times concludes:

But vanquishing the literalists is only half of Kugel’s project. He also seeks a safe haven for rationalist believers. In other words, having broken all the windows, trashed the bedroom, stripped the wires for copper, sold the plumbing for scrap, and jackhammered into the foundation, Kugel proposes to move back into his Bible house.

Kugel spends the final chapter trying to salvage the Bible for rational believers like himself. And give him credit: he refuses to take an easy way out. He won’t say — as many Reform Jews and Christians do — that the Bible is just a series of excellent moral lessons. (After all, Kugel asks, what then are we supposed to make of all the ugly, morally repellent laws and stories?) He also won’t say that Jewish observance is enough, that following God’s laws — independent of accepting their truth — is satisfactory. Instead, Kugel tries to separate scholarship and belief. At bottom, Kugel seems to conclude that, scholarship be damned, there is some seed of divine inspiration in the Bible, even if he can’t say exactly where it is. The fact that we can’t prove any particular passage isn’t important, and the fact that it’s a pastiche of myths and plagiarized law codes doesn’t extinguish the holiness that’s in it, and doesn’t diminish how it still inspires us to love and serve God. That’s a humane and humble conclusion, but it won’t reduce the delight of Bible skeptics, cackling with glee about Chapters 1 through 35.

The reviewer nails it.

Kugel destroys the house he wants to live in.

As we have seen, scholarship (which means only scholarship that agrees with you I guess) is not be feared. They start with presuppositions of disbelief.

So scholarship be damned indeed. But because it is false.

2007-12-11T22:15:00.001-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 10

From the NY Times book review:

One purpose of “How to Read the Bible” is to recapture the Bible from literalists, and Kugel certainly succeeds.

As the previous posts in this series should help show, Kugel hasn't succeeded.

His tour through the scholarship demonstrates why it makes no sense to believe that every word of the Bible is true history.

Scholarship, of the sort they find persuasive, starts with a position of doubt and ends there because of it.

Piling on, he also contends that modern Bible literalism, that brand of six-day-creationism favored by fundamentalists, is wildly out of step with traditional Christian interpretation.

I'm an Old-Earth Creationist. But saying that six-day-creationism is wildly out of step with traditional Christian interpretation is a bit much. Now, nuances of historical thought on the matter should be examined, but this seems plain wrong to me. And I believe the Earth is billions of years old.

Such monomaniacal focus on the Bible’s literal truth is a relatively new phenomenon. It’s not so much that readers of yore didn’t believe the Bible’s truth; they just didn’t waste a lot of time trying to prove impossible events like the Flood.

I'm not sure if this statement makes sense. "Monomaniacal" seems to be poisoning the well. People believed the Bible as true. Maybe they didn't waste time trying to prove things because events weren't challenged.

But I like how the Flood is described as "impossible" from the outset. As far as I can tell, the flood was universal in nature in regards to humanity but confined to a particular region of the world. But those who view things differently are prevented from even presenting evidence for their case in the first place. Why? Because such an event is "impossible."

2007-12-11T21:49:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 9

God himself has an equally murky personal history. At the start of the Bible, God is often viewed as just one of many gods. Only later in the book does he become the sole deity. More confusingly, he doesn’t even seem to be the same god throughout the book. Mostly, God is called YHWH, but sometimes, especially in the earlier books, he’s known as El. According to Kugel, these are probably two different deities fused into one: El may have been a god in the Canaanite pantheon, while YHWH may have been a Midianite god imported, via nomads, to the early Israelites, who made him their only god.

This is the conjecture of the Documentary Hypothesis. "El" may be from the Canaanite. God's personal name may be from the Midianites.

Why is all this conjecture taken as established? The only thing I can gather is the author of the book wants it to be the case.

Furthermore, is there not allowed to be progressive revelation? God reveals more and more as we get a clearer picture. Even the Torah shows that God's personal name was a revelation to Moses.

And while Scripture may talk about God being one of many gods in some places, I haven't read any portion of Scripture which describes any of those gods as real. Those gods don't do anything except provide a foil to the living God. And since the Bible is addressing a people in the midst of rampant polytheism, that makes sense.

Just think of that term "living God." (Deut. 5:26) What does that imply? The other gods are dead, i.e. not real.

This theory seems to be based more on prejudice than a careful reflection of the facts.

2007-12-09T08:42:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 8

From the New York Time article:

Most unsettling to religious Jews and Christians may be Kugel’s chapters about the origins of God and his chosen people. Kugel says that there is essentially no evidence — archaeological, historical, cultural — for the events in the Torah. No sign of an exodus from Egypt; no proof that Israelites ever invaded, much less conquered, Canaan; no indication that Jericho was ever sacked. In fact, quite the contrary: current evidence suggests that the Israelites were probably Canaanites themselves, semi-nomadic highlanders or fleeing city dwellers who gradually separated from their mother culture, established a distinct identity and invented a mythical past.

Here and here are some articles which deal with the archeological issues from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. The basic gist is that there is some evidence, but not a lot of it. And these articles help explain why.

This article goes into the conquest of Canaan in very fine detail.

Now, before I quote some portions of the above articles. Let me say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That said, Aish.com writes:

Through the 1980s it was commonly held opinion that excavations in Jericho had failed to discover a city there at the time of Joshua.

In the early 1990s, however, Dr. Bryant G. Woods, then of the University of Toronto, reported finding startling remnants of Jericho in Joshua's time. The error of previous excavations, he asserts, was that archaeologists were digging in the wrong section of the mound of ancient Jericho.

Woods reported finding a 3-foot layer of ash covering the entire excavated area, clear evidence of destruction by fire. He further discovered large caches of wheat from the spring harvest that had barely been used. This means that the city fell not as a result of a starvation siege, as would be expected against a walled city, but rather after a very brief siege. All this matches the account in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, the wheat was from the spring harvest; Joshua conquered Jericho immediately after Passover, the spring holiday.

Concerning Woods' work at Jericho, Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said: "On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn't too far wrong."

Rarely can an archaeologist claim that "this is the very item the Bible spoke about." Yet Dr. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, may have done it. Joshua 8:30-35 tells of the fulfillment of Moses' command to build an altar on Mount Eval (Deut. 27). Zartal reports that his excavation team found this very altar. The place is right, the time is right, and the animal bones are consistent with the biblical offerings. Even the style of the altar is right, in such detail, says Zartal, that it looks nearly identical to the description of the Temple's altar as described in the Talmud -- a uniquely Israelite design that no Canaanite temples used then or later.

Zartal laments the response of the revisionist archaeological community. "What happened regarding the new accumulation of facts I have cited? Almost nothing. Since the appearance of the detailed report and the many articles I have published on the excavation... silence has descended on the scholarly world."

Regarding Zartal's find, Dr. Lawrence Stager said: "If a sacrificial altar stood on Mount Eval, its impact on our research is revolutionary. All of us [biblical archaeologists] have to go back to kindergarten."

This is how Glen Miller summarizes the data:

In summary, I consider the biblical model of the Conquest/Settlement to be a better predictor of the data we find, than competing theories (especially the 'gradualist' views):

It explains the large and sudden population explosions in the border communities of Israel.
It explains the large and sudden emergence of a 'new' (but mixed) material culture in the central areas.
It explains how 'Israel' got such significant and sudden attention from Egypt.
It explains how the mixed material culture came to be.
It explains the uncommon aspects of the 'destruction' phenomena--specifically the anti-cultic behavior.
It explains how most of Transjordan was 'spared' from the disruptions/warfare that occurred in Palestine.
It explains the emergence of the Hebrew language as a dialect of Canaan.
It has tons of supporting archeaological data for the details.
It has adequate explanations for (and generally, contrary data against) the alleged 'contradictions' in the archix record.
It is the only model that actually explains the 'stubborn persistence' of the Exodus story in the history of the Jewish people.

2007-12-09T08:30:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 7
From the New York Times review:

Modern scholars have also unmoored many of the most beloved stories in Genesis and Exodus. These tales are now viewed as etiological — that is, they were invented to explain how the world got to be the way it is. In this reading, the conflict between Jacob and Esau isn’t a true story of sibling rivalry but an account of why, at the time the story was written down, the Israelites had such hot and cold relations with the Edomites, a nearby tribe identified with Esau. Similarly, the “mark of Cain” that God places on Cain after he murders Abel, promising sevenfold vengeance for anyone who harms him, was probably a tale designed to highlight the brutality of the Kenites, Israel’s notoriously fierce neighbors.

So thousands of years from now, we discover stories involving Israelis and Palestinians and disputes over land in the Middle East. Are stories about Yassir Arafat made up to explain Israeli-Arab conflicts?

Now, Moses may have added details that were of interest. But that doesn't necessitate that they were made up.

2007-12-08T20:13:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 6

Kugel points out the Bible’s plagiarism from earlier, non-Israelite sources: laws nicked from Hammurabi; chunks of the Noah flood story lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh; prophecies of Ezekiel inspired by Middle Eastern temples. He even implicates the Ten Commandments, which were apparently derived in part from ancient Hittite treaties.

First, a general thing. If the Bible uses literary and other forms known or familiar to its audience, so what? Moses should have written in completely unfamiliar categories?

Secondly, Hittite treaties. There was a time when Bible critics disbelieved the Hittites ever existed and held that against the Bible. So if the Torah is borrowing from the Hittites, that would be evidence that the Torah is much older than the Documentary Hypothesis posits (400 BC last I read).

In regards to Gilgamesh, why must we assume that the flood stories of Noah are copied from Gilgamesh? Why can't it be the other way around? In fact, Gilgamesh helps establish that there was a flood universal in nature. (At least universal in its extent on the human race.)

From a webpage which touches on this:

data to support a universal flood would not be limited to geophysical data (which is what I understood your comment to be referring to it)...

By far and away, the most reliable sources of information we have about life on Earth are LITERARY, MATERIAL, and ICONOGRAPHIC--not geological.

LITERARY information shows up in universal flood traditions--spanning all cultures (except Egypt so far) from China to Hawaii(!!) to Native America to the Ancient Near East (138 recorded in the first half of this century);
MATERIAL remains are those artifacts of culture (e.g. weapons, cooking items, economic artifacts, etc.) that we find--in the case of a flood, about all you would expect here would be evidence of the boat maybe; and
ICONOGRAPHCIC evidence is similar to literary, but pictoral or image-based--in the case of a flood, this would show up as maybe inscriptions/monuments (part of the 138 accounts mentioned above) or the Chinese ideographs.

Let me touch on the main problem with this quoted section. Any time there is borrowing, the author of this book assumes that means the underlying Biblical text is not genuine and derivative. As I tried to show above, similarities do not necessarily show that the Bible is inauthentic. Again, the problem is not giving the Bible any benefit of the doubt.

Also, when people point to similarities they barely ever point to differences. For instance, the Noah flood is less elaborate than the Gilgamesh epic if memory serves. So if there was borrowing (and I'm inclined to believe the Gilgamesh epic is spruced up historical memories), why does it always have to flow from pagan sources to the Hebrew? If you don't want to believe in the Bible, you will be inclined to want it to go in that direction. But that doesn't mean that explanation is the best fit for the evidence.

similarities vs. differences

2007-12-08T19:10:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 5

Some of the territory Kugel covers will be familiar to lay Bible doubters already. He reviews the “documentary hypothesis,” which demonstrates pretty conclusively that the first five books of the Bible were not written by a single person (Moses, according to tradition), but actually cobbled together from four, or maybe five, different writers.

Ok, the documentary hypothesis isn't my area of expertise, but I have two articles to bring to your attention.

This one is an abbreviated response. Here are the highlights:

By far, the majority of those holding to the JEDP theory presuppose that the miraculous cannot happen. Therefore, they must conclude beforehand that the Pentateuch is not inspired and Moses could not have written it. They must find another explanation for the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible.

Such a presupposition does not allow a proper examination of the documents and will result in inaccurate conclusions.
...
Whether or not a biblical critic wants to take Jesus' word for anything is up to the individual. But no less than Jesus authenticated the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

This article and this book seem to be worth reading. I read an involved article in a book which pointed out authentic Egyptians features in the text of the Torah. The kind that the actual Moses would be aware of. I will try to post something about that later.

2007-12-08T18:52:00.000-05:00

Damning the Episcopal Church Unintentionally

Mr. Axberb, in a New York Times article, unintentionally says a large swath of the Episcopal Church are heretics.

“You have two different world views in the diocese: There are those with a real concern for purity and orthodoxy, which are very important, and I admire that they stand up for bedrock values, like the fact that Jesus is Lord,” Mr. Axberg said. “The Episcopal Church has stood up a great deal for social justice. You really need both sides to hold each other to the fire. But they have blinders on to one another.”

So one part of the church won't stand up for Jesus being Lord?

2007-12-08T09:03:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 4

It’s not news to anyone — at least anyone who reads the Bible even a wee bit skeptically — that the book is chock-full of contradictions and impossible events. Instead of carping snidely about this, in the style of a college bull session, Kugel gives us a magisterial, erudite, yet remarkably witty tour through the research. If reading the Bible demands a suspension of disbelief — Moses turned the Nile to blood? Joshua stopped the sun at noon? Samson killed 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass? — then “How to Read the Bible” will prompt a suspension of belief.

Well, here it is on full display.

Chock-full of contradictions. I would dispute that, but no alleged contradiction is given. Let me say about that many contradictions involve 1) mistranslations or understandings of the original language 2) genuine known issues regarding textual transmission 3) ignoring context 4) ignoring the vagaries of human language 5) not giving Scripture the benefit of the doubt.

Let me give an example. I was always told that my uncle escaped his concentration camp and was taken in by a convent. An article about his life said he was rescued by the U.S. Army. Is this a contradiction? No. He got to the convent and then the U.S. Army liberated the area. This surface problem can be resolved by just asking my uncle some questions.

Now, the authors of the Biblical texts aren't here to query. But there are many possible solutions to alleged contradictions. If you don't want to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, you will just say it is a contradiction.

The rest of this quote is more problematic. "Impossible events." In other words, miracles are impossible, so if the Bible reports them the Bible is wrong.

If you assume the miracles can't happen, guess what? Miracles can't happen. This is just circular logic. The Bible can't be trusted because miracles can't happen. And why can't miracles happen? They just can't. Not very impressive if you ask me.

2007-12-08T08:57:00.000-05:00

How Not to Read the Bible, Part 3

Second, Kugel leads us through the Bible as it’s understood by modern scholars, who for the past 150 years have used archaeology, linguistics, history, anthropology and all the other tools of science to excavate the truth about the Good Book. Kugel seems to have begun “How to Read the Bible” with the notion of giving equal weight to his two methods, but he soon sidelines the ancient interpreters and focuses on the exceedingly provocative modern scholarship. Though Kugel surely did not intend this, in its own way, his book proves as devastating to the godly cause as any of the pro-atheism books that have been dominating the best-seller lists in recent months.

How about modern scholars who believe in a literal interpretation? Those who have used archeology, linguistics, and history to back up the biblical text?

It is hard to just flatly say "modern scholarship" and react to it. Modern scholarship doesn't want to leave room for God, and (surprise!) it finds no miracles.

When you start with a presumption of disbelief, scholarship rooted in disbelief will come up with a ton of stories and explanations for what is in the text. But do they account for all the evidence?

For example, let's assume I believe scholarship that the Torah was written rather late. And for giggles, let's say it was done for political purposes or some other such story.

Why are all these commands in the Torah about helping the poor and limiting the power of rulers?

2007-12-08T08:27:00.000-05:00

How Not To Read the Bible, Part 2

Kugel, an emeritus professor of Hebrew literature at Harvard and, mark this, an Orthodox Jew, aims to prove that you can read the Bible rationally without losing God. He sets himself the monumental task of guiding readers all the way through the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament, more or less, if you’re a Christian) and reclaiming the Bible from both the literalists and the skeptics.

Get this? If you disagree with him you aren't reading the Bible rationally. That will be explained later.

So, how to read the Bible? Kugel proposes two different ways. First, he shows us the Bible as it was read by the “ancient interpreters,” writers who lived in the period a couple of hundred years before and after the birth of Jesus, even as the Bible itself was being codified. Their way of reading the Bible — their assumption of its inerrancy, their belief that scripture teaches moral lessons, and their faith in divine authorship — is the way many of us still read it today.

Guess what? That's how Jesus read the Bible. And He is risen from the dead. The Son of God who is risen from the dead gets to determine our views of the nature of Scripture. We need to start there.

A lot of what is coming is based on presuppositions and assumptions. My presupposition is that I view the Bible the way Jesus did. Presuppositions will color how you view things.

2007-12-08T07:49:00.000-05:00

How to Not Read the Bible, Part 1

I ran into an article that was doing a book review of "How to Read the Bible." There is a lot to tease out of this. Primarily, I want to interact with "don't read this literally."

There are a lot of assumptions hidden in the arguments presented that need to be teased out.

2007-12-06T22:09:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney, His Mormonism, and Politics

I have been disturbed by many Christians who do not want to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. While it hasn't been all Christians, and it may not be the majority of Christians, it is sizable enough to be noticeable.

Martin Luther once said he would rather be ruled by a wise Turk instead of a foolish Christian. That is good wisdom.

What I think most of these Christians are confusing is known in theological circles as Two Kingdom theology, which was first articulated by Augustine. There is the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. They are two different kingdoms, two different spheres. They may interact but they have different rules. A vote for Romney is not a vote for church elder.

Now, that is not to say that the faith or lack thereof of a candidate is not pertinent. It is pertinent in so far as a person's faith affects their political views. I do not care if Romney is a polytheist, as far as politics go. I want to know what his political views are.

2007-11-29T00:37:00.000-05:00

Did Salon Author Gordy Slack Accidentally Show He Doesn't Believe in Darwinism

So in the middle of an article about Intelligent Design after the Dover decision, this appears in the Salon article:

But like bacteria adapting to antibiotics, creationism has slimmed down once again, this time shedding even a mention of an intelligent designer.

I don't want to critique the overall point he is making, but I want to point out the analogy Mr. Slack uses.

Like bacteria slimming down.

Bacteria doesn't beef up to thwart antibiotics. Blind, natural forces don't beef up, they slim down. In other words, Mr. Slack confirmed the thesis of Michael Behe's new book.

2007-11-28T09:37:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens Still Doesn't Understand What Douglas Wilson Did to Him

Back in May, Christopher Hitchens had an online debate with Douglas Wilson, who challenged Hitchens to provide a basis, any basis, for an objective morality without God.

So here is Hitchens being asked about his debate with Wilson:

What about the question of morality without God? Al Sharpton spent a lot of time grilling you on that. And it was also a major theme in your email debate with the Christian author Douglas Wilson at Christianity Today.

Weird guy.

Wilson insisted that if you took Jesus out of the equation, the words “right” or “wrong” would have no meaning. Thoughts in the brain would just be a series of chemical reactions, like bubbles in a soft drink. As he put it, “If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is ‘winning the debate.’ They aren't debating; they are just fizzing.”

What he’s saying is that if he ceases to believe in Jesus, he’s going to instantly become an immoral person. It’s a terrible admission to have made! It’s an awful insult to human self-respect to say that. And they don’t seem to understand that they give themselves over in that way. It’s like saying that nothing would stop me from raping you now if I weren’t under the supervision of a heavenly dictator. And I have a higher opinion of myself than that.

So the person asking the question understood Wilson. And what does Christopher Hitchens say?

"What he's saying is that if he ceases to believe in Jesus, he's going to instantly become an immoral person. It's a terrible admission to have made!"

But that's not what Wilson said. After a five-part debate, the interviewer got the point but Hitchens still doesn't understand Wilson's argument.

2007-11-28T08:52:00.000-05:00

Criticizing Clarence Thomas for Benefiting from Affirmative Action

I got this in an email from Ed Whelan, who works for a think tank.

Nov. 12 1908—In Nashville , Illinois , the human fetus to become known as Harry A. Blackmun emerges safe and sound from his mother’s womb. Some sixty-five years later, Justice Blackmun authors the Supreme Court opinion in Roe v. Wade. (See This Week for Jan. 22, 1973.) Somehow the same people who think it meaningful to criticize Justice Thomas for opposing affirmative-action programs from which he putatively benefited don’t criticize Blackmun for depriving millions of other unborn human beings the same opportunity that he was given.

2007-11-01T21:17:00.000-04:00

Al Qaeda Is Being Slaughtered

“Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated,” according to Sheik Omar Jabouri, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party and a member of the widespread and influential Jabouri Tribe. Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been “defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically,” referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group’s tactics have backfired. Operatives who could once disappear back into the crowd after committing an increasingly atrocious attack no longer find safe haven among the Iraqis who live in the southern part of Baghdad. They are being hunted down and killed. Or, if they are lucky, captured by Americans.

Al Qaeda attracts murdering, evil people. When they do what they do for long enough, they wear out their welcome. Even in Baghdad.

2007-10-31T16:32:00.000-04:00

For Reformation Day: Martin Luther- Myth and Fact

2007-10-28T18:41:00.000-04:00

Dressing Slutty for Halloween

"I've got to tell my girl no, too. I'm concerned and so are my friends. All these girls want is to dress like sluts."
...
So powerful is the parental need to retain little-girl innocence, at least for a while, that many people are happy to allow their daughters to wear gory and scary costumes instead of sexy ones.

"She wants to be the Bride of Chucky," Lisa Barilaro of Center City says of daughter Taylor, 6.

"I tried to talk her out of it, but I couldn't. I thought at first it was too scary, but then I was more worried she'd find a costume that was provocative. Scary is better."

2007-10-23T22:28:00.001-04:00

Miracles Ain't What They Used To Be

I completely stole this, but it was funny.

2007-10-14T21:14:00.000-04:00

The Comments of Gen. Sanchez That Went Unreported

In his speech to the Military Reporters and Editors Association in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Sanchez accused reporters of "unscrupulous reporting, solely focused on supporting an agenda and preconceived notions of the U.S. military."

Without naming a specific company, Sanchez said "parent media organizations" have political agendas that direct the news coverage of the war and in some cases put U.S. service members in deadly situations.

"What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war. My assessment is that your profession, to some, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, reads in newspapers and what they see on the Web," Sanchez said.

Ironic, considering the comments were left out confirm the problem he was talking about.

Gen. Sanchez apparently ripped everyone. Those are usually good speeches.

2007-10-13T19:36:00.000-04:00

Hurricane Forecasting Pioneer Blasts Man-made Global Warming

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
...
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

2007-10-13T00:53:00.000-04:00

Universal's Care Filthy Failure

Despite the growing evidence that socialist medicine is a disaster, its supporters blindly continue to push for a government system in the U.S. They need some down time in a hospital bed in south-central England.

The British system, which, along with Canada's, supposedly is the model we should follow, is no panacea. It is, in fact, a mess.

A Los Angeles Times story on Friday described a system so rotten that in some hospitals "patients allegedly were forced to defecate in their beds and wait for hours for clean sheets."

The story focuses on the struggle in British hospitals to contain the growth of deadly hospital infections that are in large part bred by unsanitary conditions.

2007-10-06T21:12:00.000-04:00

There May Be a Use for the Appendix

Hat tip: Uncommon Descent

2007-09-22T09:26:00.000-04:00

I Still Don't Believe in Hate Crimes

A friend of mine, in the past, accused me of not supporting hate crimes legislation because of racism. Although I insisted I'm against hate crimes legislation because it creates a crime out of thought (and is likely to be used against Christians at some point when they speak out against homosexual acts, etc.), he insisted I was doing so because of racism.

I have thought that hatred, racism, etc. should be taken into account as mitigating or contributing factors during sentencing.

Well, a bunch of black kids assaulted a white kid. I don't want them to be brought up on hate crimes legislation.

2007-09-17T19:45:00.001-04:00

Vote for What to Do with HR 756 Ball

A. Donate to Hall of Fame.

B. Brand with asterisk; donate to Hall of Fame.

C. Blast ball into space.

I chose B.

Vote or die. Choose or Lose.

2007-09-09T22:17:00.000-04:00

Can Darwinism Be Falsified?

If you say that there is a biological feature which cannot be explained by Darwinian processes (irreducible complexity, for example), Darwinists will protest. We just haven't discovered the path.

So the question I have is: can a Darwinist please describe a biological feature which would falsify Darwinism?

Someone had a similar thought:

would like Derbyshire to think about this, and suggest such an experiment. It is a question of genuine interest, and even some proponents of evolutionism would like to hear proposals. The question is simply this: Can any new research help us decide whether organisms were either designed, or arose by the purely random collision of material particles?

Possibly, Mr. D will conclude that no such experiment is possible. Darwinism is so loosely structured (to put it politely) that it is capable of "explaining" any and every organism. If an organism exists, it is "fit," and therefore Darwinism accounts for it. But as Derbyshire may also have heard, a theory that explains everything, without any possibility of encountering a falsifying instance, is not really a scientific theory at all. It is philosophy dressed up as science. It is, in fact, pseudoscience -- the kind that gives Mr. D so much idle amusement.

A criticism of intelligent design is that the claim, "God can do anything, therefore this critter was designed by God" gets us nowhere. I agree that it doesn't. But a very similar objection can be raised against Darwinism. Its partisans are at liberty to say of any organism whatever that it arose by mutation and natural selection -- without having to produce any supporting evidence. In the end, it amounts to nothing more than the belief that supernaturalism must be avoided at all cost. Looked at this way, Darwinism is simply a deduction from a philosophy -- the philosophy of materialism (sometimes called naturalism).

2007-09-05T20:53:00.000-04:00

Michael Jackson Dead at Age 65

Famous beer writer Michael Jackson has passed away. BeerAdvocate has a good roundup of pertinent articles.

His impact on the craft-beer community has been large. Here is a good quote:

Jackson's books and countless newspaper and magazine articles explored the far-reaching world of beer, from classic styles to obscure recipes.

He is primarily credited with establishing the language and identification of beer styles. Before Jackson, all beer was essentially the same; today, beer authorities recognize more than 100 major styles, defined by their cultural and technical characteristics.

Many of those styles – especially obscure varieties from Belgium – would be extinct today if not for Jackson's writing. In 1994, as thanks for almost single-handedly reviving that nation's brewing tradition, Crown Prince Philippe of Belgium gave Jackson its Mercurius Award.

2007-09-04T23:03:00.000-04:00

Our Love/Hate Relationship with Hypocrisy

Since Senator Craig is getting labeled as a hypocrite, I've been pondering a few things.

We hate hypocrites. But only if they are being hypocritical about something we disagree with. If a liberal is preaching environmentalism at me, I love the fact they are a hypocrite and flying in their private jet. If I'm gay, I love it when Republicans get caught in gay sex scandals.

I guess, in this way, we are all hypocrites since we seem to love hypocrisy in others when we don't like their stands against us or our views.

2007-08-29T21:15:00.000-04:00

Iran's Proxy War Against the U.S. and the Iraqi Government (PDF)

Bookmark and read later.

2007-08-28T00:14:00.000-04:00

The Left's Viet Con

If you like this article read Sen. Webb's barn burner from 2000.

One of the first actions of the Democratic "Watergate babies" was to vote to deny South Vietnam $800 million in military aid, including ammunition and spare parts.

Five weeks after that vote, a surprised and delighted North Vietnam began planning an armored invasion of the South, knowing we had grown war-weary and would not help.

Bacevich speaks of a "Republic of Vietnam, created by the United States," that was not "able to govern effectively or command the loyalty of its people." Yet, as history shows, Vietnam did not fall to a popular uprising by pajama-clad patriots.
...
It was these failures that led to the January 1973 Paris Peace Accord. But when a Democratic Congress legislated an end to U.S. operations in Indochina that summer, it also stopped U.S. air support of a friendly Cambodian government under siege by Hanoi and the Khmer Rouge.

Former Rep. Tip O'Neill, D-Mass., who was later to become speaker of the House, declared at the time that "Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier."

The rest — as they say, professor — is history.

2007-08-25T08:45:00.000-04:00

Michael Vick Thoughts

Actually, I have football-related thoughts. I never thought that Vick was that good. I think Falcons have a (football) blessing in disguise. Or many not in disguise. They free up a lot of cap room and they will hopefully get a better quarterback.

2007-08-22T21:56:00.000-04:00

Now This Is Right Up My Alley

A Christian group in Germany has a kosher-certified beer and they are associated with Jews for Jesus.

2007-08-20T17:08:00.000-04:00

No Link Between Yakking and Crashing?

2007-08-20T09:21:00.000-04:00

Norwegian Justice

No recap can show the utter silliness of what I read.

2007-08-17T15:35:00.000-04:00

My Public Apology to the Chipper Jones Fan Club

A bunch of young men dressed up as Chippendale dancers at the Phillies vs. Braves game last Saturday in support of Chipper Jones. Let's just say I said a few things I shouldn't have.

They have my sincerest apology.

2007-08-16T22:29:00.000-04:00

Give a Plausible, Naturalistic Origin of Life Scenario, Win a Million Dollars

I can say with honesty that you'll have better odds playing the lottery.

2007-08-13T00:05:00.001-04:00

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered?

If a woman is old enough to sign a contract, buy a house and get married, isn’t she also old enough to sip champagne at her wedding? If a man is mature enough to serve on a jury or risk his life in a war halfway around the world, isn’t he also mature enough to drink a beer?

And didn’t we have this debate almost 40 years ago?

2007-08-10T02:44:00.001-04:00

1998 No Longer Warmest Year on Record

2007-08-09T00:14:00.000-04:00

Pleasing the Peace Activist Community

Here is an interesting picture I saw on a peace activist website.

Now, what is interesting about this? This pre-dates the Iraq War. What were they complaining about? Sanctions against Iraq were hurting Iraqis. They wanted them lifted. Prior to 9/11 there was pressure to lift sanctions on Iraq.

So they didn't want pressure on Iraq. But they didn't want an invasion.

The only other option was to let Saddam Hussein run around amuck.

2007-08-07T22:21:00.000-04:00

Darwinian Group Admits Mutations Not Enough to Explain Evolution

I believe they want to add lateral gene transfer into the mix.

2007-08-06T23:18:00.000-04:00

Liking Hillary More and More

Yes, it is true.

Hillary tells the truth about lobbyists and gets booed.

"A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

A lobbyist is someone who supports a group or cause you don't believe in. If they support what you like, you don't use the l-word.

2007-08-06T22:10:00.001-04:00

What I Learned From Hurricane Katrina

I saw this on a bulletin board and had to share.

If you expect the federal government to protect you, you are an idiot.

I went to Mississippi and Louisiana with the utility clean-up crews. In Louisiana, the government has trained people not to fend for themselves. When the hurricane came, they disarmed people, and gangs of thugs roamed the streets. Result: Crime wave amidst people schooled in the ways of helpless whining. In Mississippi, signs went up in lots of neighborhoods saying, "You loot, we shoot." Result: No crime wave.

In Louisiana, people with an ingrained welfare mentality are still homeless, broke, and blaming Bush for everything. In Mississippi, people a bit more in the habit of fending for themselves started rebuilding their destroyed coastlands. It'll take a while, but Mississippi will fix it all.

Incidentally, the damage in Mississippi was 50 or 100 times worse than it was in Louisiana. Trust me; I went to both places. But which state do you hear about in the news perpetually whining about their situation?

Conclusion applied to bridges: States and counties need to take care of their own public works. If they don't, the feds will step in and take all the money. The bridges still won't get fixed, and the people who could do the work will lose the authority and the home-grown money to do it.

Moral of the story once more for the slow of heart: If you expect the federal government to protect you, you are a screaming, blazing, incurable idiot. A zombie. A zoid. A moron. A thick-headed chunk of fish bait. And stupid on top of that.

Not sure if I agree with all of it, but it gets the point across.

2007-08-06T21:44:00.000-04:00

Woe is the Poor Silicon Valley Millionaire

I have to comment on the New York Times article about Silicon Valley millionaires.

By almost any definition — except his own and perhaps those of his neighbors here in Silicon Valley — Hal Steger has made it.

Mr. Steger, 51, a self-described geek, has banked more than $2 million. The $1.3 million house he and his wife own on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean is paid off. The couple’s net worth of roughly $3.5 million places them in the top 2 percent of families in the United States.

Yet each day Mr. Steger continues to toil in what a colleague calls “the Silicon Valley salt mines,” working as a marketing executive for a technology start-up company, still striving for his big strike. Most mornings, he can be found at his desk by 7. He typically works 12 hours a day and logs an extra 10 hours over the weekend.

“I know people looking in from the outside will ask why someone like me keeps working so hard,” Mr. Steger says. “But a few million doesn’t go as far as it used to. Maybe in the ’70s, a few million bucks meant ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,’ or Richie Rich living in a big house with a butler. But not anymore.”

Ok. Cost of living is really high there. But life is about choices. And the desire for things is what is trapping this guy.

Silicon Valley is thick with those who might be called working-class millionaires — nose-to-the-grindstone people like Mr. Steger who, much to their surprise, are still working as hard as ever even as they find themselves among the fortunate few. Their lives are rich with opportunity; they generally enjoy their jobs. They are amply cushioned against the anxieties and jolts that worry most people living paycheck to paycheck.

But many such accomplished and ambitious members of the digital elite still do not think of themselves as particularly fortunate, in part because they are surrounded by people with more wealth — often a lot more.

I have an old-fashioned word that cover this: covetousness. As in, "thou shalt not covet" your neighbor's goods. We all fall prey to this. But the insanity of this sin is more apparent when you see someone who is worth millions falling prey to this.

When chief executives are routinely paid tens of millions of dollars a year and a hedge fund manager can collect $1 billion annually, those with a few million dollars often see their accumulated wealth as puny, a reflection of their modest status in the new Gilded Age, when hundreds of thousands of people have accumulated much vaster fortunes.

“Everyone around here looks at the people above them,” said Gary Kremen, the 43-year-old founder of Match.com, a popular online dating service. “It’s just like Wall Street, where there are all these financial guys worth $7 million wondering what’s so special about them when there are all these guys worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Envy.

“People around here, if they have 2 or 3 million dollars, they don’t feel secure,” said David W. Hettig, an estate planner based in Menlo Park who has advised Silicon Valley’s wealthy for two decades.

Oh, the deceitfulness of riches.

But there are also good anecdotes in the story.

Many of these millionaires have options, of course, beyond working hard to earn another $5 million to $10 million. A few even choose to jump off the golden treadmill.

That is what Mark Gage, 51, an engineer, and his wife, Meredith, did when they left the Bay Area in 2005 with $3 million or so in assets. They bought a house in Bend, Ore. — “a bigger, much nicer home with dramatic views” — and now Mr. Gage works only when the perfect consulting job presents itself.

But it ends on a somber note.

To Mr. Milletti, it all looks like a marathon with no finish line.

“Here, the top 1 percent chases the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent chases the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent,” he said.

“You try not to get caught up in it,” he added, “but it’s hard not to.”

That's because we are all born with sin natures.

Many of the more modest millionaires here feel sheepish, even guilty at times, about their piles of cash. Talent played in a role in their financial success, but so did being at the right place at the right time.

Why feel guilty?

2007-08-05T17:27:00.000-04:00

Interactive Home Run Chart

The New York Times has created a chart showing the home runs of each 500 home run hitter by age. In regards to steroid use, it may help expose suspicious patterns.

A-Rod is on a torrid historical pace.

2007-08-04T08:15:00.000-04:00

John Kerry Explains Himself on Vietnam

Mr. Taranto mistakenly views the violence after 1973 as a direct result of our withdrawal. In fact, the violence arose from the conditions that led us to withdraw: a Vietnamese civil war we couldn't stop supported by a Cambodian insurgency we couldn't bomb into submission. It's horrifying that so many South Vietnamese suffered. But, even accepting Mr. Taranto's estimate of 165,000 Vietnamese deaths--double that of most academic sources--this is a significant decrease from the preceding eight years when 450,000 civilians and 1.1 million soldiers were killed.

He's responding to this editorial.

I want to focus on the "we couldn't stop" line of reasoning. The Soviets and Chinese supported the Communists of that region. Should we give up simply because the other side won't?

By 1973, things, as far as I've read, were working according to Nixon's plan. We established a peace agreement. But the withdraw of support by Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to keep going.

I've also read a quote from a North Vietnamese general relating how anti-war groups greatly helped them.

The truth of the matter is that standing behind our allies in South Vietnam against a long-term threat from Communist aggression was an option. We are helping South Korea to this day. The will to do so was not present. And it had consequences in lost lives.

2007-08-03T22:42:00.000-04:00

Korean Backlash Against Korean-Christians

If the world hates you, remember it hated Him first.

If the Taliban kills another one of its hostages there will be great sadness here, but also more anger against Christians. A posting on Naver earlier this week gives a taste of the degree of resentment some Koreans feel: "The missionaries are getting what they deserve," wrote a woman who described herself as a secular Buddhist. "Maybe now some of them will stop trying to ram Jesus down our throats."

2007-08-03T22:35:00.000-04:00

It Appears Dems Freaking Out About Surge Success

Go here and here.

2007-08-03T22:09:00.000-04:00

Interesting Take on Iraq

Everyone is missing the most important point about what seems to be happening in Iraq!

There is only one major question that dominates everything else in Iraq -- what are the customers buying? When it comes to those selling al Qaeda terror bombings of civilians, the customers are deciding in increasing numbers that they don't like it.

I can understand liberals, given their love of government and its top-down "solutions", focusing on the state of Iraqi democracy. I don't understand libertarians and those who focus on the market missing this.

What is important is that ordinary muslims, not just in Iraq, are looking at the terror bombings killing ordinary Iraqis and deciding that this is not what their religion is all about. More and more of them are deciding that they don't want it anymore. So support for the terrorists and their cause is declining among muslims in Iraq and around the world.

Hey people! This is good. THIS is the big issue. The whole point of democracy in Iraq is to show ordinary muslims how life can be better when you don't obsess about blowing up infidels. If we are making progress on that main goal anyway, without as much progress in the originally chosen method, let's focus on that important point.

Sure, a stable democracy is better than not having one. It would still pay huge dividends. But let's not get diverted from the primary goal which is reducing the danger from Islamic terrorists. If the terrorists continue to lose support from those they seek to influence, we are making progress --real and very significant progress.

2007-07-30T22:23:00.000-04:00

NY Times OpEd: A War We Just Might Win

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

2007-07-30T21:42:00.000-04:00

R.I.P., Bill Walsh

2007-07-29T20:58:00.000-04:00

Is Europe Weak and Flabby?

Europe as a whole seems to have lost its nerve. Last week in Kabul, I heard the bizarre ineffectiveness of much of the 41,000-strong NATO-ISAF forces because many of the national contingents don't believe in confronting the Taliban. The US and the British, to be fair, are not among shirkers but Afghans see the Dutch, Spanish, German and Canadian forces as having been already defeated in the mind. The US is not loved but it is feared; the Europeans (Britain apart) are viewed with contempt in Afghanistan.

The interesting thing is how being "nice" is viewed. Soft, weak, "with contempt."

2007-07-24T21:56:00.000-04:00

Dubai Port Deals Part of CIA Prid Pro Quo?

Too bad it didn't go through.

2007-07-24T21:31:00.000-04:00

Democratic-YouTube Debate

Apparently, Joe Biden tried to give a realistic answer about pulling out of Iraq. He has no hope for being President.

Hillary Clinton completely smoked Obama in one answer.

Senator Obama said in the debate that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations; Senator Clinton said she would first make sure that such meetings were not intended as propaganda.

Pundits generally saw hers as the better answer, underscoring her experience on the world stage and at the same time casting Senator Obama as inexperienced.

Today, Senator Clinton drove home the point by directly criticizing Senator Obama’s statement.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve,” Mrs. Clinton told the Quad-City Times in Iowa.

Hillary Clinton is completely right. Obama's answer is incredibly naïve.

Diplomacy is a good thing. But when you need to be diplomatic from a position of strength, craziness, etc. Not weakness. I think Hillary actually understands this.

Unless Obama is just saying what he thinks will sound good to Democratic voters.

2007-07-23T21:13:00.000-04:00

Study Says That Atheism Not Created By Science

I think you will generally find that your assumptions will usually color how you view the data of science.

Ecklund and Scheitle concluded that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable.

Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."
...
RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

2007-07-19T22:55:00.000-04:00

Video of Babies Lying

As I recently posted, kids lie from a very early age. We aren't born good.

2007-07-19T22:21:00.001-04:00

U.N. Secretary General Warns Against U.S. Withdraw from Iraq

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned Monday that an abrupt U.S. troop pullout could deepen the crisis in Iraq, and he urged the United States to keep the Iraqi people in mind when making decisions on the increasingly unpopular war.

Ban said both the United States and the international community have a responsibility not to abandon the Iraqi people.

Now, a good conservative would say if the U.N. wants input they need to sacrifice. And we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place if the U.N. hadn't handled their responsibilities with Iraq prior to the war.

However, what can a good liberal say? The U.N. and world opinion should count for a lot.

But regardless, it should give us pause when the head of the U.N. thinks a withdraw would be so dire that he is unwilling to toe the leftist line. That's serious.

2007-07-19T22:10:00.000-04:00

Pentagon Rebukes Hillary Clinton Over Iraq

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Analysis of how we leave our allies to the wolves because it is convenient for us seems right on the mark. We are a disposal society that aborts babies because they are inconvenient to us. Our allies have noticed the general pattern from Vietnam onwards.

When the going gets tough, we get going.

2007-07-19T21:33:00.000-04:00

Unbelievable: John Kerry Says No Bloodbath in Vietnam, Re-education Camps Not 'Pretty' But Many in Them Are Thriving Today

Here is another link to the video.

Here is what Breitbart wrote:

Sen. John Kerry said during a C-SPAN appearance that fears of a bloodbath after the US withdrawal from Vietnam never materialized. He says he's met survivors of the "reeducation camps" who are thriving in modern Vietnam. An award-winning investigation by the Orange County Register concludes that at least 165,000 people perished in the camps.

Not to mention what happened in neighboring countries like Laos and Cambodia.

2007-07-05T07:00:00.000-04:00

Joey Chestnut Wins Hot Dog Eating Competition

66 hot dogs in 12 minutes. Congratulations.

2007-07-02T22:37:00.000-04:00

Hwang and Macroeconomics

My friend Hwang is spending his time picking apart my comments on taxation and macroeconomics. While I'm not buying his counter-arguments, I'm willing to give them a close listen.

Unfortunately, I have too much stuff on my plate to be diverted by macroeconomics. What could be more important than macroeconomics?

Here is my summer reading list:

"No Free Lunch" and "the Design Inference" by William Dembski. I want to read up on the mathematical framework of design arguments. Unfortunately, these are on the bottom of my list.

"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" Apparently this book is a landmark apologetic work which everyone must grapple with. The author covers the internal evidence which indicates the gospels are from eyewitness testimony.

"The Limits of Orthodox Theology" This book is about the history of Maimomedes' thirteen principles in Orthodox Judaism and disagreements on them within Orthodox Judaism.

"What Make You Not a Buddhist" The title is self-explanatory. But it is written by a Buddhist.

When I get to economics, I should probably read Thomas Sowell's books on micro and macroeconomics.

2007-07-01T23:25:00.000-04:00

Law Enforcement Can't Be Partisan?

Senator Leahy says that law enforcement, referring to the firings of U.S. Attorneys, can't be partisan.

While I don't want a highly politicized Judicial branch, where is the support for that in the Constitution? The President can fire for any reason whatsoever.

And let's say that a President made a political promise to prosecute X, whatever X may be. U.S. Attorney Smith isn't prosecuting violators of X. The President fires Smith. Is that political? Yes. Is it wrong? I don't think so.

Having attorneys prosecute opponents would be bad. The above scenario is fine.

2007-07-01T01:19:00.000-04:00

Babies Lie and Deceive From a Really Young Age

Behavioural experts have found that infants begin to lie from as young as six months. Simple fibs help to train them for more complex deceptions in later life.

While most people would say that people aren't born good, only Biblical Christianity would say that people are born sinful. Babies lying, to the best of their limited ability, doesn't surprise me.

The Psalmist tells us that we were conceived in sin.

People who want to hold to the myth that people are inherently good will be constantly contradicted by reality.

2007-06-30T01:10:00.000-04:00

Dr. Paul Davies and the Anthropic Principle

I had the pleasure of listening to Paul Davies while he was on his book tour for his latest book. I was able to interact with him during the Q&A session and at the book signing.

While Davies raises several points worth commenting on and pondering on, I wanted to give some clarification to his argument (which isn't explicitly stated in the Guardian article) and my main critique of his overall argument.

Paul Davies doesn't want to appeal to God creating the universe nor does he want to appeal to the multiverse theory to explain the incredible fine-tuning of the universe. Davies appeals to quantum mechanics. Now, I am no expert in quantum mechanics, so I am going to go with what Davies said during his presentation.

In quantum mechanics, the quantum states are not determined until you observe them. Davies extends this to the anthropic principle. Life forms set the laws of physics. It is a quantum-feedback loop. In other words, our observations now determine the previous state of the laws of nature. I have his book, so I may fine-tune (pun intended) that description.

Well, for a guy who wants to avoid depending on theism he ends up depending on theism. How? The observer/non-observer distinction is meaningful only if God exists. Davies wants to go down the pantheistic route, as far as I can tell. Neither atheism nor pantheism can give you a meaningful distinction between observer and non-observer.

If we are just atoms bouncing around, there is no difference between a chair and yourself. If that's the case, if we have observers, atheism cannot be true.

Pantheism makes all of nature God. So how can pantheism give you a valid observer/non-observer distinction? I don't see how it can. Atheism and pantheism are very similar if not the same. One says nature is all there is (by and large). The other just labels everything as "god."

So if you can't get a proper distinction between observer and non-observer, Davies view has a major problem. But if God exists, we can have meaningful observers. God created them.

So Davies wanted to avoid God and he ends up needing God to get his theory to work. So why bother with his theory in the first place?

2007-06-29T16:53:00.000-04:00

From Douglas Wilson: Atheism, Beachballs, and the Special Olympics

Ok, that's my title.

Scripture teaches us that unbelievers suppress the truth in unrighteousness. But this language suggests that the operation is not effortless. In order to sin, and in order to persist in it, we have to fight against something that is true about ourselves. We are created in the image of God, and despite the fall into sin, we still retain that image. When God told Noah that the death penalty was to be applied in cases of murder, He did so because men still bear that image, however defaced by sin it may have been.

Therefore unbelievers who suppress the truth of God are expending a good deal of effort to hold a beach ball under water. Periodically it gets away from them, even though repentance has not occurred. When this happens, the results can be a bizarre flailing to get the ball back under. All such attempts to regain the calm but quivering respectability that existed before the ball got loose can be seen in various frantic civil legalisms.

Let us pretend that the illustration got away from us, just like the beach ball. What is all this supposed to mean? When the law of God is resisted and suppressed, the men who do this are objectively guilty, despite what they want to feel. This objective guilt results in subjective feelings of guilt – quivering arms holding that beach ball down. When the charade is revealed in some civil atrocity – genocide, rampant abortion, widespread sodomy – it is no longer possible to pretend that we are all decent folks just enjoying ourselves at the pool. Instead of admitting what we were doing, the response is to start splashing and yelling, pretending that we are saving someone from drowning.

In other words, when it becomes apparent that we as a people are disregarding God’s law in some flagrant way, the next thing to watch for is some kind of moral crusade that will help compensate for it. This is the meaning behind our yelling and splashing and imaginary heroics. In our nation today, a woman who is six months pregnant can go to a clinic and have the child terminated. Not only can she do this, she can receive considerable social support in doing so. The law of God is flagrantly insulted. But if that same woman stood on a busy street corner, visibly pregnant, and smoked herself a pack of cigarettes, she would be the brunt of a lot of cold, icy stares. How dare she risk a low birth weight? More than one social observer has noted the ethical incoherence of this.

But this is why unborn children can be killed for having birth defects, but if they navigate their way past our abortion laws and are successfully born, we will arrange special Olympics for them, handicapped parking spacing in every parking lot in town, and disability access into every building in the nation. We, in a fever pitch of moral do-goodism, are insisting that such handicapped individuals have a fundamental right to be able to access anything – except for their lives.