Posting

One more note: I really do enjoy the written dialogue from this blog so I encourage people to post. This is fun and helpful to everyone also but my motivation is mostly selfish. I am more of a thinker and sometimes I run out of things to think about. I especially love posts from those who think differently than me. I have heard some are intimidated or fearful, but....just don't be. We are all human and realize some of our positions are undoubtedly wrong. The more areas we have opinions on the more likely we are going to be wrong on something.
This is a viewpoint I innately hold and try to encourage. I don't take the adversarial approach to argumentation but think of discussion as two people trying to come the truth together (like Plato). It's hard for me to interact with those who take the other approach - I don't understand the advantage and I am not that way. And it's weird to me that almost everyone takes the adversarial approach - I believe this is a effect of ignorance. I know enough to say I don't know - such confidence encourages the communal approach to discussion but most people don't know this much.

Homosexual Marriage

SoCal had Prop 8 pass last week (~52.5%) that made a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Here are my reasons for and against gay marriage as state law
Against
1. Homosexuality is immoral. Morality does not determine law but does affect it. As in, we don't allow parents to beat their children not just because it's bad for society but because it's wrong. The trick is determining which moral to legislate.
2. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. This has been always been the definition, so it should be the default. It seems there should be a reason to stray away from the norm.
3. I'd rather live in a moral than immoral society. This stems from homosexuality as wrong, and given a choice I'd rather society encourage morality.
4. It devalues marriage. Allowing a more liberal/inclusive view of marriage cheapens or diminishes the traditional marriage.

For
1. It's not the state's roll to regulate a traditionally church-related institution. The state should take the position of most freedom and allow individuals the freedom to determine marriage as they see fit. Also, since this is such a religious view the state should be very careful about intervening in church affairs. Separation of church and state is good.

Incidentally, I don't see this as a discrimination issue as it is often postulated but a definition of marriage issue. It would be discrimination if we were not allowing gays to practice or allow people to hire based on sexual orientation. Those are already allowed; the issue is what does marriage mean? We have already allowed so much liberty in terms of homosexuality that I feel it is established by the state that homosexuality is ok; this is a little piece at the end of a long line of homosexual liberty.

Temptation

There is a paragraph in Lewis' Screwtape Letters where the older demon tells the younger demon to convince his person that chastity is unnatural and the only way to make temptation go away is to give in to it (this belief is called "our best weapon"). This is absolutely true - one of the great lies of the devil that I constantly consider and it actually helps me deal with temptation, not just sexual as was inferred. When I want to say or eat something bad I think of how my desire would go away if I just did it.

This great lie is believed by many atheists and half-ass Christians as well in the realm of sex. They see supressing sexual desires outside of marriage as unnatural. The desires will only get stronger and eventually come out as something more perverse than simply giving in immediately. Sometimes it is thought of as impossible to preserve sex for marriage as the desires will become too powerful. What an ingenious lie - take some truth and twist it so maliciously. Again, the preversion of the best is the worst. Note any reference to Scripture is forgotten and one attempts to create morality with pure reason from one's own head. As with any such attempt, common sense is also forgotten and while one has confidence that they were reasoned into such a belief they actually forsook the real world in favor of the idealized reasonable world.

Self-awareness

I have also started to think of how much I value self-awareness. For instance, knowing the type of person you are and also the type of people your friends/family are. This helps with relations and in moderating expectations, but I value it highly not because of its efficacy but simply as an attribute. This attribute is actually fairly easy to determine in someone, especially by their humor. Sarcastic comments require a more intimate knowledge of people and situations and thus I tend to gravitate toward sarcastic and witty people and view them as smarter. I love the quote in V for Vendetta (which everyone should join me in watching Nov 5): "Is everything a joke to you?" "Only the things that matter." As a side note, self-awareness becomes markedly easier with age.

It's interesting to note too that who you feel intimidated by has the attributes you value. For instance, I am not intimidated by Caltech professors even though they have so much science knowledge and experience. However, I am intimidated by a successful businessman because he has the self-awareness and business savvy that I value. This is a problem in my field since I only care what my professors think of science; in other areas they are as smart as Joe the Plumber. And they definitely are not self-aware or think of how to encourage a productive work environment; this is of course weird to me since I think of those things a lot. I have to actualy consciously remind myself that these people are smart but they just don't have the attributes I value.

Best - Worst

I have been thinking recently about how the perversion of the best is the worst. Perhaps God wants me to learn something since it seems like this concept keeps coming up. In the Dark Knight, family, relationships, work, Satan, Halloween, etc for some reason I see many examples.

I have been thinking about how God made these great things that could be so awesome which means they could also be so horrid. When confronted with such evil (or potential evil) I think it is reasonable to ask whether the risk is worth it. Not whether God was right in making such great things, but whether as individuals we choose to pursue those great things. I do not believe this is an excuse to give up on life but rather a contemplative decision on which path we pursue and which risks we are willing to take.

For instance, in desiring to be close to someone, such as family, does the joy from knowing that person outweigh the pain of rejection or of them passing? Most would say yes and I tend to agree, but I do not believe it to be a forgone conclusion that the answer be yes. This is a morbid train of thought but not so much so that it does not warrant consideration. At least I hope not since for some of us such thoughts are unavoidable.

Politician's money

Apparently Biden has given more more than 0.5% of his income to charity over the last 10 yeras. Last year was his most generous year - $1000 to charity. I give more than that and he makes 12x as much money as me. Obama gave ~5% the last couple years once they started making some money. Before that it wan't much because they still had debt and apparently couldn't afford to give much away. This kind of solidifies for me how politicians aren't really Christians. Come on, they are the half-ass people who go to church for tradition or social reasons. All this makes the Clintons seems really generous - they gave ~10% of their massive incomes away since the presidency.

Of course, McCain is hard to compare since his wife is worth so much. He gave ~20% of his income away the last couple years but he and his wife file separate returns and his wife is worth ~$100 million. It still looks a lot better than a grand though.

Biola ID

I went to a Biola event with Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe showing a Docudrama "Dual Revelation" with a Q&A session afterward. I thought Dual Revelation sucked and the Q&A was lame, but I got to talk to Dr. Bloom for a bit afterward. The film and Reasons to Believe like the "old-earth creationism" or as I think of it "progressive creationism," meaning the creation account speaks of long periods of time instead of days. They say they have a good balance between science and the Bible - 6-day creationism regards the Bible too high against science and evolution regards science too high against the Bible. This is a good talking point and would convince the masses but is intellectually empty political crap. I was the only one laughing when he said that though.

I came out of the event believing more strongly in theistic evolution. Of course they think the creation account is historical narrative which I don't, so evolution isn't really an option for them. But the underlying antipathy toward theistic evolution is how that belief could be abused. The main arguments are that it could lead to a deistic God or one can have too low a view of the Bible. Apparently the famous theistic evolutionists are deists. In talking to Dr. Bloom I got somewhat frustrated because he said that theistic evolution as I veiw it is fine but most theistic evolutionists (at least the popular ones) don't have the moderate view I do. Of course the entire theme of the night had a very low view of evolution as all Christian events do. This actually miffed me a bit. It seems our goal is no longer truth but only truth that is not easily abused. We have become fascist in allowing only certain views to be considered, and with this mindset of course old earth creationsim is the most likely. The thing I love most about Christianity is our love for truth and use of common sense, but in this arena that's forgotten in favor of intellectual fascism. I consider myself a theistic evolutionist partly out of spite.

Biden on abortion

So 2 weeks ago Pelosi was on Meet the Press and Biden was on last week. I thought Pelosi sucked and Biden did ok. However, on the abortion thing they both made some mistakes. Pelosi said the Catholic Church's position was always been quenstioned and people give differing opinions on the church. I think she cited Augustine and Biden cited Aquinas. Woops! There was a big backlash on that of course. The Church's position is clear, but some (especially half-ass) Catholics that believe differently.

Biden believes that life begins at birth but he doesn't want to impose his views on others. I don't understand this. We impose our moral beliefs on others all the time in government; it seems a baby's life is important enough for us to do it here too.

Joe Biden

I learned this week that Joe Biden has a net worth of ~$100,000, one of the lowest in the Senate. He has been a senator for 25 years and makes $300,000+ per year. I don't understand how he can only be worth that little. He's 65 years old - no wonder he's so interested in keeping social security well funded b/c he's going to be dependent on it! He has a mortgage and loans for his kids college and such - why doesn't he listen to Dave Ramsey and pay those off? Some have said that this goes against the elitist attack from McCain's campaign. Perhaps they should attack him on how he's a bad money manager.

Palin

I like the Sarah Palin pick for VP. I like that she was a governor and a woman and from Alaska; she seems so American. She doesn't seem like the politicians that everyone else is. She's a member of the NRA, has 5 kids, hunts moose, and lives more of a normal life. It seems like conservatives really like her too, especially after the pro-choice scares. I thought her speech was good too - seems authentic and un-Washington. She's conservative to bring in the base. She's a woman which is a slap in the face to the libs and Hill-dawg. She's young to contrast McCain. She's un-Washington to enforce McCain's change message and excite the party.

The one thing that makes me a little nervous is that she has a 4-month old baby who has Down Syndrom and 4 other kids at home. I'm afraid that she wouldn't "be her kids' mom." She seems very involved with her kids - she was a member of the PTA at her kids' schools so maybe that wouldn't be an issue.

Rush Limbaugh had a montage from Obama's speech Thursday where he said "I ...." a million times. It was a few minutes of "I see...I will....I make....etc" and then at the end "it's never been about me..." I laughed out loud - Rush is clever like that. As a side note, people didn't like Obama's speech as much as I did or as much as I thought they would.

The experience issue is not a big deal to me - I actually like it (Sean Hannity welcomes the debate too). I like governors more than senators because it seems like a governor's job is more like the president's than senator's. I like how they have to run something and are responsible for their state. Being on a city council, then mayor, then governor seems like just as good if not better qualifications than being a state then federal senator.

I could have been a Democrat, but they found out my parents were married

I was watching Biden and Obama this weekend and I was thinking how growing up in privilege has become a liability. I could never run for a democratic position because I didn't grow up in a poor, broken home. Obama and Biden both grew up poor and lived the American dream to get to where they are now (well, I heard Biden has a negative net worth, but whatever), and they were touting that all day. I'm in the minority, but I don't care about whether they were brought up poor or wealthy. Gosh, Biden's like 65 now - who cares whether he had a wealthy elementary experience?

California has a major budget crisis: ~15 bil under for a ~100 bil budget. We are pretty highly taxed now and sounds like our sales tax will go up 1% for 3 years to raise revenue. Californians sure like to spend money...sometimes I wish I didn't live in a democratic state. Although, Californians shouldn't have to spend so much time in purgatory because of how much they love the poor.

Sex

I've been thinking about sex lately.


It's not a subject I think of much, mostly because I ain't gettin' any and don't plan to for a looong time. But being surrounded by people of a more promiscuous nature has made me think of it more. I've been thinking of what I would think of it if I was going to Hell .


It seems like Christians have a much higher view of sex than others. We think of it as intimacy and how it creates a bond between partners that's sacred to marriage. If I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't buy that; I think because I would never think of a philosophy of sex. Who does? Even if one did in passing it would be so tainted by how much they wanted it. It's weird to me how so many (especially half-ass Christians) have come to the persuasion that sex is good if they are in love, regardless of marriage. Thus many partners are inevitable and the eventual bond between spouses is cheapened (think of 40 Year Old Virgin). It's weird for me to even think of that because I have had no such experiences and don't plan to. But, even if I wasn't Christian I think I would still be a virgin because I have no balls.


It's weird to me too how many Christians get involved with non-Christians. Obviously it can work out, but it seems very dangerous. Of course the hope is that the other will be converted and you'll both go to Heaven. I can see good things come from this, as in you get a better understanding of non-Christians and save a soul. The danger is in assuming you will influence them and they won't influence you. It could be my upbringing, my lack of initiative toward women, or my Christian bubble but I am not drawn toward non-Christians. I find the whole "you are going to burn in Hell for all eternity" kind of a turnoff.

God's Will

I started this out by railing on how people say "God's Will" all the time and I don't like that term and don't know what it means, but upon further consideration this is what I think.

First, I think of will as desire or wanting. To say God's will is saying what God wants, as in "it's God's will that I don't fornicate." I think there are 2 ways to view "will:" one as moral decisions and another as not moral decisions. For the former, his will is that all be perfect or as close as possible to perfection and that's the end of that. The latter is for decisions without moral considerations such as where to live or work. The former seems clear so I'll deal with the latter.

It seems to me that these decisions have various degrees of "good." If I am undecided about whether to live in city A or B, there may be a place I would be happier and more useful but it's probable I can't know it. Plus, my happiness and efficacy are largely dependent on my moral decisions so the 2 forms of will are joined. I often get distracted with "God's Will" because I think of the morality form of will and think that if I was perfect the non-moral decisions wouldn't matter much because I would be hugely effective wherever I was. However, maybe there is a form of God's will that makes sense - where I can be most efficient for God. So for specific questions it's good to seek God's will.

But then what about my whole life? Does God have a "plan" for my life?

First, the wordplay of "how can an omni...God have a plan?" messes me up, especially the time-dependence part. A plan is sequential whereas God sees all time at once. But I don't know what to say to that so I'll move on.

It's not useful for me to think of God's "plan" for my life because again I think of his moral plan or how I think he wants us to figure it out more on our own and not do the "if it's God's will it will happen so I'll stop thinking" bit. Thinking of "plan" as made up of many little decisions all dealing with efficacy makes more sense to me - just an extrapolation of the God's will part. But then is it really a plan because depending on moral decisions the plan can change? It's not a plan if God sees it as we see history.

In short, the "God's plan" part is very confusing to me - I need to think of it more. At this point I don't think God has a plan for my life because it seems like a nonsensical question. (Good thing the sermons at my church are boring so I have half an hour every Sunday to do nothing but think because I sure ain't listening.)

Religion and Truth

I was chatting with a barely-understandable postdoc at Caltech and somehow started talking about religion. They were saying that raising their kid with religion (Buddhism, Christianity, whatever) is good because it encouraged good morals. All I could think of was "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." I really wanted to go Dr. Cox on them. Of course I didn't and tried to explain how I don't know any Christians who are in it for good morals or some crappy reason like that but because we think it's true. Somehow it doesn't even occur to people that religion can be true and knowable. That's why I love Christianity - it is at its heart a historical religion, meaning it is historically reliable. It's hard for me to have patience for people who disconnect religion and truth.

Creation Account

I've seen some aversion to the idea that the creation account in Genesis is not historical narrative. They say, "If you say that's not historical narrative where does it end? It's got to be all or nothing." Obviously it would be easier to say it's all or nothing, but I think that idea's retarded. The answer I always want to giveto their response is, "Well, you have to use your brain." They also say "literal" which I hate. I don't know what that means - I use historical narrative because literal also has an importance connotation. As in, if you don't take it literally you don't take it seriously.

I don't think Gen 1 to 2:3 is historical narrative. 1) I don't think the Israelites took it as such, 2) it wasn't eye-witnessed but a special revelation from God, and 3) the message/purpose doesn't require it to be historical narrative. It seems like people do a cursory reading and assume it's historical narrative and/or are afraid of going down that slippery slope so they don't even think of it.

But if we didn't have the info we have from science about the universe's origins, I wonder if we wouldn't take it as historical narrative. I take the equal position of science and the Bible (the Book of Nature and the Bible), so science does influence my biblical interpretations. I think that's also a deterrence.

I'm also skeptical of people trying to make the creation account fit into the scientific account. It's a kind of progressive creationism, as in people say the days were long periods of time and the order of creation is consistent with science. I don't think the Israelites would have seen Genesis as such.

Never mess with the night shift at Waffle House

1=28102&vv=600">http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx/?news=323992>1=28102&vv=600
I love how Kid Rock's real name is Robert Richie. I'm going to refer to him as Bob from now on.

2 years ago today - everyone looks so young!

Science people are dumb

In the past I've always thought well of scientists, but not so anymore. At Caltech I've begun to believe that scientists are not so smart. Having not been exposed to any form of scientific environment and then thrust into science of the n-th degree hasn't helped.

1. Scientists are bad managers and make bad bosses. They think everyone is as individualistic as them and just don't think of increasing productivity. This is fine if you have experienced scientists working under you who are exactly like you, but bad for newbies who have no idea what's going on. They aren't open about managing styles either, they just think about their job and what they are working on. This is weird since I would label the primary job of a research professor as manager - they have a fleet of students under them who they're responsible for. I don't understand how the current system propagates.

2. Scientists are bad teachers. They are so focused on the job and what they are doing that they don't think of others. As in, when I am under a grad student supposed to be learning what they are doing I have to continually ask "What are you doing now?" just so I can be included. They never volunteer information.

3. Scientists are narrow-minded. Perhaps this is the root of the problem - too detail oriented that they just shouldn't get involved socially. Ever. Don't expect a scientist to know anything about politics, business, religion, or anything but science. And if they do, they suck at communicating anyway so you shouldn't interact with them. Leaving them alone is the only option, which is good because that's what they want anyway.

Politics

I feel like writing now, so I'll write on politics. Plus I sent in my fee for the Pasadena Republicans Club so it seems appropriate.

Health Care
It seems weird to me that suddenly our society see health care as a right, not a privilege. It hasn't been seen as such until recently - apparently when it becomes really good it becomes a right. I don't see it as such but rather a privilege, so as a taxpayer it's not my responsibility to pay for my i.e. brother's health care but his. I am a capitalist so I think if he wants health care, he should arrange such. This requires that the disadvantaged won't have health care, but I don't want to sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few.

I don't even buy universal child health care; I see this as the parent's responsibility. Parents are responsible for their child's education, shelter, health, spiritual well-being, etc. Likewise, the idea that as a taxpayer I'm responsible for my nieces/nephew's health care seems weird to me. Again, as part of a society this means some children will be disadvantaged.

Of course, universal health care would be great if cheap and easy, but I think the price is too high. There's no country where I look and say "I'd like to have their system." On the trade-off between cost and access, I'd keep the ("evil") health care companies in business.

Capital Punishment
I'm ok with it. The idea that someone has done something so heinous that as a society we remove their right to live seems fine. People often rhetorically ask, "What would Jesus do?" in hopes of making those like me feel guilty (i.e. turn the other cheek). I would say that Jesus didn't guide us in how to respond as a society but rather as an individual and a church - it was always personal with Him. So Jesus would tell us to use our cranium and figure it out.

The objection that we don't want to kill an innocent person is legit, but we take great strides in our judicial system to not let that happen. I think the judicial system takes enough precautions for me to be at ease.

Government
I chose to stress personal responsibility rather than government intrusion. Rather than purely wealth redistribution to bring up the poor, I'd say do this little and encourage personal responsibility. There will always be poor, and as a society we should recognize that we can't raise all the poor out of poverty. I'm amazed how the lib answer is so often to throw money at a problem without having any specific plan - it's often "we need to fund this more so it will work better" without having any good ideas. Money is supposed to spurn good ideas (i.e. health care, minority rights, helping the poor, science - global warming, education, etc). I'd rather the ideas came first.

I look forward to other people's comments - politics is an area where I try to revise my ideas frequently.

Moral Relativist

I was in Oooklahoma with a true moral relativist. It's weird to meet one. This gal was an atheist who thought religion was an inherent unknowable and faith mean blind faith, etc. She based her morality primarily on what was best for sociey from the outcomes of moral choices, so morality for her meant what was best for society. She thinks this is how morality developed (through evolution) and so our morality changes based on society's good. This means that murder is wrong in the same sense that having a bad immigration policy or electing the wrong politician is wrong.

I don't really find anything wrong with this idea. If one is an atheist it seems the required position. Of course, morality doesn't mean much since people can differ on what "society's good" means and how to achieve it. And people don't use the term morality as such but actually refer to something as wrong, not bad for society, but other than semantics it seems ok.

If I was an atheist I would forget society's good and care only about my own. I would care about society's good only insofar as it served me. The idea that unselfishness drives my morality wouldn't make sense to me - why would I care about another's good above my own?

I had a hard time finding what was wrong with her morality. The only thing I could think of was coming up with inconsistencies, as in killing babies/old people could be morally right for population control or assassinating a politician could be right to get the right person in charge. However, these outlandish examples didn't convince her as they aren't practical.

Also, homosexuality came up and I can't think of an atheistic argument against it. More disease, promiscuity, broken homes/relationships with homosexual unions? But it's hard to differentiate these from heterosexual ones. And pointing to how good heterosexual unions are compared to homos doesn't work either. Anyone know any atheistic arguments against homos?

Lastly, since she thinks that morality developed through evolution and is learned and not innate, the idea that a common morality points to a God doesn't work. The only other arguments for God that I can think of are the Uncaused Cause and the fine tuning of the universe. Anyone know of any other arguments? Seems like I should know these since I'm surrounded by liberal heathens...

The God Who Wasn't There

I watched this 1 hour documentary today that I ordered and loved it. It was by Brian Flemming and attacked Christian fundamentalism really harshly - largely through attacking the early church and who Jesus was. It's not a movie every Christian could stand watching and I was thinking throughout the movie that perhaps part of my "calling" is to non-Christian intellectuals. Right now I'm very interested in how atheists think and their reasons for rejecting Christianity. I don't get mad at such movies (except from the occasional really stupid idea) but am purely interested - perhaps that's how one determines where God can best use you.

Maybe I could be useful here because I actively seek truth no matter where it is found - whether atheism or Christianity. I am genuinely curious of their arguments because they could be valid. I try to never hold on to a belief so tightly that no evidence or argument could cause me to give it up. I often wonder what the world would be like if everyone had this philosophy. Mormonism would die out fast.

I'll post thoughts on the main ideas of the movie when I think about it more and can watch it again.

UN

Bill Dembski

In Dembski and Richards' book Unapologetic Apologetics, Bill Dembski writes a few chapters on science/creation and I'd like to comment. First, I think that as a Christian who does not read the creation account as historical narrative, I am one of the few who can look at the issue of creation with an open mind. I view it as a question of the mechanism for design and thus have no vested interest in either side.

He says "without question, no aspect of theology escaped the need for reevaluation in the light of Darwinism." I think he overestimates the impact of Darwinism. How does it question the resurrection or eschatology?

His two main points are 1) "God is not an absentee landlord" and 2) intelligent design is a theory of information which can be tested.

1) "Christians are not deists" so proposing a theory where "God is a master of stealth" like theistic evolution does not jive with Christianity. "If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without purpose." Theistic evolution is a cheap compromise for those who believe "the natural world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."

First, invoking the character of God and saying "God is not like that so He wouldn't do it that way" is a close-minded and arrogant pseudo-argument. I don't think Darwinism requires a deistic God, just deistic in the limited sense of letting life evolve. I think this is reductio ad absurdum (heard that on "The Big Bang Theory"). A engineer type God who enjoys seeing animals evolve can still be personally involved in our lives. God can create a world, let animals evolve, and still perform miracles and direct human lives. Theistic evolution does not mean God can't/doesn't intervene but for the most part let's the earth evolve on its own. This is how I see God working the most in the world today - the coincidences that just seem "natural" or "random."

Second, why can't I see design and be a Darwinist? The fallacy comes in when Darwinism is extracted beyond its purpose and includes atheism. Why can't Darwinism simply be a mechanism of creation? The arguments from Darwin's book are 1) species are not immutable, 2) evolution can account for all the diversity of life, and 3) this process was guided by natural selection. (Phil Johnson, Darwin on Trial) Darwin's theory does not invoke atheism.

2) We know enough today to not make the God of the Gaps fallacy. Using math we can determine whether something has "complexity" ("ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance") and "specification" ("ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence."). Thus, we can reduce or eliminate the personal decision about whether something is designed.

I love the idea, but I'm skeptical that we have this ability when it comes to evolution. I think it will always come down to "the argument from personal incredulity" as Hugh Montefiore calls it (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins hates this idea because we have no intuition of the amount of time evolution requires (we think in terms of centuries/millenia) or how complex things (like the human eye) evolve in living things. If statistics can help with the design question, we better be sure what evolution is capable of (circular argument?).

Overall, I think Christians should not have the knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism that's so popular. Two reasons I think are legit for rejecting Darwinism are irreducible complexity and animal death. Irreducible complexity says that there are mechanisms/machines in organisms that require all the parts to operate (i.e. a mousetrap) - take away one part and the thing breaks. This is opposite of cumulative complexity (i.e. a city) where one can take away a part and the thing still functions. (The Darwinist response to irreducible complexity is to deny it or to say that the parts were used for a different purpose but came together for the current purpose.) Second, animal death is an integral part to evolution so if one thinks that God hates animal death (perhaps it entered as part of the Fall) then one can reject Darwinism. However, God's view on animal death is not especially clear and should not be assumed flippantly. As a side note, I find the irreducible complexity argument convincing (not the animal death argument) sometimes so I would classify myself as a theistic evolutionist a few days a week and a progressive creationist a few days a week.

Milkshake

So tonight I was making a banana/chocolate/peanut butter milkshake and literally when I was about to turn on the blender I felt a stomach ache coming. It was like in Dumb and Dumber when all the sudden Harry got a knee-jerk reaction when the doo-doo fell to a new low. So I was standing there ready to turn on the blender realizing that if I ate this awesome milkshake I would have to become friends with the John. What did I do? I ate the doggone thing. I had to take a couple very productive trips to the pot, but I'm happy with my decision. It was a great milkshake.

"The Case for a Creator"

I'm watching this sermon/speech from iTunes and it's made me realize how I hate people being convinced by bad arguments. I don't want people to come to Christianity because of bad arguments - I'd rather meet a thinking atheist than an unaware dumb Christian.
Some bad arguments here are: 1) if Darwinism is true there is no love/beauty, 2) no purpose, and 3) no truth.
1) Love and beauty are defined so broadly that they would still exist but perhaps their definition must be tweeked. I think very few people's definition of love and beauty would be affected.
2) We don't reject beliefs because of their implications. This is actually a good argument against non-evolutionists: "they cannot argue against the facts but reject the idea because they don't like the ramifications."
3) I don't even understand the argument - why would there be no truth? Why is only relative truth left?

Another suggestions non-evolutionists propogate is to say that there is no accountability because we are only machines/bunches of chemicals. This may be true for simpler machines but we have evolved with self-realization (well, my roommates haven't, but still). We have volition and these machines can choose so there is accountability. Darwinism doesn't negate free will.

Beginnings

So I've started this thing and instead of giving updates of my life, which is boring, I am planning on writing on my thoughts on various things. Like most people I go through fads of thinking about different ideas and since that's what I find interesting that's what I'll write about.