Intelligent Design Blog goes into Hibernation

Uncommon Descent will no longer have new posts. I will take it off my links.

Oil Drilling in Alaska

This article makes a case for the oil drilling in Alaska. The unfortunate thing about the news is that seldom do they cite sources. The news itself is to be considered trustworthy. But when two news sources make equal claims and do not cite sources who am I to trust?

Relativism in Ancient Greece

Apparently, the Sophists promoted a form a relativism.

This is taken from Western Civilization: The Continuing Experiment by Noble, Strauss, Osheim, Neushel, Cohen, Roberts, and Hecht.
"Protagoras (b. ca. 485 B.C.), perhaps the best-known Sophist, summed up the spirit of the age in his famous dictum 'Man is the measure of all things.' In other words, human beings create the appropriate truth for a given situation--there are no absolute truths. Because they taught respect for success over truth, the Sophists acquired a reputation as word-twisters. Sophist became a term of abuse in Athens and remains so today."

This reminds me of some politicians.

The Sophists were also responsible for Socrates' execution.

This is what some like to think Protagoras looked like:

Elephants

A blog I ran into speaks about elephants and blind men.
Pensees: The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant: Does it Work?

New Derek Webb CD

Mocking Bird.

"She Must and Shall Go Free" is about Jesus and the Church. This one's about proclaiming the Kingdom.

Here's an inciteful interview about the album.

Beautiful Savior vs. Fairest Lord Jesus

I found this intriguing: "Beautiful Savior" in the Psalter hymnal comes as "Fairest Lord Jesus" in other hymnals. I am not sure of the reasons for this change, but I suspect that the Psalter editors didn't like the lyrics in the first verse, so they threw them out, renamed the song, and modified several other lyrics. I honestly don't know which is the original or classic version, but I have seen the Psalter change the original before. Judge for yourselves.

This is what I grew up with in "Praise! Our Songs and Hymns":

Fairest Lord Jesus

Fairest Lord Jesus! Ruler of all nature!
O Thou of God and man the Son!
Thee will I cherish, Thee will I honor,
Thou my soul's glory, joy and crown.

Fair are the meadows, Fairer still the woodlands,
Robed in the blooming garb of spring:
Jesus is fairer, Jesus is purer,
Who makes the woeful heart to sing.

Fair is the sunshine, Fairer still the moonlight,
And all the twinkling storry host:
Jesus shines brighter, Jesus shines purer
Than all the angels heav'n can boast.

Beautiful Savior! Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Glory and honor, Praise, adoration
Now and forevermore be Thine!

Here is the Psalter's rendition:

Beautiful Savior

Beautiful Savior! King of creation!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Truly I'd love thee, truly I'd serve thee,
Light of my soul, my joy, my crown

Fair are the meadows, fair are the woodlands,
robed in flowers of blooming spring;
Jesus is fairer, Jesus is purer;
he makes our sorrowing spirit sing.

Fair is the sunshine, fair is the moonlight,
bright the sparkling stars on high;
Jesus shines brighter, Jesus shines purer
than all the angels in the sky.

Beautiful Savior! Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Glory and honor, praise, adoration,
now and forevermore be thine!

Common Latin Phrases

This is a list of some of those annoying Latin phrases that people could say in English, but rather say in Latin in order to be pedantic.

New Buddha?

I vote that he's been dead for weeks.

Expensive art

I can't say I understand why this is valueable art. Probably a lot of factors, and a lot of art factors I don't understand. There seems to be this elite art culture that can tell what "good" art is, while the rest of us scratch our heads. To me it seems subjective in part. I do think there is a lot I would need to study about art before I understand why this is valuable, but then, the artists these days are painting for the elites. As a non-art-elite, I see no reason why I should value this art at all. I don't think it is absolutely ugly. I might look at it and say, hmmm. But if I didn't know better, I'd think somebody forgot to finish it, or that there was just excess paint on piece in front of it.

CSI Joins the Embrionic Stem Cell Debate

Last night's CSI episode included a confrontation between Catherine Willows and the head of an organization that finds surrogate mothers for leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization. Willows tends to be arrogant and snappy, and this episode followed suit.

Two obsevations about the encounter:
1. Willows had the upper hand in the confrontation. She referenced a Pope from the 1600's who stated that life begins when the mother can sense movement. The other woman (I will call her the nurse) could only resort to the weak post modern retort, "Thats just your view." When the nurse had clearly lost the arguement, she was unhelpful to the investigators because Willows' statements were stated disrespectfully.

2. When Grisom reprimanded Willows for her conduct, he actually gave her advise for a stronger argument. He quoted a verse from the Bible about blood being the determiner of human life.

Basically, this episode manipulates the viewer into thinking that the normal, and intelligent people have no problems with killing embryos, and that those who are against it are unintelligent and have no basis for it beyond their faith. They also use strawman arguements which give a very slanted presentation of the issue. It may well be that the writers have only had confrontations with prolifers like the nurse, but this still sets back the prolife movement since many people who watch CSI will never hear the real prolife response to Willows' and Grisom's arguments.

What are those responses? Well, basically, I don't give a lot a weight to the pope. And, if I remember correctly, the life blood verses in scripture refer more to a means of seeing who has died, or to dietary laws. The reason to oppose stem cell research is that the embryo is a human in an early form of development (this cannot be refuted successfully) and should be respected of its right to life (this is what is disputed here). I do not see how one can come to the conclusion that killing a human at a particular age is moral without drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. They may be informed lines, and there may be reasons behind it, but they are not difinitive. It is a prefrence to think that human life is only worthy if brain waves are flowing. It is a prefrence to think that we can kill humans if they have yet to get blood pumping. Why can I not then prefer to kill my two year old for the reason that his sexual organs are not yet developed? For this reason I think those artificial lines in the sand are absurd.

Yummy

Google Print

"Living" Constitution

It is a hard thing to amend and modify the Constitution. The founders made it that way, to ensure that a large portion of the population is sure that they want that change. The Constitution was even quite controversial in its ratification. It was a compromise to get, not just a majority, but a super-majority.

Because of this, I find it hard to believe that the framers were concerned about leaving things in the Constitution vauge enough for a future court to interpret new meaning into the document, like "right to privacy." If they went through such pains to get it ratified initially, new rights and application of rights should also go through the agonizing process of debate and ratification in order to be added.

Currently, the Supreme court puts new meaning into the Constitution by abstracting concrete and specific rights, and generalizing them to apply to other concrete situations. This adds new rights and takes away other rights to their whim and reasons. But in effect, this is the equivalent of a revolution. Rather than take up arms, demand a change, and work something out amongst the survivors, they are wiggling their pens in the name of progress to make a new Constitution; one that has not been ratified by a super-majority.

Book on Isreal/Palestine Conflict

I am currently reading From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. This is one I started a long time ago but never finished. I am picking up where I left off.

The book essentially refutes much of the conventional wisdom on the conflict in "Palestine." She is not a historian, but a journalist. She did a lot of research for this and sites many original sources. As I am not a Historian, I am going to try to be skeptical of this book, but I am an empty slate on this history.

Here is a quote from a recent section I read:

"The disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be 'settled Arab indigenes for a thousand years" were in fact a "heteroeneous" community with no 'Palestinian' identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, no Arab identity either: 'The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; else where they are of the most mixed race.'

Harsh Words

Iranian Wants Israel 'Wiped Off the Map' - October 27, 2005 - The New York Sun - NY Newspaper.

Rome wanted to do this once. And they renamed it Palestine.

Hugh Hewitt On Reading

From "In But Not Of:"

First, to scare you: after recommending about 14 books, Hugh says,"Fourteen volumes may seem like a lot, but they are not. In fact, that number should be a small portion of the reading you routinely do over the course of a year."

Second, the suggestion: Hugh says, "The world is full of terrible books, both those that are time wasters and those that are deeply, horribly wrong about the way the world works and how it came to be this way. The first sort are mistakes, but the latter can be deadly. Which is why there is no such thing as an innocent suggestion of a book to read." He is refferring to the writings of Marx and Hitler. He goes on, "So it is best to get your suggestions from reliable individuals--individuals whose charater impresses you as much as their intellect."

Any book recommendations?

Thoughts on "In But Not Of"

I am reading Hugh Hewitt's In, But Not Of : A Guide to Christian Ambition.

I am enjoying the book, and although it is geared more for high school Juniors and Seniors, I will probably end up heeding some of his advise.

The thing that disappoints me is that he is inconsistent. He began the book by giving an example of three people who influenced the world the most in a positive way (i.e. defeating the spread of Communism) in the last century: Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and some Russian author critical of the USSR (not Ayn Rand). I am not convinced that any of these people followed Hugh's advise. Now, he does qualify that as Americans, our best bet is to influence Westerners, and thus goes on to say how to gain influence over Westerners.

And what about Bono? Sure his foreign policy is a bit flawed (i.e.. let's subsidize corrupt governments), but his did a lot of good in Ireland and no one can reach more people about the plight in Africa. He probably broke every rule in Hugh's book. Had he followed them, I doubt he would be as influential.

Despite this inconsistency, the book does carry wisdom and is easy to read.

Commerce Clause

The commerce clause in the US Constitution give Congress power "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States." Before the 1942 reading of this clause, the Federal government was very limited on what laws it could impose by the 10th ammendment which states, "The powers not delgated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

After 1942, all a lawmaker needs to do to "override" the 10th ammendment is to show how a law will affect commerce between states. There are not many restrictions that won't somehow affect commerce between states so this makes the scope of the commerce clause limitless.

Michael MCConnell once wrote to show the absurdity of overreaching federal law, "Assume there are only two states, with equal populations of 100 each. Assume further that 70 percent of State A, and only 40 percent of State B, wish to outlaw smoking in public buildings. The others are opposed. If the decision is made on a national basis by a majority rule, 110 people will be pleased, and 90 displeased. If a separate decision is made by majorities in each state, 130 will be pleased, and only 70 displeased. The level of satisfaction will be still greater if some smokers in State A decide to move to State B, and some anti-smokers in State B decide to move to State A.

I read about this concept in Mark Levin's "Men in Black". I fell in love with the 10th ammendment, and I hope for its return, even if it means that the pledge is recited in some states and not others.

Abraham's Cowardice

Remember when Abraham neglects to tell a foreign ruler or two that his "sister" is also his wife? I occasionally hear someone use those stories of Abraham to demonstrate how Abraham was sinful and sometimes lacked faith.

I get irritated at this because we do not know enough information to criticize Abraham.

1. God never rebukes Abraham for this. God appears to even be on Abraham's side by giving dreams to the ruler or inflicting with an illness.

2. We also don't know Abraham's motivation for his. It could have been a common practice for rulers to kill the husbands of beautiful wives. Much like how I wear a seat belt. I still trust God for safety, but I don't put God to a test.

Gas Prices

Aren't companies supposed to price gouge? That's were you find the market price which is the price to maximize profit. If a gas company finds that market price first, they will gain an advantage over the others. If they charge too much, their profits will go down because some people will need to find alternates to gas. This affects shipping prices which affects the prices of everything else, but if this is really a problem, we will have to make some sacrifices with the products that we buy. Maybe it will affect how far we are willing to commute or how often we visit family. Maybe we will need to give up renting a movie so that we can buy groceries. Why should we hold gas companies to a higher standard than any other market? That is a result of scarcity, not greedy businessmen.

Working Theories and Tautologies

If you have a theory that is not a tautology and has been tested false, and have a theory that is a tautology and an adequate test has not been formulated, which should remain the working theory until a better one comes along?

Should you hang onto false theory, hoping that a more adequate explanation is discovered, or hang onto the tautology and pitch it only when a better explanation comes along.

Maybe I am making a wrong assumption that a theory can be spotless.

An Interesting Clash of Brave New World and Abortion Rights

From Fox News - Opinion
Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Scary movie. There were a couple of interesting slants to this movie:

1. How the "faith evidence" was marginalized and trivialized. The point of the movie was to say that we can't know for certain that the supernatural doesn't exist, even when our society says it cannot.

2. How the psychologist gave the symptoms of Emily Rose a new technical term giving symptoms of demon possession a medical category. This would be like someone who sees a vision of Jesus and decides they were hallucinating.


So I like the perspective this movie shows. And by the end I was more saddend than scared.

My picture

This is an old one, but its the best one of myself with a mustache.


JohnE 

Intellegent Design Blog

By the Godfather himself.

Uncommon Descent: The Intelligent Design Weblog of William A. Dembski

God and the Problem on Evil 2

I have heard some say that they don't like the idea of God "playing both sides of the chess board." I have some verses from Exodus very clearly showing how God was "playing both sides of the chess board " when he hardened Pharaoh's heart and kept asking him to "Let my people go." Notice that every time "as the Lord had said" is used, it is following a similar pattern of words as Exodus 5:21, which makes me conclude that this is what the Lord had said.

Exodus 5:21
And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3-4a
But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you...

Exodus 7:13-14
Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord has said. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go.

Exodus 7:16
And you shall say to him, "The Lord, the god of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, 'Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness. But so far, you have not obeyed.'"

Exodus 7:22b
So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.

Exodus 8:15
But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.

Exodus 8:19b
But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.

Exodus 8:32
But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:1
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, "Let my people go, that they may serve me."'"

Exodus 9:7b
But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:12
But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

Exodus 9:35
So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses.

Levin on the Declaration of Independence

Mark Levin in his book Men in Black says,

"By the standard activist judges use today, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point displaying the Declaration of Independence on public property is challenged. After all, the Declaration speaks of 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: and that 'all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.' It declares that the founders are 'appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world' and relying 'on the protection of divine Providence.' Rabbis, ministers, and priests at public high school graduation ceremonies can be legally barred from saying as much."

God as therapy

I heard a critique of Christianity from a non-Christian on the radio the other day. He finds religion interesting, but he pointed out how common it is for God to become a therapy. Although God is the comforter, God is love, and God is our friend, God does not always make us comfortable, God does not always approve, and God is also our Father (or Daddy).

My Dad has a similar critique of the Church in America. It seems to him that psychological teaching has more influence than what the Bible teaches. Or rather, the Bible is taught in light of Psychology instead of viewing Psychology in light of the Bible.

An example of this would be from the four spiritual laws. Law 1: God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. This would be alright, except that it neglects to point our God's wrath against and hatred of sin is so great that sinners must be punished. That isn't a comforting thought.

I have not thought of all the implications of this, nor do I understand all that encompasses therapy, but I will take this as a reminder to renew my mind with Scripture.

Relativism and The Death Penalty

It recently occurred to me that the Relativist view of "intolerance" is similar to the Judeo-Christian view of the death penalty.

The Christian view is this: murder is so evil, the only just punishment is to take the life of the murderer.

The Relativist view is this: intolerance is so evil, the only just punishment is to be intolerant of the intolerant.

The difference: murder must be judged and sentenced by the courts whereas intolerance is judged and sentenced by the individual. Even if the intolerance is brought to court the mere accusation of intolerance is an act of judgment and a sentence.

God and the Problem of Evil 1

I was recently discussing providence and God's will. Someone was asking, "Since evil exists, how much control is God really in?" Either God is in control of evil or God allows evil to fulfill other purposes.

There are several places in Scripture with a blanket statement saying God is in control of all things, but in case that is in dispute, there is at least one thing that is not in dispute: the Cross of Christ. The torture and death sentence of a knowingly innocent man is an evil act. God predestined it, planned it, ordained it, and used it for his purposes. There are other places in Scripture where we see God using the evil acts of humans to further his purposes, like the story of Joseph or the marriage of Sampson. These are the areas where the purposes of God are revealed. Are we to assume that God doesn't have a purpose for all evil?

Even if God were just allowing sin (God by no means just allowed the crucifixion of Christ) he is still using it or ordaining it for his own purposes. Someone with an extreme view of free-will might say God is ordaining sin so that we aren't robots, so we can freely and truly love. Of course "ordain" sounds too intentional. But if God did not intentionally create us will the ability and will to sin, then what? Was it an accident?

Alice and Boolean Logic

"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of that is-- 'Be what you would seem to be'-- or if you'd like it put more simply-- 'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."'
-Alice in Wonderland

This would appear to be some form of negation. It reminds me of Boolean Logic only including not only logical negation, but also linguistic tense negation. I have not actually checked the statements to see if they actually say the same thing, but I sure found it funny.

Purpose

The purpose of this blog is to write my perpectives of the many aspects of creation. Philosophy, theology, history, ethics, politics, mathematics, aesthetics, and many more topics will be included. I hope to write at least once a week pending my time availability.