The Capitulation of Civility

From the United Kingdom. America is certainly not alone in the capitulation of civility. In many ways Europe is leading the charge. Here's further evidence of that fact...

A secondary school is to allow pupils to swear at teachers - as long as they don't do so more than five times in a lesson. A running tally of how many times the f-word has been used will be kept on the board. If a class goes over the limit, they will be 'spoken' to at the end of the lesson. Link to Article

Read more!

Quantum Mechanics In Plain English

As anyone who has ever studied college level science or engineering knows, you may have passed those courses on quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean you understood what you learned. Quantum Mechanics is the confounding field of science that tries to make sense of really really small things, like electrons, quarks, and leptons. It's a topsy turvy world of 10 (or is it 11 now) dimensions that fold in on themselves, where particles - or are they waves - can be at two places at the same time, and where nothing is as it seems. If ever one desired to peer into the mind of God you are invited to study the strange and unfathomably complex world of quantum mechanics. For instance, you may of heard the term superstring theory. It's the idea that at the root of the smallest things imaginable are actually strings of pure energy, strings that, depending on how they twist and vibrate, make up all the matter in the universe. Weird? Hey, that's quantum mechanics.

If this sounds sorta interesting but you don't feel like trudging through college physics, no problem. There are lots of good reads these days that tell the story in language a non-PhD can actually follow. A few samples are "The Elegant Universe" (Brian Green), "A Brief History of Time" (Stephen Hawking), and "Other Worlds" (Paul Davies).

But if you can't wait to get to Borders then try this. First have a look at Reason To Believe's webpage that defines the basic principles in quantum mechanics. It's a terrific and plain spoken overview. Then go to Wikipedia's site on the subject; but prepare to set aside a couple of hours. Because I think you'll discover the world of small things is actually vast and mesmerizing place.

So, which is it, a wave or a particle?

Read more!

Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

by Dennis Prager

It is almost impossible to overstate how radically different Old Testament thought was from the thought of the rest of its contemporary world. And it continues to be, given how few societies affirm Judeo-Christian values and how much opposition to them exists in American society, the society that has most incorporated these values.

Among the most radical of these differences was the incredible declaration that God is outside of nature and is its creator. Link to Article here

Read more!

Re: Pat Robertson

For those who might want to know what I thought of Pat Robertson's remarks advocating assasinating President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, three words: angry, embarrassed, saddened.

Read more!

Scientists Confused on God

At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."Link to NYTs article

I have to assume from Dr. Hauptman's remarks that he believes Atheism is the antidote for the disease of religion that plagues mankind. Granted, bad religion is bad for mankind. But according to Webster, religion can be defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", to which Atheism certainly qualifies. But is it a bad religion? What's the record? Well, let's see: Communism and the purges of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, the rape of Nanking, World War I, World War II, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda, Iraq under Saddam Hussein..., all this carnage occurring in the span of a century more unteathered from the constraints of Judeo-Christian religion than perhaps any in human history and prosecuted under the Darwinian conclusion that "might makes right".

It's likely Dr. Hauptman believes God and science are incompatible because science is all about proving things, whereas God's existence, he assumes, cannot be proven. Both premises, however, are problematic.

I'm not alone in my conviction that science cannot, of itself, prove anything.

"What!", you say. "What do you mean science cannot prove anything?". "How about 1 + 1 = 2"?

What about it. Saying 1+1=2 offers no proof that indeed 1+1 is actually 2. And using two apples, two rocks, or two pennies as evidence for the proffered fact, in and of itself, proves nothing. For these are merely objects or symbols, no different than the symbols 1+1 used to illustrate the premise in the first place.

Following the scientific method I might demand that you repeat the experiment to which you may or may not comply. But in the end you will have to rely on something else to make your case, something distinct from science to prove your assertion that 1+1 does, in fact, equal 2. You will have to rely on your own understanding, common sense, or to put it another way, human intuition. For I could challenge your so called proof with legitimate "why" questions that could go on forever in what Aristotle termed "infinite regression":

"What does "1" mean?" It's an abstraction that represents a single unit. "How do you know it represents a single unit". "What if there are no single units?" "How do you know your abstraction comports with what is actual?"

These are fair questions and can only be decided by appealling to some standard or understanding that stands apart from and can arbitrate scientific or any other form of evidence. Indeed, despite your noble appeals to the scientific method, deductive, or inductive reasoning, in the end you will have to rely on something like: "Look, it's obvious that 1+1=2. "You either see it or you don't". And of course that's true, but science is not what finally resolved the veracity of that proof - your intuition did - if indeed anything can be proved in the strictest sense of the word with absolute clarity and persuasiveness. And that is the whole point. (For more on this read Beckwith's and Koukl's, "Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air")

"Science", contrary to popular opinion, is not some separate entity that operates independent from human intuition. Science does not prove anything, but relies upon and is subservient to human insight.

Now Dr. Hauptman can argue that his interpretation of certain scientific findings leads him to conclude that God does not exist, and that is fine. But he did not do that in the NYT's article. He just spouted a platitude, an insipid remark that not only does not make the case that science and God are incompatible, but that weakens his own credibility. And it is not at all true that world class scientists are uniformly atheists.

The arguments for atheistic evolution have been given their full girth for over a century such that they now command a monopoly of thought from the university on down to the public school kindergarten class. But this propped up and plastered over wall appears to be cracking a bit. Scientists of unassailable credentials, like Michael Behe, Gerald Schroeder, William Dembski and others are offering increasingly penetrating arguments that reveal atheistic evolution, as a theory for the origin of life, has persistent and serious flaws. You can read these and other scientists critiques on evolution at the The Discovery Institute.

It's past time these facts are heard. Our intuition demands it.

Read more!

Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

by Dennis Prager

It is almost impossible to overstate how radically different Old Testament thought was from the thought of the rest of its contemporary world. And it continues to be, given how few societies affirm Judeo-Christian values and how much opposition to them exists in American society, the society that has most incorporated these values.

Among the most radical of these differences was the incredible declaration that God is outside of nature and is its creator.

In every society on earth, people venerated nature and worshipped nature gods. There were gods of thunder and gods of rain. Mountains were worshipped, as were rivers, animals and every natural force known to man. In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.

Then came Genesis, which announced that a supernatural God, i.e., a god who existed outside of nature, created nature. Nothing about nature was divine. Link to rest here.

Read more!

Planned Parenthood's True Face

Today on a local radio station I was made aware of a video carton, produced by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate in San Francisco. The roughly eight minute video features Dionysus (the god of drunkenness and partying) as the heroin to kill Christians (seen as snide charlatans and ugly buffoons) or rehabilitate - brainwash - conservative politicians. The cartoon features Dionysus with a red mask that by coincidence or design resembles demonic horns. Spouting her credo "Safe is Sexy" she uses personal lubricants (Astro-slide) to fell her enemies and condoms to kill Christian demonstrators while passing out "Safe Sex Kits" to youngsters. Eugenics is touted as a sensible way to reduce the burden on society caused by unwanted children.

If this link does not work to see the short film
Link to the animation on PPGG's Web site, you can also get access to it from The Dawn Patrol.

Now Christians ought never to be surprised when they're vilified. What is noteworthy about this particular attack, however, is that Planned Parenthood is subsidized by tax dollars. The The Dawn Patrol reports that Planned Parenthood Golden Gate gets 53% of its funding through the government.

Read more!

We are not just animals: Judeo-Christian values part XV

Let me remind the reader that I do not necessarily share all Dennis' views in his series of articles on the Judeo-Christian value system. Yet the areas we agree on, insofar as the material they cover, far outweigh that which I can take issue with. So, with that caveat...


Dennis Prager

People who do not believe in God or religion can surely lead ethical lives. But they cannot lead holy lives. By definition, the ideal of the holy, as understood by Judaism and Christianity and that unique amalgam known as Judeo-Christian values, needs God and religion.

Here is the best way I know of to explain holiness in Judeo-Christian religions: There is a continuum from the profane to the holy that coincides with the dual bases of human creation -- the animal and the divine. Link to rest here

Read more!

"Penguins" to the rescue

by Mark R. Schneider

Today I took my two kids, ages 6 and 7, to see "March of the Penguins". Narrated by Oscar winner Morgan Freeman, "Penguins" is a documentary that follows these fascinating creatures as they struggle to preserve their progeny against the unforgiving harshness of Antarctica. The film has the characteristic stamp of clean professionalism as most other National Geographic produced films. It also is the only film I felt I could safely take my kids to amidst a wasteland of gratuitous violence, sex, inane humor, and increasingly raw depictions of human sin.

When Sin City came out a number of months ago I marveled at Hollywood's shameless ingenuity at discovering new and more creative ways at celebrating in-your-face evil; and this I got merely from watching the "approved for all audiences" teaser. But the moneyed in Hollywood have demonstrated an insatiable desire for serving up filth, an appetite almost matched by a public willingness to slop it up.

Here's but a sampling of actual film listings and descriptions from the Los Angeles Times for the week of August 7th.

The Aristocrats: "Obscene, disgusting, vulgar and vile...gloriously filthy...".
Asylum: "A skillful chronicle of mad love...a dizzying erotic romance...".
Bad News Bears: "fast, loose and subversive..".
Cronicas: "...a hot shot reporter with a TV tabloid news program in Miami heads for an Ecuadorian village that has become the latest target for a serial rapist-killer of children..".
The Devil's Rejects: "Rob Zombie (is that this guy's real name?) transitions from house of horrors homage to serial killer road movie in this crass, vacuous exercise in grind-house stylistics."
Hustle & Flow: "alternatively moving and hilarious account of a Memphis pimp..".
Pretty Persuasion: "a jaw dropping marvel of inappropriateness...fearless, to die for, portrayal of a sexually manipulative schoolgirl...".
Songs: "...is the most sexually explicit theatrical feature a mainstream director has ever made."
Wedding Crashers: Vaughn and Wilson are univited guests at stranger's nupitals, sampling the buffets and bridesmaids...".
2046: "haunting, lyrical, and thickly erotic...".


Maybe its just me, but the movie industry seems awash in dressed up trailor trash. The irony is that most of these films never live up to their financial expectations. Compare. According to the movie chronicler IMDb , the G rated Finding Nemo grossed 339M and was the thirteenth top grossing film of all time. The Lion King was not far behind at number fifteen, grossing 328M. By contrast, Sin City hasn't even made it to the top 335 (where they stop counting), summarily whipped by such films as The Rugrats Movie, Bambi, and The Little Mermaid.

So why does Hollywood keep peddling this stuff? Well certainly one reason is a pervasive adolescence among studio executives, who consider it their mission to push society's mores to ever lower levels. Doing so confers upon them a certain cache' among their equally stunted peers. In other words, they make these movies because they think it's "cool". And having a "cult" following appeals to the mind enamoured with peer acceptance for its own sake. But that's only one reason. The other is because they actually like this debauchery themselves. In fact they exault in their disdain for moral goodness. Besides, the producers of these films know that, no matter how bad these movies are, they will invariably generate enough business to keep the train moving.

Don't misread what I'm saying. The "R" attachment to a film does not in itself provide any insight into its moral depth or lack thereof. Stephen Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan is brutally violent and also one the finest films ever made. The difference, as if it needed articulation, between it and films like Sin City is that Saving Private Ryan unambiguously exposes the contrast between good and evil, elevating the former and denouncing the latter. Graphic depictions are used as necessary to underscore the realism inherent in that deeper message. In Sin City, however, stylistic sex and violence is what defines the film. That is the message. The very object is to titillate, shock and arouse. You see the same difference between another Spielberg film, Schindler's List, and Rob Zombie's pathetic joke of a film, The Devil's Rejects.

Getting back to March of the Penguins, we arrived only minutes before it started because, frankly, I didn't expect many people to be there. Yet walking in I was stunned by what I saw. The theatre was nearly filled to capacity, and not with parents with kids looking for a safe escape from the heat, but with people of all strata and ages, once again proving that a well made G rated film, even about Penguins, can still outshine the best that Rob Zombie has to offer.

Read more!