Also, farewell to Dennis Kucinich in the United States presidential race. We’ll miss you. (Or, at least, I will…) Ah, well. It’s time to move on to Ron Paul now, I guess, even if his supporters have been troublesome with blogspam…

Subceiling pointy-eared cats can haz threi rings
Midgit cats can haz seven in halz of stoan
Mortal cats haz nine moar of dose fings
An Un for the Cellar Cat and Cellar Cat aloan
In Land of Mawdaw where de shadows lie
Un ring to r00l dem all, Un ring to phind dem
Un ring to bring dem all and in de darkness bindem
In Land of Mawdaw where de shadows lie

To be continued…

For a very. Very. Very.

Very.

Long.

Very.

Long.

Time.

Ah, well.

I promise to post more in the near future.

Whilst I’m actually posting, I should point out that six of my seven favourite artists/bands are releasing/have released a deluge of albums in the six months between October 2007 and March 2008.

So, if it’s a deluge, why is it opening in Rainbows?

For those who are interested, the albums and artists are, by order of release date:

1. Radiohead’s In Rainbows (release date 10th October 2007)
2. Sigur Rós’s Hvarf-Heim (release date 5th November 2007)
3. RPM’s Give My All (release date 16th November 2007)
4. [dweeb]’s It Came From Outer Space (release date 10th December 2007)
5. Kevin Max’s The Blood (release date 26th December 2007)
6. Delirious?’s Kingdom of Comfort (release date 31st March 2008)

Yeah. I have some buying to do.

Hmm… a tragic hero with a fatal flaw… what do you do with such a person? Why, write a Greek epic tragedy about him, of course! Look out for “The Essjaiad”: coming soon to a blog post near you.

And Essjay has resigned,
For Jimbo changed his mind…

One last thing: so we shouldn’t viciously attack people when they do wrong. That doesn’t just apply to hard-working Wikipedia editors… *coughcomputergeeksattackingBillGatescough* and *coughpeoplerunningdownParisHiltoncough*. That doesn’t mean that you have to accept what they’re doing (especially in Bill’s case )… just, please, remember to treat people with agape.

Alright, to contradict my earlier statement, I’m not happy about what’s happened (even though he is one of the best contributors), partially because I’m a Wikipedian myself, but overwhelming someone’s talk page with abusive comments is not the proper way to go about dealing with things. As Ryan Chappelle would say, “There’s a thing called due process; it’s why we have juries and judges and courts”.

I’m not usually a fan of clichéd rhetorical questions, but this one is, I think, fairly deep.

They’re both subjects of empirical and experimental science; what’s the difference between them?

Is it that humans draw the line at curiosity that actually requires some effort?

Or are people more likely to believe scientists than they are to believe a random sign on a wall?

Given the amount of pseudoscientific weirdness that scientists come up with (string theory, anyone?), the latter answer seems rather terrifying…

On the other hand, the former answer isn’t exactly complimentary to Homo sapiens sapiens.

So, we have two options: either lay off touching wet paint, or start building massive telescopes in our back gardens.

I think the paint is much easier.

REMEMBER.

“Wipe the tears away, wipe the tears from your eyes… the real battle yet begun to claim the victory Jesus won… how long to sing this song?” - U2.

“I’ve walked down roads where the devil’s been, where the kids are seeing things that we never have seen… and the ancient stone knows a deeper tale about a bloody King who won the Holy war… Heaven is my home, and there’ll be no shame to bear… Heaven is my home, and there’ll be no refugees…” - Delirious?.

By the way, I’m typing this in very low light, so please forgive me if I misquote the article.

Actually, hang on…

*unplugs speaker system*

*plugs in bedside lamp*

Let there be light!

Yes, I’m in bed; I’m not feeling too well at the moment.

(Audience: Start the post, already!)

OK, OK…

Actually, I’ve only just done all the above actions between the last paragraph and thi- *is hit by a rotten tomato* *wipes sauce off* Social commentary coming right up.

The first column is “Science Notebook”, The Times, Sunday 30 October, 2006, authored by Terence Kealey. Whilst talking about the rift between the Gouldian and Darwinian camps of evolution (and concluding that they’re both right, in a way), he makes this little comment (emphasis added):

They [religious fundamentalists] therefore seize on any apparent weakness in the data to proclaim that the world was created at 9am on October 23, 4004BC, as Archbishop Ussher calculated from Genesis (or at whatever date their different holy books determine).

At the risk of sounding pedantic, may I point out that Archbishop Ussher calculated Creation to have occurred at 6pm on 22 October 4004 B.C.? (The Jewish day runs from 6pm to 6pm.) Kealey is probably mixing this up with John Lightfoot’s chronology, which, although also placing Creation at 6pm (in 3929 B.C.), was once misquoted as putting it at 9am.

So, please, Mr Kealey, know thine enemy before thou speakest of him. For thine enemy shall not be well pleased upon hearing thy words, and, as thou art naughty in his sight, he shall blow thee to tiny bits, and snuff thee.

In any case… Mr Kealey goes on to explain that by combining Gould with Darwin, one can “explain the missing links”:

If evolution is compressed into short bursts, then the chances of the transient missing links being fossilised are small… As for the missing links, bring them on, because thanks to Gould and Pagel we know that their very absence only strengthens the evidence for evolution.

Erm, no, it doesn’t, Mr Kealey. This is a basic law: if event E is explained by Theories A and ~B, E is evidence for neither. But E is for evidence. (Sorry; I couldn’t resist.)

Do you see? Missing links are explained by creationism, because one wouldn’t expect to find links of that sort. Missing links are explained by evolution, because the links shouldn’t be fossilising in the first place.

Let me break it down for you:

#1. Creationism says you won’t find links.
#2. Evolutionism says you won’t find links.
#3. There are no links.
#4. There is no cabal.

Does this prove that evolution is true? No. Does this prove that creationism is true? No. As far as this debate is concerned, it’s irrelevant. Or a hippopotamus, depending on whether you’re Chico.

Now, onto the meatier stuff, which, incidentally, is earlier on in the article. Hoodwinked! must be rubbing off on me with all its nonlinear storytelling.

Religious fundamentalists of many stripes hate evolution by natural selection.

There are actually certain creationists who do happen to believe in devolution by natural selection. In fact, natural selection is the greatest idea that Darwin ever presented to the world, because it’s actually evidence for creationism - at least, against evolution.

Now, I’m not committing the same error for which I just corrected Mr Kealey above.

Because it is against evolution.

Let me explain:

#1. I am a creationist, and I do actually believe that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.
#2. I believe that God created original “kinds” of animals. Many people (including some creationists) read this as “species”, but it’s not, partially because it was written over 3000 years before Carolus Linnaeus.
#3. Said original kinds had far more genetic information than today’s animals. As these kinds bred, genetic information was transferred from generation to generation… however, various information was lost in each offspring. This would explain, for example, different types of dog/wolf/dingo/etc. - there was an original dog “type”, which has devolved (by losing information) into the vast range we have today. (Think of inbreeding amongst modern pets, but on a larger scale.)
#4. Now, after the Flood, the animals on the Ark bred, and their descendants moved around. Different groups of descendants had different concentrations of information. Those with the information to survive in that environment did; those who didn’t didn’t (natural selection). But - and here’s the important thing - all the information was originally present.

That’s quite diffent from “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” evolution, where huge amounts of new genetic information are added (unless you think that an amoeba has more genetic information than you do).

So, now, that’s all wrapped up (the first column, that is), and I’ve pretty much exhausted myself.

I must go now… and have dinner. At almost 9pm. Wow.

Next post expected not any time soon.

How can it be that God is just when flesh is torn from young and old and children run in bloody fields? Where is the hope? Oh, God, we pray for White Ribbon Day… But can it be that You are just when flesh was torn for young and old? Now, here we stand, saved by Your blood; we’ll stand with courage, we’ll live and die for White Ribbon Day…

And we pray for peace to flood our hearts again; only God can save our nation now… and we long for joy to fill our streets again; only God can save our nation now…

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah for White Ribbon Day! Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah for White Ribbon Day!

(”White Ribbon Day”, copyright Martin Smith, 1996)