Signs of the Times

Sounds Corny

by Michele Driver

A dear friend forwarded this article to me from Ad Age. It details (with graphs!) the impending increase in movie ticket prices as a result of demand for corn. Since the demand for next year's corn crop is bigger by 40% because of ethanol production, the movie theaters will either have to increase ticket prices or concession prices. I heard a while ago that theaters make money on the concessions and not the ticket prices, and this confirms it. That's why they don't want you bringing your own treats into the theater. All they need to do is get butts in the seats and pretty much everyone will want a soft drink or candy or SOMETHING.

Which brings me to this: the problem with ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce it than it "saves". This study is one of many, easily found, that shows the energy savings is just not worth it. And yet, because of all the hullabaloo about ethanol, many farmers are foregoing their usual crops to plant corn. Won't that ruin the markets of their former crops as well as strip the soil of certain nutrients? Isn't that the point of crop rotation? Have the environmentalists who support ethanol use even looked into the impact of all-corn-all-the-time on the environment? Not to mention the loss of other foods to send to starving people all over the world as part of our big brother helpfulness and the increase in the cost of those foods since demand will be high and supply low. And what happens if there's some kind of blight on the corn crops or the weather ruins their growth?

So when does saving the planet become too costly? You'll find people who believe that we all should just not reproduce and let humans die out since we cause (according to them) all the problems - see this entry on May 14 on Salvo's "In The News". And you'll find people at the other end of the spectrum who think things are fine as they are, no worries. Discuss.

Just up at the Overwhelming Evidence blog

Physicist: Darwin's theory of evolution supported in part from "calculated fear" A remarkable admission in light of all the bilge currently fronted by tax-supported science organizations, assuring us that the Expelled film is wrong, wrong, wrong and that no such thing is going on.

Expelled scientist Crocker featured in video just up online

Iowa State University cops "Outrage Award" for denying tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez

Brit pop science rag all wet about Biologic Institute

Vatican astronomer: Yes, space aliens might exist

Error-prone science textbooks: Who's to blame? Not me, says, the little red editor ....

Just up at the Design of Life blog

Are the stickleback fish in Lake Washington really reversing evolution? Or just tailoring their existing design?

More on mitochondrial Eve: Researchers claim long separation between human groups

Colour vision appears early in vertebrates. It's tempting to call it the big bang of colour vision

Tree of life: Would a mergers and acquisitions chart better explain the more complex organisms (eukaryotes) than a tree of life?

Tree of life: Will gene-swapping fell the prokaryotes' tree of life?

Just up at The Mindful Hack

Twins who literally share a body have different selves, personalities

Does neuroscience leave room for God?

Human mental abilities: the result of cultural cross-fertilisation As if.

Language: No current theory of its origin is worth much

Language: Not a sophisticated version of primal screams

Another Case of Judicial Overreach

By Regis Nicoll

Yesterday the State Supreme Court made California the second state to legalize gay "marriage." They did so in a 4-3 decision that overturned legislation which had banned "marriage" for same-sex couples. Stunningly, the will of the California electorate was effectively overruled by the opinion of one unelected official. And what may come as a surprise to some, six of the seven justices were Republican appointees.

The City Attorney who argued the case for the plaintiffs had this to say: "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody -- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country -- will have equal treatment under the law."

That's odd. Last time I checked, folks with homosexual orientations have always had "equal treatment under the law" with respect to folks with heterosexual orientations: both groups have been free to marry, just not (until recent years) with someone of the same sex.

One is left to wonder when "equal treatment" will allow brothers to marry their sisters, mothers to marry their sons, a woman to marry her dolphin (oops!--that's already been done), and, in light of recent news, a pogonia to marry its (er...his, her?) gardener.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further information on gay "marriage," you can refer to my past articles, The Dangers of Same-Sex “Marriage” and Being Gay and Christian.

We Need God...

By Regis Nicoll

…just not one of the divine sort. That is the conclusion of Canadian biologist Stuart Kauffman. We need “God” because, in the estimation of Kauffman and increasing numbers of researchers, natural laws are inadequate to account for the complexity of life.

Notes Kauffman, “I do not believe that the evolution of biosphere, economy and human culture are derivable from or reducible to physics. Physicists cannot deduce, simulate or confirm the detailed evolution of the biosphere that gave rise to the organised structure and processes that constitute, for example, your heart.” (Not to mention man’s heart.) Kauffman continues, “There seems to be no natural law sufficient to describe Darwinian pre-adaptations.”

In other words, evolutionary theory provides no way to determine how a physiological feature will change under future environmental pressures, or identify the past transitions and changes that led up to an existent feature.

This is serious. If Darwinian evolution is not fully governed by physical laws, it has no predictive value, beyond a few minor adaptations like pesticide resistance (a charge, it will be noted, often leveled against intelligent design). What is the entrenched materialist to do?

Kauffman cedes that “beyond natural law…is ceaseless creativity.” Then, just when you think he is about to invoke the Divine, he adds, “with no supernatural creator.” My! Where did that come from?

Yet, Kauffman urges, we must “reinvent the sacred” by asking, 

[W]hat is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly?

Creation ex nihilo may be “awesome,” but creation per nihilo is, well, to put it as delicately as possible, feeble-minded. All the same, Dr. Kauffman has, no doubt, found religion: 

I find the latter proposition [creation per nihilo] so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of "God". From it, we can build a sense of the sacred that encompasses all life and the planet itself. From it, we can change our value system across the globe and try, together, to ease the fears of religious fundamentalists with a safe, sacred space we can share.

I wouldn't bank on those "religious fundamentalists" warming up to his new "sense of the sacred." They happen to be quite particular about that supernatural Creator.

…just not one of the divine sort. That is the conclusion of Canadian biologist Stuart Kauffman. We need “God” because, in the estimation of Kauffman and increasing numbers of researchers, natural laws are inadequate to account for the complexity of life.

Notes Kauffman, “I do not believe that the evolution of biosphere, economy and human culture are derivable from or reducible to physics. Physicists cannot deduce, simulate or confirm the detailed evolution of the biosphere that gave rise to the organised structure and processes that constitute, for example, your heart.” (Not to mention man’s heart.) Kauffman continues, “There seems to be no natural law sufficient to describe Darwinian pre-adaptations.”

In other words, evolutionary theory provides no way to determine how a physiological feature will change under future environmental pressures, or identify the past transitions and changes that led up to an existent feature.

This is serious. If Darwinian evolution is not fully governed by physical laws, it has no predictive value, beyond a few minor adaptations like pesticide resistance (a charge, it will be noted, often leveled against intelligent design). What is the entrenched materialist to do?

Kauffman cedes that “beyond natural law…is ceaseless creativity.” Then, just when you think he is about to invoke the Divine, he adds, “with no supernatural creator.” My! Where did that come from?

Yet, Kauffman urges, we must “reinvent the sacred” by asking, 

[W]hat is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly?

Creation ex nihilo may be “awesome,” but creation per nihilo is, well, to put it as delicately as possible, feeble-minded. All the same, Dr. Kauffman has, no doubt, found religion: 

I find the latter proposition [creation per nihilo] so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of "God". From it, we can build a sense of the sacred that encompasses all life and the planet itself. From it, we can change our value system across the globe and try, together, to ease the fears of religious fundamentalists with a safe, sacred space we can share.

I wouldn't bank on those "religious fundamentalists" warming up to his new "sense of the sacred." They happen to be quite particular about that supernatural Creator.

Film and Culture

by Geoff Battersby

Beginning with Salvo 5 (available by the end of the month), Barbara Nicolosi will have a regular interview/column in the magazine. To get a sneak peak of what is coming, you can listen to the full unedited interview by Bobby Maddex on this podcast. Nicolosi looks at some of the films that were nominated for Academy Awards this year. Interesting insights on film and culture.

Allen & Graham

by Geoff Battersby

A very interesting (and funny) interview by Woody Allen of Billy Graham. Yes, really. Two polar-opposite worldviews have a friendly conversation.

HT: ayjay

Just up at The Mindful Hack

Albert Einstein's letter coming up at auction: Does it show that he was an atheist? (I think that's just a publicity ploy.)

Materialists start to come to grips with failure, but materialism dies hard (Sorry, BoBos, it's not up to you to decide where it will end. It will end where the evidence leads, and the evidence simply does not favour materialism - yours or anyone else's.)

Evolutionary psychology: So you don't stick to your goals? Blame your kludgebrain ... or maybe not

(Excerpt: But why evolution? What happened to our stars, our parents, our societies, our religion, and our genes as the explanations for why we do not meet our goals? Oh, come to think of it, evolution is in the news right now, what with Darwin's anniversary celebrations and the Expelled film.)

Health can sometimes be fun, free, and painless: The placebo effect gets its own Web site

Just up at the Overwhelming Evidence blog

Take this survey: If SETI found ET, would that destroy your faith?

Prof thinks profs' intellectual sneers at public are not great TV, and he sure is right

Check your calendar ... is it still Orwell's 1984 where you live?

Science teacher symposium: Answer student questions without getting sued or fired

In some ways, bonobos (pygmy chimps) are more similar to humans than to other chimps

How fares the Expelled film? Still No. 5 - and who's ahead of it anyway?

David Attenborough, 81, to make one last film - on evolution