Truth is not a matter of opinion

There is something many, many, way too many people don't understand about science–or reality, in general, really: an assertion of fact is either true or its not; whether you like the idea is irrelevant. 

Don't like the idea that the universe is wasn't built just for you?

Don't like the idea that you're related to gorillas?

Don't like the idea that human activity is causing the Earth to warm which will melt the polar ice, causing sea levels to rise, thereby flooding most of world's costal cities and all of Florida?

Too bad. Come up with a better (and by "better" I mean "with better evidence" not a better-feeling story) idea and you can argue. Otherwise, keep your bruised sense of dignity and self-worth to yourself. It's not helping.

God is not a testable hypothesis

I think the biggest reason religious folks get all hot and bothered when it comes to science is because of the perception that it is inherently atheistic–that scientists work under the assumption that there is no God. This is most apparent in Darwinism, which not only contradicts the book of Genesis (this is unremarkable since most branches of science contradict Genesis in some way), but more importantly, calls into question the fundamental belief that we are God's special creation. I guess it really bothers people when you tell them they share a relatively recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and the historical Adam was probably a DNA-like molecule that "accidentally" acquired the ability to self-replicate. Anyway, my point...

Science is not atheistic. In fact, one of my favorite scientists, Ken Miller, is a Roman Catholic. Rather, science is non-theistic (for now). Scientists do not "allow" God into their work because God is not a testable hypothesis. The scientific method calls for hypotheses to be test by experiment. This is how scientists "know" things. Ideas are tested until they fail. Darwinism, for example, has been tested for over 100 years and has yet to be invalidated. That's how science works.

I said "for now" because the day may come when actual physical evidence of God's existence is found, and if that happens, science will assuredly become theistic, so long as the God hypothesis holds up to experiment. Until that day comes, don't expect good scientists to jump the gun.

"God did it" may be a satisfying answer for some, and it may even be true, but it is impossible to test. And when you rely on an explanation that is impossible to test, investigation and learning ends, and ignorance takes over.

Why the Campaign?

"Shouldn't people just be free to get on with their religion?
Yes, they should, if they would leave the rest of us alone."--Richard Dawkins

I heart NY

If you're not familiar with the common law, the basics: It began with the Norman conquest of England in 1066, was used in the Colonies and adopted by the original States and most thereafter, and continues to evolve to this day. Therefore, can be quite irksome to law students and legal professionals. Here's what one Henry G. Sedgwick, a New York lawyer, wrote in 1821 about the application of English common law in the New York legal system:

The life has departed, and the soul has gone; but the body is embalmed, and kept to future ages in a useless state, between preservation and decay.

Between 1827 and 1829, the New York State Legislature issued the first systematic codification of statute law in the United States. Hooray for codes! Hooray for New York! I love that quote.

John Edwards' Religion

I've been waiting for a presidential candidate to give a speech or answer a question about religion without saying something completely ignorant. First, there was Mitt "freedom requires religion" Romney. Then we heard from Mike "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" Huckabee. Of course, they're Republicans, so ignorance is to be expected. It was the democrats who'd been disappointing me, with the usual platitudes aimed at appeasing the ever-so-humbly self-proclaimed "values voters" of the democratic party. Until today.

Campaigning in South Carolina, John Edwards said this:

I think it's really important for me not to be imposing my faith beliefs on the country because ... we should embrace all faith beliefs and those ... who are not believers."

If I were a Democrat*, and if I were inclined to vote in a primary, and if John Edwards were still in the race for the Illinois primary, I would definitely vote for him. That's a lot of ifs, so I'll just say Go, John Edwards, Go!

*Lest you get the idea that since I am not a Democrat, I must be a Republican, I'm not. Please, don't even think that.

A bit of legalese

I enjoy legalese. I think most law students do, though they pretend not to. As mere students, we have none of the status, money, and power that lawyers like to show off to the laity. So, we must make do with what we do have: words... lots and lots of words. If you're unfortunate enough to know law student, you'll know what I'm talking about. He's an example from a book about the law of real property:

The future interest retained by the grantor of a fee simple determinable is a possibility of reverter; the future interest arising in the grantor of a fee simple on condition subsequent is a right of entry for condition broken.

If you ever hear a law student say something like that, you can probably go ahead and punch him in the stomach. He won't sue you because he's too busy studying. And he won't fight back because he knows if his response is disproportionate and he ends up killing you, he'll probably be liable for manslaughter.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Gets It

D.J. Grothe recently interviewed Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Point of Inquiry podcast (again). That guy gets it, man. Here's what he had to say about our old friend, Science v. Religion:

The conflict is not whether or not you're going to Heaven of Hell, or whether or not you believe Jesus is your savior. That's not where the conflict is. That's not what's going on in the school boards. What's going on in the school boards are people who, based on their religious texts, assert that they have knowledge of the physical universe that is demonstrably false. That's where the conflict is. And I got something to say about that.... If you're going to tell me that Noah had dinosaurs on his ark, I am sorry, you are ignorant and scientifically illiterate. And you don't belong in the science classroom.... You want to teach that in Bible school, I'm not going to go knocking on your door to stop you. By the way, there is no tradition of scientists beating down the door of Sunday school, saying, 'That might not necessarily be right.' Yet, you have fundamentalist religious communities trying to knock down the door of the science classroom. And that asymmetry there bothers me.... [T]he moment you take your religion and put it into the science classroom and claim something that is demonstrably false, I'm going to be up in your face, telling you, "Go learn about how the universe works."

My hero, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Scott Green's patented "Five Minute Study Plan"

Here is a great column from UIUC College of Law 2L Scott Green.

This part is great, for those of you who only have the time (or the attention span) for short bits of reading:

I've also learned how to procrastinate in tiers. How it works is, instead of studying, I'll decide to clean; but cleaning is boring too, so I'll decide to go for a jog. But jogging takes effort, so before I head out for my jog, I play some Madden '08. But video games can be frustrating, so before I finish it, I take a little nap: the fourth degree of procrastination. Of course, once my nap is over, I will get right back to that Madden game, so I can finish up that jog, so I can clean my apartment, so I can study. But first, I should probably get something to eat...

Tennessee, I don't care for you

If you need a reason to dislike Tennessee (I know I have more than a few), here's a real gem from the state constitution.

No atheist shall hold a civil office.

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

Tenn. Const. Art. IX, § 2

It was written a long, long time ago, when Bible Belt Christians didn't have political correctness and the ACLU to hinder their efforts, but it's still the law today.

Mitt Romney throws the dogs a bone

If you're ever looking for an example of specious inanity, this is it. Mitt Romney spoke in front of a group of conservative Christian leaders in Texas [I feel sick just thinking about such a setting], and this is what he said.

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Ewww. Don't you feel dirty now? It's so imbecilic I shouldn't even have to refute it, but sadly, this is the kind of tripe that the demos just lap up like hog slop. So, here we go... [sigh]

#1. Freedom requires religion.
No, it doesn't. Proof: Europe. More freedom, less religion. Icelanders, Norwegians, Swedes, and yes, even the French, all have more civil liberties and much less religiousness than Americans.
#2. Religion requires freedom.
Gah, even George Bush wouldn't say something so stupid. There is very little freedom in the Muslim world, and the fact that it's called the Muslim world should tell you how much religion there is. (A lot.) Next.
#3. Freedom opens the windows of the soul...
Ohhh... kay. First, souls are just pretend. Second, even if they were real, no one ever said they had windows. And even if they did have windows, what evidence is there that freedom would open them? Yes, I know, this is just a metaphor, but let me tell you, it's a bad one. Maybe you could get away with "Love opens the windows of the soul" or "Music..." or even "Ben & Jerry's Berried Treasure Sorbet..." but freedom? Come on, Mitt. Get a speech writer with some, ahem, writing skills.
#4. ...man can discover his most profound beliefs...
I actually like his use of "man" instead of "humankind" or "people" or some other lame compromise of a PC word. But I do not like the idea of discovering beliefs. You can't do that. If you believe something, you know you believe it. If you didn't know and you had to "discover" that you believed it, you could hardly call it a belief, now could you?
#5. ... commune with God.
You can have that one, although it might be a topic for another discussion. But not here.
#6. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Yikes! Someone tell Mitt Romney that the Cold War is over. Again, just look at Europe: lots of freedom doing just fine without religion. No perishing going on there. And now the Muslim world: lots of religion cranking alone with very little freedom to help it out. No signs of perishing in sight, unfortunately.

I didn't read the rest of the speech. I don't even want to imagine what other nuggets of horse hockey I might find.

Losing faith in democracy

There is nothing like a presidential election to get the cynical juices flowing. People like to blame politicians for the flaws of our government. But there is only one place to lay the blame in a democracy: in the demos itself. And if you pay attention, you'll soon realize, that our demos are idiots.

Learn Something

"In the seventeenth century, a theologian called James Usher worked out the age of the universe based on the chronology of the Bible. It was created, he concluded, in a week in October 4004 B.C. Even today, millions of people still believe that this seventeenth-century calculation is about right, and that the overwhelming evidence of geology, cosmology, paleontology, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, stratigraphy, and biology is wrong. . . ."

This makes me laugh every single time

Family Guy - The Big Bang - For more of the funniest videos, click here
Jesus... USA #1. Ha.

Somebody Please Mess with Texas

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. Matthew 5:30

Maybe there is hope yet for this country, but I think it may be necessary to first cut out the cancer of a state called Texas. Look how beautiful this map is.

If you're wondering why I'm feeling so antitexican, read this article.

I've never trusted Texas, and it doesn't look like things will be changing soon.

Help me, world!

Sometimes I think this country is just beyond help.

Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin.

[Sigh] I'm surrounded by troglodytes. (If you don't know what a troglodyte is, but you're pretty sure it's not in the Bible so you'd rather not know what it means, you are one.)

[Edit: And this graph from a couple years ago is still pissing me off.]

My favorite Illustration

There are publications called "Restatements of the Law." They are very useful. Most sections have something called illustrations -- examples, often taken from real cases, that show how the rule in a particular section applies. My favorite is illustration number 17 of section 222A (conversion) of the Second Restatement of Torts. (Conversion is like the civil law equivalent of larceny. If someone takes your stuff, don't call the police and get him thrown in jail, call your lawyer and get paid.) Here it is:

A intentionally shoots B's horse, as a result of which the horse dies. This is a conversion.

It makes me smile every time. :)

Another gem from Bill Maher

"If you, the citizen, deliberately vote for someone who won't give you health care over someone who will, you need to have your head examined. Except, you can't afford to have your head examined."

Matthew Chapman hits a home-run

"For a feminist to still believe in God is like a freed slave still living on the plantation."

The Petty and Spiteful Son of Man

In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.

Matthew 21:18-19

The State of Tennessee begs the question

I swear I haven't distorted the meaning of this, only edited out the parts that might mask the beauty of its logic.

Every murder . . . committed in the perpetration of . . . any murder in the first degree . . . is murder in the first degree.

Any questions?