“Given his selfish nature, man must internalize some reason to behave in pro-social ways. That fact that he falls short of these values does not mean he is a hypocrite. The one who does not even believe what he says is the hypocrite. The one who believes what he says and falls short is merely human.” – Dr. Mike Adams¹

The Church teaches that life begins at conception. Why then does it surprise good, orthodox priests that a miscarried baby should get a funeral? It bothers me greatly.

The National Catholic Register provides the scientific facts behind the Pope’s recent statement that there is a risk of increasing the problem of AIDS in Africa by distributing condoms.¹ This article provides documentation to some of the things I had considered myself when I have found myself defending the Church’s position, as well as bringing up a few things I had not thought of. The long and short of it is, unsurprisingly, that the available empirical research demonstrates that, for one reason or another, you simply cannot remove the risk from “casual sex.” Only “partner reduction” or better yet “abstinence or being mutually faithful with an uninfected partner are the most effective ways of avoiding infection.”²

The Wall Street Journal’s Mr. Stuart Varney presents a chilling thought in an alleging that the current administration is refusing to allow an unnamed bank to return funds loaned to it.¹ The creditability of the article is reduced by the failure to name the bank or the source. Still, his logic is hard to deny; President Obama is certainly a socialist. It is a very scary thought, and I can but pray that it is not true.

This¹ comes only a week or so after I finished the book, Lord of the World² that it compares President Obama to. The author writes reflecting much the same line of thought that I had as I wrote it.

Other than the fact that the “planes” in the book flap wings, and the references to esperanto, the book is rather eerie when you think about it having been written in 1906 or so.

While 2005-2007 were years of record warmth, the overall trend since 2001 averages out to a nice flat line.¹ But while we could see this flat line continue, or even drop down into a period of cooling, you should not doubt that global warming is real, and is caused by us. It might take 30 years to show up again, but when it does, even though we do not know why things are cooling now, we are sure the warming will be “explosive.”²

Or, we could accept that what we really had was not “global warming” but “solar warming,” which affected Mars and Jupiter as well, and that as the sun’s activity level has dropped, so too has our temperature. Or we could accept that we really do not have all that much ability to influence our planet’s climate yet, and that the correlation of green house gases the last few decades did not equal causation. We could be honest and admit that we do not know all that much about climatology, not much more than we know about the weather next week.

But then we would have to admit that all this hype and all this worry, and all of the billions of dollars going into trying to stave off what is, under global warming theory, irreversible, is wrong headed.

We cannot do that. Why, some people make careers out of scaring the rest of us with how evil we are, and how much we are hurting the planet! They would be out of a job!

Periodically when I follow the RSS link to Dr. Mike Adams’ articles, I end up somewhere else. This time, I read the entire article before I realized it.

It seems that Dr. Dawkins has again accepted an invitation to debate a theist. This time, it further appears that he tried to rig the debate, and deny his opponent a real opportunity to refute his theory. Picking a columnist with this hope proves to be foolish. Mr. Dinesh D’Souza shows how Dr. Dawkins stumbled in thinking that Mr. D’Souza would not have a chance to refute his (Dr. Dawkins’) poor logic.¹ Dr. Dawkins excuse is probably that as this happened on Al-Jazeera, and not a more reputable news source, his slip will be missed.

PS: Judging from the datestamp in the URL, I would say that Dr. Dawkins was correcting in assuming his slip would be missed by most people.

Your result for “Surviving The Singularity” Test…

The Prepared Post-Human

44/60 Acquired Aptitude, 44/60 Active Adaptability and 39/60 Affirmative Attitude!

Take “Surviving The Singularity” Test at HelloQuizzy

Your result for What is the Measure of a Man? The Gentleman’s Test…

The Scholar

Learning is your passion!

Take What is the Measure of a Man? The Gentleman’s Test at HelloQuizzy

I need to go back and finish reading this article, but the first page skimmed seems to indicate that there was more to Lamarck’s theory than we have given him credit for.¹