What in the world does it mean for a protestant church to be “unified” with Rome if it means no changes? That is the question posed by the announcement that “The Anglican Church in America has decided to seek union with the Roman Catholic Church.”^[1] but that “from a basic theological and operational standpoint, nothing will be different within the church.”^[2]

[1] Catholic News Agency. “Anglican group seeks reunion with Rome” 2005-09-30. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5024

In a turn of events that bodes ill for all, it appears that the Dutch have decided to legalize polygamy.^[1] I bet the Mormons and the Muslims will waste no time jumping on this new “right.” How long until we see a push for this here I wonder? Heaven help us when it comes.

[1] Mr. Paul Belien. “First Trio ‘Married’ in The Netherlands” The Brussels Journal 2005-09-27. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

The National Catholic Register takes a look at an odd case in California as a homosexual couple splits up as an opportunity to look at how the Church’s teaching on marriage would save us heartache and grief.^[1] It is worth reading and considering as so many jurisdictions face the question of whether to allow homosexual “marriages” or not.

[1] Ms. Jennifer Roback Morse. “What if Heather Does Have Two Mommies?” National Catholic Register (online) 2005-09-18. http://www.ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=ODI=

Spent some time looking at grim’s nascent gobjectification of the buddy list in Gaim today. Its been quite some time since I have seriously looked at C. I need to get my head back into it. Plus, I am starting to lose touch with the code base, with the many API changes going on, between gobjectification, status, and never having extensively worked with some of the other changes we have done lately. All in all a good thing.

I have not posted as much about the news lately. I am starting to reach that point where the news simply depresses me without sparking an incredible motivation. This usually happens when I read news for an extended period, usually much sooner than it has this time around. Between what William has sent me, and what I have seen on my own, quite a few Bishops are starting to speak up about evolution. Its good to see, they are hitting a very consistent like, much the line I have been taking happily. Pretty much everything else is bad though. The hurricane is causing predictable but wrong reactions (more federal spending, the government can solve everything … yeah. right. whatever.), the Supreme Court nominations are also going much as expected, with few important questions answered. Science continues to push the bounds of what is possible, and seems to find any justification sufficient to pursue any given line of research. But that is also, unfortunately, not new.

Outside of Gaim, which is going incredibly slowly, my personal life is going fairly well. But that isn’t something I tend to talk much about here, and I do not intend to change that pattern. As a result, posts have been somewhat sparse.

More speculation that the “hobbit” find that I mentioned some time ago in fact represents diseased humans.^[1] Naturally the idea of a new species is accepted uncritically while those scientists expressing skepticism are treated more critically. My question is as follows: does microephaly have a genetic component? That is, is it like dwarfism that runs in families? If so, then it would seem to me that the new species argument is overthrown, as the only counter raised was that more than a single individual was found. The same genetic forces that would have lead a new species to develop would cause a genetic disorder to become prevalent in an isolated population as well.

[1] BBC News. “New ‘Hobbit’ disease link claim” BBC News World Edition (online) 2005-09-22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4268122.stm

William, likely as a result of having looked for unassailable miracles last year for a paper, took the time to search out reasons not to trust the liquefication of blood that I mentioned recently.^[1] I quote him (William) here.

Better Blood Through Chemistry: A Laboratory Replication of a Miracle

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v6n3a2.php
The Blood of St. Januarius
http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101014.htm

just some sights that offer criticism to the miracle

~Will

The second is simply an abstract (and a short one) of an article that does not appear online. As its major point is (briefly) touched in the first, I will ignore it here.

The first starts out clearly with the assumption that this must be a hoax. While I dislike that assumption, I will not object too strenuously. The one idea it favors that I do object to is that this could possibly represent deliberate deception on the part of the Church. Still, the author does take the time to address this from other angles, and must be given credit for that.

The main thrust of the article, more addressable, contains ancient rather than modern malice. It supposes that the contents of the vial were faked in antiquity and that the Church is now at fault only for its refusal to allow adequate inspection of the contents of the vial. I cannot say how plausible the proposed chemical mix is. I will assume it is plausible, and this would go a long way to explain distrust of this miracle.

Of some note, the author finds it “strange” this has aroused very little scientific inquiry. He then proceeds to find it significant that none of the inquiry it has aroused was subsequently published in a peer reviewed journal. I beg to differ with both the surprise and the supposed significance.

As to the former, any scientist proposing to research this would be risking professional suicide. The strong skeptic would thus be disinclined to investigate it for several reasons.

1. He would instinctively not want to put his own skepticism to the test. This theory is naturally sketchy.
2. He would instinctively be scornful of the very idea, and thus of the necessity of inquiry. This is confirmed if you look at some of the reactions that Lourdes has raised.
3. He would risk ridicule from his peers, possibly the loss of grants and possibly face ostracism. This is backed up by the treatment of many who support the right of Intelligent design to exist, though they do not agree with the theory itself. This is the strongest disincentive

The strong believer would also be disinclined to investigate, partly from a lack of need, he has faith, and partly in fear of the last point raised above. As he believes, the risk of ostracism is much stronger, again reference Intelligent Design. Lastly he would instinctively fear disproof, but it would be unfair to credit this in the believer when I call it sketchy in the skeptic. It must be granted that it is a sketchy/unlikely source of motivation in both.

As to the latter, the ideas raised above when it comes to the researcher must be multiplied when it comes to the journal. What is true of the researcher is not only true of the editor, but the editor must also consider the risk of being boycotted. Thus the likelihood of research being published in a peer reviewed journal varies proportionately to the reality that a credible scientist risks much to perform the research in the first place.

Lastly, I would like to note two further points. While the author’s proposed explanation, while accounting for many possibilities, fails to account for the failure to liquefy on several occasions. Secondly, there is a stated assumption that this must lead to detection of some fraud: “At present however, given that the phenomenon has been replicated, it would be rather too naive to consider it irreproducible or unexplainable.”^[2] The existence of a questionable (IE as insufficiently tested as the author claims the miracle itself is) explanation hardly renders the possibility of it being miraculous “naive” unless there is a metaphysical bias rendering any such judgment “naive” active. Such a bias would perhaps explain why the author raises the speculation of present fraud vs ancient fraud, questioning the sincere belief of the Church officials involved.

[1] Luke Schierer. “liquefaction” Random Unfinished Thoughts 2005-09-20. https://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20050920-1530/liquifaction
[2] DI L.Classically, F.Ramaccini,S.Della Sal. “The Blood of St. Januaries” CI CAP (online) 1994-2-30. http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101014.htm#The%20relic%20and%20the%20Ceremony

Mr. Walter Williams succinctly outlines the concept that the federal government has no business engaging in charity and relief efforts.^[1] Quoting Presidents Cleveland, Madison, and Jefferson, he demonstrates that this idea starts with the founding fathers, including the man (Madison) who largely authored the Constitution, and continued for some time in the minds of their predecessors. This is a fact that is largely forgotten and lost today. Particularly noteworthy is a quotation of President Cleveland that he provides:

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.^[2]

We can clearly, perhaps more clearly than ever since it was stated, see the truth of this in the wake of Katrina.

[1] Mr. Walter Williams. “Is it permissible?” Creators Syndicate, Inc. via Townhall.com 2005-09-21. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050921.shtml
[2] President Grover Cleveland. quoted in the above.

A school playing “MmmBop” over the PA system until their fund raising goal was met provides an amusing story.^[1] I am glad to note that “Hanson,” who is apparently the group whose song it is, has taken this well. ☺

[1] The Associated Press. “Katrina Campaign Goal Puts Stop To ‘MmmBop’” The Omaha Channel (online) 2005-09-20. http://www.theomahachannel.com/entertainment/4996200/detail.html

Small miracles happen every day, or not so much “small,” as “common.” Every hour babies are born for example. Yet still, tempted as we are to forget how miraculous this is, it is good that we are provided with other miracles, less common ones. Today marks one such.

Naples, Sep. 20, 2005 (CNA) – Clergy, faithful, and even civic leaders were on hand Monday morning at Naples’ Cathedral to witness the centuries old occurrence–still unexplainable by scientists–of the liquefaction of martyr St. Januarius’ blood.

Thousands watched as Cardinal Michele Giordano announced the occurrence of the miracle at 7:56 GMT and held up a phial of the usually solid–now liquefied blood of the city’s patron Saint.

Yesterday’s occurrence marked the 1,700 year anniversary of St. Januarius’ martyrdom. He was beheaded by the Roman emperor Diocletian in 305 for refusing to bow down to his persecutors.

The miracle is said to occur three times throughout the year–something which many locals see as a sign of God’s closeness with the city.

On five particular occasions, the blood has failed to liquefy and each was shortly followed with disaster.

In 1527, for example, tens of thousands died from the plague, and in 1980, 3,000 people were killed in an earthquake which devastated much of southern Italy.

Naples Mayor Rosa Russo Jervolino, who was on hand to witness the event, is quoted in ANSA news saying that the miracle was “a sign that San Gennaro (St. Januarius) is still protecting our city. It was also a strong sign of hope and, I’d say, encouragement for everyone to work for the common good.”

Scientists who have confirmed that the phials do indeed contain human blood have been unable–for 1,700 years–to explain the thrice yearly phenomenon.[1]

I wonder what those who would say that we are beyond the “age of miracles” would say of this. Would they have some explanation for it? Would they be willing to consider it? Or would they brusquely change the topic (if only slightly) and attempt to answer some other question?

For it seems clear to me that the simplest explanation for human blood liquefying several times a year every year for hundreds of years must be divine intervention. While naturally to apply Occam’s Razor here would be to render it useless, it still stands to reason that here we see evidence of something beyond the laws of nature.

[1] Catholic News Agency, “Thousands witness annual Italian miracle of St. Januarius” Catholic News Agency (online) 2005-09-20. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4926

Minicom is a pain. Who would have guessed that I need to clear out the initialization and reset strings so as to connect to an areasys 2012…