Apparently we have been neglecting to fully use the tools Einstein gave us in the form of General Relativity and Special Relativity. In our quest for quantum mechanics, we have overlooked the fact that General Relativity can explain away the need for dark matter in at least some situations.^[1] Note the speculation on why it took so long to realize this is mine. The article merely talks about the realization itself.

1. Mr.(Dr.?) Steve Reucroft and Mr.(Dr.?) John Swain, Northeastern University. “General relativity versus exotic dark matter” Physicswatch viewed 2005-10-10. http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/8/8

This^[1] Catholic News Agency report mirrors some things Andrius told me.

1. Catholic News Agency. “Uruguayan bishop says secularization main obstacle to spread of the gospel” Catholic News Agency (online) 2005-10-10. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5107

“Faith cannot be reduced to a private sentiment, which, perhaps, is hidden when it becomes something uncomfortable; rather, it implies coherence and witness in the public realm in favor of man, justice and truth.” —Pope Benedict XVI

Mr. Steinar H. Gunderson of Debian posted about an odd “reality” television show he recently became hooked on.^[1] Most of it is devoid of serious interest, but the following factoid caught my eye.

I think the concept is worth deliberating a bit on because it highlights a few interesting themes. For one, it has put some focus on people falling outside the school system’s idea of physical activity. At least here in Norway, the only subject you really can’t afford to suck at is PE — if you’re bad at maths or English or whatever, that’s not really half as bad as not being able to kick a football straight. (It’s also interestingly about the only subject where it’s okay to be good — this does of course vary from school to school, but there are plenty of places where it’s just not accepted to do well in maths or whatnot.)^[1]

When I bring up the idea of self discrimination as an explanation for poverty here, I receive odd looks, and meet disbelief. Somewhat less commonly, my theory is accepted, but the blame is shifted back to those of European decent by stating that such an attitude could only have come about from years of oppression. I offer this tidbit, written by someone whose culture has no recent history of enslavement, as a counter example. Clearly those who do not resist the attitude described above will not be able to compete in a free market/capitalistic society with as high a success rate as those who can resist said attitude. Education is a critical part of success in a free market society, and to willfully bias one’s peer group against it must necessarily lead to decreased standard of living across the peer group. Is this reflective of Europe as a whole, it would explain why the average standard of living is not so high as ours, something I have alluded to before.

1. Mr. Steinar H. Gunderson. “Heia Tufte!” Steinar H. Gunderson blog 2005-10-08. http://blog.sesse.net/blog/tech/2005-10-08-01-30_heia_tufte.html

The State Department appears to have found the guts to stop funding a United Nations program that effectively supports China’s one child policies.^[1] Surprisingly, this is not the first year they have done so. Less surprisingly, but incredibly depressingly, this step is apparently necessary because no one else will recognize the fact that China is killing babies, and interfering with the choices that married couples make left and right.

1. TheFactIs.org. “US Refuses to Fund UNFPA for the Fourth Consecutive Year” Friday Fax Volume 8, Number 42 2005-10-07. http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=243&authid=11

Ms. “Madame X” raises a good point in a post about the movie “The Exorcism of Emily Rose.”^[1] As permission is granted for unlimited use, I include the article, in its entirety, below.

Emily Rose is the name of my youngest niece, so when I saw the movie trailers about “her” exorcism, I winced. “Poor Em,” I thought, “She’ll be getting hell from her big brothers.” So to speak. “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” is loosely based on a true story of exorcism gone awry, in which the possessed young woman dies and the priest performing the exorcism is tried for negligent homicide. Defendant, prosecutor, and defense attorney all become engaged in internal trials of doubt and faith as the legal system, in above its head, confronts “more things in heaven and earth…/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Inevitably, “Emily Rose” invites comparisons with the mother of all exorcism movies, “The Exorcist,” which shook audiences in 1973 (and was reissued several years ago with additional footage). The comparison is legitimate: like “The Exorcist,” “Emily Rose” is destined to be housed in the “Horror” section of Blockbuster Video, but both movies offer more than arbitrary shocks and screams. The author of “The Exorcist,” William Peter Blatty, first delved into the topic as a college student at Georgetown, where, while beset by doubts about the reality of the supernatural, he heard a religion professor describe a case of diabolic possession. “My God,” he recounted in a September 2000 interview for IGN FilmForce, “if someone were to investigate this and authenticate it, what a tremendous boost to faith it would be.” The resulting book and movie, though heavy on the sensational and most memorable for the really gross parts like the head spinning and the creepy voice coming from Linda Blair, both solidified Blatty’s personal belief in the beyond and set off animated debate in and out of 1970s religion classes. Differences between Blatty and “Emily Rose’s” director/co-writer Scott Derrickson tell a lot about the sources of religious dynamism in the 1970s and our own decade. Believing in the devil—and in a power greater than him—is not the same as espousing belief in orthodox Christianity. For example, a 1999 interview of Blatty published on the website darkplanet.basespace.net describes his recordings of disembodied voices of ghosts: “Once when I was ‘voice recording’ at my home in Greenwich, Connecticut, I heard on tape playback a female voice saying quite clearly, ‘This is boring, I’m going over to Paul Newman’s.’ Newman’s house is in nearby Westport.” Though one might wonder why it matters to a spirit—who is presumably unrestricted by space–that Newman’s house is “nearby.” Scott Derrickson also was drawn to the subject of diabolic possession for essentially religious reasons. In an interview for the Catholic News Service, he says, “Either there’s a God or there’s not. And whichever way you decide, it’s still a terrifying aspect to contemplate.” Certainly Derrickson terrified himself in the course of his research, which included viewing “a lot of video of real exorcisms…I guess it’s good knowledge to have…but I’ll never do that again.” Derrickson comes at this subject matter not from a crisis of belief in God or the supernatural (a Presbyterian, he reports that he is “one Chesterton book away from crossing over” to Catholicism), but from a conviction that the topic of possession can confront the viewer with the most important questions life has to offer: “Is there a devil? And, more importantly, is there a God? And, if so, what’s the implication of that?” Which means that, in an admittedly different genre, he is fighting the same good fight that Mel Gibson fought in “The Passion of the Christ.” Both have confronted evil, on and off the screen, and both know that it is more than special effects. Despite some free-lancing by Protestant faith healers, exorcism is still generally considered to be Catholic by most people, as is evidenced by the Catholic protagonists of both “The Exorcist” and “Emily Rose.” The implications of this do not seem to be lost on potential convert Derrikson, but maybe it should give cradle Catholics (and Protestants) food for thought. Anti-Christians largely target Catholic Christianity for blasphemous or sacrilegious actions, such as cross-dressing homosexuals garbed as nuns. Satanists perform Black Masses and not Black Bible Studies. Like the evil spirits that exorcists must contend with, earthbound enemies of God’s Church recognize the real thing when they see it.

1. Ms. “Madame X” (who admittedly is writing under a pseudonym). “‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’ Shows that Catholicism Is the Only True Faith” TheFactIs.org viewed on 2005-10-07. http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=239&authid=10

Between 20 and 25 weeks of age, or somewhere after 5 months, a baby, not yet born mind you, can feel pain, feel, hear, and see.^[1] The senses are apparently developed in that order, coming into existence progressively, and documented both by studies of premature babies and of those still in the womb. And yet such children remain at risk of being killed by abortion.

1. Interview With Dr. Carlo Bellieni. “What the Unborn Sense in the Womb” ZENIT 2005-10-04 Code: ZE05100422. http://www.zenit.org/english/show_14.php

Is the Times Online accurate, a matter in which I have much doubt, it appears that the Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland have considerably exceeded the scope of “Dei Verbum,” which they attempt to explain in their recently published “The Gift of Scripture.”^[1][2][3] They go so far as to decide that certain parts of Genesis, Matthew, and Revelations are not intended literally, something that “Dei Verbum” does not attempt. I wish I could read the original (of “The Gift of Scripture”), but it does not appear to be available online.

1. Ms. Ruth Gledhill. “Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible” Times Online 2005-10-05. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
2. Mr. Greg Watts. “The Gift of Scripture – a new teaching document from the Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland” Clifton Diocese Website viewed 2005-10-06. http://www.cliftondiocese.com/Articles/497/
3. Pope Paul VI (promulgator). “Dei Verbum” Second Vatican Council 1965-11-18. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

It is deeply disappointing to read that Cardinal Schoenborn accepts the idea of independent magisteria.^[1] Such a view accepts that science and theology can at times be at odds, and yet somehow both can be “right,” by accepting that science can be functionally materialistic, and provide only materialistic/naturalistic explanations. I believe such a view is disordered, because only one of the two explanations can be True for any given topic. What we seek with science is not the best materialistic explanation for a given phenomena, but the most useful model for it. Note well the change from “best” to “most useful.” A model which ascribes everything to direct Divine intervention may be most True, but is not particularly useful as it allows for no prediction and no manipulation. It provides no means for the will to be exercised intelligently. Alternatively, the materialistic explanation will often be the most useful, providing as it does solid equations, but will fail in the face of the exceptional. I would argue, as does the Intelligent Design movement, that life itself is one such exception, that the materialistic explanation simply fails and that no other explanation except design (and thus Divine intervention) is even adequate. On the other hand, I find gravity a more useful explanation than the idea that angels push the planets, though the later may be more True (we cannot know).

The limits of scientific inquiry and of a scientific theory are indeed a crucial element to the co-existence of science and theology, the good Cardinal and I agree on that. Science has as its goal the “saving of the facts,”^[2] and can in only very few circumstances legitimately claim to know what is True, if at all.

1. Catholic News Agency. “Series of conferences by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn titled ‘Creation and Evolution’” Catholic News Agency (online) 2005-10-05. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5061
2. Mr. Wade Rowland. Galileo’s Mistake : A New Look At the Epic Confrontation Between Galileo and the Church Arcade Publishing 2003-07-16. ISBN: 1559706848

The Institute for Creation Research presents an article talking about design in the human eye today.^[1] Not an incredibly technical article (at least by the standards set in Darwin’s Black Box), yet a good read.

1. Various Authors. “Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?” Institute for Creation Research 2005-10-05. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2476