progressive involvement

Of course he lost

Ken Ham is exactly the wrong person to represent the Christian faith in any intellectual argument, and it dearly showed in his much-publicized encounter with atheist Bill Nye.  Ham is the CEO of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which features dinosaurs and humans in the same environment, and not so long ago either.

Ham is a "young-earth creationist," meaning he believes that the Biblical account in Genesis 1 refers to a literal seven 24-hour days during which time the entire universe was created.  This took place only a few thousand years ago.  

"Old-earth creationists" hold that the Biblical word for "day" in Genesis 1 can also refer to eras or epochs, and thus will allow that creation could have been a very long time ago.  Within fundamentalism, "old-earth creationist" is probably the majority position, which makes Ken Ham a representative of a minority (young-earth creationist) within a minority (fundamentalism) within a minority (evangelicalism).  

We should give the "young-earth creationists" their due.  Genesis 1 does indeed read as though it were talking about seven 24-hour days--"and there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day," for example.  "Young-earth creationists" are at least consistent in their fundamentalism.

That notwithstanding, "young-earth creationism" is pure theological quackery.  It occupies itself with ridiculous and irrelevant questions--the location of Noah's Ark, say, or cosmological charts for the star of Bethlehem--and meets challenges by taking refuge in pious fluff.

This is not to say that Bill Nye "won" the debate.  He was given to irrelevent tangents and rather dry analysis on some points, but Ham clearly lost it.  He'd have lost it if he were debating a fish.

 

But they can't go there because that would mean the liberals were right about something, and, well, they can't go there

Koch funded study, which set out to prove the opposite, winds up confirming global warming, and that it is caused by human activity.

Why Wiki is down

This piece by Andrew Leonard at salon.com explains why SOPA is a bad deal.  The measure is about combatting internet piracy, which is fine, but also says that an entire website can be shut down for a single violation.

Heavens, people, YouTube and Facebook have copyright violations every second.  Do we really want to shut down the world's favorite websites, further crippling commerce in a time of recession, while at the same time undermining freedom of speech?  

Which is why SOPA is a bad bill.  Call your Member of Congress.

To sum up

ht:  James McGrath

Might be something to string theory after all

Neutrinos found to travel faster than the speed of light, heretofore considered the "speed limit" of the universe.

The most persuasive kind of argument is the one that involves someone changing their mind in light of the facts

Robert Muller set out, with Koch money, to disprove global warming, and, come to find out, he was forced to change his mind.

A bit gnarly, but Swedish tree is otherwise in good health

This tree is the oldest living thing on the planet, according to National Geographic.  Discovered in 2004, the lone Norway spruce—of the species traditionally used to decorate European homes during Christmas—represents the planet's longest-lived identified plant.  Its age was determined by radiocarbon-dating its roots.

Coming soon: August 11

 

The real reason conservatives don't buy climate change

Mitt Romney says he believes there's such a thing as climate change, even that it's at least partly caused by humans.  This heresy for a Republican.  Rush Limbaugh says the penalty for this apostasy is that Romney can't possibly get the nomination.  He might be right.

Romney is the front-runner, but this seems almost a technical point.  The base is wary to the point of hostility.  Social conservatives don't like it that he flip-flopped on abortion--plus, he's a Mormon, which is an issue for some--and the hard right doesn't like several things about Romney.  He's too squeeky-clean for some, and not enough of a fire-breather for others.

Neither trust him because his views on their issues have been rather squishy.  Their positions are stalwart and ideological, and, not surprisingly, mistrustful of someone who switches sides to curry their favor.  What if the political winds should start to blow another direction?

When it comes to flip-flopping, few politicians in American history have so brazenly changed their minds on hot-button issues as Mitt Romney.  He was pro-choice, now pro-life.  He brought Romneycare to Massachusetts--his signature achievement--but opposes President Obama's health care reform, even though it's a Romneycare knock-off.  

As he's jettisoned other difficult positions, it would not have been surprising if he'd ditched his previous acknowledgement of climate change as well.  This, he did not do.  Perhaps he thought it would be "a flip-flop too far" or perhaps he really believes it.  (Hilariously, Romney's staff is spinning this as evidence of Romney's steadfastness on the issues.)  

In any case, he may be the only prominent Republican in the nation who is willing to say he thinks the earth is getting warmer.  It was easier to find a prominent Republican who held to global warming twenty years ago, when global warming wasn't even obvious, than it is to find one today.  (Lots of rank-and-file Republicans think the climate is changing.  Lots of Republican officeholders do as well, in their heart of hearts, but dare not say so out loud.)

It has become an ideological question, not a scientific one.  If there were global warming, that might call for some kind of government action, which is anathema for the base.  Rick Santorum zeroed in on this angle yesterday:

"To me this is an opportunity for the left to create -- it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It's been on a warming trend so they said, 'Oh, let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.'"

"It's just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative."

When Richard Nixon died, among the many mourners who stood in line to pay their last respects was one man who said he didn't really care for Nixon all that much, but he had "the right enemies."  Translation:  He might have been an SOB, but at least he was our SOB.  If liberals hated Nixon, that was reason enough to support him.

Along the same lines, liberals generally believe in climate change, and, for the GOP base, liberals must always be opposed.  To say otherwise is to give the impression that liberals aren't what we've been saying they were:  always wrong, and bad people besides.  Ergo, there is no climate change.

On the, uhm...Recent Awkwardness

The religious interbuzz has comment all over the place on Harold Camping and the failure of the world to come to an end last Saturday.  Gary Laderman has an interesting piece at Religion Dispatches, likewise Kenny Smith at religionnerd.

The former makes the point that pretty much all religions have some kind of end time scenario, although I'm not too sure that question would really apply all that much in hinduism or buddhism.  A focus on an end is going to be more present in cultures who see history as being on a trajectory rather than as being on a cycle.

Many Christians believe we are living in the last days.  Recent polls show a sizeable minority believe that the world will end in their lifetimes.  This has been true all along--Luther thought he was living in the last days as did Paul--and, in a sense, this belief has been true all along.

Hebrews 1 does say, after all:  "In many and various way, God spoke to the people of old by the prophets, but now in these last days, God has spoken to us by a Son."  "These last days" have been the past 2000 years, up to, and including, the present moment--and all future moments.  

We run amok if we get involved in the details.  Almost all Biblical comment on the subject is metaphor--words in search of words to describe the indescribable.  The real truth of the matter--the theological core, the gospel nugget--is that all of time and history is subsumed within Christ.

This is Cosmic Christ territory--Christ the "pantocrator," whose figure adorns the dome of Greek Orthodox cathedrals, symbolizing Christ's rule of the cosmos.  Colossians 1:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...in him all things in heaven and on earth were created...all things have been created through him and for him...he himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 

Cosmic Christ theology has been around a long time, although it hasn't always been called that.  Paul could be counted in its camp, as well as the author of the fourth gospel and Revelation.  In fact, a great deal of the early theology dealt with cosmic themes.

When you literalize it, though, everything turns kind of sour.  The Book of Revelation is actually a wonderful poem on the, indeed, the cosmic nature of Christ's victory.  When you start fussing about how many horns the demons have, or the precise timetable of this or that, then, as we used to say on the farm, "Mister, you're driving your ducks to a mighty poor pond."