Plan for Dalai Lama lecture angers neuroscientists

Here's a great quote:

Jianguo Gu, a neuroscientist at the University of Florida who has helped to organise a petition against the Dalai Lama's lecture, said: "I don't think it's appropriate to have a prominent religious leader at a scientific event. "The Dalai Lama basically says the body and mind can be separated and passed to other people. There are no scientific grounds for that. We'll be talking about cells and molecules and he's going to talk about something that isn't there.

Ok, the mind body separation stuff might concern them, but look at the start of the quote. In his mind, it's just plain wrong to listen to religion in the context of science. Even though the Dalai Lama is basically science-friendly. I think his position is very unscientific. Religions, like scientific theories, may have pieces that are right and pieces that are wrong. They are not incompatible with science altogether.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Evolution, and the Supreme Court

I've been trying to formulate (and express) a coherent opinion on just what I wanted in a supreme court nominee. Not that anybody in particular might care, but nevertheless, here it is. If you've been reading this blog, you might wonder what my quandary is, but there is one. Simply, would we want a judge who would simply interpret the constitution as it was originally intended, or do we want a judge who would apply God's law in interpreting the constitution (perhaps beyond the intent of the writers)?

Clearly, the liberals (you know who you are) don't want either. The media lumps the two together, and many conservatives (which, except for the liberal tendencies of most conservatives, I would consider myself) would choose the latter. The first choice though (simply interpret) should be neutral (see the Wikipedia discussion on evolution). This is hard to achieve, but in a Supreme Court judge, I think that is what we really want.

This would mean, for instance, that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, but so would anti-segregation rulings. Would this be good? Yes, but other things need to change too. I think that individual states could legalize abortion (as many have already done), and the Supreme Court may have to uphold that. Some states may even choose to return to segregation, and the Court would have to uphold that too.

What is wrong here? It is us. That is, it is U.S. Until these things, which are clearly wrong, are outlawed Constitutionally, which would take an overwhelming majority of -Americans to want it so. Personally I think Anti-Segregation would be easier to get amended than Anti-Abortion (strange if you think about it).

Deal Hudson on Evolution

This has been a ruccuring topic on this blog, so when I saw Deal Hudson's explanation I thought it so apt I wanted to repeat it here.

The Church challenges scientists to separate themselves from an ideology that begins with the assumption of the assumption of atheism and meaninglessness of life.

... Catholic students need not be indoctrinated in a scientific theory that denies the design and purpose apparent in the natural world.

[Cardinal] Schönborn underscores capacity of the human mind to find order in creation: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of mere chance and necessity are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

[Cardinal] Schönborn also makes clear what the new pope thinks about evolution. He quotes a line from Benedict XVI's very first homily, "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

I think that sums it up. Just because we see the signs of evolution all around us, doesn't mean we aren't the preduct of the mind of God. Clink on the article title link to subscribe to Hudson's e-newsletter.

Charlotte Wyatt -- Is this nuts or what?

To sum up this sad story, a baby was born prematurely in England with lots of problems. The hospital physicians decided the baby would be better off dead, and got a court order to allowing them not to resucitate the baby. Althought the baby has continued to improve, the judge will not reverse the order. Nor will the hospital or the judge release the baby's medical records to the parents.

So not only do these parents have the heartbreak of a desperately ill (although clearly not dying) child, they have the medical establishment (which should be their hope) and the judicial system (which should be their recourse should their hope abandon them) turned against them.

This is nuts.

The Right Thing to Do

I heard today on PBS that they interviewed a doctor who was in the British Medical House (? did I get this right?) when the bus exploded. He reported that the first thing they did was say "That was a terrorist attack -- wait there might be a secondary", and so they waited 10 minutes before venturing outside to help. I doubt wether I would have been brave enought, or rational enough, to do anything useful, and I should not judge the doctors. But faith could give you the courage to say "We must go and help now because it's the right thing to do -- if there is a secondary, then we will die, but at least we'll die doing the right thing."

You see, those doctors who waited will still die.

More on the Fruit Flies

I thin I don't like the "Aha!" nature of some of these reports. It seems like people just don't think about the situation, but simply rally their position. Let's say there is a gene which makes it less distasteful for some to engage in homosexual acts. Does this mean that they are a homosexual? Or does it mean that special people are faced with a choice?

If the later, then most of us shouldn't be so proud of our heterosexuality, as it was built in. Those who can take pride in it would then be those who have the ability to choose, and choose heterosexuality. As for the others, why then do they choose homosexuality? We're right back where we started, aren't we?

Virusdoc.net: Of Fruit Flies and Gay Rights

Virusdoc.net: Of Fruit Flies and Gay Rights

Well, here is evidence of some sort that a simple gene may cause homosexual tendencies. Simply put, a single gene is toyed with, and, when the mutant males were isolated with each other, they entered into courtship rituals with each other more frequently than normal flies do, as did mutant females.

What I missed was stats on how the mutants behaved when placed in normal populations.

Canadian Parliament passes same-sex marriage bill

Rational thought extends beyond physics and meta-physics. It extends into the difference between right and wrong. Now Christians see this difference in black and white. But the edges, while still black and white, have great detail. Like a fractal edge, one has to examine the edge in detail to determine on which side an issue resides.

For any follower of Christ, same-sex marriage is always wrong, as it attempts to bless and sanctify a homosexual act. Of course, we reject abortion, pre-marital sex, birth-control, in-vitro fertilization, and so many other things that it seems silly to even focus on only homosexuality. So what's the problem?

The problem is that the media, and possibly many of the homosexuals themselves, equate the act with the person. So they assume that if we hate the act, we must hate the person. Let us be clear here: Christians must not hate the person. We must Love the person, where we use the Greek word Agape for love, which means we must forgive them.

This may not be enough for the Canadian government though. They may insist that Catholic priests and other Christian ministers perform same-sex marriages, or they will be prosecuted for hate-crimes.

Is this rational? Obviously not, but the anti-religion lobby is going to use this pry-bar to either shut down the organized religion, or force them to do their bidding. Either way they win. What is the rational solution? Let's ignore the whole issue on whether or not we believe that someone is born gay or not, or whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Canada has passed her law, right or wrong. Is it rational to insist that everyone agree with her law? No, the law allows gay marriage, it does not require it. We'll see what happens.

One final thought. Rational thought is connected and consistent. If a rational thinker makes an error, he or she will call it an error, and be thankful for its correction. Non-rational thought is by definition inconsistent. If, as I maintain, the pro-homosexual lobby is wrong, then they can be expected to be inconsistent. So I think that we can expect to see some priests and ministers tossed in jail. Unless, of course, more rational thought prevails...