Banners of Decreasing Expectations

This is a great post from Wonkette about Bush's latest speech on his Iraq experiment.

Oh, that's what they mean

A New Webster's For Our Time.

Of Apes and Men

There's been a big hullabaloo over Intelligent Design lately. I don't know the specifics of the "theory", but I've heard that it tries to patch in creationism with science. It reminds me of being told, during a philosophical discussion over ten years ago -- with a person of faith at odds with her field of study, biology -- that there was a "study" of some sort of behavior that occurred before the Big Bang that proves God existed. Again, I'm not up on the specifics of Intelligent Design or its ilk, so I won't dispute it here. On the contrary, I believe in its root: that God is behind everything. I just don't agree with the methodology and timeline in the explanations. Just as important, I want to know why anyone would want to meld it with science (where theories can be proved or disproved with observable facts) in the first place. Science and religion are separate ways of getting to the truth. The big items of faith (does God exist; how did we get here; did Jesus exist and rise from the dead; etc) can't be disproved or proved with scientifically observable facts, nor should they be. I believe them to be true, from a religious point of view. But I can't prove any of them. And neither can any so-called religious "leaders" of any faith. That's why I believe that Intelligent Design, or pure creationism, or anything like it -- regardless of the faith it comes from -- shouldn't be taught in public schools. And we shouldn't be condemned by whackos for thinking so. Especially in a pluralistic society like ours, where differing religious groups are free to worship.

Anyway, I don't know if I've articulated my stance on this clearly, but for another similar POV, check out this article, from a conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer.

News from the Vatican

Looks like they've ordained their last priest. :)