There’s an article up on Fox News by John Gibson that’s just striking for it’s tone. It’s not the kind of ignorance that one just stumbles across in life. No, it’s the kind of ignorance that one must work really hard to cultivate, waking up each morning to seek out opportunities to display this level of stupidity. His grasp of ignorance is almost masterful.

Now scientists say Pluto isn’t a planet. It isn’t big enough. It’s something, but not a planet exactly.

My attitude is: Who says?

It’s been a planet my entire life. I learned that in the third grade. Might be the only thing I remember from the third grade.

It’s the cold one, the farthest from the sun and, yes, it’s the small one.

But no, you can’t unmake Pluto as a planet.

Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I? [emphasis mine]

Somebody somewhere, some mysterious person who answers to no one and seems to have dictatorial power sets new standards for planets and all of a sudden one of the original nine is dropped?

Now as a disclaimer, I don’t particularly care how the solar system is classified. I would like scientists to be consistent, and use all the information at hand (which naturally changes as the years go by). I trust that they do nothing less, though no doubt it’s a contentious process. (See here on why that’s a good thing). In short, I won’t get my undies in a twist if we’ve got 8, 12, or 30 planets.

But John Gibson’s point of not having to unlearn something just because he’s learned it is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Where would that line of thinking take us? We would have ignored bacteria as the cause of ulcers. Reducing stress and staying away from spicy foods would still be the way doctors handled it. After all, that’s what many of them learned in school. Why should they unlearn it just because some stupid scientists come up with a different idea?

How about marriage. Anybody “learn” how to do something that just didn’t seem to work? Why should you have to unlearn it just because a different approach works better?

Religion. I learned some cool stuff as a kid. I think I’ll put the good book away and forgo church. I already know what I need to. Why should I revisit it again?

His attack on scientists (answering to no one with dictatorial power) is also breathtaking for it’s gross mischaracterization and slander. Whatever the politics and contention of planetary classification, I’m quite sure there’s no planetary physicist in an underground bunker stroking a white cat and smoking a pipe, deciding one day to use his unbounded power to blight Pluto.

Is there any area in life where we shouldn’t learn with a touch of humility, with the acknowledgment that we might be wrong and that new information might change the way we understand something?

Oops. I just thought of one… Apparently being a journalist for Fox News.

(Hat tip to John Hawks on the quote)

I’ve got a bit of confession to make. I hate country music and country musicians — with a passion. Is that fair? Probably not. Am I biased? I’d have to say so. Am I committing the cardinal sin of stereotyping a large group of people based on the actions of a few? Guilty as charged.

It’s hard not to with stories like this one. Did you hear about Troy Gentry? The guy’s being prosecuted for killing a black bear with a bow and arrow. Now I’m not opposed to hunting (though I’m a lot happier when the prey has hooves and a white-tail - technical schematic here.) So what could be so horrible to deserve prosecution for the manly action of hunting a fearsome predator with a bow and arrow?

Perhaps shooting a tame bear in a cage, then tagging it and doctoring video to make it look like you shot it in the wild… Which is what he and the ranch owner reported to the state of Minnesota.

His defense sounds like it’s going to be a real winner.

“Troy absolutely denies that he knowingly and willfully did anything illegal, and is confident that he will be exonerated,” said his Minneapolis-based attorney, Ron Meshbesher, who said Gentry has never been interviewed by authorities. “They don’t know his side of the story. He was told it was proper and legal to kill the bear.”

Don’t you love it? Words like knowingly and willfully, proper and legal. No one’s denying that poor Troy protected his family by killing the ranch pet in the cage. They just say he didn’t know it was wrong. Apparently, it’s not even the killing that was illegal. It was doctoring the tags and reporting it to the state — and that’s what prosecutors will have to show Gentry knowingly did to win a conviction.

You know, for some reason I’m not as angry at lying to the state. It’s clearly wrong, but I mean, it’s just Minnesota. It’s the killing that infuriates me. Hunters, a question: Why do people hunt with bow and arrow instead of a gun? I think I know the answer, but someone can correct me if I’m wrong. It’s a challenge, it’s a lot harder, and I can imagine that the excitement and satisfaction of taking prey with these tools is a lot greater. And I respect that.

But drawing your bow and arrow on a caged animal? I don’t give a rat’s behind if it’s legal or not. It’s shameful.

Now I have to admit that I didn’t even know who Troy Gentry was before this story. He’s half of the popular (with who?) duo Montgomery Gentry. But upon a little investigation, he quickly fit right into my stereotype of all that’s wrong with country music. For example, in an article on an upcoming album that would make Stephen Colbert very proud, the writer expresses:

This album reflects a deeper exploration of the issues Eddie Montgomery & Troy Gentry have always deemed important: family, religion & the US Armed Forces.

What else is there really?

It’s the smarminess of country music that I can’t stand. It’s the “family values” that look an awful lot like softcore pornography. (Possibly not safe for work, but incredibly educational if you’ve not flipped through CMT recently). Country music has become one more way that culture gets entwined with religion.

Now I’m not advocating that we abandon popular forms of music, including country music if that’s what you like (though your ear for music has obviously been bludgeoned beyond repair). I personally love a vast array of rock music, though I clearly recognize that some of it doesn’t share my moral values.

It’s just that I prefer my decadence to be clearly labeled as such.

A study reported by National Geographic News places the U.S. near the very end of a shameful list.

Yes, only Turkey rejects evolution more than the United States.

The reasons are what you’d expect — religion — but even I was surprised by the low percentage. Only 14% of U.S. adults thought that evolution was “definitely true.” Oh, I could rant and rave about the way evolution is a theory with every bit as much footing as our other theories in science. I could point out that science seeks truth with a lower case t, not ultimate meaning. I could point out the utility of science, and that the 86% of U.S. evolution rejectors already turn to evolution when they seek medical care, and that in our lifetimes, our knowledge of evolution and its application to medicine will increasingly deepen. Indeed, the article makes this point for me.

Third, the study found that adults with some understanding of genetics are more likely to have a positive attitude toward evolution.

I could do all these things, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

National Geographic also offers a great solution to this problem. An excellent article by David Quammen titled Was Darwin Wrong? which appeared in the print edition of the November 2004 magazine. (Alas, the online version lacks the pretty pictures.)

I also offer my own solution. It’s meager, and perhaps a little incomplete. (I could add more to it while condensing it some to make it tighter). But I like to think it’s not bad. My old article on the basics of evolution. Though I’m but a humble grad student, the U.S. would do well to read it. At least 86 percent of them would.

The postmodern Christian blog Out of Ur has a post up on consumerism undermining faith. It’s well worth a read.

Christian critiques of consumerism usually focus on the dangers of idolatry—the temptation to make material goods the center of life rather than God. This, however, misses the real threat consumerism poses. My concern is not materialism, strictly speaking, or even the consumption of goods—as contingent beings, we must consume resources to survive. The problem is not consuming to live, but rather living to consume.

We find ourselves in a culture that defines our relationships and actions primarily through a matrix of consumption. As the philosopher Baudrillard explains, “Consumption is a system of meaning.” We assign value to ourselves and others based on the goods we purchase. One’s identity is now constructed by the clothes you wear, the vehicle you drive, and the music on your iPod. In short, you are what you consume.

This explains why shopping is the number one leisure activity of Americans. It occupies a role in society that once belonged only to religion—the power to give meaning and construct identity. Consumerism, as Pete Ward correctly concludes, “represents an alternative source of meaning to the Christian gospel.” No longer merely an economic system, consumerism has become the American worldview—the framework through which we interpret everything else, including God, the gospel, and church.

I struggle intensely with this issue. Not consumerism, but rather my judgement of those in the church around me when it comes to consumerism. Continuing with post modern theology — it’s all relative. As Americans, the vast majority of us live far above the level and means of most around the world. My lowly apartment is a mansion by many’s standards.

Yet I’ve always had a strong draw to those in the church that live below their means, rejecting the comfort that would seem to come from the market. I’m thinking of the millionare that lives in a 30 year old house in a very middle class neighborhood and uses his money charitably. I’m thinking of a biology professor who rode a bike more often than his car, which by the way was a 10 year old economy sedan. He certainly had the means to do better, but somehow that just didn’t fit into his Christian worldview.

As I look around the church (whether mine or those I visit), I think one of the greatest dangers it faces is apathy. And consumerism seems to go hand in hand. Success in our culture is having the best houses, the best cars, and eating at the best restaurants. It’s just a natural extension to want the best churches. And how do we define best? By the standards we’re used to of course.

The source escapes me at the moment, but I once heard a beautiful rationale for giving. While we tend to emphasize in church the effects and good our giving has on others, we neglect it’s effect on us.

Every time I give, it breaks the chains of materialism.

For me at this stage in my life, it’s a hard pill to swallow. The money in my wallet isn’t exactly impressive, nor assured. Yet as I hopefully move beyond the debt and uncertainty of the recently married penniless grad student, I can only hope that when it comes to church, I define best by another standard.

When I first read of it, I thought about mentioning it but was so digusted, I couldn’t quite bring myself to comment on it. Now, everyone else seems to be commenting on this story, so I’ll point you to it in case you haven’t heard of this yet.

One game, “Left Behind: Eternal Forces,” which debuts today at the expo, features plenty of biblical smiting, albeit with high-tech weaponry as players battle the forces of the Antichrist in a smoldering world approaching Armageddon.

Eh, my stomach doesn’t feel quite right.

“Eternal Forces” is part of a new wave of religious games coming out at a time when the mainstream industry faces increasing criticism that its products celebrate misogynistic mayhem. Another publisher is marketing games based on the “Veggie Tales” series of Christian videos for children. Another is pitching “Bibleman: A Fight for Faith,” about a superhero who stands up for the word of God with his sidekicks Cypher and Biblegirl.

Cypher and Biblegirl? I’m really starting to feel bad…

Christian-themed games historically have had limited appeal. Developer Digital Praise has sold a reported 30,000 copies of its most popular product, a Christian title called “Dance Praise.” By contrast, “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” has sold 5.1 million copies worldwide.

Dance Praise wasn’t popular? There’s a shocker. Even the original Nintendo foot pad games were more popular than that.

” ‘Left Behind’ has the Antichrist, the end of the world, the apocalypse,” said co-creator Jeffrey S. Frichner. “It’s got all the Christian stuff, and it’s still got all the cool stuff.”

Is it just me, or is the room starting to spin? My stomach feels awful.

The game is set in New York City, where the Tribulation Force clashes with the Antichrist’s Global Community Peacekeepers in a tale that makes the United Nations a tool for Satan. Each side attempts to recruit lost souls in the battle for the city.

In the game, Tribulation squads unleash the usual arsenal against the Antichrist: guns, tanks, helicopters. But soldiers lose some of their spirituality every time they kill an opponent and must be bolstered through prayer. The failure to nurture good guys causes their spirit points to drop, leaving them vulnerable to recruitment by the other side.

I’ll be right back for more blogging… Right after I’ve stopped throwing up.

MSNBC has a decent article by Robert Bazell on the debate over evolution and intelligent design. His main point is we should focus on the values used to make our decisions, a difficult area of medicine when hard choices have to be made.

As I said, it was decent. I think he could have made it a little more clear, however, by discussing the importance of evolution in medicine, as I don’t think many people grasp it. The entire discussion and worry of the bird flu is an issue of evolution.

Science is something very specific. It is a means of understanding the world around us by posing hypotheses that can be tested with experiments or observations. But science can never help us make moral or value judgments like those the new physicians will face.

Serious efforts in biology and medicine can no more ignore evolution than airplane designers can ignore gravity.

It is hard to believe that — whatever the outcome in the many evolution battles — we will stop worrying that the H5N1 bird flu virus might evolve into something easily transmissible among humans.

It is far more difficult to know what moral values should guide our decisions, and perhaps we should put more effort into helping students grasp that reality.

Had I been reading the various blogs I usually skim over, I would have known in advance that the Simpsons last night was on evolution. As it turned out, my wife and I walked in the door from a long weekend (she graduated!) and turned on the TV and just happened to notice what the Simpsons was about. I was immediately interested.

The show was funny. It wasn’t epic, but good nonetheless. A brief synopsis: Flanders creates a stink over teaching evolution in schools. Principle Skinner is going to ignore it as first, but is then reminded that his car lease with an amazing interest rate comes from Christian Brother’s Auto Service. As the lease is about to be set on fire, he caves in to teaching creationism. Lisa forms a secret after school club to read the Origin of Species and is arrested when the cops kick down the doors. The ensuing trial is a parody of the Scopes Trial. I could describe the whole thing in greater detail, but Jason Rosenhouse has already provided a thorough recap.

For me, the funniest part was Principal Skinner’s announcing to the class they would learn about creationism. Ralphie asks if it’s true that the ocean’s are God’s tears. Skinner nervously looks over at the people holding his auto lease, they nod their heads in approval, and Skinner looks back at the class and says, “yes, the ocean’s are God’s tears”.

When the video starts playing, it’s the classic dichotomy. The video’s titled Are you calling God a liar? and promises to take a unbiased look at the scientific record. It then immediately depicts Charles Darwin and The Origin as being in league with the devil. It captures the truthfulness of creationists who claim to present fair and unbiased discussions on the subject.

All in all, it was good satire.

Last week, Bill Nye (The Science Guy) gave a talk at McLennan Community College in Waco, TX. Everything went well at first, until…

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

What’s funny to me is that people would get angry at this, when there are two creation stories. Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is the first, and a new story begins in Genesis 2:4. In the second story, man is made before anything else, including women. This is in total conflict with the creation order given in the first account, and seems rather in conflict with Genesis 1:27 which, with a close literal interpretation implies that men and women were created at the same time.

You know, when I’m reading literature and I see two different stories back to back, I usually recognize a literary style other than literal history. But it seems that some, like the attendees to Nye’s lectures, wear their sensitivies on their sleeve, looking for their opportunity to cause a scene. Man, it’s embarrassing.

Nye’s website (warning, it’s the most annoying website ever, turn off your speakers or puncture your eardrums) opens with a flash animation of the evolution of man. Perhaps those audience members who got angry should have googled him first. Then they could have gotten angry at home.

In a further admission of my wicked ways, I admit to enjoying Southpark. I’ve only caught a few episodes, but as a satire, I’m usually laughing so hard I’m crying. For example, the episode where Cartman becomes a southern Baptist hell, fire, and brimestone preacher is the height of comedy (IMHO). And before condeming me for viewing seedy material, I think a note on proper judgement is warranted.

Bad language used for a reason does not bother me. Southpark, Magnolia, and Shawshank Redemption do not bother me for their use of filthy language. On the other hand, a family film that painfully throws in an F-bomb just to reach it’s PG-13 rating can be an insult.

And while language doesn’t bother me, other things do. Like nudity. People I greatly respect when it comes to picking good movies all give their nod of approval to Eyes Wide Shut. I’ve seen part of it, and the word porno comes to mind. I just can’t watch things like it with a clean conscience. I’m slow to fault someone for using their judgement to decide what and what not they’ll view as entertainment.

So with that little sermonette out of the way, I come back to the point… Southpark.

Isaac Hayes, the voice of chef has quit the show, making a stand based on conviction.

There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs and others begins.

Ordinarily, I would find a sentiment such as this refreshing, even if I didn’t agree with the person doing it. Only one problem here. What was it that caused this stirring of conviction in chef?

Was is the portrayal of Jesus that most Christians would find blasphemous? (Even I have turned off the TV to skip those episodes.) Was is the incredibly harsh satire of the church of latter day saints? Was it during the Southpark movie when Satan was shown to be just a nice, misunderstood guy? (Yep, the movie was too much for me too.)

No, it was none of these. Isaac Hayes happily kept working as the voice of Chef, for 9 straight years. So what could have been so offensive as to end his illustrious career? Why an episode poking fun at Scientology of course.

They aired the episode, but it was reruns that created the uproar. And the rumor is that Tom Cruise threatened to withhold his advertising for Mission Impossible III if Comedy Central aired the reruns. (Comedy Central and Paramount are owned by the same parent company).

I point it out because it’s remarkable to me. Nine years of participating in a show who’s unabashed purpose is to offend everyone about something held sacred, and Chef has to call it quits when Scientology takes it’s turn in the crosshairs.

The LA Times has a good piece of muckraking on Thomas Kinkade, Painter of LightTM (yes, he’s trademarked the phrase). It seems that when Thom’s not busy with English cottages and sunsets, he’s got quite the rowdy side. Grabbing women’s breasts, foul language, heavy drinking, public urinating…

Now as I read along, I really wondered if Kinkade was getting a fair shake, if a few angry business partners were sue-happy and the LA Times just gave them an outlet to smear Kincade… The relevant sections of the article were down near the very end, and Kinkade’s own words seems to confirm much of what’s being reported.

In a deposition, the artist alluded to his practice of urinating outdoors, saying he “grew up in the country” where it was common. When pressed about allegedly relieving himself in a hotel elevator in Las Vegas, Kinkade said it might have happened.

“There may have been some ritual territory marking going on, but I don’t recall it,” he said.

You know, call me crazy, but if I urinated in a hotel elevator, I think I would remember. And as far as calling it territory marking, were there other painters of lightTM in the elevator trying to compete with him? I’m not sure if that explanation really flies.

“He was having a conversation with the men in the room about whether they like breasts or butts,” said Lori Kopec, Cote’s director of gallery operations, who also testified about the party. “There were only two women in the room, and I was very uncomfortable at that point.”

It was during that bawdy discussion, according to arbitration records, that Kinkade turned his attention to the other woman.

[…]

The woman whom Kinkade allegedly fondled confirmed to The Times that he touched her breasts without her consent. She spoke on condition of anonymity, saying she was embarrassed and concerned for her family’s privacy.

[…]

Kinkade testified in a deposition that excessive drinking and “some normal rowdy talk” had taken place, but when confronted with the groping allegation, he denied touching the woman.

So apparently talking about what guys prefer — breasts or butts — is “normal” talk.

I know I shouldn’t be so cynical. But as hard as I’ve tried, I just haven’t been able to understand why the Christian evangelical subculture feels it so necessary to get everything from other Christians. Businesses (not to mention politicians) are laughing all the way to the bank. People have learned that you can slap the label Christian on something and market successfully to a certain audience.

I’ve always been suspicious of those yelling “Jesus” the loudest. I’ve always been downright distrustful when those yelling “Jesus” are in the marketplace. That Kincade is a poor artist should have been reason enough for the Christian community to say “no thanks.” That he appears to be abusing that image to market himself should cause some people to realize they’re being used.