I got an email from an old friend today, asking if I had gotten an iPhone yet. (I guess that’s the nice thing about having a web site and blog… people can keep up with you even if you’re a little out of touch.)

Having learned that I hadn’t taken the plunge (though I was really close to doing it on Saturday) she advised me to do it, saying that she bought one, and her boyfriend liked it so much that he got one the following day.

But the real gem is that she sent along a link to a great additional reason for buying an iPhone: the power of unlocking it. Sometimes one URL can say so much. So guess where I’m going at lunch time.

This has got to be one of the coolest free web site tools I’ve seen in a very long time.

You add their code you your site, displaying a thumbnail map with dots for visitors like the one you see at the very bottom of this page. Already kinda cool being able to see those dots locating your visitors… but it gets better.

Clicking on that thumbnail will bring up a Google Earth mashup, displaying an icon on the location of all of the day’s visitors, and clicking on any one of those will tell you what page the visitor last viewed.

Sure, I’ve got log analysis tools and what-not, but those don’t give me the real-world info I’m interested in. With FEEDJIT, I can look at the map and immediately get a sense of how varied the locations of my readers are, and also see what my most popular pages are, without the complicated statistical analysis of the irrelevant data provided by WebTrends and similar software.

The combined area of Wal-Mart stores is larger than the island of Manhattan, according to this info-graphic.

I just stumbled onto this exhaustive index of resources, specifications, and tutorials for web design.

Since I’ve been on a rampage against fundamentalism this week, perhaps it’s only fair to offer a different perspective that occurred to me recently.

As I read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and now as I’m finishing up The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, the evolutionary evidence continues to mount in support of the idea that our genes are programmed for survival and for mating.

The case is built that regardless of our modern concept of morality, our nature is to be selfish rather than to share, to philander rather than be monogamous, and at times to fight, to lie, to steal, etc.

In the view of our modern, evolved, moral sensibilities, these things are sins. Therefore, evolution actually lends credibility to the teaching that man is sinful in nature. Quite literally!

While literal inerrancy of the bible cannot be supported by modern science (see my recent posts) it is nevertheless quite interesting to notice how much of what modern science has given us actually lends support to biblical teachings.

For instance, in Deuteronomy, the people are instructed to bury their excrement outside the camp, whereas before this they paid no mind to such things. Today, we can easily recognize the medical good sense in doing this to prevent disease.

Or, revisiting the topic of the blood type diet, Peter D’Adamo claims that people of Jewish descent primarily have Type B blood. Is it a coincidence that the diet commanded for them was made up of dairy products, whole grains, and legumes? And that pork — considered bad for every blood type — was forbidden?

This only scratches the surface. Belief in science does not have to mean the negation of belief in God or the Bible. If one takes a bigger view, and considers the advances of modern science, rather than dismissing them dogmatically, it actually makes the Bible a pretty cool book!

Gary McWilliams at The Wall Street Journal writes that the Wal-Mart era is drawing to a close, suggesting that the retail giant is stuck in a low-price rut, while “Rival retailers lured Americans away from Wal-Mart’s low-price promise by offering greater convenience, more selection, higher quality, or better service.”

As a result, American shoppers are increasingly looking for qualities that Wal-Mart has trouble providing. “For the first time in a long time, quality has a chance to gain on price,” says Lee Peterson, a vice president at Dublin, Ohio-based brand consulting firm WD Partners Inc.

With their eroding influence, Wal-Mart is losing clout with manufacturers. According to Burt P. Flickinger III, “four of the top 10 consumer products companies say they can move merchandise faster with Walgreen and CVS.”

Let’s not forget their dramatic rise to the top, though. The article at WSJ includes an animation showing Wal-Mart’s growth, like that of a virus, over the years.

I have a problem with the concept of Biblical inerrancy. There are many arguments as to why the Bible is or is not the inerrant, authoritative, and infallible. To quote one source:

The combination of source ambiguity, intentional translation errors, copying errors, symbolic vs. literal interpretation, multiple authorship, multiple versions, interpretation conflicts, internal conflicts, the nature of truth, etc. make it quite impossible to prove that a particular passage in an English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Or if it is regarded as inerrant, it is not necessarily obvious how the passage is to be interpreted.

But before we argue about what color carpet to get, I want you to convince me I need carpet in the first place. In other words, why are we wasting our time trying to prove whether or not the Bible is inerrant? Why is either side engaging in a debate over a conclusion built on an assumption?

I have yet to see anyone establish that it matters. This argument rages onward about whether we should read and interpret the Bible literally, or if it’s little more than a collection of literature which happens to contain the occasional positive message.

Doesn’t the term Christian simply refer to “a follower of the teachings of Christ?” So couldn’t you continue to be a good Christian even if you ripped out 90% of the Bible and just kept the parts in red? I argue that you’d be a better one.

The difference is important, of course. It’s monumental. If you believe in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God, then you must believe that the world was created in exactly 6 days, was completely wiped out in a worldwide flood shortly after, and then, over the ensuing 5000 years (give or take), we managed to repopulate the entire planet with animals and insects and birds and trees and flowers — in spite of scientific evidence saying the earth is billions of years old, and that all life evolved from a common genetic pool… and that at no time in the entire history of the world was there ever a flood to cover the entire earth.

If you believe the Bible is a literal, factual account of history, you have to believe that people used to live to 900 years old, even though the Jewish calendar wasn’t invented until thousands of “years” after those accounts were told. You also have to believe in talking donkeys, talking bushes, giants, miracles, and resurrection after death… all of which was apparently commonplace, and yet as soon as written history began, no evidence of any such business was recorded.

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallable, authoritative word of a higher power, then you have to explain this list of 388 examples of verses in the Bible that contradict each other. Why can’t God get his story straight?

But nevermind all of that. That all goes on the assumption that it is necessary to prove that the Bible is or is not 100% literal and accurate. I haven’t seen that done. Not anywhere. People believe it because they’re told to believe it. And then later, when they’ve built a system of beliefs around it being true, they find themselves willing to defend its trueness because having it proven untrue would unfix their beliefs.

The only reason it matters whether or not the Bible is a good story book, or it’s the exact written instruction book of the big invisible man in the sky, is because if it is, in fact, completely literal and accurate, it would mean that our science is wacked and useless, it would mean that slavery is okay, it would mean that women are lesser beings and it’s okay to rape them. And pardon my bluntness, but it would also mean that this God fellow is a real asshole.

Who ever made it necessary that the Bible was inerrant? Certainly it had to be some homophobic, racist, misogynist prick who wanted to own slaves and beat women. No? Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one’s interpretation of it..

The burden of proof is on the person proposing the idea. From what I’ve seen, the only proof offered that the Bible is inerrant is… wait for it… quotations from the Bible! It’s a circular reference!

You can’t simply propose that a thing is true, and then use the fact that the thing calls itself true as evidence of its trueness! That’s utter crap.

If you’re a believer in Christ then be a believer in Christ. Forget all that other nonsense. All you need are the parts in red, which are just as good to a non-Christian.

“If God kills, lies, cheats, discriminates, and otherwise behaves in a manner that puts the Mafia to shame, that’s okay, he’s God. He can do whatever he wants. Anyone who adheres to this philosophy has had his sense of morality, decency, justice and humaneness warped beyond recognition by the very book that is supposedly preaching the opposite.” -Dennis McKinsey

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has put up their first ever non-theistic billboard in Madison, Wisconsin. It will be up from Oct 2-16 on the feeder road off the West Beltline next to Culver’s Restaurant, facing west.

They’ll also be having a meeting on Oct 12-14 in Madison. Details can be found on their web site.

Thanks to Chicagoist for sharing this most hilarious diversion in my day.

I’m not going to spoil the surprise. Just pick up your phone and call 312-884-3070. It will only take two minutes out of your day, and it’ll put a big smile on your face.