This weekend, I asked a Christian to explain to me how he, a creationist, could be such an advocate of Peter D’Adamo’s blood type diet, given the clear evolutionary foundation? I wasn’t trying to stir up trouble. I wanted a legitimate explanation of how one could reconcile the two mutually exclusive concepts.

Instead of an answer, of course, I got argumentativeness and dogma. But why should I expect anything less from one of God’s spokespeople? I was accused of “misquoting out of context” [sic]. Then, the completely irrelevant, but always effective challenge was issued: “If you have any scripture to prove me wrong, I am quite willing to read and accept it.”

[climbing onto soap box]

I am so fucking tired of people using that non-logic as if it lent some sort of credibility to what they said. It’s flawed. Disproving an antithesis does not, by proxy, prove the thesis. Asking someone to prove you wrong does not, in its failure, prove you right.

If I insist that unicorns exist, and I challenge you to prove me wrong, you can’t. There is no evidence that will prove they don’t exist. Does that make me right? Of course not, because there’s no evidence to prove that they do exist, either.

Worse, the Bible is a collection of writings by over 40 different authors, the newest of which was nearly 2000 years ago, and the oldest was almost twice that! There was no medical industry, no internet, no human genome project, no automobile, no Apollo moon landing.

The Bible is full of hateful instructions. It teaches about killing people, even including your own child. The Bible gives an okay to selling your daughter into sexual slavery. It teaches that women are inferior, should not work, should not teach, and should not speak.

Even if your response was valid (it wasn’t) and there were something to prove, proving that lectins interact differently with antigens depending on the blood type specified by some gene on your DNA is hard enough to do in a laboratory, under a microscope, with all of written history and scientific discovery at your fingertips. Do you seriously expect me to pull out a Bible, flip to Genesis 4, and find evidence to support either side of the debate?

No. I challenge you, dear Christian, to prove to me scientifically that any of that crap you say is true. Come on… any old thing will do: show me Noah’s ark or the garden of Eden. Show me evidence of a great flood — you can’t, because all geological data shows no evidence of any worldwide flood. Even the shroud of Turin turned out to be a fake, from 8 centuries after the time of Jesus.

The Emptiness of Theology, an essay by Richard Dawkins.

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and “theology.” It remarked that “People want to know as much as possible about their origins.” I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

I proudly wore my Cubs jersey in public today. And I accessorized it will a lovely brown bag.

Some people will blame Piniella for pulling Zambrano too early in game 1, but I think that’s misplaced. The reason they’re saying that is because Marmol gift wrapped two runs, and if Zambrano hadn’t been pulled, Marmol wouldn’t have been in there. But let’s be realistic - Marmol had an unreal ERA for most of the year, and he decided to fall apart at the end.

But the real choke happened in game two. After Lilly’s meltdown on the mound, the message was sent. The team deflated right on the spot. It was reminiscent of the deflation they dealt themselves after the Bartman incident, only this time there was no fan to be a, ahem, scapegoat. They can only blame themselves.

Still, there’s reason to have heart. Lou Piniella came to Chicago and took a team that finished the previous season in last place to the playoffs. Another year or two with him at the helm should be long enough for the team to build that bond that carries a team to a championship.

So repeat after me, Chicago. “Oh well. Maybe next year.”

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins

As I read about human evolution in such important books as The Selfish Gene, The Mating Mind, and The Red Queen, I am finding a new appreciation for the extremely complicated and powerful functions of which the human mind is capable. Humans have evolved complex abilities to infer a great deal of information from small, key indicators, many of which our conscious minds are not even aware.

Indeed, the conclusion reached by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink holds true that while careful consideration may be the best strategy for simple choices, complex decisions are best made not by considering all the options and weighing pros and cons, but by simply trusting your instinct.

For instance, as is pointed out by Gerry Spence in How to Argue and Win Every Time (as well as books on body language) the body gives away the truth even the mouth is lying. Our instincts are looking out for our best interest even when our conscious mind is unaware of being lied to.

It is with that thought in mind that I continue to find myself amazed at the persistence with which people try to mislead one another — especially in those times when the deception is so obvious!

Take for example the classic suicidal cry for help. When a person genuinely does not want to live any more, they quietly and calculatingly set out on a path toward that end. People who talk about suicide, on the other hand, are not serious about doing it. When they do try, it’s always a token effort like eating painkillers or cutting wrists. The talkers don’t like the risk of actually succeeding. But don’t we always see through it?

Similarly, we all know that friend who is always up for coming along, but never has money. And when he promised to return the favor next time, you end up paying for him. Again. Still, he’s a good friend, and you like having him around. But when you’re talking about going bowling or meeting at the bar and someone says you should invite that guy, you all get an uncomfortable pit in your stomachs. Sure, he’s a friend and you want him along, but your instincts are already forewarning you that you’re going to be taken advantage of.

And when you run into your ex, and she starts telling you about all the wonderful things that have been happening in her life, doesn’t it go without saying that she’s embellishing (maybe even outright lying) in order to make the appearance that she’s got her life together and doesn’t need you? But the reality is that if you didn’t matter and she didn’t need you, she would have had no reason to bring any of that up. Indeed, the very fact of her telling you all of that nonsense is proof of the doublespeak. You don’t need to cognitively work all this out, of course, because your gut is already telling you right there, while she’s doing it.

Detectives trust their instincts. So do mothers. Why shouldn’t I? Some people call that God speaking to them. Other people (like the authors mentioned above) would call it an evolutionarily stable genetic trait. I say they’re both the same.

If I get an uncomfortable feeling about a situation, I don’t need to
care why I’m uncomfortable, I just need to know it and respond to it. If I don’t trust you, it’s your loss. Don’t waste my time asking me to explain why.

“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” -Jonathan Swift

I don’t know how this has been around for so long and I never saw it before. This is premium fodder for my crusade against fundamentalism.

Apparently, Dr. Laura — who, by the way, is not an actual doctor nor is she qualified to speak on issues of morality or spirituality — spouted off at the mouth about homosexuality, using the classic Leviticus 18:22 argument. This open letter to Dr. Laura was published online shortly thereafter, pointing out in humorous fashion the flaws in her reasoning.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Lev. 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

This is great. Most Christians have no problem with a biblical law allowing them to avoid a woman on her menstrual period, nor do they have a problem with a religious excuse for having Sundays off. But how willing would they be to put someone to death for working on the Sabbath?

Every Christian I know would immediately spout off about Satanism if they saw a bull burning on an altar as a sacrifice. They would never own slaves nor sell their own daughter into slavery. They certainly would see no sin in eating shellfish… or pork. And all of them trim the hair around their temples and shave their beards.

This exposes the principle flaw in using the Bible as a justification for your own bigotry. As Ann Lamott said, “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” (Quote of the day, 4/19/06)

I would be willing to bet that any statement, regardless of how absurd, could be defended by selectively quoting a verse from the Bible. Care to try me? We can make a game of it. Give me a ridiculous opinion, and I’ll find you a verse to support it.

I saw a clip on CNN while I was at lunch yesterday saying that President Dubya had vetoed a bill that would have given healthcare to 10 million poor children in America.

I really want to believe that there’s more to it. I want to believe that there was some pork in the bill that Bush was trying to prevent. I always doubt that anything is as cut-and-dried hateful as the media makes it out to be, so I can’t really imagine that he’s just some evil tryant who want to prevent poor kids from going to the hospital.

But then I read this:

Bush stated that “this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction. Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children.”

And it really was that clear to me. This douche-bag has spent his entire presidency looking out for the best interest of the healthcare industry (in his free time, when he wasn’t busy making new terrorist enemies) at the cost of actual health care for real people. He’s been fighting to protect the bottom line for a big industry rather than looking out for the good of the American people. And this is no different.

This bill was not vetoed because it was bad for Americans… it was vetoed because it might encourage some of the affected families to take the free government healthcare instead of paying for the overpriced insurance plans they have now. In other words, it would have actually been good for Americans, but at a cost to the evil corporate empire.

Not on his watch. No way.

I’ve been hearing a lot of criticism of AT&T lately.

$10 DSL
I heard the host of a radio program last Friday, talking about a deal that AT&T made with the FCC in order to get the okay on it’s BellSouth merger. One of the concessions is they have offer $10 DSL service.

The caller on the radio program related his experiences of calling the AT&T customer service line to get signed up for the program, whose rather strict criteria he meets. Every time he calls, however, he gets the runaround. The customer service representatives don’t seem to know of any such deal. The radio host insisted that AT&T is screwing with him and gave him a number for a federal bureau that investigates complaints of poor customer service.

DSL Trial Period
Later that evening, without any mention of AT&T, my brother begins to tell me the story of his debacle with the company.

His home phone service was provided by AT&T, as was his cable television. AT&T was also the provider for high-volume commercial phone and internet service at his place of business. When they ran a promotion late last year for a low-cost trial period with their DSL service, he decided to try that too.

For the duration of the trial period, the DSL never worked. He called periodically asking to have it canceled, but his complaints and request to cancel were me with argument from the customer service, insisting that it they could do some troubleshooting on their end and get it going. Their stonewalling tactic held him all the way through the end of the trial period, after which the service still did not work, but now they would happily disconnect him with no argument, if he pays the early-termination fee for the contract he is now implicitly locked into.

Worse, the early-termination fee is greater than the total that would be paid by simply paying by the terms of the contract to its completion. With this knowledge, he offered to simply pre-pay the entire amount of the contract, to completion, in exchange for having the service immediately disconnected, but they refused this.

In response to this horrible customer service, he has canceled his home phone service, changed cable tv providers, and moved his company’s voice and data services to a different provider. And now, my brother calls AT&T customer service every two weeks, just making sure to get someone on the line to guarantee him that, upon completion of the contract period, he can cancel his service without paying an early-termination fee.

New Terms of Service
The following morning, I saw a story on Boing Boing about new changes AT&T made to their terms of service, giving the company the right to terminate your connection for conduct that “tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.” I suppose it’s a good thing I’m not an AT&T internet customer, or else I might end up losing my service for writing this!

News of the TOS changes stirred up a lot of unhappy responses. Several web sites that complained about the change were contacted by AT&T, and informed that while the TOS allows them to do it, they won’t be cutting the users off for vocalizing complaints. AT&T explains that the new terms are for people who look at child porn or advocate race violence. Sure.

What It Means To Me
While I’m not an AT&T internet customer, I do have AT&T cellular service, thanks to their merger with Cingular. And to be frank about it, I hate my service. I used to like it, but since the merger, the service has been awful. Apparently former AT&T subscribers feel the same way.

This is, ironically, how I ended up with Cingular cell service. I was a Sprint customer, and while I loved Sprint’s service, they never had any of the new, cool phones. When they merged with Nextel, their service got worse, and I switched to Cingular. Now, I find myself in the same situation and once again ready to switch.

My contract ends in a few months, and the only thing AT&T has left to make me want to remain a customer is that they are the exclusive provider of service for Apple’s iPhone. However, considering the release of the new iPod Touch, which is essentially, an iPhone without the phone, I can get everything but the phone features and never have to lock into a deal with any provider to make it work. Or, alternatively, I could try to get a hold of the iPhone SIM unlock hack that allows your iPhone to work with any SIM-based wireless provider, sacrificing only the interactive voicemail provided by AT&T.

Based on the way AT&T is running things, I think I’ll be better served by just getting an iPod Touch, while moving my phone service to Verizon, which seems to be the favorite now for value as well as service.

Incidentally, if you want to get out of a cellular contract, take a look at Celltrade, a service that helps you transfer your contract responsibility to
someone else and walk away without the hefty penalty.

“Google’s new 411 service is free, fast and easy to use.” That’s what it says on the home page for GOOG-411, a Google-powered business directory designed to look up phone numbers using speach recognition.

Paul Boutin doesn’t seem to think it’s so fast or easy, though. He spent half an hour speed dialing GOOG-411 and trying various searches.

The verdict: Fail. At least until I can interrupt the redundant intro blurbs by immediately speaking a city and business name. Those seconds count, especially while driving.

I decided to give it a try for myself. After all, it’s free, right?

The prerecorded voice didn’t bother me the first time. In fact it all seemed rather efficient. But the strange thing is that when I called back a second time, the voice irritated me. I find myself agreeing with Boutin’s assessment.

A simple interface — the very brand of Google — is what their 411 service seems to be missing. Sure, the underlying technology is great. But perfection of design is found not when there’s nothing left to add, but when there’s nothing left to take away.

As a side note, on one of my calls to GOOG-411, I tried asking for Spanish language support. The speech recognition didn’t understand my first two attempts, and on the third try it wanted to connect me to El Paso, TX. I’m going to assume that Google isn’t supporting other languages at this time.