Blog Jones

It is with great dismay that I observe the rise of modern-day anti-scientists who seem determined to push our society back into the Dark Ages. Distressingly, these attacks against knowledge are often cloaked in the robes of religion.

Take, for example, the case of Robert Sungenis. This guy is a modern-day geocentrist and author of a 1,000 page book called “Galileo Was Wrong.”

According to the Sun-Herald article linked above, he is convinced, due to verses from the Bible, that the earth does not move around the sun. He tries to explain away evidence to the contrary, claiming that there is no proof that the earth revolves around the sun.

But what about Foucault’s famous pendulum? Its plane of oscillation revolves every 24 hours, showing the rotation of the planet. If the Earth didn’t rotate, it wouldn’t oscillate.

Nope, Sungenis said: There just may be some other force propelling it, such as the pull of stars.

If you’re really determined, you can always find some way to explain away any piece of evidence thrown at you.

The man’s website, FixedEarth.com, only serves to further prove his lack of credibility. He uses terms like “the Copernican Counterfeit” and “occult mathematics” as well as a writing/design style that is vaguely reminiscent of the famous Time Cube guy (warning: terrible web design, profanity, raving lunacy).

The point is this: Science needs to be based on evidence, not religious dogma. Quoting the article again, “As Galileo famously quoted 16th century Cardinal Caesar Baronius, ‘The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.’”

Neither the Bible nor any other religious work have any place in the realm of science. I say again, base your science on the objective evidence, not on any religious text.

If your interpretation of the Bible is right, then it will stand up to the evidence. If it isn’t, then you need to fix your interpretation of the Bible.

Carefully and objectively crossexamine the evidence. Research. Test your theories against opposing theories. But whatever you do, don’t throw out scientific evidence because it disagrees with your worldview. That isn’t faith, it’s ignorance.

(Via Newsvine)

This is interesting; a guy by the name of Matt Dubay is suing to avoid having to pay child support in a suit that the National Center for Men calls “Roe v. Wade for Men.”

According to the story:

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
…
“There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have — it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,” said Mel Feit, director of the men’s center. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.”
…
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
…
Feit doesn’t advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

“If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible,” Feit said. “If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”

It’s an interesting case. Of course, if the couple were married, this would be much less of a problem. And, of course, abortion is almost always the wrong answer. (I say almost because I think you can justify abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at stake. It’s sort of a self-defense measure.)

But as I understand the law–IANAL^*–the mother seems to be the only one who has the right to give the baby up for adoption, and the father has no say in it. That seems inequitable.

If there is going to be similar responsibility–that of caring for the child–then there should be a corresponding similarity in control. If the mother wants to give up the baby, she can; if the father wants to give up the baby, he should be able to as well.

^* IANAL means “I am not a lawyer”

Random Thought: You would not believe how good eight hours of sleep feels.

I fell asleep while doing homework last night at about 8:30; at 4:30AM I woke up, fed the dog, brushed my teeth, and went back to bed for another hour before my usual morning routine.

I can think coherently and focus on things. I was able to stay awake for today’s chapel message. I just feel good.

I need to do that more often.

KMOV, the CBS affiliate in Missouri, reports that the Legislature is considering declaring Christianity the official “majority” religion.

The resolution would recognize “a Christian god,” and it would not protect minority religions, but “protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, “a greater power exists,” and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, “justified recognition.”

I cannot believe this. How do these people get elected?

I don’t think you should be allowed to take a public office until you read the United States Constitution at least once. Ammendment 1 is pretty clear on the topic of official state religions. (Lest you think that this prohibition applies only to the US Congress, recall that the Supreme Court decided in Gitlow v. New York that the Bill of rights also applied to the individual states.)

Leaving aside the blatant illegality of the bill, consider it from a religious perspective: When did Christ ever say that Christians should use the government to suppress opposing religions?

This is utter nonsense.

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
- Nikola Tesla

(Via Google Personalized Home Page)