Blog

Just got off the phone with my brother about the passing of someone we used to know quite well. He wasn’t someone we’d seen in a while, but he was a friend none the less. I haven’t seen him since I left town, but I always hoped the best for him. 26 years old, dead of a heart attack.

My condolences to his family and friends. Mike was one of the most unique people I can think of. Rest in peace.

Link to obituary

I just don’t even know where to start with this one.

Someone named, and I’m not making this up, Joel Hoard, Oh Yeah? has written an op/ed piece in the Record that is so unbelievably disconnected from any point, it’s painful to read. His politics aside (and he’s merely the latest cog in the Record’s agenda wheel), his argument about the “debate” (a term even I’ll use lightly) between Creationists and the scientific community is, uh, lacking.

In fact, he succumbs to the same thing of which he (rightly) criticizes those promoting Intelligent Design; he has a conclusion already drawn and he’s writing from that perspective. I’ll give him a minor pass because it’s an op/ed, of a sort, and that’s a frequent technique for these things. My criticism is more concerned with the unstated and unaddressed conclusions.

He raises the issue that creationists use the excuse that there are missing links in the evolutionary record. His rebuttal basically amounts to “Yeah, duh”. Wow, what a convincing argument. I’d never thought about it from the perspective that, as a non-biologist versed in evolutionary theory, I would know that. To quote from his article, I should call everyone in my Creationist camp with “Oh shit, dude. Turns out Darwin was right.”

You know what, I was going to point-by-point this op-ed, but I don’t have the time or energy. I’ll boil it down to one, fundamental problem. Mr. Hoard, you’re blind to your own faults in this discussion. I know you’re probably a really good student, get lots of accolades from your profs and all that. Hell, you might even be published. I didn’t Google you so forgive my uncaring attitude to your potential literati status. But damn, man, you accuse the other side of “trying to dictate the personal lives of free-thinking adults”, when really, at the core of your argument, you’re doing the same thing.

You’re telling people who, whatever your view of the world, have decided and believe that something or someone had a hand in making this world. I know it’s really hard for you to step down and wallow with the common man, but like it or not, a majority of this country believe in a god of some kind, be it Allah, Jesus, or just Creator. You’re telling them, no, you’re accusing them of not only stupidity, but insinuating that if they don’t subscribe to your worldview, they are ignorant morons deserving of the world’s ridicule. That’s a very progressive, enlightened, rational attitude.

For a long time, the world over, a whole hell of a lot of people have considered the act of creating the universe a pretty big deal. If I had to ask you one question, it would be the only one you don’t seem to have an answer to: Is nothing sacred anymore?

Taking Intelligent Design out of the discussion for second, evolution actual doesn’t contradict a creationist worldview. Science needs to learn something that religious people (who aren’t all on the Right, by the way) learned well a long time ago: you don’t get to have it all at once. Evolution as a theory is a solid scientific cornerstone, to that there is usually no doubt. What the many in the scientific community, and you, miss is that you immediately jump from “creatures evolve” to “there is no God”. As someone who understands evolution, try applying the same evolutionary patience to convincing someone of your views.

The Michigan Daily – Joel Hoard: The evolution of creationism

I really don’t care if the U builds a dorm at the Frieze site, but this letter to the editor in the Ann Arbor News is just too funny to pass up. After making three reasonable arguments, mostly surrounding the historical nature of the building, Susan Wineberg blows us away with that crescendo point number 4.

It’s not something tangible, it’s something so emotional that only… “Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter Ani DiFranco” can tell us what it means.

A fourth reason is the emotional impact on the community. Many graduates have a visceral attachment to this building and demolishing it destroys memories and our link to the past, which Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter Ani DiFranco notes “reinforce our humanity.”

There must be a ton of graduates who have lost their memories because the University has probably demolished more than it’s share of buildings in the 188 years it’s been around. Maybe students should have visceral attachments to something besides the buildings.

It’s not like they need a new dorm. Oh, wait…

Link

Like Think Geek, but with less stuff. Cool T-shirts include the Ubergeek Einstein tee, the Wack Apple knock-off tee, and, of course, the music pirate tee.

Split Reason | T-shirts, hats and other apparel for the Internet Generation.

I’ve turned comments back on for new posts. SixApart released a patch (that was quick!) to take care of the comment mailer issues.

Damn it! I bought the Bruce Hornsby Greatest Hits album from iTunes last night (stop laughing; I like it). At least 3 of the tracks are live tracks. I happen to like some live tracks, but the vast majority of live tracks (not just these) are utter crap. If we have to label explicit lyrics, we need to ammend the law so every live track be labeled as such.

This has been a good week for comics and their writers.

First up, Penny Arcade does it again, taking the major sports leagues to task for these idiotic exclusive deals with various game companies. Why is this bad for video games? Because.

And Auchtoon does it again. Now, I’m no economist (and nowhere near retirement) so this social security thing hasn’t blipped too much on my radar (I know, I know), but Auchtoon takes a decidedly local spin on this issue. Hell, even I chuckled. Link

And, of course, Dilbert is killer this week as well. Well, Sunday was anyway.

In a tribute fitting a man of his caliber, an asteroid has been named in honor of the author, humorist, and activist. Asteroid 2001 DA42 is now known as douglasadams. MSNBC helped in the naming process, although it’s not exactly clear what they did other than suggest him as a candidate. If they were the only ones, I would be extremely surprised. Nonetheless, the asteroids name obviously has significance for any Adams’ fan. I let MSNBC say it:

Not only did it memorialize the year of Adams’ death (2001) and his initials (DA), but it also referenced the number 42 — which is absurdly meaningful in the “Hitchhiker” saga as the “answer to the Ultimate Question.”

It’s an honor far too long in coming, but well deserved and appreciated by his millions of fans. I know I personally want to thank Adams for giving me the spark to read and write, showing me that brilliance, humor, and science are not mutually exclusive things.

Link

There’s a huge vulnerability in the current version of Movabletype, so I’m disabling comments. Hopefully a patch will be out soon and comments will return.