Monthly Archives: September 2004

God and evolution

This is an extended response to Louise’s question here Is what you are looking at why religions are ‘adaptive’ despite being counter-factual in so many ways? Well, differing religions are counter-factual in different ways. Classic Calvinism is beautiful, because it … Continue reading Continue reading

Posted in God | 4 Comments

Is that all?

Robert X Cringely prepares to flee a hurricane: Given that my personal space in the Town & Country minivan is just enough for a briefcase, here’s what I’m putting in mine. I’m taking my notebook computer so I can work … Continue reading Continue reading

Posted in Software | Comments Off on Is that all?

Improbable trivia

I invite you to guess — it’s impossible that even Louise should know — which 19th century authority is quoted 157 times in the OED. Among the words partially defined by her usage are “Celtic”, “darling”, “deodar”, “pelt”, “photo”, and … Continue reading Continue reading

Posted in Literature | 6 Comments

Sturgeon’s law confirmed

On the Internet, of course, it reads that 99.99% of everything is crap. I’ve just found, via Pharyngula, part of the 0.01% — the invasive species weblog. Continue reading

Posted in Blather | 1 Comment

Thought for the day

It was disillusioning enough that Bush could steal an election last time. But if he actually wins this one squarely, what on earth is the point of democracy? The justification of democracy has always been that it is a mechanism … Continue reading Continue reading

Posted in War | Comments Off on Thought for the day

God and climate

One of the things that I think Richard Dawkins has wrong is that he writes off all religions as equally irrational. I think it is worthwhile to ask why some religions spread and others don’t. Simply to write them all … Continue reading Continue reading

Posted in God | 35 Comments