Yokels

Wow. Thornton a Shark. Thoughts?

Response:

Ninja,

I haven't checked your site in a while, bub. Today I read the article you posted about Intelligent Design, and while I'm not willing to say that Intelligent Design itself is crap, I will say that the article is a bit goofy.

Here's the thing: "An imaginative person would find it difficult to believe the world begins and ends in the things that can be tested scientifically." That's the crux of the whole article, and it's here that I have to call bullshit. Bullshit! There, it's been called.

Let me start by saying that I know that you and I have talked about this before, and you know my stance. I don't really disbelieve in God, per se, but I don't really care if there is one or not. If he's out there, he's not doing a very good job. If there isn't one, that's just fine. I don't think there's any sort of force shaping our universe, but I can't really convince anyone of this fact. I read what I can about physics, and the origins of everything, but basically, popular science still says that it all began with a "bubbling chaos" and that still doesn't tell us why there was any energy out there in the first place. Neither position makes any sense to me. Maybe that makes me an agnostic, or maybe just a really lazy atheist. Either way, I got nothing.

But to say that somehow believing in God or Intelligent Design is a sign of intelligence and imagination is garbage. Kurt Vonnegut, Ambrose Bierce, H.P. Lovecraft, Spaulding Grey, Ernest Hemingway, and Aldous Huxley - disbelievers all. Read their stuff and try to tell me it's not imaginative. Want some scientists who are "lamed" by their lack of belief in a higher power? Noam Chomsky, Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russel, Carl Sagan - hell, even Darwin had some problems with this. And don't even get me started with your philosphers - Neitzche (I can never spell that), Hume, Sartre, etc... but you know more about that than I do. I can understand if just creating a list of some dudes that don't believe in Intelligent Design seems specious to you, because the point is that using a few naked examples of authors and scientists to set forth a point (like the author of that editorial did), is garbage.

I agree with the author that "Intelligent Design is a worthy subject of personal introspection," and that it's currently getting bad press because of some nutbags that live in the Bible Belt. That still doesn't change the fact that it's irresponsible to pull a few quotes from famous people to support your position.

You can't be "too rational" in the scientific sense. Science depends on imagination and rationality, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. And hey, neither one depends on faith.

Here's a quote for you: "The most serious parody I have ever heard was this: In the beginning was nonsense, and the nonsense was with God, and the nonsense was God."

Betcha know who that is. In the end this quote is useless, because it doesn't answer anything. It's just a guy saying "no," which is not how things should be done. The guy who wrote the article is also saying "no", only in more words. In any case, quotes and anecdotes can be used any way you want, and that's how I got through college with a B average. The search for answers - scientifically - should be conducted with the belief that science can answer anything. That's what the scientific method is all about.

In conclusion, Peter Scowen can suck my balls for trying to sneak a point past us all.

Sincerely,
Samsonov14

Magic vs Bird - Crosby vs. Ovechkin: Take One

We're a quarter of a season into their careers, but I think the Crosby/Ovechkin debate has been settled. I'm not just talking about last night, but having watched these guys for at least portions of a dozen games apiece I don't think the question warrants additional discussion. Ovechkin is a superstar player. He's got moves and balls and a shot you can't see up to the moment it happens. He's like Kovalchuk or Nash, but with more personality. And really that's why I think the debate is over. You can compare #8 to other players out there today. And, no doubt, they're awesome players. But the only comparison you can make regarding Sidney is to legends of the game, not mere All-Stars. Crosby has all of those moves and the shot and vision, but he also has that other thing that you can't quite put your finger on. He's above everyone else out there, skating around, looking down and finding the lane to pass or drive the net. He'll turn in a corner and know his linemate is standing crease-side for a tap-in. He'll deek the crap out of three opponents and still pocket the backhander in the roof, rather than risk a miracle save by sliding it in along the ice. So yeah, he's 15h in the league in scoring. And yes, he is a minus (-5) for his career so far. Sure, Ovechkin has more goals. But Sid's 18 years old and his game will only improve. And by the time it does he'll have Calders and Harts and Cups and Smythes to fill a garage. And at the end of this Magic vs. Bird debate, he'll be Jordan.

Frozen Bubble. Another Snood clone.

On HBO Latino, "The Mighty Ducks" is called "Hockey Team."

I don't have a navigation system, but I might have to get one now. This is brilliant.

Okay then.

I'm re-reading Brave New World. According to the inside cover, this book belongs to Karen Coloczyk. It's the same book I read when I was eleven, and the pages are all yellow and crispy. Back in the day, it set someone back a full 75 cents to buy it. It's a Bantam Classic! This book is old. Cavalier page turning results in dog-ears and orphaned pages. For Karen's sake, it's important to be careful here.

Here - for the record - is page 146. Get this:

"Quick, quick!" yelled Bernard. "They'll be killed if you don't hurry. They'll... Oh!" Annoyed by his chatter, one of the policemen had given him a shot from his water pistol. Bernard stood for a second or two wambling unsteadily on legs that seemed to have lost their bones, their tendons, their muscles, to have become mere sticks of jelly, and at last not even jelly - water: he tumbled in a heap on the floor.

This Frankenstein's Monster of a paragraph is one of the worst I've ever seen, but if you read it a few times, you can't help but love Aldous Huxley. Wambling! Is that even a real word?

Yes. Yes it is. I looked it up.

T-shirt.