Wow. 13 years since I experimented with this NEW type of media. I love that others have taken it on, and enlightened me. Grieved that others have used it as poison for their own purposes.

Yet, that is what life in this Universe is. The sweet fruit can kill us. Harsh assertions can save us.

A new age.  From now on, to survive, we'll have to get a whole lot smarter about being smart. Turns out, we are totally programmable and manipulative. Build your intellective defences high, and strong.

Oh, and do so for your kids. I've retired from teaching after 36 yrs where I attempted that, with some success. Counting on starving heroes is not your best bet.

Look up. Read the last two Steven Pinker books.  If you can.

And hope!

KFest 2006

One of my hobbies is the Apple II computer. It was one of the first computers out, way back in the early 1980's, and was one of those technological wonders that kicked my life in new and wonderful direction.

So, a bunch of us Apple II geeks get together once a year in Kansas City, MO (this is where the K in KFest comes from), at Rockhurst University, to attend and present sessions, hang out, and stay up late. A Geek Summer Camp.

Oh boy, did I have a good time. B-{)

Crappy weekend

Nothing bums a teacher out more than losing a student to premature death. Our small school lost a young lady in a 4 wheeler accident. She was the sister of a couple of boys that were in my classes. And right before the last week of school too.

Not only that, but the son of one of our teachers, who used to be a student of mine, took his own life. *sigh*

Mead

One of my projects back in 2004 was to try making a mead. My Dad was a college Humanities teacher, and Beowulf and drunk Vikings were often topics in our house. B-{)

From my notes, I had a tough time getting the yeast to take off on this, and finally attributed it to having too low a pH. I corrected that with some calcium carbonate and it took off.

I'm drinking it now. It's a dry beverage, and apparently I was impatient when I bottled it, because there is sediment that clouds the mead after the first two glasses. It doesn't affect the taste, but having two crystal clear glasses to three cloudy ones is sort of disappointing. Lesson learned. Patience.

I'll definitely be making another batch. It tends to be more expensive to make than my usual efforts... perhaps all of $3/bottle, but well worth it. B-{)

Pineapple Wine

After 3 years, I've got another batch of pineapple wine churning away in the primary fermenter (7 gallon food safe plastic bucket). Like last time, the little yeasties love the juice, and foamed up strongly.

This makes a nice white wine, although I like it slightly sweet, otherwise you can't taste much pineapple. It's certainly worth making a little mess for. B-{)

Tituscular Paradox

A short article I wrote on one of the most obvious Biblical errors.

Tituscular Paradox

One particular gem of an example of Biblical error is found in Titus 1:12 which follows:

Titus 1:12

Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."

This is historically attributed to Epimenides, a Cretian philosopher from around 600 BC, and here, supposedly related by Paul to Titus in this Epistle. The problem is whether Epimenides is lying or not.

At first glance, this seems to represent a problem since if the statement that "Cretans are always liars" is true, then Epimenides, being a Cretan, would have to be lying and his statement would have to be false, leading to a paradox.

Unfortunately, if Epimenides is lying about "Cretans are always liars", there is no paradox, since this means that Cretans don't always lie, when means there is at least one Cretan out there who must tell the truth every now and then. This Cretan doesn't have to be Epimenides.

This appears to put a damper on using Titus 1:12 as an example of a Biblical error, since the only way it can become a paradox is if Epimenides is telling the truth. He could be lying with no problems.

Fortunately Paul comes to our rescue with Titus 1:13:

This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith


If Paul is telling the truth, then we have a paradox. If Paul is lying, then how can we trust anything else he supposedly says in the Bible?

Probability Applied to Biblical Inerrancy

This is an article that was published in the Sept/Oct. 1999 issue of "The Skeptical Review".

Every now and then, creationists and biblical apologists trot out vastly large numbers concerning the probability that atoms could join spontaneously to form life. Perhaps we could use the same mathematical tools to answer the question of Bible inerrancy. This will entail a short lesson in probability, so it is my hope that those of you with mathphobia can stick around a little longer.

Probability helps us measure "chance," as with the flip of a coin, the roll of dice, or the dealing of a poker hand. It can also be adapted to events or situations where we are willing to ascribe a numeric value as to the possibilities that an event is true or false. By definition, the probability that a specific event will happen equals the number of favorable ways divided by the number of possible ways. The probability of flipping a coin and coming up with heads is therefore 1/2 (the one favorable event, heads, divided by the two possible outcomes, heads or tails). This can be expressed as a decimal (0.5) or as a percentage (50%).

The probability of an event that is certain is 1, while the probability of an event that is impossible is 0. We can then express an estimate of an event as a percentage between 0% and 100%. If we start adding independent events, things start to get very interesting. An independent event is one in which the outcome of one event has no effect on the outcome of the other. To find the probability of a sequence of events (for example, the probability of flipping two coins and getting two heads) is found by multiplying the probability of each independent event times the probability of the other. For example, we noticed above that the chances are 1/2 of getting heads on the toss of a coin, so if two coins are simultaneously tossed, the probability of getting heads on both coins is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 or one out of four. (If the two coins are tossed four times, the probability is that two heads would be obtained on at least one of the tosses.) The probability then of getting all heads with three coins is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 or one in eight.

Now we get to the good part. If we look at each of the explanations that Bible apologists give us for the inconsistencies, interpretations of prophecies, scientific errors, mistranslations, copyist errors and others as independent events (an explanation as to whether trees were created before humans would not affect the outcome of one that explains how many women went to Jesus's tomb), and assign a numeric value as to what we feel is the probability that explanation is true, we can calculate the probability that the entire sequence of events is true, and that the Bible is indeed inerrant.

Our limits on the number we choose has to fall between 0% (after all, if it's a possibility, it must have a value greater than 0 or impossible) and 100% It obviously can't have a value of 100% unless there is absolute proof that it is true.

We can be charitable, and assign a value of near certainty that each and every one of their arguments has a probability of 99% of being the correct explanation for each inconsistency. I am choosing this value even though I realize it is extraordinarily high, mainly for simplifying calculations later on. I will be using the decimal 0.99 to refer to 99% from this point.

Recall that we can find the probability of a sequence of events merely by multiplying the probability of each event times the other. In this case, we wish to find the probability that the Bible is indeed inerrant by multiplying the probability that each explanation of the inconsistencies has a certainty of 99% (0.99) of being true.

I have no idea of the total number of inconsistencies in the Bible, but a count of those compiled by Donald Morgan in a file I found on the internet called "Biblical Inconsistencies" numbered more than 330. By multiplying the number 0.99 times itself 330 times, we come up with a probability of 3.6%, or 1 chance out of nearly 28 that the Bible is inerrant! If your math skills haven't atrophied, you might recall that taking a number times itself is the same as taking it to a certain power or exponent. For example 2 x 2 = 4 would be taking 2 to the second power or squaring it; 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 would be taking 2 to the fourth power. Many calculators have an exponent key that will enable you to try these calculations with relative ease. My calculation was entered as 0.99^330.

If there are 1000 inconsistencies in the Bible that need explanations, then we would enter 0.99^1000 and get an answer of 0.0043% or 1 chance out of 23,164 that the Bible is inerrant! Obviously, the higher the number of inconsistencies we find, the lower the probability that the Bible is indeed inerrant.

Now, I chose 0.99 to simplify the math, but if there are two or more "how-it-could-have-happened" explanations for a particular event, we might assume 100% certainty that at least one of them is correct, but the probability that one particular one (say of three choices) was correct, would have to be 33%, or 0.33. So for at least this event, we would have to multiply our series times 0.33 with drastic effect! (Mind you, the entire series wouldn't consist of 0.33 to whatever power... merely that particular event!)

Because of this, each additional conflicting how-it-could-have-happened scenario that apologists come up with shatters the probability that the Bible is inerrant. Each additional interpretation of prophecies does the same. Oddly enough, it doesn't even matter how bizarre their arguments might be! The more, the better (for us at least)!

Rational men and women are quite accustomed to uncertainty. Those proclaiming inerrancy will have to present absolute proof of each of their tales if they're to avoid the slippery slopes of probability. Without those absolute proofs, the rational person when asked "Is the Bible inerrant?" could only answer, "Probably not."

Belated intro

OK, I jumped right into dumping some of my efforts before explaining what my positions are. Duh. B-{)

I worry about the recent battle from the Religious Right and their attacks on science (evolution, global warming, stem cell research), and their attempts at legislating their religious beliefs into law.

Our country's founders understood the mistake that this produced and made sure church and state were in separate spheres. Witness the nastiness of the Taliban, or Afghans threatening to execute Christian converts to see why keeping religion out of law is important.

Many of these fundamentalist types make the claim that the Bible backs their position, and that it is the "Word of God" and without error. I've read the Bible. I found errors. I'll be attempting to demonstrate these errors, so that rational folks can understand that the fundamentalists don't have a leg to stand on.

I'll be posting several articles, some that I've published in the past, that I hope will demonstrate how weak the Biblical arguments are. And possibly some articles on winemaking, George Washington Inaugural Buttons, and science as well. B-{)

Yet another letter to an editor

And another.. (which wasn't published... the cowards)

December 9, 2005

Editor
The Hugoton Hermes
P.O. Box 849
522 South Main
Hugoton, KS 67951

Dear Editor,
While Mr. Scott made use of his Constitutionally protected right to preach on this forum, I plan to use my equally protected right to correct his errors and perhaps even teach.

If Mr. Scott’s dictionary does indeed define religion as he states, then it uses the word as a very broad brush. The primary definition that the three dictionaries I consulted differed by specifically mentioning a supernatural power, and I’m certain that this is what most people think of when they hear the word.

Mr. Scott then attempts to paint the theory of Evolution as a religion. Most of us soon see the absurdity that results when we realize that astrophysics, astronomy, geology and many other fields of study suddenly become religions headed by their respective “founding fathers” acting as Popes, and Mother Nature as the head of it all. Oh well, Mr. Scott can believe what he wants, and obviously does.

One of the many mistakes Mr. Scott made in his letter was a quote that he attributed to Sir Arthur Keith, whom he claimed also wrote a foreword to The Origin of Species. I’m afraid he mixed in part of a quote from a Prof. Louis Bounoure with an unverified “quote” by Sir Keith. Sir Keith certainly didn’t believe in special creation as Mr. Scott seems to assert. He was an evolutionist.

Continuing, there haven’t been 100 editions of “Origin of the Species” as Mr. Scott claims, although several creationist websites assert that there was a 100th anniversary edition that Sir Keith wrote for. Alas, no one has come up with a copy, which is odd considering that it would have come out in 1959, and books that age aren’t uncommon. Too bad that Sir Keith died 4 years before this book was supposed to have come out.

Mr. Scott’s mention of the Piltdown man is interesting. It demonstrates the power behind science. Hoaxes get caught. Not like religious hoaxes like the Shroud of Turin, or the vast numbers of “splinters from the Cross” that fill churches in Europe. As Mark Twain said, “there must be enough splinters of the True Cross to build a ship!” At least science corrects itself.

Mr. Scott’s quote of some Grant Jeffery points more towards Mr. Jeffery’s ignorance than any problems with evolution. Scientists have found thousands of “links” that demonstrate that species change over time. Perhaps Mr. Jeffery meant that once a link is found, it’s not “missing” anymore and that’s why we haven’t found any missing ones. Perhaps. I’d suggest Mr. Scott do some internet research on what scientists have found concerning whales, for example.

We see that tired old analogy of “Dogs don’t produce cats” dragged out again too. I inform Mr. Scott that biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. We observe this all the time. And we’ve also found evidence not only in the fossil record, but the actual DNA between species.

That “ Cow giving birth to a lamb” business is more the religious matter, as it’s related as a miracle by Josephus in his 'Wars of the Jews'. At no time has science ever made such outrageous claims. Look closely. It’s the creationists building straw men to beat upon. I won’t even bother wondering what kind of body parts God has if we’re made in his image.

Evolution does a much better job of answering questions such as “Which came first, man or birds?”. We have fossilized birds tens of millions of years older than the earliest humanoid fossil. But Genesis can’t make up its mind. Consider the “birds first” version of Genesis 1:20-21, then 1:26-27 with the “human first” version of Genesis 2:7-8 then 2:19.

There is a term called abiogenesis that Mr. Scott has confused with evolution, as he illustrated with his Cadillac fantasy. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis of life from non-biological matter, and I suppose that’s where he made his mistake. Evolution doesn’t even address the origins of life. It specifically addresses only the origin of species. It’s odd how creationists keep confusing the two, and while they are attacking one, seem to feel they are bashing the other.

Finally though, Mr. Scott abandons his diatribe against evolution, and demonstrates his ignorance of the Constitution. It’s odd that he asserts that evolution is a religion, then demands that we “prohibit the free exercise thereof…” which is of course, unconstitutional. Even more interesting is his assertion that we have a “one-way” wall protecting the church from the state. A short study of history shows that our founding fathers were well aware of the evils that happened to bloodstained Europe when church and state climbed into each others pockets. At least now, in America, a change of government doesn’t cause the slaughters that used to result when Protestant or Catholic kings swapped places. We don’t need an American Taliban.

Mr. Scott would be hard pressed to point out any Amendments in the Constitution that can also be found in the Bible. The only time the Constitution even mentions God is during the use of conventional dating practice with “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. It’s a Biblical principle to mention the Lord in a document only when referring to a date?

It’s difficult to see how Mr. Scott can try to revise history by claiming that these authors intended this to be a Christian nation from any evidence he can find in the Constitution. Perhaps he’s heard of the “Treaty of Tripoli”, a document signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797 which states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;….” . I think that says it clearly enough.

Clearly, Mr. Scott believes deeply in his faith, but he should get used to people defending science and the separation of church and state if his weapons of choice continue to be false analogies, misquotes, misconceptions and unsupported assertions.

Sincerely,

Kirk Mitchell

A letter to an editor

A letter to our local newspaper in response to an idiotic editorial


Editor
The Hugoton Hermes
P.O. Box 849
522 South Main
Hugoton, KS 67951

Dear Editor,
I’ll have to admit I was only moderately amused by the misconceptions you authored in your editorial entitled “Progress In Education”. I guess I expected better of you.

Science is the study of natural phenomenon. God is a supernatural being and therefore outside any possible scientific study. Labeling Darwinism as “We don’t need God” is simply absurd, since it can’t even refer to God. Even the 20+ major religions and thousands of sects can’t agree on the properties that God may possess.

Your “balanced view of evolution” becomes terribly unbalanced by introducing the supernatural into a field of study that specifically excludes it because it’s impossible to study it! Unless you can produce the scientific “facts and observations” about this creator that theologians were previously unaware of, and shock the world!

As for any particular “order” you seem to observe, the recent tsunami, hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados have surely disordered matters a bit.

I don’t have any idea where you get your sources, but we can’t compare our DNA with our forbearers, as they’ve been extinct for a very long time. However, if your reading list includes some of the more common science magazines like Discover, Scientific American, or Natural History, you’ll find plenty of articles that report that we share between 96-98% of the genes with the chimpanzee. Of course, maybe your Designer just wanted to reuse some old parts.

Frankly, given the freedom of folk of faith to build as many churches and to participate in them as they wish, the efforts of these “intelligent designer” IDiots to build a pulpit on each science teacher’s desk is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Let science deal with the Natural, and faith deal with the Supernatural.

Sincerely,

Kirk Mitchell