So Much For The New Atheism.

I post this without much comment, mainly because the story itself is its own comment.

According to a new survey by the National Science Foundation, nearly half of all Americans say astrology, the study of celestial bodies’ purported influence on human behavior and worldly events, is either “very scientific” or “sort of scientific.”

By contrast, 92 percent of the Chinese public think horoscopes are a bunch of baloney.

What’s more alarming, researchers show in the 2014 Science and Engineering Indicators study, is that American attitudes about science are moving in the wrong direction. Skepticism of astrology hit an all-time high in 2004, when 66 percent of Americans said astrology was total nonsense. But each year, fewer and fewer respondents have dismissed the connections between star alignment and personality as bunk.

Not surprisingly, those with less science education and less “factual knowledge” have become increasingly willing to accept astrology as legitimate science, with 65 percent of such individuals considering the pseudo-science credible in 2012, up from 48 percent in 2010.

Young people are also especially inclined to offer astrology scientific legitimacy, with a majority of Americans ages 18 to 24 considering the practice at least “sort of” scientific, and the 25-34 age group is not far behind them.

Some might feel optimistically, that as people become more 'enlightened' and turn away from what we might call traditional religious faith, society as a whole will become more rational; more scientific-thinking.


This seems to bear out the paraphrase of G. K. Chesterton that if people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing; they'll believe in anything.


Take Care


h/t the mcj

Just Observin'

Nigeria has just passed a rather over-the-top law regarding homosexual behaviour.
From Here...

While not at all attemping to defend or justify the law itself or the penalties applied, I find it interesting to consider some of the comments condemning President Goodluck Jonathan. I'm sure they would reflect the prevailing opinion of a wide cross-section of our own society.

But here's the intersting thing, as I see it; until the 1960's, Canada, the UK and the US had similar laws on their own books - similar in the sense that they would be classified as, "anti-gay" by today's standards, if not similar in force or application.

This brings me back to what I have called, "cultural," or, "chronological arrogance." It is the tendency we have to look back and condemn previous generations for their attitudes on various subjects, inferring that we would have been differfent. It assumes that we now have everything right, while previous generations were somehow blind or mistaken.

With regard to those who so roundly condemn Mr Jonathan, his detractors might also condemn Winston Churcdhill, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt or Lester Pearson, all of whom led the governments of their respective countries while these, "anti-gay" laws were on the books. Granted, these men may not have been responsible for the passage of these laws, but couldn't, we might ask, they have seen their injustice and gotten rid of them?

Could it be possible that some future generation will look back at ours and wonder how we could have gotten some aspect of our own time so terribly wrong; something that by the consensus of society is now considered entirely correct, but which future generations will see was badly mistaken? Climate change for instance? Even in myh own time I have seen panic predictions come and go on climate, food, over-population, Y2K and more.

Like I say, I just see things and wonder...

Take Care

Morrissey Compares Eating Meat To Pedophilia

From here...
This story is a couple of days old but it is so ridiculous I just have to say something. I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with the Smiths, but apparently it's former lead singer, showing an immense lack of critical thought, has said,

"I see no difference between eating animals and paedophilia. They are both rape, violence, murder,"

I don't know how he figures eating meat is rape, for instance, unless he has a different definition of rape, but it would be interesting to hear his explanation.


But my question is not only for him, but others like Pamela Anderson or Paul McCartney, who stand so adamantly against something like, say, our seal hunt.  And my question would be this, "Where do you draw the line?" At what point is it OK or not OK to take something's life? Is it cuteness? Have you ever set a mouse trap? Have you ever swatted a mosquito? I would like them to explain exactly what they see as the difference.

Have they, or this Morrissey guy ever eaten a slice of bread made with wheat from a field that was treated with insecticides? At what point to they compromise their stated or alleged principles? Where's their line, because they certainly have one. Otherwise they should be out protesting flyswatter manufacturers.


Just askin',


Take Care

Freedom From Religion? Really?

I was reflecting on the various antics of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and it struck me that if they get their way, which can really be narrowed to, "freedom from Christianity," they will not have accomplished their stated aim, but will have replaced a relatively benign and benelovent religion with one they will find far more oppressive.

The way things are looking, if Christianity is replaced in Western Society, it will not be by atheism, but by Islam.

Just sayin'

Take Care

Merry Christmas!

Darwin's Doubt

Eric Metaxas and Stephen Meyer, author of, "Darwin's Doubt" discuss Intelligent Design on Vimeo.



It appears that the hard-core Darwinists of today are as closed-minded as what they accuse the Church as being historically. They are the modern equivalent to flat-earthers. We are told the science is settled? Science is never settled. It always investigates, always questions, always examines all evidence and all possibilities.

Over an hour, but fascinating.

Take Care

Edson Home Dedication Ceremony

This is the dedication ceremony for the largest rural Habitat for Humanity build in Canadian history. Much of it is thanks to my friends Bob and Karen (Karen was the project coordinator, I believe) from Edson, where I lived for about 8 years. Karen's speech begins at about the 1:45 mark. In her thanks, she acknowledged Jesus as her Lord and Saviour, but this part was not included in the video. Kind of weird, as HFH professes itself as a Christian organization.

Anyway, congratulations, Karen and Bob. Job well done.

(And if anyone cares, the apartment building in the background at the 3:47 mark is where Eva and I lived our first year in Edson.)

Take Care