It is HOT . . . and dry . . .here comes the humidity but no rain . . .

22 05 2007

We’ve let our beautiful big golf course yard go without edging, trimming and mulching for a couple of years now while we worked seven days a week trying to afford to pay someone else to do it. We finally had to bite the bullet, call a hit squad of young men with ladders and loud tools to come dig us out of our overgrown warren. Some trees will have to go too, before hurricane season starts next week.

In this traditional family of unschoolers, dad just has to pay for it all but mom has been out walking around in a blue straw garden hat all afternoon in the mounting piles of clippings, getting scratched by vines and thorns and jumped on by tiny biting creatures and pounded by the relentless heat. The lawn is so blisteringly parched it might be beyond life-support at this point, and I feel pretty close to that myself . . .

Advertisements




Grabbing the Knife to Save Science from Christian Castration

22 05 2007

From Michael Ruse, professor at my local university (FSU) comes the 2006 book Darwinism and Its Discontents and this 2007 Skeptical Inquirer piece, “Fighting the Fundamentalists”:

. . .No greater foolishness could happen than the castration of modern science in the name of evangelical Christianity. . .
Yet at the moment, those of us against creationism live in a house divided. One group is made up of the ardent, complete atheists. They want no truck with the enemy, which they are inclined to define as any person of religious inclination—from literalist (like a Southern Baptist) to deist (like a Unitarian)—and they think that anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish, wrong, and immoral. . .

The second group is made of two subgroups. . . liberal Christians who think that evolution is God’s way of creating [and] those who have no religious belief but who think that one should collaborate with liberal Christians against a shared enemy, and who are inclined to think that science and religion are compatible.

The rhetoric is strong and nasty. . .

The Salon article linked above explains the good professor this way: Read the rest of this entry »