line.

This is way cool

After decades of searching, and two centuries of legend, a team of scientists from Japan has captured, on film, a Giant Squid, previously known only from anecdotes and dead specimens. Here's the story from the Times (non-subscription.)

It was only a small one, apparently, at 26 feet, but an aggresive little guy: On Sept. 30, 2004, a squid attacked the lowest bait on a rig that was positioned about 1,000 feet above the seafloor. Giant squid have eight short arms and two long tentacles. During the attack, the squid wrapped its two long tentacles like a ball around the bait, the researchers report.

One of the squid's tentacles was caught, and the creature moved violently in the next four hours to break free. It was often out of camera range, suggesting, the scientists say, that it was attempting to swim free.

After 4 hours 13 minutes of struggle, the animal tore away, leaving a tentacle behind.

That is a big and nasty fellow, no?

(photo from: http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1501&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050928%2F0148133060.htm&sc=1501&floc=isp-14&related=off&from=news)

What am I missing?

So the good people of Pennsylvania are dealing with Intelligent Design now. (article from the Post) here's what I don't get about this whole thing. Who really wants ID taught? it doesn't make sense from either a scientific or a religious standpoint. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but here's what I get out of this:

Teaching ID in schools will do more to undermine Christianity in the US than teaching 'evolution' ever did or will.

ID is poor, cowardly theology, easily shattered by those with faith as well as those with reason. It simply doesn't make sense, from either standpoint, and to teach it is a tacit acknowledgement, by the biblical-literalist community, that they cannot handle a direct challenge to their faith. It is a card dealt from a position of weakness and fear, without the strength of faith and conviction one would expect from a believer.

ID is a direct challenge to Genesis, not from a scientific standpoint, but a religious one. With 'evolution' (I use it in quotes because it is really too complex of a theory to be espoused in one word, and that word has been challenged too much) one can still see Genesis as a metaphor for the evolution of man within God's system. You can still believe, as many do, that God created everything, created a system to fufill a master plan, as stated in Genesis, and let the system run through to the conclusion. This does not preclude any interaction of God and Man, as detailed in the remainder of the bible. Evolution does not deny the existance of a creator who laid the ground-work for everything, in fact it doesn't address it at all. What happened the instant before the Big Bang is a matter of faith, not biology (ok, there are some physicists on the job as well)

With ID, Genesis is a fable, completely at odds with the stories as laid out in the Bible. It specifically states that Genesis is a false story, that while we are reading stories about God doing something, He was really doing something else. It calls Genesis a parlour trick, a diversion from what God was really doing (intervening in the natural processes he designed) God cannot have created a perfect system, since it requires intervention, on a regular basis, to get things how they look now. Instead of the agnosticism of evolution, ID directly claims that a creator is involved, which means that Genesis, instead of being a parable, is an outright lie. you cannot reconcile Biblical Creationism, as a matter of faith, with such a muddled theory. they directly contradict each other in the same realm.

Evolution and Christianity can coexist because of the fire wall built between them, they explain the same thing using completely different languages and systems, they do not contradict because they do not overlap. One addresses the role of a creator, the other addresses the behaviour of a natural system. But Christianity and ID cannot coexist, since both posit the active role of a creator, but a creator who does different things.

imagine three witnesses to a crime scene. Jane says that Bob shot Steve. Sarah says that Bob shot Steve and Joe, who told Bob to shoot Steve was there. These can be reconciled, since Bob still shot Steve it doesn't matter, one way or the other, if Joe told him to do it, or was watching, the action remains. Jill says that Joe shot Steve and then put the gun into Bob's hands. This cannot be reconciled with either Jane or Sarah's stories, in fact it directly challenges both stories.

obviously, the bilbical fundamentalists will never agree with the scientists about evolution, which is fine, they are in different spheres. but I can't understand why they'd want something that is a direct challenge to their sphere as well.

what am I missing? I know I'm not the world's best theologist, but can someone point it out?

Update on praying nationals

turns out that someone in the Nats PR office finally saw the Post article from Sunday (linked below) Jon Moeller has been 'suspended' from his volunteer job with a week left in the season, and, of course, Ryan Church was 'misunderstood' in his quotations. Nice start guys, let's see if you really follow up, shall we? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092002093.html

There's no praying in baseball!

or was that crying in baseball. Whatever, I can't recall, but since, according to today's Post, there is plenty of praying in baseball, it must be the crying. Anyway, I'm happy to know that there is plenty of faith and good behavior in the old game (the two go together, right?) as long as it's optional, of course, and stays off the field. One thing though, made me flinch...here's the aptly named Ryan Church discussion the finer points of theology with Tom Moeller, the Nat's captain:

Church was concerned because his former girlfriend was Jewish. He turned to Moeller, "I said, like, Jewish people, they don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean they're doomed? Jon nodded, like, that's what it meant. My ex-girlfriend! I was like, man, if they only knew. Other religions don't know any better. It's up to us to spread the word."

Seriously, is this for real? The Nats allow this level of pure unadulterated intolerance in their clubhouse? In fact they encourage it? Is there nothing remotely resembling a sense of history? Would Sandy Koufax have been welcome in this clubhouse, you know, since it's apparently up to Church to save him from going to hell? Can't we all just agree that maybe, just maybe, there've been enough ill conceived efforts to 'save' Jews over the past few millennia?

Look, Church, Moeller and their ilk are free to practice their small-minded bigotry all they want, in private. RFK is building owned and operated by the government of the District of Columbia, Church and co get their fat salaries partially due to a nice subsidy from the people of DC, this proselytizing has no business in a public building. But I'm willing to make an exception, I want Mr. Church, if he really believes this, to stand up in front of the entire crowd at RFK for the next home game. I want him to say "Attention all Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus and all others belonging to lesser religions, thank you for giving us your money, unfortunately, you are all going to hell. Thank you." I wonder what the attendance of the Nats would be if before every game the team told all the Catholics they are going to hell? Maybe this is a good promo? "going to hell night" all heathens get in for half price?

Yes, Mr. Church, I am mocking you. You aren't a kid anymore, your faith shouldn't be about exclusion anymore, grow up, will ya?

On the same note, shame on the Packers for celebrating the bigotry of Reggie White today, he was a great player, no doubt, but when your team continues to issue press releases apologizing to the community for your words, you should forfeit your celebration. Fine, retire the number, but enough of the hagiography, alright?