Funmurphys: the Blog

The Narita Family

If you enjoy photography and/or scale models, check out the Narita Family. Simply beautiful work.

Enforced Virtue

I used to feel strange driving a car. As opposed to a minivan or SUV, that is. Back when I used to do my parental duty and take the Fruit of the Murphy Loins to functions for children, I often had the only car on the lot. And it didn't matter how green or blue the drivers were. Since then I've noticed that typically a person's politics don't have much impact on the kind of car they drive. People who complain about sending American jobs overseas have no trouble driving a foreign car; people who warn me about global warming and green house gases have no trouble driving some giant SUV; ardent free traders who loathe unions will only buy American cars.

I am not trying to call hypocrite here because it's way overused and I don't think it's accurate in this case. The point is a lot of factors go into the decision of what kind of vehicle to drive, and as with all parts of life, we have to make comprises and balance competing priorities. That's life. And that's why I support free markets in general - they allow the people living with the consequences to be the ones making the decisions.

But in light of the whole CAFE standards issue, more relevant than ever, I have to note while the politics don't seem to play a large role in what kind of car people drive, it does play a large role in support for CAFE standards. I'm against them, for the simple reason if people prefered gas milage over other features, then we'd be driving high gas milage vehicles. The CAFE standard is based on the illusion that we can all drive vehicles that get better gas milage all other things being equal. They aren't - there are always tradeoffs. The reason I don't support increasing CAFE standards isn't because I don't support increased gas milage in the abstract, it's because I know it comes at a price, and a price people aren't willing to pay.

A Window On A Wider World

The thing I enjoy most about the editorial page at the St. Louis Post Dispatch is the letters to the editor. Some are clunkers, and I often get the impression they pick the more extreme letters on a given subject, but I do love reading them. Perhaps I was in an especially good mood this morning, but I like this one so much I'm sharing:

The story "A return to the old ways" (June 14) considered the Tridentine Mass, which is not "the 1,600-year-old Mass" nor is it the "Mass of the Ages." It is the result of the Catholic Reformation of 16th-century Europe.

United in the Catholic tradition are 23 different churches, each with its own ancient rite. In the ninth century, Pope John VIII (872-882) decreed that the Mass need not be confined to the then-traditional Latin, Greek or Hebrew languages. His decision made possible Mass celebrations in Slavonic. This defended the missionary work of St. Methodius and set a new precedent.

If there are those who wish to celebrate the mere 400-year-old Tridentine Mass, let it be. But the claim that this one limited form of the Mass is somehow more Catholic than other forms is a denial of the rich Catholic tradition.

May the Post-Dispatch, which gave front-page coverage to the Tridentine Mass, now report on the more important news about the destruction of the ancient Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq.

Wayne Hellmann | St. Louis

Robert Phenix | St. Louis

The letter is brief but informative, tart without snark. But then what else would we expect from a couple of scholars - a chairman of the Theology Studies department and an adjunct professor of Biblical Studies.

Since the Post will never get around to providing coverage on the destruction of the ancient Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq, here are some links: background, blogging,
news of a synod, and more sad news. One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.

Raindrops On Roses

A Few of My Favorite Things, St. Louis Post-Dispatch version:

How To Pour Oil On Troubled Waters

I have been involved in enough forum flame wars and have seen enought blog flame wars to be pretty much sick and tired of them. I also understand (as a wise man millenia ago point out) there is nothing new under the sun. So when I cam across some words of wisdom concerning how to best repond to controversy, I figured that I would reprint the advice. I would charge for it just to increase its worth to you, but as it's free elsewhere and I'm not a consultant, here is an excerpt of Eight or Nine Wise Words About Letter Writing by Charles Dodgson AKA Lewis Carrol for free:

A few more Rules may fitly be given here, for correspondence that has unfortunately become controversial.

One is, don’t repeat yourself. When once you have said your say, fully and clearly, on a certain point, and have failed to convince your friend, drop that subject: to repeat your arguments, all over again, will simply lead to his doing the same; and so you will go on, like a Circulating Decimal. Did you ever know a Circulating Decimal come to an end?

Another Rule is, when you have written a letter that you feel may possibly irritate your friend, however necessary you may have felt it to so express yourself, put it aside till the next day. Then read it over again, and fancy it addressed to yourself. This will often lead to your writing it all over again, taking out a lot of the vinegar and pepper, and putting in honey instead, and thus making a much more palatable dish of it! If, when you have done your best to write inoffensively, you still feel that it will probably lead to further controversy, keep a copy of it. There is very little use, months afterwards, in pleading “I am almost sure I never expressed myself as you say: to the best of my recollection I said so-and-so”. Far better to be able to write “I did not express myself so: these are the words I used”.

My fifth Rule is, if your friend makes a severe remark, either leave it unnoticed, or make your reply distinctly less severe: and if he makes a friendly remark, tending towards “making up” the little difference that has arisen between you, let your reply be distinctly more friendly. If, in picking a quarrel, each party declined to go more than three-eighths of the way, and if, in making friends, each was ready to go five-eighths of the way--why, there would be more reconciliations than quarrels! Which is like the Irishman’s remonstrance to his gad-about daughter--”Shure, you’re always goin’ out! You go out three times, for wanst that you come in!”

My sixth Rule (and my last remark about controversial correspondence) is, don’t try to have the last word! How many a controversy would be nipped in the bud, if each was anxious to let the other have the last word! Never mind how telling a rejoinder you leave unuttered: never mind your friend’s supposing that you are silent from lack of anything to say: let the thing drop, as soon as it is possible without discourtesy: remember “speech is silvern, but silence is golden”! (N.B.--If you are a gentleman, and your friend is a lady, this Rule is superfluous: you wo’n’t get the last word!)

My seventh Rule is, if it should ever occur to you to write, jestingly, in dispraise of your friend, be sure you exaggerate enough to make the jesting obvious: a word spoken in jest, but taken as earnest, may lead to very serious consequences. I have known it to lead to the breaking-off of a friendship. Suppose, for instance, you wish to remind your friend of a sovereign you have lent him, which he has forgotten to repay--you might quite mean the words “I mention it, as you seem to have a conveniently bad memory for debts”, in jest; yet there would be nothing to wonder at if he took offence at that way of putting it. But, suppose you wrote “Long observation of your career, as a pickpocket and a burglar, has convinced me that my one lingering hope, for recovering that sovereign I lent you, is to say ‘Pay up, or I’ll summons yer!’” he would indeed be a matter-of-fact friend if he took that as seriously meant!

That last piece of advice is the least obvious and reminds me of how often after a controversy the person who lit the fuse will claim "I was just making a joke". Just like all other communication, if it isn't clear to the audience, the mistake is yours, not theirs.

Via the Evangelical Outpost

Remembering the Six-Day War

I was only six years old at the time, but my father, William P. Drews, worked in Operations Research for Exxon Corporation in Florham Park, New Jersey. He remembers giving a briefing on mathematical modeling to the Board of Directors, when suddenly someone came running into the room hollering, "War has broken out in the Middle East! Israel is attacking the Egyptian Army in the Sinai!"

Of course the briefing was over at that point, but my father stayed in the room. Immediately they all started talking about what to do with the Esso supertankers then headed for the Suez Canal. The first news reports were sketchy: Where was the fighting? How far would the Israelis get? Would the canal be closed? What was going on over there?

All eyes turned toward the VIP of Transportation, and they began peppering him with questions: Exactly where are the Esso tankers? Are they loaded or unloaded? How much fuel do they have? Can we get in touch with them? Can they turn around and go around the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa) instead? How much advance warning do they need?

The VIP of Transportation was totally unprepared for all this, but he managed to locate the tankers near the approaches to the Suez Canal and give a rough estimate of what would be required to turn them around. They debated what would likely happen in the war, but after about a half-hour of discussion they came to the obvious conclusion: The Middle East is now a war zone, and we can't send oil tankers into a war zone. They sent out instructions to halt the tankers immediately, and assigned somebody to figure out how to get them around the south of the African continent instead.

This was the right decision. Israel reached the Suez Canal pretty quickly, and the canal itself was blocked by sunken ships for several years following the war.

Edwards on Evolution

Just because a Democrat says it, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

There are ongoing debates among the Presidential candidates; so far it has been the Democrats and the Republicans separately, among themselves. As the field winnows down the two parties will debate each other and any viable third-party candidates. In the wake of those debates some short interviews have appeared as video on CNN.com and other news sites. CNN.com hosted an exchange between reporter Soledad O'Brien and North Carolina Senator John Edwards (Democrat) on the topic of evolution. With great difficulty I have transcribed the conversation from the video feed, just one of the public services we provide to you here at FunMurphys.com.

Soledad O'Brien: There was quite a little dust-up that the Republicans had in their debate over the question of evolution. So I'll put the same question to you. Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?

John Edwards: I believe in evolution.

O'Brien: What do you say to all the people - and there are millions of people - who go to church every Sunday, and who are told very clearly by their pastors, that in fact - the earth was created in six days that - that it's about creationism. Are those people wrong? Are their pastors wrong?

Edwards: First of all, I grew up in the church, and - I grew up as a Southern Baptist, was baptized in the Baptist Church when I was very young - teenager at the time - and I was taught many of the same things. And I think it's perfectly possible to make our faith, my faith belief system, consistent with a recognition that there is real science out there, and scientific evidence of evolution. I don't think those things are inconsistent. And I think that a belief in God, and a belief in Christ in my case, is not in any way inconsistent with that.

O'Brien: There are people who say, well it's actually - isn't it mutually exclusive? I mean, either man was created by, you know, Adam's rib, or in fact, that man came, evolution-wise, from apes. Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

Edwards: No, I don't think they are. Because the hand of God was in every step of what's happened with man. The hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me, and every human being that exists on this planet.

Transcribed from CNN.com: June 5, 2007.

I like the answer that John Edwards gave. Despite being limited to only a few seconds, he gave a coherent answer affirming that God can and does work His will through processes that we can investigate using the scientific method. Edwards could have elaborated further on how he came to that belief, how he understands the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, but in a forum like this he has to sum it all up in a few sentences. He politely and firmly rejected the false choice that Soledad O'Brien presented; that one has to choose between either creation by God or biological descent from apes. Nicely done, John!

Soledad O'Brien made two major mistakes in the short exchange. The first mistake was her apparent ignorance of the fact that there are other millions of people who believe in God and accept the scientific theory of evolution. For example, on April 6, 2007 Dr. Francis Collins recently published a commentary on CNN.com entitled "Why this scientist believes in God":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Collins is the director of the Human Genome Project. He believes in Jesus Christ and in evolution, and his head does not explode. There are many others, and it's odd that O'Brien seems to be unaware of them. Maybe she's simply doing her job as a journalist by asking provocative questions.

O'Brien's second mistake was in asserting that man was created from Adam' rib. According to Genesis 2:21-23, it was Eve alone who was created from Adam's rib. Adam and all the animals in Genesis 2 were created from dirt, from the "dust of the ground" if you prefer the poetic phrasing. O'Brien's garbled statement of creationism there can only be attributed to confusion within young-earth creationism itself; Genesis 1 states in verses 11, 20, and 24 that the earth produced life in response to God's spoken command; the plain reading of Genesis 2:7 implies that God collected a lump of clay in His hands, formed it into the shape of a bipedal hominid, and breathed into the mouth opening. The original clay was then transformed miraculously into Adam's heart, lungs, liver, bones, muscles, and so on. So which is it - indirect creation by the earth at God's command, or direct creation by animating clay? O'Brien evidently did not know.

The account in Genesis 1 is consistent with a theistic understanding of evolution, and with Edwards' final statement. God directs "natural" processes in ways that we do not understand. More creation detail is given in Genesis 2, but the ultimate source of living material is dirt, and that is also what the theory of evolution states. Sure, it would have saved lots of confusion if Genesis had mentioned a few intermediate steps between the "soupy seas" and human beings. It would have save lots of confusion if Genesis had stated that the earth is a sphere, and that it orbits around the sun. I believe the Author of Genesis has concentrated on the spiritual message, and has let us figure out the scientific details later.

O'Brien mentioned the six days of creation, from Genesis 1. Although young-earth creationists insist that that the Hebrew word "yom" must be interpreted as a 24-hour day, that meaning is not the only meaning in either ancient Hebrew or modern English. Genesis 2:4 uses "yom" to refer to the entire creation week. Modern people who say "Back in my day..." are not referring to a single 24-hour day. The sun does not even appear to mark the "days" until day 4 (Genesis 1:14); is there some angel carefully marking the cosmic time to be sure that God's marvelous acts of creation do not overlap 24 earth hours? (No!) Furthermore, the six "days" of creation, so important in Genesis 1, are not even mentioned in Genesis 2 after verse 3. If the "days" of Genesis 1 are so important, then why doesn't Gensis 2 state that most of it happened on day 6? There is no Biblical requirement for the "yoms" in Genesis 1 to be strictly 24-hour days.

Soledad O'Brien was quite correct in asserting that some Christian pastors are teaching quite clearly that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days; or much worse, that belief in creationISM is a requirement of Christianity. One of those pastors is Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In the August 15, 2005 issue of TIME Magazine he stated on page 35, "For one thing, there's the issue of human 'descent'. Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species." (And don't bother quibbling about the term "Evangelicals"; he obviously means the right kind of Christians. On today's blog he further states: "To be human is to be a limited creature -- and Christians understand that those limitations are not the accidental byproducts of evolution. To the contrary, these limitations represent the intentional will of the Creator.")

Christianity is defined by the Bible, not by extra-biblical pronouncements from theologians. John 3:16 states the formula for salvation: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Romans 10:9 further states: "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." It's a lot about Jesus and nothing about biology!

Attempting to change the definition of the Christian faith is a grave sin. God anticipated this situation 1,900 years ago, when He directed St. Paul to write in Galations 1:6-9: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" NIV

Dr. Mohler is wrong, and so is any other pastor or priest who tries to make rejection of evolution a requirement of the Christian faith. It's not all about creationism. It's all about Jesus! Jesus Christ the Son of God, crucified for our sins and miraculously risen from the dead. That's what John 3:16 says. That is the Christian Gospel.