2009-03-21 1115: This morning, I ran in the Rodes City Run, a 10K race in Louisville. It was a bit chilly (40 degrees or so) but it was good running weather. I put in a decent time, 54:39. This is faster than last year (55:02) but 5 seconds off my time in 2007 (54:34). This year, I finished 186th of 404 runners in my age bracket (males aged 44-49).
This is one of the larger races in Louisville, with 8,000 participants this year. It's a lot of fun to run with so many people; there's a really positive energy level in this kind of event. One highlight: the race route goes past the Girl Scouts Louisville headquarters, and there were a dozen girl scouts passing out bottled water to the runners.
2009-03-18 2230: Last week, I finally finished the David Halberstam book The Coldest Winter: American and the Korean War. Halberstam details the military issues of the war with clarity and provides the reader with a vivid sense of what the Americans experienced in the war (the bitter cold and the terrible battles). But even more interesting is his in-depth treatment of how cold-war politics affected the progress of the war—first, the North Koreans' decision to invade the South; then the US decision to assemble a UN coalition to intervene; the disastrous US decision to go north of the 38th parallel; the Chinese decision to enter the war as a result. Halberstam seems to be sympathetic to Truman, who did his best to cope with a very bad situation, but Halberstam portrays Gen. Douglas McArthur as arrogant, vain, dishonest and racist (his lack of respect for the Chinese cost America dearly as he first discounted the threat posed by Chinese intervention and then was completely unprepared when the Chinese did attack). The book ends with a disturbing epilogue that sketches the politics behind the decision by the US to go to war in Vietnam.
2009-03-07 1530: It turns out that I did have damage to my house from the wind storms we've had. Yesterday, I saw that several shingles had came off my roof; they had slid down to my gutter. I don't know when this happened, but I suspect it was the day before, when it was windy. But I was lucky—I was able to contact a neighbor who is a general contractor, and he had a roofer take a look. It turned out the roof was in good shape except for a few loose nails, and the shingles that had come off were in good condition. So all they had to do was put them back, and make minor repairs to several other shingles that were loose. So my roof should be good for the stormy weather forecast for tomorrow.
But I had worse luck with my car. I was expecting to have my rear brakes fixed, but they also told me I needed the oil pan and transmission pan gaskets replaced. This cost $800. I have been putting a lot of money into the car in maintenance and repairs, and I'm thinking it may be time to replace my car. It has 107,000 miles on it but it is 12 years old.
2009-03-06 6000: I rewrote portions of my previous post.
2009-03-05 2215: The Christian Student Fellowship at IU Southeast sponsored a showing of the Ben Stein movie Expelled this evening. I might have wanted to attend the movie, just to participate in the discussion afterwards, but I place a far higher priority on drinking beer with my friends after classes on a Thursday night. As it happens, I saw the movie when it was in the theatres last year. My reaction was very negative. The movie was manipulative if not dishonest. One example: The movie alluded to, without naming, the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case; they said that court cases cannot be expected to settle scientific issues and mocked the court by showing corny 1930s-era cartoon footage about courts. This was egregious because the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was devastating to the intelligent design movement. The judge, a conservative appointee by the G. W. Bush administration, ruled that ID was not science, but instead merely an attempt to get religion in the classroom—and worse, the judge said that the ID proponents perjured themselves by denying a religious motivation. Another example: They suggest that the Holocaust was possible because the doctrine of evolution led to eugenics and to theories of racial superiority. This is nothing less than vicious: these social or political movements say nothing about the validity of evolution, and have long since been discredited scientifically. (Recently, I read that Darwin himself, who was not racist, hoped that evolution would end racism because his theory showed all people are related to each other.)
I would like to say how frustrated and angry I have become over this issue. Some years ago, I was interested in intelligent design. I think I have seven pro-ID books on my shelf that I have read. I also have three anti-ID books, one of which was written by a devout Roman Catholic who explains why ID is poor theology as well as poor science (the book Finding Darwin's God by the prominent biologist Kenneth Miller), and a lot of other mainstream books on biology and evolution. I can say truthfully that I gave ID every chance. But at this late date, I can confidently say the following: The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the anti-evolutionists are completely wrong when they says things like "evolution is a theory in crisis." (Note, by "evolution" I mean: the reality of deep geological time; descent with modification of all species from a single, common ancestor; and natural processes, particularly natural selection, as the sole explanation for the formation of new species.) The nice thing about science is that you do not have to take things on authority. You can examine the evidence and arguments yourself. I have done that for evolution and ID, and I find the evidence for evolution to be completely persuasive. (If anyone who is reading my blog has any doubt on this matter, please see the resources I mention below in my post of February 12 on Darwin's birthday.)
But there is a broader issue I would like to point to: The active opposition to science by groups with vested or ideological interests threatened by science. This opposition is pervasive and often very effective. One example is evolution. Another example is global warming. A third example is homosexuality, which is particularly distressing because of the pain caused by homophobia. The science is now unequivocal: homosexuality is neither a mental illness or a character disorder; it is a normal human sexual variation. But various religious groups maintain a relentless and sometimes vicious campaign against acceptance of gay people and their relationships by society. One nasty example I recently encountered: The American Family Association has a document on its web site claiming to give the truth about how unhealthy homosexuals are. This document includes research by the discredited writer Paul Cameron, including his preposterous claim that even when they don't have HIV/AIDS, gay men die at an average age of 43. This is nothing less than hate speech, published by a leading evangelical "pro-family" organization. But another example is found in the Roman Catholic Catechism, which refers to the "psychological genesis" of homosexuality and labels it an "objective disorder." But, again, homosexuality is neither a psychological condition or a character disorder. The Church is using pseudo-medical language to diminish gay people, but it is now clear that their opposition is based on an ancient taboo and not science.
2009-03-01 2130: The Winter 2009 issue of the Reed College alumni magazine has two interesting articles.
One article was an account of the faculty battle at Reed over the general education program at the college. The "Old Guard" wanted to keep Reed's classical humanities curriculum, which introduced students to ancient Greek and Renaissance literature, art and history; the "Young Turks" wanted to make the Reed education more individualistic, politically engaged and progressive. This was at the end of the 1960s, a turbulent time era on campuses across the country. The Old Guard prevailed. When I was a freshman there in 1977-78, we studied ancient Greek in the Fall and either Renaissance England or Italy in the Spring. The courses were a wonderful revelation to me; I knew little about both eras. The stated purpose of the curriculum was to help us understand how and why Western civilization developed into its modern form, and also (because all freshmen shared the same curriculum) to develop a true intellectual community shared by all students and faculty. In this, Reed is practically unique in deciding that faculty have the primary responsibility in determining the content of a student's education, that "to leave the process of integration to the student was to shirk a major responsibility of education" (as historian Richard Jones, quoted in the article, expressed it). Reed still has a similar curriculum to this day. The author of the article (Laura Ross) speculates that had the Young Turks won that battle, Reed could have ended up like Antioch College, which thrived through the 1970s and 1980s with a free-form progressive and very political curriculum—but which recently closed its liberal arts campus.
The other article concerned a legendary bit of Reediana lore: the half-time crucifixion. As I heard the story, in the late 1960s, Reed particpated in a club football league. According to the story, Reed got booted out of the league when, while playing a local Bible college, students performed a mock crucifixion at half-time. The Reed magazine reporter tracked down the source of the story. It turns out the incident occurred on October 12, 1962, and Reed didn't get booted out of the league (Reed continued to play 6-man football against the two other colleges in the league until the league evaporated several years later). Now long-time Northwesterners will recognize the date: This was the day of the extraordinary "Columbus Day Storm," an extratropical cyclone that brought 100-mph winds to the Northwest. The game itself saw lovely weather, but after the game, the storm hit. Reedies who participated in the mock crucifixion were afraid that they must have offended the Almighty with their sacrilegious display.