So, about a week ago I ordered some boomerangs for myself and daughter, Anya.

The typical question has been, “why?” Why not?

I had one as a kid, but alas, it found its way to the roof of a warehouse and, for all I know, has remained there to this day. About a year back Anya and I went out to see the folks (grandparents) and my dad had his own sitting in the garage.

Now my dad is left handed. Boomerangs are designed to be thrown at a certain angle into the wind, so left and right-handedness is a property of any given boomerang, just like a left or right handed glove. You can’t throw a left handed boomerang with your right hand and expect it to fly. Well, I suppose you can expect it to, but it won’t.

Given that my dad taught me a great many skills it has crossed my wires in relation to my “dominant” hand. I’m left footed, for instance (I ride a skateboard left footed, as well as favour my left foot in martial arts). However, in most things, I’m right handed. However, while I hold my pencil with my right hand I hold as a left hander would. And lastly, I throw a Frisbee with my left hand. Out in NM, I also threw the left-handed boomerang quite naturally.

So I ordered both a left handed boomerang (for myself), and a right handed boomerang (for Anya). The boomerangs are of very different styles and aerodynamics.

Anya’s	Mine

So, they finally came in today, and I went out to the field to conduct the test flights.

Turns out, while I can throw OK with the left, my wrist isn’t nearly as strong as my right. Given that this lefty ‘rang is significantly heavier than my dad’s I had a hard time with it; not to mention the web site mentioned it is for “experienced” throwers of which I am not. Oh well. I did get it to come back relatively close a couple of times. The time I got it to come back right to me I was so surprised I screwed up my catch, an endeavor which is nerve wracking enough in and of itself.

Anya’s ‘rang flew beautifully. It took a while to figure out how it wanted to be thrown. It kept flying behind me 40 or so yards. The thing just flies and flies.

Let know one say I have no faith. Reaching out to grab what appears to be a flying lawn mower blade takes some bravado. In the end I had 3 right handed catches, one clumsy almost fumble catch, and one glorious leaping left handed catch.

When I first caught it a familiar feeling came over me.  It was similar to that emotion when I would catch a wave while surfing… not with the same visceral rush that goes with the speed and danger of a wave, but in connecting - with something.  With physics?  Or some kind of artifical hawk returning to my arm?  There was something about launching this thing into flight and having it return to where it came, to my very hand.  I’m really not sure where to place this sentiment.

I thought of merely throwing a baseball into the air and catching it.  That’s a Zen in and of itself, but all baseballs are the same and gravity, on that level, itsn’t all that interesting.  Then I thought of the pitcher, with all the nauances of his throws, his familiarity with the motion and the ball itself - the flight, the results.  Still, perhaps that’s more an intimacy of physics related to all before the release, and the inevitable consequences; but closer.. the wind, the hitter, etc.  But the balls remain uniform.

Here I felt I was getting to know my birds.  Each one different, requiring a differernt throw, hold, release, angle, wind and energy to perform their best.  It’s a connection between myself and an inatimate object that suddenly becomes alive upon release, all it’s life dependent on how I give it breath.  And my success in such is whether or not it returns to me after I witness it’s glorious - or not so glorious - flight.  Something like that.

So, all the same, the work with the left needs to be done.

Last month an extraordinary thing happened.  US Airways Flight 1549, losing both of its engines shortly after take off from La Guardia airport, makes an incredible emergency landing in the Hudson River saving all 155 passengers.  I certainly understand the utterance of “miracle”; What other expletive can you say upon witnessing such a fantastic and unusual event?  But to hold and believe it was a bona fide divine intervention is simply irresponsible thinking, and moreover, demeaning to to the skills, fortitude, and bravery of the pilot and tower crew.

The term miracle used to be reserved for not just fantastic and unusual events, but also those that could not be explained in any natural or physical terms.  This event certainly was fantastic and unusual, but in no way a violation of the laws of physics.  I suppose in this day and age where true miracles of the physics-defying nature are few and far between (read: nonexistent) believers have silently dropped that requirement from their list of miracle criteria.  So now we have,

Of course, the silent criterion  is that any given miraculous event be one that somehow benefits the lives or life of a group of people or an individual, respectively.  When the believers cry “miracle” triumphantly to us Doubting Thomases we reflexively ask “Where were those hands on the morning of September 11, 2001?”  To which the inevitable response is some variant upon “God works in mysterious ways.”  Bullshit.

How is it that when he works a miracle for good it’s not so mysterious, but when he fails to make an appearance in the face of human tragedy it’s suddenly a mystery?  It sounds a lot an all-too-human codependency.  “Little Johnny, your father loves you very much, but he won’t be able to take you to the ball game because he has to work to support you,” when she knows full well  he’s abandoned his son to go out drinking with his buddies.  Only in this case the co-dependency isn’t to maintain the peace but to preserve a belief that is diminishing in credibility vis-à-vis the facts and honest analysis.

If God is a mystery, then we can’t pretend to know why he would seem to “save” anyone, including Flight 1549.  If God’s motives can be known, and he chose to show mercy towards a doomed airline, simply evidenced by the obvious - the plane made a safe landing - then it stands to reason that we can use the obvious to ascertain that God was absent on 09/11/2001.  You can’t have it both ways.

But let’s entertain this new and improved concept of “miracle” for a moment, that is, the improved version that doesn’t require anything supernatural to occur, but only the rare and fantastic (interestingly enough, the dictionary definition makes no mention of something “good” happening, but that’s neither here nor there).

If we embrace this concept then it follows that anything unusual and fantastic is, in fact, a miracle.  So perhaps this is what those hands were doing on that fateful day in September,

After all, let’s give credit where credit is due.  This is where of course that silent criterion of “for good” comes up along side its twin brother, “free will.”  Typically, when the rules that the believer sets out, as in this example, for a miracle to have been said to occur (as mentioned above, much loosened to allow for many more miracles than before!  New and Improved!) they immediately break their own rules.  This can’t possibly be a miracle!  But why not?  Perhaps one little boy that was orphaned now has a basketball coach as an adopted father and God will answer his prayers to be an over-earning NBA star.  Never mind that it’s more than likely that the 2,974 had the free will to live that day.  Disregard  questions of God’s justice - hopefully the non-believer won’t bring that up.  And aren’t near 3000 lives worth a little boy’s dreams?

But wait, isn’t it true that we can’t know God’s ways?  So how can we say he’s good?  Isn’t that a “way?” No, we can’t know that!  Perhaps God saved the Hudson-bound plane, with the help of the pilot’s 40 years of experience and being on a board of aviation safety merely so the serial killer on board would have the chance to come murder your entire family while they slept as you were on a rather non-miraculous flight to Denver.   After all, God works in mysterious ways.

~YK

Below is a video rebuttal to the series Way of the Master by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.  The rebuttals deal solely with the aspect of Way of the Master as it addresses the sciences of biological evolution.  The author of the rebuttals is DonExodus2 and are embedded here from his YouTube channel.

I was motivated to post these during recent conversations with Christians that hold to the tenents of Creationism and Intelligent Design whom have relayed to me that, given all the evidence, Creationism makes a more compelling argument for the origins and diversity of life.  Whenever I hear this I cannot help but think, “how is this possible?” given the not only terribly flawed logic of creationism, but moreover it’s entire lack of scientific evidence and tactics to misrepresent and even lie, which does not serve to honestly investigate the world around us, but serves only as a desperate measure to preserve a belief which finds itself threatened by the truth itself.

Granted, this series of videos assails the most extreme form of creationism which by design (pun intended) is burdened with the most extreme numbers of absurdities.  There are basically two variates of creationism (Young Earth Creationism & Old Earth Creationism).  While I, and most scientists and non-Christians find both quite untenable, the former is more more vehement in its assertions, prolific in its public crusade, and, well, more wrong.  These rebuttals address Young Earth Creationism.

Part I

Part II

Part III

I learned something new about so called Intelligent Design (ID) today. While understanding that, according to the creationists, I am to see the world, nay, the universe as a vast and complex machinery to which I am to intuitively posit (and subsequently - and dutifully - philosophize) a Master Machine Maker.

Yet I am also required, should dogma dictate it, to ignore this impulse to postulate a Grand Designer should the edicts of scripture require it to preserve the very theology we are told intelligent design bolsters in the first place.

This new twist, or rather, u-turn in regard to ID thinking has come to my awareness through this informative NightLine: Faith Matters episode on BC (Biblically Correct) Tours:

I was particularly struck by this quote uttered by Bill Jack:

“If this creature was designed to eat meat from the very start what would he have to do until Adam and Eve sinned and death entered the world? Fast and pray for the fall? Is that likely? No. Try that with me. No.”

If it were not for the fact that he’s speaking to children I would have hurt myself laughing. But that he is spoon feeding these kids (and to be sure, having them obediently repeat and digest) this false premise and outrageous conclusion is horrifying.

But let’s move onto the rather embarrassing absurdity this poses for proponents of ID that actually accept this premise that before Adam and Eve disobey their creator all creatures were peace loving herbivores. For the ardent creationist, death did not enter the picture before sin darkened the world citing Genesis 1:30 to show that there was neither predator nor prey but all animals were provided “every green herb for food.” Some hold that carnivorous behaviour was not allowed until after Noah disembarked his ark (thus attempting to avoid the problem of bloody rampages by lions and tigers and dinosaurs upon the vessel).

To reiterate, according to ID as I perceive the world, and more importantly its living inhabitants, I am to marvel the order, structure and complexity of it all and believe my alleged natural instinct that should inform me that no such complexity can come about by random processes. I am to intuit that such marvelous complex architecture and perceived purpose or teleology does not “just happen.”

They are certainly right - ordered complexity does not just happen. However, that does not indicate ordered complexity is the result of design. An assumed element of design that’s oft not explicitly stated in the ID argument is that design goes hand in hand with purpose. It stands to reason that if a design is inferred than a purpose can be extracted.

Here is an example of a creationist divining purpose from an assumed design, entitled humorously enough, “the atheist’s nightmare”:

I bring all this out merely to establish that, according to the advocates of ID, we can both recognize the complexity of things in the world and furthermore ascertain their purpose upon examination of said complexity.

So back to the T-Rex:

Let’s imagine we are transported back in time to the days when Adam and Eve walked through their lucious Eden. As we marvel at the world created for us we happen upon the forbiddingly menacing Tyrannosaurus Rex. But have no fear! As you marvel at it’s impressive size, massive musculature, and serrated teeth measuring up to six inches long we conclude that this beautiful specimen was wonderfully designed, and designed for none other than hunting and eating… coconuts.

You heard right - coconuts. According to The Creation Museum, as cited by science blogger Sarda Sahney, the T-Rex, before the taint of sin covered the Earth and induced some (but strangely, not all) animals to crave flesh the great apex predator of the Cretaceous fed on coconuts. Isn’t it obvious?

The T-Rex’s ablitity to lift nearly 500 lbs with it’s relatively short fore limbs (heretofore previously thought to allow it to hold struggling prey) and it’s massive jaws and teeth was perhaps was used for the purpose of subduing giant coconuts that perhaps had a propensity to fall off the tree (which the T-rex, given its posture, could not reach) and roll away. Mischievous , prehistoric coconuts! How could we think that this creature, “[having] a bite force estimated at 6,400 to 13,400 N, rivaling any other known taxon,” could be using those murderous jaws to tear through the tough hide of other dinosaurs and not the “obviously” concrete husk of ancient coconuts?

Nevermind that coconut trees and their fossilized remains are native only to the tropics and have never been found in the west and northwest of North America where T-Rex was indigent.

Absurd, to say the least.

It leaves one wondering how parasitic micro organisms sustained themselves, or how the entire genus of Felis catus, being “obligate carnivores, because their physiology is geared toward efficient processing of meat, and lacks efficient processes for digesting plant matter,” got by before “the fall.” Apparently god must have magically preserved the entire ecosystem until Adam sinned when it could operate properly.

More importantly, it leaves one realizing that the Creationist will abandon his so called science should it pose any threat to dogma. The creationist is not just after establishing design as the overall principle for understanding our world but insists it must be designed a particular way; to that end he will unwittingly cripple his own theory in order to preserve that ideology. ID and Creationism are not a means of offering alternate scientific explanations but are rather the blunt tools of religious philosophy aimed, and rather poorly at that, at the sharp diagnostics of the sciences. This is not an example of the unanswered questions of empirical investigation of which science is zealous to uncover but rather the self-defeating argumentation of a philosophy that finds itself threatened, as it always has been, by serious and critical inquiry and the honest exploration and discovery of the world around us.

~YK