Jilli actually wears a fair amount of pink. It's the new Goth.

This is true. Pink trim, pink & black stripy socks, pink shoes. All of these things appear in my wardrobe.

Jilli actually wears a fair amount of pink. It's the new Goth.

I meant this one particular Pantone shade... oh, never mind.

The TiVo took me away from the desperation on CNN to the glorious inanity of PTI. Praise be, blessed TiVo.

Praise be, blessed TiVo.

It is a worthy god. Bringing to mind a Futurama line I heard last night, "Why couldn't he pick a mainstream religion like Oprah-ism or Voodoo?"

Bringing to mind a Futurama line I heard last night, "Why couldn't he pick a mainstream religion like Oprah-ism or Voodoo?"

I think that's my favorite Futurama line ever.

Unless I'm forgetting one....

but two out of four of those theories were strictly scientific theories, even if they are now considered archaic.

Well, not "strictly". I'll venture that alchemy was never a science, as we define science. As for physics, even in the late 1800s, during the last gasp of phlogiston (soon to be atoms), everybody admitted it was a "I don't know, and can't think of anything, and that is a nice name to put on my non-knowledge" type of deal. Before that, phlogiston was totally conjecture, the way that Leonardo da Vinci conjectured that the eyes weer anatomically linked to the soul.

Conjecture has its role in science, but conjecture and theory aren't the same thing, despite their similar uses in the vernacular.

I'm fucking boggled that there are still people on roofs in St. Bernard Parish. That they didn't have National Guard and the military on the streets within two days.

The streets were underwater, and in fairness, no one could know the scope of the disaster it has become; no one knew how many people stayed. The desperation and the widespread anarchy seems to have arisen within the last 24 hours.

Because people of faith don't appreciate having any part of their religion called a "myth."

It's like calling a middle-aged African-American man "boy."

Whoa, okay, I'ma bite my tongue on this one.

Because people of faith don't appreciate having any part of their religion called a "myth."

People of faith need to tell us what to call it then, because "origin myth" pretty well indicates what we are talking about, and is consistently applied to belief systems both living and dead. I mean, we call it a myth because it can't be proved, right? Can you think of a better term that you wouldn't consider insulting?

(Bob bob, if you're reading, now is not the time to invoke that nonsense-philosopher from last week!)

But, but, irreducible complexity-- which is what ID is based on-- has been pretty soundly refuted, as here [link]. If people "believe" in it, it's not because of the unimpeachable science of it. It does seem like various self-serving and unproven theories to me.

First I think Jessica's distinction between Discovery's ID and "lower-case" id is a good one. My ID (or id) is not based on irreducible complexity, it's based on faith. All faith is self-serving in that it cannot be proved. But that doesn't mean it cannot be questioned.

And second, I think dw's point on myth is also spot-on. Myth is an unfortunate word because it carries with it the specter of untruth even if that's not how it's intended.

Because people of faith don't appreciate having any part of their religion called a "myth."

Myth, in Merriam-Webster:

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

There may be religions that don't fit this definition, but I can't think of any.