syncretism sinks

(blame littleamerica for winding me up)

In my opinion, Easterbrook talks too much about a return to religion and not enough about religion and science living together.

His idea that biotech "may" heal the evolution-Creation (i will not dignify mythology by giving it a name that sounds like it's in any way valid science) rift is, at best, preposterously optimistic; it's evident that it's already made things worse.

"Science, which once thought the case for higher power was closed..." WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. "Science" does not think. "Science" does not assert anything. Only scientists do. This anthropomorphization of science is one of the things that polarizes the science-vs-religion false dichotomy.

"Hoyle's faith in chance was shaken by evidence of purpose." So, if the odds for something are "phenomenally low", and it happens, that constitutes "evidence of purpose"? Is this what passes for deep thought these days?

"Did a designer set Earth's life processes in motion? Few questions are more interesting or intellectually rich." Interesting? Sure. Intellectually rich? It's fairly banal, in my view. Even if the answer were "yes", its subsequent question, "Why?" is fairly stupid. You might as well ask your parents why they decided to conceive you (assuming it wasn't a purely animal moment, of course... hmm, the universe exists because God was horny. Sure, why not?)

syncretism sinks

(blame littleamerica for winding me up)

In my opinion, Easterbrook talks too much about a return to religion and not enough about religion and science living together.

His idea that biotech "may" heal the evolution-Creation (i will not dignify mythology by giving it a name that sounds like it's in any way valid science) rift is, at best, preposterously optimistic; it's evident that it's already made things worse.

"Science, which once thought the case for higher power was closed..." WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. "Science" does not think. "Science" does not assert anything. Only scientists do. This anthropomorphization of science is one of the things that polarizes the science-vs-religion false dichotomy.

"Hoyle's faith in chance was shaken by evidence of purpose." So, if the odds for something are "phenomenally low", and it happens, that constitutes "evidence of purpose"? Is this what passes for deep thought these days?

"Did a designer set Earth's life processes in motion? Few questions are more interesting or intellectually rich." Interesting? Sure. Intellectually rich? It's fairly banal, in my view. Even if the answer were "yes", its subsequent question, "Why?" is fairly stupid. You might as well ask your parents why they decided to conceive you (assuming it wasn't a purely animal moment, of course... hmm, the universe exists because God was horny. Sure, why not?)

mating calls

I've come back from an acculturating performance of classical music by one of the San Jose State University orchestras, and i've reached the conclusion that humans who spend their time singing in the upper registers available to them, like male tenors and female sopranos, sound like crap. Maybe it's just that in so many classical pieces, they hit their tremolo buttons like a pedestrian hitting the Walk button, and it just gets old really fast. A vocal performance that i consider is forceful, evocative and beautiful is Clare Torry's in Pink Floyd's "The Great Gig in the Sky". While today's soprano was technically pretty good, i couldn't lie back and enjoy the job she was doing, because not 5 seconds would go by before she would do something that i found grating. Plus, she had a goofy grin on her face, which was easily avoided by closing my eyes, sure, but it's just something else that bugged me...

Today's performance started with Paul Dukas's Fanfare, which i missed, a Händel harp concerto which was really nice, a Mozart piano concerto which was good but felt too long and wankarriffic (although the pianist was very, very good), then another Mozart piece with the soprano, another piece which composer i forget that featured a solo flautist (who seemed too preoccupied at times with looking pretty than playing her instrument with heart), and finally Tchaikovsky's March Slave, which was really quite good. I'm just not a classical music kind of guy, i guess. There's very few pieces i've found that move me; the one that comes to mind right now is John Adams's "The Chairman Dances". That one just builds up excitement, focuses your attention, then raises voices suddenly, "Hey!" "Hey!" and the main theme continues moving along. You can sense the motion. It's exciting. That's what i want out of classical music; it should give you the sense that the piece conveys a certain life, that it will endure, instead of just being a bunch of nerds in concert dress noodling on their most expensive possession.

mating calls

I've come back from an acculturating performance of classical music by one of the San Jose State University orchestras, and i've reached the conclusion that humans who spend their time singing in the upper registers available to them, like male tenors and female sopranos, sound like crap. Maybe it's just that in so many classical pieces, they hit their tremolo buttons like a pedestrian hitting the Walk button, and it just gets old really fast. A vocal performance that i consider is forceful, evocative and beautiful is Clare Torry's in Pink Floyd's "The Great Gig in the Sky". While today's soprano was technically pretty good, i couldn't lie back and enjoy the job she was doing, because not 5 seconds would go by before she would do something that i found grating. Plus, she had a goofy grin on her face, which was easily avoided by closing my eyes, sure, but it's just something else that bugged me...

Today's performance started with Paul Dukas's Fanfare, which i missed, a Händel harp concerto which was really nice, a Mozart piano concerto which was good but felt too long and wankarriffic (although the pianist was very, very good), then another Mozart piece with the soprano, another piece which composer i forget that featured a solo flautist (who seemed too preoccupied at times with looking pretty than playing her instrument with heart), and finally Tchaikovsky's March Slave, which was really quite good. I'm just not a classical music kind of guy, i guess. There's very few pieces i've found that move me; the one that comes to mind right now is John Adams's "The Chairman Dances". That one just builds up excitement, focuses your attention, then raises voices suddenly, "Hey!" "Hey!" and the main theme continues moving along. You can sense the motion. It's exciting. That's what i want out of classical music; it should give you the sense that the piece conveys a certain life, that it will endure, instead of just being a bunch of nerds in concert dress noodling on their most expensive possession.