I had a busy day yesterday. I woke up early and went bird watching at Bolsa Chica with my Ornithology class at 7am. It was drizzling and windy when we first got there, but after about 45 minutes, the sun started to come out and it was beautiful. We got 46 different species, 47 if you count the Killdeer that we didn't see, but heard. I don't count it. Some cool birds that we actually saw were: Brown Pelicans, Great Blue Heron, Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Merlin Falcon (which Rafe, the professor, says he hadn't seen in 20 years!) and a Western Meadowlark. We got back a little after noon. I had some lunch, and got my stuff together for the RICA, and then went straight over there without much down time in between.

The RICA went well, I think. It's a standardized test that everyone in a teacher education program needs to take at some point. It assesses one's ability to give reading instruction. And since I took a class last semester on teaching reading, I thought it would be good to take this test as soon as possible. It consists of 70 multiple choice questions, 2 one-page essays, 2 two-page essays, and a 4-page essay. It took me exaclty 3 hours to finish it. Afterwards I was pretty tired. And hungry. But I think I did pretty well, since the reading class is designed to prepare one for the RICA. It's kind of funny: we learn in all of our education classes that standardized tests are not the best way to assess knowledge of subject matter. We also learn that it's really bad to "teach to the test." And then we have to take all these standardized tests. And we take classes to prepare us for exactly what's going to be on them. :-)

The best part was that when I got there, before they let anyone inside, I found a couple of Biola girls from one of my education classes this semester. And then another Biola girl came and waited with us. Pretty soon there were about 8 or 10 of us. I don't know any of them too terribly well, but it was really nice to see some familiar faces before going in. None of them were in my testing room, but I actually sat behind a lady who graduated from Biola a few years ago and who was in a class of mine during my first semester (which was her senior year). Having someone to talk to before the test started made me feel at ease.

And then after I got back, I went over to Jonathan's house and we had a really relaxing evening. We made dinner, and read some of Little House on the Prairie and talked. It was a great way to end a long, busy day.

Good afternoon. Libby's taking the RICA today. She should tell you more about that, because I'm sure it's an interesting experience.

Personally, I've been doing homework for my Medieval Philosophy class and for Torrey. I'm now reading Nietzche. Last week I read Marx. Darwin came right before that. I love this program! It lets me read the most interesting books.

So far this semester, it's been a fairly straight on assault on the Christian faith, but it holds up pretty dang well against the slings and arrows.

Another interesting class that I'm taking is by the famous Dr. Aaron Kleist (well, he's famous at Biola). We're doing an introduction to Shakespeare upper division English class, and it's about the histories covering the War of the Roses. Right now we're reading Richard II (Libby and I are working through this together, as it's a way to spend time together: she's not in the class, but she's being really nice and making my homework so much more interesting). Richard II is paced well, and having a background of the history makes it a really entertaining read.

But the most interesting thing about the class, as far as making it distinctive, is that its framed in the set up of a game. Instead of a term paper or final, we're all required to cast ourselves willy-nilly into a contest of wits and knowledge devised to create greater immersion into the text. The game sets the two sections of Introduction to Shakespeare (10:30 vs. 1:30) against each other. We're the Lancasters, they're the Yorks. White Rose vs. Red! Anyway, we've all been assigned characters from the time period, and we have to learn a bunch about them. We'll all be asked a series of questions to prove that we have learned it. Anyway, the point of the game is to find out who the other characters are through a series of yes or no questions that are aired over the university bulletain board service. So, for example, right now the Lancasters asked a bunch of questions to determine who was royalty and who was an earl. By doing so we'll have know a lot. It's pretty fun, a lot of strategy.

The outcome of the game isn't really so much a matter of grade as pride. The winner will be served a Shakespearean dinner by the losing section.

Check this out! Video of Cool Jump

Intelligence Design is not only an interesting philosophical theory that has wide ranging cultural implications, but it is a contentious thorn in the side of Darwinists.

Here is an article responding in fear to the Intelligence Design movement. Here's the relevant argument in the interpretation of the movement.

Historically, evolution has been opposed by Protestant Fundamentalists.
These people desire their children not to learn Darwinism.
Court rulings have charted a course for our education system to teach Darwinism on grounds of separation of Church and State.
Therefore, they have cooked up philosophical and scientific disagreements.

Of course, in his view, these scientific disagreements have no validity. There's a cursory discussion (more of an assertion than an argument, certainly no more than an explication based on the principles of Darwinism - which, in my opinion is also the extent of Darwin's same argument in The Origin of Species) on the eye's development, opposing the powerful scientific argument advanced by Behe (who, however, focuses on cell biology) called "irreducible complexity."

I find this admission curious, however: "ID is an idea with a respectable philosophical pedigree, though no credibility in modern science."

Philosophical pedigree is critical in this area, because scientific theories rest upon philosophical beliefs in every case. The very practice of science rests upon a certain view of seeing the world. Therefore, having a philisophical pedigree opposing Darwinism seems a considerable route for disagreement.

Anyway, it's an interesting, and somewhat harsh (which is fine) article that seems designed to shut down depate on this issue. People shouldn't think critically about Darwin's theories? That seems foolish!

Here's an paper he links to explaining the CRC's philosophies. It's well argued, less rhetorical, and full of true things: Explaining the "leaked theocracy memo"

Textbooks have never been my favorite thing, but today I became extremely disenchanted with them. I read the first chapter in my Child Development textbook, in which the history of the study was recounted. The author attempts to summarize several philosophers' views in the space of a couple pages. Ok, well that's the nature of a textbook. Anyway, these philosophers are ones of whom I have actually read a decent amount (Plato, Locke and Rousseau). And this textbook either gave, for each philosopher, an extremely simplistic view of what they said, or just plain got it wrong. (I should mention that Darwin and Stanley Hall are also discussed briefly, but as I have not read either of them, I don't really know if the textbook got them right or not).

The book claims, for example, that Rousseau believed that children are born naturally good. Ok, that's fine. But it goes on to say, "The role of adults, in Rousseau's view, is to let the natural positive forces in children emerge without restraint." Woah. I've read Emile. And that is not what Rousseau says. On the contrary, he would have parents/guardians very carefully and intricately regulate the experiences that the child has, so that they will come to learn exactly what the adult desires them to learn. It's to such an extreme that I really don't know how anyone could write in a textbook that he says something so different.

Then, this afternoon, I was talking about the chapter with Jonathan. I mentioned that the book says that in the Middle Ages, there wasn't much of a distinction between children and adults; they were just seen as miniature adults. He pointed out what a wrong idea of the Medievals this is.

So, pretty much, I don't want to read this textbook anymore.

All that got me thinking about why we have textbooks anyway. They're certainly not the best way to acquire knowledge. If I want to know what Plato, Locke and Rousseau think, I should read them...not this textbook. But that would take a lot more time. So, I suppose textbooks are used because they can fit a lot of basic, summarized information into a small space. The problem is, these textbook authors have a bias, so everything comes across with a twist.

I guess all this is the cost of majoring in Liberal Studies. I'll end up knowing a little about everything and, consequently, won't have a really strong grasp of any one thing.

When I'm a teacher, I'm going to try to use textbooks as little as possible. And when they must be used, they will not be regarded as the final authority. I would have said the same thing a week ago; but today, I mean it more.

I'm a T.A. for a high school English teacher in the area. Every once in a while he'll call me up and tell me he's got a stack of papers for me to grade. I'll read them and mark them up and take them back to him. Well, right now I'm working on a stack of about 60 "research" papers on capital punishment. It's not very fun. For one thing, it's kind of a depressing subject to read so much about. For another thing, these kids can't write. Many of them have a weak grasp of the English language. It's rare for me to find a paper written in complete, clear sentences. So when I find a sentence with a noun and a verb, and commas in the right places, I pause. Then I type it into Google. And then I (more often than not) find the article from which this student has plagiarized. I make a note of the website so I can let the teacher know, and then I repeat the process. It's bad. I'm kind of sick of it, and I'm only half way through the stack. *Sigh* Well, I guess this post doesn't really have much of a point, except allowing me to vent. Thanks.

Ligers are going to kill us all!

Fortunately, there's an Anti-Liger Alliance to protect us! Here's their website.

What's a liger? A liger is a cross between a male tiger and a female lion. This is different than the tigon, which is less common and is the cross between a female tiger and a male lion. It's also much bigger. Ligers are commonly bigger than either lions or tigers, perhaps exhibiting a kind of gigantism.



Here are some liger websites.

This group has their own ligers! They perform and stuff. Their liger is huge: it's over twelve feet tall when standing on its hind legs! Holy cow!

This site has some more detailed information, as well as some pictures of Ti-Ligers.

The Sierra Safari Zoo has their own liger called "Hobbs." He is big, and he is north of Reno on Highway 395!

Iraqi Elections

This is exciting for Iraq and for the Middle East.

Here's the King of Jordan's opinion on the election. I don't know how representative his opnion is of most Muslims, but I hope that he knows a bit. CNN's Interview with King Abdullah

The BBC's perspective: Iraqi Prime Minister Calls for Iraq to Unite After the Vote

This is an important article by CNN: it shows the response of Arab news headlines throughout the Middle East.

MSNBC offers another perspective, including the promise by the Al-Quaida networks in Iraq that they are not going away.
'World is Watching'

Bush's strategy is that the optimism and hope that are currently being expressed by ordinary Iraqis will now spread into the hearts and minds of other countries in the area of Iraq: resulting in a joyful change to democracy. It's a bit far-fetched, perhaps, but the same thing did happen in Europe (unsuccessfully) following the French Revolution. I'm not sure how I feel about America standing by to prevent Terrors and oppressive reactions by terrified current rulers. It's something that bears consideration.

There's more to write and more to find on the internet about this, but now it's time for study. On the reading list for this afternoon? Darwin's Origin of the Species.

It's National Kazoo Day! Check out Barbara Stewart's inspirational message.

Along the same lines as Jonathan's last post...

I've been using My Utmost for His Highest for morning devotions lately. The last couple of readings have been from Matthew 6, the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus warns against letting the cares of this world choke out the one important thing--pursuit of the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 6:25 (KJV) states: "Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on..." This is convicting. He's talking about basic needs here. If He'd said "don't think about how you can have the most money, or the best clothes..." it would be easy for me to brush it off. "Oh, well I don't do that. Ok, on to the next verse." But, no. We're to "take no thought" of our lives. At all. Not even of these basic needs. For one thing, it doesn't do any good. "Which one of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?" (verse 27) And for another thing, isn't God much more capable of taking care of our needs? He knows them better than we do. "Consider the lilies of the field..." (verse 28) If God clothes them more beautifully than Solomon, how much more will He take care of His children? Therefore, He says, take no thought..."But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (verse 33)

I have a friend who once told me, after explaining a rough financial situation she was encountering, "I've made a deal with God: I worry about Him, and He worries about everything else." And isn't that the way it ought to be? God is really the only one qualified to worry about my needs. I don't need to make myself crazy trying to do His job. My job is to worry about Him.

"I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind." (Ecclesiastes 2)

I have been re-reading Augustine's Confessions, and am struck in a new way by its excellence. As I observe the follies of loving this life falling from Augustine as he approaches Faith in God, I am convicted of my own faulty and misguided loves.

How foolish, though, to love more or as much as God any earthly thing. Surely we cannot think that ambition, pleasure, or anything else that a gracious God has given us can be worth our pursuing it for its own sake? When considered, only a righteous and transcendent God, whose love and goodness are never changing and never ending, can be the proper life-pursuit of any man or woman.

"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

Augustine uses the example of a begger when confessing to God his own follies in this area. He was on his way to being a member of the Imperial court, or some other such exalted earthly position. In order to fulfill this desire, in order to become a recognized and worth-while Roman individual, he had to give a speech on the Emperor. However, he did not find there the happiness which he sought. Here is the text, which is addressing God:

How unhappy I was, and how conscious you made me of my misery, on that day when I was preparing to deliver a panegyric on the emperor! In the course of it I would tell numerous lies and for my mendacity would win the good opinion of people who knew it to be untrue. The anxiety of the occasion was making my heart palpitate and perspire with the destructive fever of the worry, when I passed through a Milan street and noticed a destitute beggar. Already drunk, I think, he was joking and laughing. I groaned and spoke with the friends accompanying me about the many sufferings that result from our follies. In all our strivings such as those efforts that were then worrying me, the goads of ambition impelled me to drag the burden of my unhappiness with me, and in dragging it to make it even worse; yet we hade no goal other than to reach a carefree cheerfulness. That beggar was already there before us, and perhaps we would never achieve it. For what he had gained with a few coins, obtained by begging, that is the cheerfulness of temporal felicity, I was going about to reach by painfully twisted and roundabout ways. True joy he had not. But my quest to fulfil my ambitions was much falser. there was no question that he was happy and I racked with anxiety. He had no worries; I was frenetic, and if anyone had asked me if I would prefer to be merry or to be racked with fear, I would have answered 'to be merry'. Yet if he asked whether I would prefer to be a beggar like that man or the kind of person I then was, I would have chosen to be myself, a bundle of anxieties and fears. What an absurd choice!

(Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick. VI. vi (9-10))

Augustine made an absurd choice, true, but I do not think that happiness is an absurd desire. All men desire it more than any other thing on this earth, if one would consider themselves. And that is why we can understand Augustine here, we are all yearning for the same thing he was, in different ways, and are mostly failing to accomplish it. For, temporal felicity this happiness we want is not (for this pleasurable feeling will end), rather, it is the perfect state of the soul that is found through loving God and serving Him always. And that can only be found by prostrating oneself before our Savior, who has offered Grace freely to those who ask of Him, because of a love so deep that He left Heaven, putting off his rightful Glory as God, and dying on the cross for our sins.

"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:13-12:14)

Happy Birthday to Jonathan Rowley! He's 22 on the 22nd. That deserves a prize! Last night we went out to dinner with a bunch of friends, and then back to his house. There we played a rousing game of Scattegories. After that, there was a Super Smash Brothers tournament, but it was getting late, so I didn't stay to see the end of it. Tonight we're going to his grandparents' house to celebrate with family.

Yay for Jonathan being alive! It's certainly a reason to celebrate.

Dr. Reynolds has blogged about the backlash to Dr. Dobson's comments on Spongebob Square Pants. They offer a reasonable perspective on a difficult issue.


Here he responds to an article on msnbc calling mainstream Christians "crackpots."

And here he comments on Hugh Hewitt and the situation as well.

I'm posting these because I don't have the time or ability to write a cultural critique of this level, but I do think it's really important to see this perspective. It sounds pretty right on to me, and I find it distasteful to mock Christians, even for making social missteps with true conviction.

The Second Inaugural Address of George W. Bush

I posted this before I ever read it. Now I have, and am impressed, especially by the half before the domestic policy section, which I am not quite sure about.

It is a good speech, in that it reads smoothly and consistently. It is an emjoyable read, suitably light, but with a substantial weight. Its consistent demand of one principle: the cause of freedom, is a real strength that reflects what the presidents' real focus does seem to be.

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth."

This is, to me, the reason that Bush makes a good president. His view of secular government is defined by the duty of protecting the social lives of its people because they are the creations of God. This is the belief and idea that was put forward in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the belief and idea that makes America work where other democracies have not worked. This is what kept America's Revolution from sliding into the Terror, and it is the belief that is the most powerful safeguard and keeper of us all today. Because man matters, because God loves man, we must protect man and not let innocents be killed senselessly.

Good job, President Bush. Here's to four more years!

Jonathan and I have created a new card game. It's called Find Your Family. I'll explain the rules here so you all can have a chance to experience the coolness.

For 2-4 players

The goal: to be the first to get the Jack, Queen, King and Ace of a certain suit--your "family"

The setup: Shuffle two decks together (it's very important that you use at least two decks...we haven't experimented with this completely yet, but we think it might be best to have the same number of decks as there are people playing). Now pick out four cards, one of each suit, and mix them around face down. Each person takes one, without showing it to any other players, to find out what his "family" suit will be. All four cards are shuffled back into the deck. Deal each player four cards. The top card of the deck is turned over to begin the discard pile.

Playing: Player left of the dealer goes first. With each turn, the player must take one card (either from the pile, or from the top of the discard pile) and discard one. Play continues until one player has all four face cards of his "family" suit. At that point, I think it would be cute if he has to say "Family Reunion!" to let the other players know he's found them all, but Jonathan thinks it's sufficient to say, "Yay!" or "I won!" You must decide this for yourself.

Variation: You can also play Find Your Extended Family, where you have to find all the cards of a certain suit except the face cards. It plays the same, but you use nine cards in your hand.

The history of the game: Find Your Family evolved from a game we made up early last semester called Find Your Mom, where you only had to find the Queen of a given suit. That game is much shorter. Plus, we played it with only one deck, so we pretty easily figured out whose Mom was whose. And then it ended with both of us holding onto the other's Mom, refusing to discard. It became clear that we would need to make some changes. Hence, the above game rules.

There you have it. Now, go. Find your family.

Hey! We came back from Mammoth!

We actually came back early from our trip, which turned out to be quite an adventure.

The first sign that our trip was an adventure came when we arrived at the cabin. We toiled the two miles in two hours or so, slowed by heavy packs and sleds to a snail's pace at times. We turned on the power switch and went over to the upper window on the lee side of the cabin that we use to enter during the window. Unfortunately, the key that we had didn't turn the lock. We jiggled and warmed it, and still, nothing happened. The only option was to take the shutter off its hinges. This was an involved and difficult process in the cold and high snow. Finally, we got it off and Dad climbed into the cold and dark cabin.

"The lights aren't working. Someone check the breaker to make sure it's turned on."

Ok... Bill had flipped it on, which takes digging a couple of feet down into the snow. I went over to double check. But, as I looked, someone noticed that some of the power lines from the cabin were laying in the snow nearby.

That's when we realized that, after working so hard just to get into the cabin, it was now going to be a little less welcoming. We all bundled into the cave-like darkness, and went downstairs to where Dad was starting a fire. We looked around for candles. The thing about the cabin is that, during the winter, it's completely under snow. So there're no windows. The only lights were the candles, the fire, an electric lantern that I found in an upstairs attic cupboard, and the headlamps and flashlights that we brought with us.

Anyway, the snow was still really nice, and skiing was a joy. We also made a couple sled runs onto the lake, which is a great place to do it, since the run-out from the run can go forever onto the flat expanse.

Unfortunately, I had to come down early because I was having some sort of severe heartburn-like symptoms that wouldn't go away. I had them for about 16 hours, without any sign of abating, despite taking a lot of heartburn medication. But once we skiied out Saturday evening in the gathering twilight, I got better. By the time we were on highway 395 outside of Mammoth, the symptoms were all gone.

Bill and Becca wonderfully drove me home, and I finally arrived back Sunday morning at 1:30 or so. Libby drove the last leg and got home a little after me. She was a real trooper and learned a lot about how to ski, since this was her first time. She did great!

The puzzle got finished last night. It's very nice to see it finally done.

Jonathan and I are going with his parents and Bill and Becca to spend a few days at the Rowley cabin up in Mammoth. We leave early tomorrow morning, and we'll get back on Monday. It's going to be great! This will be my second trip to the cabin, and I'm pretty excited about it. There will be tons of snow, and we'll do some skiing. That's a funny word: skiing. There aren't many words with two i's in the middle like that. Anyway, I've never skied before, but they're all very experienced, so I'll have some good teachers. We'll see how it goes!

I need to start getting my stuff together. Have a good weekend!

My very cool brother and sister-in-law got me a 1,000 piece puzzle for Christmas. The last few days of my life have consisted largely of putting this thing together. It's got a pretty lighthouse, and cliffs, and some trees, and then lots of water and sky. The water and sky of course have been saved for last, as they have much less variation. This afternoon, however, much progress has been made. One of my roommates, Katie, has a couple of friends over to spend the night. The four of us have spent the last two and a half hours sitting at the card table, piecing it together. They're still out there working on it, in fact, but I needed a break. We had some good conversation and learned some really practical lessons as we worked on it. Some of the highlights:
--"C'mon little piece, aren't you ready to stop being an individual and become part of the Whole?"
--"In puzzles, as well as life, the weird shaped ones often become the most helpful in finding that perfect fit; we can be thankful for the freaks."
--"Maybe you need to stop looking for the perfect piece, and spend more time making sure you become the perfect piece."

There's just some sky left!

Hey, look, everyone! I'm posting! And man, have I got some exciting things to say. To start with, there's this music video of a popular Romanian song. You simply must watch it. The band is O-Zone; the song is Dragostea Din Tei; the result is hilarity.

After that, you should watch the lego version. They cleverly call it LegO-Zone.

You can read a translation of the lyrics here.

And whattheheck, since I'm posting all these links, I'll throw in one that shows a guy dancing to the song at his computer.

Also, as I was searching around for these treasures, I found out an interesting piece of information. This song is not original to O-Zone. Oh, no. The band that wrote it is called Haiducii, or The Outlaws. Ah, I get it now.

Today I worked 11 hours. Last week I worked 9 or 10 hours a day, but I'm shooting for 12 hours a day for the rest of this week. Anyhow, that means that I don't have time to post very much.

In further news, Libby Moothart and I have reached a new point in our relationship. Today I've added her to my blog. She can now post the neat things she's been thinking and finding and doing during her (much) less busy days this interterm. So this momentous occasion will work to augment the paucity of my blog's posts.