Merry Holidays and Happy Christmas

While we are in the closing days of the annual (war on) Christmas season, I wanted to address a meme that floats around yearly. It showed up in my Facebook feed a bunch of times and is a meme spread by FAUX news for the last few weeks.

This clever sounding sound-bite makes a clear point: Christmas is the only holiday we are allowed to care about. Not Hanukkah, not Kwanza, not the solstice, definitely not the new year, nor the oxford comma. I expect some people promoting this meme are generally well-meaning and not the douches they seem to be. So with some limited holiday spirit in mind, I want to take a minute to let you know what 'It's not happy holidays, it's Merry Christmas!' means and doesn't mean to me.

What it means: It means you fail to recognize your Christian privilege. You assume that since Jesus is important to you, he should be important to them too. You assume that since in your tradition you choose to have the winter solstice represent the birth of Jesus that everyone else should too. No matter what someone else's religious, non-religious, cultural, tribal, or other background is, they must enjoy this time of year as you deem fit.

What it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that you are expressing goodwill or joy or happiness or any other positive feeling to others (Christian or otherwise). You are making a political statement. Your 'Merry Christmas' is not actually a message of hope that I am merry on the 25th of December. It's a demand that I prostrate myself to your overbearing and extremely limited interpretation of Christianity. 

What it means: It means that the first amendment means little to you except a protection of your religious beliefs. When states make laws demanding that stores are closed on Christmas (interfering with the free market), it has to be (and has been) justified from a secular standpoint. Of course everyone knows these kind of laws are only established to benefit Christianity, the justification promoted uses a reach around approach to avoid this obvious position.

What it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that all people in this country are equal under the law. Or maybe I should say that all people are equal under the law, but some animals are more equal than others (thank you public education).

What it means: It means that when a stranger tells me Merry Christmas, I now have to wonder if they actually are expressing well-wishes and happiness or being douchebags like the people who post pictures like the above on Facebook. For that, I want to wish you a:

(I wasn't going to write this post, but then I came across the Grumpy Cat picture, which made me laugh so hard, my 11 year old wanted to know what was so funny. After that I had to write this post. So thanks and Happy Holidays to all the Grumpy Cats in the world (and a Merry Christmas to everyone).)

Once unto the breach, dear friends

A short time ago, as I headed to teach one of my classes, I saw an older white guy writing a chalk advertisement on the pavement in front of the student union.  The advertised talk seemed to be a presentation or discussion of the problems with evolutionary theory. Since I did not have my son that evening, I decided to attend.

This was not a talk, presentation, or discussion of the problems with evolutionary theory. No, this was nothing more than a collection of well-disputed creationist talking points hiding under the auspices of an honest scholarly seminar.

I learned several things because of my attendance, none of which the presenters wanted me to learn I expect. 

1. The Importance of Authority

I mean 'Really!?!?'

During the overinflated introductions, the first clue that authority carries most of the weight in an argument occurred when we were told to not look up things during the talk (I kid you not). This was not in order to ensure we were paying attention. You will note that we were only asked to not look up information, we were not asked to simply put away our mobile devices. If that is not a cry for help, I don't know what is. Of course, I took that to mean post often and frequently and redundantly. So I kept Facebook open most of the evening, I should have linked to twitter, but screw it, I was busy spewing righteous indignation. The advantage of posting constant updates is it gave me a safety valve and avoided the potential for aneurisms.

The argument from authority came up throughout the talks. Initially it was in the form of the speakers credentials. I do not have a problem with this in principle, it is important to know why we should be listening to these people. However, when you overinflate someone's credentials to make them seem to be experts, problems ensue. One of the speakers studied evolutionary biology...during their fisheries and wildlife training! You know because nothing says evolutionary biologist like a fish and wildlife degree. We were also told that both presenters taught at colleges and universities, although we were not told which ones and in what capacity. Based on the constant lies and half-truths stated during the presentations, I expect that these talks at my university will constitute 'teaching at my university' in the future.

The argument from authority continued throughout the talks in the form of slides containing nothing but a quote from some person. Almost always these quotations came from creationists. Using quotes can be a powerful form of argument, if it is backed up with some substance. Using the quote 'To be or not to be' as a preface to address teenage angst and suicide prevention can be powerful approach. Using the quote 'To be or not to be' as evidence that teenagers contemplate suicide as demonstrated by Ophelia drowning herself, is not a powerful argument and contains an obvious WTF*. This is the approach the presenters took. "Creationists have a problem with evolutionary theory, so here are quotes by other people (almost all of which were not biologically trained) that agree with us." This is akin to me using the picture below on the left and stating that the presenters are lying assholes with absolutely no shame, no soul, and no business setting foot on a college campus. Then advancing to the slide on the right and noting that Mr. Stratten supports my position and thinks I may be wasting my time.

Quote Support

Average donkey

The final argument from authority comes from the reference to the bible. By and large, the presenters tried to bring up neither god nor the bible, but they had to early on to establish their position. Without the crutch of god and the bible, their points would have been obviously ridiculous. However, once god and the bible are established as the counter-argument, this ridiculousness is given a free pass. The debate then becomes the bible/god vs evolution comparison. Since all the bible/god position has for evidence is the bible (thus an absolute argument from authority position), the evolution position has to be cast in the same light, it's all argument from authority. We can ignore the evidence and just focus on who said what, never mind why they said it.

2. The Gish Gallop
You may have heard of the dreaded 'Gish Gallop.' If not let me introduce it to you. The Gish Gallop is a debating technique perfected by Duane Gish, who, not surprisingly, is a creationist. Basically you take a complex issue and move from topic to topic using lies, out of context data, lies, half-truths, strawmen, lies, misconceptions, lies, etc. during a debate. Your opponent does not have sufficient time to rebut all of these lies and ends up discrediting one or two at most during their time. This leaves the audience thinking that the other 15 talking points were valid (or at least not discredited). The talk I attended was nothing more than an extended, 90 fucking minute, Gish Gallop. This is a primary reason why scientists should not debate creationists. (Remember we were told not to look anything up, which prevents a suspecting mind from realizing the presenters were full of shit in real time.)

Topics covered, using frequent lies, out of context data, half-truths, full lies, strawmen, lies, misconceptions, and lies, included but were not limited to the following:

• Racism is a direct outcome of evolutionary theory, yet Genesis shows that we are all equal. So no racism in the bible or before 1859.
• Cells are literal factories. There is no metaphor to see here, move along
• Haeckel's embryos and peppermoths FTW!
• There is no such thing as junk DNA.
• The Cambrian explosion occurred in a short time frame, because you know the word explosion.
• Darwin was concerned about the dearth of fossils (true, be we found a couple more since 1859 /snark).
• Pictures of ancient organisms often colorized, but we do not actually know what color they were. Therefore evolution not correct. Q.E.D
• Piltdown man was a hoax (no mention of the fact it was exposed by scientists).
• and as if the arguments could not get any worse: the presenters stated that Lucy is likely male¹, yet has a female-associated name. The obvious conclusion from this is that evolutionary theory is wrong.
• Plus there was a slide with this on it²

Damn you New Scientist

3. Data vs. interpretation
I will give the presenters credit in that they had a thesis for their talk. At least they had a point that they came back to with some regularity. I also think this is an important point and from that standpoint I agree with the presenters. Of course this is like saying the presenters and I both agree that knives are sharp, but the presenters think the best way to show this is to replace the balls in a ball pit with machetes and sharing said pit with a sugar-hopped up toddler birthday party.

A recurring theme was that they had no problems with the data (not true of course), but simply with the interpretation of the data. One of the classes I teach is an advanced microbiology course (in fact this is the course I was heading towards when I saw the old white chalk-writing guy). We spend a great deal of time learning how to evaluate data and critique interpretations of data. This is not easy stuff, in fact I will go so far as to say it is kind of fucking hard! 

Regardless, the argument between evolution and the bible was cast as simply one of interpretation.

If we look at the molecular evidence we see protein sequences are more similar in related organisms. The same is true if we look at DNA sequences. Evolutionary biologists conclude this supports common decent, creationists conclude this supports common design. It's simply an issue of interpretation and there is no way to resolve these different interpretations. Therefore both are equally valid! Except not really, because all the data is bad.

They argue that all the data is bad later on and fail to address the fact that they directly contradict themselves. As they lay it out, maybe a case could be made. But their case is incomplete. First, many amino acids that make up a protein sequence behave similarly. Thus, the fact that more closely related organisms have identical sequences whereas more distantly related organisms have slightly different sequences supports common decent not common design, unless we want to argue that the designer is lazy. Second, the DNA encoding a protein sequence is redundant. In other words different DNA sequences give rise to the exact same amino acid. The fact that more closely related organisms have identical DNA sequences whereas more distantly related organisms have slightly different sequences, yet make the exact same protein supports common decent not common design, unless we want to argue that the designer is infinitely lazy. Third, within the mammalian genome reside the carcasses of dead retroviruses. What is surprising is that these carcasses are positioned in the exact same place in related organisms and then absent in more distantly related organisms. Like the dead on election day, the don't do anything. They are just there. More molecular evidence that supports common decent, not common design, unless we want to argue that the designer is eternally drunk on top of being infinitely lazy. 

This type of argument occurred several times during the talk. The data is fine, it's simply interpretation. What irks me most, at least at the time I am writing this, is that when I write papers, give presentations, etc. I try to undermine my own ideas. I raise any conflicting data or alternative ideas. I, and most other scientists, do this because we want to get at the truth. At the very least, we do not want to make fools of ourselves. These kind of one-sided presentations go against all of my training. It disgusts me in a political discussion (most choices are difficult and have pros and cons, a healthy discussion of both is warranted yet rarely occurs). But it cuts deep to my core when this one-sided approach is given under the guise of being an evidence based talk.

Question Time
And now it was (FINALLY) time for questions. Albeit questions with some rules. (Remember this is the 'don't look things up' talk, so rules regarding questions should be expected.) We were told one question per participant, which makes sense. We were told that we could ask additional questions if there were no first time questioners. We were also instructed not to rebut the answers given. This makes sense at face value, as you don't want to have simple argument, but is also a cop-out allowing the presenters to lie make a mistake without response (this did not go as well as they might have wanted).

I tried to ask a bigger picture question rather than one that simply disputes one of the hundred or so misconceptions, lies, or fallacies the presenters made. I decided on two, but only asked one. (Dealing with fucktards is important to me, making sure I get to call my son and say 'Goodnight' and 'I love you' is more important. I had to leave during questions to make sure the latter happened.) The question I did not ask was:

Do you think that the tens of thousands of biologists in the world teaching evolutionary principles are stupid, evil, or a combination of the two? Because if the points you have made were actually true, it seems like the conclusion has to be something along these lines. I ask, because essentially all evidence gained in support of evolutionary theory was obtained by god-fearing individual scientists. Indeed all the interpretations that have led to the modern theory of evolution was developed primarily by Christians. Hell, even the director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, is an evangelical Christian who has written a couple of books about God and biology.

I like this question because for 90 minutes the presenters had presented a completely one-sided argument lie-fest in support of young earth creationism (they tried to avoid discussing age of the earth issues during the talk, but audience questions led them to admit their position). It begs the question, what is going on all over the world. Why don't the vast vast majority of biologists agree with the presenters position. These are intelligent highly trained individuals and many of them are practicing Christians. So what gives?

However, I asked a different question. Remember one of the points they came back to several times was the issue of data versus interpretation. This is an important point in science, which I stress in the courses I teach. There are questions regarding data, how it was obtained, what was observed , etc. However, these are different from the questions regarding interpretation. With interpretation, the authors (generally speaking) put their data in context with the broader body of knowledge. They go beyond telling you what the data is, and tell you what the data means. This is what the presenters did frequently throughout the talk. They took 'data' (I purposely use quotes.) and interpreted for the audience. The problem is that the presenters never put the data in context of our understanding of the universe. Regardless, one of their major theses was that the difference between creationists like them and biologists was simply one of interpretation. The presenters had no problem with the data (except for when they did i.e. fossils, dating, etc.), only with interpretation of the data. This is the background from which where my question originated.

At the beginning of your presentations you noted that observation and experimentation were tenets of the sciences (I know, I know). However, you failed to mention that the power of science comes from its ability to make predictions about the future that are accurate. Without this aspect of science, science is no more useful than religion or astrology (Yes, I know, but realize I had been sitting through an hour and a half of this shit, I earned this!). You noted that you believe much of the issue is due to differences in interpretation, but not the data. However, numerous cases you used throughout your talk are not differences in interpretation. For example, you argued that DNA and protein similarity can be interpreted from an evolutionary viewpoint, but also from a creationist viewpoint, because an intelligent designer (God of the bible) would use similar parts. However, this is an example of Monday morning quarterbacking, because the similarity of DNA and protein was a prediction of evolutionary theory. Before we had the methods to analyze these molecules, we predicted related organisms would have related DNA and protein. You also brought up the fossil Tiktaalik (and I thank the presenters for helping me get the pronounciation correct). This fossil was unknown, but based on evolutionary theory, Neil Shubin predicted when this fossil should occur in the record, went to rocks of this age, and was fortunate enough to find it. This was a prediction of evolutionary theory. Clearly evolutionary theory passes this aspect of science, making accurate predictions. My question to you is what predictions have creationism made that have subsequently been found to be true?

The sad part is they gave me answer. Want to know what it was? Junk DNA². Fucking junk DNA. Now we were directed to not get into a back-and-forth with the presenters, and I understand why that was requested, to prevent others from having time to ask questions avoid making the presenters look like lying shitbags. However, I was willing to take on the mantel of asshole and loudly responded 'That's not true, junk DNA is not a tenet of evolutionary biology.'  

The presenters asked me why I said that. I restated that junk DNA is not a tenet of evolutionary theory, it is neither required nor omitted. In fact, we have long known that bacteria essentially lack junk DNA. (This is not a secret, so it makes me wonder why they think junk DNA is a tenet of evolutionary biology.) Regardless, it is not up to me to explain it because it was their thesis that junk DNA was a tenet of evolutionary theory, so it was up to them to demonstrate this was the case.

At this point the moderator intervened and said 'Well stasis' (the fact the some fossils look just like modern animals). This was one of the 100 or so Gish gallop points, but as far as I'm concerned is basically a 'why are there still monkeys?' argument. Sharks have not changed much, but many descendants of ancient sharks have changed. Many microbes are round and have been for ~4 billion years, that's the ultimate stasis! Yet look at how things have changed in many of their descendants!  Anyway at this point, I simply noted that stasis is not a good rebuttal, but that they did not want the meeting to turn into a debate. (Rightly so, remember in a he-said, she-said debate, truth loses.) Plus, I much preferred to wish my son good night and tell him I love him. 

¹ This argument seems to come from a historian of science, not a paleontologist nor otherwise trained biologist. The idea that Lucy is male is not accepted in the field.
²Fuck you very much New scientist/ENCODE.

No Rape Republicans: Dumbasses

Republican Assholes: 2nd recipients of this prestigious award

For some reason it seems that an entire major US political party has unilaterally decided that rape does not exist. Or maybe it is better to say that true rape does not exist, it's probably just some liberal media myth like climate change and intellectual honesty. I realize not all, and maybe not most, republicans share this worldview, but this is the problem you get when you embrace fundamentalism.

The patriarchal fundamentalist does not believe in rape, because a woman does not own her body. A woman's body belongs to her father until such time as he bequeaths it to her husband. This is why we, as 21st century first-world Americans still spend time worrying about the hymenal status of the bride, but could care less how often the groom shot his rocks off. This is what a large proportion of the gay marriage ban community means by traditional marriage. Women are property damnit.

Since women are property, they cannot be raped, because it isn't up to them what happens to their bodies. OK, maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic. It does seem like some douchebag fundamentalist republicans acknowledge that rape is at least theoretically possible. Todd Akin acknowledges legitimate rape. However, if a woman becomes pregnant it can't be rape because the magic uterus prevents all the sperm cells from finding the egg and fertilizing it (note: this magic effect must occur pre-fertilization or otherwise an intact whole human being would be aborted and that would make baby Jesus cry.). Ron Paul noted that there is honest rape, which you can identify because the woman goes immediately to the emergency room, does not pass GO nor collect $200. Paul Ryan identifies forcible rape as a possible event, as opposed to those non-aggressive or maybe unenforcible rapes.

Regardless, most republicans seem to agree that the sex that occurs between a man and a non-compliant woman is really the woman's fault. That's why Roger Rivard noted that some girls just rape easy. Probably the only way men can be expected to not rape those women is to cover the 'easy rape women' from head to toe in some dark garments. Oh wait, Muslims already do that and they are evil, so we'll have to come up with another plan.

Potential devil worshiper 

With that recent history, we come to Richard Mourdock republican douchebag fundamentalist du jour. His actually disagrees with Akin and suggests that a woman can be become pregnant from a rape, however that's ok, because it's a gift from god. Mourdock might be right, if Mourdock worships the devil. Let's consider the ramifications of Mourdock's viewpoint. If a woman is forced to gestate and deliver a resulting baby from a rape, then why not force her to raise it. Also don't expect me or anyone else in society to help you raise your rape-baby, because that's just socialism or something.

What about the rapist? Can we prosecute him? I mean what if the woman was an 'easy rape' and how can we tell? Hell, if the rape-baby was Mourdock's devil-god's will, then can the rapist be held responsible? Obviously not, the rapist has no free will here, it was devil-god's decision, Mourdock said so. If anyone knows what the devil is thinking, I expect it is someone like Mourdock.

Opinion piece uses 14th century ideas as a counterpoint

The last day of July 2012 went out with a fizzle in the Twin Cities. This is the day the Star Tribune, arguably the paper of note in the 20th largest population area in the USA, published a counterpoint piece in the Op/Ed section. The initial article described how a creationist learned about the scientific evidence of evolution and came to change his opinion. It's a quite personal account that does a great job personifying the issue. The article yesterday by Ross S. Olson (not to be confused with less ignorant Ross Olson's) is a supposed counterpoint to Peter M. Leschak's initial article.

Olson starts with the premise that he went from being a creationist to a supporter of evolution back to being a creationist. 

Peter Leschak described his change from belief in biblical creation to evolution. I went through that transformation, too. But later I went beyond it -- back to young Earth creation, backed up by scientific evidence.

Note the 'backed up by scientific evidence.' We'll deal with that, but first Olson seems to have gone from being a supporter of evolution to young earth creationist when he read "The Creation of Life" by A.E. Wilder-Smith (published 1970). Wilder-Smith argued that the order seen in life requires intelligence to arise.

"The Creation of Life," which showed clearly that order of the kind seen in life does not arise spontaneously by natural law and requires an intelligent intervention.

Three Stooges Rock Formation

Ripples in underwater sand

Obviously order can not occur naturally and interesting and inspiring rock formations were carved by Hephaestus and underwater sand ripples were put there by Poseidon.

Why was I never shown this evidence before? I began to read widely.

Because a book is not evidence, although it can contain evidence. By widely read, I assume you mean Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 with additional Christian literature, but no scientific journals.

We recognize an arrowhead as a product of intelligent manipulation -- even though it is theoretically possible that erosion might form one. A living cell is as complex as a city; the human brain is as complex as the Internet; no natural process produces things like the Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, time and chance degrade information.

Ftz expression in Drosophila

I think Olson is trying to use Paley's discounted watchmaker analogy without actually saying so. Basically if Olson doesn't understand how something arises, ergo god. If we kick up the sand ripples or smooth them out, does Olson think angels descend from heaven to pile them up into beautiful patterns? Does Olson think the Archangel Michael creates the pattern of gene expression observed in a fruit fly maggot?

Then comes the warblegarblefarble. How is a cell complex like a city? Do bacteria have wifi or is that only eukaryotes? In what way is the human brain like the internet and what does that make a squirrel's brain like? Obviously no natural process could produce something like an encyclopedia. I mean only humans, which are totally fucking unnatural, could have done such a thing (It's life Jim, but not as we know it.)

The mathematical odds of forming, by chance, a single protein molecule from its component parts can be shown to be so unlikely that it could not have happened anywhere in the known universe in 30 billion years. Much less could it be combined with the hundreds of other components to form the simplest possible living cell.

Been there, done that. The nice thing about creationists is that the arguments never change, once you write a response, you can simply link back when the next idiot shows up.

Similarity of form does not prove common ancestry. It can also mean common design. (Young Earth creationists believe that the original Genesis kinds were intrinsically capable of great diversification, something we have seen with the breeds of dogs -- who remain dogs, nonetheless.) And fundamentally, fossils require rapid burial. Closed clams, seen all over the world, were covered before they could open in death.

Similarity of form could indicate common descent or common design I suppose. However, we have a lot more information than that. First, the similarity of our protein sequences demonstrates common descent. The amino acid sequences of our proteins are essentially identical to our nearest relatives the chimpanzees, which are more similar when compared to a mouse, which are more similar when compared to a frog, which are more similar when compared to baker's yeast. Same for our nucleotide sequences. Second, the order of our genes on the chromosome is essentially the same as the chimpanzee. This is not necessary to 'design' a human or a chimpanzee and strongly demonstrates common descent. Indeed the order of genes is similar in a mouse, which is more similar than the order in a frog, and not similar to baker's yeast. These facts support descent not design. (Importantly, descent was hypothesized long before we knew anything about DNA, genomes, or protein structure). Third, within our genomes are the remnants of dead viruses. Many of these dead viruses are found in the exact same positions in the genomes of our nearest relatives (primates). This demonstrates either common descent or design by a capricious and evil little shit of a god.

Olson the pediatrician then tells us that all of geology and physics is wrong. This means that the methods used by oil companies to find new deposits is wrong because it's based on science that disagrees with his interpretation of the bible. One thing I want to note:

Recently the project called RATE has shown that rocks contain too much helium to be millions of years old and also there is measurable carbon 14 in all fossils, oil, coal and even diamonds when it ought to be totally gone, implying a young and similar age for all those materials.

It is true that there is carbon 14 in things like coal. Since carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, it should be gone after several tens of thousands of years. Olson therefore concludes that these deposits cannot be millions of years old. Most carbon-14 we think of comes from neutrinos smashing into nitrogen in the atmosphere. However, that's not the only place it comes from. The radioactive decay of uranium-thorium in rock generates carbon-14. Microbes, which will contain some amount of carbon-14, can and will contaminate the deposits as they are mined. Of course, we won't mention those well known sources of carbon-14 in the editorial. Olson also ignores all the really long lived isotopes, like potassium-argon, that demonstrate an old earth. 

Evidence of coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is vigorously opposed by the evolutionary establishment but is actually quite convincing. Human and dinosaur tracks have been found in the same strata and have been uncovered on film to prove that they were not manufactured.

Really? Human and dinosaur tracks? We doing that one again? I'm surprised that human fossils have not been found in the same strata as dinosaurs then. Why no bunnies in the precambrian? 

Recently a T Rex bone was found that contained blood vessels, cells and collagen fibers in the marrow cavity. Rather than admit that this specimen could not be 65 million years old, the response was to claim that we need to rethink how soft tissue is preserved for long ages. In a demonstration of the incredible power of professional peer pressure, the discoverer, a self proclaimed evangelical Christian, claimed that young Earth creationists were "hijacking" her data.

This is probably the paper he's referring to. Note Olson's approach, when we get new data, we do not think about it. It's funny because the 'widely read' Olson doesn't need to think about information like genome similarities, the fossil record, biogeography, the entirety of physics, geology, biology,  chemistry, archaeology, and paleontology.

Also note how the conspiracy is everywhere. The lead author capitulated to those evil scientists. And although Olson never comes out and says it, all those biology and physics programs in universities and colleges all over the globe are caught up in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth of young earth creationism. That must be the case because the alternative is that a dimwitted pediatrician is wrong.

But bucking peer pressure, plant geneticist J.C. Sanford, asked, "Can natural selection improve the human genome?" The result is in his book, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome."
The conclusion? Natural selection cannot improve the human genome. It cannot even prevent steady deterioration. There are at least 100 new mildly deleterious mutations in each surviving individual with each generation. (The severe defects do not survive.) The overall fitness of the human race is decreasing by about 1 to 2 percent per generation. He concludes that we are headed for extinction as a race and that the human genome cannot yet be a thousand generations old or we would already be extinct.

"Natural selection cannot improve the human genome." Clearly, Sanford, a UMN alum (horticulture) does not understand natural selection. He also doesn't understand sexual reproduction (condolences to his wife if he has one). If he were correct that fitness deteriorates by 1-2%/generation, how come bacteria haven't gone extinct already? or most flowers? or most insects? or almost all animals except the few with long generation times?

This, of course, is contrary to evolution but fits completely with the Biblical account of a perfect creation, spoiled by sin and with a world that will someday -- perhaps very soon -- come to an end.

BWAHAHAHA. If creation was so fucking perfect, how could it be spoiled by sin? Maybe your definition of perfection and mine are not the same. Anyway, thanks Star Tribune for publishing any old horse shit you can find. Next week, please publish an opinion on the use of astrology to make important decisions or homeopathy to cure malaria or how scientology is the one true religion. Dumbasses.