Top 5 Blog To Dos

5. Update my reading list
4. Update my links
3. Update my profile picture
2. Get up-to-date reading my friends' blogs

1. Write a real post

May's Quote to Ponder

"Possessions are only the traveling luggage of time; they are not the stuff of eternity. It [is] sensible therefore to travel light."
--John R.W. Stott

Words from Dr. G

Right now life is a scholastic blur. Sometime I'll get around to writing a real blog post again. In the meantime, I thought I'd share these quotes--almost entirely context free--from my Design of Mechanical Components (DMC) professor.

"An engineer getting a chance to blow things up. . . what could be better?"

"You would have to do lots and lots of tests, which would take lots and lots of time, which is why we have graduate students."

"DMC is when you actually learn AMC, because you have to use it as a tool."

"We are engineers, so we have to look out for the public. The public, as you know, when it comes to engineering, are idiots. So you must look out for their idiocy." [to which a classmate objects that it goes against Darwinism]

"They were paying us to break it. I love being paid to break things."

"We're not going to get anywhere in the next two minutes, so I may as well yammer on."

"We learn all kinds of fun things. . . that we should already know."

"You can see where friction is making things screwy." [while talking about bolts]

"Does somebody other than him have a question?" [after the obnoxious guy raised his hand again]

"If you really want to be exact you keep going to school to get advanced degrees until you know more and more about less and less and you know absolutely everything there is to know about nothing."

"Procrastination pays off immediately."

"Humans are control systems with a phase lag of over 1/10 of a second."

"We call it a sudden release of air. We do not call it an explosion."

And my favorite:
"We all have photographic memory. Most of us just don't have film."

Book Review: The Holiness of God

Let me be up front about this: I really don't know how to write this review. For me to attempt to explain all of the reasons why I am glad I read The Holiness of God would make this review way too long. To find reason to include one quote would be to find reason to include thirty.

Maybe I will find the time to spill some thoughts that have been stirred in another post. It should suffice to say that this book is on all of those "top books" lists for good reason, but I'll add the following:

You don't understand the holiness of God. I don't understand the holiness of God. R.C. Sproul doesn't understand the holiness of God. We are finite and sinful; God is infinite and holy. Still, reading this book and seeing Sproul do his utmost to unpack God's Word on the topic of God's holiness will give a you greater glimpse of what it means that God is holy.


Rating: Must Read

--------------------

April's Quote to Ponder

"The failure of modern evangelicalism is the failure to understand the holiness of God."
--R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God

Pegged

Today I went to see the eye doctor about some funny things that have been going on with my vision.

His verdict? I'm Fine. Okay. Normal.

Well, almost.

"You're an engineering student?"

"Yeah. How did you know?"

"Engineers analyze everything."

(Basically, the "funny things" are somewhat normal. But normal people either don't notice them, or just don't think twice about them.)

Inconvenient Debt

I don't usually blog on politics or the economy--there are plenty of other blogs devoted to those things--but this Glenn Beck clip is. . . well, see for yourself. . .

March's Quote to Ponder

"If your action is out of tune with your beliefs, you tend to change either your actions or your beliefs."
--Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained

On Specious Origins

Today is Darwin Day, the big day within Darwin Week, all just a part of the great Year of Darwin. Darwinism, it would seem, is as popular as ever.

I, however, am a skeptic. And I have plenty of reasons why.

People point to Charles Darwin. They say that the guy was born 200 years ago. Today they want to commemorate the anniversary of his birth. They say that they have facts about his origins: the year, the location, the name of his father and mother. All of these, apparently, are derived from first-hand accounts or early documents. But seriously, since when can centuries-old documents purporting to record birth accounts be counted trustworthy?

Perhaps I will give mental assent to the existence of Darwin the man. That he existed, however, does not necessitate that I believe all of the "Darwin said" nonsense. No doubt he was a kindly man with good intentions, but I will not subject myself to his ideas of life and purpose. My problems with Darwin the man begin with "his book."

People point to On the Origin of Species. They say that it was written 150 years ago. This year they want to commemorate the anniversary of its publishing. They say it has facts about our origins--though the year, the location, and the existence of first father and mother cannot be confirmed. None of these, apparently, can be derived from first-hand accounts or early documents.

People can wave copies in my face; they can point to the earliest manuscripts. They can talk all that they want about how accurate our current copies are. But I ask, Does it really matter? What of the textual variations over the years? How can we be sure that the "latest" really is the truest form? What if parts were wrongly changed? If some was changed, why should we trust what we now have?

For that matter, how do we know that this venerable tome is complete? Just because a compilation of the author's words were labeled as a complete book does not necessarily mean that they contain all of his thoughts on the subject.

But aside from all of this, there are fundamental doubts which no amount of textual examination can resolve. How do we know that he really wrote what he meant? If he did write what he meant, how do we know that we understand it? People will talk about scientific evidence. Our evolving minds, however, have dubious qualifications for rightly interpreting the evidence. And should the data interpretation be accurate, there's always the chance that future discoveries will controvert today's findings.

Perhaps we can just accept the parts of it that make the most common sense, and leave everyone to their own interpretations for the rest. Just don't try to force your interpretation down my throat. For instance, let's not get too excited about the implications of these "creator" references. I'd prefer that we stick to the book's feel-good moral statements.

Beyond all of this, there is the issue of changing times. Even if what Darwin taught was applicable in his day, to say that we should be subject to his ideas and theories is ludicrous. We have progressed far beyond the limited understanding of his day--enlightened as he may have been for his time. We have seen exponential scientific advancement since his time. One has difficulty arguing that his simple description of cells, for instance, is even scientific in this modern world.

And this all relates to his thoughts on the continuing process of evolution. If he resorts to unenlightened descriptions of scientific phenomena that are now more fully understood, how can we believe him when he begins to propagate theories of origins?

Even if he manages to describe the process by which whole kingdoms rise and fall--whether he labels it natural or otherwise--does it give him the right to speak authoritatively and to influence complicated moral issues?

In summary, one last appeal. Please keep your science out my religion, and I'll keep my science out of yours.

200 Years Ago Today

Abraham Lincoln was born. He famously stated his belief that "all men are created equal."

Charles Darwin was born. He famously popularized the theory that no men were created (never mind equal).