Tim,
What the heck is spirituality? Is it voodoo? faith-healing? magic? burning bushes? It seems that most people who use that term believe in some god whose attributes differ from person to person. Have you spent any time at all researching the authenticity of god or the bible? 2000 or more years ago people had very little understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, engineering or even plumbing. So they devised gods to supplant their lack of knowledge. And I guess this has led us to "spirituality", another fuzzy, inexplicable, feel-good concept. I know that you were indoctrinated in the catholic religion and this becomes an albatross to intellectual growth. But would you please show an iota of research and common sense before you continue to spew these pedestrian and anti-intellectual ideas. I think you have the resources to take a month off to search for some truth about your religious ileanings.

"Nothing less will suffice".

"What measure of standards did ANYONE put on the the Bush administration. I don't need President Elect Obama to perform miracles in my life,or to take the place of my spiritual advisor. he is only a man. If he does the best job he can do as our president, that alone should suffice.

What a frightening prospect! That this seemingly rational leader might actually turn out to be an anti-rational believer in belief as a path to real knowledge.

There is not one instance of faith rather than fact and logic ever leading to real knowledge in the entire recorded history of man. Not one!

Unfortunately the vast majority of American voters are unaware of this and wallow in numerous unsubstantiated and nonsensical beliefs.

Fortunately, there is little evidence so far that this promising new leader will decide to descend into the primeval intellectual ooze that the ignorant masses wallow in and that apparently has inspired this truly (please insert appropriate obscenity here) column.

Tim wrote "The battle over evolution theory is the best example of creed pitted against credibility. "

Evolution does not believe in an intelligent designer. That is the MAIN FAILURE of that theory. The DNA is the most intelligent "object" in existence, much more intelligent than man-made computers. Upto now, NO scientist can fully understand its mysteries.

I don't know how people who believe in evolution are using their brains. To say that evolution has credibility is TOTAL IDIOCY.

Stupid.

First and foremost, while I respect your opinion I personally do not see that the President should be a Pastor in Chief as that's not what he is there for. He is there to lead us and to encourage us to get involved however I firmly believe this call to service to be more a matter of practicality, necessity and policy than it is anything of a spiritual nature.

I feel that the call to service should be NON spiritual in nature and in fact, does not require ANY spirituality or the like behind it. I've known many Atheists, Agnostics and other non-spiritual type folks volunteer in many ways to make their community better. Unlike those of a religious and/or spiritual bent, their sole motivation was to help others. They had no need nor use of a religion or other beliefs to motivate them to serve their communities nor did/do they believe that they're banking "brownie points" with some deity. They do it because they want to make their world a better place.

It should be practical and grounded in the here and now, with an eye to the future. I firmly believe this also because removing the spiritual makes it far less divisive and far more inclusive to those of us who don't buy into or believe any sort of religious belief and/or spirituality.

With all respect to those of faith, it seems to me that so often people add a needless layer of spirituality when it just takes a logical look to see that action is needed. Why can't we just rise to the challenges ahead because we need to or the country will fail without the spirituality on top of it?

Are you kidding me? President Bush, he of the "faith-based" initiatives and constant references to the Bible, WASN'T a Pastor-in-Chief?

I appreciate CubbyMichael's comments above. Our government is meant to be neutral when it comes to religion. As an agnostic, I absolutely did not vote for Obama (or anyone) to be "Pastor-in-Chief," nor did any of the many Christians, Jews and other religious people I know.

In this country, we are responsible for making up our own minds/hearts/whatever about what religion, if any, to follow. The President of the United States plays no role in my "spiritual" life, thank you very much.

A rewrite of the Worst Book Ever Written would go a long way in making Pastor/President-elect Obama's job a lot easier. Said rewrite would delete all the warmongering, racist, death-to-all infidels and oppression of women passages in the current version. And all the dictates made by the "pretty wingie thingie" aka Gabriel to the hallucinating Mahound aka Mohammed would be referenced as such in the new edition with said references added as to where the passages were really taken from.

To Spidermean2:

Evolution does not "believe" in anything. It is a scientific theory, which explains how the world operates. It is based on science, and as a scientific theory, has stood the test of time.

In my faith background (Catholic), there is no tension between believing in evolution and believing in the creator. To call God, an "intelligent designer" is an insult to God. Instead, it is a weak substitute for the real thing.

What "Pastor" Obama and his campaign managers at the not-so-ethical ASK advertising agency recognized:

There were 35+million abortions in the last 35 years i.e Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973.

Each abortion involved three people, one was killed and two lived, the 70+million pro-choice voting adults (mothers and fathers of aborted children) in 2008 and 78+ million pro-choice voting adults projected for 2012.

"Faiths" have had their turn, for the past several thousand years, and have shown that they are determined to make everyone else conform to their ideas of the way things should be. The results are obvious: bigotry, slavery, religious wars and constant turmoil. Will these dreamers please leave the world, and its people alone, for a change and let those who have the duty to govern be free of the hairbrained ideas. Preachers spend their time giving us their ideas of what the various "holy books" tell us. None of them seem to agree on just what to have "faith" in. Until all of these folks come up with some "facts", they should preach to each other and otherwise keep their unprovable ideas to themselves, and out of all governments!

Timothy Shriver wrote of Barack Obama: "He focused over and over again on how to overcome conflict rather than use it to political advantage, and he exuded respect for others. Perhaps most importantly, he was able to be a leader and a listener at the same time."

This sounds like diplomacy. It's a good quality for a president to have.

The need for a "community of support and belonging" arises from civic hunger, not spiritual hunger. Too long have we exalted the rights of the individual above our obligations to each other and to our country, thus shredding our communities. Too long have we been defined as "the American taxpayer" and "the American consumer."

We are citizens of this country, and we are answering the call to take up the mantle of citizenship, with all the rights and duties thereof, including voting.

One does not need to believe in a deity of any kind to believe in honor, duty, respect, cooperation, and consideration. All good citizens are believers in these basic values. To describe us as "believers" and "non-believers" perpetuates the harmful politics of division and suggests that religious faith is a necessary component of citizenship. It is not, as our Constitution attests.

The word "pastor" comes from the word pasture, the place where a shepherd watches over his sheep. Citizens are not sheep. We do not need a pastor.
The armed forces have a Commander in Chief, and citizens have a President.

You have to be kidding me. Pastor in Chief. As if the incoming president doesn't already have enough to worry about, now he's our pastor too. And who exactly gave him this role?

The fact is that Obama is marginally spiritual at best from what I see. He barely talks of his faith except to say generalities. It is well know that he spent 20 years at a church with a pastor preaching hate of whites and country, yet that never seems to come up. Exactly what makes him qualified as any type of Pastor. I don't want to take anything away from his faith but I've honestly seen very little to tell me it is real. I suppose his personal life may be different but why are we heaping spiritual praise on him.

Basically from Tims article, I guess he is spiritual because he never takes sides (at least not in the debates). Of course his voting record is quite liberal but overall he just votes the most benign position. I don't know if not taking sides qualifies you to be a spiritual leader. In fact, if you really believe in something, you should probably stand up for it. Even if that means being unpopular. So, I guess if you don't really stand for anything specific, your a great spiritual leader.

I think we should stop heaping praise on this guy and start praying that he does a good job at being president of the United States. Maybe if he does a decent job of that we can talk of making him President of the World (not really).

Tim -- please grow up.

The Commander in Chief is not my pastor. I love him. I voted for him. I repsect him. He is NOT my pastor and you should really take a hard look at yourself for saying that he is.

This is NOT a Christian nation. This is a diverse and poly-religious culture. To call the leader of this wide ranging people a pastor is to discount the important role he plays.

Your comments about 'belonging' notwithstanding, your idea of service as a way to make myself feel better is exactly why religion in America is so vapid, materialistic and self-serving -- especially Christianity.

Get a grip, Tim. We're sick of this nonsense about America being for Christians only. Snap out of it.

Ewwwwwwwww.

This is the most toe-curling thing I've read in...several days, anyway.

What utter sick-making and also confused nonsense.

It's bad enough that we imbue the office of the Presidency with as much symbolic authority as we do: declaring him an American Pope just goes beyond the pale. The President isn't responsible for the national mood, for healing political or spiritual divides, or for teaching us values. What we need, more than anything else, is a President who understands the limits of the presidency and who is committed to doing the job of President with intelligence, skill and honesty.

I'm a conservative who (with reservations on the issue of abortion) is looking forward to the fresh blood that Obama is bringing to the Presidency.

I am, however, disturbed by the cult of personality that is forming around him. I am worried about the cynicism that will develop in about eight years when people finally start to realize that Obama cannot turn us individually into saints (which would be required for the reording of society that Obama supporters are expecting). This is politics. If we make it more than that we only prove that we are trying to fill voids in other parts of our lives.

readerny wrote "Evolution does not "believe" in anything. It is a scientific theory, which explains how the world operates. "

Ok, so explain how DNA works, idiot.

--- "In my faith background (Catholic), there is no tension between believing in evolution and believing in the creator. To call God, an "intelligent designer" is an insult to God. " ---

Idiots cannot distinguish what is an intelligent design from a brainless creation. Catholism trains people to be idiot so it's not a surprise if it embraces evolution.

O Tim dear, you can't possibly be serious? A President as Pastor in Chief?

I expect President Obama to do some great politics, but I doubt if he was appointed pastor.

I have marked you with an F for this essay!

And Tim dear, F is for FAIL!

And you Tim dear, morphing into a muddled New Age "Catholic" or what?

You know, Tim dear, I mean the "I'm god, we are all gods, I created myself, there is no good, no evil..." and yet the most popular person is the god in town, kind of New Age "Catholic."

Maybe someday, Tim dear, I'll tell you all about the New Age nonsense that gets passed off for profound religious insight. Maybe someday.

Tim,

Get a grip. You've gone over the edge, are passed the brink. You are several cards short of a deck.

Take time off and retrieve them.

I get what you're saying, but it's over-the-top hyperbole.

A good leader has the ability to inspire and motivate, something Bush, Carter, Nixon, etc. didn't have. Though I didn't agree with his policies, Reagan did have that ability. He could communicate well and he made the majority very proud to be Americans. Obama seems that he will have a similar talent and skill, the ability to inspire us, to make us look for the best in our nation.

The Jews were looking for a political messiah, not a spiritual one. Let's just see if Obama can help us save ourselves from all our econopolitical problems. Then, maybe he can inspire our souls regarding the nation, but let's not ask him to save or even shepherd our souls; that's beyond the job description.

Whoa! this is a totally scary, freaked out, over the top what were you thinking, Tim? Are you nuts? the last time I read anything close to this was an article on Jim Jones. Jeeezzzzzz. This isn't what this country needs. We need a leader- we don't want a government telling us about spirituality (just ask Elizabeth Dole). Have any idea what separation of church and state means- Aren't you related to the Kennedy's for G-d's sake?

And please- get some political science/philosophy/sociology/religion courses or something. And for the record, your assessment of this great new age of spirituality as opposed to the age of science -"The great thinkers of the last several hundred years argued that we must free our thinking minds from our believing minds. But in today's world, we've realized that our thinking minds aren't enough--that no matter how clever or advanced or rational we may be in our heads, we need our hearts too."

This is utter, colossal tripe. No one has ever said that. EVER. There is a huge element of spirituality in the study of science which you will never comprehend because your idea of spirituality is the hallmark card version.

In any event, we're not looking to form a cult here. You could have used a little more brain and a little less "heart" there, Tim.

(can you believe it, prolifer? we're agreeing!) :-) Kinda nice actually.

tharriso:

"The Jews were looking for a political messiah, not a spiritual one.

I think you must be confusing Jews with the Christians (generically speaking)." We J people haven't been looking for anyone. We know we have work to do and we do it by our own selves.

Good luck to you and yours in your Messiah hunt.

Why would we need a "Pastor-in-Chief"???

Americans just voted to throw out four more years of Bush's neochristian theocracy.

Go to church on Sunday and pose and pretend with your own and leave the rest of us alone. Americans are sick of Mormons, hateful child-molester Catholics like Spidermean and evangelicals trying to shove their intolerant exclusive dogmas down everyone else's throats.

Tim, Tim, Tim ... I mean, what is there to say. Your article makes little if any sense. If you are trying to say anything it is that Obama is leading by using pastoral means, meaning that he is preaching, giving hope, leading through questioning us and where we want to be. But really Tim, none of that is going on.

Obama has run a very clean campaign. He chose to not ignore the right wing's dirty tricks and instead exposed them for what they were and exposed them for what they are. He was running against a party that lies, cheats and steals and pointed it out. He exposed the real problems in this country for what they are and indicated he plans to work to fix them. Really I have to wonder why he did not get a larger majority.

And the presidency is the LAST place an American is looking for a religious message. When we go to our churches, synagagues and mosques we are looking for help in being better people. No one is looking for Obama to make them a better person. They want Obama to make this a better country, to do the work Bush did not do or prevented from being done. Americans never want to see a repeat of the federal indifference after Katrina. Americans never want to go to war over a mistake and then compound the war by continuing it and making things up to continue it, like Iraq attacked the US. They want intelligent leadership and not ideological leadership. Pastors do not offer that, political leaders do.

Omaba is the commander in chief, not pastor in chief. Your article is, well, for lack of a better term, idiotic. If you find Obama and his message to be spiritual, then I think you need a little help. You need to realize that not everything that is good comes from religion or is spiritual. Bringing good news does not require a pastor or religious figure. Working toward a better future does not require faith or a God.

People are realizing that religion does not offer all the answers and people of religion can not only be wrong, but evil. If Obama brings anything it is the promise of rationality, of living in the real world where real problems can be solved. Its an awakening that the Bush fantasy world is coming to an end and real world problems will now be given attention. Its a shaking off of spirituality, not an embrace of it, and an opening of eyes to the problems at hand and realizing we now have a commander who will see the problems and work to fix them. Nothing spiritual in that, just good ol' American hard work about to happen, something we have not see in 8 years.

spidermean2 asked: "Ok, so explain how DNA works, idiot."

How DNA "works" is well documented. If you don't know how it works then I suggest you pick up a biology book that describes how it works, read it and learn something for a change.

spidermean2 pontificated: "Idiots cannot distinguish what is an intelligent design from a brainless creation. Catholism trains people to be idiot so it's not a surprise if it embraces evolution."

Religion embraces belief in that which cannot be proven. The problem is that evolution has been proven, over and over, from fossil evidence to DNA mapping to predictions of intermediate species that were later found alive or in the fossil record. Catholicism, to its credit, does not ignore this truth and has embraced it. But instead of questioning its other beliefs it continues to hold on to them not just as beliefs but as truths. Usually when someone finds a hard held belief to be totally wrong they question their other beliefs, but not Catholics. And Evangelicals are worse, looking the truth square in the eyes and declaring it to be not only wrong but the result a conspiracy of thousands of teachers and scientists. Now that's just downright delusional.

Now Spidey, if brainless creations cannot self organize why is the earth round, how do clouds form, how do raindrops develop, how do tornadoes and hurricaners form and how do ocean currents that have lasted for hundreds of years form without an intelligent designer? And if an inteligent designer created everything we see as perfect why is the earth's orbit not circular, why is the moon moving away from the earth, why does the sun have a sunspot cycle and why do people get cancer? Not very intelligent to have created people that get cancer now is it? Open your eyes and look at the world Spidey, its running on its own. DNA does not require God's hand to work and scientists are getting close to creating life from primordial elements. I really fear for your sanity when that scientific breakthrough is announced, which I'm sure you will quickly denounce as a hoax.

But if we are going to determine what comes from what, lets think about whether belief causes delusion, or whether delusion causes belief.

bevjims1 wrote " How DNA "works" is well documented."

Ok, please explain how a set of base pairs in DNA works to form an eye? And not just an eye but two eyes. If it is well documented, maybe you can show us the process how it is done,idiot.

bevjims1 "scientists are getting close to creating life from primordial elements."

Nope, scientists are close to perfecting COPYING a series of DNA base pairs from existing simple forms of life. They are copying it pair by pair and piece by piece coz they DON'T UNDERSTAND how it really works, idiot.

bevjims1 "Religion embraces belief in that which cannot be proven."

Doomsday was mentioned in the Bible even before nukes were invented. Today, countries like Russia and the U.S. are capable of executing Doomsday. Never in the history of mankind has such destructive power lies in the hand of mankind. The Doomsday Clock is 5 minutes before midnight according to mathematical probabilities.

Proof? What proof are you talking about if idiots are not capable of rational thinking.

spidey wrote:"Ok, please explain how a set of base pairs in DNA works to form an eye? And not just an eye but two eyes. If it is well documented"

Oh well, here you go again. Explaining that process is too far above your pay grade, spidey. You don't have the knowledge, let alone understanding of biology so please. Give it a rest. Or better yet, go to school, get a degree, do the work for yourself.

"They are copying it pair by pair and piece by piece coz they DON'T UNDERSTAND how it really works, idiot."

I guess it's also useless to explain to you (again) the scientific method, or the very painstaking process of lab work (yes, having done it myself I can attest to it). You really must stop posting such ignorant tripe, spidey. To think you have the required depth of philosophical or scientific thought to even discuss this subject is really like putting lipstick on a pig.

Frankly, the fact that you put "base pairs" in a sentence with "DNA" does not indicate anything about the state of your "scientific" knowledge than the fact you can use a search engine. Well, can't we all.

bevjims1 "The problem is that evolution has been proven, over and over"

So how does the "common ancestor" look like? Does it have a face of a man and a body of a gorilla? Or does it look like a man but has gorilla brains? Are you the proof? Do you fit that description? Brainless?

Sparrow wrote "Explaining that process is too far above your pay grade, spidey."

Im an engineer. Im sure I can handle it. The question is if you guys can explain it. Im sure you can't even explain how computers work. It works much simpler than DNA.

I believe you can't even draw a mosquito let alone how fast it must flap its wings to fly. Do you have a computation for that, idiot?

Assuming you have solved how fast a mosquito flap its wings, how did the mosquito's physiology arrived to that conclusion?

Engineers uses computations to make a helicopter fly. Have you asked a mosquito how he/she arrived with computations to enable itself to fly, idiot?

c ya later guys, and enjoy the math.

spidermean wrote: "Ok, please explain how a set of base pairs in DNA works to form an eye?

A set of base pairs does not code for an eye. There are many genes that go into forming an eye, including genes the describe which tissues organize to form the eye. These genes are being mapped as we speak by scientists. Tell me spidey, who heals your cuts? Does God heal your cuts or is it that impossible DNA organizing the cels divisions and the cells moving into the proper places to repair the wound?

spidermean blathered: Nope, scientists are close to perfecting COPYING a series of DNA base pairs from existing simple forms of life. They are copying it pair by pair and piece by piece coz they DON'T UNDERSTAND how it really works, idiot."

Oh if only you got out of your basement and read a little. Read this and see if you can find a few others by yourself that describe origin of life research:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml
The work is to create life from scratch, not copied from existing life or templates. Get a clue and read about what you think you understand but haven't a clue.

spidermean continues: "Doomsday was mentioned in the Bible even before nukes were invented."

Yes, and Christ said it would happen in the lifetime of the apostles: "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."(Mark:13:30). So either apostles are still alive or Christ's prophesy not happen as He said it would. Which is it?

spidermean said comically: "So how does the "common ancestor" look like? Does it have a face of a man and a body of a gorilla? Or does it look like a man but has gorilla brains? Are you the proof? Do you fit that description? Brainless?"

Here's a test for your intelligence spidey, see what you can find about "Pierolapithecus catalaunicus", a species which is currently considered to be the common ancestors of apes and humans. I'm getting a little tired of looking everything up for you. There are pictures too based on the fossil bone structure so you can see what your great great Uncle Hairy looked like.

spidermean continues his embarassing distribe: "Im an engineer. Im sure I can handle it. The question is if you guys can explain it. Im sure you can't even explain how computers work. It works much simpler than DNA."

Well there you go spidey. You know computers can be explained because they work and are made by people. Why do you not think DNA can be explained? Is there some mysterious force that makes DNA do what it does? Is God's hand in every aspect of cell division? When you watch a single celled animal in a microscope bopping around, eating and multiplying, is it God you are watching or just a bunch or organized chemicals? There is no brain in a single celled animal. How then is it moving, eating and dividing? God or chemicals?

spidermean continues: "I believe you can't even draw a mosquito let alone how fast it must flap its wings to fly. Do you have a computation for that, idiot?"

Just what are you talking about spidey? Just because YOU cannot understand things does not mean the rest of us are just as ignorant. Just because you cannot understand DNA does not mean it does not work on its own. Have you heard of PCA reactions? A machine copies DNA into millions of copies to be analyzed. You see it in the stories on CSI when they take a swab of cheek cells and come up with a DNA profile. If man did not know how DNA worked, man could not do DNA mappings. Man could not have made PCA machines, that's right, machines that do the DNA copying. But I feel as though I'm talking to someone who just came out of the rainforest after being raised there. No, that's not fair. I would expect someone from the rainforest to accept what he saw as real and not make up gods and ignore clear evidence to keep a childhood belief intact.

I suspect spidey that you are no engineer. Engineers have a basic grounding in math and science (at least every engineer I ever met), and even physics. You have no comprehension about the most basic concept of "science," let alone genetics, evolution or life. And while you keep tossing out the "idiots" to everyone who disagrees with you- or, in reality, has more intelligence and education than you- your whole rejection of research, discourse, rationality and factual data really has to make one question, who's the real idiot?

Other than being grossly immature and acting like a 4 year old having a temper tantrum, you contribute nothing to the conversations you post on other than to toss out what you think are real zingers. Yet all your vaunted talking points have about as much impact as the sound of a rat p*ssing on cotton.

bevjims1 wrote "Why do you not think DNA can be explained? "

Simple, coz NOBODY can explain it. Your stupid comments are NOT explaining anything. I've read the link you presented and it's the same story. It tells about COPYING THE SEQUENCE OF EXISTING DNAs. Nothing original, just like all other else about DNA "discoveries".

By the way, have you solved how fast the mosquito needs to flap its wings. Which part of its DNA solved it? How was their DNA or set of genes doing its calculations? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Depending on the species anywhere from 250- 600 beats per second. I'd explain how it evolved but you don't believe in evolution or Darwin so it's a waste of time to talk science with you.suffice it to say that because insects have such a short lifespan and breed in such large numbers, their evolution and mutational changes can be traced (also one reason why fruit flies are so invaluable to biological research- something Sarah Palin should have known -her father was a science teacher. Now that's criminal).

The wings move in a figure 8 pattern- they beat or vibrate- they do not flap.Scientists have extracted the DNA codes for many species and they are able to "MAP" genetic codes, which is how they locate a particular DNA sequence for a particular trait.

from there you get into very complicated molecular biology, and if you drill down further still you will get to smaller molecules and eventually atoms and then you can go even further to atomic particles (very simplified for you spidey). But since you neither know nor understand this kind of science, it's wasted on you.

The point being, just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it does not exist.

sparrow wrote "from there you get into very complicated molecular biology"

How did it become very complicated when you guys believe that creation was a BRAINLESS creation and NOT by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Are you guys contradicting yourselves?

Also MAPPING DNA does not mean understanding it. It doesn't explain how the "map" arrived at the conclusion that it needs 500 "flaps" per second to enable a mosquito to fly.

About that 500 figure, how did you discover it? Was it because it showed in their DNA or something you saw using high speed camera? Please explain to me the "MAPPED DNA". What's the algorithm that mapped DNA used to come out to that number?

Idiot? Or should I say brainless? If mosquito DNA can arrived at that number, surely you know how was the computation done. Unless ti's not the creation that is brainless but ALL YOU EVOLUTIONISTS. Fools and brainless.

"How did it become very complicated when you guys believe that creation was a BRAINLESS creation and NOT by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Are you guys contradicting yourselves?"

You are joking. Contradicting ourselves? spidey- I have to say you are the master of the imbecilic response. Complexity has to do with structure, not creator. Honestly, is there anything ration or logical that you can grasp? I'm beginning to think ou are really dumber than a box of hair. I don't have to believe a molecule was created by G-d in order to see what a complex structure it is. Or did the "egineer" in you not get that?
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Also MAPPING DNA does not mean understanding it. It doesn't explain how the "map" arrived at the conclusion that it needs 500 "flaps" per second to enable a mosquito to fly."

No- that would be evolution- another concept you can't seem to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"About that 500 figure, how did you discover it? Was it because it showed in their DNA or something you saw using high speed camera? "
I researched in a scientidic journal. there are actually REAL scientists out there spidey who do REAL research on such things because the aerodynamics of insect flight are studied by REAL engineers who find REAL life applications for such things, many of which have military applications.
---------------------------------------

"Idiot? Or should I say brainless? If mosquito DNA can arrived at that number, surely you know how was the computation done. Unless ti's not the creation that is brainless but ALL YOU EVOLUTIONISTS. Fools and brainless."

Yep- now I know. Dumber than a box of hair. Again, spidey- evolution. E..v..o..l..u..t..i..o..n....repeat it. EVOLUTION. Darwin.....survival of the fittest....mutations....fossils...Pitcairn's Island......Origin of the Species....EVOLUTION...

And I repeat (why must I repeat?) the number of beats per second (which can be measured by sound, special high speed cameras and other methods) vary by mosquito species.
----------------------------------
There is no help for you, spidey. You're a few genes short of a homo sapiens. The only engineering you could do is build a house of cards with a canasta deck.

After managing to keep from vomiting, I have a comment.... WHAT!? You can't be serious! If someone would have written that Bush should have been thought of as "Pastor-in-Chief" because of his evangelical faith roots, there would have been an angry pitch-fork wielding mob outside the offices of the Washington Post! What about that highest of liberal values: separation of church and state? That applies to Obama and to Mr. Shriver's gelatinous new-age spirituality. It is a religous worldview. Period. No governement should enforce it. Excuse me, but a second wave of retching hit me. Good God in heaven, help us!

Troutdude- if you read the posts, nearly everyone, Obama supporters, liberals, conservatives, evangelicals alike feel the same way as you do. Shriver needs to get a spiritual grip on himself. As for Bush- well, I can't think of anyone least suited to lead anyone anywhere. And we know that from experience.

Tim,

I appreciate this article, as I do all your writings. After reading the comments, I had to reread the content because the commenter’s clearly had a different impression of your work.

I understood the term "Pastor in Chief" to be a sort of play on the term "Commander in Chief". As did many of the ancient Bible authors, you often use terms figuratively to make a point. That said, my take on the article was that President Elect Obama will not only command, but also guide, lead and nurture the country. I pray daily that Barack Obama (or as my 5 yr. old granddaughter calls him, Rocko Bama) will lead with both his brain and his heart.

I am bewildered by the commenter’s who continue to argue the existence of God, while simultaneously and vehemently arguing their perception of right and wrong. My question is this...If you believe that science dictates a world that happened by chance and we evolved to the point we are now, who can say what is good and what is bad.

As a Christian, I believe God is good. God showed and told us through scripture the difference between right and wrong. What determines right and wrong for an evolutionist? Just asking...

Deafrap wrote: "my take on the article was that President Elect Obama will not only command, but also guide, lead and nurture the country."

[A quick aside: Though the title "Commander in Chief" has become a synonym for president, it is well worth remembering that the president is the Commander in Chief of the military only, not of the citizenry. Citizens are governed, not commanded.]

Both military commanders and civilian presidents are expected to "guide, lead, and nurture." A pastor is a leader, too, and so is also expected to do these things.

However, a pastor is explicitly a religious leader, and that role is completely inappropriate for the President of the United States. Hence the vigorous responses to the Mr. Shriver's article.

Deafrap also asks: "If you believe that science dictates a world that happened by chance..."

Science does not dictate a universe that happens "by chance". Science is our attempt to understand the fundamental laws that dictate how the universe came to be and how it operates. Science has helped us describe some of these laws: the laws of quantum mechanics, of gravity, of electro-magnetism, of evolution, of chemistry, of conservation of mass and energy, etc.

One of the laws that science is currently investigating is the essential function of chaos in the universe. Chaos is a wonderfully complex kind of order that permits innovation and change, and allows marvelously complex entities to arise from very simple rules.

Our universe has laws and yet it still allows freedom, much as a well-governed country does. No laws would be anarchy. Total law would be dictatorship. This universe we inhabit has both law and freedom, and this allows life to occur.

How did such a universe come to be? We don't know. Perhaps a creator did make it, or create the laws that govern it. Perhaps the universe is itself the creator. However it came to be, it certainly does not "happen by chance." It unfolds in endless complexity governed by strict rules.

Deafrap also wrote: "As a Christian, I believe God is good. God showed and told us through scripture the difference between right and wrong."

There is much in the Bible that is good and admirable. There are also orders from God to commit genocide by slaughtering every inhabitant of a city (including the animals), except for virgin girls, who are to be used as sex-slaves and breeders. There are also laws that dictate stoning to death people who wear clothing made of two different kinds of thread.

If a human ordered such slaughter, we would not call him "good." Why is this god called good? How do followers of this religion decide what part of the Scriptures to follow and which to ignore? What is right? What is wrong?Should we kill everyone wearing a polyester/cotton shirt? Should we stone to death people who eat oysters?

"What determines right and wrong for an evolutionist?"

Reason, and the moral sense that evolved naturally in creatures who live in communities. Certain behavior traits have evolutionary benefits, and so they are genetically coded into our bodies and brains.

One moral imperative is "Treat other people as you wish to be treated." We also nurture our young. We help others. We share. We recognize bonds of kinship and community. We don't murder those of our community. We value fair play, honesty, and equitable trade. We sacrifice ourselves for the good of our family and our community. We defend our community, with force if necessary.

All of these traits enable us to live in communities and survive better than if we lived totally on our own. Therefore, these traits are now inborn.

How you choose to define your community will impact your moral decisions. Those outside your defined community usually aren't seen as people. Cheating them, stealing from them, or lying to them is not necessarily seen as bad. Paying them less, denying them the vote or an education, requiring them to wear certain clothes or stay in certain areas, denying them the right to marry or worship or hold jobs ... that's fine. Enslaving them or killing them can be acceptable, too. After all, they're not really people.

-For a psychopath or a narcissist, the community is one person. No one else matters. They are unpleasant and sometimes dangerous to associate with. This is the very definition of antisocial.

- If your community is your family, then you'll protect your blood kin but not worry about others.

- If your community is a band, the people you recognize by sight, you'll deal well those people, but feel less compunction about treating outsiders badly. Since humans evolved living in bands, it's a very common definition of community. You can belong to several bands at once: your religious community, the people you work with, your military companions, your sports team, etc.

- If your community is a tribe, you'll treat nicely those you share a bond with, even if you don't recognize them personally. Tribes can be quite large, including everyone in your country. Examples of smaller tribes are police officers, all members of your faith community, mothers with young children, people of the same sexual orientation, people with bumper stickers like yours, people of one gender, people who like football, etc. Most people today identify their communities at this level.

- If your community is all humans, then nationalism loses its appeal. You don't feel your country has a right to dominate or destroy other countries.

- If your community is all living creatures, then you don't feel your species has a right to dominate or destroy other creatures.

The qualities we define as "good" are those that are required for community living--being a team player, treating others fairly and honestly, and having the willingness to put the well-being of others before your own.

Tim, silly Tim in this essay, if I may call you that?

I just watched the video of Sally Quinn and you interviewing your sister, Maria Shriver, the first Lady of California.

Your sister, Maria Shriver, is a gorgeous looking woman, as glamorous as a Hollywood filmstar (perfectly understandable why a Hollywood star would marry her!). Sure, she is doing wonderful things and has wonderful ideals for women - realization of their full potential as human beings being an important goal. She is obviously a pro-choice feminist, who believes that some women may choose to keep their child as part of the choice, and abortion is as much a legitimate choice as keeping the child. In the true spirit of feminism she is also convinced that a mother who does her own thing as best as she can is the best role model for children. I was somehow disappointed that she did not expand on how much time and energy a woman ought to devote to children in answering a child's need for a mother to be around to guide and nurture them.

As far as her Catholicism is concerned, I got the impression she is more a New Age spiritualist who has worked some elements of Catholicism into it, less the Catholic who has worked New Age into Catholicism.

Now to you: you came across as a very emotionally sensitive, deeply spiritual man, almost in thrall of your sister. How wonderful it is to have a brother who admires a sister like that! That speaks highly of your family tradition. In many families, siblings are so eaten with rivalry and hatred that the family becomes one's own greatest enemy.

Keep up your good work, but please don't write nonsensical essays like this one!

The real difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Much is made of the politically correct way of expressing support for abortion. One calls it being pro-choice without being pro-abortion. The question is: is such a thing possible at all, when one considers what pro-choice actually means? Pro-choice is about accepting the right of a woman to abort her unborn child if she so chooses. It is definitely not the Chinese One-Child-Only policy where women are forced to abort all their children after they have had one. Neither is it the extreme measure adopted by the late Indian PM Mrs (yes an Indian woman politican) Indira Gandhi, who rolled out a national program to force sterilizations after the birth of the third child. One saving factor of this seemingly undemocratic measure was that, it was to be imposed only on the desperately poor who got free treatment in government hospitals; it was not about killing an unborn child; three children were allowed, a reasonable number for a desperately poor family who had difficulty feeding even one child. Yet the Indian psyche could not accept it. She was considered a bully and a tyrant. The enforcers of the law didn't get very far. Medical doctors could at best recommend sterilizations, not forcibly sterilize women. Unfortunately, it is the very women who could have done with sterilizations that refused to be sterilized. The incentives offered to medical doctors for sterilizations did not have such a roaring success because they had no right to violate the freedoms of the poor. Now that is democracy in action. The only excuse for the desperate measures taken in China and India can be attributed to the massive populations in both countries and the large percentage of desperately poor among them.

Abortion choice in rich, developed countries, is a different kettle of fish. Does the fact nobody is forced to abort their children, really about not choosing abortion? Not being pro-abortion as a choice? Abortion as a legitimate moral choice for the woman and abortion as a mandate imposed on the woman against her will are two different things only as far as the woman is concerned. But to the unborn child, the result is the same. It gets killed no matter whether its mother gets to make the decision or the state does.

Comparing abortion and infanticide:

To anyone who has read a textbook of human embryology, abortion and infanticide is about killing the same human being albeit at different stages of its development.

Can any pro-choice, but not pro-infanticide person say, the choice is equal, whether to keep a child or kill it? Does a pro-choice but not pro-infanticide person say: "I may choose not to kill my infant but I have no right to tell another woman that she has no right to kill her infant?"

The same logic applies to keeping slaves. To be pro-choice but not pro-slavery.

Without a law to prohibit slavery or infanticide, the same pro-choice logic would have kept slavery and infanticide fully moral as a choice.

Can one on the other hand say that something is a constitutional right and immoral at the same time?

Abortion is a constitutional right. Abortion is immoral. Abortion is a legitimate choice. An unborn child is a person with rights as long as it is named in an inheritance will, it is a person when anyone other than the mother harms it without the consent of its mother (e.g. if the unborn child is killed by an attack on the mother who was on her way to abort the child, the person who caused the abortion intentionally/unintentionally is a murderer, but the woman who would have had the same child killed only a couple of hours later is merely exercising her constitutional right.) The unborn child is a property to its mother for her to do with it as she likes, except when it is claimed as a person by another person in an inheritance law, and it becomes a person when it is hurt against the will of the mother. How does it all go together logically?

Maria Shriver is a great friend of Winfrey Oprah. That explains the New Age twist to her Catholicism. Anyone familiar with New Age lingo would know that Maria Shriver was talking New Ageism and not Catholicism.

There is a mystical tradition in Catholicism, but it has a different way of expressing itself.