This little piggy went to market, this little piggy reminds us of our ape ancestry

Ask someone what is their favourite part of the body and you will get a number of responses consisting of the usual suspects. Very few, I imagine, will cite their feet and their 'best bit'. And with little surprise. Feet are not the most attractive part of a human being's body. Mine are particularly repulsive.

Though what interests me concerning feet are the toenails. Just what are they for?! They seem to provide no apparent purpose other than to get long and tear holes in the end of the socks. 

What they seem to be is a glimpse into the past - a snapshot of who we were some millions of years ago. Our feet possess five digits each, much like our hands. Our feet possess nails at the tips, much like our hands. When our nails (toe and finger) become long they remind us of claws similar to the claws on other mammals.

Are our toenails simply a redundant remnant from a time when we walked on four limbs? When we became bipedal the need for rear claws disappeared but the nails remained. Is that not the simplest explanation?! Does it not comply with the requirements of Ockham's razor (as opposed to Ken Ham's one)?!

I came to this conclusion not through reading scientific journals or attending conferences, but by simple observation and curiosity. Toenails seemed such strange and (no pun intended) pointless things. There must be an explanation. Saying they are 'designed' begs the question "are they actually a design fault". It makes more sense to trace them back to other animals. 

And while we're on it, why do I have to shave everyday? Or to put it another way, why do I have hair all over my body? As I am carried kicking and screaming into middle age I find more and  more hair appearing in all sorts of places. Not only is it on my arms, legs and chest (and the other place, and by that I'm not referring to the House of Lords) but in my ears and up my nose. Now, having recently been to the zoo I noticed that apes don't just have human-like faces, but are also covered with a lot of body hair.

Just as toenails and fingernails are a remnant of the past, so too the fine coating of hair we all have is again a throwback to our common ape ancestor. So on that note, once you've finished grooming me, pass that banana or I'll go ape!   

Do bacteria feel the need to drink Yakult?

As possibly stated before, I have no training in Science apart from a couple of obligatory years in school. Therefore, I am fully aware that any thoughts or opinions I may have about the subject could be well off the mark, and so I'm more than happy to be corrected if wrong.

We know there are such things as 'good bacteria' - the kind that aid digestion and generally keep the body in some sort of balance, as claimed by the various pro-biotic drinks that are available. We also know that the world belongs to bacteria, in that they are the most populous life form on this planet and they live everywhere, even in the most inhospitable places. 

So we know that there are good and bad bacteria, and we know that they are a life form. So according to the Creationists at some point during those first 6 days (it's not mentioned or even hinted at in the Genesis account) God must have created them: "and on the fifth day God said, 'Let there be bacteria', and God saw that they were good".

Then, again according to the Creationists interpretation of Genesis, the Fall happened (not the Band I hasten to add) and everything went sour. Evil and sickness polluted the world and death occurred etc, etc.

Now, if bacteria are life forms, and if God created every life form to be good and perfect, and if the consequences of the Fall led to sickness and death, then it should be possible to witness bacteria becoming ill. After all (or should that be 'after Fall') they are living things, and every living thing, according to Creationists, is subject to the consequences of Sin.

And not only that, just as people, other living things affected by the Fall, can become ill and then restored to health, shouldn't it be possible to cure bacteria and restore them to health? 

 

  

The Chances Of Any Mars Rover Working On Mars, Is A Million To One They Said...

And so YET ANOTHER Mars Rover has made it to the Red Planet. Hopefully this one will do its job, which I believe is to try and answer conclusively that question regarding whether there was ever life there.

People, both scientists and Believers (Christian, not X-Files) wait with baited breath to see what it will find. 

For the scientists, the discovery of life, no matter how simple, will open up the debate on whether we are truly alone in the Universe or not. Indeed, the finding of life on Mars will only add further weight to what was previously statistical flimsy. 

For religious believers, the discovery of life will only add to their headache - you know, the one that started when Darwin first got published. If there was life on Mars then the chances are vastly increased that there might be life, life very much like our own, somewhere in the vastness of space. If there are creatures similar to us out there does that mean that there is more than one Jesus, or did Jesus' work here on Earth cover all other potentialities? Any positive discovery will force many religious people to rethink issues of faith, especially with regards to soteriology. 

War, huh, good God, what it is good for.... $1,000 billion annually apparently

"More than 100 nations have reached an agreement on a treaty which would ban current designs of cluster bombs.

Diplomats meeting in Dublin agreed to back an international ban on the use of the controversial weapons following 10 days of talks.

But some of the world's main producers and stockpilers - including the US, Russia and China - oppose the move"

So reported the BBC

When I was a kid, during the Cold War, there was always talk about a new type of bomb that was designed in such a way to kill humans but leave buildings intact. It was the epitome of efficiency. Why develop a bomb that will blow everything around it to smithereens, because when you've won the war you'll only need to spend your hard earned cash rebuilding the place you tried, and succeeded, to blow to bits. In a strange way there was a sort of logic to it. It made a certain amount of sense.

In the oddest of reversals this desire for efficiency was born in an era of wasteful consumerism. These days, when all of us are conscious of our carbon footprints and consequently are wiping for a solid minute or more on the ecological door mat before we come in, the 21st century warmongers have a casual attitude to their military ordinance. 

The first Gulf War in 1991 hailed the pinpoint accurate laser guided bomb as the future of warfare. Cluster bombs, on the other hand, are designed to be wasteful. They spread their deadly cargo over a wide area, hoping to hit a number of targets, but not that bothered if they don't. And then they just lie there. A gleaming, shiny little time bomb, waiting until someone innocently stumbles across it, or some toddler picks it up. Once they do, the cluster bomblet ceases to be wasteful.

There are currently estimated to be some 3 billion cluster munitions held in stockpiles throughout the world (these cluster bombs come in 210 different varieties). The US, Russia, and China are the three countries that are most resistant to ending the production of these weapons. I wonder why?!? There's nothing that eases the sting from a credit crunch more effectively than a few more millions made from the sale of cluster ordinance. With the credit crunch you may lose your home. With cluster bombs you may lose your home and your life.

It seems strange that America, which houses the highest concentration of Christians (in all the various hues and shades) is also the keenest to continue the manufacture and sale of these truly dreadful weapons. Whatever happened to "love your enemies"?! They certainly love them - love them to pieces! 

Part of being a Christian, in my humble opinion, is trying to harmonise all the different aspects of your life, rather than compartmentalising the spiritual/religious into one box, and having work, family, social, etc in other boxes. Christianity should not simply be concerned with what I believe on a Sunday - beliefs are a cheap form of currency and prone to drastic inflation. Rather, Christianity should seep through every aspect of my life, including things like how I spend my money.

With George Dubbya Bush not afraid to vocalise his religious convictions, it would be nice to see those convictions influencing the arms trade and American foreign policy.  

It's Really A Matter Of Degrees

On the news today I noticed that a hero of mine, Sir Paul McCartney, was awarded an honorary degree from Yale University in the U.S. Nothing desperately unusual about that, after all he's been a massive influence in the world of music for some 46 years now. He can now refer to himself as "Dr" Paul McCartney as Yale found fit to award him an honorary Doctorate in Music, but may well avoid using the title as he didn't do the work required to earn the degree.

My own denomination, the Presbyterian Church, has a proud tradition of having a well educated clergy. Apart from the obligatory 3 year Theology degree that each one has to undertake, a reasonable number go on to do further study, usually in the form of a Masters or a Doctorate. This is a big commitment for those who do as each degree is normally pursued in a part-time capacity. This doubles the time taken to achieve it and is a drain on an individuals time and financial resources, but is no doubt a source of achievement and pride when attained.

However, there are a few among our ranks who choose to try and short circuit the process by getting their post-graduate degrees from so-called "diploma mills" - unaccredited and unrecognised organisations which churn out 'qualifications' for a fraction of the price in a fraction of the time normally taken. I know of one man who lists his qualification as including 3 Doctorates (a PhD, ThD, and D.Litt). However the 'Seminary' cited has been revealed to be an unaccredited organisation that was run from a certain gentleman's front living room. No faculty, no teaching, no supervision, and a 20 minute viva that ends the question "Do you believe what you've written brother?"

Now, why do I highlight such a thing? If Paul McCartney, and others who have received honorary degrees, don't go around pretending they've earned them why do certain members of the church parade degrees obtained from diploma mills as if they were legitimate?

To proclaim you have qualifications that in reality a normal University would laugh out of the building does two things:

1. it demeans the degrees that genuine people have worked hard to earn
2. it brings the Church into disrepute

The Church has a big enough credibility gap without its own members parading round like peacocks (without the 'pea') with degrees issued by Disneyland! 

   

Too much Scotch for the Scots?!?

Today was the return of the BBC's Springwatch programme, and much like the return of TB there was a bit of Press interest.

Settling down to see the final half hour of it reminded me of why Autumnwatch is still a slightly repressed memory in the back of my head. Now don't get me wrong! I DO like it. The footage of the birds and animals is both charming and fascinating, without a doubt. What gets me is when there's nothing to show. It's like watching one of those 24hr news channels desperately trying to justify a 'live at the scene' broadcast when there's nothing to show and no-one to speak to. 

Animals are great. They just do what they do, when they want to do it. They're not interested in live feeds (of the TV kind anyway) or tightly organised schedules. They're just not prepared to play to the camera. What makes it interesting is watching the other animals, the presenters, trying to make a big screen of nothing look and sound like unmissable telly. 

Tonight, Simon King tried to whip the home viewing audience into a frenzy of fauna excitement by recounting the time earlier on when he didn't film a Scottish Wildcat. You heard me right! He talked us through how they didn't see a Scottish Wildcat, but we did get to see the rather rare glimpse of a branch wobbling. Riveting. 

For those of you who can't be arsed tuning in to see if the branch moves again, I quickly Googled an image of a Scottish Wildcat, and just to make it interesting I've also included a tabby cat. Can you tell the difference?

Answers on an e-card. 

Beauty is in the eye of the My Pictures folder

Forget famine. Forget wars and cruelty. Forget AIDS and cancer. Forget poverty and deprivation. Forget all these things. Don't we live on a wonderful looking planet!

All the bad things aside, we are surrounded by the greatest beauty and majesty in the form of nature. And whether you're into the mountains or the shore, the forests or the plains, narrow country lanes or huge expanses of greenery, our little world can bring you all the nature you want, and then some.

Recently I was in Delamont Country Park, close to Downpatrick. It was a beautiful day and the company was good. It's hard not to enjoy such a setting and as I was walking along one of the prescribed routes (the Garden walk if you're interested) it suddenly hit me that I was not the only living thing there. Sounds daft, but we can all be egocentric now and again. Around me, and mostly unseen, were a dearth of animals and insects - some cute and cuddly, others not so much. And even without the 4+ legged critters I was enveloped by trees on both sides of me. Don't ask me what kind of trees they were. The green kind, I think. These massive edifices of bark and leaf were literally breathing the breath I needed - creating the oxygen that was giving life to all around them. 

No longer was I The Only Living Boy In Delamont (my apologies to Paul Simon). I was but one of many, many living things in that park. And all of us 2, 4, 6 and 8 footed beings were deeply indebted to the trees around us. We relied on them for life.

Process Thought gives much weight to the relatedness of all things. Often, in the past, I have been guilty of believing that the world and everything in it was the property of human beings. It was a belief that came from my evangelical past, and especially of my reading of the Bible. Back then, I considered Man and Woman as the pinnacle of creation. The world was created for us, to be used by us in whatever way we thought fit. Everything in it was therefore to be considered suitable for human 'consumption'. Sadly, it is this type of thinking that has got us to where we are today - on the point of destruction. If only it were self destruction for us humans, but tragically we plan to take around 60% of all species with us.

Now, with Process in mind, I can see that we're all related: all dependent on each other. If God is in all things, as pantheism suggests, then to treat nature with disdain is to treat God with disdain. All very sandal wearing and tree hugging I know, but thought provoking, for me, nonetheless.