text:
Dialogue rarely describes the relationship between evangelicals and evolutionary science. Perhaps debate, condemnation, or mocking, but rarely dialogue. And the lack of dialogue and propensity to condemn and mock goes both ways. Evangelicals condemn evolutionary science as atheistic; evolutionists mock evangelicals as being little better than medieval religious nutcases. Prominent evangelicals will debate evolution, but as in most debates, there is little real listening. It's all about scoring points and winning the argument.
So it can be a bewildering experience for thoughtful evangelicals trying to determine the credibility of the theory of evolution. On the one hand, the scientific community, almost unanimously, considers it to be an undeniable fact. The evidence is deemed as compelling as other obvious scientific facts like gravity and heliocentricism. On the other hand, Young Earth Creationist (YEC) organizations (largely Evangelical in outlook) boldly claim that there is absolutely no evidence to support evolution, or that the evidence is either fabricated or grossly misinterpreted. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the shrillest voices on both sides of the debate agree that evolution has huge religious implications. "Evolution is true, and its clear implication is that there is no God", says one atheistic evolutionist. "The acceptance of evolution means denying the Word of God" counters YEC.
Since the choice is framed as either "Evolution or God", its no wonder that most Evangelicals shy away from talking or thinking about evolution. Theistic Evolutionism (TE) seems more like an oxymoron rather than a legitimate position on origins. This was my own perspective growing up in a conservative Evangelical culture. And although I became less dogmatic about my opposition to evolution as I entered adulthood, it was not something I thought much about. That is, until a few years ago when it became obvious that my 9-year old son was starting to have questions about science and faith, questions I myself had faced when I was younger but was maybe too afraid to discuss, or to investigate too deeply. Thus started a quest to investigate "the truth" of evolution and its implication for my faith. Sometimes courage to face our fears comes not because we are courageous, but because the alternative is deemed even worse.
Now, several years into this quest, one thing is eminently clear: I was immensely naïve to think that I could answer all my questions one way or another regarding the interaction of evolution and the Christian Faith – at least in this lifetime. Indeed, as soon as one question is answered, two more seem to pop out of the woodwork. As well, this type of investigation requires specialization in biology, geology, genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, anthropology, theology, history, history of science, philosophy, philosophy of science, and biblical studies to name but a few of the disciplines. Even brilliant academics with doctorates in 2 or 3 of the disciplines need to "trust the experts" in fields in which they are unfamiliar. I am, at the very best, a rank amateur in only of few of these disciplines; in most I am virtually illiterate. It's clear that I will never be able to completely close the book on this quest.
However, I have come to some broad conclusions. The first is that biological evolution, including common descent of humans from pre-existing animals, is the framework that best matches current scientific evidence for describing how life developed on earth. Second, and more importantly, I believe that the idea of God creating through evolution is compatible with the Christian faith, an Evangelical expression of this faith, a faith that does not compromise the divine inspiration and authority of the scriptures, and is in fact theologically more satisfying than creation without evolution.
For many Evangelicals these are heady, if not heretical, conclusions. I disagree. Neither do I believe my Evangelical card should be confiscated because of them. (Although frankly, at times, I feel like voluntarily turning it in. That's a different story). I am certainly not alone. There is a growing chorus of evangelicals who accept the science of evolution, and feel that this in no way compromises their biblical faith, nor is it the first step on the slippery slope to liberalism. Although YEC and Intelligent Design (ID) proponents tend to drown these voices out, it is likely that this discussion will become more prominent in the near future; and more heated. It's still unclear whether mainstream evangelicalism will ever accept the possibility that TE proponents can even legitimately use the label Evangelical.
And that brings us to the reason for this blog – a dialogue. The current relationship between evolution and evangelicalism can best be characterized as warfare. I believe that ending this warfare will be good for science, and much more importantly, good for the gospel. Our Christian commission is to tell the good news of Christ's resurrection, his present and coming kingdom, his new creation. The evangel in evangelicalism should remind us of this everyday. And I strongly believe that our misguided war on science in general and evolution in particular is hurting the gospel; it is preventing many from hearing and responding to the good news. And it is causing some who have heard and believed to now doubt whether it is good news at all. Dialogue is the first step towards a ceasefire.
As many of you know, I have been writing an essay on evolution and its implications for my faith. This is now on hold. I believe that this blog is a more appropriate communication vehicle than an essay. There are two reasons for this. 1) Since I am still in mid-journey, a blog allows me to share thoughts, ideas, and conclusions even if those ideas and conclusions are not fully formed. There is also no requirement to connect all the ideas into a coherent story. 2) A blog invites comments, criticism, corrections, and conversation. Not only will this enhance my own understanding, but also it will make the spiritual and intellectual journey much more satisfying.
I welcome you to join the conversation.
PS: Note on comments. You are free to provide comments and/or questions on the posts online (see comments link at bottom of each post), but be aware that right now this is open to the public (ie. anyone can read and comment on any posts). To limit this I think I'd need all readers of the blog to signup for a gmail account - I'd prefer not to do this. However, I realize that some of you may be involved in Christian organizations that would not appreciate one of its leaders or members being involved in this type of discussion. If this is the case, you can email your comments to me privately and I promise to respect your confidentiality. Alternatively, you can post giving only your first name or even a pseudonym.
Friday, 4 May 2007
Welcome to the Dialogue
Dialogue rarely describes the relationship between evangelicals and evolutionary science. Perhaps debate, condemnation, or mocking, but rarely dialogue. And the lack of dialogue and propensity to condemn and mock goes both ways. Evangelicals condemn evolutionary science as atheistic; evolutionists mock evangelicals as being little better than medieval religious nutcases. Prominent evangelicals will debate evolution, but as in most debates, there is little real listening. It's all about scoring points and winning the argument.
Posted by Steve Martin at 23:11
Labels: info on this blog
43 comments:
- Congrats with launching this blog.
I want to read your entries more carefully. However, this caught my eye:
What makes you say there's a 'growing chorus' of evangelicals who accept evolution? Maybe there's a growing number of Christians who are willing to say it may have taken a bit longer than 7 days to create the earth. But I'm not sure if that's necessarily an indication of their willingness to accept evolution as a way to understand our world, and, maybe more importantly, our future. Nandy
- 7 May 2007 at 10:15
- Steve Martin said...
You are right that there is a huge leap between accepting an old earth and accepting evolution. I would say that OEC (Old Earth Creationism - old earth but no evolution) rivals YEC within evangelicalism .. I haven't seen a study of exact percentages but to say the evangelical science = YEC would be incorrect. As well the number of Evangelicals that are TE (Theistic Evolutionist)is indeed very tiny. However, when I started studying evangelical history and its evolving theology almost 20 years ago, TE was virtually non-existent. There were no books supportive of evolution by evangelical scientists and very little discussion. In only the last 5 years there has been a flurry books, articles, and academic papers. And lots of discussion.
As to accepting evolution as a way of understanding our future .. that's about a 1000 questions in itself ... and most of them remain unanswered for me at this time ... an excellent topic for discussion.
- 7 May 2007 at 13:12
Good read Steve. (Maybe thats because I agree with all of it). See you in hell!
- 9 May 2007 at 15:28
I guess I should have identified myself.
- Terry
- 9 May 2007 at 15:29
- JTB said...
I'm excited to find this blog--got here through Fire and Rose.
As a theology & science person I've got a short list of general "how-to-relate" books on religion and science I can share if you're interested. You can find my email on my blogger profile.
Thanks again for the blog.
- 14 June 2007 at 08:13
- VanceH- said...
Hi Steve, I just recently came across your blog and was very encouraged to find someone else with a passion very similar to mine. Frankly my position feels like a knife edge sometimes, with The Word a victim on one side and science on the other. I look forward to following how you navigate these same issues. --Vance
- 29 September 2007 at 00:58
- Steve said...
Great blog, Steve - I'm adding you to my blogroll. Thanks for all the great material!
- 9 December 2007 at 00:27
What Vance said... " a knife edge... with The Word a victim on one side and science on the other" sounds like navigating with a kayak on level 5 white-water. That will be my metaphor when I enter into any rapids where either fundamental evangelists or Newtonian scientists are running, trying to knock each other out of their boats. This can be fun! Thank you Steve and Bless you all!
- 10 December 2007 at 18:55
- Mike Beidler said...
Excellent blog! Having made the switch from YEC to OEC to TE/EC over the course of the last year. Plan on me being a regular here as I explore with you the faith implications of evolution.
BTW, in a shameless plug, I edited a book last year titled Beyond Creation Science: New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation. It should be available from www.beyondcreationscience.com in the very near future. (The website is still under construction and the book is on the verge of going to press.) While the authors aren't TE, the theological implications of OEC (and, by extension, TE) are made very clear and will assuredly give you something to chew on. =)
- 28 December 2007 at 11:50
- Truth Unites... and Divides said...
Here's my voice to the dialogue/conversation:
I like micro-evolution. Adaptation within species is evident.
With respect to the doctrine of origins, all I'm willing to take a position on is that I'm firmly against Neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution.
That means that I'm open or agnostic about YE, OE, Special Creation, Progressive Creation, whatever.... Just as long as it's not Neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution.
Also, I'm a Science supporter. But I don't think Neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution is good science. And I feel distinct unease when a Christian embraces Neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution. It's akin to a sheep opening the gate to a wolf and then embracing the wolf as he walks in, so that the sheep can show the wolf's friends what a cool sheep he is.
Sheep are dumb. (I say this as a sheep too.)
- 23 February 2008 at 12:44
- Steve Martin said...
Truth Unites:
Welcome. Dissenting voices can only make the dialogue more interesting. What is important is that we understand where each of us is coming from, and that we understand each other's terminology and definitions. So, by "neo-Darwinian", what exactly do you mean? Some people take this to mean "Without supernatural involvement". If that is what you mean by neo-Darwinian evolution, then I agree that it is a problem. However, if by neo-Darwinian evolution you mean that the evolutionary mechanisms account physically for common descent (see definitions E4, E3, and E2 in my meaning of Evolution post http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-does-evolution-mean-framework-for.html ), then I guess we disagree and I'd like to understand further why you think this is a problem. I'm guessing that you believe this is "cutting God out of the picture". Is this correct?
Out of the 10 challenges to reconciling faith & biological evolution that I outlined in my theological implications post, http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/search/label/theological%20implications
it is the "divine action" issue that concerns you most. Is this correct?
- 24 February 2008 at 23:17
- James Goetz said...
Hi Steve Martin,
I appreciate you approach. Would you like to read my blog post
Theistic Evolution and Christian Orthodoxy?
- 17 March 2008 at 18:19
- Steve Martin said...
Welcome James. I did read your article & definitely appreciated it. That is not surprising what the AG states about evolution (ie. that it can not be reconciled with Gen 2) - what is surprising is that it is not fundamental & that you still were allowed ministry credentials. In many evangelical denominations, that wouldn't happen.
- 18 March 2008 at 19:40
- Bill Ather said...
Thanks for developing this blog - a tremendous public service. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues in a respectful, open, yet reverent manner. As Martin Buber once said, "The essence of dialogue is not that we relativize our convictions, but that we come to respect one another as persons."
I am an evangelical inerrantist who teaches at a secular university. This makes it difficult to "square the circle". Nearly all of my colleagues are secular evolutionists. Nearly all of my co-religionists (at church) are YEC's.
My own view has changed over the years. 20 years ago, I had the YEC view. I still respect that view, but no longer hold it. 10 years ago, I would have described myself as an OEC. Today, I probably exist on the nebulous threshold between OEC and TE. I don't like the TE label, but do find it difficult to avoid the fact that the convergent evidence in favor of evolution is much stronger than it was 10 or 15 years ago. It seems increasingly impossible to "bury one's head in the sand" and ignore that evidence. Yet, the co-opting of evolutionary theory by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and their ilk does give one pause. Disentangling the empirical from the metaphysical issues can be deeply challenging.
So I'll be reading (and participating in) this site with considerable interest!
A question that might be pondered at some future date: different people tend to have different "litmus test" questions of acceptability (whose views are "within" or "beyond" the pale). The question with which I'm currently wrestling is, "Do I really believe that my great-great-great-great------------------grandfather was a therapsid?" The answer I give myself depends on the mood I'm in, it seems. From a scientific perspective, there seems little basis to doubt this proposition. From a theological basis (given my inerrantism), there seem to me many reasons to treat this proposition with skepticism. I'll be especially interested to see how this issue is treated here.
Anyway, thanks for the wonderful opportunity provided here.
- 16 April 2008 at 09:42
- Steve Martin said...
Hi Bill:
Welcome. I'm glad you joined.
Re: the question you are currently wrestling with: First, I have found to my own chagrin, that as soon as one question seems answered, 2 more (sometimes even more difficult) questions pop up. That I believe is our lot – to live with unanswered questions – at least this side of death. God has promised that we will never regret our trust in him; I don't think he has ever promised us (even on the other side of death!) that we will know everything (eg. 1 Cor 13:12 refers, I believe, to our coming closer relationship with God – NOT with us necessarily understanding all the whys, what, and wherefores of creation).
Second, on our ancestry, you can review my post "Made in God's Image or Evolved from Apes" at: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/made-in-gods-image-or-evolved-from-apes.html to get my viewpoint on this question. On TE, I agree with the discomfort. Personally, I'm more comfortable with the Evolutionary Creationist (EC) name: see my post: "Reclaiming and Proclaiming Creation" at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/reclaiming-and-proclaiming-creation.html where I started considering this.
- 16 April 2008 at 16:53
- Truth Unites... and Divides said...
Sorry Steve for not responding sooner. I completely forgot that I visited your blog and had left a comment before.
it is the "divine action" issue that concerns you most. Is this correct?
Yes, that is a great concern. However, God = Truth. So I'm concerned not only is there an absence of "divine action" in neo-Darwinism, but that neo-Darwinism is fundamentally untrue.
- 23 April 2008 at 00:31
- Steve Martin said...
Hi TUaD,
I don't believe there is an absence of divine action in the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. (Again, check out the link in my last comment to you on definition of evolution). I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "neo-Darwinian evolution is fundamentally untrue.". Is this simply a statement of your analysis of the scientific evidence or is there other theological issues involved as well?
- 23 April 2008 at 12:40
You are correct in saying that there is very little honest and open minded dialogue on the creation vs. evolution issue. At least as far as evolutionists are concerned, there seems to be a tendency to be very militant and insulting towards those who disagree with them. Perhaps the same may be true of some creationists.
One of the problems I find with evolution as it is taught in the schools is that it is taught as truth, yet science cannot prove it happened because science cannot look at both sides without bias. The scientific method does not allow for supernatural causes to be considered. Science cannot rule out creation because it cannot consider it, as I point out in my website.
Many creationists believe in a 6,000 year old earth, while some believe that the days in Genesis are figures of speech that could represent millions of years. Yet there is a way to reconcile even a literal reading of Genesis with the fossil and genetic evidence and with an earth that is millions of years old. The earth is created in verse 1 of Genesis chapter one. In verse 2, the surface of the earth is desolate. So before the account of the six days begins in verse 3, the earth already was created, and the Bible does not say how long before verse 3 the original creation in verse 1 occurred, but it could have been millions of years.
There is evidence in the Bible that the original creation in verse 1 was not the creation of an earth in darkness and covered in water, and this suggests that some event occurred that destroyed the surface of the earth and resulted in the condition described in verse 2.
There could have been a whole age before the six days that included life, and that life could have resulted in the fossil record as we see it today.
- 6 May 2008 at 23:42
- Steve Martin said...
Hi Author,
The solution I think you are referring to is the Gap theory. Most of the my growing years were spent in a Plymouth Brethren church which was very big on the Gap theory. I don't find it persuasive for a bunch of reasons. First, the biblical support for this seems a huge stretch (ie. citing Ezekiel 28:12-15; Isaiah 14:9-14 as references to the fall of Satan that occured in the middle of Gen 1:2. Second, the scientific evidence for this type of catastrophe is completely non-existence - the history of the earth is one of slow change over vast periods of time.
For some thoughts on Evolutionary Creationists that also believe in a "literal" interpretation of Gen 1, see: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-genesis-1-11-historical-many.html . For some thoughts on literal interpretation of Gen, see: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/literal-or-liberal-our-only-choices-for.html
- 7 May 2008 at 17:30
- Charlie J. Ray said...
Given the refusal of scientific journals to publish the work of Michael Behe, this discussion is going to be likewise rejected by the scientific community. The reason being that the scientific community in general advocates that science and theology are totally incompatible. Their basic assumption is one of philosophical and materialistic atheism.
Thus, no matter how intellectual your attempts at harmonizing science and faith, you are going to be seen as a superstitious Christian by the scientific community and you are going to be seen as a theological liberal by the more "fundamentalist" side of the Christian community. The word "Evangelical" itself is so ambiguous as to mean little or nothing without further particularization of what you mean by that word.
As for me, I know that the YEC view is extremely lacking and so is the literal six day creation view. That being said, I cannot render Genesis 1-11 as myth nor can I reject the miracles of Jesus Christ with some sort of naturalistic explanation. The issue of science versus theology is much more complicated than just choosing which view of creation you're going to harmonize with science. I find it difficult to reduce Christianity to the level of myth to any degree at all. At the same time, I cannot reject what we have empirically demonstrated as true via science.
That being said, we should not forget that science is not totally unbiased, as Thomas Kuhn rightly observed in his landmark book on the philosophy of science, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
- 12 September 2008 at 09:16
- Steve Martin said...
Hi Charlie,
Welcome. Although I agree there are many in the scientific community that are biased against Christianity (and religion in general) and who equate science with their own meta-physical "faith" (atheism), I don't believe that it is fair to tar the entire field with this brush. See Keith Miller's guest-post entitled Creation, Evolution, and the Nature of Science on this topic.
Re: Definition of Evangelical. Yes it can be ambiguous. For this blog, I'm using John Stackhouse's definition.
Re: bias in science. Well, that is a topic that Marlowe will touch on in his upcoming series (starting on Sunday). I'll defer to him on that one. :-)
- 12 September 2008 at 12:45
- Charlie J. Ray said...
Of course not all scientists are atheists. However, the fact that they refused to publish Michael Behe's work in microbiology proving irreducible complexity is indicative of the biases of the scientific community in general.
- 12 September 2008 at 13:54
Hi Charlie,
What unpublished papers of Behe's are you referring to? I have to ask because the Discovery Institute states that Behe has "over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals". It doesn't sound like there's a big atheist conspiracy against Behe to me.
People of all religions -- Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists alike -- have manuscripts rejected all the time. Myself included. It has nothing to do with that person's theological beliefs, and everything to do with the nature of their science. I suspect if Behe ever has had any manuscripts rejected by peer-review, it's only because his approach to ID requires a complete redefinition of science that would necessarily incorporate practices like astrology or alchemy as well (Behe has admitted this in court). ID simply can't be good science if we have to redefine what science means in order to accomodate Behe's agenda. It's like redefining the word 'blue' to incorporate 'red'.
Having said all that, I can't agree with your earlier statement that "the scientific community in general advocates that science and theology are totally incompatible". In my experience, that's simply untrue. Science and theology are completely compatible, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. They are simply different ways of knowing. As Christians, we get our theology from the Bible. As scientists, we get our science from the natural world. To be sure, there's some interfingering of the two, but the shortfall of the ID movement is that it does not respect this distinction between science and faith, and instead tries to pass off what is fundamentally a theological proposition as a scientific one. This is why the movement has not gained any ground with scientists and why Behe's career as a scientist has evaporated (ditto Richard Dawkins).
- 12 September 2008 at 15:30
- Charlie J. Ray said...
Basically, you're saying that Immanuel Kant's distinction between the metaphysical and the real world is irrelevant because there are different ways of knowing these things. That's merely an evasion of the issue at hand. In the eyes of the scientific community your ideas about theistic evolution are just as much a violation of naturalistic science as Behe's theories of intelligent design. Just stating that there are different ways of knowing says absolutely nothing about the issue at hand.
While Behe has many published papers, the minute he came out with papers dealing with irreducible complexity, which NOWHERE even mentioned intelligent design in any direct way, his papers were refused for publication. As if asking the question were a violation of scientific orthodoxy, (See Thomas Kuhn's, Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Here's a good description of Behe's dilemma:
Mike Behe's Adventures in Non-Publishing
the context: Design theorists have raised a variety of questions about the plausibility of neo-Darwinian evolution. For example, in Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), Michael Behe claims that some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex and probably could not be produced in the step-by-step process that is proposed in current neo-Darwinian theories.
a possibility: Consistent with the standards of modern molecular biology, Behe is encouraging a detailed examination of evolution, at a deeper level with higher standards. As expected, his challenges have stimulated creative thinking and experimenting among individual scientists who read his book or heard about his ideas in subsequent reviews, lectures, or internet debates. His critical questions have served as a catalyst for action by defenders of evolution who want to show he is wrong, and by proponents of design.
the reality: When he submitted papers about irreducible complexity to science journals, what was the response? Behe summarizes: "While some science journal editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails." { In this section, all quotations are from Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to Critics concerning Peer-Review by Michael Behe. }
For example, one editor described a problem: "I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive." Behe's submission was sent to a senior journal advisor, who responded to Behe's critical analysis with a generous proposal for delayed publication: "Having not yet understood all of biology is not a failure after just 200 years, given the amount of understanding already achieved. Let us speak about it again in 1000 years." The editor, in rejecting Behe's paper, said "I would like to encourage you to seek new evidence for your views, but of course, that evidence would likely fall outside of the scientific paradigm, or would basically be denials of conventional explanations. You are in for some tough sledding."
With another journal, after Behe submitted a tightly focused paper (a reply to specific criticisms) the editor made an excellent proposal for an expanded project that — consistent with the noble ideals of science — would have performed a valuable service by encouraging the open discussion of an exciting new idea:
"The notion of intelligent design is one that may warrant further exploration, even though the topic has been dealt with extensively by both practicing scientists and philosophers of science. Should this exploration take the form of contrasting viewpoints in articles by two persons, published in the same issue, on the more general aspects of the topic, then our editorial policy of presenting current issues of significance in the biological sciences might be satisfied. / Recast in more general terms, your article could present the "pro" side of the issue, and in that context it could address some of the criticisms that have appeared since your book was published, but it would have to provide a much broader perspective. In particular, it would have to assume a readership that is not familiar with your book, at least not in any detailed way. An accompanying article could present the "con" side of the issue, again taking a general perspective. No doubt your book would figure prominently in both articles, but the theme would be modern concepts of intelligent design rather than a specific publication. This approach would almost certainly reach a broader readership than a detailed response to specific criticisms. It also has the added advantage of allowing you to present a synopsis of your entire case rather than just defending specific aspects of it. Such a paired set of articles would imply that the topic is important, and therefore would attract additional readers."
This is an excellent "open science" approach. But the journal's editorial board was less enthusiastic. They protested that "it is not possible to develop a meaningful discussion" between a design theory "based on intuitive, philosophical, or religious grounds" and an evolutionary theory "based on scientific fact and inference." And they concluded, "Our journal... believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages. Although the editors feel that there has already been extensive response to your position from the academic community, we nevertheless encourage further informed discussion in appropriate forums. Our journal cannot provide that forum, but we trust that other opportunities may become available to you."
My contention with you is that you imply that the scientific community is somehow more accepting of your views? Do you HONESTLY believe you could publish ANYTHING in peer journals concerning theistic evolution? Or even a theory that remotely suggested such a possibility?
While it is true that as CHRISTIANS "we" don't have a problem with doing both science and theology, the scientific orthodoxy at this time is devoted to a materialistic and atheistic paradigm such that even a concept like irreducible complexity, without even a mention of intelligent design, is outright rejected.
I think you're equivocating since your remark that there are two different ways of knowing implies such. Basicly, science is empirical and religion is some sort of gnostic revelation given to the deluded. Isn't that how we are portrayed?
If such is the case, then this dialogue is beneficial only to Christians who are seeking to find some rational basis for believing that the revelation of God in Scripture is true. However, I have seen few efforts that made any progress. Your efforts are essentially a more glamorized version of the YEC view and in the eyes of the world at large? Just as kooky.
- 12 September 2008 at 16:23
Hi Charlie,
I assume your last post was directed at me, so I'll respond to it.
With regards to the practice of science, there's a necessary and fundamental distinction that I don't think you're making that's causing you to see an atheist conspiracy where there is none: the difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism. Science assumes the functional integrity of the world. That is, it assumes that the universe is able to operate according to inherent natural principles, and does not require a diety to come in and 'bend the rules' every once in a while to make things work. This assumption is made because if we allowed ourselves to appeal to miraculous acts of God, there would be absolutely no point in trying to discern patterns and processes in nature -- every mystery could simply be attributed to miraculous intervention. For this reason, scientists are limited to inferring natural causes to explain natural phenomena (methodological naturalism). Note that this assumption says nothing about the existence or inexistence of God -- it only speaks to the functional integrity of the universe. The outright denial of God's existence, on the other hand, is ontological naturalism and is not an assumption that science makes (even though some scientists subscribe to it).
With that in mind, the reason why ID is not a scientific concept is that it does not assume the functional integrity of the universe. It assumes that there are gaps in the system that require some supernatural sealant to plug them. Besides being bad science, many Christians also believe this is bad, so-called "God of the gaps" theology. This is why ID is rejected by science journals -- not because it doesn't assume ontological naturalism, but because it doesn't assume methodological naturalism.
"My contention with you is that you imply that the scientific community is somehow more accepting of your views? Do you HONESTLY believe you could publish ANYTHING in peer journals concerning theistic evolution? Or even a theory that remotely suggested such a possibility?"
Simply put, no. I don't honestly believe I could publish anything in a peer reviewed science journal concerning evolutionary creation (theistic evolution). Why? Because evolutionary creation is not a scientific position! Sure, it assumes the scientific theory of evolution, but the minute God enters the picture (the "theistic" part), we have left the realm of science and entered the world of the supernatural. And I can't blame science journals for not allowing me to publish about the supernatural. Science doesn't do supernatural. It would be like going to vegan restaurant and expecting the chef to honour my order of blue steak. Behe should stick to publishing his theological divinations in journals like PSCF, not Cell Biology or the Journal of Biochemistry.
Shall I apologize if my ontology of science and faith seems "kooky" to the world at large, as you put it? Am I crazy for thinking that we cannot find absolute proof of God's existence in a test tube? Maybe. But I feel vindicated for two reasons. First, the kind of positivism espoused by atheists and neocreationists alike is not true to Christian theology at all. There is much more to this world than what we can see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. So we should not pretend that we can even broach the spiritual realm with the inherent limitations of science. As A.S. Byatt said, "There is a masterly lack of logic in accusing an Age of Materialism and then invoking a wholly material spirituality - is there not?"
Second, the Bible itself tells us repeatedly that we cannot come to know God without faith (e.g., Heb 11:3). Sure, the heavens declare God's glory (Ps 19:1) and His invisible qualities are clearly seen by what He he has created (Rom 1:20), but these aren't testable propositions. They are instincts derived from our consciousness. If we could use science to prove God, we wouldn't need faith!
- 12 September 2008 at 22:07
- Steve Martin said...
Hi Charlie,
I agree there have been examples of discrimination against ID supporters. I also agree that many in the scientific community think TE and EC positions are "kooky" (lots of them hang-out at scienceblogs). As Christ indicated, we shouldn't be surprised at this, or too concerned – we are always going to be criticized for our faith. "Scientific respectability" is not the reason we are TE / EC (contrary to the oft heard accusation against TE positions); scientific integrity is. For many of us that have investigated the issue of origins, the theory of evolution matches the scientific evidence.
I don't want to get into the specifics of Behe's situation in this thread. I don't even want to discuss Behe's evidence in this thread except to point out that many in the Evangelical scientific community are also criticizing his findings. (Certainly to say he proved irreducible complexity is much too strong). For example, Stephen Matheson from Calvin College has posted a bunch of articles on Behe's work – Matheson is way more qualified to address the issues than I am. More the point for me is the broad brushing of the scientific community as "devoted to a materialistic and atheistic paradigm". I really don't think this is fair – there are many Christians in that community (eg. Jordan above) who do not share this atheistic paradigm, but accept the scientific consensus for evolution. I'd encourage you to read Miller's article I indicated above – it succinctly describes the situation as I see it.
- 12 September 2008 at 23:52
- Charlie J. Ray said...
Well, I think you're ignoring the facts. Thomas Kuhn has already proven that scientific peer groups operate much like "churches." There is an orthodoxy they follow and to violate such orthodoxy would constitute a paradigm shift.
The current paradigm is inherently materialistic. Behe never "proved" irreducible complexity but his work did raise the question.
Secondly, the minute you introduce any supernatural "theory" to science, it is no longer "science" but theology. The capitulation that there are two ways of knowing, i.e. empirical science versus metaphysical theology, what you have are two absolutely separate sciences. Theoretically, at least, all knowledge should be generally relative, as in Einstein's field theory.
While you are correct that "individual" scientists may be privately Christians and hold theological views, this can never be a part of doing science or they would be laughed out of their jobs.
The charge stands. The philosophical paradigm in scientific "orthodoxy" is a naturalistic, materialistic and therefore "atheistic" bias against theology.
While this is good in one sense, that is, we don't want to appeal to magic, superstition or whatever to explain what might have an empirical explanation, I don't think this same principle can be always applied. This is especially true when it comes to the origin of the Big Bang or the initial beginnings of primitive micro-organisms. I might buy it IF micro-biologists could reduplicate the beginnings of life in a test tube. Until then, I will continue to ask the same question Behe is asking. Is it possible that the complexity of micro-organisms is irreducibly complex? I think that is a fair question for even a scientist to ask. If it is disproven, well and good. However, to dismiss the question out of hand is tantamount to closedminded ignorance, not academic freedom or even scientific freedom.
Personally, I think the way Behe has been treated is disrespectful at best, even if his theory is eventually disproved.
- 13 September 2008 at 07:53
- Charlie J. Ray said...
Essentially, the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism is a moot one. Of course, one must always look for the naturalistic explanation or else we wind up with superstition or magic as an explanation for what has a naturalistic explanation.
However, I would argue that methodological naturalism is the same thing as ontological naturalism in the orthodoxy of science. Even if we accept your dichotomy, the implication at best from the theological side is deism. That is that the universe has laws that God set in place and now the universe is somehow self sustaining. That actually undermines the omnipotence of God and what/who God is ontologically since if the universe is now operating independently of God, then something is in existence that no longer depends on God to sustain it. The biblical and theological view is that God not only created the universe in the beginning and providentially guides all that happens, but He also upholds and sustains it from one minute to the next. Without God it would not run or even exist in the next instant.
Therefore, this idea that somehow science and theology are compatible poses many philosophical and theological problems. Just as science has yet to solve the problem of how microbiological life truly began, Christians have yet to solve the metaphysical and philosophical problem of how to integrate empirical science with metaphysical sciences like theology and philosophy. This site seems to be completely ignoring this side of the issue.
The questions raised by Kant's Critique of Pure Reason surely would apply here?
- 13 September 2008 at 08:05
- Charlie J. Ray said...
"First, it is amusing that folks like Fox who proclaim to be interested in moving the academic ball forward by censoring faith-based perspectives out of academic existence are themselves irretrievably stuck in an 18th century Kantian dialectical thought framework. Fox's view that faith has a place only in a very restricted realm that needs to be walled off from everything else is classic Kantian noumenal/phenomenal dialectic. For Kant, faith and reason were not only opposed to each other, they had to be in order for each to be real. Fox's view of the relationship between faith and scholarship thoroughly reflects this mode of thought. But while Kant felt it necessary to protect faith from reason because he thought reason would destroy faith if allowed, Fox apparently believes that 'scholarship' needs to be protected from faith in order for true scholarship to survive."
- 13 September 2008 at 08:56
- Steve Martin said...
Hi Charlie,
I do welcome dissenting opinions on this site but I think this discussion is becoming pretty tangential to the OP. Actually, part of it is very relevant to Miller's post and his follow up post on Is the scientific academic community a hostile environment for faith. I would move the comments & conversation over there if I could figure out how to do it with this Blogger tool. Again, please read those posts.
Re: characterization of this entire site as ignoring issues – have you read all 110+ posts? :-) I do realize it is tough dropping in part way through a conversation, but it might be good to review a few of the other posts.
Re: charge of deism – there are a few threads that have touched on that. See this Polkinghorne quote post for example. But I agree, divine action can be tough to articulate – see for eg.. my theological implications of an evolving creation post.
Re: Bias. Well, the guest-post series by Marlowe Embree over the next few weeks (starting tomorrow) will discuss this. You may want to follow that.
- 13 September 2008 at 09:52
Hi, Steve. Thanks for stopping by otmatheist. Your input will be, invaluable to me. I, too, am an evangelical Christian. Admittedly, I have never really taken evolution seriously. In my conversations with atheists over on otmatheist, it comes up once in a while, but to be honest, I would have to say that I don't believe in evolution ... yet.
With that said, however, I *have* learned that there is a lot of scientific evidence supporting it. And I *have* come to the point where TE is a viable explanation, while I don't happen to be on that page myself. I'm not *against* it, per se - I just am not convinced that it's true.
Anyway, I look forward to learning what I can here. It will be helpful to have the information coming from another evangelical Christian rather than atheists. Whether or not that *should* make it easier to swallow, it *does* make it easier to swallow. So, thanks for that!
BTW, the url I attached isn't *my* blog, but I do post on it weekly.
- 30 September 2008 at 16:11
- Steve Martin said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- 30 September 2008 at 19:26
- Steve Martin said...
Hi Mike,
Welcome. Let me know if you have any specific questions - offline by email if you prefer. Just as long as you can accept an occaisonal (or frequent) "I don't know".
- 30 September 2008 at 19:27
I just thought I'd share an interesting article I recently came across from Christian Scholar's Review that might be of interest.
Harlow, Daniel C. "Creation according to Genesis: literary genre, cultural context, theological truth." Christian Scholar's Review 37, no. 2 (2008): 163-198.
In this essay, Daniel C. Harlow brings the theological principles of divine accommodation and progressive revelation to bear on a genre-sensitive reading of Genesis 1 and 2 in their ancient Near Eastern context. He questions also whether the Bible teaches that physical death was a consequence of original sin and whether biblical genealogies offer a guide to the age of the cosmos. The essay opposes concordist attempts to harmonize Genesis with the findings of modern science but asserts that the book's message is compatible with a Christian construal of an evolving creation. Mr. Harlow is Associate Professor of Religion at Calvin College.
- 16 October 2008 at 16:26
Sorry for another comment on resources. However, there's one more article that many might find useful. Although the title would seem to indicate an anti-evolutionary stance, it's actually quite the opposite. Rather, the author's target here is the reductive materialist ontology (a metaphysical, not scientific, stance) often championed by those who accept evolution but deny any form of theism.
Cunningham, Conor. "Trying My Very Best to Believe Darwin, or, The Supernaturalistic Fallacy: From is to Nought." REVER-Revista de Estudos da Religião (September 2007): 1-38. Available at: http://www.pucsp.br/rever/
This paper discusses how Charles Darwin's theory, from a simple hypothesis on the origin of species, reasonably non-aggressive on cosmological and ontological basis, became, under recent Darwinian and materialistic approach, a definite "scientific thesis" against any possible consistency on the side of any theological or non-materialistic philosophical theory. Here, we may realize that the real aim of such authors is a sort of ontological nihilism fed by human ancestral tendency to replace empiric reality by theoretical utopias heavy loaded by wishful thinking.
- 17 October 2008 at 14:02
- Steve Martin said...
Hi T'sinadree,
Thanks for the links - I'll have to check them out. The Harlow article may be similar to one of my favourites Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Danceby Conrad Hyers.
- 19 October 2008 at 18:57
I'm not into all of your categorizations on this website (people who believe, don't believe in this or that). I do want to thank Steve for giving us a forum for discussing evolution and our faith. Let me start by saying that philosophically, we can not 'know' anything. That is to say, everything that we think we know is something that we have learned to believe.
It is arrogant of us as a people to believe that we really understand anything -- it is our emotions that we really know, yet we really don't understand them. As you may have guessed, I am a Protestant; not only a Protestant, but one that believes very strongly in the Lord.
I wanted to give you my perspective on the apparent discrepency between creationism and evolution. If my viewpoint gives some people some insight into the Lord, then that would just be great.
To me, there is no discrepancy between modern science and Christianity. It seems that modern science is out to get Christianity, but that is somewhat of a state of mind. Yes, there are liberal factions that work to try to debunk God; but as yet, they have only proved him. The best that physicists can come up with is -- everything appeared from a single point in an instant. Hmmm, everything came all of a sudden, from nothing; sounds like the Lord to me!
I suppose that the biggest discrepancy for most folks is time; that is, 7 days?
We mark days by a sunrise (or sunset), but, are 7 days equivalent among us? Are 7 days the same to a child as they are to an elderly man? No! of course not, and we know this. What would 7 days be to someone that is 1000 years old? How about 10,000 years old?
7 days are to us 7 sunrises (sunsets); but for good reason! We follow the commandments as the Lord gave them to us! He gave us those commandments because of our short life spans. What are 7 days to the Lord? If our lifetime is but 'a blink of the Lord's eye,' then what is a day to him?
The Lord started by creating light. What scientist can say that they understand even light? But, light defined our universe, and, eventually, we got here. We got here.
If you watch those science programs on tv that talk about the creation of the universe, they never speak of the Lord, and never offer any good explanation of any reason; it's just 'this is what we belived happenned.' But, if you watch them with belief in the Lord, it all makes sense.
Science has challenged Christian faith for centuries now. I am a chemist, and I understand this. There is a truth that is undeniable that science once sought. Science no longer has to fight the Catholic Church, per se, but our own beliefs. But, in its generational incarnations, science doesn't test the Lord, it dismisses him altogether.
In as such, science has dismissed truth as a worthy pursuit.
- 21 October 2008 at 04:21
Does anyone know of any high school resources or curriculum to teaching evolution from a christian perspective. Not necessarily choosing one view but objectively presenting all the views??? A sort of compare and contrast while also covering "secular" evolution.
- 2 April 2009 at 23:25
- Steve Martin said...
Hi anonymous:
You may want to check out Douglas Hayworth's post The Challenge of Teaching Science in a Christian Homeschooling Setting.
- 7 April 2009 at 21:13
What a great focus for a blog! I'm glad I stumbled over here from the Fire and the Rose. Before coming to Christ, I was an atheist who definitely found the evangelical insistence on creationism to be a stumbling block to learning about Christianity. I appreciate your commitment to open dialogue. Adding you to my rss feed....
- 8 June 2011 at 17:24
- Dan Eumurian said...
Hello, friends! I was delighted to find this resource as I was searching for a version of British physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne's teakettle analogy to share with an atheist friend. I've been interested in the science of origins since eighth grade, some 48 years ago. I'm a piano technician, songwriter, and member of ASA. My church allowed me to teach a class on science and faith a few years ago. Thanks, everybody, for sharing! If anyone's interested, I blog a little at www.PianosNSongs.com.
- 16 July 2014 at 05:46
- Dan Eumurian said...
Hi, Steve and friends. I'm in an ongoing correspondence with an outspoken atheist. I noticed that there are no entries in your wonderful blog, except for mine, after 2011. I'm an ASA member, Wheaton Grad School grad, piano tech, songwriter, and amateur regarding the science of origins. Would one or more of you please contact me regarding randomness in evolutionary creation, and possibly regarding the evolution of religion? Thanks!
- 21 July 2014 at 00:21
- Mike Beidler said...
Steve retired this blog several years ago, but I have received your comment, and I'd like to assist where I can.
Presently, I'm the President of the DC Metro Section of the ASA, and my brother went to Wheaton College, so those two factoids should count for something.
Feel free to shoot me an email at mike.beidlerATgmailDOTcom.
- 21 July 2014 at 00:38


text:
Papercutter #07
by Clutch McBastard Author and Various Author
Papercutters are always so exciting! They're comic compilations of some of the most talented artists out there. This issue: MK Reed and Jonathan Hill present Amerikus, about being an outcast in middle school, The Hill by Aron Nels Steinke is about the moment he realized he was a cartoonist, and Andy Hartzell adapts a Hans Christian Anderson tale of a love story between porcelain figurines. Totally worth the $4 for comic lovers.
You must log in to comment.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Watch CBSN Live
According to McAfee, 16.50% of Web searches for Superman led to sites with viruses and other malicious software.
Pictured here: The Superman costume that was worn by Christopher Reeve in "Superman: The Movie." on display at Profiles In History in Calabasas, northwest of downtown Los Angeles, Calif., July 19, 2012.
Credit: Frederic J. Brown/AFP/GettyImages
According to McAfee, 16.35% of Web searches for Thor landed on sites with viruses or other malware.
Pictured here: A wax figure of Thor, as portrayed by actor Chris Hemsworth, appears at the Madame Tussauds New York's Interactive Marvel Super Hero Experience at Madame Tussauds on in New York City, April 26, 2012.
Credit: Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images
McAfee says 15.70% of searches for Wonder Woman led to unsafe Web sites.
Pictured here: Olympic Vollyball Gold Medal winner Misty May made her acting debut as Wonder Woman during taping of the "Eve" television show in Los Angeles, Calif., Sept. 9, 2004.
Credit: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)
Aquaman, last year's #1, tied for third place this year with 15.70% of searches leading to malicious sites.
Pictured: The cover of the DC Comics' zero issue of "Aquaman."
Credit: DC Entertainment
McAfee says 15.10% of Wolverine sites tested positive for malware.
Pictured here: Madame Tussauds New York celebrates their 'Marvel Month of May' by unveiling a wax figure of 'Wolverine', as portrayed by actor Hugh Jackman, flexing his muscles with claws drawn, sweating it out along side New York Sports Club members in New York City, May 14, 2013.
Credit: Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Madame Tussauds
14.70% of searches for Spiderman led to Web sites containing malware, according to McAfee.
Pictured here: Spiderman attends "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Be Amazing Day Volunteer Day at I.S. 145 Joseph Pulitzer in Queens, New York, April 25, 2014.
Credit: Mike Pont/Getty Images
Web searches for Batman led to unsafe sites in 14.20% of cases, McAfee reports.
Pictured here: A visitor looks at Batman masks used in the seven Batman films at The Batman Exhibit on the exhibitions opening day at the Warner Bros. Studio lot in Burbank, California, June 26, 2014.
Credit: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images
Black Widow is one of two female characters on McAfee's list this year. Web searches led to malicious sites 13.85% of the time.
Pictured here: A visitor to the London Super Comic Convention wears a Black Widow costume at ExCel in London, England, Feb. 25, 2012.
Credit: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Web searches for Captain America led to malware 13.50% of the time, McAfee reports.
Pictured here: A Captain America character is on display at Universal Studios during the Spider-Man 40th Birthday celebration in Universal City, Calif., Aug. 13, 2002.
Credit: Michel Boutefeu/Getty Images
McAfee says 11.25% of searches for Green Lantern led to sites that tested positive for viruses or other online threats.
Pictured here: The emblem of the superhero Green Lantern stands outside the premier of Warner Bros. Pictures' "Green Lantern" held at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, Calif., June 15, 2011.
Credit: lberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images
Searching for Ghost Rider online led to unsafe Web sites 10.83% of the time, according to McAfee.
This file image provided by Columbia Pictures shows Nicholas Cage in a scene from "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance."
Credit: Columbia Pictures


text:
Author Profile
Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. His most recent book is Who Rules the World? from Metropolitan Books.
Noam Chomsky: We Must Stop War with Iran Before It's Too Late
The Trump administration is pursuing catastrophe to protect U.S. dominance. MORE
Features · May 21, 2019
Noam Chomsky: The Republican Party Is Becoming a Real Danger to Human Survival
Nuclear weapons, climate change, and the prospects for survival. MORE
Views · June 13, 2016
Noam Chomsky: The Consequences of Wielding a Sledgehammer Against All U.S. Enemies Around the World
A continuation of longtime activist and academic Noam Chomsky's essay, "Masters of Mankind," from his new book, Who Rules the World? MORE
Views · May 10, 2016
Noam Chomsky: Who Rules the World?
The longtime activist and academic gives a broad overview of the state of the rulers and resisters around the globe. MORE
Views · May 9, 2016
Noam Chomsky: The Real 'Grave Threat' to World Peace Isn't Iran—It's the U.S.
The longtime leftist intellectual on the absurdity of American opposition to the Iran deal. MORE
Features · August 20, 2015
Noam Chomsky: The Long, Shameful History of American Terrorism
President Obama should call our country's history of supporting insurgents abroad for what it is: U.S.-backed terrorism. MORE
Features · November 3, 2014
Noam Chomsky: Only One Thing Will Make Israel Change Course
Israel's brutalization of Palestinians through exercises like "mowing the lawn" will persist without a change in U.S. policy. MORE
Features · October 2, 2014
Noam Chomsky: The End of History?
The short, strange era of human civilization would appear to be drawing to a close. MORE
Features · September 4, 2014
For Gaza, 'The Norm' Is Devastating
With its latest offensive, Israel's objective is simple: to return to the status quo. MORE
Features · August 4, 2014
Just Whose National Security?
The government's idea of protection seems awfully self-serving. MORE
Features · June 6, 2014


text:
While many celebrities indulge in the guilty pleasure of McDonald's, it would appear that superstar designer Calvin Klein isn't one of them.
Klein's ex-boyfriend, Nick Gruber, revealed a hilarious anecdote about the time he convinced Klein to go for some classic American fast food.
"I made Calvin go to McDonald's and have a Big Mac, and he asked if they had it medium rare," Gruber told Page Six Magazine.
Klein didn't appear to enjoy the burger.
""He took a bite, and he was like, 'Ugh, what's this?' I'll never forget that story: medium rare for a Big Mac at McDonald's," Gruber said.
Gruber, an aspiring male model, is writing a tell-all memoir about his relationship with Klein, who is 48 years older than him.
DON'T MISS: The Fabulous Life Of Amancio Ortega, The Mysterious Billionaire Behind Zara >


text:
This blog is dedicated to my Maxie. Max was only 9 and a half months when he stopped breathing at daycare. We are devastated by the loss of our most beloved baby boy. Hopefully, this blog will give readers a sense of what a beautiful spirit he was and will help to keep his memory alive.
Too cute!
Laughing out loud!
Post a Comment


text:
Catholic Church buys small strip mall in Portland as investment property
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) � The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has purchased a small shopping plaza with the intent of using it as an investment property.
Diocese spokesman Dave Guthro said the $2.75 million purchase in December represents the first time the diocese has bought a property in Maine with the intention of using it for profit.
The Portland Press Herald (http://bit.ly/W7VXOv ) says the property, anchored by a Rite Aid drug store, includes a grocery store, a laundromat and a retail space that is currently vacant.
The property on Congress Street is located roughly between the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception and Cathedral School, and St. Peter's Church, cited as the first Italian Catholic Church in Maine.
Information from: Portland Press Herald, http://www.pressherald.com


text:
Dear Choice America Network readers,
I'm running for President because it's time to take a stand.
For principle over power.
For conviction over compromise.
For responsibility over recklessness.
For the American people over all those who would defend the status
quo while selling out our children and grandchildren's futures.
Beginning at midnight tonight, my campaign's grassroots supporters
will hold another Money Bomb to help guarantee I can continue building
a top-tier campaign and pull out all the stops to finish strong in the Iowa
Straw Poll on August 13.
So I hope you will visit www.RonPaul2012.com this Tuesday, July 19,
and give whatever you are able to at this crucial time.
I can't express enough how much I appreciate your support in this rough
economy. I know many who contribute to my campaign are sacrificing in
other areas so they can help spread the message of freedom and take back
their country.
And there has never been a better chance for us to win!
The Iowa Straw Poll is coming up fast, and all eyes will be on the results.
This is our opportunity to further illustrate that our R3VOLUTION is
able to turn passion into on-the-ground success.
You and I have seen it in our continuing efforts to Audit the Fed, as we
have brought more scrutiny on the Federal Reserve than ever before and
forced it into releasing tremendous amounts of information it would have
loved to keep sealed in a dusty backroom. Believe me, the Fed knows that's
just the beginning of what we can accomplish.
And you and I have seen the power of our movement most dramatically with
my son Rand's victory in the Kentucky Senate race, where, despite the
establishment's best efforts, Rand crushed the opposition and has gone
on to shake up Washington.
So I firmly believe there is no limit to what this battle-tested movement
can achieve when it comes together around a common goal.
The Tuesday, July 19, Money Bomb isn't about revolutionizing campaign
We've already done that.
It's about demonstrating the intensity of the support for restoring America now.
It's about proving that the torch of liberty is burning bright in the hearts of patriots
all across the country.
It's about sending a message that we will no longer let the establishment decide
who is worthy of support.
If you are able, I hope you will chip in whatever you can at www.RonPaul2012.com
on Tuesday.
There are many more Americans who are ready to support me for President in
this election. But it's hard for them to see through the establishment's tired story
that I can't win because I refuse to play by the statists' rules.
A strong finish in the Iowa Straw Poll would go a long way toward finally doing
away with this myth once and for all and convincing more Americans to join our
I'm proud of my record as a constitutional conservative, and I know that no
other candidate for the Presidency has the credentials to match.
But if we are to win, we must get the word out far and wide.
Anything you can contribute at www.RonPaul2012.com on Tuesday will help
me purchase tv and radio ad time, send mail, create more campaign materials,
and fund my operations in several key states.
And, most importantly, it will help me in Iowa in these last few weeks before
the August 13 Straw Poll. If we work together, I am convinced we can WIN this
race and take the White House in November 2012.
Thank you for all you do for freedom, and I hope you can help my campaign
send another powerful message by contributing at www.RonPaul2012.com
this Tuesday, July 19.
For Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. The August 13 Iowa Straw Poll is coming up fast, and my campaign's
grassroots supporters are holding another Money Bomb starting at midnight
tonight to help me finish strong in the Straw Poll and continue my campaign's
So please visit www.RonPaul2012.com this Tuesday. Any amount
you can give will go toward growing this campaign and winning the
Presidency in 2012.
Monday, July 18, 2011
The Time is Now - Ron Paul 2012
Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 7:52 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text: Sijun Forums :: View topic - RESOLUTIONS... Log in to check your private messages Sijun Forums Forum Index >> Archive : Sep99 - Dec00 View previous topic :: View next topic Author Topic : "RESOLUTIONS..." ShrimpishGuestMember # Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 5:45 am Hey, Dhabih, One question: What resolutions do you work with? You didn't mention that in your tutorial... I usually sketch at small res's, and then resample at about 6 times the initial res. up and over. (600x600 --> 2500x2500) That's where I do the clean line, detail, etc. That gives you a lot of freedom on the detail.=) Lemme know... Back to top DhabihAdministratorMember #Joined: 13 Sep 1999Posts: 532Location: Kirkland, WA, U.S.A. Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 1:17 pm I work at the size the final piece will be in. And thats usually 800x600 or there abouts. A month ago i started on a drawing that was really big like 2500+ but it got lost with the crash. So i'm still not sure which one i'll continue with. Maybe i'll try working large and downsizing, but so far, what you see is what you get. Also when its not that big, detailing is easier for me cause you dont have to be too perfect. -dhab Back to top Happy_Mealjunior memberMember #Joined: 22 Oct 1999Posts: 35Location: Quebec,Quebec, Canada Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 3:29 pm How do you change the resolution of a sketch during the draeing process or at the end? -a puzzled meal Back to top Isaac Hayesjunior memberMember #Joined: 24 Oct 1999Posts: 17Location: JC, Missouri, USA Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 6:12 pm I agree with Dhab -- I find it best to work in the same resolution as the finished product will be. I know a lot of people like to work bigger and resize down, but I feel that is cheating and makes you more sloppy. Nothing wrong doing it that way, I just don't feel honest when I do it. And for textures and other things that aren't hand-drawn with brushes, I find resizing down no matter what method (bicubic/etc) will always result in the loss of sharpness and detail. I tend to be analytical of everything around me, looking at it to find out how it was made or composed. I could tell that Dhab used a 1:1 ratio for his work, and he is damn good at it. After a while of looking at things you begin to break them down and your mind automaticly catagorizes them into simpler parts. Soon you will be looking at things and thinking how simple it is to do... until you try and actualy make it instead of make it in your mind. I better stop while I'm ahead as I think I have typed too much Back to top Happy_Mealjunior memberMember #Joined: 22 Oct 1999Posts: 35Location: Quebec,Quebec, Canada Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 6:27 pm Very profound reflexion Isaac... Iwill certainly think about it when sizing down future drawings... I will, from now on draw my pictures from the original resolution and without sizing down. -a humbled happy meal Back to top AffectedmemberMember #Joined: 22 Oct 1999Posts: 1854Location: Helsinki, Finland Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 9:14 pm I, personally, work with images ranging from 1000x1000 to 2000x2000, because I make my images to be printed at 150 dpi, about 10 inces high each. A4 size, that is. Recently, though, I've been working with smaller image sizes. I've found 1280x1024, the size of my desktop is good for me, it lets me fill the whole screen. ------------------ Affected http://affected.cjb.net Back to top ShrimpishGuestMember # Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 11:04 pm Yea, what about the magazine covers you did, Dhabih? Don't they have to be like 300 dpi or something? Or does the 1:1 ratio work as well? Jus' wondering...=) Back to top DhabihAdministratorMember #Joined: 13 Sep 1999Posts: 532Location: Kirkland, WA, U.S.A. Posted: Sun Oct 24, 1999 11:42 pm oops, forgot to say about that. yeah for magazines i work smaller so it fits on a screen, then scale it up to 300 dpi and then go through it again and detail it so its not so blurry. -dhab Back to top e s k i ljunior memberMember #Joined: 22 Oct 1999Posts: 8Location: Norway Posted: Mon Oct 25, 1999 1:45 am Now I'm even more impressed over Dhab's work. Creating so many details in that resolution is simply amazing. Dhab, could you explain a little about how you worked with Jack? Tools, sketching etc.? ------------------ -eskil http://cpx.nu email@example.com Back to top DhabihAdministratorMember #Joined: 13 Sep 1999Posts: 532Location: Kirkland, WA, U.S.A. Posted: Mon Oct 25, 1999 8:35 pm Jack was drawn initially with just smooth skin and only had the shading for the shape of the face and not the texture. After that was done I then went through and drew in the skin texture by putting a lighter brush over each area. This is another thing i'll touch on in the next tutorial. Which i decided i wanna start working on, as soon as i come up with an idea for a drawing. (btw, dont hold your breath these things take long, at least for me) -dhab Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First Sijun Forums Forum Index -> Archive : Sep99 - Dec00 All times are GMT - 8 Hours Page 1 of 1 Jump to: Select a forum Digital Art----------------Digital Art DiscussionWork in ProgressGallery/Finished Work Miscellaneous----------------Random MusingsArchive : Sep99 - Dec00 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group


text:
The stew I chose was Chicken and white wine with light and fluffy rice by Jamie Oliver, Ministry of Food. This stew was basic and easy to make yet was so full of flavour and texture. My husband's only disappointment was there was not enough left for him to take to work tomorrow for lunch.
One of my pet hates is making rice, I have never got on with it and have to put my hands up and say I usually give in and use microwave rice! However the method of cooking Jamie's "light and fluffy rice", a method I had never come across before, was so simple and effective it will definitely be the method we cook basic rice in this house from now on. A perfect Sunday dinner to prepare us to a long awaited start of Lost Season 5, I've missed the sight and sounds of sexy Sawyer (Josh Holloway)!!
Serves 4-6
2 sticks of celery
2 medium onions
2 carrots
Olive oil
1 heaped tablespoon plain flour
1 x 400g tin of chopped tomatoes
Sea salt and freshly ground black pepper
3 sprigs of fresh thyme
500g diced, boneless, skinless chicken thighs
500ml white wine
If using the oven to cook your stew, preheat it to 200oC/400oF/gas 6. Trim the ends off your celery and roughly chop the sticks. Peel and roughly chop the onions. Peel the carrots, slice lengthways and roughly chop. Put a casserole pan on a medium heat. Put all the vegetables and your chosen herb into the pan with 2 lugs of olive oil and fry for 10 minutes. Add your meat and flour. Pour in the booze and tinned tomatoes. Give it a good stir, then season with a teaspoon of sea salt (less if using table salt) and a few grinds of pepper. Bring to the boil, put the lid on a either simmer slowly on your hob or cook in an oven for 1 ½ hours. Remove the lid for the final half hour of simmering or cooking. When done, your meat should be tender and delicious. Remember to remove any bay leaves or herb stalks before serving, and taste it to see if it needs a bit more salt and pepper.
Light and Fluffy Rice
Serves 4
Sea salt
350g basmati rice
Put a large pan of salted water on high heat and bring to the boil. Rinse the rice in a colander under running water for about 1 minute, or until the water runs clear (this will stop the grains sticking together later). Add your rice to the boiling water and wait for the grains to start around. From that point, boil for 5 minutes. Drain the rice in a colander. Pour 2.5cm of water into the pan, put it back on the heat and bring it to the boil again, then turn down to a simmer. Cover the rice in the colander with foil or a lid. Place the colander on top of the pan of simmering water and let the rice steam over it for 8-10 minutes. Remove from the heat and if you're ready, serve immediately. If not, leave the foil or lid on and put aside until ready to serve - it should stay warm for about 20 minutes.


text:
|KGB/FSB is alive and kicking in Moscow
Obama´s reset partner and David Cameron´s recent discussion partner in Moscow, former second rate KGB spy Vladimir Putin - soon to be "elected" president again - probably is proud of the kind of welcome offered to Brítish and American diplomats in Moscow:
Russia's spy agency is waging a massive undercover campaign of harassment against British and American diplomats, as well as other targets, using deniable "psychological" techniques developed by the KGB, a new book reveals.The federal security service (FSB) operation involves breaking into the private homes of western diplomats – a method the US state department describes as "home intrusions". Typically the agents move around personal items, open windows and set alarms in an attempt to demoralise and intimidate their targets.
The FSB operation includes the bugging of private apartments, widespread phone tapping, physical surveillance, and email interception. Its victims include local Russian staff working for western embassies, opposition activists, human rights workers and journalists.
The clandestine campaign is revealed in Mafia State, a book by the Guardian's former Moscow correspondent Luke Harding, serialised in Saturday's Weekend magazine.The British and American governments are acutely aware of the FSB's campaign of intimidation. But neither has publicly complained about these demonstrative "counter-intelligence" measures, for fear of further straining already difficult relations with Vladmir Putin's resurgent regime. Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, was head of the FSB.
Read the entire article here


text:
Nokia provides preliminary financial information for Q4 2012 and preliminary outlook for Q1 2013
Nokia Corporation
Stock exchange release
January 10, 2013 at 15:00 (CET+1)
Espoo, Finland - Nokia today provided preliminary information on certain aspects of its fourth quarter 2012 financial performance and also provided preliminary information on its outlook for the first quarter 2013.
Nokia now estimates that Devices & Services has exceeded expectations and achieved underlying profitability in the fourth quarter 2012.
- Mobile Phones business unit and Lumia portfolio delivered better than expected results; and
- Operating expenses were lower than expected.
- Devices & Services non-IFRS operating margin for the fourth quarter 2012 now expected to be between break even and positive 2 percent.
Seasonality and competitive environment are expected to have a negative impact on the first quarter 2013 underlying profitability for Devices & Services, compared to the fourth quarter 2012.
Nokia also estimates that Nokia Siemens Networks has exceeded expectations for the fourth quarter 2012, delivering record underlying profits and a third consecutive quarter of underlying profitability.
- Strong performance in higher margin product categories and geographic regions; and
- Better than expected cost management.
- Nokia Siemens Networks non-IFRS operating margin for the fourth quarter 2012 now expected to be between 13 and 15 percent.
Seasonality is expected to have a negative impact on the first quarter 2013 underlying profitability for Nokia Siemens Networks, compared to the fourth quarter 2012.
Commenting on the preliminary Q4 financial information, Stephen Elop, Nokia CEO, said:
"We are pleased that Q4 2012 was a solid quarter where we exceeded expectations and delivered underlying profitability in Devices & Services and record underlying profitability in Nokia Siemens Networks. We focused on our priorities and as a result we sold a total of 14 million Asha smartphones and Lumia smartphones while managing our costs efficiently, and Nokia Siemens Networks delivered yet another very good quarter."
Preliminary financial information for the fourth quarter 2012:
Nokia currently estimates that Devices & Services net sales in the fourth quarter 2012 were approximately EUR 3.9 billion, with total device volumes of 86.3 million units.
- Mobile Phones net sales of approximately EUR 2.5 billion, with total volumes of 79.6 million units of which 9.3 million units were Asha full touch smartphones.
- Smart Devices net sales of approximately EUR 1.2 billion, with total volumes of 6.6 million units of which 4.4 million units were Nokia Lumia smartphones.
- Total smartphone volumes of 15.9 million units composed of 9.3 million Asha full touch smartphones, 4.4 million Lumia smartphones and 2.2 million Symbian smartphones.
- Devices & Services Other net sales of approximately EUR 0.2 billion, including a positive impact from non-recurring IPR income of approximately EUR 50 million.
Nokia currently estimates that Devices & Services non-IFRS operating margin for the fourth quarter 2012 was between break even and positive 2 percent, which compares to the previous outlook of approximately negative 6 percent, plus or minus four percentage points. Devices & Services non-IFRS operating margin includes a positive impact from non-recurring IPR income of approximately EUR 50 million.
During the fourth quarter 2012, multiple factors positively affected Nokia's Devices & Services businesses to a greater extent than previously expected. Preliminary information indicates that the main factors include:
- Within the Devices & Services business, better than expected financial performance in the Mobile Phones business unit and Lumia smartphones. In addition, Devices & Services recognized non-recurring IPR income of approximately EUR 50 million; and
- Lower than expected Devices & Services' operating expenses, partially due to greater than expected cost reductions under the restructuring program.
Nokia currently estimates that Location & Commerce net sales in the fourth quarter 2012 were approximately EUR 0.3 billion and the non-IFRS operating margin was between 13 and 15 percent.
Nokia and Nokia Siemens Networks currently estimates that Nokia Siemens Networks net sales in the fourth quarter 2012 were approximately EUR 4.0 billion and the non-IFRS operating margin was between 13 and 15 percent, which compares to the previous outlook of approximately positive 8 percent, plus or minus four percentage points. Nokia Siemens Networks non-IFRS operating margin includes a positive impact from non-recurring IPR income of approximately EUR 30 million.
During the fourth quarter 2012, multiple factors positively affected Nokia Siemens Networks' businesses to a greater extent than previously expected. Preliminary information indicates that the main factors include:
- More favorable product and regional mix in Nokia Siemens Networks. In addition, Nokia Siemens Networks recognized non-recurring IPR income of approximately EUR 30 million; and
- Better than expected improvement under Nokia Siemens Networks' restructuring program to reduce operating expenses and production overheads.
Preliminary outlook for the first quarter 2013:
Nokia expects its non-IFRS Devices & Services operating margin in the first quarter 2013 to be approximately negative 2 percent, plus or minus four percentage points. This outlook is based on Nokia's expectations regarding a number of factors, including:
- competitive industry dynamics continuing to negatively affect the Smart Devices and Mobile Phones business units;
- the first quarter being a seasonally weak quarter;
- consumer demand, particularly for our Lumia and Asha smartphones;
- continued ramp up for our new Lumia smartphones;
- expected cost reductions under Devices & Services' restructuring program; and
- the macroeconomic environment.
Nokia expects Location & Commerce non-IFRS operating margin in the first quarter 2013 to be negative due to lower recognized revenue from internal sales, which carry higher gross margin, and to a lesser extent by a negative mix shift within external sales.
Nokia and Nokia Siemens Networks expect Nokia Siemens Networks non-IFRS operating margin in the first quarter 2013 to be approximately positive 3 percent, plus or minus four percentage points. This outlook is based on Nokia Siemens Networks' expectations regarding a number of factors, including:
- competitive industry dynamics;
- the first quarter being a seasonally weak quarter;
- product and regional mix;
- expected continued improvement under Nokia Siemens Networks' restructuring program; and
- the macroeconomic environment.
Nokia will provide more details when it reports fourth quarter and full year 2012 results on January 24, 2013.
Nokia will be hosting a conference call today at 13:30 UK time (8:30 EST).
The dial-in number for media (listen only - the question and answer session will be limited to financial analysts and investors only) is +1 706 634 5012. Conference ID: 86914019.
The dial-in number for financial analysts and investors is US: +1 888 636 1561. Conference ID: 86914019. UK: +44 1452 560 299. Conference ID: 87088764.
A replay of the call will be available soon after the call completion. The replay number is US: +1 800 585 8367. Conference ID: 86914019. UK: +44 1452 55 0000. Conference ID: 87088764.
It should be noted that certain statements herein that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, those regarding: A) the expected plans and benefits of our partnership with Microsoft to bring together complementary assets and expertise to form a global mobile ecosystem for smartphones; B) the timing and expected benefits of our new strategies, including expected operational and financial benefits and targets as well as changes in leadership and operational structure; C) the timing of the deliveries of our products and services; D) our ability to innovate, develop, execute and commercialize new technologies, products and services; E) expectations regarding market developments and structural changes; F) expectations and targets regarding our industry volumes, market share, prices, net sales and margins of our products and services; G) expectations and targets regarding our operational priorities and results of operations; H) expectations and targets regarding collaboration and partnering arrangements; I) the outcome of pending and threatened litigation; J) expectations regarding the successful completion of restructurings, investments, acquisitions and divestments on a timely basis and our ability to achieve the financial and operational targets set in connection with any such restructurings, investments, acquisitions and divestments; and K) statements preceded by "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "foresee," "target," "estimate," "designed," "aim", "plans," "intends," "will" or similar expressions. These statements are based on management's best assumptions and beliefs in light of the information currently available to it. Because they involve risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from the results that we currently expect. Factors that could cause these differences include, but are not limited to: 1) our success in the smartphone market, including our ability to introduce and bring to market quantities of attractive, competitively priced Nokia products that operate on the Windows Phone operating system that are positively differentiated from our competitors' products, both outside and within the Windows Phone ecosystem; 2) our ability to make Nokia products that operate on the Windows Phone operating system a competitive choice for consumers, and together with Microsoft, our success in encouraging and supporting a competitive and profitable global ecosystem for Windows Phone products that achieves sufficient scale, value and attractiveness to all market participants; 3) reduced demand for, and net sales of, Nokia products that operate on the Windows Phone 7 operating system in anticipation and availability of Nokia products with the new Windows Phone 8 operating system; 4) the difficulties we experience in having a competitive offering of Symbian devices and maintaining the economic viability of the Symbian smartphone platform during the transition to Windows Phone as our primary smartphone platform; 5) our ability to effectively and timely implement planned changes to our operational structure, including the planned restructuring measures, and to successfully complete the planned investments, acquisitions and divestments in order to improve our operating model and achieve targeted efficiencies and reductions in operating expenses as well as our ability to accurately estimate the related restructuring charges and restructuring related cash outflows; 6) our future sales performance, among other factors, may require us to recognize allowances related to excess component inventory, future purchase commitments and inventory write-offs in our Devices & Services business; 7) our ability to realize a return on our investment in next generation devices, platforms and user experiences; 8) our ability to produce attractive and competitive devices in our Mobile Phones business unit including feature phones and devices with more smartphone-like features such as full touch devices, in a timely and cost efficient manner with differentiated hardware, software, localized services and applications; 9) the intensity of competition in the various markets where we do business and our ability to maintain or improve our market position or respond successfully to changes in the competitive environment; 10) our ability to retain, motivate, develop and recruit appropriately skilled employees; 11) the success of our Location & Commerce strategy, including our ability to establish a successful location-based platform, extend our location-based services across devices and operating systems, provide support for our Devices & Services business and create new sources of revenue from our location-based services and commerce assets; 12) our actual performance in the short-term and long-term could be materially different from our forecasts, which could impact future estimates of recoverable value of our reporting units and may result in impairment charges; 13) our success in collaboration and partnering arrangements with third parties, including Microsoft; 14) our ability to increase our speed of innovation, product development and execution to bring new innovative and competitive mobile products and location-based or other services to the market in a timely manner; 15) our dependence on the development of the mobile and communications industry, including location-based and other services industries, in numerous diverse markets, as well as on general economic conditions globally and regionally; 16) our ability to protect numerous patented standardized or proprietary technologies from third-party infringement or actions to invalidate the intellectual property rights of these technologies; 17) our ability to maintain and leverage our traditional strengths in the mobile product market if we are unable to retain the loyalty of our mobile operator and distributor customers and consumers as a result of the implementation of our strategies or other factors; 18) the success, financial condition and performance of our suppliers, collaboration partners and customers; 19) our ability to manage efficiently our manufacturing and logistics, as well as to ensure the quality, safety, security and timely delivery of our products and services; 20) our ability to source sufficient amounts of fully functional quality components, sub-assemblies, software and services on a timely basis without interruption and on favorable terms; 21) our ability to manage our inventory and timely adapt our supply to meet changing demands for our products; 22) any actual or even alleged defects or other quality, safety and security issues in our products; 23) the impact of a cybersecurity breach or other factors leading to any actual or alleged loss, improper disclosure or leakage of any personal or consumer data collected by us or our partners or subcontractors, made available to us or stored in or through our products; 24) our ability to successfully manage the pricing of our products and costs related to our products and operations; 25) exchange rate fluctuations, including, in particular, fluctuations between the euro, which is our reporting currency, and the US dollar, the Japanese yen and the Chinese yuan, as well as certain other currencies; 26) our ability to protect the technologies, which we or others develop or that we license, from claims that we have infringed third parties' intellectual property rights, as well as our unrestricted use on commercially acceptable terms of certain technologies in our products and services; 27) the impact of economic, political, regulatory or other developments on our sales, manufacturing facilities and assets located in emerging market countries; 28) the impact of changes in government policies, trade policies, laws or regulations where our assets are located and where we do business; 29) the potential complex tax issues and obligations we may incur to pay additional taxes in the various jurisdictions in which we do business and our actual or anticipated performance, among other factors, could result in allowances related to deferred tax assets; 30) any disruption to information technology systems and networks that our operations rely on; 31) unfavorable outcome of litigations; 32) allegations of possible health risks from electromagnetic fields generated by base stations and mobile products and lawsuits related to them, regardless of merit; 33) Nokia Siemens Networks ability to implement its new strategy and restructuring plan effectively and in a timely manner to improve its overall competitiveness and profitability; 34) Nokia Siemens Networks' success in the telecommunications infrastructure services market and Nokia Siemens Networks' ability to effectively and profitably adapt its business and operations in a timely manner to the increasingly diverse service needs of its customers; 35) Nokia Siemens Networks' ability to maintain or improve its market position or respond successfully to changes in the competitive environment; 36) Nokia Siemens Networks' liquidity and its ability to meet its working capital requirements; 37) Nokia Siemens Networks' ability to timely introduce new competitive products, services, upgrades and technologies; 38) Nokia Siemens Networks' ability to execute successfully its strategy for the acquired Motorola Solutions wireless network infrastructure assets; 39) developments under large, multi-year contracts or in relation to major customers in the networks infrastructure and related services business; 40) the management of our customer financing exposure, particularly in the networks infrastructure and related services business; 41) whether ongoing or any additional governmental investigations into alleged violations of law by some former employees of Siemens may involve and affect the carrier-related assets and employees transferred by Siemens to Nokia Siemens Networks; and 42) any impairment of Nokia Siemens Networks customer relationships resulting from ongoing or any additional governmental investigations involving the Siemens carrier-related operations transferred to Nokia Siemens Networks, as well as the risk factors specified on pages 13-47 of Nokia's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 under Item 3D. "Risk Factors." Other unknown or unpredictable factors or underlying assumptions subsequently proving to be incorrect could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Nokia does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except to the extent legally required.
Media and Investor Contacts:
Corporate Communications, tel. +358 7180 34900
email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Investor Relations Europe, tel. +358 7180 34927
Investor Relations US, tel. +1 914 368 0555
If you wish to unsubscribe please go to: http://press.nokia.com/


text:
ScienceDaily (July 10, 2012) — When is an elephant a picky eater? A study of the African elephant finds that, despite its large size and fast-operating digestive system, this mammal does not eat just anything. This megaherbivore selectively chooses species and parts of the woody plants that comprise its diet.
An article in the current issue of Journal of Mammalogy explores the dietary habits of the African elephant. Researchers investigate what plants this animal selects, what parts of a plant it consumes, and how its choices vary with seasonal changes.
Previous studies suggested that the larger the animal, the less selective it might be in its diet, due to lower nutrient requirements per unit of body mass. Accordingly, a large animal would be more capable than a smaller one of digesting high-fiber content and potentially toxic chemical contents of some plants. Thus the African elephant, the largest extant herbivore, should be willing and able to consume a broad variety of plant species.
This study takes a closer look at the dietary patterns of more than 80,000 elephants in the Chobe National Park of Botswana. While its size and hindgut digestion do enable the African elephant to exploit a large assortment of plants, it seems to occupy a rather distinct niche from other animals in its actual choices.
During the wet season, elephants found only 30 percent of the woody species available for consumption palatable. In the hot, dry season, this increases to 50 percent. While the elephant might eat shoots and leaves during the wet season, it prefers stem, bark, and roots, making up 50 percent of its diet in the cool, dry season and increasing to 94 percent of it consumption in the hot, dry season.
It is not so much the choice of plant species that separates the elephant from other animals, but the selection of plant parts. The African elephant concentrates on the bark, stem, and roots rather than foliage or fruit of plants. These choices reduce the elephant's overlap of food selection with other animals.
The food choices of the African elephant can leave a large footprint. But rather than eliminating most of the woody plant component, elephant feeding habits may cause a compositional change among the woodland species due to their neglect of certain types of plants and favor of others.
Journal Reference:
- Norman Owen-Smith, Jonas Chafota. Selective feeding by a megaherbivore, the African elephant (Loxodonta africana). Journal of Mammalogy, 2012; 93 (3): 698 DOI: 10.1644/11-MAMM-A-350.1


text:
Artistic, neo-tribal, bi-metal, drop shape goddess amuletic ring with ancient die-stamp embossing (PB-MM1076-R)
Rs. 4,900
Design code: PB-MM1076-R
Handcrafted in sterling silver with gold plated brass detailing. The embossed/stamped "devi/goddess" panel has been given an oxidized finish.
Dimensions: (face of the ring) 3.5 cms long, 3.4 cms at the widest and 0.4 cms high.
Ring size: adjustable.
Taking care:
These amulets, lockets and talismans all have moveable components which need to be handled with care to prevent your jewellery from any accidental damage. Taking note of the following points will ensure that your jewellery stays in ship shape for the longest time:
(1) To close, gently press on the closing edge. Do not press in the centre of the jewellery- this pressure can damage it!
(2) Only open your locket/amulet as far as it can comfortably go. Most of these pieces are designed to be opened half way- forcing them open all the way through can permanently damage the piece.
(3) Avoid exposure to: perfume, deodorants, hairspray, salt water, chemicals, or abrasive materials.
(4) Do not swim, bathe or shower with your jewellery on.
(5) To clean, wipe with a soft damp cloth. Store in a dry place in the plastic pouch the jewellery was sent to you in.


text:
Availability: In stock
Read Chapters From: No-Scalpel Vasectomy - Illustrated Guide for Surgeons
No-scalpel vasectomy is a refined approach for isolating and delivering the vas. It requires two surgical instruments specially designed by Dr. Li Shunqiang, the inventor of the No-Scalpel technique. In this chapter, learn more about these two instruments and how they help to lower the risks of complications. Also, review a list of additional supplies. - Provided by Engender Health.
Read Introduction Chapter
Read NSV Materials Chapter
Why Should You Learn the No-Scalpel Vasectomy?
Many teaching organizations have made the No-Scalpel technique their standard for training physicians and residents in vasectomy. If you're not currently performing the No-Scalpel Vasectomy, consider the benefits it offers your patients as well as your practice.
Read full article
AUA Vasectomy Guideline
Hands On Training
Vasectomy Scrotal Simulator/Model (S518)
Standard NSV Instrument Set
Vasectomy Illustrated Manual


text:
Alexandra Burke - Broken Heels
The official music video for "Broken Heels" by Alexandra Burke, from her debut album Overcome, in stores now!
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.