Blogs

Patrick Ruffini gets to the heart of the matter:

The real scandal here is that a retirement system you pay into with 10.6% of your income your whole life (and less if you're wealthy, since payroll taxes are regressive) can only provide you with a meager benefit of $922 a month -- and this is for Social Security at its zenith, before the baby boomers retire. That's not a safety net. In a $10 trillion economy, that's a massive, gaping hole in the safety net. Thankfully, most people have other income to supplement their Social Security. But not the lower middle class recipients that are the Post's chief concern; that $922 is their only income -- if Social Security goes belly up, they're the ones who'll feel it first. Risk is what we'll have if we do nothing. PRAs have the potential of being the great equalizer in our society; poorer workers whose investments fare better could catch up to the retirement income earned by middle class workers. Shouldn't it be our goal for poor workers to have the opportunity to actually do well, and not just subsist just above the poverty line -- the modus operandi of the Great Society Democratic machine?

Well, I guess Murphy could explain getting pneumonia just as I start doing something new...not that there's anyone reading this yet, anyway.

Iowahawk gives the MSM the respect they have earned. ;{>

In this article last week in the USA Today, Gerald Zelizer, a conservative rabbi, gives a fair and balanced discussion of the unending controversy on teaching about origins ("creation science" vs. evolution vs. "intelligent design").

This passage, though, I can't agree with:

Yet, the gaps between the theories of evolution and intelligent design overwhelm any overlap. Evolution makes specific propositions that are testable, provable and disprovable through a measurable and observable process that takes place in nature. That categorizes it as science. Intelligent design, on the other hand, cannot be proved or disproved by natural evidence because its design is supernatural. That categorizes it as religion.

I wouldn't make the distinction in this way. Instead, I would categorize science as a systematic study of nature and theology as the systematic study of God's revelation. "Religion" is one of those things that is hard to define, but we know it when we see it.

Welcome to my new weblog. I started reading weblogs regularly last September (when the Dan Rather "memogate" scandal was in high gear and I have been a regular reader of Power Line, Little Green Footballs and the rest (see blogroll) ever since.

The initial focus of this blog will be about the integration of science and theology. As I am a Christian of the conservative evangelical sort, as well as a (no longer active) scientist, it is important to me that these two endeavors work in harmony. I believe, as Galileo did, that “Holy Scripture and Nature are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God’s commands.”