The cartoon's where Calvin did various "art" with the snowmen were always genius, in my opinion. Growing up with Calvin & Hobbes, these type of strips really made me "think outside the box," as they say, as a young kid. Want more Calvin & Hobbes? Here is a recent Slate article with a slide show that is available. Here is another article, which rates what the authors view as the top 25 Calvin and Hobbes strips of all time. Enjoy.

Back to the Pope. The reason that this is important is because you get a lot of religious people who look up to the Pope, who are Christians, and who also somehow reconcile a belief in non-teleological evolution with their Christianity. The Pope is saying that this is not the case and that this view does not line up with what the Scriptures, or early Church Father's, teach. If you are a Catholic evolutionist, you might be in a little bit of an awkward situation. Oh well, I'm sure they'll find some way to explain around it.

PS- If you go to article linked, check out the picture of Bernini's Chair of St. Peter in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican. (It's where the Pope is sitting) It's beautiful. Remind me to go to Rome before I die.

Also of note...a little update on the Wikipedia article I've been editing....It's been left alone for an entire 24 hours...Did someone there finally read the KBOE standards for themselves and see that I was right? Wow, a first-hand source of information, how about that.

(Why would a story like this not be run on the headlines of their web pages? I would think that their would be a lot of people who would be interested with it. However, it was buried in the recent archives....maybe I just missed it, or maybe, just maybe, they didn't want a lot of exposure for it?)

Anyways, here you can find the article that I am talking about. In the opening paragraph, the editors continually put forth the blatant lie that the Kansas Board of Education (KBOE) has just approved standards that mandate teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution. This is simply not true. The new standards, which are available here in their entirety, actually say quite the opposite. What's that? You'd like proof? Here is a quote directly from the standards:

Huh. Seems like pretty strong words against the teaching of ID in the classroom. So I point this out to the Wikipedia folks, edit it, and hours later it has been reverted, with them telling me to check the facts linked to in the article. So what do I do? I tell them to check their facts. Has any of them actually read the standards? Probably not. Does it stop them from perpetuating falsehoods in an online encyclopedia? No. My edits get changed back every few hours. I thought I would go on a crusade and make sure that the truth was told in this one little place. But, I don't have the time or the nerve to put with this kind of nonsense. Let them have their falsehoods, if it makes them feel better. The truth will win out. I'm actually more concerned about it because, as a native Kansan, I would like to see the truth be told about my home, and not some lies that make us look like a bunch of blithering "yokels."

Viva La Truth!

Now, I personally don't believe with their assertion of a young-earth (6,000 years +/- 2,000), but they are doing some interesting things there. They recently completed an eight year research project in which they tested the accuracy of the Radiometric age of the Earth. Tests performed were to standard protocol, independent labs were used, and much of it was double blind testing, meaning that ICR had no control over the testing results, and the labs had no idea what the testing was for. The results turned out to be very different than one expected. Some of the tests, such as the amount of radiogenic helium found in granite 3 miles deep, tested out to be about 6,000 years old, completely against the popular age given to these rocks. Other tests didn't turn out quite as in favor of their hypothesis, but they still reported the findings. They gathered samples from the Grand Canyon, had them tested with radiometric dating, and compared the results with for portions tested using the same method from the same sample. The result? Differing ages, up to 100-300%, from the exact same sample. Kind of makes you doubt the accuracy of the method, huh? You can read more about the studies on there website or check it out more here.(The author here is Christian, but of the Old-Earth variety. You might have to scroll down some.)

Now, I understand that these are "Creation Scientists" and we shouldn't take them seriously, right? Well, if we were like everyone else, we could just rule out their research a priori, instead of looking seriously into their methods and results. I think, at least, they have a exposed major flaw in the accuracy of the radiometric dating of rocks of the earth. Did they prove a young earth? I don't really think so. Plus, there is no rebuttal for the age of the universe from cosmology that I found on their site. But, one could always argue that God created with the appearance of age (as I am sure they would argue....)

Well, my main point in bringing this up is the fact that not everything is as set in stone as mainstream scientists want us to think. (Also noted here. )

Here's to the Truth!