1. A natural selection

Comment #180016 by Andrew Stich on May 14, 2008 at 5:38 am

"Evolution can explain the how, but it cannot explain the why."

As far as I can see, there are two main refutations to this argument:

1) Yes it can; it can explain why (how, rather) we feel that there is ulterior purpose. Those who genuinely think that there is no reason to live, will tend not to.

2) "Maybe evolution is the how, and God is the why." When explaining the origin of anything, one doesn't NEED a why (why, of course, meaning with regards to purpose). True purpose is something that can only be found in thinking beings and their creations; there is no evidence for an original thinking being called "God"; therefore, we can, for the sake of parsimony, assume that there is no why, at least relating to God. There also is no evidence for aliens having seeded our planet to accomplish some purpose (harvesting us, probably). The point is, it's not fair to randomly assume that everything has a purpose. It has to be demonstrated, like everything else.

2. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177751 by Andrew Stich on May 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Great news! Could explain to me in detail, in comprehensive terms, the exact methods that go into stem cell research? I remember something about extracting DNA from a given person and using it as a basis for the production of new stem cells, which will work especially well if used on the person who provided the DNA, but that could be innaccurate/fatally incomplete. Could someone more knowledgable than me comment on it please?

"I have 160 acres 2.5 hrs north of Edmonton Alberta Canada for anyone interested in heading north. Not just Canada is #1, Alberta is #1 in Canada"

Cool, another Edmontonian. I thought I was the only one.

3. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177295 by Andrew Stich on May 8, 2008 at 10:01 pm

I couldn't deduce much, though, seeing as how I'm not British. I can't say anything on the level of immigration, or what the difference is for rate of birth for Christians and Muslims in the UK.

4. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177294 by Andrew Stich on May 8, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Very interesting and surprising. Good point, MPhil, and I'm sure that you're right, but there must be some other cultural factors as to why Christianity is losing popularity so fast in Britain. Could it partially stem from the fact that England is a relatively secular nation wherein the natives are mostly Christian, and the Muslims tend to have families originating (in the recent past) in more religiously-intensive countries in the Middle-East, thereby making the Muslims on average more fundamenalist and therefore more likely to go to Church/Mosque ( and have more influence per person) than the Christians?

But yeah, of course, the number of Muslims is rising at a rate much faster than the number of Christians.

5. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177239 by Andrew Stich on May 8, 2008 at 8:02 pm

"Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile"

That must be the worst title I have ever seen on this site.

1) Birds are taxonomically reptiles!
2) Platypuses are monotremes, which is a reptile-like form of mammals!
3) It's impossible for any species to be of 3 contradictory clades! That would mean 3 species (well, as previously stated, birds are reptiles, so birds is just a sub-clade of reptile, so 2 species).

Platypuses are popularly thought to be part reptile, part mammal and part bird because they are "primitive" mammals. When I say primitive, I mean no bad connotation. I just mean that they are similar to the ancestor, in this case similar to reptile-like forms. Non-egglaying birth is obviously a phenomenon found exclusively in Theria (Marsupials and Placentals), after having diverged with Monotremata (Echidnas and platypuses). And as for the bird-like characteristics, well, those can easily be accounted for by convergent evolution. Beavers have webbed feet; so do otters and muskrats. They are all swimmers, like Anseriformes (the particular bird order that includes all waterfowl). And "genes which determine sex in a platypus are similar to those of a bird, not a mammal"... The similarities with birds can be explained by coincidence, and it means "not OTHER mammals". Also, I wonder if the similarities with birds are shared with other reptiles as well; if so, then I wouldn't have to invoke coincidence. I could just say that the Theria sex genes evolved after diverging with Monotremata, and the Monotremes simply haven't had a change in those characteristics.

ShavenYak:

"Wait a second. Synapsids (mammals and "mammal-like reptiles") are supposed to have diverged from diapsids (reptiles and dinosaurs, including birds) during the Carboniferous, 300 mya. How could bird genes end up in a platypus whose lineage diverged from the other mammals only 165 mya?"

That's close to being right, but not quite. Synapsids didn't diverge from diapsids; they diverged from all reptiles, which includes turtles, tortoises and terrapins (collectively called Chelonia). Chelonia subsequently diverged from Diapsida. Also, it is thought (by some at least) that reptiles diverged from synapsids about 310 mya, and in fact Chelonia diverged from Diapsida 300 mya.

Hope this clears some things up.

6. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176834 by Andrew Stich on May 8, 2008 at 6:25 am

MPhil

"Faith in God" and "Faith in the Band" - the latter makes no sense. Religion, or political mass-consensus, or moral mass-consensus is about propositions. An event where many people feel good about hearing for example one of the Brandenburg Concertos by Bach... hardly! It's not about propositions!

"Also don't forget that art can also express reason, can promote rationality."

Remember that just because something is true doesn't mean that everyone who believes it, has undergone rational thinking. For example, even though evolution is without a doubt true, I'm sure that there are millions of people who believe in it without understanding a thing about it. It's just a case of mass consensus. Mass consensus is like faith in that people who adhere to it might not think about the issue at hand. Notice how I say "can" and "might". I'm just saying that mass consensus alone isn't much better than faith. I know what you're going to say here, so note that I said ISN'T MUCH BETTER THAN, not IS JUST AS BAD AS (for want of italics).

"when the nature of the event has nothing to do whatever with propositions, with positions, then it is no enemy to reason at all - like a (non-political) rock-concert."

OK, again, I said CAN. It seems like you went out of your way to antagonize me that you could make a more coherent point. Of course I know that there's not really anything objective in music. I hate agreeing with little sayings like these, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so it is impossible to be right or wrong. However, it is possible to have faith in the band, faith meaning that even if there are groups that naturally appeal to one more than one's current favorite, they're likely not to change. It's analogous (but not the same as) being overly loyal to a proposition. What I'm saying here is true, albeit not very important, and it adequately refutes your argument as far as I can tell.

""Faith in the Band" - the latter makes no sense."

Here's a fallacy that too many people fall into. You don't understand something, don't even give someone a chance to explain what they mean, and you denounce it as nonsensical. I think I just showed you that it does make sense, even if you're going to feel the need, warranted or unwarranted, to argue with me. And if it turns out that my notion of "faith in the band" still doesn't make sense, even after I have clarified it, you couldn't have deduced what it was that I meant by it before. Hooooold your horses there, bucco.

"Also, is mass-consensus that committing acts of deliberate cruelty is wrong dangerous, and enemy to reason? Definitely wrong. It's not consensus, or mass-consensus that is dangerous - it's consensus about propositions without proper justification."

Listen to what I say, not to what is convenient to rebut. I didn't say that mass consensus is always wrong, I said that those who follow it think they're right often even when they're not. My logic does not run "most people think 2 2 is 4; therefore, 2 2 is 5". All I have been trying to say is that mass consensus can be... CAN be like faith, as long as the individuals who play part in the mass consensus do not think for themselves, as is the norm.

7. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176727 by Andrew Stich on May 7, 2008 at 10:53 pm

"Still, for anyone wanting to understand the power of mass-gatherings, actually attending a rock-concert of music that one likes at least in some way is probably the only feasible way of really getting to know that."

Mass consensus can be a great enemy to reason, since it plays to the general human intuition that the majority is almost always correct, regardless of precisely what it is that the majority is saying or doing. Add faith (faith in God, or just as much, faith in the band) and a very spirited environment to the equation, and the perfect antithesis to rationality has been conceived of.

8. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175821 by Andrew Stich on May 6, 2008 at 5:53 am

Don_Quix, try the link I provided earlier and go to "Genome". Apparently, some nuclear (as opposed to mitochondrial) DNA has been found.

9. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #175697 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 10:23 pm

I just posted a comment nearly identical to what follows, but it didn't take... sorry if I end up double posting.

Rtambree:

"Where's our customised medicine? Holidays in space? Supersonic scramjet travel? Smart houses? Self-driving cars? Robot servants? 10 hour working week? Internet as heads-up display in your sunglasses? Paperless office? AI? Resurrection of extinct species?"

Science is a separate entity from technology, and does not exist merely to fuel the latter.

As to your prediction, are you a physicist? I am not, and I rather doubt that I will become one between now and this summer. Under these circumstances it is only prudent to say "I don't know" and to not extrapolate based on irrelevant precedents. If you are indeed a physicist or are otherwise learned in physics, please expound your position that I may better comprehend the subject.

"I just wish these projects don't get all hyped out of the proportion"

That's a perfectly fair and understandable concern.

10. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175687 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Sittingduck:

Haha!

Of course, though, it isn't quite a paradox. Because if, when asked if you always tell the truth, you reply "no", that doesn't necessarily mean that you always lie. That means that if what you're saying is true, you lie frequently enough, and in order to make sense of your response, this would have to be one of the occasions where you are telling the truth. A true paradox is "This is a lie," because if you're telling the truth, you're lying, and if you're lying, you're telling the truth.

Yeah... sorry.

11. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175685 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Don_Quix

It is important to keep in mind that we, the surviving humans, are not just homo sapiens, but homo sapiens sapiens. The second sapiens designates a subspecies within homo sapiens. Neanderthals are classified one of two ways: homo neanderthalensis, or homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Obviously, the latter would place them in the same species as us, but as a distinct clade (taxonomically meaningful group).

"how can we be sure when Homo Sapiens became dominant and when Neanderthals began to decline?"

When homo sapiens (sapiens) remains become more plentiful and Neanderthal less. Carbon dating.

"under what circumstances did this occur?"

Can't say. Some say that Neanderthals and early homo sapiens interbred, and Neanderthals no longer exist at least partially due to hybridization. Some say that we hunted them to extinction (although I would say that the evidence is lacking; it strikes me as mere romantic speculation).

"Why are we Homo Sapiens and not Neanderthals?"

Because we seem to be, based on morphological evidence, more similar to archaic homo sapiens than to archaic Neanderthals. There was a split between the homo sapiens (or homo sapiens sapiens) lineage and the homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis lineage a given amount of time ago.

If you feel I answered anything insufficiently or inaccurately, feel free to say something.

12. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175634 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Geoff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Etymology_and_classification

There are two sides to the story. I don't think that it is within anyone's power to be conclusive yet.

But I hadn't known of this evidence. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

I was mainly reprimanding the author's saying that "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage" means separate species, because that description could be used to distinguish me from you as well as humans from chimpanzees. I think it's an example of the author relying on complex language to befuddle the reader and then substituting his or her own faulty interpretation as a translation.

13. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175439 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Wow. Despite the title, I couldn't have predicted the sheer plethora of fallacies and outright stupidities.

14. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175438 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Ethnic Tasmanians and the rest of homo sapiens could be described as "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage".

Black and white people could be described as "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage".

Neanderthals are only a few more splits up the tree. Does that make them a separate species? If the criterion is being able to interbreed, I can't say. If the criterion is "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage", then yes. On the other hand, that would also mean that I'm a separate species from everyone else who posts on this website.

One has to know where to draw the line. Distinction between species isn't as simple as would be convenient.

15. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #172832 by Andrew Stich on April 30, 2008 at 5:55 am

I dunno, savroD. Much as I would like to agree with you, humans are special (although other animals are as well, in different ways). You see, it seems as if many of our technological feats build on previous ones. As long as our intelligence is above a certain treshold, the whole process could be catalysed. We only need to have slightly bigger (and perhaps more efficient)brains than chimpanzees to accomplish what we have. Me, I think the catalyst was language.

Religion teaches us that humans are on a completely different magnitude and scale than other animals (I can't bring myself to leave out "other", even when it is inaccurate in describing religious beliefs), and this is irreconcilably false. We're still animals, and I don't think MPhil was trying to say otherwise. As long as he realizes that our being special is (at least on our fundamental biological level) nothing special.

16. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172689 by Andrew Stich on April 29, 2008 at 11:05 pm

"Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust"
"Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier"
"Science leads to killing people"
"Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats"
"Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case"


A breath of fresh air.

17. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172505 by Andrew Stich on April 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm

It's certainly true, and I agree with every word of it, but I wish the author had supported what he was saying.

Not that there is a reasonable doubt to be had, but some people might not understand how Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has no bearing when it comes to moral conduct.

18. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #172070 by Andrew Stich on April 29, 2008 at 7:50 am

"Of course there are "meaningful" ways in which humans are separate from (other) animals."

That's true, but we're still completely animal. I have no problem with you as long as you say the word other, and don't make a false dichotomy between man and the beast.

"I stand by my statement that there is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals, whether the animals are baboons, humans or stick insects." Fair enough, but if humans count as animals (which they should), that's a pretty obvious statement.

Sorry for the poor post quality; I have limited time.

19. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171826 by Andrew Stich on April 28, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Really? I'm surprised by the distinction that many people here make between animals "and" humans, or "There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals," as if humans somehow didn't count. There is no meaningful way in which humans are separate from "animals". If we are not animals, what, taxonomically speaking, pray tell, are we? We're just as animal as any other... animal. A note to our species: get over yourself.

Unless, of course, you don't believe in evolution, in which case you can be excused for the distinction between human and animal (they've chosen the greater of two evils).

As a sidenote, have you ever noticed that it is impossible to find an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution?

20. 'Darwin chip' brings evolution into the classroom

Comment #157772 by Andrew Stich on April 9, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Yet another piece of irrefutable (to the extent of my current intellectual abilities) evidence for evolution. We have plenty; this is another (albeit a particularly strong one). I'm not sure that this will have a very big impact on those who defy evolution currently, since they have demonstrated an incredible (well, objectively speaking: it isn't incredible in the sense that most people actually do have it) capability to ignore evidence. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm ready to be convinced of that. Someone convince me.

21. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155934 by Andrew Stich on April 6, 2008 at 10:49 am

Buddha,

What is important is that it is phenotype-causing self-replicating units that are selected, so yes, I would say memes and computer viruses too.

By the bye, for any nitpicker out there, I realize that there's also neutral genetic drift, and so it's not only the phenotype-causing units (they still must be self-replicating) that change over time, but we're talking about natural selection here.

22. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150410 by Andrew Stich on March 26, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Ha! What was Mathis thinking? What would be the potential benefit of expelling PZ Myers? What would be the potential cost?

However, although this certainly alerted the public to the double standards of the producers, I do think that this will incite some potential viewers to wee it out of curiosity. This will probably hurt the ID movement in general, but it might help the movie itself.

23. Evolution Of New Species Slows Down As Number Of Competitors Increases

Comment #150294 by Andrew Stich on March 26, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Precisely what does it mean by species? And what does it mean by "a group of closely related animals"? Doesn't this imply that evolution is slowing down? Isn't that not the case?

Not saying that this is wrong, but how does it not imply that evolution is slowing down if less and less "species" are forming?

24. How to abandon your God

Comment #139459 by Andrew Stich on March 5, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Oh, and how do I make those neat little quotation boxes, such as the one at the top of cowalker's post?

25. How to abandon your God

Comment #139458 by Andrew Stich on March 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm

10. Ed-words:

It is true and accepted that different people define God in different ways. Among the less conventional is the way described in the article; namely, God is everything that exists. Fine. Define God that way if you like. Do you believe in everything that exists? I believe in everything that exists, so under that definition, I'm a(space)theist, and so is every rational person.

I do agree, however, that it is important to remember that this is not what most people mean by "God". Most people mean something akin to the Christian God. And this sort of God is what Richard debates against and that which would make me and every rational person an a(no space)theist.

Remember, when debating the existence of God, the goal is not necessarily to be an atheist, no matter how God is defined; the goal is to be correct. And it just so happens that under most definitions, atheists are right.

26. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134474 by Andrew Stich on February 27, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Why do Christians hate America?

27. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132421 by Andrew Stich on February 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm

I can't think of anything eloquent or detailed to say. So rife with logical fallacies that it is hard to distinguish one from its neighbor, so many statements or implied statements that are completely incorrect and untrue... This is truly, truly an amazing article. Really, it makes me feel a sense of awe. I'm not at all being sarcastic. As a scientific-minded person, I believe that almost no suggestion should be dismissed outright without a thorough breakdown, but... this is really an exceptional piece of work. Maybe I'll come back to it later.

28. Whale Evolution

Comment #132387 by Andrew Stich on February 24, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Hmmm... I'm confused that the video espouses dog-like ancestors for the whales. By dog-like, do they mean laurasiathere-like? Or are they implying that artiodactyls evolved their own canine-like forms, which are now extinct and are of course not particularly related to modern dogs? And when seen through the lens of hippos, just where would these morphologically dog-like animals fit in? And what's the time scale in all of this?

29. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132380 by Andrew Stich on February 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Yes, The Ancestor's Tale is perhaps my favorite of all non-fiction books, in part because of its lucid style, in part because of the rich detail, and in part because of the sheer diversity of information. The Salamander's Tale was one of the gemstones of the book, I think, but there are so many others that I cannot label a distinctive best tale. What other tales have you enjoyed, Elles?

30. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132274 by Andrew Stich on February 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Bonzai, there's no need for pedantic accusations of pedantic nitpicking.

On the other hand, I suppose there's no need for pedantic accusations of pedantic accusations of pedantic nitpicking...

I'll let this pedantic situation speak for itself.

31. Good people doing evil things

Comment #125049 by Andrew Stich on February 10, 2008 at 8:28 pm

This article used its sources well.

Nice Bertrand Russell quote.

32. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #122082 by Andrew Stich on February 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Right, Geoff, I wasn't totally satisfied with that definition. It favors change when it is deemed beneficial. One would think (or hope, at least) that policy is less random than mutations in DNA. Natural selection is an incidental process which one would expect to arise whenever there is a nearly-perfect mechanism of heredity, whereas politics is deliberately guided by us humans.

33. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121770 by Andrew Stich on February 4, 2008 at 5:45 am

Well, just because Oprah supports Obama doesn't mean that Obama supports Oprah. Who supports a given presidential candidate is not a valid point of discrimination.
After reading that article in Time magazine, I became more in tune with the election, and was surprised to hear Obama's use of words like hope and faith. However, this is not only easily explained, but best explained by him being concerned about his public appearance. Use of Christian language, the language reflecting the beliefs of 75% percent of Americans, is a good idea regardless of whether or not the one involved is actually faithful.
But you're right. I cannot be totally certain about any religious position he may or may not be concealing.

34. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121610 by Andrew Stich on February 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Right, by liberal I mean the old-fashioned, J.S. Mill-style liberal. I mean what the term meant when it was originally conceived. Nowadays, liberal is generally taken to mean the accepting of the practices and customs of other cultures and countries, whatever they might be, under the guise of multiculturalism. Basically, it means extremely left-winged. It denotes the sort of people who might say, "Oh, they're a cannibalistic tribe, are they? ...Well, that's interesting. To each his own, eh? Rock on, cannibals!"

As for liberal as in liberal party, that can mean any number of things, usually little to do with liberalism. In Canada, liberal as a reference to the Liberal party means corrupt. There was this massive sponsorship scandal a few years back, while the Liberal party was in power...

35. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121582 by Andrew Stich on February 3, 2008 at 6:10 pm

quantum tube: Exactly. The term "conservative" doesn't quite match up with "right-winged", and "(classical) liberal" doesn't quite match up with "left-winged". Liberals tend to believe in individual power and freedom. Liberals are left-winged in most ways, but right-winged when it comes to "No government, everyone looks after themselves, nobody tells me what to do sort of thing."

Troy: I can't remember the number of the issue, but I think it was called "Leveling the Praying Field". I'm not 100% it was in that issue. However, it wasn't actually part of the article. The format was, above the main article, each presidential candidate was represented by a text box, and within the text box, their religious beliefs were highlighted. It was very brief. The actual interview with Obama wasn't shown; Time merely said something like "Says his religious conversion was a practical one, not the result of a spiritual revelation." (not the exact words)

36. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121535 by Andrew Stich on February 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm

I read in Time magazine that Obama said that his conversion was one of practicality, not of revelation or epiphany. How can one believe something out of practicality? It's impossible. However, the act of saying one believes something can be practical. So I figure that's what he means when he says his conversion was a practical one. Which would make him a closet atheist or agnostic.

37. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121457 by Andrew Stich on February 3, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I would say that atheists are necessarily less conservative than Christians, on average. Any dogma (but especially religion) can inspire an "I'm right and you're wrong, and nothing you can say or do can change my mind" mindset, an insurmountable feeling of self-righteousness. This is exactly the opposite of liberalism (or classical liberalism, anyway).

As for the most secular candidate, I think that would be Barrack Obama. But I'm Canadian; I'm sure some Americans might have a better idea than me.

38. Scientists discover way to reverse loss of memory

Comment #118136 by Andrew Stich on January 30, 2008 at 11:52 am

This article was fascinating and reported quite well. However, one cannot help but wonder if the the practical benefits will in actuality pull through. As Ayesha Khan said, this will need much further investigation. But it was an intriguing prospect.

39. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118018 by Andrew Stich on January 30, 2008 at 8:31 am

How ruthlessly fallacious!

The thing is, many Christians would be seduced by the condescending tone. They might think to themselves, "Oh, he's got those atheists now, I can tell!" without paying close attention to what's actually being said.

40. Shermer's 'Mind of the Market' Reviewed in L.A. Times

Comment #116133 by Andrew Stich on January 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm

I don't think the review seems so unreasonable (although I haven't read the work either). It's pretty well a synopsis of the book with a pinch of sarcasm and logical fallacy thrown in.

41. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #113511 by Andrew Stich on January 19, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Right, well, I think there's some linguistic confusion over the meaning of the word "democracy". It seems to me from the context that by "democracy", Dr. Chernus means old-fashioned, J.S. Mill-style liberalism. "So everything must be open to question, to debate, and therefore to change. In a democracy, there should be no fixed truth except that everyone has the right to offer a new view -- and to change his or her mind." Mind you, I agree that this isn't the correct use of the word "democracy".

42. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111169 by Andrew Stich on January 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

20 pages, eh? It might be worth the repurchase just for that.