An organization for which I do online tutoring recently asked that Wikipedia not be used as a reference. Wondered why at the time, every science hit had seemed to be accurate and well written. The premise of Wikipedia has been widely discussed and praised so I certainly know what the basis of the objections are.

The other day, a friend made a reference to the Epicureans so I Googled it and went to Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica websites to see exactly what being an Epicurean inferred. Britannica wanted money so they were out. Wikipedia had an excellent article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism) with lots of links. As a science teacher, firm believer in The Atomic Theory and The Theory of Evolution, I thoroughly enjoyed the article and felt a kinship to good old Epicurus. One link to asceticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism) had a warning about the factual accuracy being in dispute. And the epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) article notes that references and sources are not cited. It was an excellent short anecdotal experiment on Wikipedia's value and reliability.

The final judgement: Wikipedia is an excellent reference. Voters, advertisement readers, researchers and science students should know enough about data collection to sort through anything questionable or less than useful. I have no doubt that I will Wikipedia surf lots. Well done to them.

One of my earlier entries (24 June, 2006 on http://sinannblog.blogstream.com and http://sinannblog.blogspot.com/) dealt with theories in science. The Shermer - Chopra debate and many of the blog entries (http://blogsearch.google.com) expound on the Theory of Evolution. It seemed a good time to bring it back:

Long ago and far away, I was a science teacher. One of the first things that, at least in the old tried and true texts, we covered was The Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). It goes back to the sixteen hundreds, Sir Francis Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Francis_Bacon), Rene Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Descartes), et al. In a few words, it outlines the methods of a scientist: experiment, hypothesis, experiment, law, theory. An idea gets proven to the point that it always is useful and becomes a law. Newton's Law of Gravity: force equals The Gravitational Constant times the mass of the first object times the mass of the second divided by distance squared. It always works. Plug in the numbers and get the correct answer – every time. There are a lot of laws, all set up so that they always give the right answer. Laws are vital in the modern world and the result of much thought and spectacular experimentation. They are not the epitome of human brainpower, however. In a sense, your dog establishes a good set of laws. What your dog can not do, however, is theorize, wonder why. Einstein's Theory of Gravity, Dalton's Atomic Theory, Avogadro's Molecular Theory, all give exquisite explanations of how things happen and have added so much to our modern life. Because, like laws, they predict what would happen if.... And, like laws, they always work. Ditto for the Theory of Evolution. It is not a theory in the everyday sense, it is a proven and reliable Theory in the scientific sense. And it has added so much to our everyday life. Start with the food you eat. It is far from what they had in Mesopotamia five thousand years ago. We would all be starving if we did not evolve our food supply. And then there is our kids. I know mine are much better than me. They are the best example of evolution I can think of. The Theory of Evolution is a spectacular and exquisite result of human brainpower and a cornerstone of our modern lifestyle. And it always predicts correctly. I would bet that if a “nonbeliever” went to The Golden Gates, Saint Peter would say, “You did not believe in Evolution? Do you know how much work we put into that? Saint Michael, put this one on the down elevator.”

I looked for Michael Shermer through Google blog search and found some interesting stuff. This debate is among the best. He and Deepak Chopra debating the afterlife: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.htm
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/01/shermerchopra_a.html

A couple of quotes from Shermer: “The soul is the essence that breathes life into flesh, animates us, gives us our vital spirit.” and “...the neural pattern of information that is our memories and personality – our 'self' – is sensed as a soul. In this sense, the soul is an illusion”.

I like to add the “soul” being our conscious realization that God exists and we can communicate with Him. (See entry for 16 January, 2006) That brain power, “neural pattern of information” that God has given us through evolution that gives us not only awareness of our self and others, but awareness of our universe, and of Him.

Some old things are still good. This was one of my original blog entries (16 June, 2006). It is still on Blogger (http://sinannblog.blogspot.com), has been dropped by Blogstream (http://sinannblog.blogstream.com), and Yahoo (http://360.yahoo.com/sidaugherty) does not have it because it was started after this. Anyway, here is my favorite poem.

As I cruise through the blogs, I notice a lot of poetry. Original and favorites. Let me add mine. Long ago and far away, a person in a position of responsibility (an upperclassman at the Naval Academy in 1954 when I was a Plebe) caused me to memorize a poem in an effort to show me the error of my ways (I gave a wimpy excuse). I had to stand on my chair at breakfast and recite at full voice it until it was done satisfactorily. That poem has stayed with me for half a century. It is my post cave-man primal roar and my antiwimpiness buckler.

Invictus, by William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
black as the pit from pole to pole.
I thank whatever gods may be
for my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced not cried aloud.
Under the bludgeoning of chance,
my head is bloodied, but unbowed

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
looms but the horror of the shade
And yet the menace of the years
finds and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how straight the gate,
how charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

Still another quote from the recent Scientific American article by Michael Shirmer (see entries for 10,12, and 16 February, 2007): “As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature.”

When did all of this start for us human beans? Adam and Eve (see 16 January entry)? Before? 14.5 billion years ago (see 16 February entry)? Is the side of us that takes these things too far really The Devil (see 18 September, 2006 entry)? Were the World Trade Center and the war in Iraq inevitable? Is it all part of our inbred tribal rivalry? Was all of this part of God's original design?

There are times when it is amusing to quote Flip Wilson and say “The Devil made me do it.” But maybe it is not really so funny.