My exo-brain (computer and web) carries a lot more detailed information than I could even dream of holding without it. Conversations that might otherwise have gotten stuck at "what was the name of that one guy in that movie with Mel Gibson?" can be easily resolved with a quick trip to IMDB, or google, or wikipedia. Umm, wait, I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing.

And besides, now that I can rely on my exo-brain for so much, it leaves so much extra room in my meat brain for things like the lyrics to "Atlantis" by Donovan, which I might otherwise have had to jettison to make room for a few measly phone numbers (that would go obsolete anyway). My life is so much richer for that, let me assure you, my antediluvian baby.

Just call her up for goodness sake. Pick up the phone. And call. What have you got to lose? Think of her as a stranger who's friends with someone you used to know. Six years is a long time, who knows what she's like now? If you get together and she's turned into a bitter and nasty person, well, take your lumps and move on. She made the first move, I have to assume that she knows how hurtful she was and regrets it. Just don't try to process what happened six years ago the first time you get together. It's just too heavy, you don't have enough trust in this new person yet to go raking open wounds together. If you become friends again, well, there are plenty of wine bottles in your shared future over which to have that discussion.

Every time someone tries to talk about the areas that both science and religion try to explain, it devolves (heh) into a shouting match.

I have one problem with religious anti-science types. They want to teach religion in place of science.

They argue that the theory of evolution is incomplete and of course it's incomplete. We don't know everything and probably never will. It's the best scientific (evidence driven) explanation of the facts to date, but it's incomplete. They can pick holes in it; they will always be able to pick holes in it. It's incomplete. But overall, it's the best explanation we've got.

The anti-science people start with the conclusion: everything is just as described (per their interpretation) in the bible. This is not the scientific method. They claim that they are opposed to evolution being taught in school, but many of them, the most vocal of them, are against any science that doesn't agree with the bible.

They believe that the universe was created in 6 literal earth-equivalent days. They believe that Noah's ark is literally true. They believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

These beliefs don't simply call evolution into question, they proclaim that vast swaths of science are invalid. Cosmology, archeology, carbon dating, common sense, and who knows what all else can be discarded if it doesn't agree with their interpretation of the bible. Indeed, the scientific method itself is invalid to these people, because anything that can be concluded from observation and testing is untrue if it disagrees with their particular literal interpretation of the bible.

There are many people who are a little queasy about evolution but don't buy into the whole anti-science belief structure. But by my experience most of the vocal ones who come out of the woodwork when an article like this is posted are pure anti-science.

So when they say they "just want to teach the controversy" about evolution, they are lying. They want all of science education to be reduced to their interpretation of biblical truth.

This is bad. This is very bad.

We must not permit the teaching of anti-science in our schools. We must not permit the anti-science crowd to get their foot in the door.

When someone starts arguing about evolution, picking holes in the theory per their understanding, one good strategy is to get them to tell you what they really believe. How much science do they really want to throw away? Is the earth 6,000 years old? Is Noah's ark literally true? Then you can laugh them out of the box.

In fact, many of the pet anti-evolution arguments of the anti-science crowd have been proven utterly false over time. The "dinosaurs and humans in the same archeological strata" argument springs to mind. Anti-evolution web sites now identify this as untrue, but you'll still hear it from some of the less informed or less scrupulous of the anti-science crowd.

Saber rattling about Iran always leads me back to the same question. Regardless of whether you think Iran is a real and present danger, what are we gonna do about it? I actually think it's more likely for Iran to become a nuclear danger than it was for Iraq to become a nuclear danger, but with our troops spread so thinly in Iraq that we can't support the needs of Afghanistan, where are the troops coming from to attack Iran?

Ho hum. It's been done (and brilliantly so, I might add, by the good Doc Pyro)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/barbiedeathcamp/interesting/

What's with all this talk about your future as a novelist? Are you making this all up? LW, if you're real, I apologize. You sound just too pat. Cary, if you've made this guy up you need to do some more work on your characterization.

I think the format of an online advice column is terrific. It enables people like me to be wise, judgmental, thoughtful, and anonymous. What's the real reason reality shows are so successful? It enables us to be judgmental. But without that edge of reality, it just would feel like another tv show. Or online fiction.

Say it ain't so, Cary. I've enjoyed your column and contributed my own judgments and wisdom in the comments. I'd feel like a sap if I found out it was all just in service of Cary's novel.