All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But if you are raped unwillingly, you have leave to be stoned to death, for the men will value you no more.

(Original: "All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more.")

"Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Denby, sees a direct correlation between dropping church numbers and strong female characters."

Even if the correlation is there, it doesn't have to go in that direction. Maybe freeing yourself from a deeply patriarchal church that doesn't deem you good enough to celebrate mass (yes, I grew up Catholic) makes you more able to accept and enjoy strong female characters.

The patriarchal system seems like a major hurdle for many otherwise open-minded people. While pursuing his doctorate, my husband took a course about multiculturalism and religion, pointing out hidden prejudices, etc. In a discussion of different views of Christ, many were fine with visually representing Jesus in a variety of phenotypes: Asian, African, European, whatever. The general thought was that appearance shouldn't matter, the focus was on what he said and did, and making God in our own image is a way of relating to him. But when my husband suggested "female" as an alternative, it brought everyone up short, including the women, and most resisted it.

Gender bias runs deep, and it's hard to break out of.

Corsi is an idiot, thinking that an abiotic genesis for oil means a biological genesis doesn't happen. But the study he discusses in your linked article is not by the scientist you mention, but by the University of Washington's Giora Proskurowski, from the Feb. 1 2008 issue of Science. Here's the abstract:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5863/604

Here's a lay article on the subject:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9355/title/Seafloor_Chemistry_Lifes_building_blocks_made_inorganically

The issue is not that oil is not produced as a fossil fuel -- the issue is that in some special circumstances (hydrothermal vents, in the study), several hydrocarbons (methane, butane, ethane) may also be produced inorganically.

This is important not to the oil industry, but to origin-of-life theories, as it means that some basic building blocks of life may have been initially created inorganically before being incorporated into life.

Ironically, I would lay a bet that the creationists seized on Corsi's bad faith interpretation as more "proof" that fossils and evolution are wrong -- whereas in fact Proskurowski's study provides more data on how life might actually have begun from non-life. (Which doesn't answer the Is-there-a-God question, but does further highlight the mistake of putting your faith in literal scriptural interpretation.)

P.S. Hope I'm not replicating anyone -- I don't have time to read all the letters this morning.

Reading the PETA article, the problem is that the water is heated beyond the fish's optimal range. Carp are not tropical fish, but here they are in water heated to 94 degrees Fahrenheit for the client's comfort. Carp don't like temperatures much higher than the low 70s. Fishermen are counseled not to "catch and release" carp in the hot summer months, as water temperatures above 70 make it harder for the fish to recover from the shock, and even more fish than usual die instead of survive.

Apparently the salon in question cooked hundreds of fish till they died, then ordered more.

I have no problem with fish eating dead skin off my feet if it's not harmful to the fish. If I was dangling my feet in a pond and the fish thought my dead skin cells a good snack, it's good for me and it's good for the fish. It's the rest of this situation that doesn't work - switching from one tank to another, heating them up, and unapologetic mass slaughter.

Loved this article. Being on a tight budget is like writing a sonnet, or elegant code - keeping within the given constraints actually pushes you to think more, to be creative, and you may discover ideas you would have missed otherwise. The result is often better than when you don't have any limits.

Occam's razor is a much-loved approach that helps make choices; but not all scientists and philosophers favored it as the top decision-maker. Some "anti-razor" responses to Occam's concept include these:

Einstein: Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. (emphasis added)

Leibniz: The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished.

Menger (mathematician): Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy.

My point is not that Occam's razor is not a good choice in making many decisions, but that one must be aware that there are alternative views. Like choosing the correct taxonomy in systematics, choosing different, equally valid analytic approaches in address questions such as atheism vs. theism can radically change the dialogue.

On salon itself, advocating a more considered, ironic, contingent viewpoint for both sides, I've been chastised for having a synthesized, ironic understanding of the situation. I was told, "there's a war on, and someday you're going to have to pick a side."

Apparently if one's intellectually honest, science-based attempt to understand your universe isn't shared by the New Atheists, one is an appeaser.