Worse than the New Atheists?

We were always in favor of separation of church and state — I still am — and I never cared for these phony Christian charities that were providing evangelical nonsense and calling it genuine aid. But I am compelled to admit that some Christian charities were mostly sincere and were really supplying relief to communities in trouble, especially after disasters struck (some saw it as an opportunity to do nothing but PR, but let’s not tar every charity with the same ugly brush). Keep religion out of government, but if a church is actually providing helpful social services, they deserve compensation from the state…for that, but not for preaching or prayer.

Unfortunately, there are some who want to use secularism selectively applied to punish Christian charity and liberalism. Mike Flynn clearly did a search, not for corruption or abuse of funds, but for a Christian denomination he doesn’t like, to declare that they shouldn’t get government support. Lutheran Family Services must be very bad, because they assist refugees and immigrants. Of course Elon Musk agrees.

(Disclaimer: I was brought up Lutheran, but got out of there as fast as I could, and do not have a special place in my heart for Lutheran anything.)

I might be willing to go along with calling supporting Christian charities illegal payments, but only if the term was applied to all religious sects, all missionary efforts, and all religious outreach, as a way to close the loopholes that allow some churches to buy private jets so they can deliver Bibles to starving people. But I don’t know, “Lutheran immigration and refugee service” and “Lutheran social services” sound pretty benign. I’d want more evidence that they were abusing the system than that a notorious kook and fanatic searched for the religion in a table of funding payments. This is just naked sectarianism, a little sabre-rattling to start a holy war.

And DOGE is an even worse criminal enterprise, trying to benefit billionaires by ripping apart the social safety net.

Less than two weeks in, and already the creationists are stirring

The regressive politicians are still playing this same stupid game: they hate evolution, but they can’t just switch to stuffing creationism into science curricula (yet), so they instead water down and weaken the science, replacing “evolution” with fuzzy pseudonyms. Gutsick Gibbon explains what’s going on in Iowa right now.

They tried this same stunt in Minnesota almost 20 years ago. Science educators in this state got mad and confronted them at every turn. It worked then, and their efforts were foiled, and that’s what Iowans need to do now.

Also relevant: Milo Rossi dissects pseudoscience. We all need to get fired up.

That is a mighty fragile wrist

We have lubed up our mighty door, and it opens and closes much more easily now. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and my wrist is undergoing some fascinating physiological changes. It is now mottled and blotchy, and pain has increased. I may have to pop into the emergency room to get it splinted up, but This Is AMERICA, and a couple of tongue depressors and a pressure bandage might bankrupt me, if applied by a trained professional.

Unfortunately, I have to compose an exam for my genetics class today, and the ouchieness of typing these short paragraphs is making me dread the effort of typing four or five pages. Maybe I can get a wrist splint at the drugstore today?

That is a door, a mighty mighty door

This is the main door to my house.

It’s massive. What you can’t see is how thick and heavy it is. This is a door that would stand up to an assault by orcs armed with Grond. In the winter it’s the only door out of the house to a path cleared of snow, so you’re not getting in if we don’t let you.

The only problem is that not only is it heavy, but in the recent cold weather the shape of the frame has shifted and is clamping down on the door, so it massively resists movement. Right now, going out that door is a difficult enterprise, requiring that we grab that door knob and lean back with all our weight to pull it out; coming in requires turning the knob and bashing it with your shoulder. It really needs readjustment.

This prelude is to explain why I have sprained my wrist by trying to open a door. It was that door. Right now my wrist is swollen and bruised, changing colors — last night it was yellow and green, but today it’s more of a dark grey. Yes, it hurts. Why am I typing? I need to stop. Ouch. Bye.

If logic were a horserace, this guy would have lapped himself multiple times

A horse living as God intended it to

I suspect most of you don’t read the Answers Research Journal, the hack pseudoscientific journal published by Answers in Genesis to create the illusion that they do actual research. They don’t. And I don’t normally read it myself, but Daniel Phelps sent me a link to a recent article there titled Were Horses Designed to Be Ridden? If you know Betteridge’s law of headlines, then you know the answer is supposed to be “NO!”, but AiG can’t even get that right.

Horses have served as one of man’s closest companions for thousands of years. Humans have ridden them into battles, attached them to the plow, galloped them across great plains, and shown them in countless competitions. Found anywhere from ranches, to back yards, to racing tracks, to beaches, these magnificent animals have been used as instruments which brought great change into the world. One might even wonder how easily man would have managed to advance without them. With such close ties to man’s history, it seems natural that one should ask if horses were designed for riding. Such is the topic of this article and the research thereof. In considering different subjects such as History, Anatomy, and Scripture, it is this author’s belief that horses were designed to be ridden.

A bold claim. Does Caleb Harrier back it up? I shall follow Betteridge’s law, and the answer is…NO!

He’s supposed to provide evidence that horses were designed to be ridden, so he looks up the answer in a few sources, which is good. The sources are all consistent in their answer, which is also good.

Unfortunately, authors who have spoken to the topic of whether horses were designed to be ridden are usually dismissive to the idea. For example, the authors of Equine Science, simply state: “The horse is not designed to carry a rider’s weight on top of its back” (Pilliner and Davies 2004, 23). However, no explanation is provided in the text as to why the authors dismiss the idea.

Another example can be found in the popular book, How to Think Like a Horse by equine author Cherry Hill. In this work, she states that “A horse’s body isn’t really designed to carry extra weight, but it can by virtue of its suspension-bridge features” (Hill 2006, 50). Soon after, she adds: “Even though a horse is not designed to carry weight, because of the cooperative interaction between major topline ligaments and the circle of muscles, with careful consideration, we can ride” (Hill 2006, 52). The implication, then, from the author is that horses were not designed to be ridden. According to the text, horses at least have the capacity to be ridden but were not designed for such a role.

Numerous blog articles have been written on this topic of discussion as well. Sadly, these authors’ views also tend to be quite dismissive. In her article, “The Horse’s Body is not Designed to Carry a Person,” Didier (2019) states: “when we objectively assess what really holds a riding horse back we have to admit something quite awkward, and that is—from a design, strength, and balance point of view—the horse’s body is simply not designed to carry a person.” In this article, she at least provides reasoning for why she believes horses were not designed to be ridden, and it is due to their back structure in relation to where a rider sits.

In the article, “Were Horses Meant to be Ridden by Humans?”, Stone (2022) flatly opens with “Horses were never meant to be human slaves and carry them on their backs.” His explanation is the recurring theme about a horse’s anatomy, in addition to back pain caused by riding.

So all his sources say no, horses were not designed to be ridden, but he’s going to ignore that and decide that yes, they were designed to be ridden. So much for scholarship! His argument is that well, horses are ridden, and have been ridden throughout history, therefore they must be designed to be ridden. He also points out that they have strong back muscles, so therefore the only reason they don’t suffer catastrophic back failure is because they were designed to carry a human.

Then he unlimbers the big gun. The reason that we know horses were designed to be ridden is because the Bible, specifically the book of Revelation, says so.

It is this author’s position that, because Christ and His heavenly armies will one day be riding horses— as part of biblical prophecy—then horses were indeed designed to be ridden. It is not a horse’s historical record nor its anatomy that ultimately decides what it was designed for. As always, Scripture is our final authority. The King and His armies will return to the earth, riding on white horses. The horse kind—like other kinds—has always been a part of God’s plan. Horses have made a historical impact in our past; they will certainly have an impact in our future.

If that’s not enough evidence for you, there’s also the argument that Jesus would not use a horse for a purpose for which it was not designed.

Revelation 19 demonstrates that horses were designed by God to be ridden just as powerfully within a symbolic or metaphorical interpretation. For example, if horses were not designed to be ridden, then the Holy Spirit would not inspire John to write a passage that shows the Creator Jesus misusing His own creation. Also, if it were animal abuse to ride horses, Scripture—even metaphorically!—would not depict Jesus abusing His own creation.

I don’t know why he bothered to research horses, since he already knew his conclusion, and since the only source he needed was the Bible.

You can’t blame the spider!

Well, this is a fascinating example of spider toxicity. A heroin addict, looking for a cheap high or a weird story to tell her friends, ground up a black widow spider in a little water and…injected it intravenuously. I’ve heard of people eating strange dangerous things on a dare, but mainlining it takes it to a whole new level. Don’t do that!

The consequences were unpleasant but fortunately not lethal.

Several hours after arriving at the hospital, the woman began to have trouble breathing. Her wheezing became so severe that she was moved to the intensive care unit (ICU).

The diagnosis: Doctors determined that the patient’s symptoms were triggered by the black widow’s toxic venom, they wrote in a report. Black widow venom is known to disrupt signals in the nervous system, thus causing muscle pain and spasms, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure. In some cases, it leads to inflammation that can ultimately restrict breathing, according to Harvard Medical School. The patient had asthma, and the physicians suspected that her breathing difficulties may have been worsened by an allergic reaction to a protein found in the venom.

Notably, when a black widow bites, it injects a very low volume of venom. Because the woman ground up the whole spider, she may have exposed herself to a dose orders of magnitude higher than is typical. A black widow’s venom glands hold about 0.2 milligrams of venom, on average.

The treatment: Doctors gave the woman an IV solution of calcium gluconate, a medication that can help relieve muscle cramps, but her symptoms did not improve significantly. Next, she received morphine for pain relief. The ICU doctors attempted to reduce her wheezing with three treatments of albuterol, a drug that relaxes airway muscles and is a common remedy for asthma. When those treatments were ineffective, they switched to methylprednisolone, a steroid medication. But her labored breathing continued, and the next day, she required a nebulizer. Doctors then gave her morphine and lorazepam — a type of depressant — to ease her muscle spasms and cramping.

Antivenin, or antivenom, for black widow bites carries a risk of anaphylaxis, a severe and immediate allergic reaction. Since the patient was already having trouble breathing, and the doctors suspected that antivenin would worsen her respiratory distress, they did not include it in her treatment.

By the second day of treatment, the patient’s breathing had returned to normal, her lungs were unobstructed and her muscle pain was gone. The doctors transferred her to a general ward and discharged her a day later. They instructed her to follow her standard regimen for controlling her asthma and suggested that she take oral steroids to control any lingering inflammation.

Did they also suggest that she not shoot up any more spiders?

For some reason, a lot of people have been sending me this story. Do I look like the kind of person who would inject themselves with spider venom? Are they warning me not to do this? I assure you all, I like spiders too much to want to grind one up.

Although…I do have several spiders of various species that died of natural causes, and are now floating in vials of 95% alcohol. They could be an interesting addition to a cocktail of some sort, don’t you think?

Soup in spaaaaace!

The country may be swirling down the drain, but at least we’ve got some interesting news from outer space…even if Nature chose a really misleading title for their article, Asteroid fragments upend theory of how life on Earth bloomed. Scientists are analyzing the samples returned from a probe sent to the asteroid Bennu. They’ve found all 5 nucleic acid bases, and 14 of our familiar 20 amino acids, which is not surprising. We’ve found those in meteorites here on Earth.

Furthermore, the molecules are found in roughly equal numbers of right- vs. left-handed enantiomers, which is also not surprising. It’s biological synthesis that favors one handedness over the other; this is exactly what we’d expect of molecules built via inorganic synthesis in a lifeless rock. We might have to upend a few theories if these molecules were found to have been assembled by living organisms that had been living on an ancient space rock. But they weren’t, so nobody is rewriting any biology textbooks.

I did not expect this, though:

In an accompanying paper published in Nature today, other researchers report that the material from Bennu is also rich in salts created billions of years ago, probably when watery ponds on Bennu’s parent asteroid evaporated and left behind a crust of minerals. Although no signs of life were spotted on Bennu, those salty ponds would have been a good environment to foster the chemistry that could lead to it.

Salty ponds? On space rocks? I’d like to know more about that, although note that there’s no evidence that life evolved in puddles on asteroids. It’s still cool to imagine briny ponds on distant moons and planetoids.