Gay Anxiety

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars is touting a study recently published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology that finds "homophobic" men (whatever "homophobic" means) are more aroused by homoerotic imagery than "non-homophobic" men (whatever "non-homophobic" means). And by "touting" I mean that Brayton indicates that these findings are "interesting"--by which I think he means "I would really like them to be true because they comport with my scientistic assumptions about the world and so I am willing to grant them immediate provisional credibility by using the term 'interesting' rather than, say, 'patently absurd'."

That Brayton would report on a the study the way he has is particularly interesting given his constant criticism of Intelligent Design as not being science. Funny, isn't it, how those who are the most vocally skeptical about anything that purports to be science that might favor a religious view of the world are the most credulous when it comes to a purportedly scientific "study" that backs up their own presuppositions?

It is particularly ironic that instant credibility should be granted to a claim coming out of the world of psychology, the scientific status of which has been repeatedly debated over the course of its existence. Not only that, but we are talking about a profession that has a history of responding more readily to political agendas than it does to science. The professional psychological associations didn't change their view that homosexuality was a psychological problem because of any new evidence--they changed it because they were responding to political pressure. In fact, the "research" done on issues related to homosexuality is constantly being compromised by ideological conflict of interest.

"Interesting"? You can say that again.

In case you hadn't noticed, activist homosexuals take it as a personal affront that you disagree with them. Why? Heterosexuals do not take it as a personal affront if homosexuals disagree with them. So what gives? Why do homosexuals have this deep-seated need to be agreed with? And why the violent reaction when you disagree with them? It has nothing to do with anything you might want to do to them. You may very well want to mind your own business and prefer them to mind theirs (and, possibly, not want their homosexuality waved in your face every five minutes). It's not what you might do that bothers them: it's what you believe. They simply can't stand the fact that you won't accept what they do.

I come back once again to Joseph Sobran's great observation that what homosexuals want more than anything is to force everyone else to say that what they are doing is okay.

The preferred way of assuaging this anxiety is the cherished shibboleth of homosexual rights groups: that the people who don't approve of their homosexuality are really homosexuals themselves. This is a great example of what C. S. Lewis called "Bulverism": it is like saying, "You're just saying that because you're a woman." It has absolutely no bearing on the objective validity of arguments against homosexuality, but it has the psychological effect of making homosexuals feel better about themselves to think that those who disagree with them are really in-the-closet homosexuals.

Of course, it would be rather strange if the claims of this study were true, since what we would then have would be a group of people, one faction the members of which are so insecure about their sexuality that they have a deep-seated need to believe their detractors are really just like them but don't want to admit it, and another faction the members of which are so insecure about their sexuality that that they they have a deep-seated need to hide their homosexuality from the homosexuals who have a need to believe that the latter group really are homosexuals.

Now there's great topic for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology to explore!

Oh, and has anyone noticed that the very people who scream bloody murder when anyone implies that their sexual habits constitute a psychological malady are the very people who are trying to claim that their opponents are psychologically disturbed merely because they happen to disagree with the practitioners of these particular sexual habits? Isn't that, after all, the primary purpose of the term "homophobic"--an ideological bully word?

The positions of gay rights groups are nothing if not rich in irony.

The problem with education is not money

Nicholas Stevens at Cyberhillbilly has this to say about the demise of the casino bill in the Kentucky legislature:

The casino bill is dead, what is not dead is the realization of education in the state with being overall underfunded and not performing to national standards, which even our national education standards are behind.

Let's see now. We were whining about education being underfunded in the 1980's in this state, so we instituted the lottery in 1988. So what were we whining about in 1990? Not enough education funding. So we passed KERA, the financial part of which was the greatest increase in state history. So here we are again. And the problem? Not enough education funding.

Exactly what do we have to do to please the people who say we are not doing enough to fund education? We currently spend about 65 percent of the state budget on education. How much of the state budget is it going to take to satisfy them?

The answer to the question, of course is: No amount of education funding will cause the people who say there is not enough education funding to stop calling for more.

The irony is that the problem with education is not money. For one thing, there is little correlation between more money spent and better education. Not only are the states with the best education systems necessarily the ones who fund it at higher levels--nor are the ones with the worst systems the ones who spend the least, but private schools, who spend less that public schools per student, generally outperform public schools.

Could it be that THE PROBLEM WITH EDUCATION IS NOT MONEY? Maybe the biggest tax increase in Kentucky history did not produce what we hoped because of what was done with the money. Instead of doing things that have demonstrably worked in education, like a greater stress on basic skills and a greater emphasis on solid content (and less on amateur psychology), we spent the money on warmed over experiments from the 60s, like nongraded primary programs, whole language, and the newest version of the New Math.

I say we put a moratorium on new money for education until we have some assurance that the money now being given to schools isn't being misspent on the newest educational fads and gimmicks.

Why P. Z. Myers should be wearing the short pants and sneakers

I have theorized elsewhere about the Darwinists' diminishing status in the gene pool, but there is new and even more alarming evidence of the deterioration of the Darwinist subspecies--further proof that those who believe in the survival of the fittest are less fit for survival. It is becoming increasingly evident that there is a serious lack of creativity among a few Darwinists that could threaten their station on the evolutionary tree.

These days I get most of my news via my Google Reader, and about half of it over the last week seems to be about an attempt by biologist P. Z. Myers to sneak into a private viewing of the new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Ben Stein's expose of Darwinist thought control in our institutions of higher learning. Myer's attempt to get into the private screening (which was invitation only) was foiled when he was recognized and told that the private screening was, well, private.

From the indignation with which this incident has been received by the anti-ID crowd, one would think that he was beaten with truncheons by big men in steel-toed boots and physically dragged away from the theater. But, alas, it is not so. Turns out he was just standing there dumbly in line waiting to get in to see the movie, was recognized, and was then asked by theater security to go away, which he did, according to reports, without a struggle.

Such is the state of the Darwinist mindset these days that so unimpressive a performance is considered the stuff of heroism. But P. Z. thought it was something, and he has recounted several times now how he bravely endured his confrontation with theater security (and we know their reputation). I mean what was he supposed to do? They had badges.

But P. Z.'s story about being "thrown out" gets even more gut-wrenching. After being separated from his family (who security apparently let in to see the movie), Myers ended up at a local Apple store at the Mall of the Americas, where he blogged about his experience.

Talk about being in the belly of the beast.

In any case, what are we supposed to make of all this hoopla? Well according to the Darwinists, this is an example of the hypocrisy of Intelligent Design advocates, who throw people out who disagree with ID from the showing of a movie about how people who disagree with Darwinism are thrown out of the academy.

But is limiting the attendance at the pre-screening of an admittedly partisan movie by its creators to invitees only really the same thing as throwing professors out of their academic jobs for having beliefs at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy in their particular discipline--particularly when the institutions engaging in the heave-ho make so much of their respect for academic freedom?

Let's just say the question answers itself.

Memo to Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, et al.: Go make your own movie and invite only the people you want to come and we promise we won't whine about it when we're not on the V.I.P. list. Oh, and if we decide to crash your party, and are so uninspired in the attempt that we can't even fool a few theater employees, we promise to do the honorable thing and blush in shame.

Hand it to Richard Dawkins: at least he was wily enough to actually succeed in getting in (his passport lists him as "Clinton Richard Dawkins")--evidence that Dawkins may possess important survivability traits Myers apparently lacks.

But wait a minute: do we really want them to go away and leave the movie alone? The irony of the sophomoric attempts by the neoatheist crowd to crash the ID party is that the more they do it--and the more they draw attention to the fact that they did it (or, in P. Z.'s case, tried to do it)--the more public attention they draw to the movie.

According to BlogPulse, which apparently measures such things, "Expelled" was the number one topic of conversation in the blogosphere last Monday. If I'm the producer of "Expelled," I pop a champagne cork every time a famous Darwinist tries to sneak into a sneak preview of my movie. More attention = more press coverage = more viewers at theaters when it opens in April.

So where are the rest of them? Maybe Sam Harris could avoid detection by using a false beard--and perhaps Daniel Dennett could avoid scrutiny by shaving his off. Or how about if Christopher Hitchens got a friend to open the exit door for him. We did this when we were kids at the local cineplex. Trust me. It works.

All we ask is that you don't embarrass other members of the species by trying to infiltrate the theater with attempts so unimaginative that you can't even get past theater security. In fact, they created the Darwin Award for just this kind of thing. Wouldn't it be fitting if it went to a prominent Darwinist?

Calling Rep. Watkins to practice what he preaches

For Immediate Release
March 24, 2008
Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

Family group calls on state legislator to withdraw bill requiring HPV vaccine
for middle school girls

LEXINGTON, KY—“Now that we know Rep. Watkins opposes divisive legislation, we are calling on him to withdraw his HPV vaccination requirement for middle school girls,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky. Rep. David Watkins (D-Henderson) announced in last week’s House Health and Welfare Committee meeting that he was opposed to controversial legislation when arguing against a bill barring domestic partner benefits.



“We see this not only as an opportunity for Rep. Watkins to walk the talk on his opposition to controversial legislation,” said Cothran, “but to show his support of parental rights—and, of course to avoid embarrassment for arguing against a bill he opposes on grounds that would also undermine his own legislation.”

HB 396, of which Watkins is the primary sponsor, requires that middle school girls be vaccinated with the Gardasil vaccine which prevents the transmission of some forms of the Human Papilloma virus as a condition of school attendance. The Family Foundation has opposed the requirement, arguing that the vaccine has nothing to do with disease transmission at school and that parents should make the decision about whether their children should be vaccinated with drugs that are still essentially experimental.

“We certainly understand Rep. Watkin’s concern about divisive legislation,” said Cothran, “and we realize that when he lectured a senator about sponsoring domestic partner legislation in last week’s Health and Welfare Committee meeting because it was controversial that he probably wasn’t thinking about his own bill, which has been one of the most divisive pieces of legislation over the last two sessions of the Kentucky General Assembly.” Watkins launched on what some have called a “tirade” during the consideration of SB 112, sponsored by Vernie McGaha, attacking the senator and The Family Foundation because the bill was “divisive.”

“I think some people do this so that they can get funds for their organization,” said Watkins. “I think they use that as a whip to create and work up division in our society, which is a negative thing. Sen. McGaha, don’t you see the negativity that you cause and the division that you cause in our state? You’re supposed to be up here representing people to help people, not to hurt us. You know, this is a divisive issue. Surely you’re intelligent enough to know that and to realize that this creates division in the Senate, and division in your House of Representatives.”

“We’re fairly certain that, after Rep. Watkin’s regained his composure, he must have realized that his own HPV vaccine bill was at least as controversial as Sen. McGaha’s bill. But we’re confident that Rep. Watkins doesn’t want to be criticizing bills he opposes for reasons that would also undermine his own legislation. And while he is searching his conscience about that, he might consider also withdrawing HB 443, his 70-cent tax on cigarettes, since that bill has turned out to be pretty divisive too.”

###

Three Poems for Easter

Three poems from several of my favorite writers came across my Google Reader today which I thought worth repeating here for Easter:

Seven Stanzas At Easter

By John Updike

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that—pierced—died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

He Rests in Rising

by Wendell Berry

What hard travail God does in death!
He strives in sleep, in our despair,
And all flesh shudders underneath
The nightmare of His sepulcher.

The earth shakes, grinding its deep stone;
All night the cold wind heaves and pries;
Creation strains sinew and bone
Against the dark door where He lies.

The stem bent, pent in seed, grows straight
And stands. Pain break in song. Surprising
The merely dead, graves fill with light
Like opened eyes. He rests in rising.

Easter

by Anthony Esolen

Rise, heart; thy Lord is risen. Sing his praise
Without delays,
Who takes thee by the hand, that thou likewise
With him mayst rise,
That as his death calcined thee to dust,
His life may make thee gold, and, much more, just.

Awake, my lute, and struggle for thy part
With all thy art.
The cross taught all wood to resound his name
Who bore the same.
His stretched sinews taught all strings what key
Is best to celebrate this most high day.

Consort both heart and lute, and twist a song
Pleasant and long;
Or since all music is but three parts vied
And multiplied,
O let thy blessed Spirit bear a part,
And make up our defects with his sweet art.

I got me flowers to strew thy way,
I got me boughs off many a tree,
But thou wast up by break of day
And brought'st thy sweets along with thee.

The Sun arising in the East,
Though he give light, and the East, perfume,
If they should offer to contest
With thy arising, they presume.

Can there be any day but this,
Though many suns to shine endeavor?
We count three hundred, but we miss:
There is but one, and that one ever.

Evil Bender on Morality

Well, it's a couple weeks old now, but I wanted to respond to a post by "Evil Bender" on the rational justification of morality. Here is an excerpt from Evil Bender's post on Feb. 28 which adequately explains the circumstances (with those expressions for which in our house a bar of soap in the mouth is the preferred treatment censored):

Martin Cothran, DI contributer, praised a couple of posts on the supposed moral problems of evolutionary theory (1, 2). Cothran praises them as excellent challenges to the Neodarwinian synthesis, which is exceptionally embarrassing, because one doesn’t even need to deal with the specifics of these arguments to see how flawed they are. You see, they overlook two important points:

1. What moral conclusions you choose to draw from a scientific theory is not the result of the theory, but of your philosophical analysis of that theory, and

2. That you do not like the supposed moral implications of a theory doesn’t mean ****. The truth of a theory is not tied to whether you freakin’ like it.

The posts in question, which you can see at the Vulgar Moralist blog, discuss the positions of several of the neoAtheists, most specifically, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Pinker, that he believes imply moral nihilism. In other words, Vulgar Moralist argues that "NeoDarwinism," which he implicitly defines as philosophical naturalism, undermines the rational justification of morality. If NeoDarwinism (read NeoAtheism) is true, then any kind of objective morality cannot be rationally justified.

Vulgar Moralist uses the term "NeoDarwinist," which under many definitions does not imply atheism, as synonymous with "NeoAthiesm," but it is fairly clear from the post what Vulgar Moralist is talking about. Evil Bender's first point targets one statement in Vulgar Moralist's post that seems to imply that he is believe science per se implies philosophical naturalism. Once again, Vulgar Moralist's terminology is a little confusing here, but it is fairly clear from the post what he means to say. In addition, Vulgar Moralist states clearly elsewhere on his blog that he does not believe science per se is morally nihilistic.

It is easy to take ambiguous terminology in someone's blog post and make it the main issue, as Evil Bender does, and think you have slain a dragon. But in doing it in this case Evil Bender just commits the very same error of which he accuses Vulgar Moralist: of conflating two positions that are, in fact, distinct. Vulgar Moralist was clearly arguing that philosophical naturalism which characterizes the thought of Richard Dawkins et al. is morally nihilistic. Making Vulgar Moralist's point out to be the science is itself morally nihilistic may make Evil Bender feel better about himself and his superior exactitude in his use of terminology, but it doesn't even tough Vulgar Moralist's main argument.

So I concede his first point while pointing out that it doesn't affect Vulgar Moralist's argument in the least.

On the second point--that the truth of a theory "is not tied to whether you freakin’ like it"--I will have to agree once again, pointing out, once again, that IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT VULGAR MORALISTS ARGUMENT.

So far, the only responses I have seen have taken one minor terminological error in Vulgar Moralist's post and used it as an excuse to attack a position that Vulgar Moralist does not hold and to ignore the position he very obviously defends in his post.

There are a couple terminological ambiguities in the post, but it is clear that they are terminological ambiguities by just reading the post. Now get over it people and address his main argument.

KDE fudges numbers in new audit report on writing portfolio

Well, the Kentucky Department of Education strikes again. Just as we publicly released the 2005-2006 Writing Portfolio Audit Report (because they didn't), they release the 2006-2007 Audit, which makes it look like there has been improvement in the scoring of portfolios, which are a significant part of the way schools in Kentucky are assessed and held accountable.

We had gotten a hold of the 2005-2006 audit of the portfolios which showed that a startlingly high percent of them were graded higher than they should have been. Why is this significant? Because it calls into question the argument that Kentucky students are doing as well as proponents of the 1990 education reforms say they are.

But on his blog Kentucky School News and Comment, Richard Day responds to my post. His first argument against my statements was that my characterization of the audit as "closely held" was inaccurate:

Cothran's suggestion that the audit reports are "closely held" seems to lack justification. KSN&C asked for and received the current 2006-2007 report from KDE without objection or inquiry within an hour this morning. By law, KDE must audit portfolios annually to monitor the degree of inter-rater reliability and the report is public record.

Okay, several things: First, I didn't say that KDE was unwilling to release the report when asked, or that anyone had to pry it out of their grip by force. Secondly, I wasn't talking about the 2006-2007 report, but the 2005-2006 report. So I am still a bit mystified as to what was wrong with my characterization of the report. I chose the expression very carefully: I said "closely held" because very few people outside of KDE were aware of its existence until we outed it. No legislator was made aware of it and it was absent from their website.

The question isn't whether the audit was closely held: the question is why it was closely held. Here we have been arguing over the fate of the CATS test for weeks and KDE has a report which bears directly on the issue and we're the ones to end up having to make it public. What gives?

But then Day gets directly to the issue of reliability, admitting it is a problem, during the course of which he quotes KDE apologist Lisa Gross:

KDE spokeswoman Lisa Gross told KSN&C,

As students become more refined writers, it is sometimes more difficult for two scorers to agree completely on their ability levels. The complexity of their work can cause a score to be "on the edge," meaning that another scorer could consider the work to be of slightly higher or slightly lower quality...What the overall audit results tell us is that we need to enhance scorer training and ensure that everyone is comfortable with the analytic model.

The results, and human nature, might also imply that close calls get bumped up. The only way to even approach reliability is through carefully described process.

And how long has KDE had to do this? Sixteen years. So what was the hold up? And why is it so easy to "bump up" the portfolio scores? Could it possibly be because THEY ARE COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE!!!

Then Day argues that the process of grading has been changed, implying that this has solved the problem with the scoring. But has it been solved? One would think, if it was, then the results would be appreciably different in later audits. And, indeed, if you were to look at the figures Day posts on his blog, you would get that impression. Day posts the pages from the 2006-2007 audit which was released the same week as we released the 2005-2006 audit.

Lo and behold! The agreement between the original portfolio scores and the audited scores looks much higher! In the new 2006-2007 charts there are now figures of 90%+ where in the 2005-2006 there were figures as low as 8.89% They must be doing a better job of scoring! You would think so, anyway, given the way it is presented.

Think again.

Day uncritically posts the pages of the new audit without pointing out that, in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that the new audit shows that the problem is just as bad as it was the year before, the new audit changed the way it reported the figures. Whereas the 2005-2006 audit reported the percentage of portfolios that received the same ranking (Novice, Apprentice, Proficient, Distinguished) by the original grader and the auditor, the new audit reports portfolios that received the same grade or the next grade above or below it.

In other words, if one of the 2005-2006 portfolios received a "distinguished" ranking by the original grader but only a "proficient" grade by the auditor (one full step down), it was counted as having been scored differently. But in the 2006-2007 audit, the same situation was not counted as having been scored differently: it was considered to have been close enough. In the original audit, a portfolio was considered incorrectly graded if it was scored differently. In the new audit, it has to have been so far off as to be practically an act of incompetence to count as being scored incorrectly.

Look at the headings on the charts. On the 2005-2006 Audit, it says "Percent Agreement." But on the 2006-2007 charts it says "Percentage Agreement Exact and Adjacent." Heck, why don't they just say, "Percentage Agreement Exact and Inexact"? It would be no less accurate a characterization.

Now this is a fairly transparent attempt by education bureaucrats to make it look like there has been improvement where, in fact, there has been none. If you look at the actual numbers, they are about as bad as they were the year before. Fortunately, Mark Hebert of WHAS-TV in Louisville reported the numbers correctly, observing that they were just as bad as the year before.

What is ironic about this is that what KDE is doing is trying to hide the fact that portfolio scores (and therefore CATS scores themselves) have been inflated. And how do they accomplish this little exercise in deceit? By inflating scores!

I have dealt with KDE cant and deception for 18 years now, so it doesn't surprise me a bit. I lost any respect I had for these people a long time ago. But what does surprise me is that there are still people out there who fall for it.

Now Richard Day is a fair and honest guy, and I'm assuming he just didn't notice the fudged numbers, or didn't see it as necessary to not the difference between the way the two audits reported the numbers. But I can't resist throwing back the words he threw at me in his post, and point out that any belief that the scoring has improved "lacks justification."

Now Richard knows why he got that new report with so little coaxing.

WHAS reports on porfolio score inflation

Mark Hebert on WHAS-TV Louisville reports on portolio score inflation, apparently following up on our press release.

CATS portfolio scores overstated, says audit

For Immediate Release
Contact: Martin Cothran
March 17, 2008
Phone: 859-329-1919

LEXINGTON, KY—A closely held portfolio audit conducted by state education bureaucrats calls an important aspect of the state CATS tests into question, according to a family advocacy group supporting proposed changes in state education testing. “This report is a blow to the idea that the CATS tests are a reliable indicator of how our students are performing,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for The Family Foundation of Kentucky. “The portfolios are a key element of the state CATS tests. If this audit says what it looks like it says, then we’ve got serious problems that lawmakers cannot afford to ignore.”

The Family Foundation is supporting Senate Bill 1, which would replace the CATS testing system with a more objective, easier to administer and grade multiple choice test that would give reliable scores for individual students.

The audit, conducted by the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE), shows that writing portfolio grades given by CATS graders in 2005-2006 were dramatically higher than they should have been and that the higher the grade given, the less likely it was to be an accurate grade. Some agreement rates between how the portfolios were actually graded and how they should have been graded were lower than 20 percent.

KDE Portfolio Audit Agreement Rates¹

	Novice	Apprentice	Proficient	Distinguished
Grade 4	100% (24/24)	89.42% (186/208)	64.97% (230/354)	28.74% (25/87)
Grade 7	98.89% (178/180)	83.45% (237/284)	42.01% (92/219)	8.89% (4/45)
Grade 12	96.88% (31/32)	70.11% (190/271)	38.92% (65/167)	18.92% (7/37)
Total	98.73% (233/236)	80.34% (613/763)	52.3% (387/740)	21.3% (36/169)

“The audit seems to suggest,” said Cothran, “that about 75 percent of the portfolios ranked as “distinguished” in 2005-2006 were graded too high, and almost half of portfolios rated “proficient” were given higher grades than they deserved. If this audit is an accurate picture of how portfolios are being graded, then the problems with CATS are even worse that some of us thought they were.”

Out of the 136 portfolios that were originally scored distinguished, only 36 were scored distinguished after the audit. Out of 740 portfolios that were originally scored proficient, only 387 scored proficient after the audit. “One of the justifications for doing this kind of testing under KERA in the first place was to avoid the ‘Lake Wobegone Effect’ of norm-referenced testing,” said Cothran, “which occurs when a majority of students score above average. But findings like this seem to indicate that the Lake Wobegone Effect is alive and well right here in Kentucky.”

The Family Foundation supports the use of portfolios for instructional rather than assessment purposes.

###

¹ “Kentucky Commonwealth Accountability Testing System 2005-2006 Writing Portfolio Audit Report,” Appendix J, p. 24.

Good poetry where you would least expect it

I'm sure someone has said this before, but poetry is like violin playing: When it is good it is good, but when it is bad, it is really bad. For that reason, most people just should leave it to the experts. Much of what you see attempted by amateurs on the Internet in particular is simply atrocious, so when you see original poetry that is good, it ought to be noted.

For this reasons, I wanted to draw attention to Doug Groothuis. Groothuis is a philosopher of religion at Denver Seminary. Now for some reason, philosophers don't normally make good poets and when they are protestants to boot, it can be even worse. Good poetic insight involves a sort of incarnational thinking which minds schooled in abstraction find hard to understand, much less employ. Abstraction is, of course, the philosopher's stock in trade. And for protestants, particularly those of a nonliturgical bent, abstraction seems to be the chief mode of thought.

So to find decent amateur poetry being produced by a protestant philosopher is doubly surprising. His last one, "Antique Inscriptions (ca. 1880-1985)," was particularly good.

I didn't subscribe to Groothuis's blog for poetry, but that has turned out to be an unanticipated pleasure. I hope he keeps it up.

Presuppositionalism vs. Classical Apologetics?

Amen to this comment on the overstatement of differences between presuppositionalist and classical methods of Christian apologetics.

Wikipedia. In Latin

Latin Wikipedia is here. Take that Latin skeptics.