Why is it that in 2013 educated are still holding on to a definition of faith that feeds a debate as to whether science is compatible with faith? Science is impossble without faith. The scientist must have faith in her abilities, faith in her methods, faith in her theories, and faith in the objects of her study. By the same token, faith is always based on the knowledge we have gained through science. What is the use of education if we are not going to use it?

If the educated did not think that menial tasks are beneath them we would have closed the education gap a long time ago.

It is not that the educated do not perform menial tasks. They certainly do - on occasion. But, they would not do them on a regular basis. That underlying belief convinces them that a world of educated people would mean a world in which the menial tasks are not done, and we cannot have that.

The evolution/creation debate is the most ridiculous war humans have ever fought. It is no wonder it seems to have no resolution.

The problem with evolution is that it has no grand plan but its proponents seem to think that it should, which is why they insist that creationists should never have appeared in the "fossilizing" record. A true evolutionist should never complain about anything.

The problem with creation is that the Creator has a grand design but he keeps strangely silent and allows people who seem to know nothing about creation or design to speak on his behalf.

We are in serious trouble.

Do you realize that you woke up this morning? Seriously. Do you realize that you woke up this morning? Let's put the question another way so you get the point. Do you realize that you did not wake yourself up this morning? Think of what that means as you go through your day and interact with others.

At one time or another you must have thought that something is wrong with the world; it is a rare human being who has not. That thought is not triggered by a terrible accident or a horrible natural disaster. The sight of bodies strewn about at the scene of a highway accident or of large swaths of land under flood=waters or of entire cities flattened by tornadoes or a hurricane, does not cause us to think that something is wrong with the world. We understand that accidents happen and that sometimes they can be avoided by being more careful in behavior and practice. We understand the power of nature and that we can avoid being affected by its devastating power by building more prudently. But even when human action contributes to such devastation we don’t blame it on some inherent human failing. We reserve these moments for the sight of a single child who was brutally assaulted by an uncaring adult, of hundreds or thousands of humans who were cut down in the prime of life by weapons of mass destruction. These are the kinds of stories that cause us to say that something must be wrong with the world. And in times like these we wish we had the answer - any answer - that would bring an end to such pain and hurt.

The underlying philosophy that would have us blaming the black community for the problems in the black community is flawed. The rest of nature does not operate according to this philosophy and they certainly have a much better track record than we do. Not even our bodies follow this philosophy. The spleen does not blame the heart for having a heart attack. The very idea is absurd. Sometimes it seems that we all were on recess when school was in.

It is never the prerogative of one member of an organism to destroy another member of the organism. That prerogative belongs to the organism. You are neither your brother's keeper nor his executioner.