Pope Benedict XVI is reportedly considering a change to the Catholic Mass. And it's not a huge retrogression*, Benedict-fearers. He's just thinking about moving the sign of peace further up in the liturgy. Francis Cardinal Arinze said the change "might help create a more solemn atmosphere as the faithful are preparing to receive communion," the Associate Press reported. I can see the rationale. I know whenever I'm at Mass, especially with friends, it's just a little awkward when the Eucharistic Jesus is up on the altar, we're getting ready to receive Communion, God Himself, into our mortal bodies -- and then all of a sudden it's like social hour for 30 seconds. Once epiclesis has taken place, it's better to keep our congregational eye on the ball, in my view. I won't be terribly vexed if the change doesn't happen, but I think it could be good. *I actually thought I was making a new word there, but turns out it actually exists. Ha.

I saw a story this morning about a scientist, Karl W. Giberson, who believes both in Christianity and in evolution, which is refreshing. The debate is raging across the country, including Texas, and it seems like few in the ring are actually pointing out that evolution, depending on what you mean by it, can be perfectly compatible religious belief, depending on what you mean by that. He had an exchange with an agnostic colleague Michael Shermer on Monday night. In a nutshell: Shermer: Why believe in God? Giberson: It makes the world so much more interesting. The mystery of God's existence is a more satisfying mystery than the mystery of how can all this arise out of a particle. Shermer: But what is your evidence for belief in God? Giberson: I was raised believing in God, so for me, the onus would be on someone to stop me from believing ... There is a certain momentum that is already there. Shermer: So you're stepping off the page of science. Giberson: Absolutely, but ... If it had been me in that hot seat, I would have said, "well, sort of." Or maybe even "not at all." Giberson is merely stepping off the page of empiricism. "Science" is not only that which can be proven empirically, as Darwin's theory itself demonstrates. It's a theory, not a law, which means at this point the best scientific data we have may point to it, but not enough to conclude it is true the same way we can conclude that the earth is roughly spherical and revolves around the sun. One of the first issues examined by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica is whether theology is a type of science. Because the word "science" just comes from the Latin meaning "knowledge." Can theology (literally the study of things divine) be known? Can we make conclusions about it that parallel reality? Aquinas says: yes. We can't boil it in a plate or breed it in a petri dish. But we can know certain truths by using reason, which can be just as powerful a tool for accumulating human knowledge ("science") as empirical procedures are. The point is no one is stepping off the page of science by believing in the Creator of Heaven and Earth. It is perfectly scientific. What it is not is empirical. Saying I love my brother and my sisters and my parents is not empirically provable either. But I'm not stepping off the page of knowable reality when I say that. History is the same way. Am I "stepping off the page of science" when I say that the Horns kicked the crap out of the Sooners in the last eight minutes of the game this year? Not at all. It is a knowable reality. But not because I took that proposition through the scientific method. Rather, because it is now well documented historically that the Horns did in fact score the last 15 points of the game and stuffed the Sooners mercilessly on October 11, 2008. That's knowledge. But it isn't empirical science. The problem is that we've gotten it into our heads that empirical science has a monopoly on knowable reality, i.e. truth. But can we empirically demonstrate that the only real knowledge is that which can be empirically demonstrated? Can we put that proposition in a culture dish and see what happens? Nope, it's a proposition of philosophy. And there's a name for it. It's called empiricism. And it is not science. I'll be glad to say I'm stepping off the page of empiricism by believing in God. Reasonable scientists want to teach evolution because it is science, or at least it is a scientific theory that has data. If scientists are really true to the principles of their craft, they will be interested in teaching that, and not teaching empiricism, since empiricism is not provable using the scientific method. The fear of parents I think is that that is actually what will happen if evolution is taught in their schools. But evolution as science is just (theoretically) knowable reality about the physical origins of the universe and the human race. When evolution claims to know not just the physical origins of man but also his metaphysical origins, then evolution itself steps off the page of science. At that point it probably shouldn't be called evolution, but evolution-ism. Because science of a certain type has to be arrived at through methods of the same type. Physical science is arrived at through physical methods. Historical science is arrived at through historical methods. Metaphysical science is arrived at through metaphysical methods. A creationism that claims to draw conclusions about man's physical origins makes the same mistake as an evolutionism that claims to draw conclusions about his metaphysical ones. It claims that because the creation of man's everlasting soul was instantaneous, the creation of his physical body must have been as well. That is not legitimate science, any more than evolutionism is. The various sciences -- physical, metaphysical etc. -- all make up one truth, and the truth is consistent. The conclusions of physical science will never contradict the conclusions of metaphysical science. But the way they fit together will not always be readily apparent. We shouldn't feel threatened by that. We should consider it an opportunity to explore more deeply what it means to be human.

Since I blogged about this a couple days ago, figure it's worth noting. General Motors today cancelled leases on two private corporate jets. Before September they had seven jets. Now they're down to three.

I've noticed one major buzzword from the coaches and players and faculty at the University of Texas at Austin since Will Muschamp was tapped to be Mack Brown's successor as head coach. Question: Does all this remind anyone besides me of Michael Scott from NBC's The Office? For those who may not know, he is the bumbling boss played by Steve Carell on the hit sitcom who constantly harps about how he considers his office workers "family." That's what the UT folks remind me of. Which is great, really. That kind of cohesiveness is great for the morale of the players et al. It just reminds me of Steve Carell and makes me giggle. Maybe that's just because I'm so happy Muschamp is sticking around to kick his players in the rear end until his players kick the Sooners and everybody else in the rear end. My favorite mention of family actually came when Muschamp said at the press conference that even if he left Austin for some other job, his wife would refuse to leave. Awesome. UT fans have our freakin' awesome city to thank for Muschamp sticking around. Now I ask you, would that ever happen in College Station? Or Norman? Just sayin'. Hook 'em.

Here's an example of why some people dislike corporate America. ABC News is reporting that the CEO's of the big three automakers from Detroit "flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy." Herein lies the tragedy and the folly of the bailout. These companies are in the hole now, why? At least in part, because their bosses seem to have no idea how to spend their money frugally and responsibly, like the ordinary Americans who work for them do. But for all the (often but not always appropriate) distrust of big business executives in this country these days, rarely do I hear anyone in the mainstream press or elsewhere talk about how greedy and slick the politicians in Washington are. Yet who are these expensive suits who don't know how to spend their money going to for help? More expensive suits, who don't know how to spend their money. Except in this case it won't be "their" money, it will be your money and mine. That doesn't solve the problem. At best it delays it. Or worse, it may exacerbate it, by socializing it. I think all this bailout stuff shows that free-marketers are not necessarily always in the tank for the rich. They certainly are in the tank for the rich when those rich spend the money earned by their enterprises responsibly, in such a way that sustains the prosperity of their families, their workforce, and their customers. Such businesses do exist, and they thrive in this country. But when wealthy executives spend their money in such a way that lands their company in a world of hurt, the limited-government ideal of personal responsibility kicks in. These big guys had their chance. They weren't good stewards of the wealth they had. Now it is theirs no more. Free-market, limited-government types say such is life. Time to use the American spirit, not the American tax-dollar, to rebuild. See Mitt Romney's op-ed in the New York Times today. And yes, he does call for getting rid of the planes. (I imagine some may object: "Yes but what about all their employees! All the jobs that will be lost if the automakers go under!" Well wait, the big oil companies have employees too, millions of employees. But nobody talks about them when the pundits bash "big oil" and call for every legislative trick in the book to bring about their destruction. But I digress ...) That's why free-market types oppose these government interventions. True capitalists are pro-good business. And the market (i.e. the people, i.e. you and I) determines good businesses from bad businesses, winners from losers, by where we spend our money. The people. Not the fellowship of empty suits in Washington who don't know any more about how to spend responsibly than the dudes in the luxury jets.

I guess some in authority do still possess common sense. Today the Round Rock Independent School District Superintendent Jesus Chavez removed a book containing sexual situations and base language from the shelves of Ridgeview Middle School, which of course is a middle school, which is often frequented by middle schoolers. The book, titled "TTYL" (talk to you later), is about three high school sophomores who are dealing with your various stereotypical buffet of twisted teenage drama -- flirtatious teachers, sleazy boyfriends and the like. Of course, it took Chavez's intervention to offset a ruling from a few weeks ago in which the district's nine-member book consideration committee decided that the book was perfectly appropriate for middle schoolers, many of whom have not yet reached puberty. As a person who aspires to raise mischievous middle schoolers of his own someday, I have to wonder what else is in this library. Is Gossip Girl in there too? (Apparently students have told reporters that there are lots of other books in the library just like TTYL.) I confess I haven't read this TTYL book, nor do I care to. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's as bad as parents have said it is, because I have had a taste of such twisted prose myself, in the form of Gossip Girl, which TeenPeople Magazine called "Sex and the City for the younger set." Oh joy. I was in a Barnes and Noble some months ago and wandered into the teen literature section. I opened up a copy of Gossip Girl and flipped to a page at random. It was ... scary. I looked around to see if anyone saw me; I felt like I was in the adult section at Village Video. Maybe I'm just an old fogy at 27 but sexual morality aside -- I don't see how what is in those books can possibly inspire the next generation to make the world a better place for themselves or for other people. What it does seem to teach young people is that their problems and perspectives matter more than other people's problems and perspectives, that they have a right to (or at least should desire at the expense of all other goods) high-end material wealth, and that friendships should be based on utility. Ultimately I think the problem is that older folks don't give young people enough credit. Some grown-ups seem to think that young people are basically self-centered, selfish, and sexually insatiable, and so find it entirely appropriate to put stuff like TTYL on the book shelves of middle schoolers. If we keep telling them they can't be good, who are they to argue?

Question: If you're a Democrat who opposes raising taxes and opposes using taxes to pay for big corporations who dig themselves into a whole, does that make you a "maverick"? There are at least a few Democrats recently elected to the U.S. House who have won in districts that traditionally vote conservative, and according to them, still do. Now that they've made it, they actually are voicing concern over some of the more leftist policies that conservatives fear Barack Obama will be able to foist on the country with no potent opposition. The article speaks mainly to the aforementioned tax hikes on people and small businesses that make $250,000-plus a year, and the latest proposed bailouts. Here's what I'm wondering: How would these maverick D's vote on something like the Freedom of Choice Act? The fate of the pro-life movement's legislative efforts at a national, state, and local level, may be in their hands now.

FREAKIN' AWESOME. Or is it too good to be true? That was my initial reaction. If Longhorn head coach Mack Brown is going to be around for another eight years, isn't that a while for defensive coordinator Will Muschamp to wait around? But he called it a "no-brainer." Whatever you say, Will. I'll take ya.

The Associated Press is reporting that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a program run by the U.S. Catholic Bishops that supports anti-poverty and social justice programs nationwide, is no longer going to make grants to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN, said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Morin of New Orleans. The bishops' decision stems from claims that nearly $1 million had been embezzled from ACORN by the brother of its founder. In case anyone has been making a point to avoid the news, ACORN has been hard at work across the country registering voters from poorer and working-class neighborhoods, as well as (allegedly) registering voters who don't exactly ... exist, except in the fantastic imagination of Walt Disney.

I keep hearing this commercial on talk radio for the website girlsgotech.org, which is aimed at encouraging young girls to study math and science and go on and become engineers, doctors etc., which is great. But the commercial says that a certain percentage of girls "lose interest in math and science" by the time they reach a certain age (I forget when exactly), and therefore, "it's up to you to keep their dreams alive." Now, wait a minute. If I lose interest in biology by the end of my freshman year of high school (which I did), is it really a "dream" of mine to go on and become a vascular surgeon? If my parents push me to keep going in math and science so I can go on and become doctor, and they tell me that they are just trying to "keep my dreams alive," I'm going to wonder if it's really my dream or their dream they're trying to keep alive. If some girls (not all, just some) really "lose interest" in math and science, maybe it's just because they'd like to do other things, like public relations or teaching or acting or graphic design. What's wrong with that? Whose "dream" are these people really talking about? Just throwing it out there.