Fun Run

first_imgPONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. – Jim Furyk has spent more than two decades on the PGA Tour. He’s played more than 500 tournaments and forgotten more than most of his fellow pros will ever know. There are certain moments, though, that have stuck with him through time. Not just the triumphant victories and bitter defeats, but small snapshots of an entire adult life spent around the professional game. One of those snapshots is from the 1995 Shell Houston Open. In his second year as a Tour member, the 24-year-old Furyk raced to an opening-round 67, tied for second place in a group that included longtime pro Wayne Levi. After the round, Furyk beamed about his hot start, but Levi’s view was decidedly more acerbic. “He was just saying, ‘It’s a job; it’s what I do for a living; it’s my occupation,’” Furyk recalled. “I was a young guy on Tour; I was thinking this is the greatest job going. I was thinking, man, just shoot me if I ever get to the point where it becomes a job. I might as well quit.” Last year, it became a job. This was right after a T-25 at the Masters and a T-47 at the RBC Heritage – hardly poor performances, but Furyk felt something had changed. He was no longer having fun playing golf. In short, he’d turned into Wayne Levi, circa 1995. Full-field scores from The Players Championship The Players Championship: Articles, videos and photos Rather than quit the game, as a 24-year-old Furyk might have suggested, he decided to change. He made a conscious effort to have more fun on the golf course. Smile more. Practice less. Enjoy the journey. Stop taking it all for granted. “After so many years and wanting to do so many more things at home with my family and my kids and missing ballgames, getting in the car and driving away knowing I’m going to miss two lacrosse games and two baseball games one week, I was getting in the car going to work rather than getting in the car going to play a golf tournament,” he admitted. “I just had to kind of reorganize things and fix things, figure out things a little bit.” He may not have it completely figured out, but he’s taken some major steps in the process. And it’s starting to show in his game. Following a solo second-place finish at last week’s Wells Fargo Championship, he finds himself on the leaderboard halfway through The Players Championship after opening rounds of 70-68. And yes, he’s smiling more, too. “I had to figure out a way to make it fun again and to enjoy what I do,” he said after a second round that included five birdies against a single bogey. Case in point: On Tuesday, rather than grind through a practice round and lengthy range session here at TPC Sawgrass as he’s done in years past, he played a casual nine holes at nearby Pablo Creek with his father (and instructor) Mike and caddie Mike “Fluff” Cowan, before leaving to pick up his kids from school. “We just had a good time,” Mike Furyk said. “We talked about that. He’s said the past few years, ‘I’m not going to be able to stay out here if I’m not having fun.’” Of course, it’s tough to have fun when your game isn’t cooperating. Ever since turning his cap backward in a driving rainstorm when he clinched the FedEx Cup four years ago, Furyk has failed to reach the winner’s circle, his career odometer stuck on 16 titles. “It’s always frustrating, because he’s not playing golf for the money,” his father insisted. “He’s playing to win. He told me, ‘When I say that I’ve had a really good week and finish 10th, I’m done. Because I’m only playing to win. That’s what I want.’” He’s now hoping that renewed happiness playing the game will lead to better results – a formula that is proving successful so far. “Right now I’ve got a nice recipe,” he said. “It’s not always going to be that way, but I feel like my attitude has bred my good play.” Added the senior Furyk, “If he paces himself properly, he can keep playing. If he doesn’t, he’s going to kill himself. He’s going to burn out.” It’s been nearly two decades since Jim Furyk hinted that if golf ever became a job, he would quit.  That might have been the overzealous contemplation of an impressionable 24-year-old, but after more than 500 starts and forgetting more than most of his peers will ever know, the idea has stuck with him through the years, eating away at him when the game finally stopped being fun. Since then, he’s changed. And if you believe him, it hasn’t been that difficult of a transition. “It’s not hard,” he said. “I mean, I’ve played this game my whole life because I love it.”last_img read more

Just Relax

first_imgDORAL, Fla – It was right around the time Rory McIlroy was tapping in for a double bogey to complete his first nine holes of the WGC-Cadillac Championship on Thursday with a big, fat 40 that I started thinking about something he said during his pre-tournament news conference one day earlier: “I know going into this week where my game is. So even if things maybe don’t go my way at some point during the round, I’ll know how to manage it a little bit better.” It was right around the time he was bouncing back with an eagle and three birdies in his next eight holes to quickly steer himself in the right direction that I recalled something else he’d mentioned prior to the first round: “I feel in a better place and probably a little more prepared than I was last week.” And it was right around the time he’d finished with a bogey and trudged toward the scoring area at Trump National Doral to sign for a 1-over 73 and faced a media throng inquiring what went so wrong on the heels of last week’s missed cut that I considered his reaction to such scrutiny: “I realize what’s expected of me. I expect a lot from myself.” WGC-Cadillac Championship: Articles, videos and photos On a blustery day at the Blue Monster, McIlroy’s opening round might have been a little more roller coaster-ish than most others in the 73-man field, but the end result was actually better than the median. He is tied for 27th place and his score was a half-stroke better than the average. J.B. Holmes’ pacesetting 62 aside – one which had players wondering whether he’d played the right Doral track – McIlroy is only seven strokes out of second place with 54 holes remaining, hardly a death knell for a player capable of going so low on a course where major swings are almost built into the landscape. Even so, there was a sense afterward that something might be wrong with his game, that whatever mercurial talents had led to him winning each of the last two major championships had somehow vanished in the early hours of this season. That notion, of course, is a mistaken one, but it’s also understandable. For two decades now, Tiger Woods has dealt with the weight of expectations from both himself and the world around him. We can even argue that it’s the burden of those expectations which has led to the current state of his game. After all, it’s impossible to clear the bar when it’s been set considerably too high. That’s another column for another day, though. This one is about McIlroy and his ability to – at the still-young age of 25 – not just deal with such lofty expectations, but address them directly and understand them fully. If any other player had posted a score of 1-over 73 in tough conditions – and there were a dozen total for the day – then answered questions about what went wrong, he might be apt to respond with all of the things which went right instead. It’s also not as if McIlroy hasn’t dealt with these interrogations before. That opening-nine 40? It was his first since last year – a year when he won four times worldwide, sure, but also one during which he posted eight nine-hole splits in the 40s, an eye-popping number for a player of his accolades. All of which should serve as a reminder that his Thursday score was nothing to worry about. In fact, for a player who is at best head and shoulders above the rest of his competition on any given week and at worst inconsistent and streaky, this was really par for the course – even if the final scorecard showed 1 over. Don’t take my word for it, though. Just ask the guy who knows that with greater success comes greater expectations. “Shooting 1 over par out there today isn’t too bad,” he said. “It’s obviously not what I wanted, but no reason to panic and no reason to be alarmed. Just go out tomorrow and put some red numbers on the board and try and get myself back in it.” There is still plenty of time, of course. The player who preaches patience even under intense scrutiny knows this. He knows it just comes with the territory.last_img read more

Langer leads Senior Players by 4 after another 65

first_imgBELMONT, Mass. – Jesper Parnevik took one look at the tree-lined, hilly Belmont Country Club this week and immediately found a favorite. ”This is very much a Bernhard Langer-type of golf course,” Parnevik said he remembered thinking. Langer has proved him right, posting a second consecutive 6-under 65 Friday in what he called a ”stressless” bogey-free round that gave him a four-shot lead halfway through the Senior Players Championship. ”Somebody said, ‘That’s pretty boring stuff: 65, 65,”’ Langer said after hitting all but one green in regulation. ”I don’t think it is. I’d like to do it every day.” Russ Cochran’s slump-busting 65 left him alone in second, while Steve Pate set a course-record with a bogey-free 63. That put him in a three-way tie for third and six shots back with the weary Lee Janzenand Parnevik, the Champions Tour newcomer who shot 66. All have plenty to do to catch Langer on the old-school Donald Ross layout hosting this tournament for the first time. Langer took command by sinking a 40-foot putt on 16 for his sixth birdie. His lone hiccup was a three-putt par from just off the 17th green. ”That German engineering,” Parnevik said of Langer. ”He never breaks down. He’s tough to beat at a place like this. He’s so systematic.” Langer is without a victory this year in which he’s been slowed by injuries. But this week he’s looked much like his 2014 self that won this event and four others. The 57-year-old Langer is nearing a 24th Champions Tour title. He’d also be the first repeat winner of the Senior Players since Arnold Palmer in 1984-85. And the wiry Langer’s fitness should help this weekend as the over-50 tour deals with another difficult walking course. ”French Lick was very tough, Des Moines was maybe even harder, and even Shoal Creek is a pretty good walk,” Langer said. ”I just see it going into the fitness trailer, the physio truck at the end of the day. A couple guys get treated and they all fall asleep.” Janzen is perhaps the most in need of a nap. He was the medalist in a 36-hole sectional Monday in Purchase, New York, that earned him a spot in next week’s U.S. Open. He sat at 7 under before a bogey-par-par finish left him at 69. Without the wind from a day earlier and with the temperature in the 80s, the course yielded a record round. A couple hours after Brad Faxon bested the previous course mark by a shot with a 64, Pate eclipsed him with a bogey-free, eight-birdie round with his distinctive yellow ball. It was a relief for Pate, who entered the week with a 72.82 scoring average. He shot 73 Thursday. ”I was not doing anything really badly. I just haven’t been doing anything really well,” Pate said after his best Champions Tour round. ”It’s a very fine line, and quite a bit of it is between the ears.” Cochran nearly matched him with a seven-birdie round that broke with what’s been a difficult season that’s left him 35th in the Charles Schwab Cup standings. ”Where I am with my game, I felt like I needed a good round,” Cochran said. Colin Montgomerie, who won last month’s Senior PGA Championship for his third major victory in six starts, shot 71 and was nine shots back. Even with the daunting task of catching Langer, Parnevik was thrilled to be in the hunt in the 81-player field that had no 36-hole cut. Parnevik turned 50 in March. ”I’ve been so injured the last seven years,” Parnevik said. ”I’m so happy the body feels OK and I can play again.”last_img read more

Defending champ Ko leads New Zealand Open by one

first_imgCHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand – Lydia Ko will take a one-stroke lead into the final round of the New Zealand Women’s Open after shooting a 5-under 67 Saturday. The South Korean-born New Zealander, who is defending her national title, started the day in a tie for fifth after an opening 69. On Saturday, she had six birdies and a bogey which moved her one shot ahead of Justine Dreher of France, who shot 70. The 18-year-old Ko had a 36-hole total of 8-under 136 at Clearwater Golf Club in the 54-hole tournament co-sanctioned by the Ladies European Tour and Australian Ladies PGA. Dreher is one shot ahead of Pamela Pretswell (70) of Scotland, while Denmark’s Emily Kristine Pedersen (66) and Nanna Koerstz Madsen (68) are two strokes behind and tied for third. Ko, who holds the course record at Clearwater with a 61, played the front nine Saturday in 4-under 32, then had two birdies and a bogey on her back nine. Ahead by one stroke, she dropped a shot on the par-4 13th at the same time Dreher birdied the par-5 second to move to eight under and a tie for the lead. But Ko reclaimed the lead when she hit her tee shot to seven feet on the par-3 16th and made a birdie putt. ”When you are at the top of the leaderboard, everyone is chasing you, but I would rather be leading than a few shots behind,” Ko said. Dreher, 23, turned professional last year and has only $3,000 in career earnings. ”I am excited and nervous,” Dreher said. ”Just putting next to (Ko) yesterday was a bit new. I am watching and learning from them.” Ko said she expects a tough challenge from Dreher in the final group on Sunday. ”She copes with pressure well,” Ko said. ”If I think about what she is doing then there will be way too much thinking going on.”last_img read more

N. Korda one back of Hur through 36 in Taiwan

first_imgTAIPEI, Taiwan – Mi Jung Hur shot a second consecutive 6-under 66 to take a one-stroke lead after Friday’s second round of the LPGA Swinging Skirts. Hur, who is looking for her third victory this season, is at 12-under 132 overall. Defending champion Nelly Korda (67) was one shot back while trying to win her second LPGA title of the season and third of her career. Minjee Lee (67) and In-Kyung Kim (65) are two strokes behind. Full-field scores from the Swinging Skirts LPGA Taiwan Championship Hur, a 10-year LPGA veteran, said it was difficult with her husband and family in the gallery. “Yeah, there’s a little bit of pressure with my family,” Hur said. “The whole family are here. But they were there last week, as well, so getting used to it.” Brooke Henderson shot a bogey-free round of 64, the lowest round of the tournament so far. The Canadian hit a 3-wood from 225 yards to five feet for an eagle on No. 12. Henderson is three strokes behind Mi after opening with a 71.last_img read more

Lin grabs 54-hole lead at LPGA Singapore

first_imgSINGAPORE — China’s Xiyu Lin tapped in on the 18th hole for her fourth birdie of the back nine and a 5-under 67 to take a one-stroke lead Saturday after three rounds of the LPGA Tour’s HSBC Women’s World Championship. Lin had a 54-hole total of 14-under 202 at Sentosa Golf Club. Hannah Green shot her second consecutive 66 to move into a share of second place with world No. 2-ranked Inbee Park, who shot 70 with a birdie on the 18th after a double-bogey 7 on the 16th cost her the lead. Park, who appeared to be limping late in her round Saturday, led by one stroke after the first round and was tied for the lead after two. Gaby Lopez had the low round of the day with a 65 to leave the Mexican player in fourth place, two strokes behind. Highlights: Lin leads after Rd. 3 at HSBC Lydia Ko, who holed out from the fairway for an eagle on the 18th to finish with a 69, was tied for fifth, four behind. “Going into the back nine, which I thought was the tougher nine, I didn’t really expect to play that well,” Lin said. “But I also knew there are still lots of opportunities, so just needed to stay really patient.” Park said that despite the double bogey on 16, she was encouraged by her birdie on 18. “It was a great … that was really huge,” Park said. “Tomorrow, obviously we have a lot of girls in the top so it’s going to be a shootout.” Full-field scores from the HSBC Women’s World Championship Former Women’s PGA champion Green has had 15 consecutive rounds under par. The Australian, who shot 71 on Thursday, was one of only three players who shot in the 60s all four rounds in Los Angeles last week. Her highlight of the day was a hole-out for eagle on the 10th hole. “I guess it’s been quite a long time since I’ve holed out from the fairway from quite some distance,” Green said. “I hit my tee shot into the right rough. Had an 8-iron in and it hit the pin. Bounced, hit the pin and went in. That was a nice bonus.” Hee Young Park, who was tied for the second-round lead with Inbee Park, shot 79 to drop 10 strokes behind Lin. World No. 1 Jin Young Ko shot 67 after a 76 on Friday to leave her 12 strokes behind Lin.last_img read more

In the “Public Interest”? ProPublica Misrepresents Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute Policy

first_imgEducation “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man In a recent article on Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos (confirmed yesterday), Annie Waldman at ProPublica delves into intelligent design — and in the process misrepresents design theory and Discovery Institute.She starts by describing intelligent design as a “more nuanced outgrowth of creationism,” and then says that Discovery Institute’s Briefing Packet for Educators advocates teaching ID under the guise of “critical thinking.” That’s wrong on both counts.Intelligent design, unlike creationism, restricts itself to scientific evidence and the rational inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. It does not base its conclusions on the Bible or any other sacred text.ProPublica, which claims to offer “Journalism in the Public Interest,” insists that “[w]ithin this movement, ‘critical thinking’ has become a code phrase to justify teaching of intelligent design.” Ms. Waldman then brings Discovery Institute in:Advocates have contended that presenting intelligent design side-by-side with evolution, also known as “teaching the controversy,” would enhance the critical thinking skills of students and improve their scientific reasoning. Indeed, a briefing packet for educators from the leading intelligent design group, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, walks teachers through this approach.“In American public education today, the status quo teaches evolution in a dogmatic, pro-Darwin-only fashion which fails to help students use critical thinking on this topic,” the report states, adding that teaching “the controversy” can help students “learn the critical thinking skills they need to think like good scientists.”John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute, said that the implication that “critical thinking” is code for intelligent design is “ludicrous.”“Critical thinking is a pretty foundational idea supported by lots of people, not just us,” said West in an email, adding that he also thinks “critical thinking should apply to discussions of evolution.”Discovery Institute does NOT advocate pushing intelligent design into public schools. Waldman cites our Briefing Packet, but she seems to have skimmed over our science education policy, which is in that document. It notes:As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.Teaching intelligent design is not the same as teaching criticisms of evolution. An argument for design requires making a positive case — starting with observations of what human designers create (specified complexity) and examinations of where we find specified complexity in nature.Furthermore, science standards in Kansas and Ohio, mentioned by Ms. Waldman, did not call for teaching intelligent design, but rather critical analysis.Waldman also quotes Greg McNeilly, identified as a “longtime aide to DeVos and an executive at her and her husband’s privately held investment management firm.” He says regarding Mrs. DeVos:I don’t know the answer to whether she believes in intelligent design — it’s not relevant…There is no debate on intelligent design or creationism being taught in schools. According to federal law, it cannot be taught.The claim that intelligent design is against federal policy is false. Perhaps he was referring to Kitzmiller v. Dover, a court decision involving design, but that applies only to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. For more on Kitzmiller, see our book Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision.Teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution is different from teaching ID. Let me give you a couple examples of what critical analysis might look like:Evaluating whether natural selection acting on random mutation can account for all life we see around us. This is an important discussion right now in the scientific world — in fact, at the November Royal Society Conference, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” theoretical biologist Gerd Müller noted that natural selection has a hard time accounting for phenotypic novelty and complexity. The conference provided a forum for proponents of the Modern Synthesis and the Third Way of Evolution to discuss questions about evolutionary mechanisms.Learning about various proposed scientific scenarios for the origin of life. This includes discussing the code-first model (most prominently, RNA world), the metabolism first model, and the protein-first model. As the 2007 Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides has noted: “Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.”A quality science education teaches students accurate, up-to-date information. But it does more than that as well: It teaches them to think critically about science.Scientific inquiry is fostered, not suppressed, by teaching topics, such as evolution, that are still under debate by scientists. No one expects high school biology students to solve the origin of life dilemma in the classroom, but by tracing the research and arguments of scientists in the field, they learn about approaches and methods of science that can only be beneficial to them in the future — inside or outside the lab.Critical analysis does not entail any discussion of religion. ProPublica‘s insistence to the contrary showcases a bias, common in the media, against any presentation of valid criticisms of neo-Darwinism. That’s not in the public interest, and certainly not in the interest of students.Photo: Betsy DeVos, by Keith A. Almli [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons. Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Sarah ChaffeeNow a teacher, Sarah Chaffee served as Program Officer in Education and Public Policy at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. She earned her B.A. in Government. During college she interned at Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler’s office and for Prison Fellowship Ministries. Before coming to Discovery, she worked for a private land trust with holdings in the Southwest. Share Evolution TagsPolitics,Trending Intelligent Design In the “Public Interest”? ProPublica Misrepresents Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute PolicySarah ChaffeeFebruary 8, 2017, 2:24 PM Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Recommended A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Sharelast_img read more

What Becomes of Science When the Evidence Does Not Matter?

first_imgRequesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Intelligent Design Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Physics, Earth & Space What Becomes of Science When the Evidence Does Not Matter?Denyse O’LearyJune 14, 2017, 2:26 AM Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Fine-tuning of the universe is so unpleasant a subject for materialists that it cannot really become a controversy. The desired evidence favors a random universe, accidentally spilled. Differing points of view on the findings would, of course, be funded by the government. But the randomness would be agreed upon up front.On the other hand, if evidence matters, our universe appears fine-tuned.In the end it is not really an issue about the evidence. Help! we are drowning in evidence! The universe’s expansion speed is said to be just right for life, the Higgs boson seems to be fine-tuned, and Earth has a “unique” iron signature, just as a few examples.This from Natalie Wolchover at Quanta Magazine: “As things stand, the known elementary particles, codified in a 40-year-old set of equations called the ‘Standard Model,’ lack a sensible pattern and seem astonishingly fine-tuned for life.” Why does being fine-tuned for life “lack a sensible pattern”? What if that is the pattern?The alternative sounds like saying that the letters STOP on a sign do not form a sensible pattern.Cocktail napkin objections are always on offer, to be sure. For example, we are informed that evidence no longer counts the way it used to: We evolved to see patterns where there are none (the “staggering genius” of Charles Darwin). Indeed, the Principle of Mediocrity is now a guiding assertion. The Birthday Problem is often used in pop science to claim that we underestimate what sheer randomness can do: “In a room of just 23 people there’s a 50-50 chance of two people having the same birthday. In a room of 75 there’s a 99.9% chance of two people matching.” Yes, but that embarrasingly familiar social icebreaker speaks only to what we might randomly guess, not to facts about our universe.We are also told that the universe, apart from our planet, is hostile to life. But if ours is a dedicated environment, could it not be like the human womb during a pregnancy: Life outside is hostile? How does that come to mean that there is no design? Would the circumstances not suggest the opposite?Some ask, how could a designer know what to do, in order to create a universe and intelligent life? Well, it is hard to say, as we have never come close to that ourselves. Perhaps we should try it before offering criticism. Others ask, “Who designed the designer?” which feels somewhat like asking, “How did my old math teacher, who explained why one cannot divide by zero, come to exist?” Is there no point at which a given trail of enquiry legitimately ends?Some questions do require a more thoughtful response: Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel informs us at Forbes that the odds of our existence are not infinitely small, as we might have supposed, because our existence “already disproves that possibility!” But wait. We are not talking about the odds of an incidental unusual event but those of a long pattern of statistically abnormal events. Similarly, design is held in some quarters to be an argument from ignorance: “We also cannot rule out hitherto unknown naturalistic causation.” No, but we cannot rule out fairies at the bottom of the garden either. What’s realistic?Canadian teacher Tim Barnett offers, by way of illustration of the problem of what to rule out: A lucky poker player has been dealt five royal flushes, noting that the probability of getting a single royal flush is one in 649,739… “After the fifth royal flush, you insist that I’m cheating. That is, I’m designing the outcome. But what if I responded, “Yes, five consecutive royal flushes is highly unlikely, but unlikely things happen all the time. In fact, for you to exist your mom and dad had to meet, fall in love, and have sex…” Does anyone ever use such a standard in real life?Lawyer Barry Arrington plaintively asks, Why won’t these “improbable things happen all the time” people play poker with me?Barnett notes, “It’s not merely the high improbability of an event that leads to a design inference. It’s the high improbability combined with an independently specified outcome that leads to the conclusion of design.” Presumably, that is why the cocktail set won’t play poker with Arrington.And then religion looms: Christian evolutionists have begun to quarrel with fine-tuning, a development predicted by Wayne University biologist Wayne Rossiter in his Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, (pp. 106, 153) At BioLogos, Casper Hesp argues, “I believe it is unwise to turn fine-tuning into an argument based on the gaps in our understanding, because the properties of the universe could become more amenable to scientific explanation in the future.” That is a curious approach: Has Hesp any reason to expect that more discoveries will lead to fewer perceptions of fine-tuning? The trend has been very much the opposite.Recently, atheist cosmologist Andreas Albrecht has also warned “deeply religious” people not to put their faith in “apparent” fine-tuning: “And when people do engage in these debates, they seem to find a reason to believe what they want to believe, regardless of how the science unfolds.”But in this case, the evidence favors the “deeply religious.” Why should they not put their faith in it? And the future of science may depend in part on how the tension between evidence and naturalism plays out in a basic issue like this.Image credit: NASA/SOFIA/Lynette Cook. Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis TagsBioLogosCharles Darwinfine tuningHiggs Bosoniron signatureNatalie WolchoverPrinciple of MediocrityStandard ModelWayne Rossiter,Trending “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Denyse O’LearyDenyse O’Leary is a freelance journalist based in Victoria, Canada. Specializing in faith and science issues, she has published two books on the topic: [email protected] and By Design or by Chance? She has written for publications such as The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, and Canadian Living. She is co-author, with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’€™s Case for the Existence of the Soul. She received her degree in honors English language and literature.Follow DenyseTwitter Share Recommended Faith & Sciencelast_img read more

LETTER: Motocross Track Would Benefit the Community

first_img Stay Connected with the Daily Roundup. Sign up for our newsletter and get the best of the Beacon delivered every day to your inbox. Email What has Raceway Park contributed to the valley’s economy, lifestyle, and family entertainment? Will a Motocross park please more people than it might offend? I say be a community and encourage anything that provides a healthy activity for participants and spectators (mom, dad and the kids). I say be a good neighbor. This is done by not being selfish and making the sacrifices we need to do to benefit the whole. This is what makes us better people, and a better community.We have the freedom to move, and we do. Larry ParsonsWest Glacierlast_img

WARREN’S WORLD: Dreaming of Snow

first_img Email Stay Connected with the Daily Roundup. Sign up for our newsletter and get the best of the Beacon delivered every day to your inbox. Until the early 1950s, a summer without skiing was a lot different than it is today. Summer, in earlier times, meant frequent trips to the garage to check on whether or not your skis had warped or twisted in the heat. The skis were all made out of laminated wood and didn’t have plastic bottoms. To try and prevent the warping, some of my friends would take their metal edges off and cement the screws in the wood when they put them back on. Other people would put copper rivets in some of the edge screw-holes. And almost everyone I knew scraped the finish off of the top of the ski and re-varnished the wood. We would patiently rub the tops down with steel wool between coats of varnish. We looked forward to riding the rope tows. We planned trips to resorts within an all-night drive of where we lived. It would be 1953 or ’54 before the minimum wages were more than 25 cents an hour, so a $2 rope tow ticket cost some people a day’s salary. After a summer of surfing every weekend, some people had their entire winter ski trip schedule mapped out. If it snowed in the San Bernardino or San Gabriel mountains of Southern California, we would, of course, drive there. Mount Baldy in the San Gabriel Mountains is more than 10,000 feet high and its steep sides offer some truly spectacular skiing when they get snow. In the late ‘40s we had to climb up for every turn we made going down. At the time, there was no plastic on the bottom of your skis. We laboriously put on layer after layer of lacquer as a running surface and then guessed at what kind of wax to put on when it finally snowed. The warmer the snow, the softer the wax, was about all I knew. I used to just watch the hotshots and then borrow their wax. I was a weekend behind and sometimes I climbed up and walked back down with big globs of snow stuck to the wrong wax on the bottom of my skis. The laminated wood skis had almost no torsional rigidity, no matter how many coats of varnish you put on them. As you skied across an icy patch, the tip of the ski would twist off toward the valley below and so you leaned further forward so you could put more pressure on the tips of your ski. Arguments were for and against long poles and short poles. When I went to a friend’s house to watch him varnish his skis, or he came to mine, we got in lengthy and complicated discussions about camber, rigidity, and placement of bindings. At the end of the ski season we had an eight-foot-long piece of two-by-four lumber that we clamped onto the tips and tails of our skis. There was another smaller piece of wood under the binding to keep the camber in the ski. We took very good care of our pile of stuff because skis already cost as much as $24 a pair for the top-of-the-line model. I spent an entire winter in Sun Valley skiing every day on a pair of $21.95 Northland “seconds” that I got in trade for painting a sign at Pete Lane’s ski shop. They were seconds because they had a knot in the wood up near the tip and were less than aesthetically perfect. But they skied perfectly for me. It was not until the winter of 1948-49, when the French National Ski Team showed up in Sun Valley with offset edges that we started chiseling out the wood above our edges so that we too could have offset edges. Nevermind that we didn’t know what they were for and that the French also sharpened their edges. The enjoyment for us was just as much as it is today for the many skiers, who when they get to their computer, with a few strokes, make all of the arrangements for their ski vacation, including condo, airplane tickets, rental car, lift tickets and rental equipment that is all tuned up, waxed and ready to go. You have to do it that way today because everyone is so busy texting each other instead of sitting around in a garage working on their equipment and reliving the past and planning the future. I’m lucky I enjoyed it then and I can hardly wait until I start looking for the snow reports. last_img read more