lundi 16 janvier 2017
First on good liturgy, it was some time since I practised and even longer since I followed a Latin missal while doing so.
When I said that the end of the canon implies Creation together with God the Son, I was referring to cum ipso et in ipso et per ipsum ... however, it is about sit tibi honor et gloria, creation as such is not directly mentioned. But in ipso echoes a Bible verses like Romans 11:36 Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula. Amen. Or like Colossians 1:16 Quoniam in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis, et in terra, visibilia, et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates: omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt: - where creation is featured.
On the subject of bad liturgy, I must warn that the proposed changed words Holy Spirit, we praise you, who ... spoke to us through the prophets' voices though not of necessity have an ambiguous bytone I feel I identify.
The classic words in the creed are "who has spoken through the prophets". Implied, normally, through the words recorded in Bible and tradition which the prophets spoke or wrote. The words are now the speech of the Holy Spirit to us.
The change here (though not proposed for the creed, at least not yet) would tend to alter that.
They would tend to suggest that the Holy Spirit back then spoke to the people of God back then through the as yet back then living voices of the prophets - and through their voices, what they wanted to convey in context, rather than through the objective words.
In other words, even back then the Holy Spirit would, on this view, not have actually chosen the words, but the word choice was a human affair of the prophets, and is less important in remaining text than the echo of their living voices as resounding through so called living tradition, that is adaptive and changing tradition to the ones who hear their successors, no doubt the most modernist of Jesuits if in sufficient position.
Hence, the choice of words in that bad liturgy are such that modernist Church men are encouraged to feel what the voice of the prophets wanted to convey back then, by emotional empathy or such like, and to convey something "equivalent" (as they would consider it) in terms of what "we can understand nowadays". The actual words of Moses of of Daniel of of Baruch or of St John on Patmos become less important.
This is hideous rot, and it is also a precondition for the state of mind which the beginning of Reese's article stated. Without that, we would be - as in reality we are, it is just that they don't think so - obliged to take from the prophets for instance that the universe has a relatively short span of existence, compared to the newly imagined 13.8 billion years, and that man was created perfect in paradise, and fell through the own guilty choice of sin. They don't want that. Hence this spoke to us through the prophets' voices instead of "I believe in the Holy Spirit ... who has spoken through the prophets" - that is, through their actual words, which are preserved for us.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Marcel I, Pope and Martyr
samedi 14 janvier 2017
Apostasy is howling like a hundred wolves:
NCR : Eucharistic prayer in the 21st century
by Thomas Reese | Jan. 12, 2017
Let us quote and comment in a somewhat calmer tone:
Traditional liturgical prayer, based on biblical imagery, presumes a pre-scientific worldview where Earth is the center of the universe and the world was created quickly and perfectly. Everything was wonderful until Adam sinned.
In fact, the universe is some 13.8 billion years old, with organic life appearing about 3 billion years ago, and humans evolving relatively recently. Rather than appearing in an idyllic paradise, humans crawled out of the mud fighting, scratching out an existence in a brutal and highly competitive environment.
Current liturgical worship requires that we park our scientific minds at the church door and enter into the pre-scientific world of our ancestors when we pray. This schizophrenic existence is not viable in the long run.
Thomas Reese, thank you for notifying us you are an apostate. Or, if you were just reporting empathetically, that "Jesuit Fr." Robert Daly is.
Thank you for notifying us, that to you or at least to "Jesuit Fr." Robert Daly, using a liturgy with references to the Paradise and Original Sin is "schizophrenic".
To me it is not. To me the kind of liturgy you hanker for would not be schizophrenic either, I hope, since for me it would be a very unproblematic signal I should leave the service illico.*
Daly finds inspiration for his work in theologians like Elizabeth Johnson (Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love), Dawn Nothwehr (Ecological Footprints: An Essential Franciscan Guide for Faith and Sustainable Living), and Dennis Edwards (Partaking of God: Trinity, Evolution, and Ecology). ... These theologians are imitating the great theologians of the past — Augustine and Thomas Aquinas — who used the intellectual thought of their times to explain Christianity to their contemporaries. Augustine used Neoplatonism and Aquinas used Aristotelianism because these represented the intellectual worldviews of their times.
This is historically false.
A thing which was as challenging against traditional Orthodoxy (reflected in liturgy sensibly similar if not quite identic in all detail to ours), a thing which was as challenging against it back in their times as 13.8 billion year old universe in ours, was, for St Augustine not Neoplatonism, but rather the Manichaean sect which he left with horror. And to St Thomas Aquinas, it was not Aristotle expurgated via Plato and above all Orthodoxy (including literal Biblicism), but the "Aristotle" of Averroism, as it was represented by Siger of Brabant, or by Boëthius de Dacia.
Today’s theologians who use science and contemporary thought are very traditional; they are simply following in the footsteps of Augustine and Aquinas.
They are not. The two saints you mentioned have so to speak world record among Fathers and Doctors for acceptance of "science and contemporary thought", for one, so it is (rather than 2) 5 against 31**, if that were the issue.
But not only that, the point is the precise two you mentioned were also far more critical against "science" and "contemporary thought" than you pretend.
You see, in the day of St Augustine, Astrology was being touted as science. Not just any Astrology, but one which was deterministic about human characters and fates, as, on that view, determined by horoscopes.
In his day it was to some (and he had been among them) as shocking to believe the story of Jacob and Esau who ought to have been as same (and at best as harmonic) as Castor and Pollux who were born twins, under same horoscope, or as same and (at worst) as disharmonic as Romulus and Remus, also born under same horoscope.
Instead one of them has smooth arms, one has woolly arms. One is heavily irascible, one seeks out peaceful means in all situations. They also acquire very different kinds of wealth, Jacob living in a fertile land ruled by strangers to him, while Esau probably was his own lord, but in a stony land.
That is as impossible to a 4th C. Manichaean as God creating the first stars, biological life and men, all of them 7215 (going on 7216 for March 25th) years ago.
So, no, the parallel simply does not hold. It is injurious to Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, precisely as it would have been injurious to them to say of the one that he defended Averroism and of the other that he was a stout Manichaean all of his life. It is as injurious as saying of St Robert Bellarmine that he was a Heliocentric.
I'll quote part of the proposed liturgy I will want to avoid:
Father, we praise you, with all your creatures
great and small,
from measureless galaxy
to tiniest particle.
... Holy Spirit, we praise you,
who breathed over the primal chaos,
spoke to us through the prophets' voices,
Primal chaos is also a signal that we are no longer dealing with Catholic liturgy.
Wasn't Chaos the translation of Hebrew Tohu wa-Bohu, then? No. Here is the LXX for that verse:
ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος
What is mentioned is "ἀόρατος" - unlimited - and "ἀκατασκεύαστος"*** - and unconstructed/unstructured. While "primal chaos" is one thing which could be described that way, it is less ideal to describe Earth, darkness or water as "primal chaos". These too are mentioned in the Greek. And the word chaos is not.
Just because some noted a smiliarity between the Pagan concept of chaos and the Genesis concept of tohu wa-bohu, and hence we cannot even use the idea of "chaos" as a general concept being common to Genesis and to the modern "scientific" idea of "primal chaos".
True, of the translations of Tohu wa-bohu, one is "chaos and desolation" - but there are other ones. And wikipedians continue : "Precise translation of the phrase is difficult, since it is a Hebrew wordplay, like ve-ha-oniyyah hishevah le-hishaver in Jonah 1:4."
So, no the Hebrew text as such does not either warrant any "primal chaos".
And when we come to the next line about the Holy Spirit, Daly is committing blasphemy: "spoke to us through the prophets' voices" is parodic if you think that a Bible-based history is ridiculous compared to the Bible-conflicting one which you started out this essay on.
I'll confess that my first line was a pun on the Orthodox slur on Catholics. (He)kato(n) lykoi means "hundred wolves". It was used by schismatics to denigrate Western Catholics who were (most of them, unlike the English) not getting the theta of katholikoi correct.
Chesterton once said that the Catholics will one day be those who repeat what reformers said, when it really needs saying.
Against a man like Daly, repeating what Greek schismatics called us needs to be done, at least if he gets one hundred or more supporters.
We cannot simply in a preface praise God "with all your creatures".
- One problem is that the creatures so to speak belong to the Son and are therefore mentioned at the end of the Canon.
- One other problem is that the Latin has Quam laudant Angeli atque Archángeli, Chérubim quoque ac Séraphim: qui non cessant clamáre quotídie, una voce dicéntes: / Et ídeo cum Angelis et Archángelis, cum Thronis et Dominatiónibus, cumque omni milítia cæléstis exércitus, hymnum glóriæ tuæ cánimus, sine fine dicéntes: (in either case continued by the Sanctus).
One class of creatures is specifically mentioned, and mentioned in the way which excludes the same type but damned ones. In other words, some creatures are implicitly excluded from praising God with us, namely the damned.
- A third problem is that of the tiniest presumed particles we don't know if they exist, for most galaxies we don't know that "spiral nebula" (situated in the sphere of fix stars) isn't a better word, and for "our galaxy" only one part is traditionally called Milky Way or Galaxy.
So, Daly is proposing we praise God together with all creatures, to not mention angels or archangels, as if we weren't sure they existed or were very common in the universe, but of mentioning what risks to be fictional products of a contemporary scientific imagination, about as bad as the horscopes of the Manichees, which St Augustine didn't use to illustrate the faith, but rejected when illustrating the faith.
I am pretty sure Daly is not a Catholic with Th. But perhaps a "katolyk" or hekatolykos - a hundred-wolf.
Ember Saturday after Epiphany
* Don't take the etymology of illico or its German counterpart "auf stehendem Fuss" too literally, I don't mean I should leave the service while locally staying where it was held.
** Among the 5, add Sts Peter Canisius, Robert Bellarmine and Albert the Great. Or, instead of "against 31", if we stay with Doctors so named before 1950, before the date on which a private revelation said Pius XII ceased to be Pope, before death of Pius XII, against 24.
*** The ending -os does not mean that "ge" is masculine, but that negative adjectives in Greek typically vary between -os for M/F and -on for N in nominative singular. "He ge" is of course feminine. I gave my own impression what ἀόρατος & ἀκατασκεύαστος mean, wikipedia has translation info: The Septuagint renders it as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατα-σκεύαστος, "shapeless and formless".
lundi 2 janvier 2017
New blog on the kid : Prompted by a Quoran Question Linking to Rational Wiki
Why I usually do them here instead?
See the footnote about an article in French:
In French, on this blog.
Otherwise, when I do creationism in English, I usually do it on my other blog here:
Creation vs. Evolution
But since French speakers are "underdeveloped countries" as far as Young Earth Creationism is concerned, I often do that on my main blog or the philological one.
Why I did it there today? To give readers of that blog a taste and to direct them to this one, for this issue./HGL
dimanche 1 janvier 2017
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Part 1
Note, not endorsing all of his* theology, but this video is about his science./HGL
PS, my own title refers to things he said before 9:00. After that, it is all about radioisotope dating, on which I did parallel work of my own./HGL
PPS, another link, to work of the speaker, Steven A. Austin:
ICR : RATE : Chapter 4 : Mineral Isochron Method Applied as a Test of the Assumptions of Radioisotope Dating
Steven A. Austin, Ph.D
Isochron is one I had problems clearing myself, I refer to Austin here./HGL
* Actually video owner Mihai Ursu is not the speaker, so his unqualified endorsement of Israel is not a problem with the content of Austin.
jeudi 15 décembre 2016
Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors? · Human Ancestor or Human during Flood?
Ancient human ancestor was one tall dude, his footprints say
on mail dot com
I'll only quote the bold text:
NEW YORK (AP) — He stood a majestic 5-foot-5, weighed around 100 pounds and maybe had a harem. That's what scientists figure from the footprints he left behind some 3.7 million year ago. He's evidently the tallest known member of the prehuman species best known for the fossil skeleton nicknamed "Lucy," reaching a stature no other member of our family tree matched for another 1.5 million years, the researchers say.
I checked the rest of the article and so no reference to any Australopithecus Afarensis bones.
Especially none with human type feet (Lucy is footless! See here:)
So, the clearly human footprints (not sure I can afford to show picture yet, will be added if possible, see link) could have not been from a relative of Lucy?
Yes, if and only if:
- men existed back when this is from, and not meaning Australopithecines;
- this was so recent that one cannot reasonably say "Australopithecines wre the only men back then".
This means, it is feasible if both Lucy and these footprints are from diverse kinds back at the time of Noah's Flood.
If from the same kind - then you reconstruct the Lucy skeleton as having human feet. If from diverse kinds 3.7 million years ago, you ask the question why no human skeleta are found for another 1.5 million years.
So, if you want to say, as I do, Lucy was an ape, the footprints are from a man, you have to skip the millions of years. I do so too.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Octave of Immaculate
Conception of the BVM
jeudi 8 décembre 2016
- Et ait dominus ad serpentem.
- Ubi dat poenas pro peccato. Et debito procedit ordine: quia sicut peccaverunt, ita secundum ordinem puniuntur.
- Quia fecisti hoc, ideo maledictus eris.
- Aliqui exponunt literam istam moraliter, referendo ad mores. Vel ad malitiam Diaboli, exponendo mystice non literaliter. Tamen credo quod potest literaliter exponi de serpente vero. Nam ex facto isto est animal generi humano odiosum: quia fuit primae praevaricationis instrumentum. Unde sicut signum crucis est Diabolo odiosum, quia fuit instrumentum quo Christus exhibuit nobis nostrae liberationis beneficium: ita similiter serpens est apud homines maledictus, quia fuit talis maledictionis instrumentum.
- Unde est maledictus super omnes bestias terrae.
- Et licet sit animal venenosum, tamen ex eventu isto est redditum magis odiosum. Quare autem est punitus serpens, cum non sit animal quod habeat liberum arbitrium? Dicendum quod illud fuit ad ostensionem divinae justitiae, et scandalum vitandum, ne videretur quod Deus peccatum alicujus naturae intellectualis dimitteret impunitum: ideo sicut fuerat in eo aliqua similitudo intellectualis, quia scilicet loquebatur: ita esset in eo aliqua similitudo poenae inflictae pro peccato.
- Quod autem sequitur, super pectus tuum gradieris, et terram comedes omnibus diebus vitae tuae,
- quidam exponunt et dicunt quod serpentes tunc ibant et incedebant erecti, et vescebantur fructibus, vivebantque de terrae nascentibus, sicut recitat Magister in historiis. Unde quod super suum pectus gradiantur, habent ex ista sententia, non ex natura. Hoc autem frivolum videtur. Nam nos non videmus quod habeant pedes vel instrumenta quibus possent incedere erecti, cum pars eorum ultima sit in fine debilior ad totum corpus, et ita illud ei non possit inniti. Ideo dico quod aliqua incommoda sunt quae habent serpentes ex ista sententia, sicut quod est maledictus et horribilis redditus ex isto facto, et ex facti consideratione fidelibus, et ex instinctu aliquo per divinam justitiam et ordinationem complantato in omnibus forte, sicut etiam est sequens poena quae ponitur consequenter cum dicitur: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem. Aliqua autem sunt incommoda quae habuit ante, sicut ista, super pectus tuum gradieris, et terram comedes. Et ista ponuntur et replicantur ut ex hoc aggraventur alia, et appareat major poena, sicut major est afflictio addita infirmo quam sano.
- Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem.
- Ad literam credo quod ex aliquo instinctu facto in muliere a Deo, habet quemdam horrorem et imaginationem quasi naturalem ad ipsum serpentem. Unde fit ut mulieres magis nitantur istam speciem exterminare, et caput suum conterere. Vel aliter dici potest, quod mulier ex natura habeat, sicut sexus infirmus, quod ista venenosa horreat, quod ante non horrebat in statu innocentiae: et tunc hoc habebat ex speciali dono divinae gratiae, quod poterat certitudinaliter istorum nocumenta vitare, ac ideo non curabat ista persequi: sicut etiam ex natura complexionis nunc patitur in partu mulier, tamen ex gratia Dei non pateretur in statu innocentiae. Ideo ex culpa quae istam gratiam privavit, est ista poena. Item poterat esse quod aliquid erat in animalibus brutis, et aliqua impressio qua homini obediebant et parebant. Ista autem omnia cessaverunt per hominis culpam. Animalia enim fuerunt suis naturalibus passionibus relicta, et mulier fuit omni gratia destituta: et gratia gratum faciente, et omni alia gratis data. Ideo ex peccato factae sunt inimicitiae isto modo inter serpentem et mulierem.
- Unde dicitur: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo illius.
- Quod dictum est secundum literam; quia serpens ambulat super pectus, insidiatur calcaneo, sicut parti sibi propinquae, ad quam facilius potest attingere: et ipsa conteret caput tuum. Quia aliquid haerens terrae, de facili potest ipsum terere.
- And the Lord God said to the serpent.
- Where He gives punishement for the sin. And He proceeds in order : as they sinned, so in order they are punished.
- Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed
- Some expose this letter morally, referring to behaviour. Or to the malice of the Devil, exposing mystically, not literally. Even se, I think it can be literally exposed about the real serpent. For from this act, the animal is odious to human kind: since it was instrumental in the first prevarication. Whence, as the sign of the Cross is odious to the Devil, since it was the instrument by which Christ gave us the benefice of our liberation: so similarily the serpent is cursed among men, since it was instrument for such a malediction.
- Whence it is cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth.
- And though the animal be venomous, even so from this event it is rendered more odious. But why was the serpent punished, when it be no animal having free will? One should say that that was to show forth divine justice and avoid scandal, so that it should not seem that God forgives sin by any intellectual nature unpunished: so, as there had been in it some similarity to an intellectual nature, namely since it was talking: so there should be in it some similarity to a punishment inflicted for sin.
- But what follows, upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life,
- some expose and say that serpents were then walking and going forth upright, and eating fruits and living of what was born of the ground, as the Master recites in the histories. Whence, that they are walking on their breast, they have of this sentence, not from nature. But this seems frivolous. For we do not see they have feet or instruments by which they would be able to go forth uprightly, since their last part be weaker in the end to all the body, and this it cannot uphold it. Therefore I say that some incommodity that serpents have of this sentence, as that it is cursed and rendered horrid from this act, and from its consideration to the faithful, and from some instinct by divine justice and ordination strongly complanted in all, as also is the following punishment which is posed thereafter when it is said: I will put enmities between thee and the woman. But some are incommodities which it had before, as this, thou shalt crawl in they breast and eat dust. And these are posed and replicated so that therefrom the other punishment should be aggravated and appear greater, since a greater affliction is added on the infirm than on the healthy.
- I will put enmities between thee and the woman [and thy seed and her seed]
- To the letter I think that from some instinct God put in woman, she has a kind of so to speak natural horror and imagination to the serpent itself. Whence it comes that women more tend to exterminate this species and to crush its head. Or otherwise it can be said, that woman from nature has, as from weaker sex, that she is horrified by these venomous things, which before she had not been horrified of in the state of innocence: and then she had of a special gift of divine grace, that she could with certainty avoid the harms of these, and therefore did not care to persecute them: as also from the nature of her complexion now the woman suffers in childbirth, but by grace of God she would not suffer in the state of innocence. Therefore, from a guilt which deprived of this grace is this punishment. Likewise coud have been that something was in brute animals and some impression by which they obeyed and were submitted to man. But all this ceased by the guilt of man. Animals were relinquished to their natural passions, and woman was destituted from all grace: both of grace rendering pleasing [to God], and of all grace freely given. Thus, from sin were these enmities made this way between the serpent and the woman.
- Whence it is said: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
- Which is said according to the letter; since the serpent walks on its breast, it lies in wait for the heel, as the part most close to itself, to which it can as easily as possible attain: and she shall crus thy head. Since it is something clung to the ground, it is easy to crush it.
The work from which this is taken is:
Postilla in libros Geneseos
I disagree with "ignoti autoris" and consider it an early work of St Thomas.
He is using "iste, ista, istud" for "hic, hec, hoc", which is easily a beginners' fault in Latin, if your maternal tongue has for "hic, hec, hoc" sth like "este, esta, esto" or "questo, questa" - and St Thomas was from southern part of Italy.
He is also seemingly (at least from here) giving an exposé over the very literal sense of Genesis to exclusion of moral and mystical ones.
But the mystical and prophetical meaning of the text, he was far from denying : it is about the Blessed Virgin Mary and Her total enmity ("enmities") against the Devil. Meaning, there was not room for even one moment of peaceful submission to him, not room for one moment of the state of sin in Her blessed life.
She was always crushing his head by not sinning, she was always crushing his head by obeying God.
St Thomas certainly knew that, but left this to be said by his superiors, as I think it might be from back when he was just studying.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Feast of Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Often enough, it links to sources supposed to be more credible than itself.
However, when it links to Nathalia Gjersoe, one can start to doubt that!
Actually links to:
The Guardian : World Toilet Day
Thursday 20 November 2014 15.46 GMT | Nathalia Gjersoe
Dogs: an uncomplicated relationship
Monday 23 September 2013 15.48 BST | Nathalia Gjersoe
Now, what is wrong with Nathalia Gjersoe? If linking to her can be even considered as potentially wrong, there must be sth wrong about her, right?
- She's a psychologist.
- She believes psychological biasses should be countered.
The latter meaning, for instance, countering the bias for creationism by indoctrinating into Evolution even earlier.
Evolution makes scientific sense. So why do many people reject it?
Thursday 31 March 2016 07.45 BST | Nathalia Gjersoe
So why, despite formal scientific education, does intelligent design remain so intuitively plausible and evolution so intuitively opaque? And what can we do about it?
Developmental psychologists have identified two cognitive biases in very young children that help to explain the popularity of intelligent design. The first is a belief that species are defined by an internal quality that cannot be changed (psychological essentialism). The second is that all things are designed for a purpose (promiscuous teleology). These biases interact with cultural beliefs such as religion but are just as prevalent in children raised in secular societies.
When countering "cognitive biasses" passes for "science", as can be seen with the rest of her article, there is sth wrong about how science is defined.
On the other hand, one can say that wikipedia has (so far, I might be giving someone a tip) not cited Nathalia Gjersoe on this deplorable subject.
One can say that demonising wikipedia because she is cited (despite this deplorable third article!) on two other articles, is what is known as "guilt by association".
So far, I am not ditching wikipedia, just because two articles cite one Gjersoe on aspects irrelevant to her more deplorable views.
Meanwhile, when psychology is into countering "cognitive biasses" (as they are defined these days) it is really undermining science, since undermining philosophy of which Natural Sciences is one department.
Philosophy is done by using a double starting point : a) innate principles, such as are universal to all of mankind, b) external experience, in the light of these innate universal principles.
And what philosophy has since Plato called "innate universal principles" and what psychologists call "cognitive biasses" are very difficult to keep separate, unless you add to the latter "culture specific". She at least had the clarity to tell us that the cognitive bias in favour of creationism is not so.
Seeing cats and dogs as fundamentally different and seeing them as serving a purpose (perhaps in our lives) is an innate universal principle. Unlike seeing a "drunkard" in every homeless man who drinks some wine in the street*, which is a very culture specific "cognitive bias" or in other words, a very sectarian "principle". Not to mention her own obvious cognitive bias in seeing as sensible whatever a small group of men styled scientists claims makes sense to them.**
Hans Georg Lundahl
Feast of Our Lady's
PS. Hat tip to Evolutionising the young, by Dominic Statham on CMI today.
PPS. Sorry for examples given of her writing, especially first one, on this Holy Day. But that is what I could find./HGL
* Last time I was in Clichy, one man gave me a half bottle of wine, I ate some soup and fries before touching it, and took water along with it. Even so, another man frowned, as if he had caught me red handed in an act of drunkenness. Unfortunately, detecting and curing the very culture specific cognitive bias of that man is not as paying as detecting and making gross political comment on that of children. See Chesterton's magisterial essay The Tyranny Of Bad Journalism. ** Obviously culture specific, since sometimes clashing with the universal one for creationism.