Weight Watchers

Now that I hit my weight loss goal, I was trying to decide what I should do for maintenance. I think the most important thing is better integrating exercise and better eating habits into my lifestyle. That's the only way this stuff is going to stick. I was trying to think of ways to do that and be accountable. I thought about developing a points system based on eating and exercise. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I decided to sign up for Weight Watchers Online. The first three months is $65 and I was able to finance the expense through a generous birthday gift from my wife's parents (thanks!). So we'll see how that goes. If nothing else, it's forcing me to log everything I eat and be conscious of my food choices. Hopefully I'll also be able to get a better handle on portion sizes and a more intuitive sense of the relative point values of different foods. So far I've only done this for two days. The web interface is pretty slick and makes things relatively painless - although there are some weird things (bugs?) in the site I haven't figured out yet.

The other thing I'm still getting my head around is what a good target weight should be (good target = healthy and achievable over the long-term). 190-195 pounds actually seems pretty good to me. But the system suggested setting a target of 143 pounds - 50+ pounds less than I am right now! I think this was based on BMI but that's totally crazy. When I stepped on the scale this morning, I was 193.4 pounds and 22.4% body fat - 43.3 pounds of fat and 150.1 pounds. So I currently have more muscle than Weight Watchers is telling me I should weigh total. Something doesn't fit here. Even if I got down to 8% body fat and maintained my muscle mass (which would be very challenging), I'd still weigh 163.2 pounds. Anyway, I entered 185 pounds into the system as my "goal weight" but I personally think 190-195 pounds makes more sense (even though it technically means I'm still "fat").

Lemonade stand

JD decided a couple of weeks ago that he wanted to do a lemonade stand and yesterday was the big day. It's great to see him take iniative to do things like this. He was very excited to make the lemonade and cookies and even found the recipe for the oatmeal raisin cookies himself in a book he got at the library. He also painted signs for us to hang up in our neighborhood to attract customers.

After 90 minutes, JD, AJ, and one of JD's friends from church had sold out and made $8 in revenue. Each cup of lemonade was a quarter. Same price for the cookies. So they sold 32 items in all - and ate/drank some themselves. Each kid got to put $2.70 in their piggy bank (we kicked in an additional dime to make the revenue split totally even). Being a MBA, I had actually proposed that my wife and I take 50% off the top to cover raw material and marketing costs but she thought it was ok for all the money to go to the kids. She's such a softie. =)

Made it, just barely

Six months ago, I set a target of getting to 195 pounds (or less) by my 33rd birthday (see prior post). To make things more interesting, I also put $1,000 at risk. With one day to spare, I achieved my goal. In the last 3 months, I've gone from 208 pounds to 194.8 pounds.

About a year and a half ago, my wife decided that she was going to lose 19 pounds and go from 139 pounds to 120 pounds. This morning, she achieved her goal as well.

I have to admit that it's satisfying to have met my goal. But I don't really like how I got here. Even after missing my last goal and setting up this self-bet, I didn't take it seriously for the first three months. Then I got motivated and pulled out the stops in the last three months and just barely made my target. It's the moral equivalent of cramming for an exam the night before and then getting an A. It's satisfying but it's not the work ethic that I want to teach my kids. I much more of a believer in "slow and steady wins the race" and not cutting things so close. At some point, these other tactics are going to catch up with you and not going to produce the results you want long-term.

That's why I'm so much more proud of my wife achieving her goal. She's been at this every day for the last 18 months. She injured her knee at one point and she battled through it. We decided to discontinue our membership at the YMCA so she did her workouts at home - early in the morning before the kids got up. The last 5 pounds were just as challenging as the first 14 but she didn't give up. She just stuck to it and made it happen. That's the example that I want my kids to follow, not mine. I couldn't be more proud of my wife's accomplishment.

As an aside, even though I won my self-bet, I just made a $20 donation to Heifer.org to buy a flock of geese for a family in need somewhere in the world.

PS - If folks have ideas for maintenance goals, please let me know. Thanks.

What’s Your Story?

A friend of mine in NYC just started writing a blog. The whole thing is very well done and I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in personal growth. He had one post today that really touched me. It's about a funeral he just attended and the woman who had passed away. As part of discussing that event, he mentioned the following:

Earlier in the day I had reconnected with an old friend. He told me a story of how he had recently met a fascinating woman in Africa in her late 70’s, and during their conversations he had asked her if she had any advice for him in life, anything she could tell him about what life meant. She raised herself up on her tip toes, stabbed her finger into his chest plate and, knowing she had his attention, said “when you’re about to die, someone will ask you the question, ‘what’s your story?’ And your answer… your answer had better be good!”

Here's a version of my story from last March (see prior post).

Can't be right all the time

My dad sent this to me awhile ago and I really enjoyed it. So I'm posting it to my blog so others can enjoy it as well.

GREAT PREDICTIONS BY WISE MINDS.....!

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee DeForest,"Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television.

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923.

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers ." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

"But what is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates,1981

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," --Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody inparticular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the1920s.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible," -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper," -- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make," -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out," -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," --Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this," -- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads.

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented,"-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." -- Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University.

"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself."-- the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872 .

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

And last but not least...
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

So much for the "Wise Minds"......

Tenth wedding anniversary

This weekend, my wife and I had the opportunity to celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary. Our anniversary itself isn't for another two weeks but my parents are in town and agreed to take the kids for 48 hours so we could get away and celebrate (THANKS!). We certainly took full advantage of the opportunity and piled a lot of different activities into two days. On Saturday, we checked in at the Clift Hotel and did some shopping before dinner at Asia de Cuba. Then we headed next door for Jersey Boys at the Curran Theatre. The show was awesome and I definitely recommend it to anyone in the Bay Area or NYC.

On Sunday morning, we worked out at the hotel fitness center, got some breakfast, and did a little more shopping. Then we headed over to Mill Valley (north of the Golden Gate Bridge). Had a nice lunch and did a little shopping before having a massage for two at the Tea Garden Springs. It was the Heaven's Door room and you get a jacuzzi for two for 30 minutes before having side-by-side one-hour massages. Then it was off to the Mountain Home Inn - a quaint inn near Muir Woods. That night, we had a quiet dinner at the inn and setup a fire in our fireplace. We also attempted to watch a movie on my laptop (no TVs) but fell asleep in the middle.

The following morning, my wife used the jacuzzi in our room for a bit and then we had a nice breakfast. Then we did a 3.5 mile hike (roundtrip) from the inn to the East Peak of Mount Tamalpais. The view from the top is supposed to be the best in the Bay Area. We could see around for at least a 50 mile radius - including San Francisco, East Bay, and the Pacific Ocean. Definitely recommend it - even if you drive directly to the top. Afterwards, we did a hike from the inn through Muir Woods (roughly another 4 miles roundtrip). So we certainly got a lot of exercise yesterday morning but we also had lots of time to talk. It also reminded us of a lot of the walks we did during our honeymoon through Acadia National Park during our honeymoon.

All in all, I couldn't have asked for a more perfect anniversary celebration. Thanks again to my parents for making it possible! And thanks to my wife for ten awesome years of marriage - with many more to come.

Did you know? Part 5.

A friend of mine asked me this question: "“how many days of US energy consumption could we replace if we liposuctioned all body-fat over 10% for men and 18% from women in the US?" I'm sure you've all been asking yourself the same question so here's my attempt at an answer. This article says that “By 2002, average weight for men was almost 191 pounds; for women, average weight was 163 pounds”. And this page says that “The average adult body fat is closer to 15%-18% for men and 22%-25% for women”. So let’s assume 16.5% for men and 23.5% for women. That would mean the average man is 31.5 pounds of fat and 159.5 pounds of muscle; 38.3 pounds of fat and 124.7 pounds of muscle for women. So, if men got down to 10% body fat, they’d keep their 159.5 pounds of muscle but only have 17.7 pounds of fat (a reduction of 13.8 pounds of fat). For women, to get to 18% body fat, they’d keep their 124.7 pounds of muscle and have only 27.4 pounds of fat (a 10.9 pound reduction). According to Wikipedia, there are 105.74 million adult men and 112.81 million adult women in the US. So, if each one of those men had 13.8 pounds of fat liposuctioned out and each woman had 10.9 pounds removed, that would be a total of 2,688.84 million pounds of liposuction fat. Per the numbers in my earlier post, the density of liposuction fat is 7.66 pounds per gallon. So 2,688.84 pounds of fat would be 351.02 million gallons. One gallon of fat yields 0.867 gallons of biodiesel. So 351.02 million gallons of fat would become 304.22 million gallons of biodiesel. Biodiesel has about 10% less energy content than regular diesel so 304.22 million gallons of biodiesel would offset the use of 273.8 million gallons of diesel. And, according to EIA, the US uses 64 billion gallons of diesel per year. So 273.8 million gallons would be 0.428% of that or about 1.56 days or about 37.5 hours. Now, note that diesel usage accounts for only 20.4% of overall petroleum usage in the US. And petroleum only accounts for 39.8% of overall energy consumption in the US (source). So, the real answer to your this question is 0.127 days or about 3 hours. Not much of a renewable energy source. The more interesting question from my perspective is "if people in the US consumed less food such that they were at their ideal weight and body fat percentage, how much energy would be saved in terms of farming, packaging, transportation, preparation, etc and how much biofuel could be generated from the equivalent amount of farm land without triggering all these food vs fuel debates?" Don't have time to try to figure that one out but perhaps someone else can take up the challenge. =)

A stairway to heaven?

A friend of mine sent me this article from the Economist. It's about a scientist at UCLA who has an idea about how to transport large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere into outer space. Hopefully he'll submit the idea to the Virgin Earth Challenge and win the $25 million to do this for real (assuming the science is actually sound). Regardless, reading stuff like this does give me hope that we'll find solutions for global warming if we have enough really smart people work on the problem.

You there?

A friend of mine sent me an email yesterday afternoon saying "Are you around? You’ve been quiet and I wanted to see how you were doing?" I appreciate the interest and concern. I've been meaning to post more but just can't seem to find the time. Recently, I've been spending a lot of time trying to work out and lose weight. I need to lose another 2 pounds or so in the next two weeks or I'll need to donate $1,000 to Heifer.org (see prior post). My target weight is 195 pounds and, as of Saturday morning, I was around 197 pounds. We're also way ahead of schedule at work science-wise so things are heating up for me on the business side. More soon...

Did you know? Part 4.

In this mini-series of fun facts, we’ve looked at the fuel efficiencies of chickens, liposuction fat, and coffee beans. But what about cow farts and cow manure? I’m sure that topic’s been on everyone’s mind so let me address it. As everyone may or may not know, cows produce a lot of methane gas and many believe they’re a major contributor to global warming (especially since methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). In fact, cow flatulence produces about 90 kilograms of methane per cow per year (source). Methane has an energy density of about 52.75 MJ per kg (source) so that’s 4,748 MJ of methane per cow per year or 13 MJ of methane per cow per day. One way to convert methane into diesel fuel is a process called Gas-to-Liquid (GTL). That process requires 10.5 GJ of natural gas (mostly methane) to produce 42 gallons (1 barrel) of fuel (source) – so 250 MJ of natural gas for 1 gallon of diesel. If a cow produces 13 MJ of methane per day and 250 MJ are required for 1 gallon of diesel, you can get 0.052 gallons of diesel per cow per day. Assuming a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 30 miles per gallon, you’d be able to drive 1.56 miles per day of cow farts. Stats on bovine flatulence frequency are hard to come by but this source would indicate that cows pass gas every 40-90 seconds. Assuming they do that 24 hours a day (btw, humans fart in their sleep so let’s assume cows do too), that would be about 1,329 farts/belches per day so you can drive only 0.0012 miles per cow fart. [As an aside, while the typical person farts about 14 times a day (source), human farts are much lower in methane content and therefore not nearly as useful for producing diesel fuel via GTL]

At this point, you’re probably asking yourself one of two questions: (a) “what about the methane in cow manure?” or (b) “why am I still reading this crap?” (no pun intended). I’ll assume you’re asking yourself the former question and do my best to answer. This press release says that a herd of 150,000 cattle generate a total 2,500 tons of manure a day. One (short ton) is 907.18474 kilograms so 2,500 tons would be 2,267,962 kilograms of manure for the entire herd – or 15.12 kilograms of manure per cow per day. From this page, we find out that cow dung gas is 55-65% methane. The source doesn’t specify but I’ll assume this is by weight and that all the dung can be converted to cow dung gas. So 15.12 kilograms of manure per cow per day would be about 9.1 kilograms of methane per cow per day. Following the same math as above, that would translate into 1.91 gallons of diesel per cow per day. At 30 miles per gallon, that’s a whopping 57.42 miles per day of cow manure. According to this site, cows poop 11 to 12 times each day. So we can get a very respectable 4.8 miles per cow dump.

With that, I think it’s likely time for a new hobby since I’ve probably taken this one as far as I can. =)

Did you know? Part 3.

I’m sure this post will provoke a couple of “don’t you have better things to do with your time” but, hey, we all need our hobbies and mine appears to be random biodiesel calculations at the moment. =) New fun fact regarding the fuel efficiency of coffee.

There was an announcement last week about a researcher in Brazil working on turning low quality coffee beans into biodiesel. In the press release, it says that “every 100 kilograms of coffee will produce roughly 9 kilograms of oil” and “a liter of biodiesel requires about 15% of a liter of ethanol”. So, what does that mean in terms of fuel efficiency of coffee bean biodiesel? Well, if you consult the always-handy Biodiesel Handbook and the always-handy Google, you find that the fatty acid profiles of coffee bean oil and cottonseed oil are pretty similar (source for coffee bean oil). Using Google again, we find that the density of cottonseed oil is 0.92 g/cm3 or 0.92 g/ml (source). So coffee bean oil has a density of about 7.67 lbs/gallon or 3.49 kg/gal. If 100 kilograms of coffee yields 9 kilograms of oil, that means 100 kilograms of coffee yields 2.58 gallons of coffee oil. And, if ethanol is 15% of the biodiesel by volume, you end up with 3.03 gallons of biodiesel from 100 kilograms of coffee. Now, from before, we know an average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon but biodiesel has about 10% worse fuel efficiency. So, 3.03 gallons of biodiesel takes you 81.9 miles (3.03 x 27). So, 100 kilograms of coffee gets you 81.9 miles and a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.82 miles per kilogram of coffee beans or 0.37 miles per pound of coffee beans (about 8x less than liposuction fat).

Now, if we take this one step further, 1 pound of coffee beans yields 10.8 pots of brewed coffee (source). So, another way to think about this is that a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.034 miles per pot of coffee.

Enjoy … and feel free to make fun of my hobby. =)

Praying in Color

It's been awhile since I've read something good on ExploreFaith.org. But this article caught my attention. Here's an excerpt from the beginning of the page:

How do you pray when words become barriers rather than possibilities? When thinking in sentences is too linear to express a rainbow of emotions.

The rest of the article was a bit of a disappointment but I suppose they didn't want to give up too much of the real meat since they want you to buy the book. Regardless, the doodling concept is an interesting one. It's also a good reminder that there are a lot of ways to commune with God beyond formal prayers.

Did you know? Part 2.

Last night, I got to use this factoid at a dinner. Upon hearing that diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mile per chicken, people immediately wanted to know what the fuel efficiency is in terms of human fat. Last December, I read that a company in Norway struck a deal with a hospital in Miami to supply it with 3,000 gallons a week of liposuction fat for conversion into biodiesel. In the article, it says that 3,000 gallons of liposuction fat is enough to make 2,600 gallons of biodiesel. The average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon of #2 diesel. But biodiesel (in pure form) gets 10% lower fuel efficiency relative to traditional diesel fuel (source). So, an average diesel engine will get say 27 miles to the gallon of pure biodiesel. 3,000 gallons of liposuction fat = 2,600 gallons of biodiesel = 70,200 miles driven. So, 23.4 miles per gallon of liposuction fat.

But that's per gallon, not per pound. Body fat has a density of 0.918 grams per cubic centimeter (source). There are 453.59 grams in a pound and there are 3,785.41 cubic centimeters in a gallon. Thus, a gallon of liposuction fat would weigh 7.66 pounds. And 23.4 miles per gallon would translate into 3.05 miles per pound.

As an additional sanity-check here, diesel fuel typically has an energy density of 40.9 MJ/L (source). There are 3.785 liters in a gallon so 40.9 MJ/L equals 154.8 MJ/gal. If a diesel engine gets 30 miles to the gallon, it takes 154.8 MJ to go 30 miles. A pound of human fat contains 3,500 kcal (source). A kcal contains 4.184 kJ of energy so 3,500 kcal would equal 14,644 kJ or 14.644 MJ. If 154.8 MJ goes 30 miles, 14.644 MJ would only get you 9.46% of that distance - or 2.84 miles.

In terms of the difference between 2.84 miles per pound of liposuction fat vs 3.05 miles per pound, one thing to keep in mind is that some of the energy content of biodiesel comes from the alcohol component of its production (typically methanol). So the 2.84 figure is probably more accurate than 3.05.

Regardless, that’s too much detail for casual conversation. The short answer is that the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine is about 1 mile per chicken or 3 miles per pound of liposuction fat. Use that factoid at your next cocktail party and let me know how it goes. =)

If you really want to impress your guests, you could also mention that according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), 325,000 of liposuction operations were carried out last year to remove fat from various parts of the body - particularly the thighs, abdomen and buttocks – and that the average woman sheds an average of 20 pounds of abdominal fat by liposuction (source). So, 325,000 operations x 20 pounds per operation = 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat. At 3 miles per pound, 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat would get you 19.5 million miles. And, at 30 miles per gallon, that would offset 650,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Unfortunately, the US consumes about 64 billion gallons of diesel a year - 100,000x the amount you could get from liposuction fat. But every little bit helps and Americans get fatter by the year so perhaps this will make more of a dent over time. =)

Sacrifice

My sister-in-law HG sent me this quote by Joseph Smith regarding sacrifice: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation." It's a high standard and it should be. But it's also what keeps me from affiliated myself with a specific belief system and organization - at least for the time-being. There are a variety of mostly little things that I'm just not willing to sacrifice. Taken individually, my objections would likely seem petty but taken together they're currently a big barrier for me to overcome.

Did you know?

Today, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods announced a partnership to make "renewable diesel" fuel from animals fats. In a WSJ article about the partnership, it says:

Tyson produces about 300 million gallons of beef, pork and chicken fat each year … Producing one 42-gallon barrel of renewable diesel requires about one barrel of animal fat. And each barrel requires, on average, two steers, or 16 hogs or 1,300 chickens, Tyson officials say.

So, it takes 1,300 chickens to get one barrel of diesel fuel (via their proprietary process). One barrel is 42 gallons. So that’s 31 chickens to generate one gallon. At around 30 mpg fuel efficiency, that’s one chicken per mile.

So, your “did you know” fact of the day is: you can drive one mile on the fat of a chicken. Therefore, diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mpc (1 mile per chicken). Go ahead and use that at your next cocktail party as an icebreaker. =)

Disposable income

My 5-year old JD made his first major purchase recently - a Razor scooter. He spent $30 that he saved up across various birthdays and holidays. It's amazing that he's old enough to start making decisions like this. So far, he hasn't pulled the trigger on the credit card offers he's received in the mail. =)

Fireworks

I'm down in Orlando at the moment for a biotech conference. I'm staying at the Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin Resort over by Epcot. I have a balcony room that faces a man-made lake. As I was getting back from a conference reception, there were fireworks outside my window (see video in 3GP format, taken on my Treo). It was a nice little treat since I'm a fan of fireworks and don't get to see them that often - especially up close. A little piece of Disney magic.

Sky

I'm not really a "stop and smell the roses" kind of a guy. But on my way home from work the other day, I looked up at the sky and stopped to admire its beauty. Might seem like a "so what" occurance for others but it was unique for me.

The Language of God

I just finished reading an excellent book called The Language of God (also see this interview in the SF Chronicle). The author was the head of the Human Genome Project and attempts in his book to reconcile science and religion. In particular, he focuses mainly on the debate around Darwin's theories of evolution. Collins supports a position called theistic evolution (or what he calls BioLogos). Specifically, a typical version of this worldview rests upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

Collins goes on to say:

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.

This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.

It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.

Conversations with God

Over Christmas and New Years, I stumbled onto a book on my brother-in-law's book shelf called Conversations with God. An ex-girlfriend had given it to him so his wife didn't mind me taking it. =) Anyway, it was a pretty interesting read. The basic premise of the book is that the author was an unemployed homeless man who was looking for answers. One day, he was essentially writing in a journal when God took over his hand/pen and began writing responses to his questions. Thus began an unexpected "conversation" that turned into a best-selling book.

It's interesting to see the range of reactions to this book on Amazon.com. Some people really love the book. Others write off the author as a delusional heretic. I think a lot of your reaction to the book hinges on whether you believe Walsch had a genuine conversation with God or not. On that count, I can't quite decide. I certainly think that such a dialogue is possible. Religions like the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in modern-day prophets - and I personally find it unlikely that God would speak through Jesus, Muhammad, etc. and then suddenly stop to send other messagers to spread his message. So I don't reject the possibility that Walsch genuinely communicated with God and that his message is inspired in that way. But I also wouldn't go so far as to say that I then automatically accept everything he says in his book as literally the word of God.

At least from the reviews I read, it seems that most people who disliked the book took most issue with the moral relativism that is espouses - there is no absolute right or wrong, no should or should nots, etc. The book also makes the proacative statement that there is no hell and that Hitler is therefore in heaven. If you take a lot of the book at surface-value, it would be easy to take away the message that what we do in this world doesn't matter and therefore we shouldn't go out of our way to do the right things in our lives. But I really don't think that's the message that the author (or God if you believe the responses are genuine) are trying to make. There was a much more subtle message there - but you have to really work to parse through all the philosophical double-talk. What I believe the message was is that all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong along with a desire to do the right thing (what C.S. Lewis would refer to as the Moral Law). So, if people simply listened to their innate sense of right and wrong, there wouldn't be any needs for laws, etc. Unfortunately, many people abdicate their responsibility in this regard and, therefore, civil and moral laws are required.

There are a lot of other things the book discusses but I won't get into them here for lack of time. Interesting book, though. Makes you think - whether you accept the author's ideas or not.