Feel the love (feel it through the hate)

This can sometimes feel like a thankless job. But every now and then, you get a message that reminds you what you’re doing it for, and why it’s all worth it.

I received such an email just this morning:

email 2

Really tugs at the ol’ heart strings, doesn’t it? Now wipe your eyes (or remove your face from your palm) and read my response:

email 3

This really is great, though. Now when critics accuse me of not reflecting Jesus — because of, you know, all the sarcasm and whatnot — I have a perfect example of the pure-hearted, evolution-denying, old-time religion-following Christian I should aspire to be.

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

  • Nick Hodgetts

    Well done Tyler! Although one suspects Mr. Lawrence may just think that Dietrich Bonhoefer is an expensive brand of jeans or something…..!

  • “And god told all the animals to reproduce after their own kind… unless they are frogs… at which point they will reproduce into some weird fishy kind of creature which can THEN transform into a frog!… kind of creature… thing… which can eventually become a frog which will reproduce… little fishy things…”

    • Christopher, I order you to meme-ify this immediately.

  • D. Humeston

    This is why salvation is from Christ, through grace. Most humans are just too damn stupid to find salvation any other way. When I run into a stupid person, it strengthens my faith. God knows what He is doing.

  • ashleyhr

    Did you hear about this? I suspect Obama had particular types of Christian in mind – fundamentalists maybe: http://time.com/3774109/barack-obama-easter-breakfast/

  • Seth

    Always beware of people who NEED TO USE ALL CAPS
    Ran across this interesting institution online. I need to visit them next time I am in the area.

    • Wow! Now that is an institution: Not only a museum for creationism but also antique tools, AND a taxidermy hall of fame!

    • Professor_Tertius

      While I can understand your point, ALL CAPS is a popular recourse whenever people are frustrated by the absence of bold-faced and italics fonts (or unsure whether or not and how they may be available on a particular forum or platform.)

      In the very early days of word-processing, we were sometimes encouraged to place asterisks around words in order to do what separate fonts or attributes could not–but those had problems and ambiguities of their own. As a result, many of us started using UPPER-CASE on the exams we prepared for our classes, and we found that there was never any ambiguity about their purpose as emphasis attributes. They also proved useful on instructional handouts telling students which words were to be entered at the keyword of the old “dumb terminals” and which words around them were for descriptive and explanatory purposes only.

      Thus, I’m one of those many dinosaurs who snickers a little bit when someone claims that ALL CAPS convey “shouting” when, in actual fact, no sounds are emitted from the text at all. (In fact, in my day we had a separate convention for conveying the idea of shouting. We called it the “exclamation mark” and one of them even completes this sentence!)

      Of course, this is not any sort of protest against Seth’s excellent post. I’m just one of those aging professors from the late Jurassic who is prone to reminisce and reflect on how “everybody knows that…” standards certainly change more rapidly than I would have predicted. Like those of generations before me, I do miss many of the SUPERIOR CONVENTIONS of the olden days, such as the extremely efficient WordStar ctrl-command keystrokes of those pre-Internet [think ARPANET] days which were far more ergonomic than anything comparable today, even though the word “ergonomic” was rarely used by anyone at the time.

      Virtually everything of a user-entry nature in those days was much more easily and quickly entered than the laboriously tedious, mouse-dependent, move your entire arm to do the simplest things monstrosities of today.

      I used to teach my software engineering students, “If the user will run your program only occasionally, ease-of-learning standards should apply. But if the user will be using your program daily and regularly, ease-of-use standards should dictate. Maximum ease-of-use procedures will generally take longer for the user to initially learn, but the payoff in daily ease-of-use in terms of speed and convenience make that investment very worthwhile. One only LEARNS a program once—but one will usually spend much more time USING the program. So apply your standards strategically accordingly.” Sadly, when computers became a common consumer item, ease-of-learning took over and ease-of-use was largely abandoned. Who would have thought that today’s computer systems would be so tedious to use, error-filled, crash-prone, hard-to-use, and even slow to boot?

      Yes, though few people use them, both Windows and the various browsers do have various keyboard shortcuts. Yet they often conflict. While the entry can be quick, waiting for my browser to thrash virtual memory and resolve a bunch of Microsoft paging errors and endless spaghetti nonsense becomes maddening. Such ordeals periodically requires me to do far much Windows diagnosis, fixing, and reconfiguration because Microsoft still can’t figure out how to design a stable and efficient operating system. (Yes, it’s enough to turn an old geezer into one of those cranky ol’ codgers we all said we’d never become.)

      While this has little to do with Tyler Francke’s fine article above, a quick association with Calvinism’s first TULIP point should make the tie-in. (That is, the degeneration of the “user experience” on today’s computers and the loss of so many of the best user-entry, ergonomic features of software past is surely due to the Total Depravity of Man….and the demon machines we sinners have engineered to torment us.)

  • Tony Breeden

    No Christian should use the R-word [http://wp.me/p4lkY-KX], but did you really just defend yourself with tu quoque and essentially say that you’re both wrong?

    • No.

      • Tony Breeden

        Really? I know you probably didn’t mean to, but read what you said again. I think the answer just might surprise you ;]

        • It didn’t.

          • Tony Breeden

            You really did. It’s just that you’re so used to holding yourself to a different standard then your opponents that you have trouble seeing it.

          • Then just another reason to be thankful I have you around, Tony.

          • Tony Breeden

            Just iron sharpening iron, bro ;]