I've caught this show, Supernatural, a few times on The WB.  I'd read some good critical reviews of it before the premiere.  You know I'm a sci-fi and horror fan, so, given the positive appraisals, resisting it seemed an exercise in futility.  I therefore decided I could at least give it a try.  The worst thing that could happen is I would waste an hour of my time.

Thus far (and remember this is based on having seen two episodes only) I've found the show to be quite interesting despite the melodramatic approach which has become formulaic for The WB's programming.  The stories have been diverse and compelling, ghost stories as it were, told with intelligence, intrigue and interest.  Each episode revolves around a singular story (the bedeviling otherworldly occurrence of the week) which interweaves with the greater story of two sons searching for their father.

While two episodes lack sufficient reference material upon which to claim a "sense" of the show, first impressions are important, and this show has definitely provided two good first impressions.  I do wish The WB would dial down the angst and unnecessary teen-driven performances and writing.  I still think it may be possible to overlook those issues if they can keep up the spooky titillation the show has thus far been able to provide.  I won't be scheduling TV time to watch it but will equally not flip channels should I find it on.

Before you ask, no, it doesn't hurt that the show provides sufficient eye candy in the forms of Jensen Ackles and Jared Padelecki.  Hey, if I'm going to watch a television show, is there some inherent law that prohibits the inclusion of optical treats to satiate visual desires both gross and subtle?  I didn't think so.

While an indictment is not an indication of guilt, it does mean there is sufficient evidence to pursue legal action.  Tom DeLay's indictment on conspiracy charges today in Texas wraps up months of investigation and grand jury testimony.  Again I stress that this is not an indication of guilt; it is instead an indication that the grand jury has found sufficient evidence for the DA to pursue criminal charges.  As Americans, we must remember that our citizens are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.  While this is true, DeLay will be forced, due to existing House rules, to step down as Majority Leader until his legal disposition is determined in court.

All of that being said, I can't help but be at least slightly tickled by this.

Bill Frist is currently under investigation due to a questionable stock sale.  Again we presume his innocence, but, and perhaps I'm shallow this way, I'm finding a good deal of enjoyment to be had in the compounding problems the Republicans seem to be experiencing.

Bush's approval numbers are lower than they have ever been, and the tit for tat his administration is playing with the Katrina fiasco isn't helping at all.  Iraq has turned into the Vietnam of this era and, instead of giving the appearance of getting better (whether it really is or not), the situation there seems to be steadily worsening.

All of this means the Republicans are struggling with problems they themselves created.  Can they wriggle out of all of this?  We shall see.

In the meantime I've popped some popcorn and am enjoying the show.

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history — with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.

— Mitch Ratcliffe

While this will undoubtedly offend or upset my religious readership, I am a scientist by nature.  This fiasco calls out for a response.  Sorry, Mom, but I have to be true to myself.

You've heard it.  Perhaps it was in reference to your local school district's curriculum.  Perhaps your pastor mentioned it during a Sunday sermon.  It could have been something you heard while flipping through the TV channels late one evening.  There could have been a cursory mention of it in the morning paper.  Maybe it's something you believe.

It's intelligent design, and it's slithering its way in from every dark corner.  It wants to invade public classrooms disguised as real science.  It denies its roots in the conservative Christian movements of the modern era.  Politicians and zealots proclaim its merits while denying any opinion about who or what the designer might be; the vast majority of these people also make undeniable statements to their followers and constituencies that they are certain the designing force is the Christian god.  Did I mention they also deny it violates the separation of church and state when taught in public schools?  It relies on some curious but otherwise unexciting relationships in science which, while providing a certain target for curiosity seekers and conspiracy theorists, does not support the formation of a new inception theory for the universe, especially a "theory" which is nothing more than freshly renamed creationism.

Despite what you have heard, the premise does not contain a single coherent theory, therefore it cannot be defined singularly.  Even if we cannot define it, we can describe it thus: a controversial belief that the universe and especially living things present with certain features that one might describe as having been produced; this "production" is not random but is instead one directed by intelligence.  The premise attempts to negate all undirected processes; that would include natural selection (evolution).  Scientists call it coincidental physics or the anthropic principle (some may use principal inaccurately) when viewed from a cosmological angle.

On a personal level, one thing I deplore wholeheartedly is the attempted use of science to justify religion.  The idea itself is reprehensible because the two are mutually exclusive.  Many people would like to argue against that point, but I feel diligent in this resolve: religion and science cannot mix.  Religion relies solely on faith and can only be experienced fully if one accepts that much, if not all, of what is believed is unprovable and unmeasurable.  Science, on the other hand, relies solely on observation and experiment and only calling something absolute when it is proven beyond reproach.  Any god or belief in a god, therefore, can never be proven or justified via science.  It's like oil and water — they just don't mix.

Perhaps that lets you in on the secret of how I feel about this, but I can assure you that I will give it due diligence and an objective evaluation — before I talk trash about it while pointing and laughing.