By way of illustration, I recently engaged a lively proponent of Mr. Darwin's views. In course of our discussion, he suggested that evolutionary notions merely comprised "biological theories," and that I had mistakenly inquired about ethics of it all. Here, pepperoni began to fly.

He didn't seem to realize (as Mr. Darwin clearly did) that theories we might properly call "biological," (or scientific) can -- and often do -- have obvious ethical implications. Ideas have logical effects not restricted to one academic field. You cannot win a debate by simply put an arbitrary fence around an idea and yelling at its entailed offspring "Now stay!" Like illegal aliens -- they tend to jump borders when you aren't looking.

This means that Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and "Punctuationism," like all other ideas, have logical consequences (implications) that affect every area of human thought and life. This is why you can find evolutionary ideas discussed in psychology textbooks, history books, and even pop magazines.

In any case, evading or ignoring certain aspects of an idea's logical consequences to gain upper hand in a debate -- or else to keep one's ship from sinking altogether -- now has a name. Armed with this knowlegde, you can clearly and distinctly show others when need arises, that life tranpires only as a set of integrated circumstances, and that ideas have logical effects not properly limited to any one academic field.

Reality and logic do not come made-to-order with extra cheese, so you don't get a discount on them with a coupon. To make a good case, then, we must follow rules of valid and sound reasoning.

Christopher Brown attended the California State University at Hayward and subsequently did hard time in seminary. He taught English and philosophy at two colleges, and tutored many bright students.

So they assume astral determinism when predicting, and then assume its opposite when advising. One simply cannot have it both ways. The only way to resolve this contradiction derives from saying that heavenlies determine SOME things, but not others. This avoids contradictory impulses, however, at cost of engaging a purely arbitrary (pick and choose whichever you like) approach to what stars do and do not determine about your life. And yet their charts promise a principled (non-arbitrary) way to know future. So this option makes no logical headway either.

Either way then, assumptions necessary to trade of star-traffickers show themselves bogus. The whole thing turns out a useless mirage. Astral determinism thus represents a phoney idea, and we can show this with a little logical rigor.

Finally then, we wish to add logical insult to mystical injury by noting that our refutation of astral determinism posits a fairly clear and obvious problem for their trade. And like bug who never quite manages to avoid fast-approaching windshield -- they should have seen it coming.

Christopher Brown has taught English and philosophy at the collegiate level. He attended the California State University and then did hard time in seminary (Orlando, FL). He now manages 5 websites, including: http://blogique.blogspot.com http://ophirgoldcorp.blogspot.com and http://scriberight.blogspot.com