Rando like everyone else. Post kittehs because kittehs and why not? Post pretty rock because Rando ooh shiny hour, um, minute should be your ooh shiny hour, um, minute! Yeah! Rando post news because Rando like being angry and wants to share because Rando good. Anger fun! Yay!

Rando also share sciency things because Rando like Star Trek and walls that have tubes all over them and the way sciency things look and now Rando want toy of that. Share shiny sciency thing make Rando look smart. Rando smart!

Sometimes Rando even share spiritual things because that mean Rando good! Rando not bad! Not, not, not really bad. Rando good!

But Rando also think science and religion are separate magisteria. Rando just mean it differently because Rando love Humpty Dumpty. Rando mean just what he mean and he say it that way. Rando just like his spirituality without science in it and his science without spirituality in it. Unlike a Reese’s cup, those two tastes don’t go great together.

Rando think purpose is kind of teleological. Isn’t it? What about our peculiar assemblages of quantum particles and spaces and fields has “purpose,” per se? Do they come together and break apart in astronomically large numbers with a purpose, or just because that’s their nature? However many orders of organization you layer on top of that, aren’t those layers of organization simply emergent phenomenon? Or is there there an implication here that there is some higher order cause governing the behavior of those countless quantum particles and their even more countless interactions over billions of year such that Facebook using bags of meat like us would congeal into our present forms, mostly blithely unaware that we occupy only the tiniest little window of time between the species that was our progenitor and the species to which we’ll eventually give rise provided we don’t first destroy ourselves?

By asserting purpose, is the implication really that there is a designer? We walk along a sidewalk and see a leaf on the ground. On what basis do we arrive at the conclusion that some child put it there because she thought it looked nice then ran off when her mom called from down the block absent any reason to think that the case? Especially when there are so many more likely scenarios? 

What then of a supposition that the leaf must clearly have been put there as a sign to us by some ethereal being with magical powers? Yet there are those who will even suppose that the leaf, or the universe, or the multiverse is itself evidence of something even far more outrageous to reason, because if we can’t possibly imagine the complex mathematics that led to the present moment as revealed to our senses, somehow some of us are empowered to mistake the fluxes in their neurochemical balance for imagination for reality to the extent that blood should be spilled over wild differences in imagination, itself merely an emergent phenomenon, emerging as it does from one’s peculiar confluence of neurochemistry and time and place with their attendant circumstances.

Bad science pages make Rando sad.