April 15, 2008
April 14, 2008
Musings On Adaptation
I did not expect to find this clip of a water lily so fascinating, yet once again the internets, this time courtesy of i-am-bored.com, have surprised me. Here you have a clear example of a plant engaging in strategic behavior in order to ensure it's own survival. I don't mean to equate adaptive characteristics to thought-out planning; what fascinates me is how something as unremarkable as a floating leaf can devise methods of survival that captivate the imagination.
Last night, the National Geographic channel premiered a much-hyped special called The Human Footprint, in which they laid out visually much of the materials the average American goes through in their 77.75 year lifespan. While some of the numbers were mundane and expected, (5,054 newspapers in a lifetime, 31,350 gallons of gas) others were surprising (to me) and troubling. Take diapers, for instance The average toddler goes through 3,796 diapers; the materials used in creating those diapers include 1,898 pints of crude oil, 715 pounds of plastic, and the pulp of 4 1/2 trees; washing reusable diapers requires 22,455 gallons of water. And this is just the beginning.
Watch the show- I recommend it, solely for the value of knowing just how much we consume in our lives. I have to make an observation, though. Trust me, I know this is a leap, but just compare how efficient natural selection can be, like in the case of the water lily, when contrasted with the machinations of the Human species. With the lily, every element of the plant has a purpose. Spikes on the bottoms to ward off fish, curled edges to push aways competitors, flowers large enough to ensnare the required insects for pollenation; there is little waste, little frivolity when the issue at hand is survival.
Do we not have the same motives in life? Are we not driven by natural impulse to procreate, to leave our mark on this earth, to entrust our genetic survival to our offspring? Then why the hell are we at such a great level so inept at grasping such a simple concept; My well being is dependent on the fitness of that which surrounds me. Why do people think that there is no consequence for their actions? I have been a member of the environmental movement since I was eleven, and I have watched with much anger as people clung to the old way of doing things, then consider changing, then talk about changing, and then really seriously talk about changing (all the while going about their daily lives as though nothing were wrong); and doing nothing.
Well, now things are happening. Corporations have exploited the complacency of our government, and have flaunted regulations that were put in place decades ago with the specific intention of protecting people. NAFTA has enabled corporations to file suit against the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican government, suing them for money lost because of legislation enacted to curb environmental damage and social problems. And this is just the beginning. How much do you think it's going to cost us just to reduce U.S. material consumption by a paltry 10%? Doing so would be a great boon for our species and our planet, but the measures that need to be taken would usurp our entire way of life, were it to be done immediately.
What we need is compromise. What we needed long ago was compromise; unfortunately, those people responsible for building our great economic empire did so with great success mostly because they unfailingly, and often deliberately, ignored the consequences of their actions. Waste was produced and disposed of with no consideration for its effect on anyone or anything it came in contact with; working conditions were designed to maximize productivity with little, (and in some cases, in spite of) regard for the well being of those doing the work; products were designed to be profitable- efficiency and quality were secondary considerations; any additions to the infrastructure of the company or the area around it were implemented with zero consideration for the environmental effect it had; just to name a few problems.
I don't mean to condemn past generations for their ignorance. I do condemn them for their lack of effort and consideration. The reason we have the problems we do today is because of a pandemic of the mind; people have little reverence for life.
Michael
April 12, 2008
The Bigger, the Gooder
Marnster & I just got back from a wonderful trip to Great Smoky Mountains National Park.On the way home, we took a little side excursion to visit the world's largest PLUS SIGN!!!
This huge plus sign, which dwarfs Marnster at over 100 ft. high, is located in Caryville, TN. We saw another giant plus sign in the cheesy tourist hole of Pigeon Forge, TN (the home of Dollywood).
Here is the lowdown on the immense plus signs- courtesy of Jill McNeal, WATE-TV, Knoxville...
--- A local pastor wants to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Knox County by having a giant cross erected on the horizon. The cross will be visible near the exits for Washington Pike and Millertown Pike on Interstate 640.
You may already be familiar with Jim Potter's work. If you've driven on Interstate 75 in Campbell County, you've seen Potter's huge steel and concrete cross in Caryville off exit 141.
Now Potter is looking for help to continue his crusade in Knox County.
"It's an area that needs a cross. It'd be a shame for Knox County and the city of Knoxville not to have cross, wouldn't it? Ain't that what the Lord would say?" Potter asks.
Since Potter became a born again Christian at age 50, he's has been doing everything he can to share his story. "The cross is the most outward appearance of our inward faith."
Valley View Pastor Justin Pratt says from the ridge behind the church, the cross could be seen for miles. "I think it would just serve as a wonderful monument to our community that we in this area still want to lift the name of Christ and show people we're not ashamed of who we've put our trust and confidence in," Pastor Pratt says.
Jim Potter hopes the cross would inspire all who see it, like a woman he heard from in the past.
"She said, 'Are you the one who put up this big cross down here in Loudon County? Said the hair's still standing up on my arms where I went by that cross.' She said, 'I had to turn around and find out more about it,'" Potter recalls.
Potter sometimes encounters resistance to his towering monuments. Several years ago, he had to take down a similar cross in Anderson County, due to zoning laws. Potter hopes his next plan will be smooth sailing as he tries to put up a cross to Knoxville.---
Each cross stands over 100 feet tall and costs about $60,000. Potter has put up 10 giant crosses from Indiana to Virginia.
Mark T.
April 9, 2008
A Reminder
A reminder that, though we often associate religious extremists with the fringes of society, stereotyping them as nothing more than the ignorant and close-minded base of the Republican party, you will find that this mentality crosses many boundaries. What would make a supposedly progressive-minded state legislator spew this kind of bile? Religion. Her statement that, "It's dangerous for our children to even know your philosophy exists!" sums up the problem that we Freethinkers face in this society. We are not hated just for disagreeing. We are loathed and feared because we exist.
Michael
Top Ten Books
From my copy of Publishers Lunch today:
Harris Interactive surveyed American adults to find out "What is your favorite book of all time?" The answers:
1. The Bible
2. Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
3. Lord of the Rings (series), by J.R.R. Tolkien
4. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
5. The Stand, by Stephen King
6. The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
7. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
8. Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown
9. Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
10. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
That number one book is still wielding far too much influence for my taste. Do you think a majority would still claim it as their favorite, if they concluded that it was a complete fiction? Or almost completely fiction with a tiny bit of nonfiction now and then in reference to people's names or the occasional true event?
I don't see The God Delusion on the list. Or, The Pale Blue Eye, a stunning crime novel that came out in the last 2 years. Or Toni Morrison's masterpiece, Beloved. Or Richard Wright's Native Son. Or Cormac McCarthy's The Road. I love them all, and more, and cannot choose between them.
If anyone had asked me, my favorite book is the dictionary. After that there are too many to narrow it down, but none are on the above list. I choose the dictionary because all the other books are inside it, they're just jumbled up. (When I say dictionary I mean to include all dictionaries, accounting for different versions and different languages.)
What's your favorite book? Is it on the above list? Are you surprised by the titles on the list? Pleased by them? Disappointed?
Harris Interactive surveyed American adults to find out "What is your favorite book of all time?" The answers:
1. The Bible
2. Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
3. Lord of the Rings (series), by J.R.R. Tolkien
4. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
5. The Stand, by Stephen King
6. The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
7. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
8. Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown
9. Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
10. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
That number one book is still wielding far too much influence for my taste. Do you think a majority would still claim it as their favorite, if they concluded that it was a complete fiction? Or almost completely fiction with a tiny bit of nonfiction now and then in reference to people's names or the occasional true event?
I don't see The God Delusion on the list. Or, The Pale Blue Eye, a stunning crime novel that came out in the last 2 years. Or Toni Morrison's masterpiece, Beloved. Or Richard Wright's Native Son. Or Cormac McCarthy's The Road. I love them all, and more, and cannot choose between them.
If anyone had asked me, my favorite book is the dictionary. After that there are too many to narrow it down, but none are on the above list. I choose the dictionary because all the other books are inside it, they're just jumbled up. (When I say dictionary I mean to include all dictionaries, accounting for different versions and different languages.)
What's your favorite book? Is it on the above list? Are you surprised by the titles on the list? Pleased by them? Disappointed?
April 6, 2008
Three Things That Define A Freethinker, According To Michael
One- Rejection of dogma
So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilisation, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age — the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of woman by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night — are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless. - Preface to Les Misérables
Dogma is, to sum its intent and consequence equally, the end of thought. A truly insidious idea; that one source provides the answers to all questions, the justification for all action, and the motive for all desire. While not exclusively a religious element, it is embraced most forcefully and most consistently by the faithful. Once a person commits themself to dogma, their world-view becomes corrupted by the necessity of maintaining their belief. I do not mean to say we should avoid any commitment to an ideal; rather, it is important for a Freethinker to vet any and all ideas that come to them, so as to ascertain the truth, and to commit themselves to that which proves itself worthy of devotion. Love, peace, happiness, enterprise, personal achievement; friendship, family, sex, art, humor, skill, exercise; striving to have fun, striving to try new things, striving to experience new ideas and new ways of living, striving to better ourselves, our family, our friends, our community, our country, and our planet, and our earth, and our environment; striving to achieve the closest thing to utopia (while recognizing that a true utopia is unachievable); I challenge anyone to tell me how this ideal is unrealistic. And, I challenge anyone to tell me how wanting to experience the most out of life, as I believe any true Freethinker should, is dogma.
Two- Acknowledgement of Human Progress
There is the past and its continuing horrors: violence, war, prejudices against those who are different, outrageous monopolization of the good earth's wealth by a few, political power in the hands of liars and murderers, the building of prisons instead of schools, the poisoning of the press and the entire culture by money. It is easy to become discouraged observing this, especially since this is what the press and television insist that we look at, and nothing more.
But there is also the bubbling of change under the surface of obedience: the growing revulsion against endless wars, the insistence of women all over the world that they will no longer tolerate abuse and subordination... There is civil disobedience against the military machine, protest against police brutality directed especially at people of color. - Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States
We hear constantly how violent and obscene our society is, how nobody looks out for one another and how good things used to be. I have heard many times from people much older than me about how communities used to look out for one another, and how they and the church helped to keep children under control and violence at a minimum. It's a nice thought. But it is a idea that has absolutely no basis on reality. I could explain why a person is likely to feel that things were better when they were young, but I'd rather offer a single historical perspective. I think it gets my point across well enough.
Violence has decreased dramatically in the last century. I was unaware of this until last summer. It was a revelation that helped make me aware of just how far we had come in the last few centuries. What I learned was that, if you were to tabulate the number of people killed by human hands in each century, starting with the earliest centuries we can accurately draw information from, all the way to the end of the twentieth century, you would notice two things. One, for the most part, there was a steady rate at which people slaughtered each other from year to year. The second thing, is that approximately 500 million people died in the twentieth century at the hands of another person; that number is half of what should have been expected, if you were to assume that the rate of killing from one century to another were remain consistent.
Think about it. In the century in which we saw a dramatic population rise, a drastic increase in our ability to sow destruction across the earth, via jets and missiles and nukes, with more people competing for the same amount of land and resources, we had less killing. I must also point out that the religiosity of the human race is arguably at its lowest, having declined over the same time period. Whatever explanation you may offer at the micro level, the macro truth is the one I am stating here: education, communication, and greater awareness of the plights of other people has improved the quality of life for everyone, and there is no reason to suspect that that trend will change.
Three- Quest For Wisdom & Knowledge
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly. - Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes"
The truth shall set you free; a mantra I both deplore and accept; far too many long-winded and empty sermons have preached the greatness of "truth". The corruption of an idea that should be impervious to misuse is by far the greatest offense the masses of small minds have forced upon us. Ask someone to tell you their name, their age, their gender, their hair color, their occupation, and you will get a response with little or no hesitation, without the need to think too carefully. Now ask them to make a true statement. I've tried it. Nearly everyone I posed this question to was confounded by the very concept. Why? Say something that is true: my name is Michael, I am a man, as I type this sentence, the sun is facing the opposite side of the earth. It shouldn't be difficult to ascertain truth in life. We are bombarded with things that are true every second we are awake, from birth until death. Yet, thanks to the actions of no one and nothing but our fellow Human beings, we have contrived to live in a world where anything, and everything, is subject to irrational and illogical interpretation. People define reality as it relates to their own existence; every action, every sense, every event, every intent, every single thing they become aware of is subject to interpretation as they see fit.
It is easy to ignore or diminish the difficulties in life; it is hard, and often dangerous to confront them; it is impossible to eradicate them. But, we all need to find a purpose in this life. It is the universal question everyone asks; why? Each one of us has a different answer. I do not feel as though I am being unfair when I say that not all answers are created equal. To declare that your purpose in life is to sow destruction and malice upon the earth is deplorable, just as it is to believe that your only reason for existing is to prepare yourself for the "next" stage; there are many ways to squander the only thing we know for certain we will ever have. It is my absolute conviction that our greatest challenge in life is our effort to find meaning in it. I believe that identifying what it is we want to achieve, be it something great or something benign, is the crucial first step in finding happiness from life.
So what do truth and purpose have in common? The absence of one corrupts the other. Ignorance, perpetuated falsehoods, and out right lies have affected Humanity's existence greatly, and not for the better. We are still emerging from an intellectual coma that non-reason and dogma had put us in. There is still much that needs to be done in terms of progress; whether it be our system of education or health, our government, our infrastructure, our social and economic and foreign relations, our culture, our technological advancement, our ecological impact; these things are still in their infancy in terms of what we can achieve, but already we have done much to set our species off course. We must assert control, both within our own minds and as a collective society, if we wish to thrive. We cannot let the trials and travails of past generations hold us back. We must learn to utilize the lessons of the past to guide us. We must not let fables and ignorance dictate where science and reason have already spoken. We must accept that in life, there are some lines that should, and must be drawn. In short, I believe we should all commit ourselves to discovering what really is "true", and through that, what is right.
Michael
So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilisation, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age — the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of woman by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night — are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless. - Preface to Les Misérables
Dogma is, to sum its intent and consequence equally, the end of thought. A truly insidious idea; that one source provides the answers to all questions, the justification for all action, and the motive for all desire. While not exclusively a religious element, it is embraced most forcefully and most consistently by the faithful. Once a person commits themself to dogma, their world-view becomes corrupted by the necessity of maintaining their belief. I do not mean to say we should avoid any commitment to an ideal; rather, it is important for a Freethinker to vet any and all ideas that come to them, so as to ascertain the truth, and to commit themselves to that which proves itself worthy of devotion. Love, peace, happiness, enterprise, personal achievement; friendship, family, sex, art, humor, skill, exercise; striving to have fun, striving to try new things, striving to experience new ideas and new ways of living, striving to better ourselves, our family, our friends, our community, our country, and our planet, and our earth, and our environment; striving to achieve the closest thing to utopia (while recognizing that a true utopia is unachievable); I challenge anyone to tell me how this ideal is unrealistic. And, I challenge anyone to tell me how wanting to experience the most out of life, as I believe any true Freethinker should, is dogma.
Two- Acknowledgement of Human Progress
There is the past and its continuing horrors: violence, war, prejudices against those who are different, outrageous monopolization of the good earth's wealth by a few, political power in the hands of liars and murderers, the building of prisons instead of schools, the poisoning of the press and the entire culture by money. It is easy to become discouraged observing this, especially since this is what the press and television insist that we look at, and nothing more.
But there is also the bubbling of change under the surface of obedience: the growing revulsion against endless wars, the insistence of women all over the world that they will no longer tolerate abuse and subordination... There is civil disobedience against the military machine, protest against police brutality directed especially at people of color. - Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States
We hear constantly how violent and obscene our society is, how nobody looks out for one another and how good things used to be. I have heard many times from people much older than me about how communities used to look out for one another, and how they and the church helped to keep children under control and violence at a minimum. It's a nice thought. But it is a idea that has absolutely no basis on reality. I could explain why a person is likely to feel that things were better when they were young, but I'd rather offer a single historical perspective. I think it gets my point across well enough.
Violence has decreased dramatically in the last century. I was unaware of this until last summer. It was a revelation that helped make me aware of just how far we had come in the last few centuries. What I learned was that, if you were to tabulate the number of people killed by human hands in each century, starting with the earliest centuries we can accurately draw information from, all the way to the end of the twentieth century, you would notice two things. One, for the most part, there was a steady rate at which people slaughtered each other from year to year. The second thing, is that approximately 500 million people died in the twentieth century at the hands of another person; that number is half of what should have been expected, if you were to assume that the rate of killing from one century to another were remain consistent.
Think about it. In the century in which we saw a dramatic population rise, a drastic increase in our ability to sow destruction across the earth, via jets and missiles and nukes, with more people competing for the same amount of land and resources, we had less killing. I must also point out that the religiosity of the human race is arguably at its lowest, having declined over the same time period. Whatever explanation you may offer at the micro level, the macro truth is the one I am stating here: education, communication, and greater awareness of the plights of other people has improved the quality of life for everyone, and there is no reason to suspect that that trend will change.
Three- Quest For Wisdom & Knowledge
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly. - Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes"
The truth shall set you free; a mantra I both deplore and accept; far too many long-winded and empty sermons have preached the greatness of "truth". The corruption of an idea that should be impervious to misuse is by far the greatest offense the masses of small minds have forced upon us. Ask someone to tell you their name, their age, their gender, their hair color, their occupation, and you will get a response with little or no hesitation, without the need to think too carefully. Now ask them to make a true statement. I've tried it. Nearly everyone I posed this question to was confounded by the very concept. Why? Say something that is true: my name is Michael, I am a man, as I type this sentence, the sun is facing the opposite side of the earth. It shouldn't be difficult to ascertain truth in life. We are bombarded with things that are true every second we are awake, from birth until death. Yet, thanks to the actions of no one and nothing but our fellow Human beings, we have contrived to live in a world where anything, and everything, is subject to irrational and illogical interpretation. People define reality as it relates to their own existence; every action, every sense, every event, every intent, every single thing they become aware of is subject to interpretation as they see fit.
It is easy to ignore or diminish the difficulties in life; it is hard, and often dangerous to confront them; it is impossible to eradicate them. But, we all need to find a purpose in this life. It is the universal question everyone asks; why? Each one of us has a different answer. I do not feel as though I am being unfair when I say that not all answers are created equal. To declare that your purpose in life is to sow destruction and malice upon the earth is deplorable, just as it is to believe that your only reason for existing is to prepare yourself for the "next" stage; there are many ways to squander the only thing we know for certain we will ever have. It is my absolute conviction that our greatest challenge in life is our effort to find meaning in it. I believe that identifying what it is we want to achieve, be it something great or something benign, is the crucial first step in finding happiness from life.
So what do truth and purpose have in common? The absence of one corrupts the other. Ignorance, perpetuated falsehoods, and out right lies have affected Humanity's existence greatly, and not for the better. We are still emerging from an intellectual coma that non-reason and dogma had put us in. There is still much that needs to be done in terms of progress; whether it be our system of education or health, our government, our infrastructure, our social and economic and foreign relations, our culture, our technological advancement, our ecological impact; these things are still in their infancy in terms of what we can achieve, but already we have done much to set our species off course. We must assert control, both within our own minds and as a collective society, if we wish to thrive. We cannot let the trials and travails of past generations hold us back. We must learn to utilize the lessons of the past to guide us. We must not let fables and ignorance dictate where science and reason have already spoken. We must accept that in life, there are some lines that should, and must be drawn. In short, I believe we should all commit ourselves to discovering what really is "true", and through that, what is right.
Michael
March 29, 2008
A Christian Skewers ID
A recent exchange on the subject of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution/"Expelled", courtesy of the ABC News "Science & Society" blog...
TOM said;
"Anyone who believes we evolved from apes without a single transitional species to be found (and there should be "countless" millions of them in the fossil record) is clearly operating on blind faith.
There are SO many gaps in evolutionary theory, how it is so widely accepted is miraculous. This movie will expose alot of truth that has been withheld for too long."
To which my hero, RAYMOND, replied;
"Of course there are transitional fossils found! Any student of the subject would know this. And we really are beginning to collect an impression collection of human/hominid fossils stretching way back. Of course, every time a new fossil is found we create another "gap." So the abundance of gaps in the fossil record is a testimony to the abundance of fossils we have found, a huge amount of evidence. The evidence is not only in the fossil record itself, but also in our own DNA.
I am a former creationist. I have not lost faith in God one little bit, but I have lost faith in creationism and the pseudo-science that is done in the name of God. None of it is real science, none of it follows the evidence to come to a conclusion, but all of it, all of the evidence and interpretation of it in creationism is bent to a predetermined conclusion. Lying is pretty much an all-the-time event, including lying about what science says, what science is, what science does, and why it does it. These lies are blatant and fill their literature. They take what scientists say and remove the context and twist the words to make it appear that they are saying something else or admitting to something they are not. They easily ignore anything that does not agree with their predetermined position, and continue to repeat arguments or claim as evidence things which have been conclusively shown to be false.
Dawkins was absolutely right to be incensed by the trickery of these hypocrites. True Christians would have been straightforward and honest in their dealings. The interviews in the picture were stolen by lies.
So please, fellow Christians, forgive me when I say that no good thing can come from this. Any philosophy or position which must be supported by lying is corrupt, and creationism is about as corrupt as it is possible to get. Hmmm. Now what punishment did Christ say would be handed out to "workers of iniquity" who claimed to follow him?"
A thousand tips of the hat to you, Raymond!!!
Mark T.
March 25, 2008
Intelligent Design 1:2
Intelligent Design proponents are twistin' and spinnin'!
Premise Media, which is planning to release Ben Stein's "Expelled" on April 18th, had this to say about the PZ Myers affair:
“It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie. Yet these men applaud when professors throughout the nation are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for mentioning Intelligent Design,” said producer Mark Mathis. Mathis was at the event that has raised this controversy.
Mathis continued, “I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He is distraught because he could not see a movie. What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he will think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory.”
"...simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory"... sounds rather scientific. But wouldn't "simply because they want to teach religion as science" be closer to the truth?
The truth comes out when one digs a bit deeper... here is an excerpt from the official "Expelled" blog:
"The proponents of evolutionism are so fanatical in promoting their belief system, and in forcing it in EVERYBODY, they just give no chance for any other explanation to be heard.
But here is the way it really is. It is called the Gap Theory, and it comports both with the Genesis account and the physical evidence:
Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2... the most common variety of “gap theory” assumes that a chronological gap occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which vast spans of geologic time are presumed to have elapsed. It is thus postulated that the Earth was initially created in the distant past, and that all geologic events pointing to an old Earth transpired before some event that reduced the Earth to a state of formlessness or chaos as described in Genesis 1:2."
STOP!!! It's THAT "ridiculous book" again...
Mark T.
Premise Media, which is planning to release Ben Stein's "Expelled" on April 18th, had this to say about the PZ Myers affair:
“It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie. Yet these men applaud when professors throughout the nation are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for mentioning Intelligent Design,” said producer Mark Mathis. Mathis was at the event that has raised this controversy.
Mathis continued, “I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He is distraught because he could not see a movie. What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he will think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory.”
"...simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory"... sounds rather scientific. But wouldn't "simply because they want to teach religion as science" be closer to the truth?
The truth comes out when one digs a bit deeper... here is an excerpt from the official "Expelled" blog:
"The proponents of evolutionism are so fanatical in promoting their belief system, and in forcing it in EVERYBODY, they just give no chance for any other explanation to be heard.
But here is the way it really is. It is called the Gap Theory, and it comports both with the Genesis account and the physical evidence:
Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2... the most common variety of “gap theory” assumes that a chronological gap occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which vast spans of geologic time are presumed to have elapsed. It is thus postulated that the Earth was initially created in the distant past, and that all geologic events pointing to an old Earth transpired before some event that reduced the Earth to a state of formlessness or chaos as described in Genesis 1:2."
STOP!!! It's THAT "ridiculous book" again...
Mark T.
March 19, 2008
Cleveland's Freethinking Past
The Cleveland area was a hotbed of freethought in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
Here is an excerpt from "The School and the Immigrant" by Herbert Adolphus Miller (1916).
BOHEMIANS
It is impossible to understand the Bohemians in America without some knowledge of Bohemian history. They are one of the national divisions of the Slavs. The Bohemians who dwell in the northwestern part of Austria, directly between Dresden and Vienna, have been the subject of more German influence than any other Slavic people, and in many respects are indistinguishable from the Germans. In 1415 the church and the state burned at the stake John Huss, a Bohemian priest, the first martyr to religious freedom. A revolt took place which made Bohemia Protestant until the Thirty Years War, which began in 1618. After that Catholicism was re-established, and to this day embraces nearly all the inhabitants of Bohemia.
In America, beginning more than 50 years ago, a reaction was organized until at the present time approximately two-thirds of an estimated million are aggressive free-thinkers. In Cleveland about half are Catholics and the rest free-thinkers, with only a few hundred Protestants. Both parties have many organizations and, while the feeling between the two is very strong, the common Slavic feeling manifests itself most strongly in antipathy for the German language. The free-thinkers are the more nationalistic, and fortunately so, for with the loss of the control of the church there is a tendency to materialism which can be counteracted only by devotion to some social cause. There is no group to which the mother tongue and national history can have more moral value. This is in part because their history is peculiarly rich. Commemus, one of the world's greatest educators, was a Bohemian, exiled during the Thirty Years War. The influence of Bohemian history has been such that the people refuse to accept dogma, and even the children argue theology.
Even the children? Must've been nice! Many Czechs who settled in this area were Freethinkers also.
May the Cleveland area be a hotbed of freethought once again! (eventually...)
MT
Here is an excerpt from "The School and the Immigrant" by Herbert Adolphus Miller (1916).
BOHEMIANS
It is impossible to understand the Bohemians in America without some knowledge of Bohemian history. They are one of the national divisions of the Slavs. The Bohemians who dwell in the northwestern part of Austria, directly between Dresden and Vienna, have been the subject of more German influence than any other Slavic people, and in many respects are indistinguishable from the Germans. In 1415 the church and the state burned at the stake John Huss, a Bohemian priest, the first martyr to religious freedom. A revolt took place which made Bohemia Protestant until the Thirty Years War, which began in 1618. After that Catholicism was re-established, and to this day embraces nearly all the inhabitants of Bohemia.
In America, beginning more than 50 years ago, a reaction was organized until at the present time approximately two-thirds of an estimated million are aggressive free-thinkers. In Cleveland about half are Catholics and the rest free-thinkers, with only a few hundred Protestants. Both parties have many organizations and, while the feeling between the two is very strong, the common Slavic feeling manifests itself most strongly in antipathy for the German language. The free-thinkers are the more nationalistic, and fortunately so, for with the loss of the control of the church there is a tendency to materialism which can be counteracted only by devotion to some social cause. There is no group to which the mother tongue and national history can have more moral value. This is in part because their history is peculiarly rich. Commemus, one of the world's greatest educators, was a Bohemian, exiled during the Thirty Years War. The influence of Bohemian history has been such that the people refuse to accept dogma, and even the children argue theology.
Even the children? Must've been nice! Many Czechs who settled in this area were Freethinkers also.
May the Cleveland area be a hotbed of freethought once again! (eventually...)
MT
March 11, 2008
Recent CFT Ruminations
Here are some excerpts from the Cleveland Freethinkers' recent email threads...
JOSH, on a common misinterpretation of atheism:
I think atheism (as most I know define it) is misunderstood. It's not the belief in no god, but rather the lack of a belief in god. There is a big difference. I don't say "there is no god". I say "whether there is god or not, I've seen nothing to make think he has any effect on my life, so I choose to live as if he does not exist". Does that make sense? I'm through and through a skeptic, so I'll always leave open the possibility that I'm wrong, but I don't let it affect the way I live.
RICHARD, on the value of an Atheist speaking his/her mind to a Theist:
It does much to speak words of reality to those that try to live outside of it in their own minds. It takes more work to protect their religious minds than it takes for us to simply live. The majority of religious people do not work very hard to protect their dogma... they become vulnerable to glimpses of reality.
CLOUDBERRY, on the "atheist's burden" (the challenge to "prove" that God doesn't exist):
The thing about the God dilemma is that it seems to be hinging on this: If I say I believe in God, and I don't consider myself stupid enough to believe in something unless it exists, then I believe God exists... and it is an insult to me to say that God doesn't exist. So, if I say God exists, and someone questions that, I begin to revert to the methods of childhood. I get mad, and then I say, "all right- you think I'm so wrong, prove it. I bet you can't."
The trouble is, there is no way I know of to prove that something does not exist- even something simple, like an apple. If I am holding an apple and I say I believe this apple exists, because I can see it and touch it and smell it and eat it, then almost everyone will agree that the apple is real. Very few people will argue the apple does not exist. They might call it by another name, but they will agree there is such a thing as an apple. But, if I have no apple, and no one has ever seen or touched or eaten an apple, and I insist that I have a vision of an apple in my head and I believe it exists, does that mean it is real?
GORDON, in response to the following statement: "Agnosticism leads to truth and investigation without limitations."
Just for clarity, when one arrives at truth, does it have to be taken on faith?
Zinger! More to follow.
MT
JOSH, on a common misinterpretation of atheism:
I think atheism (as most I know define it) is misunderstood. It's not the belief in no god, but rather the lack of a belief in god. There is a big difference. I don't say "there is no god". I say "whether there is god or not, I've seen nothing to make think he has any effect on my life, so I choose to live as if he does not exist". Does that make sense? I'm through and through a skeptic, so I'll always leave open the possibility that I'm wrong, but I don't let it affect the way I live.
RICHARD, on the value of an Atheist speaking his/her mind to a Theist:
It does much to speak words of reality to those that try to live outside of it in their own minds. It takes more work to protect their religious minds than it takes for us to simply live. The majority of religious people do not work very hard to protect their dogma... they become vulnerable to glimpses of reality.
CLOUDBERRY, on the "atheist's burden" (the challenge to "prove" that God doesn't exist):
The thing about the God dilemma is that it seems to be hinging on this: If I say I believe in God, and I don't consider myself stupid enough to believe in something unless it exists, then I believe God exists... and it is an insult to me to say that God doesn't exist. So, if I say God exists, and someone questions that, I begin to revert to the methods of childhood. I get mad, and then I say, "all right- you think I'm so wrong, prove it. I bet you can't."
The trouble is, there is no way I know of to prove that something does not exist- even something simple, like an apple. If I am holding an apple and I say I believe this apple exists, because I can see it and touch it and smell it and eat it, then almost everyone will agree that the apple is real. Very few people will argue the apple does not exist. They might call it by another name, but they will agree there is such a thing as an apple. But, if I have no apple, and no one has ever seen or touched or eaten an apple, and I insist that I have a vision of an apple in my head and I believe it exists, does that mean it is real?
GORDON, in response to the following statement: "Agnosticism leads to truth and investigation without limitations."
Just for clarity, when one arrives at truth, does it have to be taken on faith?
Zinger! More to follow.
MT
March 2, 2008
Three Points of Atheism
In a recent Cleveland Freethinkers discussion thread, I attempted to present three points of evidence on which I base my atheism.
Joining me in this part of the discussion (which has not concluded as of yet) are Paul, an Agnostic (as far as I know)- and Michael (CFT's Blogmaster), an Atheist like myself. Both Paul and Michael gave their analysis on each of the three points.
Here is what ensued... (Mark blue, Paul red, Michael black)
1) The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being (all hearsay & manipulated science are ruled out).
1) I agree with the above because it is true. However if we flip the coin we have: The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the non-existence of a Supreme Being etc....
1) The argument of evidence, or lack thereof, in defense or critique of god, is one that I feel very strongly about, and on that I personally believe best illustrates the nature of the debate. A person who claims that the lack of evidence of non existence can be construed as possible evidence of existence is revealing them self to be guilty of wanting that existence to be true, to the extent that they are willing to reject any argument that conflicts with that desire. Desire does not have any influence over reality, and as such cannot be used in defense of a position.
2) Being human myself, I know of the human mind's propensity for falling prey to both fear of the unknown and wishful thinking.
2) We can wish there is a God and we can wish there isn't a God. This statement proves nothing other than human beings can wish. It doesn't add anything credible to whether or not God does or does not exist. It simply levels the conversation to one of choice!
2) As I said previously, desire does not have any influence over reality. You clearly recognize that thinking along these lines reduces the argument to one of choice- I have to ask, why then should we dismiss the significance of choice in defense of the the god hypothesis? I think we can all agree that we are, by nature, atheist at birth, needing to be influenced by our environments and families in order to embrace any understanding of a higher power. Why cannot it be argued that those who believe in a higher power are doing out of no more compelling motivation than their own selfish desires? Why is the natural position, one of atheistic agnosticism, the position that must do all the intellectual heavy lifting?
3) The observable, measurable natural universe is capable of self-organization, self-regulation, and self-replication within the framework of nature itself- no "intelligent designer" needed!
3) Says who? You! A person can say: The observable ............of nature itself needs an intelligent designer. Your statement is faith based because you can't prove it. There are colors the human eye cannot see and sounds we can't hear. Because we can't see or hear a thing with our five senses does not mean it doesn't exist! Therefore something could be standing next to us made of a color we can't see, speaking to us in a range we can't hear! I'm a philosopher but I'm also a realist and admit what I can't prove to be true or false.
3) I have to point out that you have not addressed Mark's statement with your comment, but rather suggested that he makes it out of faith. I agree with Mark's position that the natural world functions without intervention, and that there is no omnipotent, invisible hand manipulating things in our absence. I disagree with your assessment of that position being a faith claim. As I understand it, a faith claim has it's origins in the human mind, not in the observable natural world. We can, and have, and do, and will, for our entire lives, be able to observe and interpret and manipulate with great effect the machinations of the natural world. This is no faith claim. I can plant a seed, give it water and light, and in time it will grow into a adult specimen of a plant. If I planted a sunflower seed, I could have faith that it would grow into a pear tree, but the reality of nature dictates that things operate independently of our thoughts and desires, and that I would be disappointed with the outcome, as every person is who bases their faith outside of what is real, determined through observation, reason, and experimentation. god is not obervable, his existence cannot be proved through experimentation (I will argue that is have been disproved through experimentation), and the very notion of it's existence is unreasonable (though understandable). Therefore, god cannot be real.
MT
Joining me in this part of the discussion (which has not concluded as of yet) are Paul, an Agnostic (as far as I know)- and Michael (CFT's Blogmaster), an Atheist like myself. Both Paul and Michael gave their analysis on each of the three points.
Here is what ensued... (Mark blue, Paul red, Michael black)
1) The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being (all hearsay & manipulated science are ruled out).
1) I agree with the above because it is true. However if we flip the coin we have: The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the non-existence of a Supreme Being etc....
1) The argument of evidence, or lack thereof, in defense or critique of god, is one that I feel very strongly about, and on that I personally believe best illustrates the nature of the debate. A person who claims that the lack of evidence of non existence can be construed as possible evidence of existence is revealing them self to be guilty of wanting that existence to be true, to the extent that they are willing to reject any argument that conflicts with that desire. Desire does not have any influence over reality, and as such cannot be used in defense of a position.
2) Being human myself, I know of the human mind's propensity for falling prey to both fear of the unknown and wishful thinking.
2) We can wish there is a God and we can wish there isn't a God. This statement proves nothing other than human beings can wish. It doesn't add anything credible to whether or not God does or does not exist. It simply levels the conversation to one of choice!
2) As I said previously, desire does not have any influence over reality. You clearly recognize that thinking along these lines reduces the argument to one of choice- I have to ask, why then should we dismiss the significance of choice in defense of the the god hypothesis? I think we can all agree that we are, by nature, atheist at birth, needing to be influenced by our environments and families in order to embrace any understanding of a higher power. Why cannot it be argued that those who believe in a higher power are doing out of no more compelling motivation than their own selfish desires? Why is the natural position, one of atheistic agnosticism, the position that must do all the intellectual heavy lifting?
3) The observable, measurable natural universe is capable of self-organization, self-regulation, and self-replication within the framework of nature itself- no "intelligent designer" needed!
3) Says who? You! A person can say: The observable ............of nature itself needs an intelligent designer. Your statement is faith based because you can't prove it. There are colors the human eye cannot see and sounds we can't hear. Because we can't see or hear a thing with our five senses does not mean it doesn't exist! Therefore something could be standing next to us made of a color we can't see, speaking to us in a range we can't hear! I'm a philosopher but I'm also a realist and admit what I can't prove to be true or false.
3) I have to point out that you have not addressed Mark's statement with your comment, but rather suggested that he makes it out of faith. I agree with Mark's position that the natural world functions without intervention, and that there is no omnipotent, invisible hand manipulating things in our absence. I disagree with your assessment of that position being a faith claim. As I understand it, a faith claim has it's origins in the human mind, not in the observable natural world. We can, and have, and do, and will, for our entire lives, be able to observe and interpret and manipulate with great effect the machinations of the natural world. This is no faith claim. I can plant a seed, give it water and light, and in time it will grow into a adult specimen of a plant. If I planted a sunflower seed, I could have faith that it would grow into a pear tree, but the reality of nature dictates that things operate independently of our thoughts and desires, and that I would be disappointed with the outcome, as every person is who bases their faith outside of what is real, determined through observation, reason, and experimentation. god is not obervable, his existence cannot be proved through experimentation (I will argue that is have been disproved through experimentation), and the very notion of it's existence is unreasonable (though understandable). Therefore, god cannot be real.
MT
February 17, 2008
Washin' Some Brain
Behold the genius of Kent Hovind!
In today's sermon, Kent "sheds some light" on Atheism/Agnosticism...
February 13, 2008
Nice Guys Finish First
This is a short film Richard Dawkins did for the BBC in 1987. Considering the era in which it was filmed, I find the argument he makes compelling.
Michael
Michael
February 5, 2008
Free Market Capitalism as Religion?
Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of
the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Okay, this passage from the founding father of Capitalism, Adam Smith, may be taken out of context. Smith's invisible hand is really a metaphor for his prediction that self-interest will drive the market to a relative balance. He admits later in his landmark work, The Wealth of Nations, that the system would not be perfect and would require some regulation to prevent corruption, collusion, and monopoly.
250 years later, the substance of Smith's work has been forgotten, and the invisible hand has suddenly become a god in itself. Many on the Christian right have taken the hand literally to mean that of their own god. Contemporarychristianity.org writes:
If one holds to a strong theology of Providence and common grace it is possible to believe that God uses the market mechanism (Smith’s “invisible hand”) to achieve “least worst outcomes” in a Fallen world.
But more so, even the non-religious have assumed the belief that the market will always just correct itself, and that any regulation or intervention is harmful. When a leading hedge fund lost billions and shocked the market, and people cried for regulation, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the market should stay self-regulated and that regulation would make things worse. Greenspan said this about the famous Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed to break up corrupt monopolies at the turn of the 20th century:
No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible.
This kind of absolute faith is harmful whether in religion or economy. In the last decade, broadband internet in the US has slowly been falling behind Europe and Asia in speed and access. Just a few days ago, the Bush administration released it's strategy for pulling America back to the forefront. What was that plan? Do nothing. Rather than providing steps for better broadband, the report simply regurgitates the arguments that regulation is bad, government intervention is bad, and if we leave the market alone it will catch itself up. Here's a sample from the "plan" Network Nation: Broadband in America 2007:
Experience teaches that when government tries to substitute its
judgment for that of the free market, or otherwise anticipate consumer
demand by favoring one product or vendor over another, it can easily
distort the market place
The free market has many positives. It is fairly stable, it fosters innovation, and it allows a lot of personal freedom, but we would be no different from religious zealots if we believed absolutely that the market will perfect itself without human intervention. Smith's invisible hand was just a metaphor for people's tendency to make society better through self interest. People drive the market, and people need to fix it. There is no invisible hand. It's a shame Smith has been taken so out of context.
On a side note - interesting that those who believe in the invisible hand of god and those who believe in the invisible hand of the market both tend to be in the same political party...
February 2, 2008
Federalism
This is something I have been thinking about quite a bit recently, and I am working on a essay I will post on our blog/forum, but first I wanted to see what the group as a whole has to say on this subject.
As someone who is very much interested in all things related to Human interaction, and as someone who invests a great deal of their time in politics and government, I have been considering the role and possible future evolution of Federalism within our society. To clarify the topic, I offer the initial paragraph from Wikipedia's entry on the subject: Political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. The United States is the second largest and oldest Federation, with India being the most populous; Germany,Russia, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands,Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina being European Federations; Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia being the only African Federations; Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and Canada joining the U.S. in the New World; Australia, Malaysia, Iraq, Nepal, and the United Arab Emirates from Asia.
You can see the diversity here. It seems to me that Federalism is the governmental system of choice for nations with a tenacity for change. The African countries aside (as, sadly, they always seem to be), the countries that have adopted Federalism as their government structure appear to have three traits in common: they lack long-term historical and cultural independence, (in the way the French, Chinese, British, Iranians and Spanish have had, for example); they have all seen significant changes as far as their wealth and security are concerned; and, thanks to innumerable factors that cannot be listed here, have a great deal of exposure to outside influences that are reflected in their modern day culture.
So, my questions for you are: Do you feel, as I do, that the Federalist structure of Nation->State->Individual is effective and beneficial to our well being? What role should each element play within this system, and what power and rights should each posses? Where do corporations, churches, organizations (ours, the NRA, MADD, the many guilds and groups of Hollywood, etc.), hospitals, colleges and universities fit in, and how should they function within the Federal system, and what authority should each of them posses on their own?
I will post this on our blog, and in our forum, as well as with several other groups that I am a part of. My intent is to clarify for myself specifically, and those around me who are interested, just what direction our government should be heading in. I appreciate everyone's input, and look forward to reading what you have to say.
Michael
As someone who is very much interested in all things related to Human interaction, and as someone who invests a great deal of their time in politics and government, I have been considering the role and possible future evolution of Federalism within our society. To clarify the topic, I offer the initial paragraph from Wikipedia's entry on the subject: Political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. The United States is the second largest and oldest Federation, with India being the most populous; Germany,Russia, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands,Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina being European Federations; Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia being the only African Federations; Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and Canada joining the U.S. in the New World; Australia, Malaysia, Iraq, Nepal, and the United Arab Emirates from Asia.
You can see the diversity here. It seems to me that Federalism is the governmental system of choice for nations with a tenacity for change. The African countries aside (as, sadly, they always seem to be), the countries that have adopted Federalism as their government structure appear to have three traits in common: they lack long-term historical and cultural independence, (in the way the French, Chinese, British, Iranians and Spanish have had, for example); they have all seen significant changes as far as their wealth and security are concerned; and, thanks to innumerable factors that cannot be listed here, have a great deal of exposure to outside influences that are reflected in their modern day culture.
So, my questions for you are: Do you feel, as I do, that the Federalist structure of Nation->State->Individual is effective and beneficial to our well being? What role should each element play within this system, and what power and rights should each posses? Where do corporations, churches, organizations (ours, the NRA, MADD, the many guilds and groups of Hollywood, etc.), hospitals, colleges and universities fit in, and how should they function within the Federal system, and what authority should each of them posses on their own?
I will post this on our blog, and in our forum, as well as with several other groups that I am a part of. My intent is to clarify for myself specifically, and those around me who are interested, just what direction our government should be heading in. I appreciate everyone's input, and look forward to reading what you have to say.
Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)