A virtual memorial page was created by Prof. Kelly here: http://www.jerry-waldvogel.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Temp. Memoriam Post
Dr. Jerry Waldvogel, professor for my Biol 210 course, passed away last Saturday of a heart attack at his home. Will write a lengthier post later, feeling glum and the dreary, rainy weather isn't helping much (though in a way it is because I sincerely love cold, wet weather).
A virtual memorial page was created by Prof. Kelly here: http://www.jerry-waldvogel.virtual-memorials.com/
A virtual memorial page was created by Prof. Kelly here: http://www.jerry-waldvogel.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Welcome to the family, Darwinius!
Big news item of the day: Darwinius masillae. New primate fossil, apparently found in Germany in 1983, but purchased by the lead scientist on this particular research cookie in 2006. Why not reveal it then? Because you have to figure out what it is and present it in a neat, crispy package fit for information consumption.
So here we are, roughly two-three years later, igniting a media frenzy of "Missing Link?!?" articles. Myers discusses and links to MOAR discussion about why this label is inappropriate here. Relevant points include the fact that EVERY fossil is a link between other fossils, and that this particular fossil, while important and undoubtedly fascinating, likely isn't going to shake the scientific establishment like an asteroid hurtling to Earth.
However, I'd like to bring up another interesting point which hasn't been brought up yet- such widespread coverage will hopefully attract more people to the pure awesomeness of biology. Much like a recent xkcd (which apparently won't fully show in this format, AGGH. Livejournal: 1, Blogger: 0. so here's the link)
Aha yes. Everyone will be under our will one day. MWAHAHAHA.
So here we are, roughly two-three years later, igniting a media frenzy of "Missing Link?!?" articles. Myers discusses and links to MOAR discussion about why this label is inappropriate here. Relevant points include the fact that EVERY fossil is a link between other fossils, and that this particular fossil, while important and undoubtedly fascinating, likely isn't going to shake the scientific establishment like an asteroid hurtling to Earth.
However, I'd like to bring up another interesting point which hasn't been brought up yet- such widespread coverage will hopefully attract more people to the pure awesomeness of biology. Much like a recent xkcd (which apparently won't fully show in this format, AGGH. Livejournal: 1, Blogger: 0. so here's the link)
Aha yes. Everyone will be under our will one day. MWAHAHAHA.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Commentary on "Running into the Brick Wall of Creationism" essay, extra credt #3
Danielle Tom
Biol 210: Evolution and Creationism
Dr. Jerry Waldvogel
4/21/09
EC #3
Commentary on “The brick wall of Creationism”
Reverend Penny Greer’s opinion that fundamentalism (religious movement) and scientific viewpoints are separate perspectives on the world agrees with lectures earlier in the semester on religion and science as different ways of knowing. Having a historical background will allow for better communication between opposing sides as it allows for greater understanding. It is interesting to see the positive attitudes towards science early in the movement, still prevalent today that an intelligent designer manufactured the rules that govern the natural world. It puzzles me that a hypothesis would be regarded as pure speculation, though, even with evidence. I guess the real reason would be at a glance the theory of evolution puts ‘chance’ in place of an omniscient deity even though a closer look at Darwin’s words would indicate that perhaps such a move towards complexity would be a sign of someone smart enough to create it.
I think her view that the dominant fundamentalist tenant is literalism may be too… stereotypical? Not the right word I’m looking for. Painting the whole one color, I guess, as we DID see earlier in the semester the chart of levels of acceptance of evolution. Fundamentalism is not solely confined to the Flat Earth Society fringe; not all are so vehemently opposed to the general theory (instead halfstepping it with “I believe in micro, not macro.”) Creationism isn’t a solidly brick wall; it’s segments here and there, much like how the Great Wall of China isn’t one long wall but various segments.
Although understanding the historical context of the division will improve communication, true reconciliation is likely impossible as both sides include staunch individuals unwilling to concede or listen to the other’s point of view (as evidenced by the fringes of Dawkins and Dembski). The Rev. has a sound rationale, which will work best in discussions between those closer to the center of the aforementioned chart. In most things, the middle mass tends to be the majority, so for everyday use basic understanding of the history behind fundamentalism and their points of view will be useful. Trying to persuade the fringes will likely be a fruitless task, much like mending the fraying ends of a blanket.
Biol 210: Evolution and Creationism
Dr. Jerry Waldvogel
4/21/09
EC #3
Commentary on “The brick wall of Creationism”
Reverend Penny Greer’s opinion that fundamentalism (religious movement) and scientific viewpoints are separate perspectives on the world agrees with lectures earlier in the semester on religion and science as different ways of knowing. Having a historical background will allow for better communication between opposing sides as it allows for greater understanding. It is interesting to see the positive attitudes towards science early in the movement, still prevalent today that an intelligent designer manufactured the rules that govern the natural world. It puzzles me that a hypothesis would be regarded as pure speculation, though, even with evidence. I guess the real reason would be at a glance the theory of evolution puts ‘chance’ in place of an omniscient deity even though a closer look at Darwin’s words would indicate that perhaps such a move towards complexity would be a sign of someone smart enough to create it.
I think her view that the dominant fundamentalist tenant is literalism may be too… stereotypical? Not the right word I’m looking for. Painting the whole one color, I guess, as we DID see earlier in the semester the chart of levels of acceptance of evolution. Fundamentalism is not solely confined to the Flat Earth Society fringe; not all are so vehemently opposed to the general theory (instead halfstepping it with “I believe in micro, not macro.”) Creationism isn’t a solidly brick wall; it’s segments here and there, much like how the Great Wall of China isn’t one long wall but various segments.
Although understanding the historical context of the division will improve communication, true reconciliation is likely impossible as both sides include staunch individuals unwilling to concede or listen to the other’s point of view (as evidenced by the fringes of Dawkins and Dembski). The Rev. has a sound rationale, which will work best in discussions between those closer to the center of the aforementioned chart. In most things, the middle mass tends to be the majority, so for everyday use basic understanding of the history behind fundamentalism and their points of view will be useful. Trying to persuade the fringes will likely be a fruitless task, much like mending the fraying ends of a blanket.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Reflection on the Essay
Regarding my essay here, a reflection... which is also on that site, in italics below the main body.
Weirdly enough, I'd written on religious and scientific points of view on my own blog, as copypasted into one of my journal entries. I wasn't sure how much personal discussion we could include in the essays, however, but at least I was in the right frame of mind. It's always a little bit difficult to find a topic you can love/discuss fully for several pages/paragraphs, and I still seem to approach such a task broadly at best.
I also could've used more sources probably, but procrastination tends to shrink the list. I have a large amount of library books that have been sitting around my desk for the last several months that will likely be used for the podcast if I open them, including some good ones on perspective. However, I'm not recycling my essay topic for the podcast so that's a useless purpose. The scrub jay example is incredibly minor, but works (although disregarded by a teenage[?] creationist a few years back when arguing online "It's just a bird; it didn't turn into anything spectacularly new!")
This essay topic was used somewhat for my persuasive speech in Comm 250, where I argued that Intelligent Design was a pseudoscience, using some arguments from this that the supernatural cannot be objectively analyzed and utilizing Behe's broad definition that would include things recognized as pseudoscience (astrology and the like).
Weirdly enough, I'd written on religious and scientific points of view on my own blog, as copypasted into one of my journal entries. I wasn't sure how much personal discussion we could include in the essays, however, but at least I was in the right frame of mind. It's always a little bit difficult to find a topic you can love/discuss fully for several pages/paragraphs, and I still seem to approach such a task broadly at best.
I also could've used more sources probably, but procrastination tends to shrink the list. I have a large amount of library books that have been sitting around my desk for the last several months that will likely be used for the podcast if I open them, including some good ones on perspective. However, I'm not recycling my essay topic for the podcast so that's a useless purpose. The scrub jay example is incredibly minor, but works (although disregarded by a teenage[?] creationist a few years back when arguing online "It's just a bird; it didn't turn into anything spectacularly new!")
This essay topic was used somewhat for my persuasive speech in Comm 250, where I argued that Intelligent Design was a pseudoscience, using some arguments from this that the supernatural cannot be objectively analyzed and utilizing Behe's broad definition that would include things recognized as pseudoscience (astrology and the like).
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Raw notes from the Tuesday speakers
4/14/09 Profs.
Dr. Hap Wheeler, Biological Sciences, Episcopalian.
-1982 convention- supports evolution. Catechism rejects literal creation, including ID.
-Most fall into theistic evolution.
-does not engage in religion-science debates, counterproductive.
-Main focus should be on preserving that creation, controlling our mastery.
Dr. Bob Kosinski, Catholic
-Agrees w/ Dr. Wheeler
-Catholic church;s position pretty clear.
Science relys on natural law. Why pick on evolution when there’s other bones of contention? Like gravity- law, or God pushing on it?
-One place where Catholics (and other religion) are kinda squicky- science does not believe in teleological explanations- natural system is trying to do something, following a plan or attaining a particular goal. “Earth turns to share the joys of sunlight with all her children!”
-Science seeks the simpler explanation; religion looks for teleological explanations, “God’s plan”, a purpose, etc.
Dr. John Morse- Baptist
-No such thing as a Baptist perspective or doctrine (well, Gogle seemed to pick up on that), so this is a personal perspective.
-Not much of a relationship between faith & science.
Broadly speaking, faith motivates social interactions… argh.
-TRUTH- uses all objective experiences AND subjective experiences.
-Faith starts with assumptions. Science believes world is ordered by principles, senses are reliable. Faith- assumptions of God’s existence, etc.
-our existence. Science has corroborating dating methods, hierarchy of life. In faith, consistent character of God
-100+ dating methods… radiometric, ice cores, coral reef layering, red shift, etc. etc.
-All these methods say the same story- age of life, the universe, and everything. Chance of all happening randomly is remote.
-Family trees (his specialty, hierarchy of life). Not one species occurs out of the tree.
-Choice- creation 6000 years ago (assumption that God made things seem older and related), or other? Is God’s character consistent
Dr. Peter Cohen, professor of philosophy, Jewish
-Cannot speak for all of Judaism, has a wide spectrum. God is ineffable- don’t know his character, so hard to understand.
-not necessarily a worldview of faith more of practice.
-last Wednesday, sun was at the same position it was during creation (every 28 years)
-Science is a part of the grand scheme, but we don’t know what it is.
Megha Kumar- Hindu
-again, too broad so personal view
-300 G=gods, but belief in all necessarily
-reincarnation mirrors natural view
-open to the idea that man and monkeys are cousins
-works with embryos, but taken aback by other grads. God in how you lead your life.
Basma Damiri- Muslim
- believes in both Christianity and Judaism at the same time
- The Bible, The Quaran And Science by Dr. Mauice Bucaille
- In Islam, Allah created everything, life came from water. Humans come from clay (Qur’an 21:30) Everything developed order not random, pushed by a power (Qur’an 41:11, 79:30, 39:5, 51:47)
- Origin of man… nutfah, looks like a leech/clot of blood. Then, a chewed piece of meat. Kept in three darknesses- belly, darkness, uterus. 7th century holds up well with 20th century science.
- Both work well, just need to believe, in an organized thing
Takashi Maie- Buddhist/Shinto
-Shin = god (OHHO SHINIGAMI I GOT IT)
-both very supernatural. In Shinto, preexisting gods create other gods.
-in Buddhism, depending on what karma you have here, you get placed in different levels of afterlife. BUT, reborn in another life. You become god when you escape the cycle. In principle, similar to Hinduism
-neither makes sense to him in terms of creation….just pursues science.
Dr. John Hains, Unitarian/universalists
- unterarian universalists are not Christians, but share things in spirit. In terms of phylogeny, after Judaism and before Catholicism in terms of alcoholic consumption… (joke)
- not bound by doctrine or dogma, free thinkers (includes Joseph Priestley, Louisa M. Alcott, John C. Calhoun, Bela Bartok, Dorothea Dix, Linus Pauling, Clara Barton… etc.)
- no problem with evolution, free thinking.
- In personal opinion, what separates them is to consider the possibility that they’re wrong about it, will reconsider if proper evidence is brought.
- Darwin was in this… called it a featherbed for fallen Christians.
Question time!
-how do universalists reconcile the miracle things, such as ressurection or virgin birth? Dr. Morse- “I have no clue. 1st Corinthians 13… if I’m still interested in these kinds of question when I get to heaven, I’ll ask”
John Hans- “youtube Father Reginald Foster, watch what he says about some of the stories from the Bible… miracles aren’t much different from magic”
Dr. Cohen- “…when I’m teaching, I look at the miracles as people’s reaction to events as miraculous. How people interpret is more important than how it actually occurred.. virgin birth wasn’t immediately accepted, political decision on a lot of levels in the early centuries… sociological reaction- what do people do with it, and where does it take them” Intro to world religions
Dr. Waldvogel to Basma Damiri- is evolution as a topic sidestepped or being addressed in a particular way in the education system? “The holy book explains many things… there IS an effect, things don’t happen randomly. It’s about what knowledge you know to explain, though- we can explain things in the Qur’an much better than past centuries. Now we can see things referenced before, like that Nutfah, etc. Science comes to explain things we don’t have any knowledge about”
DeWitt- answering Tomas’ question (ooh, former Christian? MAN I wish that thread still existed....)- it’s a supernatural mystery, the whole POINT is that it’s unexplainable. That’s how religion explains that… see what I’m saying?
Basra supplement- 7th century, when people asked Muhammed for a miracle, splitting the moon in half. He fretted, but then pointed, it split, then came back. Read in a magazine to prove religions and found someone who mentioned this miracle, ‘oh it’s crazy’…. But then watched tv and saw on the moon, the moon HAD split but changed back, split at some time, scienctifically. There is cause for everything,”
Meghra- “If I tried to look at all the Hindu miracles and tried to explain them, I’d probably kill myself. Kind of overboard to keep track all…”
Chris question- science isn’t necessarily responsible for answering religious questions, isn’t obligated to answer for virgin births and moon splitting, like taking a history class and expecting to learn science. Not addressed, but can be done
Dewitt- saw a movie- if you saw a miracle, how can you explain a miracle?
Dr. Hap Wheeler, Biological Sciences, Episcopalian.
-1982 convention- supports evolution. Catechism rejects literal creation, including ID.
-Most fall into theistic evolution.
-does not engage in religion-science debates, counterproductive.
-Main focus should be on preserving that creation, controlling our mastery.
Dr. Bob Kosinski, Catholic
-Agrees w/ Dr. Wheeler
-Catholic church;s position pretty clear.
Science relys on natural law. Why pick on evolution when there’s other bones of contention? Like gravity- law, or God pushing on it?
-One place where Catholics (and other religion) are kinda squicky- science does not believe in teleological explanations- natural system is trying to do something, following a plan or attaining a particular goal. “Earth turns to share the joys of sunlight with all her children!”
-Science seeks the simpler explanation; religion looks for teleological explanations, “God’s plan”, a purpose, etc.
Dr. John Morse- Baptist
-No such thing as a Baptist perspective or doctrine (well, Gogle seemed to pick up on that), so this is a personal perspective.
-Not much of a relationship between faith & science.
Broadly speaking, faith motivates social interactions… argh.
-TRUTH- uses all objective experiences AND subjective experiences.
-Faith starts with assumptions. Science believes world is ordered by principles, senses are reliable. Faith- assumptions of God’s existence, etc.
-our existence. Science has corroborating dating methods, hierarchy of life. In faith, consistent character of God
-100+ dating methods… radiometric, ice cores, coral reef layering, red shift, etc. etc.
-All these methods say the same story- age of life, the universe, and everything. Chance of all happening randomly is remote.
-Family trees (his specialty, hierarchy of life). Not one species occurs out of the tree.
-Choice- creation 6000 years ago (assumption that God made things seem older and related), or other? Is God’s character consistent
Dr. Peter Cohen, professor of philosophy, Jewish
-Cannot speak for all of Judaism, has a wide spectrum. God is ineffable- don’t know his character, so hard to understand.
-not necessarily a worldview of faith more of practice.
-last Wednesday, sun was at the same position it was during creation (every 28 years)
-Science is a part of the grand scheme, but we don’t know what it is.
Megha Kumar- Hindu
-again, too broad so personal view
-300 G=gods, but belief in all necessarily
-reincarnation mirrors natural view
-open to the idea that man and monkeys are cousins
-works with embryos, but taken aback by other grads. God in how you lead your life.
Basma Damiri- Muslim
- believes in both Christianity and Judaism at the same time
- The Bible, The Quaran And Science by Dr. Mauice Bucaille
- In Islam, Allah created everything, life came from water. Humans come from clay (Qur’an 21:30) Everything developed order not random, pushed by a power (Qur’an 41:11, 79:30, 39:5, 51:47)
- Origin of man… nutfah, looks like a leech/clot of blood. Then, a chewed piece of meat. Kept in three darknesses- belly, darkness, uterus. 7th century holds up well with 20th century science.
- Both work well, just need to believe, in an organized thing
Takashi Maie- Buddhist/Shinto
-Shin = god (OHHO SHINIGAMI I GOT IT)
-both very supernatural. In Shinto, preexisting gods create other gods.
-in Buddhism, depending on what karma you have here, you get placed in different levels of afterlife. BUT, reborn in another life. You become god when you escape the cycle. In principle, similar to Hinduism
-neither makes sense to him in terms of creation….just pursues science.
Dr. John Hains, Unitarian/universalists
- unterarian universalists are not Christians, but share things in spirit. In terms of phylogeny, after Judaism and before Catholicism in terms of alcoholic consumption… (joke)
- not bound by doctrine or dogma, free thinkers (includes Joseph Priestley, Louisa M. Alcott, John C. Calhoun, Bela Bartok, Dorothea Dix, Linus Pauling, Clara Barton… etc.)
- no problem with evolution, free thinking.
- In personal opinion, what separates them is to consider the possibility that they’re wrong about it, will reconsider if proper evidence is brought.
- Darwin was in this… called it a featherbed for fallen Christians.
Question time!
-how do universalists reconcile the miracle things, such as ressurection or virgin birth? Dr. Morse- “I have no clue. 1st Corinthians 13… if I’m still interested in these kinds of question when I get to heaven, I’ll ask”
John Hans- “youtube Father Reginald Foster, watch what he says about some of the stories from the Bible… miracles aren’t much different from magic”
Dr. Cohen- “…when I’m teaching, I look at the miracles as people’s reaction to events as miraculous. How people interpret is more important than how it actually occurred.. virgin birth wasn’t immediately accepted, political decision on a lot of levels in the early centuries… sociological reaction- what do people do with it, and where does it take them” Intro to world religions
Dr. Waldvogel to Basma Damiri- is evolution as a topic sidestepped or being addressed in a particular way in the education system? “The holy book explains many things… there IS an effect, things don’t happen randomly. It’s about what knowledge you know to explain, though- we can explain things in the Qur’an much better than past centuries. Now we can see things referenced before, like that Nutfah, etc. Science comes to explain things we don’t have any knowledge about”
DeWitt- answering Tomas’ question (ooh, former Christian? MAN I wish that thread still existed....)- it’s a supernatural mystery, the whole POINT is that it’s unexplainable. That’s how religion explains that… see what I’m saying?
Basra supplement- 7th century, when people asked Muhammed for a miracle, splitting the moon in half. He fretted, but then pointed, it split, then came back. Read in a magazine to prove religions and found someone who mentioned this miracle, ‘oh it’s crazy’…. But then watched tv and saw on the moon, the moon HAD split but changed back, split at some time, scienctifically. There is cause for everything,”
Meghra- “If I tried to look at all the Hindu miracles and tried to explain them, I’d probably kill myself. Kind of overboard to keep track all…”
Chris question- science isn’t necessarily responsible for answering religious questions, isn’t obligated to answer for virgin births and moon splitting, like taking a history class and expecting to learn science. Not addressed, but can be done
Dewitt- saw a movie- if you saw a miracle, how can you explain a miracle?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Continuing thoughts
Listening to post-NOVA comments, someone mentioned everyone has their background, inherently biased towards religion. I'm inclined to disagree as I lack such a background, as do others. Of course, that gives me a bias, but I think mine's to think critically about what I believe. One friend of mine is an atheist- never been to a church in her life. I don't believe her parents are also atheist, so I'm not sure how she reached that conclusion.
Interesting thing about young people going out and doing crazy shit- brain chemistry.
I'm going to comment back on DeWitt's comment calling Darwinism a religion. That's one of my pet peeves- Darwinism is NOT a religion; there are no prayers or anything like that to the bearded fellow, and he isn't seen as any kind of deity. Again, if you're even GOING to call me a Darwinist, call me a Wallacist because the biogeographer needs some love as well. Science education in America needs to cover this better if people make the assumption that scientific theory can be considered a religion. Doctrine ≠ religion. There's Marxism, communism, taoism, and various other -isms, but not all are religion. We as Americans seem to be fixated on these -ism things.
Personal beliefs are personal- agh. This guy again, glasses dude from my notes earlier... some of us did NOT receive a religious background when we were younger, so we're somewhat free of 'doctrination'. Evolution wasn't shocking to me, it was more like 'oh, cool!'
If I recall correctly, PZ Meyers had the same perspective that religious indoctrination is child abuse as Dawkins.
Seriously. I'm feeling left out of the having a religious bias thing. :[ Maybe I should've let the Mormons drag me away at a young age.
Oooh, writing project! Oh, on actual pap- oh, e-mail. Will do that then, since I've already got it open. Man, am I glad I blogged this so I've got names.
Interesting thing about young people going out and doing crazy shit- brain chemistry.
I'm going to comment back on DeWitt's comment calling Darwinism a religion. That's one of my pet peeves- Darwinism is NOT a religion; there are no prayers or anything like that to the bearded fellow, and he isn't seen as any kind of deity. Again, if you're even GOING to call me a Darwinist, call me a Wallacist because the biogeographer needs some love as well. Science education in America needs to cover this better if people make the assumption that scientific theory can be considered a religion. Doctrine ≠ religion. There's Marxism, communism, taoism, and various other -isms, but not all are religion. We as Americans seem to be fixated on these -ism things.
Personal beliefs are personal- agh. This guy again, glasses dude from my notes earlier... some of us did NOT receive a religious background when we were younger, so we're somewhat free of 'doctrination'. Evolution wasn't shocking to me, it was more like 'oh, cool!'
If I recall correctly, PZ Meyers had the same perspective that religious indoctrination is child abuse as Dawkins.
Seriously. I'm feeling left out of the having a religious bias thing. :[ Maybe I should've let the Mormons drag me away at a young age.
Oooh, writing project! Oh, on actual pap- oh, e-mail. Will do that then, since I've already got it open. Man, am I glad I blogged this so I've got names.
Liveblog/notes part 2: Evolution: What About God?
Alas, did not have enough time to do the extra credit. I'll try to finish it and post it here, even though I won't receive extra credit for it- reflecting for the fun of it.
Egad, half the students signed on to add special creation to their courses? I might've misheard that. I wonder what those shirts say... if they can give me a book giving detailed support for special creation, awesome. I just don't see it.
Hey Eugenie Scott! :D Interesting how so much fuss can be dispelled by clearly defining evolution and pointing out it does NOT explicitly endorse or deny a God (although personal frame of reference can angle it one way or another).
Students taking the initiative remind me of a YA fiction book called Evolution, Me, and Other Freaks of Nature by Robin Brande. The protagonist is a teenage girl, raised in a religious background. Already somewhat of a pariah for stopping a campaign against a gay student, she further gets caught in the crossfire when the evolution unit comes up. It's an interesting read- more insightful than other YA fiction.
...a petition, with special creation? It sounds like they've already decided without having various theories floated in front of them. I wanted to find a copy of The Genesis Flood in the library, but couldn't find it- that'll be a summer read.
I agree with that teacher- if so many students are into this, did something go wrong in the education process? OH GOD. Not the 'we came from water' or 'cats to dog' nonsense I've seen online. At least the students here aren't like the ones in the Brande book, turning their desks around or just walking out.
Hm, I see how the Ken Miller article was relevant. I almost want to read The God Delusion to see Dawkins' perspective, even though I have a feeling I'll disagree with him.
Mmm.... the 'forms most beautiful' quote. Awesome.
Egad, half the students signed on to add special creation to their courses? I might've misheard that. I wonder what those shirts say... if they can give me a book giving detailed support for special creation, awesome. I just don't see it.
Hey Eugenie Scott! :D Interesting how so much fuss can be dispelled by clearly defining evolution and pointing out it does NOT explicitly endorse or deny a God (although personal frame of reference can angle it one way or another).
Students taking the initiative remind me of a YA fiction book called Evolution, Me, and Other Freaks of Nature by Robin Brande. The protagonist is a teenage girl, raised in a religious background. Already somewhat of a pariah for stopping a campaign against a gay student, she further gets caught in the crossfire when the evolution unit comes up. It's an interesting read- more insightful than other YA fiction.
...a petition, with special creation? It sounds like they've already decided without having various theories floated in front of them. I wanted to find a copy of The Genesis Flood in the library, but couldn't find it- that'll be a summer read.
I agree with that teacher- if so many students are into this, did something go wrong in the education process? OH GOD. Not the 'we came from water' or 'cats to dog' nonsense I've seen online. At least the students here aren't like the ones in the Brande book, turning their desks around or just walking out.
Hm, I see how the Ken Miller article was relevant. I almost want to read The God Delusion to see Dawkins' perspective, even though I have a feeling I'll disagree with him.
Mmm.... the 'forms most beautiful' quote. Awesome.
Commentary on Ken Miller ahoy!
I forgot about this extra credit assignment over break... and today really isn't the best of days to squeeze in an extra 2-3 page assignment, but I'll try (at the expense of studying for chem 102... ugh)
Ken Miller describes that the atheist's mistake is to assume that God is included in the natural and can thus be tested along with other phenomena in the coliseum of science. I agree with his point- it's the converse of using the supernatural to explain natural observations. They are separate windows looking on the same patch of grass.
I also notice he uses the word 'delusion', perhaps a nod toward Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. While I haven't yet read any of Dawkins' works (despite having a rather large pile of library books around my desk), I am aware of his atheistic standpoint. The use of that word here is to perhaps separate science from the stereotypical godless heathen sacrificing Bibles at the feet of Darwin (not sure if that's actually a valid stereotype, but it's an interesting mental image).
Alas, I've got to be somewhere in five minutes. Will continue this later, if I have the time.
Ken Miller describes that the atheist's mistake is to assume that God is included in the natural and can thus be tested along with other phenomena in the coliseum of science. I agree with his point- it's the converse of using the supernatural to explain natural observations. They are separate windows looking on the same patch of grass.
I also notice he uses the word 'delusion', perhaps a nod toward Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. While I haven't yet read any of Dawkins' works (despite having a rather large pile of library books around my desk), I am aware of his atheistic standpoint. The use of that word here is to perhaps separate science from the stereotypical godless heathen sacrificing Bibles at the feet of Darwin (not sure if that's actually a valid stereotype, but it's an interesting mental image).
Alas, I've got to be somewhere in five minutes. Will continue this later, if I have the time.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Liveblog/notes- Evolution: What About God?
Opens with a Ken Ham lecture in... Ohio? I love looking at the crowd to see a few bored kids... but at the same time it's very disconcerting to see so many young kids singing along with such a vile song.
I find the idea that 'if the Bible is factually wrong, then we should discard its morality too' disgusting. It's like saying 'a pineapple's covered in spikes, let's not even bother eating the thing'. You do not need a literal interpretation of the Bible to take meaning from it. I mean, Jesus himself used parables to convey morality tales (would that make the Bible Jesusmeta then?).
On a more shallow note, is Liam Neeson narrating this?
SERIOUSLY disturbs me how many young kids are listening to Ken Ham, along with his cartoon illustrations. Figures they'd use folksy music as another medium to push their message.
Wheaton College... hm. I didn't think there were that many conservative Christians in the Chicago area, but then, I don't know much about the Midwest. Oh, it's a Christian campus? Ah, ok.
~sigh~ Nathan Baird's family thing is somewhat familiar to me. My family didn't go to church on a regular basis, but recent discussions with my mom indicate she feels she failed by not taking my brother and me to church and thinks something's wrong with me for thinking science is God's touch on the universe (funny how this conversation never came up in my previous 18 years at home). Apologies for the offtopicness, but this does feel a little close to home.
Hee, I like Baird's grandma- echoes my dad's sentiment that I should be able to reason out what I believe. Baird's dad bothers me... guh. I'm afraid that's how my conversation with my mom'll be when I finally sit down and talk to her about what I do and don't believe.
"I don't know how to make sense of that". Simple, Emi- don't take the Bible literally. Oh, Seventh Day Adventist? Ah, ok. There was a private seventh day adventist school next to my middle school.
Indeed, this is pretty much the basis of the debate- the special place of humans in God's eyes. Wait, the faculty has to sign a statement affirming belief in a historical of Adam and Eve? Separ- oh wait, it's a private college. Separation of Church and State doesn't necessarily hold then, I think...?
The letter declaring she'd rather see her daughter dead than lose her faith at college is HARSH. To make the choice between education and faith... to me it seems worse to be blind and faithful.
A student asks Keith Miller about reconciling being made in the image of God with evolutionary theory- Keith says he personally thinks Adam and Eve were specially chosen out of the humans by God. Interesting.
Oh no... not another musical thing for Go- oh, Simple Gifts. I don't think the Shakers had any perspectives on evolution... I didn't catch this anthropology major's name, but he mentioned if he had to make a choice, he'd pick Young Earth creationism because he grew up with it, he's comfortable with it.
Beth S.- grew up in Zamibia(?), open to ideas regarding Bible & science.
Emi Hayashi makes a good point- it's silly for an ignorant fundamentalist to point out 'flaws' in science as it is for a nontheist to point out flaws in Christianity without any theological background.
OH NO NOT KEN HAM AGAIN. "God said it, I believe, that settles it." Hm. Does this video predate the Creation Museum, I wonder? That diorama looked like it'd fit in with that thing.
End of class, will be continued on Thursday.
AHA IT IS LIAM NEESON.
I find the idea that 'if the Bible is factually wrong, then we should discard its morality too' disgusting. It's like saying 'a pineapple's covered in spikes, let's not even bother eating the thing'. You do not need a literal interpretation of the Bible to take meaning from it. I mean, Jesus himself used parables to convey morality tales (would that make the Bible Jesusmeta then?).
On a more shallow note, is Liam Neeson narrating this?
SERIOUSLY disturbs me how many young kids are listening to Ken Ham, along with his cartoon illustrations. Figures they'd use folksy music as another medium to push their message.
Wheaton College... hm. I didn't think there were that many conservative Christians in the Chicago area, but then, I don't know much about the Midwest. Oh, it's a Christian campus? Ah, ok.
~sigh~ Nathan Baird's family thing is somewhat familiar to me. My family didn't go to church on a regular basis, but recent discussions with my mom indicate she feels she failed by not taking my brother and me to church and thinks something's wrong with me for thinking science is God's touch on the universe (funny how this conversation never came up in my previous 18 years at home). Apologies for the offtopicness, but this does feel a little close to home.
Hee, I like Baird's grandma- echoes my dad's sentiment that I should be able to reason out what I believe. Baird's dad bothers me... guh. I'm afraid that's how my conversation with my mom'll be when I finally sit down and talk to her about what I do and don't believe.
"I don't know how to make sense of that". Simple, Emi- don't take the Bible literally. Oh, Seventh Day Adventist? Ah, ok. There was a private seventh day adventist school next to my middle school.
Indeed, this is pretty much the basis of the debate- the special place of humans in God's eyes. Wait, the faculty has to sign a statement affirming belief in a historical of Adam and Eve? Separ- oh wait, it's a private college. Separation of Church and State doesn't necessarily hold then, I think...?
The letter declaring she'd rather see her daughter dead than lose her faith at college is HARSH. To make the choice between education and faith... to me it seems worse to be blind and faithful.
A student asks Keith Miller about reconciling being made in the image of God with evolutionary theory- Keith says he personally thinks Adam and Eve were specially chosen out of the humans by God. Interesting.
Oh no... not another musical thing for Go- oh, Simple Gifts. I don't think the Shakers had any perspectives on evolution... I didn't catch this anthropology major's name, but he mentioned if he had to make a choice, he'd pick Young Earth creationism because he grew up with it, he's comfortable with it.
Beth S.- grew up in Zamibia(?), open to ideas regarding Bible & science.
Emi Hayashi makes a good point- it's silly for an ignorant fundamentalist to point out 'flaws' in science as it is for a nontheist to point out flaws in Christianity without any theological background.
OH NO NOT KEN HAM AGAIN. "God said it, I believe, that settles it." Hm. Does this video predate the Creation Museum, I wonder? That diorama looked like it'd fit in with that thing.
End of class, will be continued on Thursday.
AHA IT IS LIAM NEESON.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Post-Nova thoughts, and some podcast ponderings
I think the previous two entries sufficiently cover my reaction to the documentary. It was well done, with lovely visuals (even though the darkness and the Law-and-Orderesque trial bumps were a bit theatrical). It was nice to see how the Rehms, Buckingham, Bert and others actually looked and sounded like after reading their words elsewhere.
Last Friday, I tagged along with a friend to an impromptu discussion on the evolution/creationism issue in the Jordan Room. This discussion spawned out of a Biol 103 class, apparently, and went from about 12-1:30 PM. The mix of people was evenly mixed perspectivewise, and I really wish I had my EvoCrea text with me (I may bring it tomorrow, if they do it again). What interested me was the perspective of the professor leading the discussion, who talked about believing in evolution (GAH semantics) as a missionary would to a would-be convert. Or at least, it seemed that way to me- I could be totally wrong on this. The topic came up of not accepting macroevolution based on evidence (or lack of quality evidence), and he seemed like, "Well, it's wonderful that you're basing your judgment on evidence instead of a religious bias, but eventually you'll be swayed by all of the data." This method rubs me the wrong way...
...and leads me to wonder whether it'd make a good podcast topic or not- the fringes of both ends of the spectrum, and the 'conversion' to one side or another. That, or macroevolution itself, as I'd like to convince people of its validity without feeling like some kind of missionary preaching the Origin.
Macroevolution hasn't explicitly been covered in the course yet, but it frustrates me so when people accept micro but don't make the next step to macro (oh god, I'm starting to sound like that prof...). Building off of the pepper moths, you can look at the honeycreepers of Hawaii (or any other endemic island bird population for that matter) and see how an incredible amount of diversification can arise with so few difference in genes (see cichlids in the African lakes). As the NOVA video illustrated, birds with an appropriate beak type will increase in population in the right areas, and eventually that WILL lead to new species.
I'll have to double check on the definition of a species (I'll go by genetic/fertile offspring, which makes sense in my mind...) before I dig into this, but it should be incredibly fun. Particularly if I get an opposing view. Whee!
~Danielle
Last Friday, I tagged along with a friend to an impromptu discussion on the evolution/creationism issue in the Jordan Room. This discussion spawned out of a Biol 103 class, apparently, and went from about 12-1:30 PM. The mix of people was evenly mixed perspectivewise, and I really wish I had my EvoCrea text with me (I may bring it tomorrow, if they do it again). What interested me was the perspective of the professor leading the discussion, who talked about believing in evolution (GAH semantics) as a missionary would to a would-be convert. Or at least, it seemed that way to me- I could be totally wrong on this. The topic came up of not accepting macroevolution based on evidence (or lack of quality evidence), and he seemed like, "Well, it's wonderful that you're basing your judgment on evidence instead of a religious bias, but eventually you'll be swayed by all of the data." This method rubs me the wrong way...
...and leads me to wonder whether it'd make a good podcast topic or not- the fringes of both ends of the spectrum, and the 'conversion' to one side or another. That, or macroevolution itself, as I'd like to convince people of its validity without feeling like some kind of missionary preaching the Origin.
Macroevolution hasn't explicitly been covered in the course yet, but it frustrates me so when people accept micro but don't make the next step to macro (oh god, I'm starting to sound like that prof...). Building off of the pepper moths, you can look at the honeycreepers of Hawaii (or any other endemic island bird population for that matter) and see how an incredible amount of diversification can arise with so few difference in genes (see cichlids in the African lakes). As the NOVA video illustrated, birds with an appropriate beak type will increase in population in the right areas, and eventually that WILL lead to new species.
I'll have to double check on the definition of a species (I'll go by genetic/fertile offspring, which makes sense in my mind...) before I dig into this, but it should be incredibly fun. Particularly if I get an opposing view. Whee!
~Danielle
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
NOVA Liveblog notes 2
Opening with what science is, semantics of the word theory.
Ah, so that;s why I;m sticking with my major- genetics, and how they're some of the strongest support for the theory evolution.
3/8 witnesses isn't many... interestingly enough, Scott Minnich is a professor at University of Idaho in the department I was considering.
Law and Orderesque bumps...huh.
The fact that Michael Behe is a biochemist makes his role as an ID advocate somewhat ironic. Also, I was not aware Behe quote-mined DeRosier's paper on the flagellum motor. Especially with DeRosier comparing the bubonic plague's 'syringe' to the motor complexes.
Ah, there's Miller's tieclip. :D
Rothschild's books may have been theatrical, but they proved a point.
Ah, Minnich. And the flagellum again...
The Dover paster reinforces the idea that Evolution takes away humanity's special spot as an image of God in the eyes of the fundamentalists. From a personal perspective, I believe God imbued humanity with free will, with souls- not explicit design, but that's where his 'fingerprints' lie. I wave my theistic evolutionary flag.
Meat of the matter- was the school board violating the establishment clause? The Creation Science catalog bit is indeed a smoking gun. By using the same definition, ID demonstrates itself to be a copy-paste job, that it is synonymous with creationism.
And Barbara Forest brings in The Wedge, recovered from the depths of the internet.
...splitting a log doesn't strike me as an innocent thingamajig. This does provide, however, evidence for an ideological agenda to push a particular set of morals/culture, etc.
Ah. There's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote, plus Creationism... oh god. He just said 'doncha know'... I shouldn't stereotype, but fundies like Buckingham and Sarah Palin in politics worries me.
'Pray for money'... guh. This whole thing REEKS of bad practice in education.
Oh boo. "A one minute statement"... "not asking [the science teachers] to become priests"... No. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but they're calling it a turtle.
Oh, 700 Club. You demogogue, Robertson, you.
He sent out his opinion by e-mail? Interesting.
...whut. Buckingham, calling Jones a clown? o________O;;;
Here ends the program.
Ah, so that;s why I;m sticking with my major- genetics, and how they're some of the strongest support for the theory evolution.
3/8 witnesses isn't many... interestingly enough, Scott Minnich is a professor at University of Idaho in the department I was considering.
Law and Orderesque bumps...huh.
The fact that Michael Behe is a biochemist makes his role as an ID advocate somewhat ironic. Also, I was not aware Behe quote-mined DeRosier's paper on the flagellum motor. Especially with DeRosier comparing the bubonic plague's 'syringe' to the motor complexes.
Ah, there's Miller's tieclip. :D
Rothschild's books may have been theatrical, but they proved a point.
Ah, Minnich. And the flagellum again...
The Dover paster reinforces the idea that Evolution takes away humanity's special spot as an image of God in the eyes of the fundamentalists. From a personal perspective, I believe God imbued humanity with free will, with souls- not explicit design, but that's where his 'fingerprints' lie. I wave my theistic evolutionary flag.
Meat of the matter- was the school board violating the establishment clause? The Creation Science catalog bit is indeed a smoking gun. By using the same definition, ID demonstrates itself to be a copy-paste job, that it is synonymous with creationism.
And Barbara Forest brings in The Wedge, recovered from the depths of the internet.
...splitting a log doesn't strike me as an innocent thingamajig. This does provide, however, evidence for an ideological agenda to push a particular set of morals/culture, etc.
Ah. There's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote, plus Creationism... oh god. He just said 'doncha know'... I shouldn't stereotype, but fundies like Buckingham and Sarah Palin in politics worries me.
'Pray for money'... guh. This whole thing REEKS of bad practice in education.
Oh boo. "A one minute statement"... "not asking [the science teachers] to become priests"... No. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but they're calling it a turtle.
Oh, 700 Club. You demogogue, Robertson, you.
He sent out his opinion by e-mail? Interesting.
...whut. Buckingham, calling Jones a clown? o________O;;;
Here ends the program.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Liveblog- Nova video
Commentary as I go.
After reading Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, it'll be interesting to see what Bonsell, Buckingham, and Miller actually look like. Shallow thought, I know, but there it is.
I thought Kansas came first? Or maybe that was defeated/in court before the Dover school district put up their one minute statement.
AHA millipede. I like millipedes.
Hm... yeah, my inner visuals of Padian and Miller were a little off... for some reason, Padian was like a fossil-hunting Steve Irwin. >_>;;;
Oh hey, the Dragonfly book! We used that in my high school. And there's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote... oh Buckingham. If I recall correctly, evolution wasn't OMGPERVASIVE.
If I recall correctly, the tortoises of Galapagos were more of a catalyst than the finches in forming the theory of evolution. This is an awesome visualization of the tree of life.
That's a disturbing statistic, 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans not accepting evolution. Especially post cold war, when the US enjoyed a push in science education.
I found Of Pandas and People in Cooper the other day. For a science text, it's pretty light. That reminds me, I need to get around to reading Johnson's book.
Oh this will be fun... We end with Tiktaalik.
After reading Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, it'll be interesting to see what Bonsell, Buckingham, and Miller actually look like. Shallow thought, I know, but there it is.
I thought Kansas came first? Or maybe that was defeated/in court before the Dover school district put up their one minute statement.
AHA millipede. I like millipedes.
Hm... yeah, my inner visuals of Padian and Miller were a little off... for some reason, Padian was like a fossil-hunting Steve Irwin. >_>;;;
Oh hey, the Dragonfly book! We used that in my high school. And there's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote... oh Buckingham. If I recall correctly, evolution wasn't OMGPERVASIVE.
If I recall correctly, the tortoises of Galapagos were more of a catalyst than the finches in forming the theory of evolution. This is an awesome visualization of the tree of life.
That's a disturbing statistic, 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans not accepting evolution. Especially post cold war, when the US enjoyed a push in science education.
I found Of Pandas and People in Cooper the other day. For a science text, it's pretty light. That reminds me, I need to get around to reading Johnson's book.
Oh this will be fun... We end with Tiktaalik.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Expelled: The Victim Card and Other Thoughts
Since Darwin's bones turn 200 this Thursday (and his influential tome 150 years), this week is Darwin Week at Clemson University (or at least, the Department of Biological Sciences is celebrating- everyone's welcome to the party, even Wallace fangirls like myself). Monday kicked off the celebration by showing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein's documentary on intelligent design. I'd heard about it when it came out, but wasn't sure I wanted to actually pay money to see it/was too lazy to youtube it. So when this popped up on my facebook events, I jumped at the chance.
John Scalzi described the Creation Museum as a very expensive, very fancy temple to horseshit. Borrowing his analogy, Expelled takes fecal matter, mixes it in brownie mix, then bakes it to present as a visually appealing package with a less than pleasant nutrition content.
The film's approach can be summarized as
The name of the film refers to the handful of scientists interviewed who were, according to Stein, 'expelled' from the scientific establishment because of their connections to Intelligent Design theory. Maybe the interwebs have hardened me, but that segment makes me want to tell them, "BOOHOO, go cry elsewhere. :/" This site explores the actual reasons why these individuals were removed from their various posts, some, such as Gullermo Gonzalez's decreasing publication output and general level of success in his field, really do have nothing to do with touting Intelligent Design.
I love the first amendment. I can speak my mind (except calling out disasters in movie theaters), publish said free thoughts, practice (or not) my own odd duck deist perspective, gather in places and bother my elected officials, if I feel like it. America does too, for the most part, so any whiff of freedoms being tromped on usually gets our goat. So when Ben Stein accuses science of stifling dissenting voices, we're expected to sit up and do a double take. However, science ISN'T quashing anything; it's patiently waiting for them to provide acceptable evidence for theory status. Peer-review, testable, observable evidence. Until that shows up, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science.
Also, as PZ Meyers says, science is not a democracy. Hypotheses must be tested and demonstrated. They must be repeated and observed again and again, reinforcing their validity. Sure, y'all can say 'There must be an intelligent designer!", but until that can be feasibly demonstrated, it's not science.
Quotemining. It's evil. Don't do it. Cutting and pasting does not make the quote you want exist, even if it creates a nice little soundbite.
Another pet peeve is the assumption that evolution = how life was created. Evolution moves life through change and creates new variation, but the actual STUDY on the origins of life is abiogenesis. Minor point, but there it is. It's an exciting field whose theories for the most part go over my head, but its a gross oversimplification to cut them down to "growing on the backs of crystals" or "coming from outer space", which only makes it easier to point to Intelligent Design and say, "Hey! Our idea isn't so ridiculous now compared to these silly scientist folks, is it?"
The most irritating and offensive aspect of Expelled was the Cold War imagery and implications that evolution led to Hitler, Stalin, and the Holocaust. Social Darwinism is an ideology separate from the scientific theory of evolution (if I recall correctly, Malthus was musing over such before On the Origin of Species was published). It arose from the colonial period, the White Man's Burden type of thinking. Might as well blame Kipling too. The atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were not 'natural selection'; 'twas artifical selection by a government presumptuous enough to deem a certain archetype as the 'ideal' with horrific consequences.
In a less mature fit of internet giggles, I realize Expelled visualized Godwin's Law- decidedly more than halfway through the film's 97 minutes, imagery of Hitler popped up. Oh the lulz before the facepalm.
I'm going to have to find a copy of Bill Maher's Religulous to balance out my documentary content for the month.
Also, I cannot write an essay to save my life. I can try, but it usually ends up being regurgitated ideas with florid wording, needing more textual support. So I apologize for that abominable piece turned in Tuesday...
John Scalzi described the Creation Museum as a very expensive, very fancy temple to horseshit. Borrowing his analogy, Expelled takes fecal matter, mixes it in brownie mix, then bakes it to present as a visually appealing package with a less than pleasant nutrition content.
The film's approach can be summarized as
- Show victimized scientists persecuted by the Darwinist establishment
- Appeal to America's love affair with the First Amendment
- Discredit evolutionary theory by quote-mining, including the origin of life with the origin of species (equating panspermia with aliens, the crazy-complex evolving crystal thing, etc.
- Compare the scientific establishment to Stalin, Hitler, and other oogie boogies.
The name of the film refers to the handful of scientists interviewed who were, according to Stein, 'expelled' from the scientific establishment because of their connections to Intelligent Design theory. Maybe the interwebs have hardened me, but that segment makes me want to tell them, "BOOHOO, go cry elsewhere. :/" This site explores the actual reasons why these individuals were removed from their various posts, some, such as Gullermo Gonzalez's decreasing publication output and general level of success in his field, really do have nothing to do with touting Intelligent Design.
I love the first amendment. I can speak my mind (except calling out disasters in movie theaters), publish said free thoughts, practice (or not) my own odd duck deist perspective, gather in places and bother my elected officials, if I feel like it. America does too, for the most part, so any whiff of freedoms being tromped on usually gets our goat. So when Ben Stein accuses science of stifling dissenting voices, we're expected to sit up and do a double take. However, science ISN'T quashing anything; it's patiently waiting for them to provide acceptable evidence for theory status. Peer-review, testable, observable evidence. Until that shows up, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science.
Also, as PZ Meyers says, science is not a democracy. Hypotheses must be tested and demonstrated. They must be repeated and observed again and again, reinforcing their validity. Sure, y'all can say 'There must be an intelligent designer!", but until that can be feasibly demonstrated, it's not science.
Quotemining. It's evil. Don't do it. Cutting and pasting does not make the quote you want exist, even if it creates a nice little soundbite.
Another pet peeve is the assumption that evolution = how life was created. Evolution moves life through change and creates new variation, but the actual STUDY on the origins of life is abiogenesis. Minor point, but there it is. It's an exciting field whose theories for the most part go over my head, but its a gross oversimplification to cut them down to "growing on the backs of crystals" or "coming from outer space", which only makes it easier to point to Intelligent Design and say, "Hey! Our idea isn't so ridiculous now compared to these silly scientist folks, is it?"
The most irritating and offensive aspect of Expelled was the Cold War imagery and implications that evolution led to Hitler, Stalin, and the Holocaust. Social Darwinism is an ideology separate from the scientific theory of evolution (if I recall correctly, Malthus was musing over such before On the Origin of Species was published). It arose from the colonial period, the White Man's Burden type of thinking. Might as well blame Kipling too. The atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were not 'natural selection'; 'twas artifical selection by a government presumptuous enough to deem a certain archetype as the 'ideal' with horrific consequences.
In a less mature fit of internet giggles, I realize Expelled visualized Godwin's Law- decidedly more than halfway through the film's 97 minutes, imagery of Hitler popped up. Oh the lulz before the facepalm.
I'm going to have to find a copy of Bill Maher's Religulous to balance out my documentary content for the month.
Also, I cannot write an essay to save my life. I can try, but it usually ends up being regurgitated ideas with florid wording, needing more textual support. So I apologize for that abominable piece turned in Tuesday...
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Spiritually homeless, but you probably knew that
Originally posted on Facebook Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 12:51am, reposted here because it's somewhat relevant. While not a reflection on the course, it falls into the topic.
This note's been written and rewritten in my head the last few days, but it also falls into the "Should probably not discuss/post on facebook category". No, nothing of a perverse nature, just musing about my ambiguous religious stance. The three topics best avoided in conversation according to dad (and in no particular order) are religion, politics, and money. But I'm curious on your (the invisible web friends') opinion(s).
First, a bit of background. My dad was raised Methodist, but is nonpracticing at the moment (to my knowledge. Whenever I asked about what he believed in, he told me religion is a personal thing. Or at least, that's what I can remember.). Mom, born and raised in the South, undoubtedly attended a Southern Baptist church of some kind. Our family never went to church on a regular basis, but she'd take Alex and me to Vacation Bible School at Calvary Baptist during the summer until we grew out of it. In fourth grade, a friend of mine got me to start going to AWANA, and I did so for about two years. More about that later.
I've been a nerd for a long time, particularly when it comes to biological sciences. I remember going through interest phrases- for a time it was dinosaurs briefly shifted to Greek and Roman mythology, then turned to many-appendaged invertebrates (jellyfish and cephalopods). I preferred styracosaurus to triceratops because it had more spikes- probably not a normal thing for a first grader, but oh well. On a similar but unrelated note, I didn't know what the word booger meant until second grade, having used the word 'bae si' (for lack of better romanization) meaning roughly 'nose stuff' in Cantonese.
Now in AWANA, we'd periodically have speakers and such at the end. One that stands out in my memory was a woman who showed us an overhead of a Tyrannosaurus rex and talked about how dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden. When question time came, I raised my hand and asked, "But... can't scientific things like evolution be God's actions on Earth?" I don't recall the exact response, but it was in the negative. Uncomfortable, I kept quiet for the rest of the session. I didn't go back the next year, my main excuse being that I missed the signup date. But really, I found having to choose between science and religion disconcerting.
I do believe in God, admitting that no one is free from sin and believing that Jesus' sacrifice washed us clean. (I could toss 'confess' in, but that'd be trite). But at the same time, I see life mechanisms such as heredity, evolution, etc. as His methods- programs on the Holy Computer, if you will. I'll save my evolution soapbox for another post, but needless to say there's overwhelming evidence that this is how we reached such incredible diversity of life today.
I guess I fall into the category of theistic evolution. There's no "Church of Darwin" or whatever; it really irks me when in internet arguments people use the word "Darwinist". Hell, if you're going to describe me like that, call me a Wallacist. Or make the assumption that science and religion are incompatible (unless from a literal standpoint). Religion and science are two different windows on the same world.
So that's me. I don't have a 'home' church (if anything it'd be Southern Baptist, but I'm not sure if I can go back...), nor do I feel like going atheist (although I feel a bit heathenish with a lack of any major religious background). Mom said not long ago that she feels her biggest failure is not taking Alex and me to church on a regular basis. I think we turned out as ok people, but occasionally I feel like a religious hobo.
Meh. That's enough Teal Deer bellybutton inspecting. Do kick me in the virtual shins if you deem it necessary.
This note's been written and rewritten in my head the last few days, but it also falls into the "Should probably not discuss/post on facebook category". No, nothing of a perverse nature, just musing about my ambiguous religious stance. The three topics best avoided in conversation according to dad (and in no particular order) are religion, politics, and money. But I'm curious on your (the invisible web friends') opinion(s).
First, a bit of background. My dad was raised Methodist, but is nonpracticing at the moment (to my knowledge. Whenever I asked about what he believed in, he told me religion is a personal thing. Or at least, that's what I can remember.). Mom, born and raised in the South, undoubtedly attended a Southern Baptist church of some kind. Our family never went to church on a regular basis, but she'd take Alex and me to Vacation Bible School at Calvary Baptist during the summer until we grew out of it. In fourth grade, a friend of mine got me to start going to AWANA, and I did so for about two years. More about that later.
I've been a nerd for a long time, particularly when it comes to biological sciences. I remember going through interest phrases- for a time it was dinosaurs briefly shifted to Greek and Roman mythology, then turned to many-appendaged invertebrates (jellyfish and cephalopods). I preferred styracosaurus to triceratops because it had more spikes- probably not a normal thing for a first grader, but oh well. On a similar but unrelated note, I didn't know what the word booger meant until second grade, having used the word 'bae si' (for lack of better romanization) meaning roughly 'nose stuff' in Cantonese.
Now in AWANA, we'd periodically have speakers and such at the end. One that stands out in my memory was a woman who showed us an overhead of a Tyrannosaurus rex and talked about how dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden. When question time came, I raised my hand and asked, "But... can't scientific things like evolution be God's actions on Earth?" I don't recall the exact response, but it was in the negative. Uncomfortable, I kept quiet for the rest of the session. I didn't go back the next year, my main excuse being that I missed the signup date. But really, I found having to choose between science and religion disconcerting.
I do believe in God, admitting that no one is free from sin and believing that Jesus' sacrifice washed us clean. (I could toss 'confess' in, but that'd be trite). But at the same time, I see life mechanisms such as heredity, evolution, etc. as His methods- programs on the Holy Computer, if you will. I'll save my evolution soapbox for another post, but needless to say there's overwhelming evidence that this is how we reached such incredible diversity of life today.
I guess I fall into the category of theistic evolution. There's no "Church of Darwin" or whatever; it really irks me when in internet arguments people use the word "Darwinist". Hell, if you're going to describe me like that, call me a Wallacist. Or make the assumption that science and religion are incompatible (unless from a literal standpoint). Religion and science are two different windows on the same world.
So that's me. I don't have a 'home' church (if anything it'd be Southern Baptist, but I'm not sure if I can go back...), nor do I feel like going atheist (although I feel a bit heathenish with a lack of any major religious background). Mom said not long ago that she feels her biggest failure is not taking Alex and me to church on a regular basis. I think we turned out as ok people, but occasionally I feel like a religious hobo.
Meh. That's enough Teal Deer bellybutton inspecting. Do kick me in the virtual shins if you deem it necessary.
Where did January go?
So here I am, setting up yet another blog-type thing out of many. I'm curious as to see how this culture of putting ourselves out there on the web will affect future politicians when my generation comes to power.
Unlike my previous forays into the blogosphere, this one is intended (for the most part anyway) for recording reflections, thoughts, and other such things for my Biol 210: Evolution & Creationism class. I'll likely post thoughts on other things in the bio-world as well, but if you're looking for a rant on the use of chatspeak or summaries of my day, look for my facebook, myspace, or other personal blogs.
I might crosspost, though. Haven't decided yet.
Cheers,
Danielle
Unlike my previous forays into the blogosphere, this one is intended (for the most part anyway) for recording reflections, thoughts, and other such things for my Biol 210: Evolution & Creationism class. I'll likely post thoughts on other things in the bio-world as well, but if you're looking for a rant on the use of chatspeak or summaries of my day, look for my facebook, myspace, or other personal blogs.
I might crosspost, though. Haven't decided yet.
Cheers,
Danielle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)