A couple of days ago, I contended that the Christian right is attempting to redefine science so that they can get intelligent design (creationism by a new name) taught in science classes. You can see their strategy (the wedge strategy) here: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf.
They want to do this because they've failed to convince scientists and the courts that their views are legitimately scientific. Thus, their "new" strategy is to change the definition of science to include the supernatural.
This is a really bad idea. Science must be falsifiable, or else it can't make predictions and is essentially worthless. How would one falsify the notion that life is intelligently designed? Folks who subscribe to this view argue from the "watchmaker analogy" (famously used by William Paley at the beginning of the 19th century in his book Natural Theology). Briefly, if one finds a very complex object with the appearance of design, then it must have been designed. There are many biological systems that are very complex, so the intelligent designers argue that they must have been designed (by God, really, though they try and avoid the religious aspects by contending the designer could have been any intelligent being - aliens, perhaps). How does one test such an idea? What predictions follow from this idea? How does it help us understand the system under investigation? For example, contending the clotting system of humans is intelligently designed should, if that contention is science, lead to useful information. Does it? Nope, instead it leads to a dead end. "The clotting system is intelligently designed." Ok, how does that help us combat various forms of hemophilia?
We're already falling behind in science these days - the last thing we need is some cult attempting to change the game, since they can't play by the rules.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Movie night
Watched a couple of movies after working in the office and mowing the lawn. Watched episodes 2 and 3 of "The Civil War" - fantastic, and surprisingly moving considering most of the filming is of still photographs.
However, what really knocked my socks off was watching "Frost/Nixon". I've always admired Ron Howard as a director, and I was not disappointed with this. What surprised me was that I never thought anything could make me feel sorry for Richard Nixon - and Ron's film did! Langella did an amazing job as Richard Nixon and I was blown away by how the suspense built.
I don't remember seeing the original interview - I was so disgusted with the whole thing I avoided anything having to do with Nixon - but I do remember some of the quotes from the interviews: such as "When the President does it, it's not illegal!" Fortunately, I can view the interviews now as there's a dvd of them available, which I'll be watching soon.
The only time I ever actively campaigned for a politician was when McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972. I tried to get my parents to vote against Nixon, remarking that the guy was a crook. Years later, my mom told me how bitter she was when it turned out I was right.
When Nixon was first elected in '68, I was fighting in Viet Nam and really didn't follow what was happening (don't think I knew much about the democratic convention in Chicago until I got back). Wouldn't have mattered if I did, since I was 18 at the time and couldn't have voted, though I certainly could have gotten killed "fighting for my country". You 18-year olds can thank us Viet Nam vets for your ability to vote - we and those who supported us threw such a stink about that injustice that it was changed. In any case, I would not have voted for Nixon even then, despite his promise to "end the war". All this to show how much I disliked the man - and yet the film made me feel pity for him. That's good acting, writing and directing, folks! If you haven't seen it - take a look.
However, what really knocked my socks off was watching "Frost/Nixon". I've always admired Ron Howard as a director, and I was not disappointed with this. What surprised me was that I never thought anything could make me feel sorry for Richard Nixon - and Ron's film did! Langella did an amazing job as Richard Nixon and I was blown away by how the suspense built.
I don't remember seeing the original interview - I was so disgusted with the whole thing I avoided anything having to do with Nixon - but I do remember some of the quotes from the interviews: such as "When the President does it, it's not illegal!" Fortunately, I can view the interviews now as there's a dvd of them available, which I'll be watching soon.
The only time I ever actively campaigned for a politician was when McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972. I tried to get my parents to vote against Nixon, remarking that the guy was a crook. Years later, my mom told me how bitter she was when it turned out I was right.
When Nixon was first elected in '68, I was fighting in Viet Nam and really didn't follow what was happening (don't think I knew much about the democratic convention in Chicago until I got back). Wouldn't have mattered if I did, since I was 18 at the time and couldn't have voted, though I certainly could have gotten killed "fighting for my country". You 18-year olds can thank us Viet Nam vets for your ability to vote - we and those who supported us threw such a stink about that injustice that it was changed. In any case, I would not have voted for Nixon even then, despite his promise to "end the war". All this to show how much I disliked the man - and yet the film made me feel pity for him. That's good acting, writing and directing, folks! If you haven't seen it - take a look.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Theocracy vs. democracy
So I looked at my Facebook page this morning and one of my friends had posted one of those "subscribe to" deals: "Remind Obama that we are still a Christian nation". I responded with "Except that darn Constitution says different...", which probably will not endear me to my friend and those who subscribe to such a notion. But it seems to me that those who believe the U.S. is a Christian nation really haven't thought through the implications of this - or if they have they really don't believe in the Constitution. It also seems to me that the Christian right is attempting to change the game and the rules since they've been unable to "win" otherwise.
These folks contend that since the 1st amendment doesn't explicitly say "separation of church and state" and since many of the founders were Christian the U.S. is a "Christian nation". The implications of such a view are frightening. Do you really want to live in a theocracy instead of a democracy? Do you really want to have "Christianity" as the state religion? If so, which branch of Christianity?
Let's say the answer is yes to the first two questions and "Protestantism" for the last question. Now, teachers will be allowed (forced?) to lead their classes in Protestant prayers to begin the day, including those students who aren't Protestants. Let's say your friend is Catholic - how do you suppose she will feel having her child forced to say a Protestant prayer in school? And do you seriously think that daily prayer in school will somehow magically cure all of society's ills? Is it the case that your child can't pray now?
We've seen the face of theocracy, and it isn't pretty. What would the Christian version of "sharia law" look like, and do you really want such a thing for our country?
The Christian right wants to change the meaning of the separation of church and state, and they want to change the meaning of science. I don't think many of their followers truly understand the awful implications of such deceitful plans.
These folks contend that since the 1st amendment doesn't explicitly say "separation of church and state" and since many of the founders were Christian the U.S. is a "Christian nation". The implications of such a view are frightening. Do you really want to live in a theocracy instead of a democracy? Do you really want to have "Christianity" as the state religion? If so, which branch of Christianity?
Let's say the answer is yes to the first two questions and "Protestantism" for the last question. Now, teachers will be allowed (forced?) to lead their classes in Protestant prayers to begin the day, including those students who aren't Protestants. Let's say your friend is Catholic - how do you suppose she will feel having her child forced to say a Protestant prayer in school? And do you seriously think that daily prayer in school will somehow magically cure all of society's ills? Is it the case that your child can't pray now?
We've seen the face of theocracy, and it isn't pretty. What would the Christian version of "sharia law" look like, and do you really want such a thing for our country?
The Christian right wants to change the meaning of the separation of church and state, and they want to change the meaning of science. I don't think many of their followers truly understand the awful implications of such deceitful plans.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A January walk - 19 January 2009
So Peg said "Let's go for a walk" this morning - when it was 19 out. I'm pretty much of a wimp, plus I'd only had one cup of coffee - but I need the exercise, so off we went.
The lake is frozen, but on our out trip we walked the roads. The wind was in our faces, and it sure was chilly! We decided to walk back into the woods. Lots of animal tracks, and it was fun to try and decipher what had happened. We walked back into the prairie, and there we had a real surprise - an Eastern Bluebird! The earliest I've seen them before was March - or possibly late February. There were lots of Mourning Doves around, and a flock of American Goldfinches, still in winter plumage.
A little further on we spotted a pheasant trail in the snow - tracks with a line showing where the tail had dragged in the snow. Then we saw a yearling White-tailed Deer and just behind about 5 adults.
As we walked back through the woods, we examined the tracks in the snow more closely. A number of deer trails showed they were running - lines in the snow where their hooves dragged. There seemed to be a number of Red fox trails, and some mice trails. The latter were quite interesting; they'd pop out of the snow, go on for about 2 - 3 feet and then disappear under the snow again. There's undoubtedly a bunch of mouse highways under that snow cover.
We walked back across the lake to home. A number of ice fisherman were out. The ice has been blown clear in a couple of places - and one could see that it was pretty thick given how cold it's been (below 0 for the past few days). The snow drifts showed the action of the wind - quite pretty.
I need to remind myself that it's always a good idea to walk around the lake, no matter the weather!
The lake is frozen, but on our out trip we walked the roads. The wind was in our faces, and it sure was chilly! We decided to walk back into the woods. Lots of animal tracks, and it was fun to try and decipher what had happened. We walked back into the prairie, and there we had a real surprise - an Eastern Bluebird! The earliest I've seen them before was March - or possibly late February. There were lots of Mourning Doves around, and a flock of American Goldfinches, still in winter plumage.
A little further on we spotted a pheasant trail in the snow - tracks with a line showing where the tail had dragged in the snow. Then we saw a yearling White-tailed Deer and just behind about 5 adults.
As we walked back through the woods, we examined the tracks in the snow more closely. A number of deer trails showed they were running - lines in the snow where their hooves dragged. There seemed to be a number of Red fox trails, and some mice trails. The latter were quite interesting; they'd pop out of the snow, go on for about 2 - 3 feet and then disappear under the snow again. There's undoubtedly a bunch of mouse highways under that snow cover.
We walked back across the lake to home. A number of ice fisherman were out. The ice has been blown clear in a couple of places - and one could see that it was pretty thick given how cold it's been (below 0 for the past few days). The snow drifts showed the action of the wind - quite pretty.
I need to remind myself that it's always a good idea to walk around the lake, no matter the weather!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Movies
I'm sick of grading - but it's mid-term and I have no choice...
Ah, but I can always watch a movie! I've been writing some reviews on Netflix - latest was on Baraka. Interesting movie, but not nearly as good as Koyaanisqatsi.
Movies I've seen recently that I found quite good: The Band's Visit. An Egyptian police band is scheduled to perform at an Arab settlement in Israel and gets lost. They wind up in a remote Jewish settlement and are forced to depend on the kindness of the residents. It's not what you think - you'll have to see it to find out. I'll just say that it opens with something like "This is a movie about a small incident - so small, it's not important" Well, we'll see.
I just bought a bunch of movies for my birthday - Juno and Atonement were a couple of recent ones that I felt moved to buy. Juno is just plain amazing! Atonement was much darker, but equally stunning. And don't miss Little Children.
Well, back to the grindstone... Thank goodness it's only a 4-day week!
Mike
Ah, but I can always watch a movie! I've been writing some reviews on Netflix - latest was on Baraka. Interesting movie, but not nearly as good as Koyaanisqatsi.
Movies I've seen recently that I found quite good: The Band's Visit. An Egyptian police band is scheduled to perform at an Arab settlement in Israel and gets lost. They wind up in a remote Jewish settlement and are forced to depend on the kindness of the residents. It's not what you think - you'll have to see it to find out. I'll just say that it opens with something like "This is a movie about a small incident - so small, it's not important" Well, we'll see.
I just bought a bunch of movies for my birthday - Juno and Atonement were a couple of recent ones that I felt moved to buy. Juno is just plain amazing! Atonement was much darker, but equally stunning. And don't miss Little Children.
Well, back to the grindstone... Thank goodness it's only a 4-day week!
Mike
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Insanity reigned and we all got wet...
Ok - this week will be absolutely nuts! I've got to write 3 exams, give a lecture on the Viet Nam war, and drive to Joplin, Mo., to my brother-in-laws wedding. There will be no rest for Mikey!
So, the Viet Nam thing weighs heavy on my mind. Dr. Phelan was very complimentary in his email inviting folks to the lecture...but I've only got 50 minutes and there's a faculty meeting immediately following. Damn! The lecture is for his International Relations class, and I'd like to gear it to that class, but suspect I won't have time to do much with this.
Maybe it doesn't require much - after all, I think Pres. Truman screwed up on this (and I think Truman was perhaps the 2nd best president of the 20th century - FDR was the best). He followed what the European section of the State Department advised - support the French even though they're just trying to re-establish colonialism. The Asia desk of the State Department (the people who actually knew Ho Chi Minh) had recommended that he support Ho. If only he'd listened to them - but of course if he had everyone would have accused him of "losing" Viet Nam to the communists and he really would have lost in '48. Ah - hind sight. Anyway, that decision by Truman is what led us to the debacle I'm all too familiar with - 'Nam.
Here's the short version of my lecture - combat sucks. It'll hurt you in ways you never even imagined.
Well, my cat is falling asleep in my lap, and I think she's telling me it's time for bed. Cheers,
Mike
So, the Viet Nam thing weighs heavy on my mind. Dr. Phelan was very complimentary in his email inviting folks to the lecture...but I've only got 50 minutes and there's a faculty meeting immediately following. Damn! The lecture is for his International Relations class, and I'd like to gear it to that class, but suspect I won't have time to do much with this.
Maybe it doesn't require much - after all, I think Pres. Truman screwed up on this (and I think Truman was perhaps the 2nd best president of the 20th century - FDR was the best). He followed what the European section of the State Department advised - support the French even though they're just trying to re-establish colonialism. The Asia desk of the State Department (the people who actually knew Ho Chi Minh) had recommended that he support Ho. If only he'd listened to them - but of course if he had everyone would have accused him of "losing" Viet Nam to the communists and he really would have lost in '48. Ah - hind sight. Anyway, that decision by Truman is what led us to the debacle I'm all too familiar with - 'Nam.
Here's the short version of my lecture - combat sucks. It'll hurt you in ways you never even imagined.
Well, my cat is falling asleep in my lap, and I think she's telling me it's time for bed. Cheers,
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)