Saturday, May 14, 2005
Or question the existence of a designer or creator?
Continuing on with my previous entry...
I was at biology-online.org's web page while trying to remember the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Then I read an ad in the left column that read the following:
Evolution
Still viable in light of current science?
creationdesign.org
The question in the ad makes a presumption that current science disproves the theory of evolution. Current science just about overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, which is why its a valid scientific theory. If there was little to no evidence supporting it, then it would only be the hypothesis of evolution.
The very ad indicates its a website arguing for creationism, and/or it's ugly step-cousin intelligent design theory. Intelligent design theory can't hold water as valid science, so its proponents try to support it by attacking the theory of evolution and try to cast doubt to evolution's credibility and viability. By fostering confusion and playing off the fallibility of human memory and reason, IDers/creationists hope to gain people to their argument.
It's working. By arguing that ID is an alternative theory to the theory of evolution, they then use a logical fallacy by appealing to democracy. They argue that children should be given "all the facts" to make the decision for themselves, but they don't want children to get all the facts, they only want to promote a theory that has no scientific validity, and have it taught in science class side by side with a valid scientific theory.
So, you say, where's your argument supporting evolution? Rather than repost what already exists, and spare any reader I have, I'll be brief.
You can find just about everything you wanted to know about evolution but were afraid to ask at Talk.Origins website's FAQ page.
However, I will post a couple questions from that page here:
Q: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
A: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.
Many other good questions, and really good explanations about evolution and arguing the theory are at this site.
-------
Back to our critique of the Creationist/ID author.
If life was created or designed, then the only way we could prove it is to look at the available data and information that humans have found so far.
The theory of evolution has a great quantity of evidence. Creationism and ID have nothing. All creationists and IDers can do is throw doubt into the public sphere and hope it sticks. Doubt is a good for reasoning and questioning the universe and everything in it, but at some point doubt has to give way to reason. If a doubter ignores reason and mounting evidence, then they're just living in denial hoping that someday they'll stumble on evidence proving they're right.
Let's go back to my earlier statement regarding things being created or designed. They generally serve a purpose that benefits their creator/designer. Essentially, they have a function that serves the creator/designer.
If you find something that's been created, it had to be created by something, somewhere by materials in the available universe, right? What I'm getting at is that if something is built, there's evidence of it.
Let's start with the computer on my desk. It's labled "HP Pavilion a350n." It has an "hp" logo on it, a Windows logo, an Intel Inside logo, and several others. On the back there's a label in small print that reads, "Made in Mexico."
What am I getting at? I can find the root origin of this computer if I do a little leg work and research. The computer was assembled in a factory in Mexico. The company that owns the factory is Hewlett-Packard. The operating system installed in the computer is Windows XP, the main CPU is an Intel Pentium 4. If I dig further into the where the various parts are made, I'm certain I'll find an international effort was put forth to design and manufacture this computer. I could do further research and find out where the raw materials were gathered for the factories, and find that all the materials came from earth. The plastics were created using petroleum, the metals are abundant.
The computer was sold at the local Best Buy. Now I can't tell off hand how this computer got from a factory in Mexico to the Best Buy in my area thousands of miles away, but I can make an educated guess.
My hypothesis: The factory produces a high volume of computers, and adjusts its production schedule according to available supply and demand. Once manufactured, the computers are packaged, and stored in a warehousing facility. A company like Best Buy has a purchasing agreement with the Hewlett-Packard company and they order a certain volume.
Once ordered, HP (or a shipping company servicing HP) delivered a stock supply of computers to various Best Buy retail stores. The store I purchased my computer from most likely had an available quantity that met demand.
I could be wrong. I could have missed a few steps along the way, but I'm guessing I'm in the ball park of reality.
Am I right? How could I even formulate a hypothesis about my computers origin? I'm basing my hypothesis on things I've observed in my life. I worked in retail. I'm A+ and Network+ certified, and I know a little something about computers. Could it be possible that Hewlett-Packard has genetically engineered trees in Mexico that grow computers? Possibly, but that would be absurd and unverifiable.
Now I haven't seen a logo on any living thing except for humans. Go to a shopping mall and you could speculate that humans were made by companies like Nike, Reebok, Disney, or by sports teams like the Cubs, Bears, or Yankees. However, doing some leg work and research you'd most likely find that corporations and sports teams do not make or manufacture humans. A quick visit to a hospital or a doctor would show you that humans are made and manufactured by other humans naturally not artificially.
How do I know that humans weren't ultimately manufactured by some designer or creator, then? I don't. Just like I don't know that my computer was manufactured by humans in Mexico, but I do know what a human being is, I do know where Mexico is, I do know that factories exist and what factories do. I know that retail stores exist and that they sell products like my computer. I know that managers in retail stores keep track of inventory and maintain supply levels to meet demand and expected demand. I know that the individual Best Buy store is one of many stores owned by the Best Buy corporation.
I know these things because they are observable, and others who look into my computers origin will find the same observable information I have found. Also, my observations are verifiable and they can be challenged. Anyone can look into it.
Is there anything in nature that indicates that life was manufactured or designed artificially? Is there any natural living thing that doesn't have an analog in nature? (A life form unlike anything else on the planet, say like a creature made out of plastic?) Do fossil records show that the age of dinosaur bones and human bones coexisted? Trilobytes and humans? Are there fossil records of transitional species?
Good questions.
Is there anything that indicates that humans were designed or made by a designer/creator? Aside from the fact that we're here, there's nothing indicating we were built in a supernatural workshop or factory. Observationally, it looks like humans are part of nature, and our origin lies in nature, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no designer or creator that set up the whole shebang and let it roll from the beginning.
----
Considering Time
Science indicates that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. As early as 3.6 to 4.4 billion years ago, life began to form on Earth. Sometime between 3.6 to 4.4 billion years ago, life started to form on Earth.
Let's go with the old assessment of life existing 3.6 billion years ago.
A billion years is one million millenia, or ten million centuries. Therefore 3.6 billion years is three million six hundred thousand millenia, or thirty six million centuries. (A millenium is a period of one thousand years, a century is a period of one hundred years.)
Evolution indicates that things change over time. Has anything observably changed over time? Let's see...
About one century ago, in the year 1905 there were about 1 billion people living, today in 2005 there are over 6 billion people living. There were no televisions, computers, stereo sound systems, cell phones, microwave ovens, jet aircraft, commercial airline travel, airports, artificial satellites, space shuttles, lasers, the internet, or video games. The US population is around 300 million people. (I got the population figures from here.
About one millenium ago, the human population was estimated between 254 to 345 million people, about the equivalent of the US population today. There were no printing presses, so books had to be created manually, there were very few literate people in the world, there were no factories, corporations, newspapers, very little if any form of paper money, no skyscrapers, no trains, no cars, no electric generators, or even pencils. There was no United States of America. Only a few million people lived in scattered tribes across the American continents, nobody in Europe, Africa, or Asia knew of the American continents and nobody in the American continents knew of Asia, Europe, or Africa.
About six millennia ago the first known human civilization, the Sumerians, is formed in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia now resides in the nation of Iraq, which is being fought over as I write this. The human population is between five and ten million people. About the population size range between Chicago, IL to Los Angeles, CA. (Neither Chicago or LA existed in human conception. Biblical fundamentalist scholars proclaim this is the point at which God created the universe and everything in it, nothing is older than this according to them.
About ten millenia ago, the human population is estimated to be between 1 and 10 million people. Humans began to use agriculture to grow crops, prior to that they lived in hunter/gatherer tribes. The most ancient roots of civilization are being developed.
Around 9 to 11 millenia ago, the last ice age waned.
Around 18 millenia ago, At least half of North America was covered by glaciers. The Great Lakes were large chunks of ice miles long and high. Over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
About 100 to 300 millenia ago, the human race first walked the earth. The oldest found human fossil is about 160,000 years old. (source: newscientist.com)
Between 6,000 to 7,000 millenia ago, the oldest known hominid fossils are found. At present, no hominid fossils have been found predating these. (source: talk.origins)
Let's recap so far. The United States has been around for 0.231 millenia, and human civilization has been around for about 10 millenia. The modern human race has been around for about 100 to 300 millenia. The oldest known variation of our species (hominid) is about 6,000 to 7,000 millenia old.
So, for about six to seven million years there's been a variation of hominid on the Earth. Therefore, for three billion five hundred ninety three million years of Earth's history there was nothing even remotely human walking on the face of the Earth.
Now, when creationists or IDers claim that things can't randomly develop into complex systems over time, do they really have a concept of how old the earth is? Could it be possible that if you take organic compounds and chemicals, put them on a relatively warm wet world like Earth, and life could spontaneously happen? Is it possible that simple life forms could change and evolve into more complex life forms over time, especially billions of years? It sure looks that way.
For creationism or ID to become valid, they have to account for how the designer designed life, and how the creator created life. This model has to predict how life changes to environments over time. The theory of evolution explains how things change and adapt to environments over time. It also shows how things can become extinct.
All creationists and ID proponents can do is propose confusion and doubt into the mainstream conciousness, but they don't offer anything to explain the origin of the human race or of the life on Earth. Until they can show some evidence or proof to back up their claims, they're merely pretending to be scientists.
So when they ask things like, "Still viable in light of current science?" in regard to the theory of evolution, you can see that they are on the losing side of an argument so they work to confuse the debate, trying to get you on their side of the argument.
The ultimate goal of creationism or intelligent design is one of control. The proponents of these pseudo-sciences want you to abandon the scientific method for one of a more faith based method. What you personally feel is right is more valid than data, analysis, and observation made by an open community of observers who share the information they find.
------
Does evolution take people away from their religious faith? It could add to a person's doubt, but what eventually pulls someone away from a religion is the religion itself.
For me it began when I was about twelve. I first asked, "how did all of the human race come from two people?" See I knew at age twelve where babies came from, and I knew it took nine months for a baby to be born. I also knew that two men, no matter how determined could ever produce a child no matter what they did to each other.
Inconsistency after inconsistency, logical failure after logical failure, and things that seemed to contradict reality added continued doubt. Along came science. It put things in a logical perspective for me. The conflict between what I felt was right, and what I thought was right clashed.
I asked, "how could a religion that claims a man of peace as its central figure be so warlike, so condemning, and so judgemental?" The ultimate contradiction and the ultimate hypocracy of Christianity rests in the Book of Revelations.
God gave us his son, who sacrificed his life so that we may all be forgiven of our sins. And through worship and study of the Son, we gain salvation from being born sinful and wretched creatures. So, God goes from angry Old Testament thunderbolt, earthquake, and plague thrower to a benevolent loving God, right? His Son, teaches peace, forgiveness, patience, tolerance, humilty, acceptance, sharing, and understanding.
Cool, I could dig that, until I read Revelations. God goes from being the angry Old Testament god, to loving and benevolent, back to angry Old Testament again. I had to ask, why the sudden mood change? What gives? Why give us your Son, who taught us about being peaceful and compassionate to our fellow human beings, and then suddenly everything gets destroyed. Old Testament God is back with a vengeance, and this time his Son, is a warmonger not a man of peace.
OK, let me think about this. I was taught that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, right? Essentially an all-knowing, all-powerful, being that's everywhere all the time. Do you mean to tell me that God is petty? That He would cast me into a lake of fire for the simplest and smallest of human failures? If He's omnipotent, wouldn't he know that he created humanity with flaws? If so, why punish them for being flawed/human?
Something didn't click right with Christianity for me. I studied as much about religion, spirituality, mythology, and the supernatural as I could. Inevitably, I came to reject it all. Nobody knew or knows any more than anyone else. They never have. It's a crapshoot. If you want to believe go ahead, if not, go ahead. It all comes down to this. You believe what you want to believe. Faith is rationilized emotionalism. I feel there's a god, so there must be a god. I'll reject anyone and anything that tells me otherwise. No amount of evidence, logic, or reason can ever make someone believe in something they don't want to believe in.
Which brings me to fundamentalist religions. In particular fundamentalist Christians in America. They're living in denial. However, they're very active politically, and they show no sign of slowing down. If people that believe in religious freedom and tolerance don't get active, they'd better get used to the idea of there being tolerance for only one brand of religion in the US. Any alternatives, or any ideas the run counter to the Uber-Religion will be punishable.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about religion. That is something I believe. I can't say that a god did or didn't start the Big Bang or create life, I can only go with information that's presented to me. It's all anyone can do. I can also say that people are entitled to their own opinion about science. However, nobody is entitled to their own facts.
Science has given us facts, data, and evidence supporting their argument. ID and Creationism have only given us skepticism and doubt. That's not enough to overthrow a valid scientific theory.
Continuing on with my previous entry...
I was at biology-online.org's web page while trying to remember the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Then I read an ad in the left column that read the following:
Evolution
Still viable in light of current science?
creationdesign.org
The question in the ad makes a presumption that current science disproves the theory of evolution. Current science just about overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, which is why its a valid scientific theory. If there was little to no evidence supporting it, then it would only be the hypothesis of evolution.
The very ad indicates its a website arguing for creationism, and/or it's ugly step-cousin intelligent design theory. Intelligent design theory can't hold water as valid science, so its proponents try to support it by attacking the theory of evolution and try to cast doubt to evolution's credibility and viability. By fostering confusion and playing off the fallibility of human memory and reason, IDers/creationists hope to gain people to their argument.
It's working. By arguing that ID is an alternative theory to the theory of evolution, they then use a logical fallacy by appealing to democracy. They argue that children should be given "all the facts" to make the decision for themselves, but they don't want children to get all the facts, they only want to promote a theory that has no scientific validity, and have it taught in science class side by side with a valid scientific theory.
So, you say, where's your argument supporting evolution? Rather than repost what already exists, and spare any reader I have, I'll be brief.
You can find just about everything you wanted to know about evolution but were afraid to ask at Talk.Origins website's FAQ page.
However, I will post a couple questions from that page here:
Q: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
A: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.
Many other good questions, and really good explanations about evolution and arguing the theory are at this site.
-------
Back to our critique of the Creationist/ID author.
If life was created or designed, then the only way we could prove it is to look at the available data and information that humans have found so far.
The theory of evolution has a great quantity of evidence. Creationism and ID have nothing. All creationists and IDers can do is throw doubt into the public sphere and hope it sticks. Doubt is a good for reasoning and questioning the universe and everything in it, but at some point doubt has to give way to reason. If a doubter ignores reason and mounting evidence, then they're just living in denial hoping that someday they'll stumble on evidence proving they're right.
Let's go back to my earlier statement regarding things being created or designed. They generally serve a purpose that benefits their creator/designer. Essentially, they have a function that serves the creator/designer.
If you find something that's been created, it had to be created by something, somewhere by materials in the available universe, right? What I'm getting at is that if something is built, there's evidence of it.
Let's start with the computer on my desk. It's labled "HP Pavilion a350n." It has an "hp" logo on it, a Windows logo, an Intel Inside logo, and several others. On the back there's a label in small print that reads, "Made in Mexico."
What am I getting at? I can find the root origin of this computer if I do a little leg work and research. The computer was assembled in a factory in Mexico. The company that owns the factory is Hewlett-Packard. The operating system installed in the computer is Windows XP, the main CPU is an Intel Pentium 4. If I dig further into the where the various parts are made, I'm certain I'll find an international effort was put forth to design and manufacture this computer. I could do further research and find out where the raw materials were gathered for the factories, and find that all the materials came from earth. The plastics were created using petroleum, the metals are abundant.
The computer was sold at the local Best Buy. Now I can't tell off hand how this computer got from a factory in Mexico to the Best Buy in my area thousands of miles away, but I can make an educated guess.
My hypothesis: The factory produces a high volume of computers, and adjusts its production schedule according to available supply and demand. Once manufactured, the computers are packaged, and stored in a warehousing facility. A company like Best Buy has a purchasing agreement with the Hewlett-Packard company and they order a certain volume.
Once ordered, HP (or a shipping company servicing HP) delivered a stock supply of computers to various Best Buy retail stores. The store I purchased my computer from most likely had an available quantity that met demand.
I could be wrong. I could have missed a few steps along the way, but I'm guessing I'm in the ball park of reality.
Am I right? How could I even formulate a hypothesis about my computers origin? I'm basing my hypothesis on things I've observed in my life. I worked in retail. I'm A+ and Network+ certified, and I know a little something about computers. Could it be possible that Hewlett-Packard has genetically engineered trees in Mexico that grow computers? Possibly, but that would be absurd and unverifiable.
Now I haven't seen a logo on any living thing except for humans. Go to a shopping mall and you could speculate that humans were made by companies like Nike, Reebok, Disney, or by sports teams like the Cubs, Bears, or Yankees. However, doing some leg work and research you'd most likely find that corporations and sports teams do not make or manufacture humans. A quick visit to a hospital or a doctor would show you that humans are made and manufactured by other humans naturally not artificially.
How do I know that humans weren't ultimately manufactured by some designer or creator, then? I don't. Just like I don't know that my computer was manufactured by humans in Mexico, but I do know what a human being is, I do know where Mexico is, I do know that factories exist and what factories do. I know that retail stores exist and that they sell products like my computer. I know that managers in retail stores keep track of inventory and maintain supply levels to meet demand and expected demand. I know that the individual Best Buy store is one of many stores owned by the Best Buy corporation.
I know these things because they are observable, and others who look into my computers origin will find the same observable information I have found. Also, my observations are verifiable and they can be challenged. Anyone can look into it.
Is there anything in nature that indicates that life was manufactured or designed artificially? Is there any natural living thing that doesn't have an analog in nature? (A life form unlike anything else on the planet, say like a creature made out of plastic?) Do fossil records show that the age of dinosaur bones and human bones coexisted? Trilobytes and humans? Are there fossil records of transitional species?
Good questions.
Is there anything that indicates that humans were designed or made by a designer/creator? Aside from the fact that we're here, there's nothing indicating we were built in a supernatural workshop or factory. Observationally, it looks like humans are part of nature, and our origin lies in nature, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no designer or creator that set up the whole shebang and let it roll from the beginning.
----
Considering Time
Science indicates that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. As early as 3.6 to 4.4 billion years ago, life began to form on Earth. Sometime between 3.6 to 4.4 billion years ago, life started to form on Earth.
Let's go with the old assessment of life existing 3.6 billion years ago.
A billion years is one million millenia, or ten million centuries. Therefore 3.6 billion years is three million six hundred thousand millenia, or thirty six million centuries. (A millenium is a period of one thousand years, a century is a period of one hundred years.)
Evolution indicates that things change over time. Has anything observably changed over time? Let's see...
About one century ago, in the year 1905 there were about 1 billion people living, today in 2005 there are over 6 billion people living. There were no televisions, computers, stereo sound systems, cell phones, microwave ovens, jet aircraft, commercial airline travel, airports, artificial satellites, space shuttles, lasers, the internet, or video games. The US population is around 300 million people. (I got the population figures from here.
About one millenium ago, the human population was estimated between 254 to 345 million people, about the equivalent of the US population today. There were no printing presses, so books had to be created manually, there were very few literate people in the world, there were no factories, corporations, newspapers, very little if any form of paper money, no skyscrapers, no trains, no cars, no electric generators, or even pencils. There was no United States of America. Only a few million people lived in scattered tribes across the American continents, nobody in Europe, Africa, or Asia knew of the American continents and nobody in the American continents knew of Asia, Europe, or Africa.
About six millennia ago the first known human civilization, the Sumerians, is formed in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia now resides in the nation of Iraq, which is being fought over as I write this. The human population is between five and ten million people. About the population size range between Chicago, IL to Los Angeles, CA. (Neither Chicago or LA existed in human conception. Biblical fundamentalist scholars proclaim this is the point at which God created the universe and everything in it, nothing is older than this according to them.
About ten millenia ago, the human population is estimated to be between 1 and 10 million people. Humans began to use agriculture to grow crops, prior to that they lived in hunter/gatherer tribes. The most ancient roots of civilization are being developed.
Around 9 to 11 millenia ago, the last ice age waned.
Around 18 millenia ago, At least half of North America was covered by glaciers. The Great Lakes were large chunks of ice miles long and high. Over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
About 100 to 300 millenia ago, the human race first walked the earth. The oldest found human fossil is about 160,000 years old. (source: newscientist.com)
Between 6,000 to 7,000 millenia ago, the oldest known hominid fossils are found. At present, no hominid fossils have been found predating these. (source: talk.origins)
Let's recap so far. The United States has been around for 0.231 millenia, and human civilization has been around for about 10 millenia. The modern human race has been around for about 100 to 300 millenia. The oldest known variation of our species (hominid) is about 6,000 to 7,000 millenia old.
So, for about six to seven million years there's been a variation of hominid on the Earth. Therefore, for three billion five hundred ninety three million years of Earth's history there was nothing even remotely human walking on the face of the Earth.
Now, when creationists or IDers claim that things can't randomly develop into complex systems over time, do they really have a concept of how old the earth is? Could it be possible that if you take organic compounds and chemicals, put them on a relatively warm wet world like Earth, and life could spontaneously happen? Is it possible that simple life forms could change and evolve into more complex life forms over time, especially billions of years? It sure looks that way.
For creationism or ID to become valid, they have to account for how the designer designed life, and how the creator created life. This model has to predict how life changes to environments over time. The theory of evolution explains how things change and adapt to environments over time. It also shows how things can become extinct.
All creationists and ID proponents can do is propose confusion and doubt into the mainstream conciousness, but they don't offer anything to explain the origin of the human race or of the life on Earth. Until they can show some evidence or proof to back up their claims, they're merely pretending to be scientists.
So when they ask things like, "Still viable in light of current science?" in regard to the theory of evolution, you can see that they are on the losing side of an argument so they work to confuse the debate, trying to get you on their side of the argument.
The ultimate goal of creationism or intelligent design is one of control. The proponents of these pseudo-sciences want you to abandon the scientific method for one of a more faith based method. What you personally feel is right is more valid than data, analysis, and observation made by an open community of observers who share the information they find.
------
Does evolution take people away from their religious faith? It could add to a person's doubt, but what eventually pulls someone away from a religion is the religion itself.
For me it began when I was about twelve. I first asked, "how did all of the human race come from two people?" See I knew at age twelve where babies came from, and I knew it took nine months for a baby to be born. I also knew that two men, no matter how determined could ever produce a child no matter what they did to each other.
Inconsistency after inconsistency, logical failure after logical failure, and things that seemed to contradict reality added continued doubt. Along came science. It put things in a logical perspective for me. The conflict between what I felt was right, and what I thought was right clashed.
I asked, "how could a religion that claims a man of peace as its central figure be so warlike, so condemning, and so judgemental?" The ultimate contradiction and the ultimate hypocracy of Christianity rests in the Book of Revelations.
God gave us his son, who sacrificed his life so that we may all be forgiven of our sins. And through worship and study of the Son, we gain salvation from being born sinful and wretched creatures. So, God goes from angry Old Testament thunderbolt, earthquake, and plague thrower to a benevolent loving God, right? His Son, teaches peace, forgiveness, patience, tolerance, humilty, acceptance, sharing, and understanding.
Cool, I could dig that, until I read Revelations. God goes from being the angry Old Testament god, to loving and benevolent, back to angry Old Testament again. I had to ask, why the sudden mood change? What gives? Why give us your Son, who taught us about being peaceful and compassionate to our fellow human beings, and then suddenly everything gets destroyed. Old Testament God is back with a vengeance, and this time his Son, is a warmonger not a man of peace.
OK, let me think about this. I was taught that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, right? Essentially an all-knowing, all-powerful, being that's everywhere all the time. Do you mean to tell me that God is petty? That He would cast me into a lake of fire for the simplest and smallest of human failures? If He's omnipotent, wouldn't he know that he created humanity with flaws? If so, why punish them for being flawed/human?
Something didn't click right with Christianity for me. I studied as much about religion, spirituality, mythology, and the supernatural as I could. Inevitably, I came to reject it all. Nobody knew or knows any more than anyone else. They never have. It's a crapshoot. If you want to believe go ahead, if not, go ahead. It all comes down to this. You believe what you want to believe. Faith is rationilized emotionalism. I feel there's a god, so there must be a god. I'll reject anyone and anything that tells me otherwise. No amount of evidence, logic, or reason can ever make someone believe in something they don't want to believe in.
Which brings me to fundamentalist religions. In particular fundamentalist Christians in America. They're living in denial. However, they're very active politically, and they show no sign of slowing down. If people that believe in religious freedom and tolerance don't get active, they'd better get used to the idea of there being tolerance for only one brand of religion in the US. Any alternatives, or any ideas the run counter to the Uber-Religion will be punishable.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about religion. That is something I believe. I can't say that a god did or didn't start the Big Bang or create life, I can only go with information that's presented to me. It's all anyone can do. I can also say that people are entitled to their own opinion about science. However, nobody is entitled to their own facts.
Science has given us facts, data, and evidence supporting their argument. ID and Creationism have only given us skepticism and doubt. That's not enough to overthrow a valid scientific theory.
Friday, May 13, 2005
"The argument that your friend makes serves to illustrate the real basis for evolution: Evolution must account for the existence of life, because if it does not, then there must have been a Designer, a Creator who created life. And the existence of a Designer and Creator is unacceptable. Therefore, it must be the mud, the accidents and the survival of the fittest that did it."
"All God-talk aside, that is the most convoluted and utterly vapid reasoning offered by any intelligent human since the scientific community believed that the world was balanced on the back of a giant turtle."
-some of the circular and pseudo-scientific argument from Creation Design.org
Uhm...
Whew. What are they teaching kids these days?
I'll start with the comment about the scientific community believing that the world was balanced on the back of a giant turtle.
In all the science I've studied, and I'm not a scientist but I am scientifically literate, I have never read that scientists ever proclaimed that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that no scientist has ever made a serious argument that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle. Yes, I've heard the concept used in derogatory remarks about bad science, superstitious belief, and as a means of ridiculing fantastical religious arguments about nature, but I think the author of the creationist website is trying to throw the giant turtle analogy back in the lap of science.
The author of the site attempts to make a valid argument that life is complex, therefore there's no way it could have happened randomly in nature. Then goes on to make a statement that since life is complex, and the observable phenomena couldn't have been mixed randomly from the organic soup by itself, it must have been designed.
The author then states, "the existence of a Designer and Creator is unacceptable." OK, let's pause for a moment.
If this question hit you, you might be scientifically inclined; "how does the theory of evolution bring into doubt or question the existence of a designer or creator?"
Let's summarize the theory of evolution briefly. Things change over time, particularly living things. Let's slow it down for the non-scientifically inclined... things... change... over... time.
The author then goes on to bring about an argument from complexity with this page.
OK, so eyes , brain cells, muscles, and Heck! even e-coli bacteria are complex. They must have been designed because they are complicated. And people that believe in evolution do so out of faith, not out of any sense of logic or reason. Here's a final quote at the bottom of the "if you believe in evolution" page:
"Do you believe in evolution because it's logical? Or because the alternative is unacceptable?"
Again, what's the alternative to evolution? Things don't change over time, they have always been as they are? I'm guessing the author means that living things did not evolve from other living things, but that life was designed or created. I'm guessing this is the author's intent.
Let me summarize what I think the author is trying to say:
1) Things are complicated so that means they must have been designed or created by some intelligence. Complex things, especially living things, cannot occur naturally.
2) Living things have always been as they are right now, and don't change over time.
3) Belief in the theory of evolution means that one cannot believe in a designer or a creator.
4) People believe in the theory of evolution, not out of any reasonable, logical, or scientific sense, but out of some emotional, irrational, or possible pseudo-religious sense.
I'm going to deconstruct the author's concept using available, off the shelf, observable phenomena.
Ready?
Where do babies come from? Anyone over the age of six can answer this one. They come from their mommies.
Let's break this down. Moms and dads come from the wombs of women. Men and women have to engage in sexual intercourse to produce a child. When a male and female homo sapien mate, the male's sperm cells will strive to fertilize the female's egg cell. Generally, only one sperm cell penetrates the egg cell. Once the egg cell is fertilized it emits a chemical that kills off the surviving sperm cells.
From that point, the fertilized egg cell will begin to reproduce more cells, those cells in time will develop into organs for the fetus, then the fetus develops into a baby. Once born, the baby will grow up, become an adult, mate, and the cycle continues.
What's my first point? Living things change over time. Humans do not start off as humans, but as two seperate sets of cells that combine to make a new and unique human being. A DNA check of a baby and her parents will show a genetic similarity, but a unique difference in the baby from the parents.
The baby is a new life form, similar yet different from its parents. It will change over time, and will most likely grow to fit its environment. If the child can't survive in its environment, it will die.
In regard to points 3 and 4 of my summary of the author's statements there is nothing in regard to the theory of evolution that discounts a designer or creator. Science, good science anyway, is based on following a logical system of solving problems and answering questions. The scientist then exposes his/her ideas to his/her peers after study and research has been conducted, and data analyzed and synthesized.
The difference between a creationist, or proponent of intelligent design, and a scientist is this:
Creationists know the outcome of what they're looking for. They suit facts to fit their beliefs. Scientists do not know the outcome of what they're looking for. They suit their beliefs based on the facts they find.
If you're scratching your head, let me clarify.
If I believe that the Great Pumpkin God created the universe when it was smashed, I have a preconceived notion of how the universe came into being, and of a creator god. Now if I find observable phenomena in the world, I'll just say how it supports my belief.
For example, The earth is big and round with water and life. How'd it get here? Well, the Earth and all the planets were created from the Great Pumpkin God's seeds. All the oceans, stars, clouds, and material stuff were just swishing around in the GPG before it got smashed.
From this point, I can go on talking about how everything in the world is the result of the Great Smash. I use the observable world to support my Great Pumpkin Theory of Creation.
Science doesn't work that way.
A question is asked. People gather information and data to solve the problem. Scientists are not sure of what answer they'll find.
How did the Earth get here? After observing stars, nebulae, and planets for hundreds of years, combined with mathematics, it's a safe bet that the Earth is the result of space debris that got trapped in the giant gas cloud that became our sun.
How did science come up with such a conclusion? Through mutually observable data that anyone can look at. In fact, if people analyze and look at the data seperate from one another, without knowledge of each other, but come to the same conclusion about natural phenomena, chances are that shows some something to be scientifically valid.
So, scientists did not pull the theory of evolution out of thin air, they came up with it by studying nature. They recorded their information, shared their data, compared notes, argued, debated, and hammered out a valid scientific theory.
Lastly, I'll tackle the argument from complexity and argument from design.
When scientists say that things evolved over time, they're not talking about a couple weeks, months or even a few thousand years. They're talking about billions of years, at least 3.6 billion years at an educated guess.
Let's say I created a computer that could take the letters of the alphabet, combine them together in a particular pattern. I run the computer for 3.6 billion years, how many words in the English language do you think the computer could generate randomly? How many sentences do you think would be generated in sequential order? Probably quite a few words would be generated randomly, and possibly some coherent sentences could be generated randomly.
What am I getting at? Living things are made of materials found all throughout the universe. The basic chemicals in nature are found in living things. The more complex organic compounds are found in living things.
The elements of the periodic table bond together in random and various ways. But there is an order, a pattern, to how they bond. A water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Hydrochloric acid is made from hydrogen and chlorine. Table salt is made from Sodium and Chlorine.
At a guess, science indicates that life could come from lifelessness, but the right environment and the right chemicals must be available for life to form.
Weird? Odd? Sure. Now, is there anything that I've mentioned that argues against a creator/designer? No.
Now, I'll argue against a designer/creator. The glasses I'm wearing were conceived and designed. The car I drove to work, was conceived, designed, and created. The computer I'm using to write this argument, was also, conceived, designed, created, improved on, upgraded, and redesigned. The artwork on the book cover I'm looking at was conceived, designed and created.
Generally speaking, things that are designed serve a purpose or function that benefit their creator/designer in some way. Glasses help people see things more clearly, cars are used as transporation, computers have multiple functions, and art has an emotional and intrinsic function unique to the creator.
If life on Earth was designed, how does it benefit or serve its creator? Why have life forms live on a planet that's geologically, meterologically, and cosmologically unstable? An asteroid or comet could smash into the earth tomorrow and wipe out 90% of all life. How does that benefit a creator/designer? The Caldera volcano in Wyoming could erupt, emitting a violent eruption that would sink the planet into another ice age. Effectively making a larger portion of life on Earth become extinct. How does this benefit an intelligent designer? Does it seem very intelligent to create life on a planet that can be very inhospitable at times to the creatures living on it?
Recently, a tsunami was unleashed in the Indian Ocean killing hundreds of thousands of people. What kind of a creator creates a planet where his/her "chosen" species can be killed off en-masse by natural disasters? The killing is random to boot. Not logic, rhyme, or reason for why the people died. They just were in the path of a tsunami. (Wrong place, wrong time.)
If life was designed by intelligence, either the intelligence is cruel and sadistic, or its the result of very short sighted and ignorant planning and design.
Science isn't perfect by any means. It has gaps in its logic at times, and it can't answer everything. It's sort of a self correcting, self upgrading, self improving system. Essentially, it evolves. It improves with time. It gets better and can eventually begin to explain the world around us with sharp clarity.
The alternative is to remain superstitious, and clutching to metaphysical explanations that satisfy our curiousity, but don't solve problems. All they do is make us feel better, but don't get at the root of problems or answering questions in a logical manner. The superstitious / metaphysical method generally creates an overly simplistic world view, making life easy to explain, black & white.
America is in danger of going back to the Dark Ages. Science is our lantern in the darkness. Without it, we're subject to tyranny and ignorance, and eventually extinction.
"All God-talk aside, that is the most convoluted and utterly vapid reasoning offered by any intelligent human since the scientific community believed that the world was balanced on the back of a giant turtle."
-some of the circular and pseudo-scientific argument from Creation Design.org
Uhm...
Whew. What are they teaching kids these days?
I'll start with the comment about the scientific community believing that the world was balanced on the back of a giant turtle.
In all the science I've studied, and I'm not a scientist but I am scientifically literate, I have never read that scientists ever proclaimed that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that no scientist has ever made a serious argument that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle. Yes, I've heard the concept used in derogatory remarks about bad science, superstitious belief, and as a means of ridiculing fantastical religious arguments about nature, but I think the author of the creationist website is trying to throw the giant turtle analogy back in the lap of science.
The author of the site attempts to make a valid argument that life is complex, therefore there's no way it could have happened randomly in nature. Then goes on to make a statement that since life is complex, and the observable phenomena couldn't have been mixed randomly from the organic soup by itself, it must have been designed.
The author then states, "the existence of a Designer and Creator is unacceptable." OK, let's pause for a moment.
If this question hit you, you might be scientifically inclined; "how does the theory of evolution bring into doubt or question the existence of a designer or creator?"
Let's summarize the theory of evolution briefly. Things change over time, particularly living things. Let's slow it down for the non-scientifically inclined... things... change... over... time.
The author then goes on to bring about an argument from complexity with this page.
OK, so eyes , brain cells, muscles, and Heck! even e-coli bacteria are complex. They must have been designed because they are complicated. And people that believe in evolution do so out of faith, not out of any sense of logic or reason. Here's a final quote at the bottom of the "if you believe in evolution" page:
"Do you believe in evolution because it's logical? Or because the alternative is unacceptable?"
Again, what's the alternative to evolution? Things don't change over time, they have always been as they are? I'm guessing the author means that living things did not evolve from other living things, but that life was designed or created. I'm guessing this is the author's intent.
Let me summarize what I think the author is trying to say:
1) Things are complicated so that means they must have been designed or created by some intelligence. Complex things, especially living things, cannot occur naturally.
2) Living things have always been as they are right now, and don't change over time.
3) Belief in the theory of evolution means that one cannot believe in a designer or a creator.
4) People believe in the theory of evolution, not out of any reasonable, logical, or scientific sense, but out of some emotional, irrational, or possible pseudo-religious sense.
I'm going to deconstruct the author's concept using available, off the shelf, observable phenomena.
Ready?
Where do babies come from? Anyone over the age of six can answer this one. They come from their mommies.
Let's break this down. Moms and dads come from the wombs of women. Men and women have to engage in sexual intercourse to produce a child. When a male and female homo sapien mate, the male's sperm cells will strive to fertilize the female's egg cell. Generally, only one sperm cell penetrates the egg cell. Once the egg cell is fertilized it emits a chemical that kills off the surviving sperm cells.
From that point, the fertilized egg cell will begin to reproduce more cells, those cells in time will develop into organs for the fetus, then the fetus develops into a baby. Once born, the baby will grow up, become an adult, mate, and the cycle continues.
What's my first point? Living things change over time. Humans do not start off as humans, but as two seperate sets of cells that combine to make a new and unique human being. A DNA check of a baby and her parents will show a genetic similarity, but a unique difference in the baby from the parents.
The baby is a new life form, similar yet different from its parents. It will change over time, and will most likely grow to fit its environment. If the child can't survive in its environment, it will die.
In regard to points 3 and 4 of my summary of the author's statements there is nothing in regard to the theory of evolution that discounts a designer or creator. Science, good science anyway, is based on following a logical system of solving problems and answering questions. The scientist then exposes his/her ideas to his/her peers after study and research has been conducted, and data analyzed and synthesized.
The difference between a creationist, or proponent of intelligent design, and a scientist is this:
Creationists know the outcome of what they're looking for. They suit facts to fit their beliefs. Scientists do not know the outcome of what they're looking for. They suit their beliefs based on the facts they find.
If you're scratching your head, let me clarify.
If I believe that the Great Pumpkin God created the universe when it was smashed, I have a preconceived notion of how the universe came into being, and of a creator god. Now if I find observable phenomena in the world, I'll just say how it supports my belief.
For example, The earth is big and round with water and life. How'd it get here? Well, the Earth and all the planets were created from the Great Pumpkin God's seeds. All the oceans, stars, clouds, and material stuff were just swishing around in the GPG before it got smashed.
From this point, I can go on talking about how everything in the world is the result of the Great Smash. I use the observable world to support my Great Pumpkin Theory of Creation.
Science doesn't work that way.
A question is asked. People gather information and data to solve the problem. Scientists are not sure of what answer they'll find.
How did the Earth get here? After observing stars, nebulae, and planets for hundreds of years, combined with mathematics, it's a safe bet that the Earth is the result of space debris that got trapped in the giant gas cloud that became our sun.
How did science come up with such a conclusion? Through mutually observable data that anyone can look at. In fact, if people analyze and look at the data seperate from one another, without knowledge of each other, but come to the same conclusion about natural phenomena, chances are that shows some something to be scientifically valid.
So, scientists did not pull the theory of evolution out of thin air, they came up with it by studying nature. They recorded their information, shared their data, compared notes, argued, debated, and hammered out a valid scientific theory.
Lastly, I'll tackle the argument from complexity and argument from design.
When scientists say that things evolved over time, they're not talking about a couple weeks, months or even a few thousand years. They're talking about billions of years, at least 3.6 billion years at an educated guess.
Let's say I created a computer that could take the letters of the alphabet, combine them together in a particular pattern. I run the computer for 3.6 billion years, how many words in the English language do you think the computer could generate randomly? How many sentences do you think would be generated in sequential order? Probably quite a few words would be generated randomly, and possibly some coherent sentences could be generated randomly.
What am I getting at? Living things are made of materials found all throughout the universe. The basic chemicals in nature are found in living things. The more complex organic compounds are found in living things.
The elements of the periodic table bond together in random and various ways. But there is an order, a pattern, to how they bond. A water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Hydrochloric acid is made from hydrogen and chlorine. Table salt is made from Sodium and Chlorine.
At a guess, science indicates that life could come from lifelessness, but the right environment and the right chemicals must be available for life to form.
Weird? Odd? Sure. Now, is there anything that I've mentioned that argues against a creator/designer? No.
Now, I'll argue against a designer/creator. The glasses I'm wearing were conceived and designed. The car I drove to work, was conceived, designed, and created. The computer I'm using to write this argument, was also, conceived, designed, created, improved on, upgraded, and redesigned. The artwork on the book cover I'm looking at was conceived, designed and created.
Generally speaking, things that are designed serve a purpose or function that benefit their creator/designer in some way. Glasses help people see things more clearly, cars are used as transporation, computers have multiple functions, and art has an emotional and intrinsic function unique to the creator.
If life on Earth was designed, how does it benefit or serve its creator? Why have life forms live on a planet that's geologically, meterologically, and cosmologically unstable? An asteroid or comet could smash into the earth tomorrow and wipe out 90% of all life. How does that benefit a creator/designer? The Caldera volcano in Wyoming could erupt, emitting a violent eruption that would sink the planet into another ice age. Effectively making a larger portion of life on Earth become extinct. How does this benefit an intelligent designer? Does it seem very intelligent to create life on a planet that can be very inhospitable at times to the creatures living on it?
Recently, a tsunami was unleashed in the Indian Ocean killing hundreds of thousands of people. What kind of a creator creates a planet where his/her "chosen" species can be killed off en-masse by natural disasters? The killing is random to boot. Not logic, rhyme, or reason for why the people died. They just were in the path of a tsunami. (Wrong place, wrong time.)
If life was designed by intelligence, either the intelligence is cruel and sadistic, or its the result of very short sighted and ignorant planning and design.
Science isn't perfect by any means. It has gaps in its logic at times, and it can't answer everything. It's sort of a self correcting, self upgrading, self improving system. Essentially, it evolves. It improves with time. It gets better and can eventually begin to explain the world around us with sharp clarity.
The alternative is to remain superstitious, and clutching to metaphysical explanations that satisfy our curiousity, but don't solve problems. All they do is make us feel better, but don't get at the root of problems or answering questions in a logical manner. The superstitious / metaphysical method generally creates an overly simplistic world view, making life easy to explain, black & white.
America is in danger of going back to the Dark Ages. Science is our lantern in the darkness. Without it, we're subject to tyranny and ignorance, and eventually extinction.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
There are certain statistics that we might not want to know.
As of this posting, 1,615 American soldiers have died in Iraq. 6,190 have been wounded in action and returned to duty, and 6160 have been wounded in action.
88 British troops have been killed, and 92 soldiers from other countries have been killed as well.
The total comes to: 1,795 killed in Iraq, and 11,888 soldiers have been wounded in action.
Here's my source.
The mainstream media has all but forgotten our soldiers overseas. You can find out what's going on over there straight from the soldier's perspective, here.
A woman I work with has a friend in Iraq, and I couldn't help but feel a trickle of anger thinking about how her friends life was being put on the line for what?
I could go on a long anti-war rant, but I'll focus on a few things:
The soldiers fighting over there are not fighting to stop terrorism or bring democracy to the Middle East. They're fighting to spread American hegemony and empire. We're their for the oil, plain and simple.
Oil is becoming a scarce resouce, and when it hits peak production capacity, the US wants to make certain its in the right place to defend its access to oil.
Human history is filled with empires clashing over resources. Empires rise and fall. Most collapse when they fail to bolster their infrastructure.
The question is this; is the US fighting in Iraq to bolster its infrastructure? Yes and no. By fighting in Iraq, and gaining the lion's share of access to Iraq's oil, the US is protecting its economy by maintaining relatively cheap oil.
However, we're fighting this war at the expense of our current infrastructure, and we're borrowing heavily on our future to pay for the war today. The true victors in this war are the private companies. They're making fortunes. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, recently got a bonus for doing good work. ($72 million)
In the most recent bill passed by the Republicans and signed by Bush is a small retainer that will put into law the demand that Americans have a national ID card. We add $81 billion more to the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are still no further to obtaining an exit strategy.
The US has two other threats emerging in Iran and N. Korea. The Bush administration is sitting on its hands. No surprises. They don't do diplomacy, apparently.
The US has stretched itself thin, and doesn't have the infrastructure to push for further war. If Iran or N. Korea started making and selling nuclear weapons, the US would have to respond. Nuclear proliferation cannot be an option. (But with the Bush administration, they'd probably reward N. Korea or Iran for selling weapons to nations that are not friendly to the US.)
Our economy is set on a house of cards. It won't take much to break it.
Bush's agenda is to bolster a corporatocracy, in other words create a friendly fascist state.
It looks like John Bolton is going to the UN. Sure Voinovich raised a stink, but I'm betting he'll slip through the senate by a narrow margin.
Just what the US needs, put a guy in the UN who hates the UN. That would be like putting McDonald's in charge of school lunch programs.
Things are looking pretty grim for us freedom lovers.
We'll see. Gotta get organized, get active, and work to teach others.
As of this posting, 1,615 American soldiers have died in Iraq. 6,190 have been wounded in action and returned to duty, and 6160 have been wounded in action.
88 British troops have been killed, and 92 soldiers from other countries have been killed as well.
The total comes to: 1,795 killed in Iraq, and 11,888 soldiers have been wounded in action.
Here's my source.
The mainstream media has all but forgotten our soldiers overseas. You can find out what's going on over there straight from the soldier's perspective, here.
A woman I work with has a friend in Iraq, and I couldn't help but feel a trickle of anger thinking about how her friends life was being put on the line for what?
I could go on a long anti-war rant, but I'll focus on a few things:
The soldiers fighting over there are not fighting to stop terrorism or bring democracy to the Middle East. They're fighting to spread American hegemony and empire. We're their for the oil, plain and simple.
Oil is becoming a scarce resouce, and when it hits peak production capacity, the US wants to make certain its in the right place to defend its access to oil.
Human history is filled with empires clashing over resources. Empires rise and fall. Most collapse when they fail to bolster their infrastructure.
The question is this; is the US fighting in Iraq to bolster its infrastructure? Yes and no. By fighting in Iraq, and gaining the lion's share of access to Iraq's oil, the US is protecting its economy by maintaining relatively cheap oil.
However, we're fighting this war at the expense of our current infrastructure, and we're borrowing heavily on our future to pay for the war today. The true victors in this war are the private companies. They're making fortunes. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, recently got a bonus for doing good work. ($72 million)
In the most recent bill passed by the Republicans and signed by Bush is a small retainer that will put into law the demand that Americans have a national ID card. We add $81 billion more to the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are still no further to obtaining an exit strategy.
The US has two other threats emerging in Iran and N. Korea. The Bush administration is sitting on its hands. No surprises. They don't do diplomacy, apparently.
The US has stretched itself thin, and doesn't have the infrastructure to push for further war. If Iran or N. Korea started making and selling nuclear weapons, the US would have to respond. Nuclear proliferation cannot be an option. (But with the Bush administration, they'd probably reward N. Korea or Iran for selling weapons to nations that are not friendly to the US.)
Our economy is set on a house of cards. It won't take much to break it.
Bush's agenda is to bolster a corporatocracy, in other words create a friendly fascist state.
It looks like John Bolton is going to the UN. Sure Voinovich raised a stink, but I'm betting he'll slip through the senate by a narrow margin.
Just what the US needs, put a guy in the UN who hates the UN. That would be like putting McDonald's in charge of school lunch programs.
Things are looking pretty grim for us freedom lovers.
We'll see. Gotta get organized, get active, and work to teach others.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Seriously, I'm not crazy!!!
Here are some more links about Peak Oil.
This guy could be nuts, but then again...?
Listen to your Mother.
This book was very informative, and I felt very well researched. I felt the author took as neutral a stance as possible, and summarized the present state of energy and its potential future. A good read, I'd highly recommend.
Here are some more links about Peak Oil.
This guy could be nuts, but then again...?
Listen to your Mother.
This book was very informative, and I felt very well researched. I felt the author took as neutral a stance as possible, and summarized the present state of energy and its potential future. A good read, I'd highly recommend.
"Eckhart! Think about the future."
Right after Jack (soon to become the Joker) shouted that statement, he shot and killed the corrupt Detective Eckhart. This is a scene from the old movie, "Batman." (1989) At our current rate, we're heading in the same direction as Detective Eckhart; short-sighted, thinking only of the present, greedy, ignorant, and oblivious to how our actions will effect our future.
If we don't start taking a serious look at our present and future path, human civilization will come to a grinding and catastrophic halt. Our ignorance, like the mobster Jack, will come back to haunt us for not heeding the warnings of science. If we continue to be short-sighted, our future will be very much at the mercy of a psychotic like The Joker.
What am I talking about? Energy. The world is on the brink of peak oil production. At the rate the US is going, we're going to be very ill prepared for such a catastrophe.
Check out this article.
Although I'm skeptical it will cause human extinction, I'm certain it will be the most horrific event to hit humanity. Billions will die. Billions. We won't be able to sustain the numbers of humans we have now without oil. It won't happen. Oil has been our mainstay for over a century, and now with China and India emerging as major industrial powers, the supply just will not be able to meet demand.
We have to act now. Study, read, and inform yourself. Then start writing letters to your editor, congress person, president, etc.
If that doesn't work, read up on generating electricity, growing food, and how to kill poachers. It'll be a gruesome future.
We still have time, but its running out.
“Civilization,” wrote H. G. Wells, “is a race between education and disaster.”
Right after Jack (soon to become the Joker) shouted that statement, he shot and killed the corrupt Detective Eckhart. This is a scene from the old movie, "Batman." (1989) At our current rate, we're heading in the same direction as Detective Eckhart; short-sighted, thinking only of the present, greedy, ignorant, and oblivious to how our actions will effect our future.
If we don't start taking a serious look at our present and future path, human civilization will come to a grinding and catastrophic halt. Our ignorance, like the mobster Jack, will come back to haunt us for not heeding the warnings of science. If we continue to be short-sighted, our future will be very much at the mercy of a psychotic like The Joker.
What am I talking about? Energy. The world is on the brink of peak oil production. At the rate the US is going, we're going to be very ill prepared for such a catastrophe.
Check out this article.
Although I'm skeptical it will cause human extinction, I'm certain it will be the most horrific event to hit humanity. Billions will die. Billions. We won't be able to sustain the numbers of humans we have now without oil. It won't happen. Oil has been our mainstay for over a century, and now with China and India emerging as major industrial powers, the supply just will not be able to meet demand.
We have to act now. Study, read, and inform yourself. Then start writing letters to your editor, congress person, president, etc.
If that doesn't work, read up on generating electricity, growing food, and how to kill poachers. It'll be a gruesome future.
We still have time, but its running out.
“Civilization,” wrote H. G. Wells, “is a race between education and disaster.”
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
The Eugenics War and The Theory of Evolution
One of the biggest show trials of the 1920's was the Scopes Monkey Trial. During the hot summer of July, 1925, William Jennings Bryan defended the state of Tennessee and it's law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution. Clarence Darrow defended John T. Scopes, a 24-year old science teacher and football coach, who was put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in a science class.
Although the trial was mostly a show trial, it set forth a conflict between science and religion in American culture and American history. Darrow was a big time trial lawyer and Jennings Bryan was a popular political activist.
A thing to note is that Jennings Bryan was one of the most vocal proponents of populist ideals in the late 19th and early 20th century. He advocated for fair taxation with the income tax, direct popular election of senators, women's suffrage, a Department of Labour, and other social causes.
Now Bryan was a fundamentalist Christian. He advocated for prohibition and believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. So, naturally it would make sense that he'd fight the teaching of evolution because he was a fundamentalist. However, Bryan was a social activist and populist, working for progress and for social development and against social corruption.
A popular notion during the '20s was the concept of eugenics. Eugenics, essentially, is the idea that a group of people can consider themselves to be the "master race" due to "genetic purity" and reached their perfection due to a social darwinism.
This concept of social darwinism was used to justify exploitation of workers, racism, sexism, and other means of social inequality in society.
Bryan associated the theory of evolution with social darwinism. Bryan considered the teaching of evolution one of the most vile and evil things that American children could learn, because he felt it taught the concept of eugenics.
From that point of view, I could see why a progressive political activist would get highly motivated to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution.
The result of the Scopes trial was a banning on the teaching of the theory of evolution that would last until the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957. With the launching of Sputnik, the government became very fond of teaching science.
Why do I bring up the Scopes trial nearly 80 years later? Because in recent times, the religious right is raising a stink about the teaching of the theory of evolution. Here's the latest example.
Yes, Kansas is at it again, striving to be the most backward state in the Union. (Not to knock them, but my home state of Ohio along with Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, are fighting to go backwards as well.)
It's easy for me to ridicule the folks in Kansas and other states, after all I have a college education. I studied anthropology, biology, geology, and physics during my college tenure. I've heard the arguments both for and against evolution. I've seen the evidence, and I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation human beings have discussing the origin of life and the reason for its change of life over time.
However, I don't want to ridicule them. I want them to look at the facts and think about what they're really fighting for.
What's being fought over is not whether the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory, but whether religious fundamentalism can assert political power and hold it in the public forum.
In Kansas, and elsewhere, religious fundamentalism seems to be growing like a zombie plague in a George Romero flick. Why?
Religion is a powerful political tool. Normally rational people can be swayed and motivated when someone calls into question someone's religious faith. Reason and rationality are tossed out the window in matters of faith. Any true philosophical pondering of religion will call many doctrines and dogma into serious question and scrutiny.
The theory of evolution and science bring into the question the validity of religion as a political tool. It threatens and weakens religious leaders power since it undermines their ability to keep people in check with fear and superstition.
The current relgious leaders now attack the theory of evolution and science on the grounds that such things have caused social and moral decay. Evolution makes people question the Bible, and makes people question the value of religion. Right wing fundamentalists hold that social decay has been caused by science's materialistic view of the world.
Right or wrong, its effective. It gets their base to the polls and they vote for guys like George Bush, Tom Delay, and Sam Brownback, among many others. Bush, Delay, Brownback, and others play up to the religious rights idea of moral purity based on a Biblical perspective.
It's not about whether evolution is scientifically valid, its all about control and perspective. Guys like Bush and Delay want political power and financial gain. They strengthen their base of support with little scrutiny. Wave the flag and carry a Bible, and these fundies will vote for you.
So, what do the religious right voters get in return for supporting a corporate plutocracy? They get their world view reinforced by the powers that they elect. They don't get better education, better jobs, better social programs, or better representation in government. No, what they get is someone that gets up on a podium and tells them that they're good decent patriotic Americans, and that they are the salt of the earth for putting them in office. They should feel proud for keeping out the vile Democrats and liberals who stand against everything they believe in.
After all, what do Democrats offer them? Democrats support the teaching of science and the theory of evolution. Such things bring about moral and social decay, so the Democrats are the party of social and moral decay in their eyes.
Liberals talk about science and other academic stuff that goes above the heads of the religious right, and so that makes them seem elitist, arrogant, and culturally and morally depraved since they support things like gay marriage, stem cell research, a woman's right to a legal abortion, and other causes that don't support a fundamentalist Christian world view.
The religiously misled follow the plutocratic Republicans in a fool's quest. They're similiar to the animals in "Animal Farm" that let the pigs take control. The plutocratic Republicans are the pigs, of course.
The Repiglicans do things that any rational American would oppose if they were made aware of the wrong doings and shenanigans going on. Which is why the Democrats, liberals, and most Americans paying attention are alarmed at the state of affairs brought about by the Bushistas and the Republicans in Washington.
Clinton is Snowball. Snowball was the pig in Animal Farm that helped lead the revolution against the farmer and helped the animals win their liberation. Snowball's main adversary was Napoleon, a very ambitious and power hungry pig who thought about his personal welfare and welfare of this fellow pigs over that of the general welfare of his fellow barnyard companions.
Now, Napoleon raised some puppies, keeping them seperate from the other animals. The puppies grew up to be vicious attack dogs loyal to Napoleon. They ran Snowball off the farm. As a result, things got worse for the farm animals. Things were hard, but not so hard for the pigs. If anything bad happened, Napoleon would blame for the misdeeds. (Similarly, when the Republicans are caught mishandling government or if things are going bad for them, they blame Clinton.)
Eventually, the pigs live in the farmer's old house, walk on two legs and become human in the end of the book. Metaphorically speaking, the Republicans are the pigs. They're enacting legislation and public policy that supports only a minority of wealthy people. Such legislation is only going to make the elite few more powerful, and make the majority of Americans politically weaker. (Limiting lawsuits, weakening environmental laws, drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR, giving lumber lobbyists a bonanza under their "Leave No Tree Behind" legislation, eroding public education with their "Leave Every Child Behind" law, cutting taxes primarily on the upper 1% of income earners while vastly increasing the federal debt, cutting important social funding that helps the poor and sick, oh the list goes on. You get the idea.)
There is fundamental contrast between what Jennings Bryan was doing and this current crop of fundamentalists are trying to do. Bryan took up the fight for the common man. He saw social injustice and his Biblical morality egged him on to fight the good fight for the people.. Evolution in his eyes was evil due to his belief that it supported exploitive class warfare, elitism, and racism.
The current batch of religous right fundamentalists are not fighting for the common man. They're being duped to fight for the rich, elite, and exploitive minority. They're working against their own best interests (economic, political, and social), against the best interests of the common man, the Middle Class, the poor, the socially and economically deprived, and against civic progress in America.
They believe they're fighting a holy war against all that's wrong. They're being misled by thinking they're fighting the good fight, when in fact they're losing. The more they lose, the more the Repigs will tell them its the fault of liberals and Democrats. The Repigs will tell them that if only the Democrats and liberals would work for a more Christian nation, then things would improve.
It's a vicious circle in which they can't win, but will forever be egged on to fight against their best interests, and fight for the interests of those that exploit them.
We liberals see what's going on, but if we talk about how they're working against themselves and against their best interests by voting Republican, we come off as elitist, arrogant, and "out of touch with reality." This will only encourage their resolve to keep voting Republican, and keep voting for those who imprison them.
The sad fact is, that if they keep voting this way, eventually we liberals and Democrats will have to live like the mule in Animal Farm. We'll live quietly, silently doing our jobs as asked for in society, knowing what's going on, but unable to stop any of it. Knowing if we spoke out or raised questions we'd end up like Snowball, or worse killed as enemies of the state.
Now, Orwell's "Animal Farm" is an allegory of the Russian Revolution, but it's also a story of how revolutions become corrupted and betrayed by ambitious power hungry individuals, who want only personal power and control over others and society. (You can read "Animal Farm" for free, here.
Most dictators started off as patriotic revolutionaries in their respective societies. Robespierre in the French Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in the Russian revolution, Mao Tse Tsung in the Chinese Revolution, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Hussein in Iraq, Castro in Cuba, and the list goes on. Forces in the revolutions and personal ambition of revolutionary leaders usually lead the revolution from one of popular ideology to one that leads to a totalitarian dictatorship.
Generally these revolutions start off justified. France endured famine and economic hardship under Louis XVI. Louis did nothing. The Russians endured economic hardship, disease, and other abuses under Czar Nicholas II, same with the Chinese (Mao vs. Chaing Kai Shek), Germans (Hitler vs. the Weimar Republic), Italians (Mussolini vs. the Socialists), Cubans (Castro vs. Batista), and others. The people are angry, tired, starving, poor, exploited, and ripe for revolution. The people fight for the hope of improving their lot in life, only to end up in the same fix after the revolution. (Hence the Who's lyric, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," from their song "Won't Get Fooled Again.")
The Reagan Revolution could prove to be America's downfall. The bad economic, foreign, and domestic policies, the gutting of social programs and the outrageous military spending increase of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are going to lead America down a dark path. We're not preparing for the future. Our leaders are not looking out for what's best for America and her people, but what's best for the corporate bottom line and the corporate elite.
What'll happen when oil production peaks and America is caught with her skirt down? With the policies George Bush is putting into place, the US is paving the road to dystopia. And the scary thing is many are happily working for Bush's vision of America, deceived into thinking he and his fellow Repiglicans are going to make things better for everyone.
Bush has done nothing to improve the economy, stop the war in Iraq, stop North Korea or Iran from getting nukes, nothing to improve America's energy independence, hasn't caught Osama bin Laden, or really made any improvements since being elected in 2004. He's done nothing to improve America's defense infrastructure against terrorism, he's done nothing about global warming, nothing about failing schools, counter the effects of globalization, the erosion of the Middle Class, and a long list of other failings.
He'll wave the flag and carry the Bible. That seems all that he needs to do. His contempt for the American people will eventually lead this nation into another revolution if the Democrats, progressives, liberals, and real patriotic Americans don't wake up and take action. The next revolution in America won't produce a free and democratic society, it'll most likely be a totalitarian regime. The cycle of history will roll on, another nation will become a dictatorship, collapse under its own mismanagement, and a great civilzation will fall into the dust heap of other great historical entities.
We the people give the government our consent to act on our behalf. It's partially our fault when we don't pay attention and they get away with crooked behavior. It's not our fault when the rich and elite control our primary communication tools in society and mislead, misinform, or totally ignore the details and news of the day that's relevant to our lives as Americans.
The government works for us. Dont' forget that. The instant we work for the government, we're no longer free. It's our government, and we are responsible for it's maintenance and upkeep. We can't let our ignorance and laziness keep us from doing our part. If we fail, we fail ourselves, our ancestors, our children, and the hopes of all those in the world that wish to live free and prosperous.
Pay attention. Keep informed. Be active. Work for the betterment of yourself, and for the betterment of your fellow American.
We can stop the Repigs. We must work to do it now. We can't afford to be complacent, lazy, or apathetic in this resolve.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
-Wendell Phillips (abolitionist)
One of the biggest show trials of the 1920's was the Scopes Monkey Trial. During the hot summer of July, 1925, William Jennings Bryan defended the state of Tennessee and it's law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution. Clarence Darrow defended John T. Scopes, a 24-year old science teacher and football coach, who was put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in a science class.
Although the trial was mostly a show trial, it set forth a conflict between science and religion in American culture and American history. Darrow was a big time trial lawyer and Jennings Bryan was a popular political activist.
A thing to note is that Jennings Bryan was one of the most vocal proponents of populist ideals in the late 19th and early 20th century. He advocated for fair taxation with the income tax, direct popular election of senators, women's suffrage, a Department of Labour, and other social causes.
Now Bryan was a fundamentalist Christian. He advocated for prohibition and believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. So, naturally it would make sense that he'd fight the teaching of evolution because he was a fundamentalist. However, Bryan was a social activist and populist, working for progress and for social development and against social corruption.
A popular notion during the '20s was the concept of eugenics. Eugenics, essentially, is the idea that a group of people can consider themselves to be the "master race" due to "genetic purity" and reached their perfection due to a social darwinism.
This concept of social darwinism was used to justify exploitation of workers, racism, sexism, and other means of social inequality in society.
Bryan associated the theory of evolution with social darwinism. Bryan considered the teaching of evolution one of the most vile and evil things that American children could learn, because he felt it taught the concept of eugenics.
From that point of view, I could see why a progressive political activist would get highly motivated to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution.
The result of the Scopes trial was a banning on the teaching of the theory of evolution that would last until the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957. With the launching of Sputnik, the government became very fond of teaching science.
Why do I bring up the Scopes trial nearly 80 years later? Because in recent times, the religious right is raising a stink about the teaching of the theory of evolution. Here's the latest example.
Yes, Kansas is at it again, striving to be the most backward state in the Union. (Not to knock them, but my home state of Ohio along with Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, are fighting to go backwards as well.)
It's easy for me to ridicule the folks in Kansas and other states, after all I have a college education. I studied anthropology, biology, geology, and physics during my college tenure. I've heard the arguments both for and against evolution. I've seen the evidence, and I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation human beings have discussing the origin of life and the reason for its change of life over time.
However, I don't want to ridicule them. I want them to look at the facts and think about what they're really fighting for.
What's being fought over is not whether the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory, but whether religious fundamentalism can assert political power and hold it in the public forum.
In Kansas, and elsewhere, religious fundamentalism seems to be growing like a zombie plague in a George Romero flick. Why?
Religion is a powerful political tool. Normally rational people can be swayed and motivated when someone calls into question someone's religious faith. Reason and rationality are tossed out the window in matters of faith. Any true philosophical pondering of religion will call many doctrines and dogma into serious question and scrutiny.
The theory of evolution and science bring into the question the validity of religion as a political tool. It threatens and weakens religious leaders power since it undermines their ability to keep people in check with fear and superstition.
The current relgious leaders now attack the theory of evolution and science on the grounds that such things have caused social and moral decay. Evolution makes people question the Bible, and makes people question the value of religion. Right wing fundamentalists hold that social decay has been caused by science's materialistic view of the world.
Right or wrong, its effective. It gets their base to the polls and they vote for guys like George Bush, Tom Delay, and Sam Brownback, among many others. Bush, Delay, Brownback, and others play up to the religious rights idea of moral purity based on a Biblical perspective.
It's not about whether evolution is scientifically valid, its all about control and perspective. Guys like Bush and Delay want political power and financial gain. They strengthen their base of support with little scrutiny. Wave the flag and carry a Bible, and these fundies will vote for you.
So, what do the religious right voters get in return for supporting a corporate plutocracy? They get their world view reinforced by the powers that they elect. They don't get better education, better jobs, better social programs, or better representation in government. No, what they get is someone that gets up on a podium and tells them that they're good decent patriotic Americans, and that they are the salt of the earth for putting them in office. They should feel proud for keeping out the vile Democrats and liberals who stand against everything they believe in.
After all, what do Democrats offer them? Democrats support the teaching of science and the theory of evolution. Such things bring about moral and social decay, so the Democrats are the party of social and moral decay in their eyes.
Liberals talk about science and other academic stuff that goes above the heads of the religious right, and so that makes them seem elitist, arrogant, and culturally and morally depraved since they support things like gay marriage, stem cell research, a woman's right to a legal abortion, and other causes that don't support a fundamentalist Christian world view.
The religiously misled follow the plutocratic Republicans in a fool's quest. They're similiar to the animals in "Animal Farm" that let the pigs take control. The plutocratic Republicans are the pigs, of course.
The Repiglicans do things that any rational American would oppose if they were made aware of the wrong doings and shenanigans going on. Which is why the Democrats, liberals, and most Americans paying attention are alarmed at the state of affairs brought about by the Bushistas and the Republicans in Washington.
Clinton is Snowball. Snowball was the pig in Animal Farm that helped lead the revolution against the farmer and helped the animals win their liberation. Snowball's main adversary was Napoleon, a very ambitious and power hungry pig who thought about his personal welfare and welfare of this fellow pigs over that of the general welfare of his fellow barnyard companions.
Now, Napoleon raised some puppies, keeping them seperate from the other animals. The puppies grew up to be vicious attack dogs loyal to Napoleon. They ran Snowball off the farm. As a result, things got worse for the farm animals. Things were hard, but not so hard for the pigs. If anything bad happened, Napoleon would blame for the misdeeds. (Similarly, when the Republicans are caught mishandling government or if things are going bad for them, they blame Clinton.)
Eventually, the pigs live in the farmer's old house, walk on two legs and become human in the end of the book. Metaphorically speaking, the Republicans are the pigs. They're enacting legislation and public policy that supports only a minority of wealthy people. Such legislation is only going to make the elite few more powerful, and make the majority of Americans politically weaker. (Limiting lawsuits, weakening environmental laws, drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR, giving lumber lobbyists a bonanza under their "Leave No Tree Behind" legislation, eroding public education with their "Leave Every Child Behind" law, cutting taxes primarily on the upper 1% of income earners while vastly increasing the federal debt, cutting important social funding that helps the poor and sick, oh the list goes on. You get the idea.)
There is fundamental contrast between what Jennings Bryan was doing and this current crop of fundamentalists are trying to do. Bryan took up the fight for the common man. He saw social injustice and his Biblical morality egged him on to fight the good fight for the people.. Evolution in his eyes was evil due to his belief that it supported exploitive class warfare, elitism, and racism.
The current batch of religous right fundamentalists are not fighting for the common man. They're being duped to fight for the rich, elite, and exploitive minority. They're working against their own best interests (economic, political, and social), against the best interests of the common man, the Middle Class, the poor, the socially and economically deprived, and against civic progress in America.
They believe they're fighting a holy war against all that's wrong. They're being misled by thinking they're fighting the good fight, when in fact they're losing. The more they lose, the more the Repigs will tell them its the fault of liberals and Democrats. The Repigs will tell them that if only the Democrats and liberals would work for a more Christian nation, then things would improve.
It's a vicious circle in which they can't win, but will forever be egged on to fight against their best interests, and fight for the interests of those that exploit them.
We liberals see what's going on, but if we talk about how they're working against themselves and against their best interests by voting Republican, we come off as elitist, arrogant, and "out of touch with reality." This will only encourage their resolve to keep voting Republican, and keep voting for those who imprison them.
The sad fact is, that if they keep voting this way, eventually we liberals and Democrats will have to live like the mule in Animal Farm. We'll live quietly, silently doing our jobs as asked for in society, knowing what's going on, but unable to stop any of it. Knowing if we spoke out or raised questions we'd end up like Snowball, or worse killed as enemies of the state.
Now, Orwell's "Animal Farm" is an allegory of the Russian Revolution, but it's also a story of how revolutions become corrupted and betrayed by ambitious power hungry individuals, who want only personal power and control over others and society. (You can read "Animal Farm" for free, here.
Most dictators started off as patriotic revolutionaries in their respective societies. Robespierre in the French Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in the Russian revolution, Mao Tse Tsung in the Chinese Revolution, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Hussein in Iraq, Castro in Cuba, and the list goes on. Forces in the revolutions and personal ambition of revolutionary leaders usually lead the revolution from one of popular ideology to one that leads to a totalitarian dictatorship.
Generally these revolutions start off justified. France endured famine and economic hardship under Louis XVI. Louis did nothing. The Russians endured economic hardship, disease, and other abuses under Czar Nicholas II, same with the Chinese (Mao vs. Chaing Kai Shek), Germans (Hitler vs. the Weimar Republic), Italians (Mussolini vs. the Socialists), Cubans (Castro vs. Batista), and others. The people are angry, tired, starving, poor, exploited, and ripe for revolution. The people fight for the hope of improving their lot in life, only to end up in the same fix after the revolution. (Hence the Who's lyric, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," from their song "Won't Get Fooled Again.")
The Reagan Revolution could prove to be America's downfall. The bad economic, foreign, and domestic policies, the gutting of social programs and the outrageous military spending increase of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are going to lead America down a dark path. We're not preparing for the future. Our leaders are not looking out for what's best for America and her people, but what's best for the corporate bottom line and the corporate elite.
What'll happen when oil production peaks and America is caught with her skirt down? With the policies George Bush is putting into place, the US is paving the road to dystopia. And the scary thing is many are happily working for Bush's vision of America, deceived into thinking he and his fellow Repiglicans are going to make things better for everyone.
Bush has done nothing to improve the economy, stop the war in Iraq, stop North Korea or Iran from getting nukes, nothing to improve America's energy independence, hasn't caught Osama bin Laden, or really made any improvements since being elected in 2004. He's done nothing to improve America's defense infrastructure against terrorism, he's done nothing about global warming, nothing about failing schools, counter the effects of globalization, the erosion of the Middle Class, and a long list of other failings.
He'll wave the flag and carry the Bible. That seems all that he needs to do. His contempt for the American people will eventually lead this nation into another revolution if the Democrats, progressives, liberals, and real patriotic Americans don't wake up and take action. The next revolution in America won't produce a free and democratic society, it'll most likely be a totalitarian regime. The cycle of history will roll on, another nation will become a dictatorship, collapse under its own mismanagement, and a great civilzation will fall into the dust heap of other great historical entities.
We the people give the government our consent to act on our behalf. It's partially our fault when we don't pay attention and they get away with crooked behavior. It's not our fault when the rich and elite control our primary communication tools in society and mislead, misinform, or totally ignore the details and news of the day that's relevant to our lives as Americans.
The government works for us. Dont' forget that. The instant we work for the government, we're no longer free. It's our government, and we are responsible for it's maintenance and upkeep. We can't let our ignorance and laziness keep us from doing our part. If we fail, we fail ourselves, our ancestors, our children, and the hopes of all those in the world that wish to live free and prosperous.
Pay attention. Keep informed. Be active. Work for the betterment of yourself, and for the betterment of your fellow American.
We can stop the Repigs. We must work to do it now. We can't afford to be complacent, lazy, or apathetic in this resolve.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
-Wendell Phillips (abolitionist)
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke
“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.”
-- Edmund Burke
"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."
-- Thomas Jefferson
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”
-- John F. Kennedy, 1963
Monday, May 02, 2005
Review of the Hitchhiker's Guide Movie... Panic!
I dreaded seeing the movie, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." It seems my dread was fulfilled.
Words escape me as to how I could describe the film. Simply, Vogon poetry may be considered the third worst in the galaxy, but I suspect their screenplay writing talent would be comparatively subpar. That being said, I suspect several Vogons worked on this particular script. At one point, particularly in the beginning, my intestines wanted to rip out of my abdomen and strangle me.
The film slightly improved after the opening credits, that is to say if the feeling you have after vomiting out an excess of alcohol poisoning is an improvement over being excessively inebriated to the point of vomiting.
The movie is a jumbled confusion, put together like so:
A screenplay writer, several years out of college, read the book once back in high school. He/she hadn't picked up the book since that point, and vaguely recalled something about Vogons, and that the book was silly. With about that much information, the writer picked up a half-finished screenplay Douglas Adams wrote, and then the writer attempted to finish it, never referring again to the book. At least the the screenplay writer remembered the characters' names.
I was at a loss for words after watching the film. Granted, I haven't read the book in quite a while, but I do recall it was quite entertaining. Prior to watching the film, I picked up a copy of the book and read a few chapters. (Half the book, actually. It's a quick and easy read.)
I didn't recall there being a love relationship between Arthur Dent or Trillian. In fact, my memory indicated that Trillian had contemptual indiference for Dent, who was a fairly comical but relatively ordinary fellow. In the movie, there's a love relationship between them.
To be fair, the very aspect of making the Hitchiker's Guide into a movie would probably power the Improbability Drive for quite some time, and any attempt would most likely fail. Sadly, in this case, it did, but not for lack of trying. Certainly, Marvin the Paranoid Android would have told me so, after I watched the movie. (I will say, there are some very good visuals and special effects in the film, but don't let that sucker you into seeing this movie.)
I'd recommend to anyone that read and enjoyed Adams' book to take a towel with them while watching the film and promptly put it over their head. If you're lucky, the very notion of ever having watched this film will completely escape your memory, and precious brain cells will have been spent on doing something more productive. Even if all you were doing was pondering what to have for lunch and thinking about how tasty it was after the fact, that would be time better spent.
If for any reason you want to watch this film, merely out of some ancestral ape like curiousity, take a blunt object, say a rigid kitchen appliance, and smack yourself until you see stars. You'll get about the same impression I had after watching the film, and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you saved a few bucks in the process.
Watching this film was like watching a biography about George Washington, in which, the actor portraying Washington wore black high heel stilletos, fishnet stockings, a red tutu, and a Marge Simpson wig. Sure, it'll grab your attention. Yes, they'll show some things that actually happened to Washington, like his crossing the Delaware, just really out of place as he adjusts his corsett and puts rouge on his cheeks. The movie will have that effect on anyone that has read the books.
That being said, if you decide to venture forth and watch this film, rent it on DVD. Better yet, get someone else to rent it on DVD, borrow it, flip through a couple scene selections, then bury this film, preferably somewhere far away from humanity, like an ocean trench in the Pacific. Apologize to the video store. Claim your dog ate it. Pay them whatever damages are necessary, and feel good that you've spared a fellow human being the agony of sitting through this movie.
Bottom line: The book is a classic example of science fiction silliness. It's quirky, humorous, insightful, and engaging. It's an easy and fun read, I'd recommend to anyone. The film... well... it shouldn't have been made. I'll give them a C- for effort, but a D- for the final grade. (It'd be an F, but the visuals in the film are quite good, and I liked the puppetry. The actress playing Trillian was very cute, in my opinion, but not how I pictured Trillian in my mind's eye.)
I'm going to mix a few Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters to get the images out of my head. If that fails, I'll find a lemon wedge, wrap it around a gold brick and smack myself a few times.
Hopefully, that'll do the trick.
Earning the Kneebiter Jerk Award, one individual at a time... (A follow up essay, explaining why I saw Hitchhiker's Guide.)
I dreaded seeing the movie, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." It seems my dread was fulfilled.
Words escape me as to how I could describe the film. Simply, Vogon poetry may be considered the third worst in the galaxy, but I suspect their screenplay writing talent would be comparatively subpar. That being said, I suspect several Vogons worked on this particular script. At one point, particularly in the beginning, my intestines wanted to rip out of my abdomen and strangle me.
The film slightly improved after the opening credits, that is to say if the feeling you have after vomiting out an excess of alcohol poisoning is an improvement over being excessively inebriated to the point of vomiting.
The movie is a jumbled confusion, put together like so:
A screenplay writer, several years out of college, read the book once back in high school. He/she hadn't picked up the book since that point, and vaguely recalled something about Vogons, and that the book was silly. With about that much information, the writer picked up a half-finished screenplay Douglas Adams wrote, and then the writer attempted to finish it, never referring again to the book. At least the the screenplay writer remembered the characters' names.
I was at a loss for words after watching the film. Granted, I haven't read the book in quite a while, but I do recall it was quite entertaining. Prior to watching the film, I picked up a copy of the book and read a few chapters. (Half the book, actually. It's a quick and easy read.)
I didn't recall there being a love relationship between Arthur Dent or Trillian. In fact, my memory indicated that Trillian had contemptual indiference for Dent, who was a fairly comical but relatively ordinary fellow. In the movie, there's a love relationship between them.
To be fair, the very aspect of making the Hitchiker's Guide into a movie would probably power the Improbability Drive for quite some time, and any attempt would most likely fail. Sadly, in this case, it did, but not for lack of trying. Certainly, Marvin the Paranoid Android would have told me so, after I watched the movie. (I will say, there are some very good visuals and special effects in the film, but don't let that sucker you into seeing this movie.)
I'd recommend to anyone that read and enjoyed Adams' book to take a towel with them while watching the film and promptly put it over their head. If you're lucky, the very notion of ever having watched this film will completely escape your memory, and precious brain cells will have been spent on doing something more productive. Even if all you were doing was pondering what to have for lunch and thinking about how tasty it was after the fact, that would be time better spent.
If for any reason you want to watch this film, merely out of some ancestral ape like curiousity, take a blunt object, say a rigid kitchen appliance, and smack yourself until you see stars. You'll get about the same impression I had after watching the film, and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you saved a few bucks in the process.
Watching this film was like watching a biography about George Washington, in which, the actor portraying Washington wore black high heel stilletos, fishnet stockings, a red tutu, and a Marge Simpson wig. Sure, it'll grab your attention. Yes, they'll show some things that actually happened to Washington, like his crossing the Delaware, just really out of place as he adjusts his corsett and puts rouge on his cheeks. The movie will have that effect on anyone that has read the books.
That being said, if you decide to venture forth and watch this film, rent it on DVD. Better yet, get someone else to rent it on DVD, borrow it, flip through a couple scene selections, then bury this film, preferably somewhere far away from humanity, like an ocean trench in the Pacific. Apologize to the video store. Claim your dog ate it. Pay them whatever damages are necessary, and feel good that you've spared a fellow human being the agony of sitting through this movie.
Bottom line: The book is a classic example of science fiction silliness. It's quirky, humorous, insightful, and engaging. It's an easy and fun read, I'd recommend to anyone. The film... well... it shouldn't have been made. I'll give them a C- for effort, but a D- for the final grade. (It'd be an F, but the visuals in the film are quite good, and I liked the puppetry. The actress playing Trillian was very cute, in my opinion, but not how I pictured Trillian in my mind's eye.)
I'm going to mix a few Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters to get the images out of my head. If that fails, I'll find a lemon wedge, wrap it around a gold brick and smack myself a few times.
Hopefully, that'll do the trick.
Earning the Kneebiter Jerk Award, one individual at a time... (A follow up essay, explaining why I saw Hitchhiker's Guide.)
I didn't pay to watch the movie. My roommate, who never read the Hitchhiker's Guide, wanted to see it and I foolishly mentioned I was curious about it, but wasn't sure about it. He coughed up the dough for this film, and much like Arthur Dent's regard for Vogon poetry, I suspect he liked it.
At least I can say I wrote a funny movie review in a vain attempt to exorcise the demons now haunting me.
That being said, it's not the worst movie I have ever seen. There are three candidates that scramble for worst movie ever in my book:
1) Spawn, the movie adaption of the Spawn comic book
2) Lost Souls with Winona Ryder
3) Showgirls
I wanted to put "Batman & Robin" on the list, despite the fact that I never sat and watched the whole movie. I only caught about fifteen minutes of it while flipping channels on cable one day. Those fifteen minutes were more than enough. I avoided that dog after enduring "Batman Forever." Also, the movie "Hot Shots" with Charlie Sheen would go on that list.
So, I thought about my list of worst movies and wondered what is it that makes film go from bad to worse to worst? (My list is certainly longer, I just can't think of bad movies off the top of my head. Probably my brain trying to repress any such memory. Good for it. I'm thinking about writing reviews for the wretched films I've watched.)
I'd say the worst sin any movie can make is to be boring. Take the movie "Lost Souls." It's dull. The lighting was bad, the shooting was subpar, the story was boring, I've blocked so much of that movie out of my mind, but sometimes I have flashbacks. Essentially, the story is that Winona is the anti-christ. (I think. Glad I've forgotten.) With a premise like that, you'd think the movie would at least be interesting, but no. Oh, no.
The movie "Spawn" was dull, confusing, and drastically overhyped following on the sucess of the movie "Batman." You know the film is bad when the best part of the movie was the special effects used on Spawn's cape. When a cape is the most exciting thing about a character, you know you're watching a bad movie.
With a movie like Showgirls it's boring, but worse. See, there are attractive naked women prancing about through 2/3rds of the film, and that right there should make the movie watchable, but it doesn't. Herein lies critical sin #2 in moviemaking: The main character has to be interesting, and the viewer must care about the main character's conflict.
I could have cared less that the main character, who didn't have one redeemable or positive trait, would accomplish her goal to be a dancer in Vegas. She was vile, nasty, mean, foul mouthed, dirty, and rotten to the core. The only likeable character, her best friend, gets raped and left to rot. That made the film worse for me.
I'll add an addendum to rule #2. A main character must have a trait that the viewer can identify with. This trait will make the character seem human, approachable, and somewhat likeable to the viewer.
This doesn't mean that a character has to be a goody two shoes that goes to church every Sunday. Even a despicable villain can appeal to a viewer if there's a common trait that can be identified with. Take the movie, "The Godfather." Most people would not identify with violent mobsters who are thieves and killers, but it's the sense of honor, tradition, and unity of the characters that make them identifiable to the viewer. The conflict of their environment and how they survive in that environment makes the film very enjoyable and watchable.
Good characters have flaws. The flaws are what draw us to like a character. The main character in Showgirls was all flaw, and nothing likeable about her.
(I just thought of a fourth candidate: "The Island." It's based on a Peter Benchley novel. Benchley was the author of Jaws. Brian Parrish and I survived that film. The only part I vividly remember was when Michael Caine gets ahold of an anti-aircraft gun and kills everybody but himself and his son. The movie would have been better if he killed himself and his son promptly after killing everyone else. Horrid movie.This is a very close runner up to worst-movie ever. It'd run neck and neck with "Lost Souls.")
Now various candidates for bad movies of course are the obvious: Friday the 13th films and the Freddy Krueger movies. Bad films, yes, but not the worst films. They may have been bad, the teenage characters about as exciting as mobile home carpeting, but they weren't boring. Stupid, certainly but not boring.
In regard to horror films, the only reason stupid teens watched them in our day was for the hope of seeing some attractive young actress take off her top and show us her boobs. I recall watching an unremarkable horror film with my friend, Todd. While watching it I said to him, "That girl is going to survive and be the heroine." Todd remarked, "How do you know?" "She has the nicest boobs," I replied. I was right. Only thing I remember about that movie was the actresses breasts. (They were nice.)
As a kind of an in-joke, I could say that nudity in a film actually can increase it by one letter grade, going from totally unwatchable to at least there was something to see in the film.
"That movie was horrible."
"Yes, but we got to see [various actress's] breasts, so it wasn't a total waste."
Take the movie, "American Beauty" with Kevin Spacey. Bad movie, but at least we got to see the teenage daughters full bosoms. (I know, I know... academy award winning film, great actor like Kevin Spacey, but I thought it was stupid. Every time I see a plastic bag floating around in the air, I joke to myself and say, "I should film it and win an academy award.")
This is not to say that a movie needs or should require nudity to be interesting. I think of nudity like special effects, it should be in the movie only if it adds something to the movie. If it's there merely to get people in seats, or cover for bad writing, chances are you're watching a bad movie.
Nudity is the low budget equivalent of fancy special effects. This is why so many teen horror flicks have nudity, or scantilly clad women romping about. If you want to make a cheap movie that would makes a profit, make a horror flick. Get some actress to prance around nude, semi-nude, or showing some skin and you'll get teens to pay cash for your movie. Have some dude chase her with a chainsaw, kitchen knife, power tool, or some such nonsense, and you'll have an immediate sympathetic character. Throw a lot of Caro syrup with red dye mixed in on skimpy actresses, and you have a horror flick.
"No! No! Don't kill the chick in the bikini with the nice rack!"
Now, I put horror films in a special category because they're not meant to be good or taken very seriously. (I recall watching Friday the 13th part 8 in the theaters after a long night working at the Olive Pit. We got a group together, watched it, and all of us were rooting for Jason to kill the teens. Most in the audience were rooting for Jason as well. Now, that's a sign of a bad movie.) In other words, they're bad by design. Show boobs, blood, and some gory effects, and watch your cheap movie roll in the dough. When such a movie is good, it's rare. ("Alien" is an example of a good horror movie. It has boobs, blood, and gore, but it also had a good story, good characters, and good directing. Most horror films do not have good stories, characters, or directing.)
"Lost Souls," "Showgirls," "Spawn," and others on my list were not meant to be low grade films. They were portrayed as legitimate good movies. Perhaps adding the fact that I watched them due to media hype adds to my resentment.
(Oh yeah, I can add another wretched film to my list: "Species." I still refer to that movie as "Feces." Again, hot chick runs around naked through half the movie, and that is not enough to save it from being horrible. God! That movie was horrible! If I want to watch a movie where a woman runs around trying to get laid, I'll rent a porno.)
I've also figured out that some actors/actresses can be associated with terrible movies, to the point where I'll avoid a film merely because it has a particular actor/actress in it. Two examples; John Leguizamo and Jack Black. Most movies with those actors in them either sucked or were dull. (Black has been in a couple movies I liked, but only because he had a small role, and was hardly seen in the movie. I'm dreading seeing the remake of "King Kong" by Peter Jackson because it has Jack Black prominently featured in the film. God, I hope Kong steps on him.)
Granted, this aspect is purely subjective, but I think it has an effect for various viewers. My roommate's friend, Brad, hates Brad Pitt and Nicholas Cage. Won't watch any movie with them in it. I thought about actors I hated, and up popped John Leguizamo and Jack Black. They're like nails on a chalkboard for me. I would also add Jim Carrey to my list. (Can't think of a female actress that drives me nuts, but I'll think of one eventually.)
I hate it when Hollywood will put in a token celebrity to enhance a movie or for a box office draw. Granted, some people love to watch various actors/actresses portray the same character in every movie. (Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Elvis. An in-joke among some friends and I is when we talk about Tom Cruise movies; "Top Gun in a Crypt, Top Gun in a Law Firm, Top Gun in a Sports Agency, Top Gun in a Sports Car, etc." Julia Roberts is the same deal, same character in every movie, regardless of setting. Not much acting going on there.)
This isn't always a bad thing, but its not a great thing. It's like relying on a special effect to sell a movie. When Schwarzengroper was in "Batman & Robin," that drew people in to see Arnold in a Batman film. Big name celebrity in a bad movie. When I hear people say, "Oh, put so and so in the role of X." I usually groan to myself. Name brand celebrities generally aren't good actors.
For example, take the first "Batman" movie. The character of Batman and the setting would have been enough to make the movie a hit. Jack Nicholson was not needed in the movie. (Granted his portrayal of the Joker is hilarious, but I felt that it took away from the character of Batman.)
I suspect that type casting an actor is not all the fault of the actor in question, but a problem of Hollywood wanting to pigeon hole an actor. Tom Hanks has escaped the typecasting, but others try but usually fail. It ain't easy. Still I'd rather be portrayed as "the funny guy" and making millions doing it rather than be a poor artsy guy.
So, to summarize my points:
1) A movie can't be boring. If it ever gets boring, the movie dies.
2) The main character has to be interesting, and the viewer must care about the main character's conflict.
3) A main character must have a trait that the viewer can identify with. This trait will make the character seem human, approachable, and somewhat likeable/sympathetic to the viewer.
4) Special effects and/or nudity do not make a movie great. (Usually they're put in a film to cover a weak story.)
5) Name brand celebrities do not necessarily make a good movie, and some actors/actresses can ruin a movie merely by being present.
That's about all I have for now.
---
I just thought of an annoying actress... Rosie Perez. That voice of hers could peel paint.
