Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Evolution or ID?
A question I have asked myself is, how much of the evolution push is due to the science or the way it is integrated through society?
Kids are taught this young but teachers. How much do middle school and high school teachers really know about these things? Are they highly educated people on this topic? Of course not. High school and middle school teachers are rarely experts in any specific field. They are going off the science books they have.
Kids are also taught at a young age. How many people actually question evolution, look into it, and find what it really says? Most of the people I know go by the little they were taught when they were kids. They don't really know much about it, just that they are supposed to believe it and so they do. This is as bad as Christians who do the same with their religion. They were taught something when they were young but don't know much since then and have little idea what it really says.
So, you end up with a lot of people who were taught something when they were kids that they stand behind with little real knowledge and understand on it. When they were taught was by a teacher who didn't really know much about it except what was in the text book back when they were kids. Evolutionary theory has changed since then (if you have been out of school for a bit).
I also have asked myself the question, how much of "modern science" is true science and how much is scientists philosophizing based on that information?
Back in the day, hundreds of years ago there were scientists and philosophers. I am talking hundreds of years ago and long before our times. Back then there were scientists who did the science work. Most didn't try to put meaning behind it. There were philosophers to put meaning behind it. What ever that meaning would be.
Today things work a little bit different. Scientists today are the combination of scientists from the past and philosophers from the past. They take their work and try to find meaning behind it. They take the info they find and come up with grand schemes of what it could mean rather than just what it is.
I recently read an interesting statistic that said that 50% of all scientific papers these days are not true.
Not too long ago a friend of mine brought up the medias role in this. What is that role?
The media presents science info to the world. Well, when something is found out to be wrong does the media show that. If you do the research the answer is typically not. If a scientist finds something "big" then he touts his mouth off and the media bites and publishes. If he is proven wrong then he keeps his mouth pretty quiet and the media typically doesn't bite. This leaves the general reader the impression it's still true.
I have studied creation, intelligent design, and evolution. I have books on them from many points of view. I have studied the science, how it works, what people have said, and so much more. After all of this I don't believe in evolution from a purely scientific point of view. You may not agree with my conclusion but please respect my opinion.
So, how much of your belief is on faith or real knowledge about it?
Monday, August 08, 2005
Intelligent Design - Not just a religious thing.
Is intelligent design just a religious thing? What could cause intelligent design? A higher diety, such as a god, could be the designer. Also, lets look at designers that are not so obvious. A more advanced civilization could be the designer. One that is not on this planet, is not obvious to us on the planet or one that is no longer around. Currently, we are in the early stages of cloning and we already perform gene splicing on plants. We also design intelligent systems with machines and computers. Could there be a point where we as a society have enough knowledege and skill to be intelligent designers of our own. What about in 1,000 or 10,000 years of continued growth of knowledge?
So, is intelligent design just a religious thing? No. There are other sources of intelligent design besides a god.
Next comes the question of whether it should be taught in schools. This is a tough question because there is only so much that can be taught in schools as there is just a limited amount of time. Here are some reasons it should not be taught in school:
1) Intelligent design has many ties to religion which is not taught in schools.
2) There is already so much students are being taught and they should not be taught more.
Both of these are arguments I have herd. I am sure there are others but they have not been presented to me, yet. As a rebuttle to these, just because something has ties to religion doesn't mean it should not be taught and students have time to learn more as US schools at least do not tend to even teach as much as other school systems.
What about reasons it should be taught? Here are a few:
1) Evolution has not been proven and we often take that for granted. Intelligent design is the current alternative with the most clout. Teaching multiple options can cause us to question things and dig into the facts more than just teaching one option which many will just take as fact.
2) Intelligent design does make sense and there is quite a bit of factual data to support it. Whether you agree with it or not, the information supports it as a theory.
3) There are scientists behind it. So often I have herd stats that 99% of scientists are behind evolution. Then in college I met a stats professor who said, "Give me the answer and I'll give you the statistics to support it." I, also, met some scientists in the physiology department at college. They all believed in intelligent design because from their scientific experience it made sense, in their expert opinion.
Intelligent design should be taught in schools without mentioning religion. To not teach this shows a biast to one option without consideration of alternative. To not teach multiple options shows just how closed minded we can be.
Well, that's where I stand today. Anyone care to change my mind, please give it a shot.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Leader not a follower
Many out spoken people around the world bash the US for not doing things their way. I can understand if they don't like how we do things but we are a leader not a follower.
There have been many people in the music industry or the movie industry to bash the way the US does things because we aren't making the rest of the world happy. The music industry and movie industry is filled with people who want to be the center of attention and liked by all. This is the mentality of many, especially those out spoken ones about this. They want to be liked by all, but sometimes making the right decision isn't the popular one. This is where their character failing is with leading.
As far as the rest of the world, over 1 billion in Indian and over 1 billion in China. How many of then know or care what the US is doing here and abroad? (they are 1/3 of the world population) How about Africa? How many of them even have a clue as to what the US is doing?
There are many out spoken people around the world who may not like the US way of doing things but they are not a majority. The loud few are herd over the murmer of the croud.
Not saying the US is perfect but neither are the critics. The US is a leader, not a follower.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Most Exercised US Right
We have the right to succeed. We have the right to fail and even fall flat on our faces. We have the right to vote. We have the right to screw up that vote. We have so many rights all based on our freedom.
The most exercised right I would say is the right to be stupid. How often to people make stupid decisions. When I was in college that was obviously the most practiced right.
When it comes to fixing something we did wrong because we exercised that right well, that is a privilege. We have the right to be stupid, but fixing the mistakes we made in exercising that right is not a right itself. I have the right to tell someone off, they give me the privilege of hearing my apology. Not everything is a right. But, the most practiced right is being stupid. But, correcting the repercussions of that right most of the time is a privilege.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
My problem with the Kerry Campaign
So, me being someone who likes to make educated decisions hears Kerry bashing Bush, while at the same time I have gone and done the research as to his record in congress. I here little of what he is going to do. I am not saying he that he isn't going to do much, just I have not herd much about it. What I have herd is BS.
Some will tell me that this is just not true. I have herd Kerry tell me what he believes in but not what he is going to do. Personally, I want an active president and not a passive one. I want a man who will tackle what he has the power to tackle and not sit on his hands.
So, I know that Kerry bashes Bush, in his congressional career he has swaped sides on the issues many times and has done little but complaign. What is he going to do in office? How will he personally make this country a better place? And do it in the areas he has the power to make change. I don't have a clue.
I have herd that he has said he will add many new jobs. The only way he can do that directly is through expanding the executive branch of the government and hiring them himself. That is requires more taxes to pay these people. Other than that he does not have the power.
I have herd him say we have a coutry health care plan. That costs a lot of money and puts my health care in the hands of politicians. I don't have an HMO because I like having the power to make my own decision and not having to get permission from people. Politicians will most likely be as bad or worse than a big HMO which everyone already complaigns about. How will this be an improvement? Where does our constitution give health care as a right? How is health care a right? This will never get anywhere anyway because of the health care lobby.
I have herd him say he will get perscription drugs from Canada to the US. Canada has 2% of the worlds perscription drugs and the US has 50%. They simply don't have the infrastructure to support the US.
I have herd him on the military and war. Kerrys record is for cuts to the military all of the time. He has always been for cutting back the military. Not, making it more cost effective but for cuts. When it came to battle he tried to get out as soon as possible, came home and complaigned. In a world where the US military is not the dominant machine it used to be and many others are catching up quick or are almost there in 4 years we likely might not be the top military force around. And that would mean we are open to attack. Fear of our military to stop people would no longer be a factor.
So, There are issues. In ways many people don't think about. I know I am like everyone else and want the future Pres to give me what I want now. But, his job is to look out for our best interests with the military. He also controls some federal funds and leads his political party. But, will Kerry do anything. I havn't herd a legitimate thing that will fly.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
The media is saying what!?!?!?!
I have noticed lately that a number of stories are targeted at bush and many are discussing the hot topics but not in a very good light. The news media is supposed to report the news but are obviously putting their own personal views into it.
I did a count to the number of Kerry stories vs the number of Bush stories on some of the sites. They were 1/3 Kerry and 2/3 Bush. The stories that dealt with Kerry were talking about what he said about bush and where he was campaigning. The Bush stories talked about these same things but there were many more digging into his record and leading the info down a path so people will draw conclusions.
There is an obvious bias going on. What they have as opinions for the candidates is not up for them to put in their front page stories. Editorials, sure, fine. But, in all of the regular articles there should be fairness and equality despiute their views. And, I'll grant that is not easy to do but at the same time it is so obvious that you can tell they aren't trying.
The media is not reporting the news on this, they are reporting their point of view and their political views. I want to draw my own conclusions from the information. Stop giving me your point of view and give me the facts.