So I was discussing the concept of “intelligent design” with a friend and afterward I decided to do some basic research on who was saying what about whom in this debate. Yes I know there are more topical debates going on out there but this one seemed interesting and sort of fun. What I found was two groups of people willing to attack, slander and ruin the careers of others with out listing to what the other has to say.
First let me define some terms as I understand them. Evolution is the theory of how life came to be as it is that holds up under the laws of current science. Creationism is the theory of how life came to be according to the Bible. On these terms there is little debate. Where things get dicey for me is with the term “intelligent design”. What the two words suggest, when used to discuss the origin of life is “made by a higher power”. What BOTH sides of this point missing debate use it to mean is “Creationism”. This irks me because this misuse of a great term doesn’t allow for any third or forth view points and doesn’t allow for a meeting of the minds on the debate.
What “intelligent design” should mean is that there is a higher power the created life. I happen to believe this. However I also believe that said higher power used evolution or something similar to create us. He/she/it used evolution as a tool to create life in all its wonder and glory. In its true form, “intelligent design” allows us to discus how the divine created us with out separating our selves from the observable clues. If this version of “intelligent design” was what was being proposed in ANY of the web pages I read, I would have written happy notes to the person who wrote it.
However that is not what I found, instead the old Creationism vs. Evolution using the term to mean Creationism. The attacks they made on each other were the same old attacks, I have been hearing for years. I hate this debate. I hate it because if you accept the idea that gods “day” might be a couple of million years long then Genesis is an excellent metaphor for the way scientists think things came to be. If either side would concede this then the debate would be over and the world would be much more peaceful. I also hate it because it is an Atheists vs. Christians debate in which all other views are tossed to the side like they don’t matter. As I member of neither camp with views that I hold as least as strongly as any one I have met from both does, I find this insulting and demeaning. I would ask the two camps to treat me with respect but as you don’t respect each other I am probably hoping for to much. This is a debate in which both sides look down on the other with out any higher ground to stand on.
I will say this however; when it comes to misusing this term I am more likely to forgive the Christians then the Atheists. “Why is that Bradleyman?” I hear my dozen or so readers ask. Well because they are believers in the Bible so the god of said bible is the intelligence they are expecting. Regardless of whether you are talking about a Christian who believes in the Bible literally or as a divine metaphor, the intelligence in “intelligent design” is going to be the one they worship. This is going to be true for any religion. A Wiccan would think or the intelligence as being the God and Goddess. A Muslim would think of is as Allah. If you believe in a creator you are naturally going to see the intelligence as that creator, so when you are debating something like “intelligent design” it is only human and natural to see it as your version in you head. However the Atheists don’t have this excuse. If you are using cold hard science as your foundation, you should not be assuming the intelligence in “intelligent design” is the Christian intelligence. The term in no way implies a specific religion. Acting as if the intelligence must be the one from the Christian Bible is not scientific and it is discrimination against all other religions.
I do think evolution should be taught in schools? Yes, in a science class the current models of how the world works according to science should be taught. Do I think “intelligent design” should be taught alongside it? If by “intelligent design” you mean present the idea that things this complex suggest there is intelligence behind it, then yes. If you mean any specific religions creation story, then no, at least not in a science class.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A little something I am thinking:
“I try not to judge groups by their people or people by their groups.” I just said this to a friend and its very true. There are churches who have said insulting things about me with members who are the best people ever. I have know organizations that did great things for people and the world led by A$$ holes. For better or worse I do judge both people and organizations by their actions. However it is important to remember that people are more then the groups they belong to and groups are made of all types of people.
I have been a pagan with evangelical Christian friends. They went to churches that said I was evil, but we were still pals. I am a liberal in a conservative area, and yet know that both “we” and “they” are good people under it all. Yes I disagree with both political parties on some issues, but most everyone I know belongs to one or the other, including most all of my friends. They are still my friends, even though my thoughts about their parties are sometimes less then friendly.
My sense of humor is such that I often come down hard on organizations that I dislike. I assume that any members know I don’t mean for them to take it personally. In the same way that I assume that they don’t mean it as a personal attack when they attack (or agree with an attack, or don’t defend me from an attack) on a group I belong to. If you do take what I say personally then I have to assume you mean the reverse personally, That could get ugly really quickly.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that a person who belongs to a group that seems to hate me, can still be my friend. Yes, that is reversible there are people I want nothing to do with who are part of groups that in my humble opinion do “good work”. However I would rather focus on the positive. I can be friends with people, even if they belong to groups that I don’t like. I would like to assume we can all do that.
So the lessons for today, “keep a sense of humor”, “take it all with a grain of salt” and “try not to judge groups by their people or people by their groups”
I have been a pagan with evangelical Christian friends. They went to churches that said I was evil, but we were still pals. I am a liberal in a conservative area, and yet know that both “we” and “they” are good people under it all. Yes I disagree with both political parties on some issues, but most everyone I know belongs to one or the other, including most all of my friends. They are still my friends, even though my thoughts about their parties are sometimes less then friendly.
My sense of humor is such that I often come down hard on organizations that I dislike. I assume that any members know I don’t mean for them to take it personally. In the same way that I assume that they don’t mean it as a personal attack when they attack (or agree with an attack, or don’t defend me from an attack) on a group I belong to. If you do take what I say personally then I have to assume you mean the reverse personally, That could get ugly really quickly.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that a person who belongs to a group that seems to hate me, can still be my friend. Yes, that is reversible there are people I want nothing to do with who are part of groups that in my humble opinion do “good work”. However I would rather focus on the positive. I can be friends with people, even if they belong to groups that I don’t like. I would like to assume we can all do that.
So the lessons for today, “keep a sense of humor”, “take it all with a grain of salt” and “try not to judge groups by their people or people by their groups”
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Three of Twelve
I post my Blog in three places and my last Blog got a lot more comments then any other to date. Now some of that was a general agreement to the joy of mint which was not a problem. However three of my latest list of twelve seems to have hit a nerve or eighty with some of my readers. The three in question are:
“Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) you can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.”
So since there was so much controversy I thought I would clarify where I stand a bit.
To start with, I DO NOT stand by the “it’s the parents fault” line of thinking. Never have never willed. I also DO NOT think less of any one who gets pregnant out side of marriage. It is a tough situation and one I have in my small way helped many people with. I was commenting on the irony of the party who has said repeatedly though out my life that, teen pregnancy is a sign of poor parenting, suddenly changing its tune. I have had friends reduced to tears by what “good Republicans” have called them for being pregnant; I have NEVER shared their views. Perhaps I should have put the words “so little attention” in quotes so it would have been more obvious. To anyone who thought I shared these views rather then was commenting on others having them, I apologize for the confusion.
Next let me point out that I IN NO WAY support the O man in my statements. NOPE don’t do it. Yeah, I am leaning toward voting for Obama, as a symbol of change, but voting for someone as a symbol rather then as a person is mostly a mistake. It is a mistake I can chose to make, but I understand that my choice is flawed. I may vote for a third party candidate however, I belong to nether big party and may choose to vote that way. Now that the tangent to over let me restate, I said nothing pro-Obama. In number five (although it includes a barb) I even go out of my way to not attach my self to “the other guy”
How that we have those two points out of the way, lets get on to the negative stuff. If you don’t like rants, especially those of a political nature then thank you for reading to this point and go have a good day. However to read past this point is to read words that you may find offensive. This is especially likely if you support Mc Cain or call your self a Republican. I can’t promise that I will be inoffensive to any one else either, so if you read on you were warned.
So to any who are still here, I have a few gripes and I am letting them lose, here and now. I thank the few of you who are still reading for bothering. I know rants of this sort can be tedious.
I am not going to say much about the Democrats or Obama, I am not ranting about them right now. My lack of rant IS NOT a sign of support. I am focusing on the Republicans and Mc Cain; if you try to defend either by attacking any one else I will take that as an admission that I am right. I really hate the “well the other guys did X” false argument. I am going to discuss ONE reason I am not a Republican and ONE problem I have with Mc Cain. I have other Reasons. I have other problems. I also have reasons why I am not a Democrat. I have problems with almost all politicians. Please if you respond, respond ONLY to what I say here, otherwise I am likely to call you names.
I despise double standards. I despise hypocrisy. I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party with thought three. For years they have been attacking people who didn’t live up to their “Family Values”. I have had friends verbally attacked by members of their own family in the name of “Republican Family Values”. Divorce was frowned upon and teen pregnancy was “a sign the parents weren’t doing their job”, (“parents” in this case meaning the parents of the pregnant teen.) I believe there are reasons for divorce, and have been called “immoral” by Republicans because of that. If I was immoral for supporting my friends while they went though rough times, then what does that make the party who supports a presidential candidate who has a divorce? Why is it acceptable for your guy to divorce his wife but not acceptable for everyone else? It is not divorce I have a problem with it is the serious double standard. The Republicans have used teen pregnancy as proof as the “problems of the world” for as long as I can remember. A pregnant teen was proof of a lack of character on the teen’s parents in EVERY case. Again I do not agree with this. I have been arguing with Republicans over it for years. If it is no longer a sign of poor parenting and leadership skills then the Republicans need to apologize for YEARS of hatred. If it is still a sign then the Republicans need to rethink there support of their VP hopeful. They can not have it both ways. That is a double standard, which is hypocrisy.
Now something a little touchier, thought four. I write this as a person who has never been in the armed services so perhaps my understanding is flawed. Mc Cain claims to support the troops but has repeatedly voted against things that would help them. The GI bill is only one example, but it is the big one for me. He uses his ex-military credentials to “prove” he is pro-military but he stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back voting to deny them a college education. From what I understand of military tradition this is the opposite of “looking out for your brothers”. I believe he will treat those who vote for him with the same respect he does his “brothers”. This alone is reason enough for me not to vote for him. I have others but as I said I am sticking to the tights from before.
I really only included thought five to point out that my thoughts contained support for no one. So now that that is over, how about some mint Ice Cream, maybe organic, Yum.
“Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) you can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.”
So since there was so much controversy I thought I would clarify where I stand a bit.
To start with, I DO NOT stand by the “it’s the parents fault” line of thinking. Never have never willed. I also DO NOT think less of any one who gets pregnant out side of marriage. It is a tough situation and one I have in my small way helped many people with. I was commenting on the irony of the party who has said repeatedly though out my life that, teen pregnancy is a sign of poor parenting, suddenly changing its tune. I have had friends reduced to tears by what “good Republicans” have called them for being pregnant; I have NEVER shared their views. Perhaps I should have put the words “so little attention” in quotes so it would have been more obvious. To anyone who thought I shared these views rather then was commenting on others having them, I apologize for the confusion.
Next let me point out that I IN NO WAY support the O man in my statements. NOPE don’t do it. Yeah, I am leaning toward voting for Obama, as a symbol of change, but voting for someone as a symbol rather then as a person is mostly a mistake. It is a mistake I can chose to make, but I understand that my choice is flawed. I may vote for a third party candidate however, I belong to nether big party and may choose to vote that way. Now that the tangent to over let me restate, I said nothing pro-Obama. In number five (although it includes a barb) I even go out of my way to not attach my self to “the other guy”
How that we have those two points out of the way, lets get on to the negative stuff. If you don’t like rants, especially those of a political nature then thank you for reading to this point and go have a good day. However to read past this point is to read words that you may find offensive. This is especially likely if you support Mc Cain or call your self a Republican. I can’t promise that I will be inoffensive to any one else either, so if you read on you were warned.
So to any who are still here, I have a few gripes and I am letting them lose, here and now. I thank the few of you who are still reading for bothering. I know rants of this sort can be tedious.
I am not going to say much about the Democrats or Obama, I am not ranting about them right now. My lack of rant IS NOT a sign of support. I am focusing on the Republicans and Mc Cain; if you try to defend either by attacking any one else I will take that as an admission that I am right. I really hate the “well the other guys did X” false argument. I am going to discuss ONE reason I am not a Republican and ONE problem I have with Mc Cain. I have other Reasons. I have other problems. I also have reasons why I am not a Democrat. I have problems with almost all politicians. Please if you respond, respond ONLY to what I say here, otherwise I am likely to call you names.
I despise double standards. I despise hypocrisy. I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party with thought three. For years they have been attacking people who didn’t live up to their “Family Values”. I have had friends verbally attacked by members of their own family in the name of “Republican Family Values”. Divorce was frowned upon and teen pregnancy was “a sign the parents weren’t doing their job”, (“parents” in this case meaning the parents of the pregnant teen.) I believe there are reasons for divorce, and have been called “immoral” by Republicans because of that. If I was immoral for supporting my friends while they went though rough times, then what does that make the party who supports a presidential candidate who has a divorce? Why is it acceptable for your guy to divorce his wife but not acceptable for everyone else? It is not divorce I have a problem with it is the serious double standard. The Republicans have used teen pregnancy as proof as the “problems of the world” for as long as I can remember. A pregnant teen was proof of a lack of character on the teen’s parents in EVERY case. Again I do not agree with this. I have been arguing with Republicans over it for years. If it is no longer a sign of poor parenting and leadership skills then the Republicans need to apologize for YEARS of hatred. If it is still a sign then the Republicans need to rethink there support of their VP hopeful. They can not have it both ways. That is a double standard, which is hypocrisy.
Now something a little touchier, thought four. I write this as a person who has never been in the armed services so perhaps my understanding is flawed. Mc Cain claims to support the troops but has repeatedly voted against things that would help them. The GI bill is only one example, but it is the big one for me. He uses his ex-military credentials to “prove” he is pro-military but he stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back voting to deny them a college education. From what I understand of military tradition this is the opposite of “looking out for your brothers”. I believe he will treat those who vote for him with the same respect he does his “brothers”. This alone is reason enough for me not to vote for him. I have others but as I said I am sticking to the tights from before.
I really only included thought five to point out that my thoughts contained support for no one. So now that that is over, how about some mint Ice Cream, maybe organic, Yum.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
12
So I sit here writing not feeling 100% and a few thoughts have crossed my brain. I will now share them in the hopes that they will entertain and possibly cause thinking to happen in the world at large. Yes I know not likely but one can always hope that ones words will inspire, even when they are in ones opinion less then inspirational. So on we go a bit random today but life is like that sometimes.
Thought Number One: If someone says they support evil, do they still have the right to take the moral high ground? My immediate answer is “No”, I mean this seems like a no brainier, but I have recently been told I was essentially a drug using pervert by people who also think that evil gets things done, and should be used in moderation. At first I held back thinking this might be a problem with the definition of evil. Then I realized that ANY support for what you consider evil places you on the moral low ground. Even if we disagree on what evil is if you support it and I don’t you are immoral by the dictionary definition once you support “evil”.
Thought Number Two: (triggered by attempts to contact old friends) If you don’t want to communicate with someone and you don’t tell them you are a coward. Apparently my difficulty in contacting old friends in the past has pissed some of said old friends off. While I find that sad, I have only my self to blame. That said in two cases I have received no response but have got indirect word that I am “no longer considered a friend”. Now mind you indirect word could be wrong or a lie, so I’m more curious then mad, but IF it’s true that seems cowardly to me. A simple “go away” while would get your point across, to not answer is to simply make me think my method has failed, which in one case is what I still think.
Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) You can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.
Thought Number Six: Humming birds would be dangerous beasts if only slightly larger. The darn things are fearless and keep buzzing my head as I write this. (They also seem to be curious abut me as long as the lap top keeps me in place)
Thought Number Seven: A proper Christian church couldn’t support either major political party in the U.S. Mind you it has been a while since I went to a christen church for any thing other then Easter, Christmas, and other special events, but neither party (or at least it’s leaders) seems to be particularly Christian. Now I am not saying a person who is christen couldn’t vote for either, they may feel forced to vote for what they view as the lesser evil. However I have a hard time seeing how either party could be supported by a proper Christian church.
Thought Number Eight: If my tax dollars can go to faith based Christian programs that are anti-homosexual then a Christians can go to faith based pagan programs that are pro-homosexual.
Thought Number Nine: I need to lighten up seven of the last eight thought were WAY to deep for a happy go lucky guy like my self.
Thought Number Ten: I like dark chocolate and mint. Further more I seem to be craving it as I type this. I mean a lot. Any body got some. Mint fudge would work. So would Girl Scout Thin Mints. Mmmmmmm Mint and Chocolate.
Thought Number Eleven: It is difficult to be torn between the need to give an area a comic book store and the need to get out of said area. This is even harder when running said store might (or might not) make living in said area tolerable.
Thought Number Twelve: Twelve is my lucky number, so I should stop at a dozen of these thoughts. OH look I have achieved my goal. Huzzah for me.
Thought Number One: If someone says they support evil, do they still have the right to take the moral high ground? My immediate answer is “No”, I mean this seems like a no brainier, but I have recently been told I was essentially a drug using pervert by people who also think that evil gets things done, and should be used in moderation. At first I held back thinking this might be a problem with the definition of evil. Then I realized that ANY support for what you consider evil places you on the moral low ground. Even if we disagree on what evil is if you support it and I don’t you are immoral by the dictionary definition once you support “evil”.
Thought Number Two: (triggered by attempts to contact old friends) If you don’t want to communicate with someone and you don’t tell them you are a coward. Apparently my difficulty in contacting old friends in the past has pissed some of said old friends off. While I find that sad, I have only my self to blame. That said in two cases I have received no response but have got indirect word that I am “no longer considered a friend”. Now mind you indirect word could be wrong or a lie, so I’m more curious then mad, but IF it’s true that seems cowardly to me. A simple “go away” while would get your point across, to not answer is to simply make me think my method has failed, which in one case is what I still think.
Thought Number Three: (this one is political) If you are going to be the “Family Values” party, you need to have candidates who didn’t divorce their wives for a prettier girl or not pay so little attention to there teen daughters that said daughters get pregnant.
Thought Number Four: (again political) You can not support the troops by voting for the guy who voted against the GI bill. He did the opposite of supporting the troops and so do you if you vote for him.
Thought Number Five: (again political) Three and four DO NOT suggest that the other guy is either “family values” or “pro-troops” it only states the guy suggested isn’t and only fools would say he is.
Thought Number Six: Humming birds would be dangerous beasts if only slightly larger. The darn things are fearless and keep buzzing my head as I write this. (They also seem to be curious abut me as long as the lap top keeps me in place)
Thought Number Seven: A proper Christian church couldn’t support either major political party in the U.S. Mind you it has been a while since I went to a christen church for any thing other then Easter, Christmas, and other special events, but neither party (or at least it’s leaders) seems to be particularly Christian. Now I am not saying a person who is christen couldn’t vote for either, they may feel forced to vote for what they view as the lesser evil. However I have a hard time seeing how either party could be supported by a proper Christian church.
Thought Number Eight: If my tax dollars can go to faith based Christian programs that are anti-homosexual then a Christians can go to faith based pagan programs that are pro-homosexual.
Thought Number Nine: I need to lighten up seven of the last eight thought were WAY to deep for a happy go lucky guy like my self.
Thought Number Ten: I like dark chocolate and mint. Further more I seem to be craving it as I type this. I mean a lot. Any body got some. Mint fudge would work. So would Girl Scout Thin Mints. Mmmmmmm Mint and Chocolate.
Thought Number Eleven: It is difficult to be torn between the need to give an area a comic book store and the need to get out of said area. This is even harder when running said store might (or might not) make living in said area tolerable.
Thought Number Twelve: Twelve is my lucky number, so I should stop at a dozen of these thoughts. OH look I have achieved my goal. Huzzah for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)