Carpe Noctem

Why I Choose Political Science

2011-09-15T15:04:00.000-07:00

People often ask me why I want to major in political science. They know I love to write, and so usually assume I am going to be an English major. I do love to write; it’s a part of me that will never fade, but there is another desire that is close to my heart, and this is a desire for justice. I see injustice all over the world, but nothing frustrates me more than seeing injustice and corruption in America.

America is the home of the brave, but also of honor, liberty, truth and justice. I believe that all five of those intrinsically American ideals are in danger, and I feel strongly called to take action personally. I am an ardent patriot and I think it is the duty of Americans not only to take what America can give, but to uphold her values with our own lives. It is a crime to murder, steal and cheat. I believe it is also a crime not to confront those offenses. However, the biggest crime of all is to allow an innocent person to be convicted or repressed, whether by a fellow citizen or even the government.

Acquiring a degree in political science would prepare me not only to fight injustice, but to quell the corruption I see developing in our government. America is a strong, beautiful nation founded on strong, beautiful principles. However, every day I see more of those founding principles violated or ignored. Government officials find ways to circumvent the system of checks and balances; they take more unapproved power every day. I believe this is not only an unjust use of power, but a demonstration of a lack of integrity.

America is headed in a direction that is not brave, honorable, free, true or just. The question I ask myself is “What can I do?” I go back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, looking at the founding principles of America. So many virtues that were once upheld strongly have fallen. I believe it is the duty of the people to look at their God-given rights, at the principles the country was founded on, and take action. America can only do so much without the help of her citizens. Action must be taken to restore integrity to our country, and to save her people from the injustices that mount daily. That is why I chose to major in political science.

~Kendra Logan

New Deal vs. Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

2011-06-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

Essay by Kendra Logan
4.1.11

Since the 1930s, there have been twelve different presidents and at least as many ideas on how to run the country. One of the most important aspects of the United States is the economy, and as such how to handle it has been a controversial subject from the beginning. When the Great Depression struck in the 1930s, the economy game became more of a priority than ever before. Since the Depression, three presidents have made, or are making, very distinct economic eras for themselves: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal; Ronald Reagan and his supply-side-based Reaganomics; and currently, Barak Obama’s socialistic Obamanomics. Each of these economic philosophies impacted Americans and the free market in different ways, but the long term effects of each plan were almost always unforeseen.

In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office as the 32nd president of the United States. He came into office promising to help America recover from the Great Depression. However, he did not have a clear plan of action, and often reacted quickly with whatever seemed best at the time. His three main philosophies of leadership were that the government should do more for the people, the government should spend in order to stimulate the economy, and the American people should be made happy.

At the time, people welcomed these patterns of thought. Americans were largely unaware of what caused the Great Depression and were eager for anyone to step in and take responsibility for helping them. This fit nicely with FDR’s socialistic goals for the nation. As he ran for term after term, FDR expanded the government at a rate never seen before, stepping in and taking over jobs people had always done for themselves. He embraced Keynesian economic policies, which state that they way to stimulate the economy is for the government to spend more. This made him increasingly popular because he helped Americans very publicly, regardless of whether or not it would be beneficial in the long run. FDR depended on feelings more than any other president, using fireside chats to approach families in a warm and friendly way. FDR’s almost four presidential terms amounted to years of increased government involvement and an alphabet soup of new programs.

Beginning with his inaugural address, FDR promised a profound change for America. Even today, it is somewhat difficult to understand FDR’s plan in an organized way. Most historians organize his plan into three parts: relief, recovery and reform and/or into his First New Deal and Second New Deal.

Roosevelt’s First New Deal dealt with groups of people, such as banking and farming. Only the day after his inauguration, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act, part of FDR’s reform agenda. This act declared a “bank holiday” for one hundred days while the banks were evaluated. They were not allowed to reopen until FDR was satisfied with their performance. By the end of 1933, over four thousand small banks were permanently closed.

Another result of the First New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. With new machines being invented, farmers were doing well and producing more than ever, which resulted in overproduction and therefore lower prices. Instead of allowing the free market to even things out, FDR determined that it was the government’s job to fix things. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration restricted farm output by paying farmers not to produce. In the one small area of farm overproduction, this made some sense. However, when looking at the big picture, it was obvious that restricting the production of food was foolish. Farmers were being paid not to grow food at the same time that people were standing starving in soup kitchens. Farm income did go up as FDR planned, but not according to plan. Farm income rose because the farmers took the government subsidies while keeping their production rate at the same level. The government wasted American tax dollars on an unnecessary project that was not even executed correctly.

This type of intense government involvement sprang from the philosophies of John Maynard Keynes, a leading British economist. Keynes declared that the only way for an economy to flourish was for the government to control it and spend large amounts. FDR, and many other leading economists, embraced this philosophy, disregarding the fact that Europe’s attempt at a Keynesian economy had failed miserably. Instead of allowing capitalism to run its course, FDR insisted that government spending was the way to go.

One way that FDR saw the government grow and spend was with the creation of thousands of government-paid jobs. This part of FDR’s First New Deal began on March 9, 1933, when Congress passed a series of bills dealing with the unemployment rate. At that time, a record-breaking 25% of the population was unemployed. The special session of Congress where these bills were passed is known as the Hundred Days. Through the new bills, FDR put into play his main philosophy: the government should expand to take care of everything. His solution to unemployment was direct recruitment. People were paid to do inconsequential jobs that ultimately created more problems. Men were hired to build schools, but then towns were left with finding teachers, supplies, and funding for the schools. As a result, as new schools were build, existing schools closed at record rates. FDR seemed to lack confidence in the American people. He failed to realize that if a job was needed, someone in the private sector would pay to have it done! For the economy to truly recover, Roosevelt should have allowed money to stay in the private sector instead of draining it via taxes. Had he done this, jobs would have been created by citizens instead of the government, giving people both jobs and areas in which to exercise creativity and ingenuity.

Although FDR did appear to want to help the nation, there were political goals in play as well. Had he left the creation of jobs to the people, the economy would have fared better in the long-run, but his popularity would have suffered in the short run. FDR was always intent on making his good deeds public so that the American people would see that the government was “doing something” for them. With increased government dependency, it would become more likely for Democrats, or even FDR himself to dominate the government.

With FDR’s Second New Deal, programs and administrations sprang up left and right, totaling at least one hundred by the end of FDR’s presidency. This explosion of agencies and acronyms is referred to as an “alphabet soup” era. While the short term effects of the programs can be seen as helpful in some cases, the long term consequences suggest they were not wise investments.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act, mentioned earlier, was created to control the production of farm goods and raise prices by offering subsidies. Farm income did rise, but only because farmers ignored the government’s orders and kept up production rates while accepting the subsidies. This act, while not even executed properly, raised prices for starving consumers and was even found unconstitutional in 1936. In 1995, Congress found agricultural subsidies to be inefficient and discontinued it.

Another act of FDR, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, was meant to provide government-subsidized electric power to private citizens. However the act only increased government involvement in the private sector and created monopolies in electric power.

In 1934, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was founded to insure bank deposits up to $5000. It succeeded in that, and also encouraged risky investments, costing the government a total of $800 billion.

It is difficult to find anything beneficial about the Revenue Act of 1935. It was put in place to offset huge federal deficits by raising taxes across the board. This accelerated notions of the redistribution of wealth, causing progressives to target upper class citizens. The act did not offset deficits in the least. Instead, it cemented the rich’s practice of moving business overseas to avoid taxation. This, as usual, left the middle and lower class citizens to bear the brunt of the new taxes.

Social Security was also passed in 1935. It was intended to provide old-age pensions, unemployment compensation, and aid to families with dependent children, specifically in the cases of single mothers. The latter portion of Social Security caused a huge rise in illegitimacy by encouraging couples not to marry. Today the system demands higher taxes while giving fewer benefits and is now predicted to be bankrupt by 2020.

One of the most famous programs of the time, the Works Progress Administration, or WPA (nicknamed We Piddle Around), created 9 million public jobs such as the construction of bridges, theaters, sidewalks and other projects. This administration damaged the overall economy and catered to the elites. It was ended in 1943 during World War II.

In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act passed. This program set minimum wages and maximum hours that could be worked. It raised the cost of employment such that companies could no longer afford to hire as many workers, raising the unemployment levels. New studies suggest that the act may even have prolonged the Depression.

In the long run, FDR’s 13 years in office represent some of the least economically beneficial in history. Though he achieved nearly everything he wanted, none of his agencies worked the way they should have, and most of them damaged the economy overall. FDR’s years of feel-good fireside chats, growing government and Keynesian spend-crazy policies set America on an unfortunate course that would not be turned around for years.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, he faced an America that was in economic turmoil. The aftermath of World War II left American industry struggling to survive and compete internationally. The recent restrictions and regulations on everything from car exhaust to well-digging virtually stamped out American creativity and contributed to the economic downward spiral. Reagan came into the presidency promising to reduce government, lower taxes and free people from restrictive regulations.

Those three goals can be seen as different facets of one philosophy: supply-side economics. For years, economists had sworn by the tried-and-failed Keynesian economic philosophy. Reagan knew it was not working and decided to rely on simple common sense, which pointed to supply-side economics. The term “supply-side economics” was first used by Nixon’s economic advisor, Herbert Stein. This simple philosophy states that true economic growth occurs when the barriers for people to produce are removed. For Reagan this included lowering taxes and chipping away at the bureaucracy the government had become. Reagan had confidence that if some of the stifling restrictions were removed, the American people could work their way out of any dark place.

Reagan’s first order of business was a 30 percent, across-the-board tax cut, meaning taxes for everyone— not only the lower classes—would be reduced. However, Congress did not want to cut the taxes all at once and passed the Economic Recovery Act in 1981. This act staged 5, 10, and 10 percent tax cuts over a period of three years. Congress said that an across-the-board cut might give the impression of favoring the rich, but it would be naïve to say Congress was not also afraid of having less money coming in. The reality, as Reagan argued it, is that tax cuts pay for themselves. When taxes are lowered, business owners bring their companies back from overseas, subjecting themselves to taxation. Not once in the years following the cuts did revenue decline. The government actually took in five times more revenue. Unfortunately, Congress’s staggering of tax cuts lessened the dramatic impact Reagan had hoped for, but nothing could make this brilliant idea completely void.

Reagan further demonstrated his passion for allowing people freedom by being the only administration not to raise minimum wage. Reagan had confidence that the people could come to reasonable employments without the government telling them what to do. Reagan believed in stimulating producers with tax cuts and greater freedom rather than stimulating the consumers. This philosophy is sometimes referred to as “trickle-down economics” in that success starts at the top and spreads to lower class citizens. This is not entirely accurate, as Reagan’s first major act was to cut taxes for everyone. However, “trickle-down economics” could actually make sense. If a citizen, even an upper class one, experiences success, he will then be able to buy more, invest more, and hire more, thereby stimulating the economy. Freeing the upper classes also encourages lower class citizens to succeed. On the contrary, if a system benefited only lower class citizens, upper class citizens have no incentive to stay successful.

Besides cutting taxes and removing restrictions, Reagan cut back on government spending, just as he had done as governor of California. The Department of Transportation, an agency that had imposed unrealistic restrictions on vehicles since 1967, was forced to slow down its creation of new regulations. Secretary James G. Watt, who had been a key leader in the Sagebrush Rebellion against the Environmental Protection Agency, aided Reagan in cutting back on overbearing government agencies. Watt helped to shrink the Environmental Protection Agency by opening up public land and water to development and helping to remove other restrictions on private land. As well as cutting back agencies, Reagan cut back on the government itself, forcing staff and service cuts in almost all departments.

Critics like to point out that the national debt rose considerably during the Reagan years. This is true. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation, the United States borrowed domestically and abroad to cover Federal budget deficits. Reagan was also forced to elevate funds towards the Cold War, which he was determined to end. He did. Nevertheless, the crusade for lower inflation and ending the war raised the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.

The wonderful long-term effects of Reaganomics are undeniable. However, in the short run it appeared that Reagan’s policies would were only making things worse. A steep recession began in 1981 and soon became the most severe since the Great Depression. Many blamed Reagan, but what critics were seeing was the delayed aftermath of prolonged Keynesian thinking. Even those who knew the recession was not Reagan fault complained that the government was not doing enough to fight it. People failed to realize that preventing the government from “fixing” the economy was the best thing Reagan could have done. By allowing capitalism to run its course, Reagan orchestrated the greatest economic boom the nation had seen in a long time. He knew that things needed to get worse before they got better and was not afraid to suffer brief unpopularity for long-term economic stability.

To the surprise of many, by November of 1982 the nation pulled out of the recession and surged forward at a pace never before seen. During Reagan’s presidency, 16 million jobs were created in the private sector only. The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Reagan; the federal deficit fell from 6% of the GNP in 1983 to just over 3% in 1987. By 1988, the inflation rate had also fallen to 4.1% from its peak of 13.5% in 1980. After experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years, the average family income grew by $4000. Unfortunately in the years to follow Reagan, the average dropped almost $1500.

Ronald Reagan’s unwavering trust in supply-side economics, small government and the value of giving people freedom led America through eight of its brightest years. Reagan did what his senses of morality and logic told him was right, despite heated criticism. Unfortunately, in order for prosperity to last, the sound policies needed to continue. Reagan did what he could while he was in office, but modern-day politicians seem determined not to learn from his success—or FDR’s mistakes.

Barak Obama, elected in 2008, is the current president of the United States. He came into office declaring that the nation needed change and he was the one to provide it. Both are true statements that could not go together more poorly. The nation was in dire need of change, but the change Obama offers is poison in disguise. His main philosophies involve a Keynesian economic mentality, expansion of government and governmental control of the economy.

On February 17, 2009, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession. This package is the modern day answer to Keynesian’s government spending suggestion. Yet again, despite overwhelming failures in Keynesian economies, the philosophies of the British economist are coming back. The five stated goals of the stimulus were to 1) preserve and create jobs, 2) assist those most impacted by the recession, 3) spur technological advances in science and health, 4) invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure, and 5) stabilize state and local government budgets.

The stimulus package, designed to create jobs and jump start the economy, includes $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings; a $2 billion grant to FutureGen, a power plant in Illinois that was defunded last year because of inefficiency; $650 million for the DTV converter box coupon program; $248 million for furniture at the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters; and $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. The stimulus package proposal is over 1500 pages long. Judging by the number of outrageous proposals such as these, it is obvious most people have not read it. The stimulus is hardly more than a recipe for big government and higher tax dollars.

Just a month after the stimulus package, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department announced the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, which contains provisions for buying up to $2 trillion in depreciated real estate assets. This is yet another example of the government stepping in to help citizens where they could potentially help themselves. Similarly, Obama authorized the renewing of loans for General Motors and Chrysler. This gave the government a 60% stake in the company. In June of 2009, Obama called on his cabinet to accelerate the investment because he was dissatisfied with the pace of the stimulus. He signed into law the Car Allowance Rebate System, more popularly known as “Cash for Clunkers.” This program was designed to provide economic incentive for citizens to purchase newer, more efficient cars. The initial $1 billion provided for this program was exhausted well before the program was scheduled to end. This prompted Congress to approve another $2 billion dollars for it.

In 2010, Obama stated than across-the-board tax cuts wouldn’t stimulate economy. After Reagan’s years, where tax cuts did wonders for the economy, that statement is almost laughable. Still, Obama has raised taxes left and right since the day he took office. He raised the tax on the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent 39.6 percent. He raised the capital gains tax and the tax on dividend income from 15 percent to 20 percent on married filers with incomes above $250,000.

Despite all the taxation, the national debt has risen $3 trillion during Obama’s first two years in office. Although Obama likes to blame former president Bush for the shaky economy and mounting debt, Obama’s stimulus will cost more than $100 billion, 15%, more than the entire Iraq War. Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted, and accounted for less than a quarter of what Obama spends on Medicaid.

In the short run, Obama’s stimulus package did in fact create jobs, although the reports of how many are wildly inconsistent. However, this situation closely mirrors that of FDR’s New Deal. Jobs were created, but at what long term cost? The Congressional Budget Office itself says that Obama’s numerous bills will help in the short run, but result in so much government debt that within a few years the bills will crowd out private investment entirely. What people fail to understand is that the economy can benefit in the short run and still be frighteningly unhealthy. One can feed a child caffeine and watch his energy level skyrocket. However in time more and more caffeine will be required to keep up the effect; all the while the child becomes less healthy.

President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. The 2010 budget deficit was $1.3 trillion, or around 10% of the nation's gross domestic product. For 2011, the administration predicted the deficit will slightly shrink to $1.34, while the 10-year deficit will increase to $8.53 trillion or 80% of GDP. If our presidents continue to employ these unhealthy economic practices, the nation will not stay afloat for long.

One can only estimate what the long-term effects of Obama’s actions will be. However, we can learn from the past, and there are many lessons to be learned from FDR’s and Reagan’s presidencies. Before each president, Roosevelt, Reagan, and Obama, came into office, the nation was experiencing severe economic struggles. FDR and Obama reacted by increasing government involvement. FDR’s New Deal, which created at least a hundred new agencies and programs, bears similarities to Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Both plans involved higher taxes, Keynesian philosophy, and use of the government to control the economy. To some extent, Obama also resembles FDR in that he relies on public emotion and popularity rather than sound logic and common sense. Reagan came into the presidency faced with an economy as bleak as FDR and Obama. Yet instead of expanding the government, Reagan cut back on unnecessary programs. Instead of raising taxes, Reagan cut taxes across the board and brought in five times more tax revenue. Instead of doing what looked easy, Reagan did the hard things because he knew it would be beneficial in the long run. Although each president took office faced with economic challenges, only Reagan managed to pull the nation through with good long-term results.

Many Americans originally embraced Barak Obama’s and FDR’s big government methods of leading the country. More government involvement meant less individual responsibility, and with the nation in a recession, less responsibility sounded good to everyone. No one wanted to hear Reagan’s voice of reason saying that things had to get worse before they got better. Fortunately, Reagan had the skill to guide the nation through the tough times to sunny days on the other side. Unfortunately, all good things will come to an end unless fought for, and Keynesian philosophy, government expansion, and socialism are once again on the horizon. The economy cannot continue in this condition forever. Sooner or later, the economy and everything surrounding it will undergo a massive shift. The only question is, will the shift be orchestrated by another Reagan, or will it inevitably shake the nation against all efforts to prevent it?

~Kendra Logan

Government Help

2011-01-13T12:00:00.000-08:00

It’s a terrible thought that someone might go hungry at night, or be left in the rain because they lack money. People are important no matter what their income. For a child to grow up without proper nutrition or clothing is a crime. I think every American believes that the poor are to be pitied, and helped.

So why don’t the American people help them? Instead of forcing government action, let the people do it themselves! Instead of forcing taxes on citizens, let them chose to give money to private organizations themselves! Instead of feeding the attitude of bitterness brought on by forced giving, encourage the people to support churches and other organizations freely!

By advocating government involvement, one underestimates the power of the American people. If we could all help each other of our own accord, it would make America stronger economically, more stable socially, and more upright morally. The answer here is not government aid. The answer is for each American to put his money, and actions, where his mouth is and build a stronger society, where the government doesn’t have to force the people to do what is right.

~Kendra Logan

I Remember.

2010-09-11T19:05:00.000-07:00

I was seven. I was in my kitchen with Lizzy and Matt, my little siblings. We were doing homeschool. We were doing handwriting.

The phone rang. My mom answered. Her expression turned startled and frightened. That got our attention.

"Who is it, Momma?"

"Momma, what's wrong?"

She didn't answer us. She went into the living room.

We were seven and five years old. Our attention spans were short. She left the room, we forgot about it.

Then we heard the TV go on in the living room.

Hey, no fair. If Mom gets to watch TV during school time, so do we.

We almost leapt up and went into the living room, but my mom came out seconds later and went to my dad's study. What was up?

She returned with my dad seconds later. They went back into the living room. I heard my mom saying something about "My mom called...she told me..."

More muffled voices. Matt and Lizzy and I exchanged glances. What was up?

My mom poked her head in the doorway. "Hey, guys? We want you to see this."

TV DURING SCHOOL? Oh yes. We ran into the living room.

It was news on TV. News? News was boring. But why was this such a big deal?

Towers. We saw towers. Towering building, towering smoke. Plans. Fire. Crumbling.

"Some people flew planes into the Twin Towers," my mom explained. I'd never seen her look like that before. Like she was trying hard to be calm. Like she was holding in a great sadness. "Lots of people work there. Lots of people have died."

Matt, Lizzy and I watched.

"Why?" I asked.

I don't remember what she said.

"Go get some blank paper and draw a picture," she suggested to us. "Draw what you see."

I drew a building with debris flying. I remember being very detailed about it. I could feel this was important. I remember being careful to draw on cords on the blinds of the windows.

Lizzy drew the building too. She drew fire and stick people.

Matt drew the building. He drew debris he drew...raindrops?

Momma: "Matt, what are those?"

Matt: "Those are God's tears."

~Kendra

School

2010-05-26T20:24:00.000-07:00

Whether your thoughts are on summer being so close you can taste it, or exams beating you over the head with a 2x4, school is most likely on your mind this time of year.

I'm one of those people who hates school, but loves learning. Every once in a while I can step back and agree that school is really important and it gives you a great foundation for the rest of life.

But some people just plain hate school. They don't see the point. You know what? I don't think that's their fault. I think it's the school's fault.

Schools these days aren't giving you knowledge, they're teaching to test. They're teaching you exactly what you need to know to pass. They don't expect you to understand. They don't expect you to know how to think. They don't expect you to be able to apply what you learn. In my opinion, that's robbing you of half your education.

School should be directly related to life. I'm not saying that it is, I'm saying that it should be. Teach us how to think, not how to spit information back at you. Teach us to read, understand, and be able to communicate ideas. Teach us history so this next generation won't make the mistakes we've repeated for centuries.

You know what I think? I think school is not supposed to be about fitting yourself into an academic box and making good grades. I think school is supposed to be about empowering ourselves with knowledge. Giving ourselves a solid foundation of numbers, logic, history, English, biology, physics, art, music, current events, and public speaking. We go to school to get a foundation that we will use for the rest of our lives!

Every subject we learn is integrated! Our Creator did not just make a bunch of independent subjects to be studied! He made everything fit together in beautiful and delightful ways! He left behind all this knowledge, just waiting for us to soak it in and see how it all works together. When we don't embrace our education, we're cutting off part of what makes us in God's image.

School should not be where our parents shove us because that's just what you do. School should not be about becoming popular because a full social calendar is what it's all about. School should not be where our curiosity and creativity are squashed to promote class efficiency. School should not be a place where we are brainwashed because that's how we're supposed to think.

School should be where we go to soak in the knowledge that God has created for us to learn! School should be about making strong friends who will help you become who you're supposed to be. School should be where we're encouraged to ask questions and be our own person. School should be a place where we're not told what to think, but given the tools to draw our own conclusions.

School should not be about facts or about grades. School should be about gaining life skills in specific areas and learning to think. Because when it comes down to it, understanding HOW to think is a lot more useful than being told WHAT to think.

~Kendra Logan

Christians Should View "R" Rated Movies (Negative)

2010-04-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

1NC: Christians SHOULD watch “R” rated movies.

Is the judge ready? Is the timer ready?

As Matthew 15:11 states, “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” The Bible and Christianity are all about the heart. Jesus was never interested in following the letter of a law, but the spirit of a law. It becomes clear in verses like Matthew 15:11 that what one views does not constitute a sin. My name is Stephanie Bailey, and I am arguing against the resolution that Christians should not view “R” rated movies.

I would first like to define a few terms.
Christian - One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
“R” rated – Any movie rated “R” because of hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements.

Movie – Motion picture

There are three values or reasons why I believe Christians should be allowed to view “R” rated movies. The first is Reality. Christians are to be in the world, but not of it. Yet many Christians shelter themselves from the issues at hand, and therefore are not even “in” the world at all. The second value is Fairness. The rating system is extremely flawed, and therefore not an accurate representation of what is “okay” to watch. And lastly, the Heart. WHAT someone does is really not as important as WHY one does it.

As Christians, it is important to behave in a Christ-like manner. Did Christ shelter himself from the evils in the world? He did not. Did Christ avoid unsavory situations? He did not. Christ was right in the midst of all the worldly horror so that he could know how best to help. Christians are supposed to be in the world but not of it, but many people are just hiding their eyes. They spend so much time sheltering themselves from evil that they miss out on what they could do to help. God does not want us to turn our backs on suffering or ideas that make us uncomfortable. God wants us to be aware of the evil in the world, acutely aware, so that we can do something about it. Being a Christian is not just a label that makes us exempt from dirty work. Exactly the opposite. To be a Christian is to know the horrors of the world, and do something to stop it.

The rating system is flawed. If Christians are worried about content, the rating has surprisingly little to do with that. The difference between a PG-13 movie and an R rated one is not the content, but the amount of it. A PG-13 movie might have the F word three times, but a fourth time gets it classified as an R.

The movie Nowhere In Africa received an “R” rating because some European women adopt the tribal practice of going topless. Had it been only the native Africans who did this, the movie would have received a PG-13 rating. Is this really fair? Should rating really be that much of a deciding factor? After all one would expect a sailor to have rough language, but middle schools swearing up a storm? One is clearly more objectionable than the other, but they would be rated equally.

Whether Christian or not, it is important to realize the flaws in the rating system before drawing an accurate conclusion.

Lastly, one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity is the Heart. Over and over it is taught that God does not care about following a bunch of rules, he cares about what’s in your heart. A movie rating does not have anything to do with your heart. A Christian should be able to watch “The Passion of the Christ”, rated R, with a clear conscience, but some PG-13 movies should not feel right to them. True honor comes not with obeying the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Some PG movies have bad messages that will shape us just as much as “R” rated ones. The real question is not what the movie is rated, but whether you are watching it for the right reasons. God is not about ratings, God is about the heart.

Even outside the realms of Christianity, people tend to believe that it is the thought that counts, or that one should do what he believes is right. Many people, not only Christians, realize that following the spirit of the law is what gives a person integrity, not following the letter.

In conclusion, I believe that Christians should be allowed to watch R rated movies. We should not shelter ourselves from the cruelties of the world, nor should we be so bound by the letter of the law. The rating system itself is flawed and should not be a deciding factor in what’s okay to watch. After all, God is not about letters on the back of movies. God is about the heart.

~Kendra Logan

Christians Should Not View "R" Rated Movies (Affirmative)

2010-04-19T16:11:00.000-07:00

1AC: Christians should NOT watch “R” rated movies.

Is the judge ready? Is the timer ready?

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” – Philippians 4:8. This is only one example of the Bible being very clear on what to put into our minds. The Bible does not put qualifications on this, it very simply states to keep yourself pure by dwelling only on what will be beneficial to you.

Before continuing, I would like to define some terms.

Christian - One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

“R” rated – Any movie rated “R” because of hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements.

Movie – Motion picture

There are several strong values that support Christians refraining from “R” rated content, but the three I’ve chosen to focus on are Pure Minds, Honor, and Example. Even when something doesn’t affect us on the outside right away, it is important to keep our minds Pure. Honor is about keeping our minds and our hearts strongly immersed in God’s word and doing what he would want us to. And as Christians, it is important to set a good Example for the world. By watching “R” rated content, we can cause other to stumble or doubt that Christ really makes us different.

Since movies were not around during Biblical times, it is difficult to be decisive about this subject. Instead of relying directly on the Bible, we must rely on the messages given to us. One thing is for certain: God does not look at things the way Man does. When deciding whether or not to view “R” rated movies, one must try to see things from a holy perspective.

Christians should be in the world but not of it. They should be living, breathing, tangible reminders of what Christ did and how he changes lives today. When the world looks at Christians, what does it typically see? Hypocrites. It is extremely important that we work to change this view on Christians. By viewing “R” rated movies, especially in the theater, we are only bringing our faith down. It is important to show the world that Christians are different.

Who we are is defined by how we act. How we act is defined by what we think. What we think is directly influenced by what we take it. If we fill our hearts and minds with “R” rated content, whether we think so or not, it will eventually affect how we think, how we act, and therefore who we are. Who we are needs to set a good example to the world.

Another important thing to consider is the purity of our minds. Everything we put into our minds affects us, whether it is immediately apparent or not. As Renae Richardson points out, “A person is not deemed to be sick of a disease until it is confirmed by outward symptoms or diagnosed by a physician. However, a person is often internally sick before they even manifest the first signs. All diseases begin with one germ that multiplies. All germs have an origin. They don't just manifest.” This means that even though “R” rated content may seem not to affect us, it actually is. Everything we view has an effect on us, good or bad, whether we realize it or not. Change starts on the inside; we ourselves might not even realize it until very late in the game.

The bottom line is honor. Honor God, honor yourself, honor your family, honor your morals. Honor is not about doing what is easy, what is convenient, or what makes sense at the time. Honor is about setting values for yourself and following them even when it is not as appealing. It’s all too easy to make good decisions when you are calm, but when put in different circumstances, our minds are not always clear. It is better to make a conscious decision NOT to watch “R” rated movies than to leave yourself open to temptation and decision in a difficult situation.

In conclusion, Christians should not view “R” rated movies because it compromises their honor, affects the mind whether they realize it or not, and sets bad examples for non-Christians.

Stay tuned for the negative side to this argument: Christians SHOULD watch "R" rated movies.

~Kendra

Thanks

2010-03-28T12:58:00.001-07:00

Wow, those thoughts yesterday were incredible. Everyone expressed themselves so well. I really enjoyed reading all the posts, even though I haven't commented yet. Commenting on Carpe Noctem tends to suck the commenter into a never-ending debate, so I've been trying to stay out of those lately XD

I'm really glad you all posted, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading every pst. Awesome thoughts, y'all :)

Lissy: John Adams

2010-03-27T17:45:00.000-07:00

Inaugeration Speech of John Adams

Annotated by Alyssa Davidson

I am no history major, or even a history nerd, but when I came across this speech, I endeavored to read it. I was simply intrigued by the complexity of the archaic language. By the time I had finished, I had decided that this was something that needed to be shared for others to reflect on. I have made annotations on the speech in an Office Word document, for this was the best way to comment on the speech without my test interrupting the flow of the speech, which is already tricky to follow. Please enjoy.

Here is the link to the document. I appologize, but you will need to download the document to see the annotations.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=31828073

Christopher: The Holy Bible

2010-03-27T13:04:00.000-07:00

First of all, thanks to Kendra for saying “What the heck?” and hosting two Follower Say events in one year. It’s really a great idea. Also thanks to all my fans, and to my friends and family watching back home.

Onto business.

Recently I made the overdue decision to read all the way through the Bible from cover to cover. Now considering I’m not as self-disciplined as some, and considering neither Bible study nor theology is exactly my forte, I’m allowing myself short literary lunch breaks of novels and the occasional picture book. So far I’ve only gotten about halfway through Numbers.

Since I only have a couple minutes or so to talk within the limits of the average attention span, I’m not going to share with you my interpretation of every single Bible verse and parable that I’ve read so far. Instead, I’m going to share with you the premature conclusion I’ve reached just from the first three and a half books of the Bible that I’ve read through.

I think we can all agree that the Bible did not descend from heaven on a cloud accompanied by an angel’s chorus. Most of you, on the other hand, probably believe that the Bible holds the exact words of God. Exact. I beg to differ.
Have you ever read all the way through the books of Leviticus and Numbers? If so, and you’re prepared to obey every word that the Bible commands to you in your life now, then I have some questions for you:

Have you been sacrificing lambs every time you sin? Have you ever suggested to your Church’s minister that he dress in golden robes made especially for him instead of in a suit and white collar? Do you go into exactly seven days of isolation every time you have an infectious disease? Do you go through a mystic and superstitious ritual every time your spouse suspects that you’re cheating on him/her? Do you honestly believe that the sky is a second ocean, just separated by an invisible ceiling? Do you believe that people should be stoned or killed for crimes as meager as theft and disobedience? Do you sacrifice the right type of animal through burnt offering to God every time a baby is born? Do you consider it a sin to be human?

I’m crossing my fingers that you haven’t answered yes to all of these questions.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I read the Bible. I learn from the Bible too. But I think that after roughly 2000 years, it’s time to consider the thought that what we’re reading in the Bible are not the words of God himself, but the words of men who were deeply inspired by God. Reasons why I think this? I’ll name some.

1) The Bible commands the people of early Israel to give most of their offerings to the priests. It says so very explicitly. The priests were ridiculously wealthy because while the offerings were made in regard to God, they were fed to the priests. Isn’t it possible that the priests had some influence over that? Do you really think that God would be so unfair as to give a select a handful of people to be five times more wealthy than anyone else in the nation?

2) The Bible is extremely contradictory. In the New Testament, Jesus preaches “turn the other cheek.” In the Old Testament, God the Father preaches “an eye for an eye.” There are many similar occurrences throughout the rest of the Bible.

3) Like I mentioned earlier, the science that is preached in the Bible is very ancient—not the type that an all-knowing God might believe in. The sky is a second sea? I don’t think so. Disease can usually be healed by holy water? Doesn’t sound scientific. I admire Christians everywhere who are conservative in their interpretation of the Bible but are still logical scientists. But that’s contradictory. How can you interpret the Bible literally and still answer no to all of the questions above?

Mainly, it’s just liberals who are accused of preaching the parts of the Bible that they like and ignoring the parts that they don’t. Really, I think just about all of Christians today are guilty of that too. If you think that one should interpret the Bible literally and then make all of his decisions based on specific verses, then it’s fair to guess that you also ignore the parts of the Bible that you don’t agree with, just judging by the fact that you’re not a total eccentric.

I’ve mentioned earlier that while most Christians use the Bible as a handbook to life, I use it as a tool for inspiration. I’ve said that a lot, haven’t I? Well, I want people to understand. The Bible still houses uncountable great lessons, instructions, and morals that need to be learned from. But I don’t want to see it as perfect. It’s like God’s prophets in the Bible. They came to teach a message, but they weren’t perfect.

Christians still need the Bible, but obsessing over each verse and basing our lives on it has already been proven to not work.

Thanks for reading.

Liberty: I am a Libertarian...

2010-03-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

This is an awesome idea. *huge grin* And I am totally excited. This is the first time I've done this over here, so bear with me. ;)

Everyday, the political debate (or lack thereof) in the United States goes on. It ebbs and flows, heats and cools as time goes on. High points of political debate (election time) and low (the middle point where there are no elections) follow each other with regularity. This political debate most often seems to center around two major points of view- Republican or Democrat, "conservative" or "liberal", right or left...

Yet a growing faction of the American population increasingly turn away from these "traditional" labels. Refusing to define themselves with the narrow strictures of a set roster of ideas and a political moniker that goes with them, these people strike out largely on their own. Several things unite these freelancers, though what has come to be called the Libertarian movement has people ranging from the anarchist to the near-Republican to the near-Democrat. Yet most Libertarians can agree on three things-

Personal liberty is the most important thing
The Constitution of the United States is a pretty good model for a non interventionist government
For America to survive, even in her current state of semi-decay, she must return to some semblance of what she once was

There is much dissension among Libertarian ranks; so much so that sometimes, Libertarians can seem to be broken down into several parties of thought rather than just one. This is, perhaps, one of our greatest strengths. Rather than being slaves to a central party doctrine that reigns paramount over our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and convictions, Libertarians have comparative freedom to decide their own way.

One instance of this is embodied in the Libertarian Party platform. All individuals are sovereign over their own lives, the passage reads, and defense of each individual's choices and rights is paramount: more important than any personal conviction. Of course, one thing must be stated right now- that, though each individual's choice is defended, each individual also cannot trample on the rights of another. That would not be freedom; that is anarchy.

I myself became what could be termed a Libertarian, soon after my "political awakening." (In other words, when I became a political junkie and couldn't stop thinking about it.) I didn't like the Republican platform (no freedom of choice, morality, or thought), nor did I care for the Democratic stance (no economic freedom, curtailed freedom of speech). And so I went somewhere out in the netherworld, and found the Libertarians.

That is, to me, the most beautiful thing about the Libertarians: they are neither Republican nor Democrat, but neither are they in the center somewhere. The major parties have, over the years, drifted closer and closer to one another, and by now, little true difference between them exists. The Libertarians, however, act as a replacement for an old, worn-out system that is doing little for the American people beyond sinking them further into debt, corruption, and war. And yet Libertarianism is not so exclusive in its ideology and party structure that it does not negate voting for another party if one believes said party would more aptly fit ones view of our country.

I am a Libertarian in large part because I don't believe there are any other options (Republican or Democrat, or even the Constitution Party) that truly fit what I believe. I believe, like the Libertarians, that each human being on the globe has a right to do whatever they want so long as that does not interfere with the rights of another. I think that government should play only a minor role in the lives of its citizens- and certainly not as much as it is playing now.

KnightWing: It's Always a Choice

2010-03-27T10:57:00.000-07:00

Below is a list of terms that Atheists often use to describe belief in God:
Blind faith
Belief without basis
Religion
Scientific bias
Illogical

Atheists often say that "believers" merely make the choice to believe in God, regardless of the evidence. Here's the thing, though:
No matter which side you choose, it's always a choice.

Blind faith / Belief without basis:
Is Atheism really so different from Theism? The definition of Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Look at those two words: "doctrine" and "belief." Those are perhaps the two words most closely associated with the Christian church, yet they also define Atheism. How does that work?
Think about it. Atheism is—literally—a negative image of Theism.

Theism:

Atheism:

In the end, even if the difference is black and white, (get it? *wink* *nudge* okay, sorry...) belief is still the one characteristic that shines through.

Belief

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

According to Dictionary.com, those are the definitions of the word "belief." From a purely scientific or Atheist perspective, that sounds like a nightmare! Blind faith in something that doesn't make sense? Trust in what cannot be proven? The horror!
And, yet, Atheism itself is founded upon belief: the belief that God cannot exist.

Perhaps fittingly, the simplest explanation for this can be found in the most simple of arguments:
"Prove God exists!"
"Prove he doesn't."
It's an endless loop. Trying to apply logic to the God question just doesn't work. Now, in all fairness to both sides, Theists hold to the belief that they do have proof of God from "personal experience." Of course, the inherent problem with that is that it's not evidence that can be used in an argument with someone else. And that's not what I'm getting at; I'm not going to argue for one side or the other here.

What I'm getting at is the fact that, in the end, you have to just choose what you want to believe. Whether you believe that science textbooks or religious scriptures hold the answers to life, ultimately you're making a choice.

There's no such thing as an unbiased person. Every day we make judgments based on incomplete facts and limited knowledge. (because, after all, the only way to be completely informed about our decisions would be through omniscience)
Even the most scientifically sound "facts" have the potential of being untrue. I'm not challenging science here or anything, but, for the sake of perspective, let's remember that it was once "science" that the Earth was flat. That didn't last long, obviously, but the important thing to see is that science is based entirely on human experience, and, because humankind is capable of making mistakes, science is not infallible.

Ultimately, you choose what you believe. You can't analyze the "big questions" in terms of logic, because logic would require one to know everything about the subjects involved.
Don't be fooled into thinking that what you believe is based on logic or fact: what you believe is just that: belief.

What do you believe?

On Your Mark...Get Set....GO!

2010-03-27T09:03:00.000-07:00

The invitations have been sent. Let the posting begin!

Does Capitalism Lead to Socialism?

2010-03-25T07:16:00.000-07:00

"Karl Marx said that capitalism is a step along the way to socialism. This is a very uncomfortable thought to me, I must confess. To gain some perspective, it helps to look at a little history..." ~ "Maybe Marx was right" by David Bailey.

I thought this was a pretty interesting post, especially considering I love philosophy. Check it out if you want!

Last Reminder (Probably XD)

2010-03-24T13:06:00.000-07:00

Followers Say is this Saturday. Be sure to email me if you want to participate. I'll probably send out the invitation to post on Friday night.

~Kendra

Growing List...

2010-03-12T11:58:00.000-08:00

Followers Say coming up in about two weeks! If you missed the post with the "rules", here's a link. Thanks to everyone who's emailed me (livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com). The list of participants is growing nicely!

Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)

Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him

KnightWing
"It's Always a Choice": Believing in God or being an Atheist is always a choice based on pre-assumptions.

Liberty
Post 1: "I am a Libertarian because..."
Post 2: The War on Terror

Tragedy101:
A response to the post "The New America"

If I've made a mistake about what you're planning to post or missed someone's email, please let me know!

There's no deadline for entering, just email me before the 27th so I can send you the invitation to post when the time comes.

Thanks!

Followers Say Reminder

2010-03-01T09:03:00.000-08:00

Followers Say is coming up in just a little less than three weeks! (Saturday, March 27th) It's definitely sneaking up on me, so it might be for you, too!

If you're too lazy to scroll down and read the information about Followers Say, here's a link for you ;)

Second Biannual Followers Say

So far the participants who have emailed me (livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com) are:

Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)

Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him

There is no deadline for "entering", but I will need you to email me so I will have a way to send the invitation to post on March 27th.

Probably Followers Say won't be as big this time around. I think September will be the main Follower Say. Still, it's nice to have two opportunities a year in case you've got some good ideas floating around!

Looking forward to reading everyone's posts and and responses to others' posts!

The Next Person Who Says "GW" Needs To Be Slapped

2010-02-15T07:37:00.000-08:00

It's supposed to snow again today.

Global warming my donkey ;)

~Kendra Logan

Second Biannual Followers Say

2010-01-19T16:38:00.001-08:00

The second biannual Followers Say is coming up on March 27. It seems like it came fast, doesn't it?

Most of you probably remember what this is about, but for those of you who weren't here back in September, let me explain this a little by reposting the original announcement (dates and some specifics modified):

On Saturday March 27th there is going to be a special edition of Carpe Noctem: "Followers Say..." You will be granted access to posting on Carpe Noctem from midnight on the 25, to 11:59pm on the 26. You will be allowed to post up to three times during that twelve hours, on three separate topics of your choice.

I know my awesome followers have lots to say on lots of issues, and it's difficult to fully explain your point just through commenting.

Suggested Topics:
1. "I believe/disbelieve Evolution because..."
2. "I believe/disbelieve in God because..."
3. "My opinion on our president is..."
4. "I am a republican/democrat because..."
5. "My view on political-correctness is..."
6. "What I think God meant in Genesis is..."
7. "I think global warming..."
8. "I believe homosexuality is a choice/is not a choice because..."
9. An in-depth critique or response to any of my previous posts.
10. An idea of your own. (Please email me your idea ahead of time.)

"Rules":
-You can chose 1-3 topics from the above list.
-If you have another topic you would like to discuss, please shoot me an email just so I'll know.
-You can post up to 3 times during the 12 hour period.
-Profanity is discouraged, but if that's the only way you can think to express yourself, go right ahead. Hopefully, though, we're all articulate enough to avoid that whenever possible.
-Preferably, you must be a follower of Carpe Noctem to participate, but you don't *have* to be. I'd appreciate it, though :)

Preferred formatting of your post(s):
-Please put your name and the title of your post in the title.
-Please state which idea you chose at the beginning of your post.
-Please address one idea per post. (Don't address all the possible ideas in a single post.)

This is an extremely laid-back kind of thing. I'm not going to remove part or all of your post because it offends me. Even if it does, this is your time to share, not mine.

If you or someone you know would like to participate in Followers Say, email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com and I'll send you the link to join Carpe Noctem for the day of March 27. Hope you decide to join!

This time around, I plan to have an award for all those who participate in Followers Say.

As always, questions, comments, concerns, or Hey-How-Are-Yous can be sent to that email, too :)

>insert title here<

2009-12-21T11:28:00.000-08:00

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students,'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly.'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues.'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters.'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued,'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet.'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks.'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing.'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats.'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies.'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room.'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues.'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds,'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied,'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor smiles and nods at his student. Albert Einstien.

Part 5: The Cambrian Explosion

2009-12-16T19:50:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Continuing with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,192
Estimated reading time: 6-9 minutes

Before we leave our discussion of the fossil record, we have to mention probably the greatest problem that faces macroevolutionists today. The problem exists as a result of some fossils that were “rediscovered” in the mid-1980s, and based on those fossils, we know that at least the bottom portion of the geological column as presented in Figure 9.2 (and all introductory biology and geology textbooks to our knowledge) is incorrect. You see, as presented in Figure 9.2, the geological column is used to give the impression that the fossil record indicates that only the “simplest” multicellular life existed in the years represented by the Cambrian rock (570-500 million years ago), and then through the years represented by the Ordovician rock (500-435 million years ago), the life got more complex. This supposedly continued through to the times represented by the Silurian rock (410-435 million years ago) as well as the time represented by Devonian rock (360-410 million years ago). As a result, the diverse life that we see in the oceans did not fully evolve until about 400 million years ago. Now remember, all of these numbers for how many millions of years ago these things happened are based on a lot of assumptions, and we don't have time to go into those assumptions. However, we are discussing how macroevolutionists interpret the geological column, and this is how they do it.

Based on the “rediscovery” we mentioned earlier, we now know that the macroevolutionists' view of the lower layers of the geological column is simply false. What do we mean by “rediscovery?” Well, in the early 1900s, Charles Walcott (a paleontologist) discovered a lot of fossils in a layer of Cambrian rock called the “Burgess Shale.” However, these fossils were not what Walcott expected. Remember, according to the geological column, only the “simplest” of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times represented by Cambrian rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life. In fact, by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives from every major animal phylum that exists in our classification scheme (see Figure 9.5 below).

What did this stunning discovery mean? It meant that the bottom of the geological column as presented in textbooks (still to this day) is wrong. Walcott found fossils of the “simple” animals that were supposed to be in Cambrian rock, but he also found thousands of examples of animals that were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented by Cambrian rock. According to the geological column, some of these animals were supposed to have formed much, much later, in the times represented by Silurian and Devonian rock. Why in the world were these complex fossils found in Cambrian rock? Walcott had no real answer to that question.

In other words, Walcott had discovered something revolutionary! This was a find that would radically alter the scientific world's understanding of the geological column. What, then, do you think he did? What would you do if you discovered something so revolutionary? I would think that you would publicize it so that the whole world would see it. That's not what Walcott did, however. He wrote a few modest articles in an extremely obscure scientific journal (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection), and then he reburied the fossils in his laboratory drawers, and he never mentioned them again. It would be 80 years before the fossils were “rediscovered” and their importance understood.

What is their importance? As we mentioned, they tell us that the first few layers of the geological column as presented in the geological column are simply false. After all, the geological column pictures the animals in the “simple” phyla evolving into the animals of the more complex phyla over a period of about 170 million years (from Cambrian rock to somewhere in the middle of Devonian rock). This, however, is not what the fossils say. The fossils discovered by Walcott (more than 60,000 in all, some of which are reconstructed in the figure below) and those discovered later by others tell us that all of the major animal phyla can be found in Cambrian rock.

These fossils lead to a serious problem for macroevolution. All macroevolutionists agree that macroevolution takes a long time. No one presently understands how such a huge amount of evolution could have taken place in the relatively “short” time supposedly represented by Cambrian rock. Even if the currently-assumed ages for Cambrian rock are correct, it took “only” 70 million years for evolution to go from the simplest animal phyla to the most complex animal phyla. At present, no one understands how this could have happened in the context of macroevolution. In fact, the problem is so well-known in the field of paleontology, it has a name. It is called the Cambrian Explosion, which refers to the fact that there seems to have been an “explosion” of life in Cambrian times.

Not only is the “short” time a problem for macroevolution, but the fossils themselves present a real problem as well. Even though the fact that there are no intermediate links in the fossil record is a well-known problem for macroevolution, the problem is much more dramatic in Cambrian rock. After all, a huge amount of macroevolution had to have occurred in the time represented by Cambrian rock, but there is just no evidence for it. There aren't even possible transitional forms like Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus. In fact, the creatures that are fossilized in Cambrian rock just appear there suddenly, exactly as you would expect if each of these creatures was simply made by God.

One of the most honest summaries of the problem that the Cambrian Explosion presents to macroevolution is given by prominent macroevolutionist Richard Dawkins:
(block quote) It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996], 229-230) (block quote)

Notice how honest Dr. Dawkins is in this quote. He tells us that the fossils seem to have just “appeared” there, without any evidence of evolution whatsoever. He says that both schools of macroevolutionists (we will discuss what “Punctuationists” and “Gradualists” are later) agree that even though the fossils seem to indicate that the creatures were created divinely, they must reject that notion, and they must therefore assume that the appearance of “planting” is just due to imperfections in the fossil record. What does he mean by “imperfections?” He means that the intermediate links did, indeed, exist, but they just happened to have not been fossilized. This is what you are forced to believe if you look at the fossil record and reject the most obvious conclusion that it presents: that the organisms preserved there were divinely created.

Part 4: The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution

2009-12-14T19:01:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

More on the series on Evolution with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 3,238
Estimated reading time: 12-15 minutes

Well, if the geological column holds no real evidence for or against macroevolution, where must we look next? We can look the same place Darwin did. After examining the geological column, Darwin looked at the details of the fossil record. The study of the fossil record is called paleontology (pay' lee un tah' luh jee), and it provides strong evidence against macroevolution.

Paleontology – The study of fossils

If macroevolution did occur, paleontologists should be able to find series of fossils that demonstrate how one species slowly evolved into another. If wild dogs, for example, did eventually give rise to horses, then there should be fossils of animals that are somewhere between a dog and a horse. Darwin called these life forms (which he assumed must have existed) intermediate varieties. Today, we call them intermediate links or transitional forms, because they represent a link (or transition) between one species and another. Unfortunately for Darwin, there were only a few examples of fossils that might be interpreted to be intermediate links, and even for those fossils, their status as intermediate links was quite questionable.

This lack of intermediate links was the most vexing problem that Darwin had with his hypothesis. In fact, in his book, he stated:
(block quote) Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed, [New York, NY: Collier Books, 1962], 462) (block quote)

Notice what he says here. Darwin's hypothesis says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be “fine, intermediate varieties” of fossils in between species. The fact that there weren't was a problem that he called “grave.” Additionally, note that he admits there are “many objections” which can be raised against his views. As we stated before, Darwin was very open about the flaws that he saw in his macroevolutionary hypothesis. In fact, he devoted many pages of his book to detailing the many objections which could be raised against his views!

Although Darwin could not find any good examples of intermediate links in the fossil record, he had a hope. He figured that geology and paleontology were still in their infant stages; therefore, they just hadn't found the intermediate links yet. He was convinced that as time went on, however, geologists and paleontologists would find them. Thus, he assumed that the intermediate links were currently just “missing” from the fossil record, but they would be found in time. Critics of macroevolution quickly coined the phrase “missing link” to emphasize that the fossil record was devoid of any evidence for macroevolution.

Well, what of these missing links? Has paleontology uncovered them? The answer to that is an unequivocal no. Read, for example, the words of Dr. David Raup, the curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and an expert on the fossil record.
(block quote) Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information. (David Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:25, 1979 – emphasis added) (block quote)

So Dr. Raup says that the missing links are still missing. Darwin saw this fact as strong evidence against macroevolution, and Dr. Raup says that the situation is worse now than ever!

Since Dr. Raup's quote is more than 20 years old, you might wonder whether paleontology has discovered anything in the past two decades to make the situation any better for macroevolution. The answer is a clear and convincing no. Consider, for example, this summary of the state of paleontology in regard to macroevolution:

(block quote) …according to Darwin...the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins, [New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999], 89) (block quote)

In other words, Dr. Schwartz (a macroevolutionist) is admitting that instead of finding transitional forms, paleontologists find mostly gaps. Now please understand that this flies in the face of what Darwin proposed. In fact, on the back cover of Dr. Schwartz's book, we read, “Darwin may have argued that new species emerge through a slow, gradual accumulation of tiny mutations, but the fossil record reveals a very different scenario – the sudden emergence of whole new species, with no apparent immediate ancestors.”

Now think about this for a minute. The hypothesis of macroevolution tries to explain something about earth's past. Since no one was around back then to tell us whether or not macroevolution actually happened, it is necessary to look for data that either support or contradict the hypothesis. Well, if you're looking for data about earth's history, where is the first place you would look? You would look in the fossil record! What does the fossil record say? It says that macroevolution never happened! Do you see what we mean when we say that scientists don't believe in macroevolution today because of the evidence? If the fossil record (the main place you look for information about earth's past) shows no evidence for macroevolution, scientists simply should not believe in it.

At this point, you might be thinking, “If the fossil record points so strongly against macroevolution, why do any scientists today believe in it?” Well, there are a couple of reasons. Some scientists are so committed to the idea of macroevolution that they have come up with special “variations” of macroevolution that attempt to “explain around” the fact that the fossil record does not support the idea. In fact, both Dr. Raup and Dr. Schwartz expose the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record specifically to promote one of these variations, which is called punctuated equilibrium. In this variation, it is assumed that the transitional forms that link one species to another do not live for very long. As a result, there is not much chance of them fossilizing. We will discuss this idea in more depth later in this module.

The second reason some scientists still cling to the hypothesis of macroevolution is that even though the fossil record has mostly gaps, there are some fossils that can be pointed to as possible transitional forms. Their status as transitional forms is highly questionable, but if you really need to believe in macroevolution, these fossils can give you at least some hope.

Consider, for example, the very famous fossil of a creature called Archaeopteryx (ar kee op' ter iks), which evolutionists want to believe is an intermediate link between reptiles and birds. This fossil is found in Jurassic rock, which (see Figure 9.2) contains remains of dinosaurs as well. In the geological column, Jurassic rock is underneath Cretaceous rock, which is underneath Tertiary rock. Although a few fossilized birds are found in other strata, the vast majority of bird fossils in the fossil record come from either Tertiary rock or the Quaternary rock that lies on top of it. Now remember, according to the assumptions of macroevolutionists, this would mean that birds did not really exist in significant numbers until the times during which Tertiary and Quaternary rock formed. Thus, during the times when Cretaceous and Jurassic rock were forming, macroevolutionists assume that birds had not yet evolved to any significant degree. Since Archaeopteryx is found in Jurassic rock, macroevolutionists conclude that it lived prior to most birds and that it could therefore be one of the transitional forms linking birds to their common ancestor, which is assumed to be some form of reptile.

In the vast majority of respects, this creature is a bird. The fossil shows very good imprints of feathers, and analysis of these feather imprints indicates that they are the kinds of feathers you see on birds that are living today. In fact, flightless birds that are living today have different feathers from those of birds that fly, and the fossil imprints indicate that Archaeopteryx had feathers of a flying bird.

In addition, the bones preserved in the fossil are very similar to the bones of birds that are living today. The skull, for example, shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain very similar to flying birds that are living today, and the fossilized inner ear indicates that Archaeopteryx had senses of hearing and balance that are comparable to flying birds that are living today. After performing X-ray scans of the skull and working with computer models, Dr. Timothy Rowe of the University of Texas at Austin said, “This animal had huge eyes and a huge vision region in its brain to go along with that and a great sense of balance. Its inner ear also looks very much like the ear of a modern bird.” (University of Texas at Austin Press Release, August 4, 2004, http://www.utexas.edu/cons/news/imaging.html, retrieved 01/06/05). In addition, paleontologists have been able to confirm bone structures that indicate Archaeopteryx had the same kind of lung design that birds living today have. In the end, then, Archaeopteryx seems to be a bird.

Why do many paleontologists consider Archaeopteryx a transitional form between reptile and bird? Because Archaeopteryx has teeth (which birds living today do not have), and it has claws on its wings, as shown on the illustration in the figure. No adult bird living today has claws on its wings. Some young birds (like the juvenile touraco or the juvenile hoatzin) have claws on their wings when they are young, but they lose them by the time they are adults. Some adult birds, like the ostrich, have structures on their wings that a few texts call “claws,” but they are better called “spurs,” because they do not have the actual structure of claws.

Because of these minor differences between Archaeopteryx and birds living today, macroevolutionists want to believe it is a transitional form between bird and reptile. After all, most (but not all) reptiles have teeth, and most (but not all) reptiles have front and back claws. Thus, the teeth in Archaeopteryx are supposed to represent reptilian teeth that had not quite “evolved away,” and the claws on its wings are supposed to represent front reptilian claws that had not quite blended in to the wing.

There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, it assumes that birds living today are the only representations of proper birds. This is a rather myopic view of the natural world. We have many fossils that tell us a lot about the kinds of creatures that lived on this earth but are not living now. Are we to ignore them? If we do not ignore these creatures, we find that there were other birds that had teeth. In fact, there is a whole subclass devoted to such extinct birds, subclass Odontornithes (oh' don tor' nih theez). As a result, it is not clear that the teeth on Archaeopteryx are all that special.

The second problem with this interpretation is that it puts a lot of emphasis on rather minor structures in the animal. Based on its feathers, bone structure, lung structure, etc., Archaeopteryx seems to be a true bird. These are the main features we look at to determine whether or not something is a bird. To concentrate on two minor features, one of which exists in extinct birds, seems to be ignoring the vast majority of the data. Those who want to believe that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form will counter that we only see these structures in extinct birds, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that they were a part of the evolutionary process. However, species go extinct rather regularly, as demonstrated by the fossil record itself. The fact that all of the birds with these characteristics are now extinct is not surprising, since extinction is a major part of the fossil record.

Archaeopteryx at least illustrates how difficult it is for macroevolutionists to come up with transitional forms in the fossil record. If Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, it is a very late one. It must have been one of the very last creatures on the hypothetical macroevolutionary line between reptile and bird. Of all the transitional forms necessary to turn a reptile into a bird, it seems odd that the only one that has been found is so incredibly birdlike. Why isn't there a transitional form that is not so ambiguous?

As we said before, there are a few fossils like Archaeopteryx that macroevolutionists can present as transitional forms. The problem is, like Archaeopteryx, these supposed transitional forms are incredibly similar to one of the two types of creatures they are supposed to be linking. It seems much safer to conclude that these are just specialized versions of the creatures they are similar to, as opposed to transitional forms between two different kinds of creatures.

Another classic example of this kind of fossil is Australopithecus (aw stray' low pih' thih kus) afarensis (ah fuh' ren sis). This creature is supposed to be a transitional form between apes and humans. Although fossils of several creatures from genus Australopithecus have been discovered over the years, the best example is a partial skeleton of the A. afarensis species that has been nicknamed “Lucy.” This skeleton was discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 near Hadar, Ethiopia. This was not the first discovery of fossils from this genus, and it was not the last. However, this skeleton is important because it is the most complete skeleton we have from this genus.

Although this might not look like a complete skeleton to you, it is actually quite a find. One of the problems with studying fossils is the fact that they tend to be very incomplete. As a result, scientists are left to speculate on the nature of a creature based often on far too little evidence. Many fossils were proclaimed intermediate links based on just a few tiny fragments of bone. Perhaps the greatest example was Nebraska Man. Scientists found a single tooth among the remains of some ancient tools. Based on that single tooth, scientists proclaimed that they had found one of the intermediate links between man and ape. They had artists draw full pictures of Nebraska Man, based only on a tooth! The pictures looked very convincing – a hulking, brutish figure that indeed looked like a link between man and ape. Later on, it was conclusively shown that the tooth actually belonged to a peccary, which is a certain type of pig! Thus, you should never believe the drawings that you see in books. Find out what fossils exist for the supposed creature. You will most likely be amazed at how few there are!

This specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, however, is quite a nice specimen, so we can learn a lot from it. When scientists examine such a specimen, they typically look at a few “key” bones that are characteristic of a certain kind of creature. For example, jaw bones are often very distinctive in most animals. Notice how the jaw bone of Australopithecus afarensis is shaped like a “V.” This is very distinctive of an ape. Also, the ratio between the size of the humerus and the size of the radius or ulna is also helpful in determining the kind of creature that Australopithecus afarensis was. Once again, the ratio of these bones indicates that Australopithecus afarensis is an ape. In fact, each bone in this entire skeleton indicates that Australopithecus afarensis is an ape.

If the bones indicate that it is an ape, why is Australopithecus afarensis considered an intermediate link? Well the hip joint and ankle joint can be constructed in such a way as to make Australopithecus afarensis stand upright in a relatively comfortable manner. This is unusual in apes. Most apes tend to be comfortable on all fours, whereas humans tend to be comfortable standing upright. Thus, because it is possible that Australopithecus afarensis might have stood upright, it is considered an intermediate link between man and ape.

There is a problem with this interpretation, however. Recent studies seem to indicate that Lucy most likely walked by using her knuckles. For example, Dr. Brian Richmond examined the wrist bones of two species in genus Australopithecus: A. afarensis and A. anamensis. They demonstrated that the wrists of these two species were quite similar to those of modern chimpanzees, which walk on both their hind legs and their knuckles. Thus, based on the wrist, you would classify Lucy as an ape that walks on its knuckles.

This is further supported by a study by Dr. Fred Spoor, who did CAT scans on the inner ears of members of genera Australopithecus and Paranthropus. Genus Paranthropus contains fossil creatures that are very similar to those in genus Australopithecus. In fact, some paleontologists think that these two genera should be combined, but that is still hotly debated. Spoor's study is important, as the inner ear is where balance is maintained, and if a creature walks upright, it needs a significantly different sense of balance from a creature that does not. What did Spoor find? His paper states, “…the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes.” (Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion,” Nature 369:645-8, 1994). The term “extant” just means “currently living.” Thus, Spoor's conclusion is that the inner ear of the members of genus Australopithecus is very similar to that of currently-living apes. This indicates that they probably did not walk upright, at least not habitually.

Once again, then, whether or not Australopithecus afarensis is an intermediate link depends on your point of view. If you want to believe in macroevolution, you can look at the possibility that it could stand upright and conclude that it is a transitional form. If you do not want to believe in macroevolution, you can look at the major features of the skeleton and the details of its wrists and inner ears and conclude that it is not.

The point, however, is quite clear. If macroevolution happened, the fossil record should be littered with intermediate links, as Darwin predicted. Instead, macroevolutionists can only present a few highly questionable ones. These supposed intermediate links closely resemble one of the two species they are supposed to link together. If intermediate links truly existed in the fossil record, you would think that at least one unambiguous intermediate link could be found somewhere!

Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column

2009-12-13T19:25:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2

Part 3 of the Evolution series with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.

Word count: 1,931
Estimated reading time: 7-12 minutes

As we said in the previous section, there is some evidence for the hypothesis of macroevolution. For example, consider some of the facts uncovered by geology. As you should have learned in a physical or general science course, geologists classify rocks as either igneous (the result of lava cooling), metamorphic (the result of rock being transformed under extreme conditions of temperature and/or pressure), or sedimentary (formed from particles of sediment). The sedimentary rock usually forms layers that are called strata.

Strata – Distinct layers of rock

In these strata, geologists find the preserved remains of once-living organisms. Those remains are called fossils.

Fossils – Preserved remains of once-living organisms

Each row in [the geological column] represents a set of layers of sedimentary rock. The rows on top are those sedimentary rocks closest to the surface, and those at the bottom are the deepest sedimentary rocks. Now please realize that the fossils listed in each of the rows are simply the ones that best characterize each layer. There are many other fossils in each set of rocks, but the ones listed in the figures are those that distinguish each set of layers from the others. When the rock layers are illustrated in this way, we say that you are looking at the geological column.

Notice the general trend in the geological column. As you go deeper in the geological column, the fossils seem to get more and more “simple.” Now we have already clearly seen that there is no such thing as a simple life form, but remember, we are talking about evidence for Darwin's hypothesis of macroevolution. Darwin and his early supporters did not have the benefit of microscopic analysis and detailed explanations of how organisms work. Thus, they did not really know that there is no such thing as a simple life form. Instead, they saw that the strata which were near the surface of the earth contained fossils of animals like horses, lions, and humans, while the deeper strata gave way to fossils of life forms like reptiles and small mammals. Even deeper, these fossils disappeared and only fossils such as fishes, squids, and trilobites remained. Darwin and his supporters thought that this progression of fossils went from “complex” organisms like human beings to “simple” organisms like squids.

Before we discuss how Darwin and his followers interpreted this geological column, we must make two important points. First, even though Figure 9.2 is a common representation of the geological column, it is not really what the geological column actually looks like! You see, 95% of all fossils that we recover are those of clams and similar organisms. There are, quite literally, fossilized clams in every region of the earth in nearly every layer of rock. So what we are showing in this representation of the geological column is really only about 5% of the fossil record. Thus, it is not a realistic representation of what the geological column actually looks like. Nevertheless, since the geological column is usually discussed in reference to macroevolution, the clams are ignored. Thus, any conclusions you make based on the geological column are, in fact, based on a tiny minority of the available data!

Second, it is very important to realize that the geological column is an idealized representation of the sedimentary rock and fossils that we see on the earth. There is really no place on the planet where you can dig and find every layer of the geological column as well as the fossils in those layers. Instead, you will find one set of fossil-bearing strata in one area of the world, and another set of fossil-bearing strata in another area of the world. These sets often contain some of the same strata, so by comparing many such sets of strata, Figure 9.2 is a representation of what the geological column might look like if you could find all of the strata and their fossils in one place. In other words, it is a theoretical construct that may or may not be accurate. It probably is a reasonable representation of the nature of the fossil record, but nevertheless, it is not pure data. That must be remembered when using it as evidence for or against any hypothesis, including that of macroevolution.

Now we can discuss how Darwin and his followers interpreted the geological column. To do that, we must discuss how the geologist Lyell (who influenced Darwin tremendously) interpreted it. Lyell said that the strata shown in the geological column were laid down sequentially over vast eons of time. Using his idea that the present is the key to the past, Lyell said that the strata seen by geologists were formed when sediments accumulated slowly over time. We see this happening today, he said, and it results in layers of sediment. Eventually, Lyell postulated, various chemical and environmental factors would take a given layer of sediment and harden it into rock. This would result in a single layer of sedimentary rock. As time went on, another layer of sediment would slowly accumulate on top of this layer of rock, eventually forming another layer of sedimentary rock on top of the previous layer. This would happen over and over again, eventually forming the layers of rock seen in the geological column.

Now, of course, all of this is speculation, but it is accepted by many geologists today as the way in which the rock strata in the geological column were formed. Well, if you accept this speculation as fact, then you are left to conclude something rather obvious. The deeper a rock layer is in the geological column, the farther back in earth's past it was formed. After all, since Lyell's process requires the lower rock layers to form before the higher ones can, the rock layers on top should be younger than the rock layers on the bottom. In fact, geologists even try to assign time frames for when these rock strata were supposed to have formed. Cambrian rock, for example, is supposed to have formed between 570 and 500 million years ago. The next set of rock layers (Ordovician rock) is supposed to have formed between 500 and 435 million years ago. Such numbers exist for every layer in the geological column. They are based on many assumptions, and it is not clear that they are accurate, but they are commonly used in reference to the geological column.

So, from the concrete scientific facts that sedimentary rock generally forms in layers and we find fossils in those layers, we develop a theoretical construct called the geological column. Then, when we add Lyell's speculation to the geological column, we are forced to conclude that the lower the strata in the geological column, the older the rock. If we further add more assumptions, we can even come up with how long ago such rock formed. If this is the case, then fossils found in strata that are low in the geological column are the remains of creatures that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. In the same way, fossils in strata near the top of the geological column must be the remains of creatures that lived in the more recent past.

Based on Lyell's speculation, then, Darwin and his followers argued that the geological column shows us that long ago, only “simple” life forms existed. That is why we see fossils of only “simple” forms in the lowest geological strata. As you look up the geological column, however, the fossils become more and more “complex.” This indicated to Darwin that as time went on, life forms got more and more complex. Well, Darwin argued, this is great evidence for macroevolution. After all, macroevolution predicts that life started out simple and, over eons of time and guided by natural selection, more complex forms of life emerged.

Now you have to realize that this conclusion is based on assumptions. You must assume that the geological column is an accurate picture of the earth's sedimentary rocks and the fossils found in them. You also have to believe that those rocks are formed as Lyell and many geologists today speculate: by the slow accumulation of sediment over eons of time. The geological column is evidence for macroevolution only if those two assumptions are right.

So the big question is, are those two assumptions right? The answer, from a scientific standpoint, is that we don't know. The geological column is probably a reasonable representation of the sedimentary rocks on earth. However, the issue of how those rock strata are formed is quite tricky. Since this is not a geology course, we do not want to spend a lot of time on the specifics. Instead, we will simply say that scientists have seen layers of sediment form slowly as a result of a process much like that suggested by Lyell. These sediment layers look a lot like “soft” versions of the sedimentary rocks we see today. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that sedimentary rocks can form that way. However, scientists have also seen that natural catastrophes like floods and volcanic eruptions can lay down many layers of rock virtually overnight. Geologists who have spent time studying the results of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington, for example, have documented the formation of a huge wall of sedimentary rock that has many strata in it, all in the span of about five hours.

Science tells us, then, that rock strata can be formed either slowly in a process like that suggested by Lyell or quickly as a result of natural catastrophes. So, if you want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevolution, it does. You simply have to assume that it was formed much in the way Lyell suggested that it was formed. If, on the other hand, you don't want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevolution, you can assume that it was not formed that way. Instead, you can assume that it was formed quickly as the result of one or more catastrophes. For example, we consider the major parts of the geological column to be the result of the worldwide flood that happened during Noah's time. An excellent book written by Dr. Steven Austin entitled Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe uses the specific example of the Grand Canyon to provide convincing evidence that this is, indeed, the case. Of course, those who believe that the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell also have evidence of their own, so the final answer is not clear.

Since, from a scientific point of view, we really don't know whether the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell or by catastrophe, the data from the geological column is inconclusive. IF the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell, then it is excellent evidence for macroevolution. IF, on the other hand, it was formed by one or more catastrophes, then it is excellent evidence against macroevolution. Creation scientists, for example, believe that the worldwide flood can easily explain most of the geological column. Thus, they believe that the geological column is evidence against macroevolution because it indicates that most of the fossilized organisms lived at the same time, in direct contradiction to the evolutionary view. Evolutionists, on the other hand, think that Lyell's speculations are the best way to explain the fossil record, so they believe that the geological column is evidence for macroevolution.

Stick around for "Part 4: Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution".

Part 2: Microevolution and Macroevolution

2009-12-11T14:49:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Part 1

To continue our study of Evolution with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,709
Estimated reading time: 7-12 minutes

As we learned in Module #1, once a hypothesis is formed, it is tested against experimental data. If the data continue to support the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. If it does not, it must be altered or discarded. This is the next step in the scientific method, and it is where Darwin's hypothesis ran into some trouble.

After leaving the HMS Beagle, Darwin began experimenting with pigeons. He raised and bred them, trying to see if natural selection could result in new species of pigeon. To investigate further, he talked to other animal breeders. He interviewed those who bred dogs, horses, and pigeons, looking to their experience as a guide to whether or not his hypothesis could be correct. Indeed, he found much evidence that confirmed at least part of his hypothesis. He noted several cases of breeders who, over several generations, succeeded in producing pigeons that were so different from the species with which the breeder started that they could reasonably be classified as a new species of pigeon. The same seemed to be the case with dogs and horses as well.

As another piece of evidence for his hypothesis, Darwin compared the domesticated versions of many animals with their wild counterparts. Wild dogs, for example, looked and behaved quite differently from domesticated dogs. In fact, many breeds of domesticated dog cannot reproduce with wild dogs. Thus, by the definition of species as laid out in Module #1, these domestic dogs would be considered a wholly different species from any species of wild dog. Despite these incredible differences, domestic dogs were, many generations ago, simply wild dogs that men began to train and domesticate. Over generations, however, dog breeders would selectively mate those dogs that had what the breeder considered the best traits for domestication. Thus, the “wilder” dogs were not allowed to reproduce, and the tamer dogs were. This “manmade” selection, Darwin realized, mimicked natural selection, allowing the small variations that occurred during reproduction to “pile up,” leading to a new species of dog: the domesticated dog.

With these observations, Darwin was able to do two things. First, he established as a valid scientific theory the idea that the natural variations which occur during reproduction could, when guided by natural (or manmade) selection, take one species and pile up so many changes that the result could be something reasonably classified as another species. In other words, he showed that his explanation for the many species of finches in the Galapagos archipelago was scientifically viable. Second, Darwin was able to destroy forever an idea that had been established for generations before him: the immutability of species.

The immutability of species – The idea that each individual species on the planet was specially created by God and could never fundamentally change

In other words, scientists of Darwin's day believed that every creature was created during the time of creation and has existed, essentially the same, ever since that time. In the case of dogs, for example, those who held to the idea of the immutability of the species would say that in the Garden of Eden, there were Doberman pinschers, Saint Bernards, dachshunds, and chihuahuas. Each of these breeds of dog continued, essentially unchanged, up to the present. Darwin masterfully showed that this just wasn't true. He showed that all of these breeds of dog came from some original dog ancestor, and the natural variations that occurred in reproduction, guided by natural (or manmade) selection, resulted in the many different breeds of dog that exist to this day.

Although it sounds like Darwin had remarkable success in testing his hypothesis, you need to realize that what Darwin showed to be true was only a small part of his hypothesis of evolution. The idea that one ancestral finch could, over generations, give rise to many different species of finch was revolutionary, but it was not where Darwin's idea stopped. Once he had destroyed the idea of the immutability of the species, he wanted to go much further. He wanted to show that this same process, over millions (or perhaps billions) of years, could, eventually, cause the ancestral finch to give rise to an eagle. This is where Darwin ran into all sorts of trouble when comparing his hypothesis to the data.

Although it was rather easy to show that a species of wild dog could, over time, give rise to several breeds of domestic dog, it was quite another to show that a dog could give rise to a radically different species, such as a horse or a cow! In fact, Darwin found some evidence for this idea, but it was inconclusive at best. We will be looking at this data in depth in the next section, but for right now it is enough to say that there was so much data contradicting this part of his hypothesis, that he spent the majority of his book discussing the problems with his hypothesis.

In the end, Darwin found ample evidence that starting with a basic life form (a finch, for example), many other specialized species of this life form (many species of finch) can arise as a result of variation guided by natural (or manmade) selection. However, when it came to showing that a basic life form (once again, a finch) could evolve into a completely different life form (like an eagle) by natural selection, there was precious little evidence for his hypothesis and plenty of evidence against it. This has led scientists to divide Darwin's theory of evolution into two parts: the theory of microevolution and the hypothesis of macroevolution.

Microevolution – The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism

Macroevolution – The hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution cannot be overemphasized. There is so much evidence to support the idea of microevolution that it is a well-documented scientific theory. There is so little evidence for macroevolution and so much evidence against it that it is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Well, if Darwin could not find much evidence in support of macroevolution and found a lot of evidence against it, how did it become so popular among scientists? There are several answers to that question, but one of the most important ones is that at the time, scientists were rather ignorant about a great many things which we take for granted. As a result, Darwin could argue his point rather convincingly.

Darwin basically said that since microevolution is so clearly apparent from a scientific point of view, then macroevolution should also be rather obvious. After all, if finches can change a little over a small amount of time, shouldn't they be able to change a lot over a long period of time? Assuming that the amount of change a given species can experience is essentially limitless, it will just take a little longer for microevolution to slowly lead to macroevolution.

To scientists of Darwin's day, this sounded like a reasonable argument. You see, they didn't know what we know about genetics. They didn't know that the genetic code is responsible for determining the range of characteristics that a species has. Thus, they didn't know that the natural variation we see in reproduction today is simply the result of different alleles being expressed in different individuals. Since we know that the number of alleles in the genetic code of any species is limited, we also know that the natural variation which occurs as a part of reproduction is limited as well. Thus, unlike Darwin argued, the variation that a species can experience is not unlimited. It is limited by the number and type of alleles in the species' genetic code. Thus, today we know that macroevolution cannot occur the same way that microevolution occurs.

You see, microevolution is simple to explain. When God created the animals and plants, he built into their genetic code a great amount of variability. As these plants and animals began reproducing, this variability began manifesting itself. This built-in variation was then acted upon by natural selection to create the variations that we see within a particular kind of creature. Thus, God probably created a “typical” dog during the creation week, and then the process of microevolution produced the many variations of dog that we see today. Microevolution, then, is a testament to God's foresight. As the Creator, God knew that the creatures of His world would have to adapt in order to survive. Thus, He built in their genetic codes the ability to change, and microevolution is simply the theory that describes how that change takes place and is directed by the pressures of the environment.

Macroevolution, however, is something quite different. The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature's genetic code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information in the genetic code. There are only a certain number of genes and alleles of those genes. There is therefore only a certain number of possible variations in genotype and therefore a limited number of possible phenotypes. Thus, in order to get an unlimited amount of change, a creature must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its genetic code! This is something altogether different from microevolution and, as we will see in the next few sections, there is precious little data supporting such a hypothesis and quite a lot of data contradicting it.

In the end, then, we can distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution by referring to genetics. If we are talking about a species varying within its genetic code, we are talking about microevolution. This is how wild dogs became domestic dogs and how the many varieties of finch formed in the Galapagos archipelago. On the other hand, if we are talking about a species suddenly adding information to its genetic code, we are talking about macroevolution. The distinction is quite important, because the former is a well-established scientific theory while the latter is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Look for Part 3, "Inconclusive Evidence: the Geological Column", tomorrow.

Part 1: Darwin's Theory

2009-12-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

Let's continue with the series on Evolution by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,459
Estimated reading time: 5-10 minutes

During his time on the HMS Beagle, Darwin had a chance to investigate a small chain of islands called the Galapagos. The thirteen islands of the archipelago are the result of volcanic activity, and these islands still exist about 600 miles west of the South American nation of Ecuador (on the equator). Although Darwin was pleased to study a wide variety of plant and animal life on these islands, he concentrated on the finches that lived there. Many science historians credit these birds, now known as “Darwin's finches,” as inspiring Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.

You see, there were (and still are) many different species of finches living in the Galapagos. These species have several common characteristics, but there are specific differences between each species that were of great interest to Darwin.

Certhidea olivacea has a small, slender beak, while Geospiza difficilis has a larger, stouter beak, and G. magnirostris has the largest, stoutest beak of the three. Why do these finches have such different beaks? Well, let's look at what they eat. C. olivacea eats tiny insects. G. difficilis eats eggs that it steals from nests, but it does not use its beak to break them. Instead, it grabs onto something with its beak and then kicks the eggs into a rock. Finally, G. magnirostris eats hard seeds that it must crack with its beak. Each finch seems to have just the right beak for its food source: a small, slender beak for the finch that eats soft insects; a larger, sturdier beak for the one that uses it as an anchor; and the largest, sturdiest beak for the one that uses it to crack hard seeds.

Differences like these fascinated Darwin. You see, the scientists of Darwin's day would have looked at each of these species and assumed that God had designed each one individually and gave each one exactly the beak that it needed to eat the food it was supposed to eat. Darwin, however, imagined something else. He said that other than the beak and a few other differences (size and plumage color, for example), these finches were all remarkably similar. Since they were all so similar, he imagined that they all came from a common ancestor long ago. As the feeding needs of the finches changed, however, this common ancestor began to give rise to many different species of finch, each with a unique beak.

How did Darwin propose that this could happen? Well, he said, look at what happens when any species reproduces. When two people have a baby, for example, the baby has many characteristics in common with his parents. The baby's eye color might be the same as his mother's, and his hair color might be the same as his father's. Nevertheless, the baby usually has some characteristics that do not seem to come from either parent. Some tall professional basketball players, for example, have short parents. Thus, although offspring do tend to resemble their parents, they also have a few characteristics that are quite different from the corresponding characteristics in their parents. It is these differences, Darwin thought, which could be responsible for all of the finches in the Galapagos.

Suppose that long ago, there was only one species of finch living on the islands. If food supplies were to grow scarce, the finches that made up the population of this species would compete with one another for the dwindling food supplies, just as Malthus predicted. When this competition began occurring, any finch that had an advantage would be more likely to win the competition than one who didn't. Thus, suppose a finch was born that had a beak which was stronger than the typical finch. Well, that finch might be able to find a new source of food (hard nuts that other finches couldn't break open, for example). With this new source of food, this strong-beaked finch would most likely win the competition for survival. As it reproduced, then, it would most likely pass on this new, strong beak to at least some of its offspring. Over many, many generations, each time one of these finches was born with an even stronger beak, it would be more likely to survive, because it could continue to find more food than the finches with which it was competing. This competition, combined with the natural differences that arise between parent and offspring, could, over generations, produce a finch whose beak was short and stout, like that of G. magnirostris, even if the original species of finch had a small, slender beak, like that of C. olivacea.

During that same time (or perhaps later), another finch might have been born whose beak was short and stout, but not short and stout enough to break open new seeds. However, perhaps it was short and stout enough to act as an anchor while the finch broke open eggs with its feet. This would make it easier for that finch to get to the nutrition inside of eggs, giving it an edge in the competition to survive. As time went on, this finch would survive and would pass on its basic beak shape to its offspring. Each time a finch was born whose beak was more ideally suited for the task of anchoring the bird while it broke open eggs, the finch would have a better edge in the competition for survival, making it more likely to live and pass its new characteristic on to more and more offspring. Thus, as time went on, the original finch species that lived in the Galapagos and had a beak ideal for eating insects would eventually give rise to two new species of finch: one with a beak ideal for grasping onto objects and another with a beak that was ideal for breaking open hard seeds.

This is the mechanism by which Darwin imagined that all species of finch he observed could have originated from a single type of finch long ago. He called this mechanism “natural selection,” because he said that due to the fierce competition which occurred between members of a species, any individual that had a unique characteristic making it more likely to win the competition would be selected by nature to survive. As time went on, these unique characteristics would continue to “pile up” on one another until eventually, a new species was formed.

Darwin, of course, did not stop there. After all, he imagined, if such a mechanism could be responsible for causing finches to develop new beaks, why couldn't that same mechanism allow them to develop longer, stronger wings, longer, sharper talons, and keener eyesight? If that was so, finches could eventually give rise to eagles! These ideas led Darwin to his overall theory of evolution. At one time, Darwin believed, there was a relatively simple (most likely aquatic) life form that existed on earth. Darwin made no speculations about how that life form developed, but others who followed have constructed wild scenarios that try to explain the formation of this organism without the intervention of a supernatural creator. This life form, Darwin assumed, would begin to reproduce and, as is the case today, variations would occur in the reproduction. These variations, guided by the process of natural selection, would eventually “pile up” so as to form new species. These species would, in the same way, give rise to other species. Thus, over eons of time, Darwin believed that this mechanism could explain the existence of all life forms on the planet.

Hopefully you can see how Malthus and Lyell influenced Darwin's thinking. After all, Malthus gave Darwin the idea that individuals within a species compete with one another in order to survive. This led to Darwin's idea of natural selection. Lyell's concept that the present is the key to the past allowed Darwin to speculate that the same variations which we see in reproduction today could, over vast ages of time, be responsible for all of the variations among all of the species that exist on the planet. In other words, Darwin did not dream up this theory on his own. He was influenced by the works of others.

If you remember our discussion of the scientific method, you will recognize that at this point in the story, Darwin's idea was really no more than a hypothesis. Darwin made a bunch of observations and then proceeded to develop an explanation for those observations. Did the concept of evolution through natural selection ever make it past the stage of being a hypothesis? Well, the answer to that is both yes and no. Hopefully you will see what we mean in the next section.

Restrictions on comments state at the end of the introductory post still apply, but comments are ALWAYS welcome!

Introduction: Charles Darwin

2009-12-08T15:12:00.000-08:00

The following was taken directly from Exploring Creation With Biology by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.

Word Count: 1,693
Estimated minutes to read: 5-10

Because he is such an important figure in the field of biology, it is necessary to look at the life of Charles Darwin in some detail. This will help us gain insight to how he developed his theory, and, hopefully, you might learn a lesson or two from his story.

Charles Robert Dawrin was born in the village of Strewsbury, England on February 12, 1809. Charles Darwin On that same day, far away, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky. Darwin was born into a relatively wealthy family where education and artistic enrichment were stressed. In 1825, he enrolled at the University of Edinburgh, where all the men in his family had been educated. His father wanted him to study medicine, but he was sickened at the first sight of surgery being performed without anesthesia. He also showed little aptitude for the subject, so after two years, he abandoned the study of medicine.

When he left the study of medicine, he transferred to Christ's College in Cambridge, England, to study theology. Contrary to what you might have heard about Darwin, he seemed to be a deeply committed Christian at this point in his life. During this part of his life, he said that he did not “…in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word of the Bible” (Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kettlewell, Charles Darwin And His World, [New York,NY: Viking Press, 1965], 15). Since he considered himself a devout Christian, the study of theology came quite naturally to him, and he graduated with a B.A. in theology, Euclid, and the classics.

Although his degree was in theology, Euclid, and the classics, Darwin developed a keen interest in geology while at Cambridge. Thus, when he had the opportunity to accompany a Cambridge professor, Adam Sedgewick, on a geology field trip in the summer of 1831, he jumped at the chance. While on that field trip, he was offered the position of naturalist on the HMS Beagle, a ship that planned to circumnavigate the globe. Although you might think it unusual for a ship to employ a naturalist, nearly every ship had such a position available. Darwin eagerly accepted the assignment, and that voyage changed both Darwin's life and the face of science forever.

Before that voyage, Darwin had read a book written by Thomas Malthus entitled An Essay on the Principles of Population. In this book, Malthus said that all individuals within a population struggle against other individuals to obtain what is necessary (food, shelter, a mate, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce. While on board the HMS Beagle, Darwin also read some of the works of a controversial geologist named Sir Charles Lyell. Lyell was one of the first scientists who rejected the history of the world as told in the Old Testament and tried to show that the same processes we see at work today could, given eons and eons of time, produce all of the geological features in the world. Geologists often summarize Lyell's idea with the catch phrase “The present is the key to the past.”

Darwin voyaged on the HMS Beagle for five years; during that time, he made many observations. Each time the ship dropped anchor, Darwin collected samples and made observations of the species native to whatever island or land mass he was on. These observations, some of which we will detail later, combined with the ideas of Malthus and Lyell, led Darwin to formulate his theory, which he called “natural selection.” Although his theory was completely formulated by the time he left the HMS Beagle, he did not publish his book for another 23 years. Part of the delay was due to Darwin trying to perfect his work, but most of it was due to his wife, who recognized the devastating effect that his work could have on the church. She pleaded with him not to publish, and he respected her wishes for some time, but in the end, he felt that he had to communicate his ideas to the scientific world. He therefore published The Origin of Species in 1859.

It is important to note that Darwin was a careful, meticulous scientist. He was not the anti-religion crusader that many have made him out to be. If you actually read his work, you will find that it is quite evenhanded. Indeed, Darwin devoted more space to discussing the reasons a scientist might not want to accept his main hypothesis than he did to the discussion of why a scientist should accept it! You will not find that kind of evenhandedness in the majority of scientific writing that occurs today. Indeed, modern scientists (especially evolutionary crusaders) could learn a lot from Darwin's style. Darwin's only real mistake was to allow his faith to erode as a result of the science he pursued on the HMS Beagle.

The best illustration of how Darwin's faith eroded while on the HMS Beagle and the years after can be found by comparing two statements he made. During the earliest part of his voyage, he wrote in his diary that he often bore the brunt of a good deal of laughter “…from several of the officers for quoting the Bible as final authority on some moral point” (Bern Dibner, Darwin of the Beagle, [Cambridge, MA: Burndy Library, 1964], 82). Only a few years after his voyage, however, he stated "...that the Old Testament from its manifest false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian” (Dibner, pp. 82-83). Clearly these are the statements of a man whose faith at first seemed strong but then eroded over time to nothing!

Charles Darwin died in 1882 as the result of a long illness. He died a celebrated naturalist whose views were said to usher in a new age of science. He was buried in Westminster Abbey along with such scientific greats as Sir Isaac Newton and Sir William Thomson Kelvin. There is a myth going around the Christian community that Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. This is a lie, and historians think that it was started by the widow of Sir James Hope, fleet admiral for the Royal Navy. She claims to have visited Darwin shortly before his death and to have heard him recant his theory and ask to be told how he might be saved. Darwin's own daughter Henrietta, however, said, “…[the admiral's widow] was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her....” In addition, she states that “He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier…The whole story has no foundation whatever” (Paul F. Boller and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], 19-20). Although the story of a deathbed recantation by Darwin is appealing to Christians, it is almost certainly a lie and therefore such a story does not, in any way, honor God.

Although this biography was rather long and involved, it was necessary for four reasons. First, it is important that the phony story of Darwin's deathbed recantation not be spread any further. Second, it is important for you to realize that although Darwin's theory has had devastating effects on the faith of many people, Darwin himself was not an antireligion crusader like many evolutionists are today. Darwin was a careful, dedicated scientist who started his career speaking like a Bible-believing Christian. There is not a shred of evidence that he had any intentions of harming the church. He was merely communicating what he thought were the obvious conclusions of science. Third, it shows that even careful use of the scientific method can result in the wrong conclusion. Despite the fact that Darwin did everything right in terms of the science that he did, we can show that although a portion of his theory is valid, the major conclusion is not. Thus, proper use of the scientific method does not guarantee a correct answer!

Finally, a look at Darwin's life can show you how horrible the results are when you put your faith in science. As we stated in Module #1, science is limited and is constantly changing. What we thought were scientific laws less than a century ago are now known to be wrong. Indeed, as you will see in the rest of this module, we now know that most of Darwin's ideas were very wrong. You simply cannot put your faith in something as limited and subject to change as science. Had Darwin realized that, he would not have allowed his faith in the Bible to be eroded, and he might never have championed this errant theory that has had such a devastating effect on the faith of others!

This is the introduction to a ten part series on viewing Evolution through good science.

Because of "issues" in the past, I would like to set some parameters for commenting:

1. No insulting. At all. NONE. Comments doing so will be deleted completely. Watch it.
A. No degrading examples (Einar), and no patronizing tone barely hidden within every sentence (Alex).
B. No attacking people's intelligence or lack of open-mindedness. This debate is not about how ignorant you think your opponent is, it's about the cold hard facts of science.
C. Being insulted by someone's belief does not count as an insult as long as the belief is expressed with civility.

2. If you are going to counter anything being said, please back up your argument with evidence. Posting links is not necessary, but do cite your source, please.

3. If you are asked to give further information, please do so when asked the first time, just out of courtesy.

4. If you think I am being a bossy, controlling, overbearing snot, that is perfectly fine. It will not be the first time someone has thought that. However, the rules still apply ;)

5. Go for it.

Cultural Honor

2009-12-03T19:11:00.000-08:00

So, I’m reading this book called Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s kind of a strange book in that it doesn’t really help you do anything exactly, it just sort of helps you understand things. Basically, it examines some successful people, and tries to figure out exactly what it is that makes them that way. There are some really interesting parts, and some parts that I sort of skimmed. But my favorite part so far was this:

Cultural honor.

Stick with me, please, because I found this to be profoundly eye-opening.

You’ve heard about family feuds and stuff, right? How for generations and generations, families will just fight with each other for reasons they might not even remember?

Well, as Malcolm Gladwell points out, one family doing this is a feud. A ton of families right along the Appalachian doing it is a pattern.

What in the world makes those people so prone to violent out breaks with each other? Did you guess it? Cultural honor. Because the main profession of the mountain areas was livestock and stuff, people honor was very important. I mean, if you were a farmer, you had to rely on other people and get along with your neighbors, but there was never a danger of having your crop actually stolen. When your job was tending sheep or something, people very well could steal your hard work, and it wasn’t necessary to get along with the people around you really.

All you had to protect your livestock and your family was your reputation. Build up your reputation as a tough guy and no one will mess with you. Keep your honor intact.

There are other reasons why culture honor was (and is) such a big thing in those parts. It has to do with heritage.

Back when people were still coming regularly to America, a certain group of people settled in a certain spot: the Scotch-Irish immigrants settled along the eastern/southern US.

That would be “from the Pennsylvania border south and west through Virginia and West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina, and the northern end of Alabama and Georgia.” And that’s where all this “cultural honor” stuff is big. You can steal my stuff, but you can’t insult my mama. That’s how it works here. *clears throat* I mean, there…

Okay, I’m from North Carolina. And when Mr. Malcolm Gladwell started raggin’ on my homeland, I started getting pretty hot inside.

And as I started boiling, I blinked and realized I was proving his point.

Oh.

…

I read on. There was then an experiment described. In the early 1990s, two psychologists decided to get together a bunch of 18-21 year old guys and insult them, see how they would react. They came up with the insult they thought would resonate with them the most. “A—hole.” (I am quoting the book, sorry.)

Here was the experiment set up:

“The social sciences building at the University of Michigan has a long, narrow hallway in the basement lined with filing cabinets. The young men were called into a classroom, one by one and asked to fill out a questionnaire. Then they were told to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and return to the classroom.”

Half the guys were from the states that were high on cultural honor, half of them were not.

“As they walked down the hallway with their questionnaire, a man—a confederate of the experiments—walked past them and pulled out a drawing in one of the filing cabinets. They already narrow hallway now became even narrower. As the young men tried to squeeze by, the confederate looked up, annoyed. He slammed the filing cabinet drawer shut, jostled the young men with his shoulder, and, in a low but audible voice said the trigger word: ‘a—hole.’”

Through different tests that I go into in too much detail, the suspicions were confirmed. Confirmed A LOT. The cultural honor boys were mad. Even though they didn’t act out in violence, their handshakes were firmer than usual, saliva samples revealed that being insulted had raised their levels of testosterone and cortisol (hormones that drive aggression). The guys were also given a short story and told to supply a conclusion. The story had to do with a guy’s girlfriend being come onto by another guy. The cultural honor guys who had been insulted made it end violently, while the guys who lived in other places did not.

IS THAT INTERESTING TO ANYONE ELSE?

I’m going to be perfectly honest with you:

I never thought people reacted any differently.

Call me ignorant, but I thought this was the same everywhere. I had no idea that in other parts of the US, it wouldn’t be natural to react violently to having your honor insulted. I mean, you just don’t do that here. No one gets upset if you steal their stuff, but if you attack their honor, boy, it’s on.

It’s not just guys, it’s girls, too. I mean, I honestly had no idea that it would occur to anyone not to get wild about something like this…I think I’ve already said that :) But you get the idea.

Who knew? I had no idea that culture honor wasn’t the same everywhere. What a cool eye-opener!

Hope you guys found this at least half as interesting as I did :)

"Animal Farm"

2009-11-23T11:19:00.000-08:00

“Animal Farm”, written by George Orwell, was published in 1946 just after World War II. The story follows a farm of animals as they rebel against their master. They overthrow the evil Mr. Jones, and begin a new system of government called “Animalism”, founded on the principle that “all animals are equal”. The story first appears to be almost childlike, but it soon becomes obvious that Animalism bears uncanny resemblance to totalitarianism/communism. Orwell proves his point well in this fairytale of symbolic characters: when a government is based on the prospect that all are equal, it becomes inevitable that some will end up “more equal than others”. - Kendra Logan, from the essay "Animal Farm".

Read the book.

Power

2009-11-20T10:16:00.000-08:00

"Absolutely power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

- John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton

Freedom and Equality: Pick One

2009-11-11T13:36:00.000-08:00

Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.

If freedom reigns, some people will prosper while others will not.
If freedom reigns, people will like "Rachel" better than "Matilda".
If freedom reigns, your house will be bigger than my house.
If freedom reigns, you will fail and I will succeed.

If everyone is equal, you will be forced to do average when you should do fabulously.
If everyone is equal, we will be forced to like Rachel and Matilda the same.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to have an average-sized house.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to succeed whether you like it or not because I did.

Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.

You

2009-11-05T17:07:00.000-08:00

I'm studying DNA and genes in biology this week; you know, what makes you, you. Your DNA controls your physical characteristics almost entirely. You can lift weights or something to get stronger, of course, but there's actually a limit to how far you can go. Your DNA determines that limit.

But what about our thoughts and personalities? I've been told that I "act just like my mom" sometimes, but is that because of my DNA, or my mom's influence on me throughout my life? Hmm.

Peoples' personalities are (obviously) very different. I can't figure some people out, and other I understand perfectly. Some people love the color purple, and others (like me) find it a horrible color for whatever reason (sorry, purple-lovers :)). Some love to read, others don't. Some think Obama is the best thing since remote controls, others think it wouldn't hurt him to be a little less like one.

I have often wondered what makes us who we are. DNA to some extent, parental influence to some, God shaping us to some as well, but who are WE?

What is YOU?

I don't mean what do you like. I don't mean when you go shopping and see a cute jacket that is "so you". I mean what are you. Where is the "you" in your body? What makes you, YOU?

If I cut off your finger, is that finger "you"?

Well, yes and no...It's PART of you, but it's not really YOU...

Okay, so you aren't in your finger.

I tend to think people are in their heads. But it's not as if you could dissect someone's brain and find a little piece inside that's "them".

So...what makes us who we are?

It's our minds, yes. Our thoughts. But what are thoughts? Just electric impulses in our brains? How do little electric impulses tell us right and wrong, what to like, how to act? How do little electric impulses make us love to read, or write, or go horseback riding, or paint? How do little electric impulses tell us to be scared, happy, sad, or excited? How do little electric impulses make us love and hate?

Maybe we'll never really know what thoughts are. Maybe people DO know and I just don't yet :) But it's really kind of interesting, isn't it? What separates "you" from "your body"? What are thoughts?

Just something to think about ;)

Truth

2009-10-30T09:40:00.000-07:00

Truth.

Where do I even start? I mean, honestly. That wasn’t said for show, I really don’t know where to begin.

First, let’s define truth. That’s always a safe place to begin. What is truth? I say truth is reality. Truth is what we know to be real, correct, and naturally following from other instances. Logical.

Let’s see what good ol’ Dictionary.com says:

Truth: the true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality;

Okay, so that’s pretty consistent with the definition I presented.

Now we get to the deep part. If you define truth simply as above, that’s not too difficult. But then we get into the famous logical fallacy:

“Well, that may be true for you, but not for me.”
“I think everyone should find his own truth.”
“Truth is all relative.”

*buzzer sound*

I’m sorry; come again?

Truth is not relative. Truth does not differ from person to person. You cannot find “your own” truth. There is only truth, and it is true for you and everyone else. Truth is one of the black and white things in life. Either something is true—and true for everyone—or it is false—and false for everyone.

Of course, then we get into the matter of finding truth. If there is only one truth for every question, what is it? How do we find it?

Well, let’s take a walk through history.

Originally, of course, truth came from God. People went to God for everything, and he gave them truth.

Of course, that got old eventually. People began to wander away from God and look for truth in other places. Why believe in some invisible superhero in the sky when you can just look around the world and find truth for yourself?

But, there was still only one truth to be believed, and that started to hurt some peoples’ feelings. The artistic world was evolving into more abstract concepts and artists like Picasso painted “as they really saw the world”. This opened the gateway for some interesting ideas.

People began to try to find “their own truth”. Truth became relative, hippies reigned ;) Drugs became an answer. LSD was the golden truth. People thought that it would help them find the truth inside themselves.

Of course, the golden years of LSD were fairly short lived, and people reverted mostly back to their old ways.

Lately, truth has become a relative term once again. Right and wrong have been blurred. Good and evil barely exist anymore in the minds of today’s citizens.

Maybe you’re nodding vigorously and going, “Yes, YES! Truth IS relative!” or maybe you were like me and your eyes are bugging and you’re going, “Good and evil relative? How is that even a possibility?”

However, now that God has been taken out of the equation, how we define truth? How do we determine right and wrong? How do we decide what is good and what is evil?

People do.

So, people can find the ultimate truth? By themselves?

Oh, no, of course not.

So it’s a good thing that’s not what America is looking for.

People aren’t looking for the ultimate truth anymore, because they’ve decided there’s no such thing.

“Well, that may be true for you, but not for me.”
“I think everyone should find his own truth.”
“Truth is all relative.”

This is great. This is awesome. How easy is this?? I can lie and cheat and steal and it’s all okay because that’s what’s true, what’s right, what’s good for me. We can all have our own truths. They might be totally different from each other, but it’s all chill dude, because there’s no such thing as truth anyway. We’re just making it up as we go along.

Abortion might be wrong for you, but it might be right for me.
Oh, you can believe in Global Warming if you want to. It can be true for you, just not for me.
Maybe you see calling down demons as evil, but I believe it’s my calling.

Right and wrong. *shrug* Whatever you feel is right for you.
Truth and falsehood. *smile* Oh, you just pick and chose! I’ll accept your decision as your own.
Good and evil. *wink* There’s not really a right and wrong answer here. It’s all relative.

…

Let’s go back to the beginning. What is truth?

The true or actual state of a matter.

That doesn’t sound negotiable to me. Truth is what is right and what is not. That’s black and white. Truth is black and white. That’s why it’s called TRUTH. If it’s not black and white, then they have this cool new word called OPINION that you can use.

So if right and wrong, true and false, good and evil are absolutes, who decides what they are?

THE GOVERNMENT!

Haha, just kidding.

Well, who? You? Me? Seriously, the government?

Well, who tells you what truth is? Who tells me what truth is? Who tells the government what truth is?

And then who tells the tellers of you? Of me? Of the government?

And who tells the tellers of the tellers?

And back…
And back…
And back…

WHAT IS TRUTH?

HOW DO WE GET TRUTH?

WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY?

WHERE CAN WE LEARN WHAT’S REAL?

WHERE IS THE UNIVERSAL?

WHERE IS THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH OF ALL THESE PARTICULAR THINGS?

Just like the definition of truth, let’s go back to the beginning.

Yep, you probably called it.

God. God tells us what the universal, the ultimate truth is.

I saw that eye roll and lip curl. I saw that disgusted look away from the computer. I saw that click to another window because you refuse to deal with closed-minded, religious idiots like me.

Well, since I’m not closed minded, let me ask you:

If truth doesn’t come from God, where does it come from?

Fishing

2009-10-28T18:48:00.000-07:00

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

Taking a Stand: The Monster Unleashed :D

2009-10-01T12:12:00.001-07:00

Some of you may recall a blogger named JT Norlander who commented on Alex's post during Followers Say. He did not seem to think I was firm enough about my position against homosexuality. He suggested on his blog that I should "take a stand".

Those of you who know me in person: try not to laugh out loud XD

One thing I've had to be very careful about in my life is how I come across to people. When I research something and form an educated opinion, my opinions are, if you'll pardon the reference to Mulan, written in stone. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever standing up for myself and my beliefs. I frequently have to run my comments by someone else to make sure I am not completely blowing holes in what other people are saying.

Some people might call it having a temper, but I prefer to think of it as being "strong-willed". *smirks* All good training for law school, right? XD

So, just to be make it clear that I am very much a True Christian, let me run through the 11 basic beliefs we've covered on Carpe Noctem.

1. The New America: America is falling. Our founding priciples are crumbling, personal freedoms are slowly being taken away.

I thought the "New America" would be decades from now. I thought the big changes and awful things would come later.

I was wrong.

The New America is here. It is now.

America is going to fall, and when she does, who is going to pick her back up? People who are educated and persuasive. People who are good thinkers and people who can use logic.

When America falls, we will need LEADERS. Leaders with good ideas, principles and morals who can build America back up to the nation she was meant to be.

Plenty of people have good ideas, principles and morals, though. Most of them will not be able to help. Do you know why?

Because they don't know how to think, how to write, how to persuade.

It's a very basic concept, one that can be good or bad.

Winners, leaders, are not chosen because of their outstanding character. Not really. They are chosen because they know how to persuade people.

End of mini rant.

Controversial, extremist, and offensive point: When America falls, classically educated homeschoolers will rise to power because they know how to think, use logic, persuade, speak publically, and articulate their ideas well.

2. Feminism: It's not a dirty word. Feminism is not a sin. It can be pretty stupid, but it's not a sin.

Girls are just as smart as guys, but, face it, WE'RE NOT SUITED FOR THE NFL.

The whole attitude of Girls-Can-Do-ANYTHING-Guys-Can-Do-So-HAH attitude is getting really old and is frankly not true.

Girls and guys were made differently, so instead of pretending to be guys, let's celebrate the difference, shall we?

3. Discrimination: Racial discrimination is a terrible thing, a definite no-no. Discrimination, however, is not a bad thing.

Discrimination: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately

Is that wrong? Nope. When chosing a babysitting for your three year old, are you going to chose the tidy girl who make straight As and is always smiling, or the girl wearing black lipstick cussing her brains out at a stranger on the street?

Discrimination. Not bad in itself, just where we point it.

4. Global Warming: Bite me. You can tell me global warming is true, BLAH BLAH BLAH, but the HARD, COLD, FREAKIN' FACT is that it's

NOT.

Sorry. Do you research. All the big-name weather guys are telling you the same thing: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, PEOPLE. GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.

There is NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE in the long run. This is a PHASE.

I've said this a bunch, and I'll say it again. It's a hoax. Do your reasearch.

5. Weird vs. Normal: It's all so relative that there's really no such thing.

6. Being Great: C'mon, you scaredy cat. DO SOMETHING. BE MISUNDERSTOOD. DARE TO BE GREAT.

7. Terrorists/War: Can't we just live and let live?

To put it simply, NO.

Now, some people say that we should stop fighting the terrorists. Leave them alone, they say. Live and let live.

I'm fine with that. You're probably fine with that. Most people (serial killers not included) are good with that.

Except the terrorists.

THEY WANT TO KILL US. It's part of their religion. Their Bible explicitely says "KILL ALL THE NON-MUSLIMS!"

Yay, peace. Peace is good. But I think for peace to work, both sides have to agree to NOT KILL EACH OTHER.

I am all for peace. Really. As much as I enjoy stirring up trouble and debating, world peace is a wonderful that I want us to have! I think it would be WONDERFUL if we could live in harmoney with the Muslims. Some of them are probably really great people.

But as long as they are bombing America, it is America's job to fight back.

America is not "attacking" the terrorists. It is purely self-defense.

8. Articulacy: Ah, articulacy. The lost art. Let's think. If people were all articulate and persuasive, what could we achieve...?

We could paint picture in the air with our words!

We could solve disputes in half the time.

We could skip all the tedious daily arguments.

We could persuade people to do all kinds of things.

We could make people understand us.

We could talk our way up the corporate ladder.

We could charm the most uncharmable character.

We could rise to infinite power!

So, what are you waiting for? Get out a dictionary and learn to talk.

9. Going Green: Don’t get me wrong, I am all for keeping Earth alive for as long as possible, especially considering I live here. But the whole concept of “going green” has gotten SO ANNOYING. I am getting a little fed up with the whole GAHHH!!!-DID-YOU-JUST-THROW-THAT-CAN AWAY-THAT-IS-RECYCLABLE-MATERIAL!!!!!! thing. It’s really starting to get on my nerves.

The whole world is “going green”, which is a fine thing, just not when every time I open a magazine they’re screaming “secrets” about how to go even GREENER than we already are. It’s in children’s programs, even! Entire episodes of Curious George have been dedicated to making sure kids know they’re killing trees with every drawing they create.

Everyone already knows about being green. Do we have to keep dedicating entire episodes and magazine issues to the movement? Just let it sit for a while. Bring it up again for the next generation.

If we really wanted more “green” tips, we could Google it.

10. Evolution: *HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*

*wipes tears from eyes* *gasp*

Okay, sorry. I'm not even going to go into this. If you look at your facts, you'll come to the same conclusion. If you look at the facts and don't, there is something wrong with you.

11. Homosexuality: It's bad. It's against God. It's a choice.

Line of Logical Reasoning (this will only go for those who proclaim themselves Christians):

All sin is a choice.
Homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, homosexuality is a choice.

And it's that simple.

Hopefully this reitteration of my beliefs has helped you guys. JT, congratulations on unleashing the monster ;)

Alex: Gay Marriage

2009-09-26T16:29:00.000-07:00

I'm very excited about this experiment. I think it will work well. Anyway, I decided to press the hot button and go with gay marriage. I've very passionate about this subject and see it as some what of a second civil rights movement. Things have gotten a lot better for the homosexuals. It used to be that they were fighting for the right to civil rights! Can you imagine? But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discuss one particular aspect of homosexual rights: gay marriage. This is arguably the biggest step for the homosexual community and one that I believe will be passed in the future.

First off, let's look at a common misconception that homosexuality is a choice. Some people (most) believe in this for religious reasons. I can understand that, but it's simply not true. By saying it's a choice, you are going against tons of research done by psychologists who are professionals in the field of sexual orientation (which does exist). Not many can show true evidence outside of religion that proves that homosexuality is a choice. but I'll humor you and say that it is. We live in a country of free will. If someone wants to 'choose' to be homosexual and get married, why should we stop them? They have the right to choose, so why not let them marry?

Also, how will this negatively affect you? That's something you really have to think about. How will this impact me? For us, it won't. What could you have to gain by not letting them have the right to marry? Succeeding in hatred? Even if it's not hatred of them, by as I've heard many conservatives say "What they do!" Is this right? How can we talk about how terrible it was to deny blacks rights and refuse to give women the right to vote, and then turn around and start the cycle all over again? I guess what this leads me to believe is, who's next? After homosexuals gain rights, who's next on the cycle of prejudice?

Perhaps some think this post has been a little harsh, and it has. I will admit that. But I also believe that it's wrong to do this to homosexuals. Put aside your religious thinking, and look at this in a different light. After all, weren't we founded on the principle of separation of church and state? For now, try to see past your differences, and look at the rights of others and see how they are being infringed. Maybe think twice about this issue when you get a chance to look at it and realize they're people too and they deserve equal rights.

Christopher: War

2009-09-26T12:38:00.000-07:00

Thanks very much to Kendra for thinking up this idea. It’s very creative. I didn’t even know someone could post on another blog. My post today is going to be rather hippie, I think. That means, in Southern tongue, very idealistic. I’m going to ask all of the readers of this post to bear with me, because I’m going to look at an issue in a different way that it is usually looked at.

It seems as though destruction is as deeply rooted in human nature as the desire to create. Or, more specifically, the desire to fight at least is programmed into human nature. And these fights range from striking your little brother’s head to soaring over an enemy nation and watching a city disappear after the press of a button. But in modern ages, and in civilized countries, we like to say we are more sophisticated. We don’t go to war over land, power, or even religion. No, don’t be silly. We just go to war for money and politics. Well, that may be a little harsh, but one can argue that economics were a huge factor in every United States war. But so many countries have been saying that we go to war because we have to. It’s the last resort, but it’s necessary.

Is it? Believe me; I’ll continue that argument later.

For now, I want to clarify that there is a difference between cowardice and despising war. So many bumper stickers, (although practically all political bumper stickers beat up on another political group,) and blunt conservatives say that liberals are afraid. They say that pacifists are afraid. They say that those who don’t like war are afraid. Is this true? In some cases, most definitely. But does this mean all liberals and anti-war activists are afraid? No! What is so terrible about hating hate? What does cowardice have to do with being brave enough to try peace? I think sometimes those who dislike war and do something about it are the truly brave ones. They are brave enough to try to find an alternative to war.

Moving onto another topic, many have received the impression that war is the only way to peace. The true irony of this thought would make me laugh if it wasn't so serious. There is no such thing as forced peace. If this was true, and America has been overwhelmingly strong for this long, how come there are no results? No peace? To try to achieve peace through war is to shout at another nation, “Stop! Don’t hurt anyone else! Be peaceful or we’ll blow you to bits! Be peaceful or we’ll kill you all!” It just doesn’t work. Peace isn’t found through hate or even through a war stirred by truly good intentions, if that is possible. Peace is inspired, not forced, by trust, friendship, and the ability to forgive and forget. (I was about to say love, but that would sound too cheesy. I doubt the world will all hold hands and sing “Kum-ba-ya” anytime soon.

Another thing! In my opinion, war is almost the same as it has been since the beginning of time except with more powerful weapons. Imagine a caveman used to fighting with sticks and stones, suddenly with WMDs at his disposal. Well, what I’m trying to say is that it is becoming far too easy to kill. (Killing inflation: imagine that!) Ever since the Revolutionary War, it is no longer necessary in battle to see the death of the person you shoot. One no longer watches while a man with a knife through his heart dies a slow, pain-filled death. One watches a speck be shot, and remain a speck. One sees sky through the window of an airplane before and after they drop a bomb and kill tens of thousands. If it was ever “too easy” to pull a trigger, it is outrageous how “easy” it is to kill now. Imagine that thousands of just died because of your mission, and you haven’t given it a second thought. Now, I’m not blaming soldiers. I think soldiers are incredibly brave, patriotic, and even selfless. I just think they’re serving the wrong intentions.

I’m almost finished! I have finally gotten back to the question, “Is war necessary?” And I’ve decided. Sometimes. Oh, that word made me cringe. Realism sometimes makes you cringe, doesn’t it? I think in this modern age, sometimes war is impossible to avoid. I do think that war is far too often NOT NECESSARY. Look at Switzerland. It’s in a neighborhood of countries which have been constantly at war in history. It has remained pacifist. No! It is not impossible to avoid war! For so many countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, it is impossible. But for America? Think! America has put so much effort into an unbeatable offense we have neglected to put effort into an impenetrable defense.

Politicians tell us war is always a last resort. Is this true? Wouldn’t it be rather easy for America to remain pacifist if it didn’t decide to make war on certain countries unnecessarily?

In conclusion, sometimes I think you have to look at war like a child would. Why is it that when a city of tens of thousands of people is swallowed by flame, only the children cry? Why is it that when thousands are slaughtered by flame and gunfire just like the snap of a finger that we can still crack a smile? When will we raise above war? Thanks again to Kendra for letting everyone post on her blog. Thanks for reading!

Einar: Are People "Sent" to Hell?

2009-09-25T20:11:00.000-07:00

Hey Kendra, thank you for letting me post on your blog!
With this post, I would like to address a somewhat unresolved issue that was brought up in one of the older posts, why would a loving God send people to hell, or torture them, just for not believing in Him?

http://toseizethenight.blogspot.com/2009/05/terrorists-live-and-let-live.html

A little known or acknowledged fact is that God does not torture people.
Ok, maybe that is not the right way to put it, I doubt any Christian thinks that when someone goes (not “is sent”) to hell, God is torturing them as punishment for refusing to believe Him. If someone who considers themselves a Christian believes that, then they do not know the same God the Bible talks about.
I am going to have to explain a little background here, to help make things clear, I hope ya’ll will bear with my wordiness.

God is holy, He is righteous, He cannot abide sin, and sin CANNOT exist in His presence. Therefore, for us to live in heaven with Him, we must never have sinned once in our lives.
This is not possible, so God sent His son, to live a life with all the temptations and trials we have, BUT WITHOUT SINNING.
In the Old Testament, the Law was set up to allow the Israelites to pay for their sins without paying the price with their own life. The wages of sin is death, therefore they had to slaughter an animal without defect to pay for their sins “for that month” or “for that week” or for an especially bad sin, “What I did in that bar last night.” This system (or covenant) worked, but it was incomplete and difficult, so once Jesus had lived His perfect life, He then had to die, to sacrifice Himself as THE ONLY truly perfect sacrifice. This sacrifice was so great that it was able to pay not only for the sins of those that lived in those times, but for all the sins of all those who came after.
As with the old covenant however, you cannot pay for someone else’s sins unless they accept the sacrifice, you could not kill a goat to pay for grandpa’s sins unless grandpa was willing to admit his sins needed paying for.
In the same way, the Christ paid for your sins, but you have to accept that payment, as well as that He is the only one who can pay for them.
Imagine how God must feel, after paying such a terrible price, only for someone, anyone, to reject him. God is not a flawed human, who would get angry and perhaps vengeful at this rejection, but rather, He feels sorrowful (in such a manner that words cannot describe it) at the loss of His child he watched grow up, watched so closely that He knew how many hairs were on his or her head, knew their very thoughts.

Look at this illustration in Luke of how God feels when one of His children return to him. I am sure you know the story of the prodigal son, but did you ever realize it is as much about God’s view of us as it is our view of Him?

17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.” Luke 15:17-24 (NIV)

God does not resent that the young man left, He gives it no thought! He is nearly delirious with joy that his son has seen the errors of his ways and returned.

Do I think that this God would SEND someone to hell in a vengeful manner? NEVER!

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2nd Peter 3:9 NIV (Emphasis Mine)

God does not send anyone to hell, hell is nothing more and nothing less than total separation from God, just as Heaven is total fellowship and closeness with God. After judgment there will be no middle ground, we will either have total communion with God, or total separation from Him.
As I said before, Sin cannot exist near God. It is inconceivable. Therefore when God comes to take away those who have chosen to have their sin paid for, He has to leave the others behind, much as it tears at his heart to do so.
He does not send anyone to hell, they “go” there of their own free will, and as He has given us free will, He cannot stop them.

As for "burning in the eternal and torturous fires of hell" as you put it, the Bible does say that hell will seem like a lake of fire. It may very well be an actual place where people will be tortured physically. However, I am of the opinion that this technicality does not matter, no pain, physical or mental, could possibly be compared to the spiritual anguish of being forever separated from your Creator.

In answer to your other example, as the verse above says, God is not willing that one should perish. In a “grey area” (such as aborted babies) do you really think God is gonna say “Ehhh, I dunno, I never really covered that in my book, you can have em Satan.”
NO WAY!
God loves us with a passion greater than any father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, or friend on earth! There are no grey areas for him. He may not have explained it to your satisfaction in the Bible (although he has for me) but that does not mean he has not thought about it! And because God is Holy, you can bet that whatever he has decided IS RIGHT.

However, this grey area (from our perspective) does not include those who’s upbringing or situation makes it DIFFICULT to accept Christ, it covers only those who never even had the chance to choose him, or to at least choose what they knew was right.
In the event they had never heard of him, adults who choose to do what they know is evil will still go to hell. Even a pygmy who has never heard the gospel has a conscience, and the Bible makes it quite clear that a gentile (in this context, someone who has never heard of God) has no excuse, because of his God given conscience.

Your mention of a tribe of Pygmies is a good example of this, but that particular issue is so massive and complex I would prefer not to address it here. If I have time I may post another thing about it later, in a reply to this or while the follower’s say thing is still going. It depends on whether or not I have time. (There are verses to back this up, and I can provide them, I just do not have time right now, this little tangent was a sort of last minute change.)

If anyone hears even a whisper of God’s truth, and rather than seek it out they still refuse it, then they have refused God, and their sin is not paid for.

A good analogy would be: Someone invites you to a banquet, and they tell you that you have to wear a ring that they gave you to get in, just the ring, and nothing else.
You do not have to bring a gift. (Although he would love one, and if you truly cared, you would try to bring one)
You do not have to dress nice. (Even though others will, and you would be ashamed to come in rags)
You do not even have to be on the dot. (Although if you miss the banquet completely, nothing can be done.)

However, this friend explains, you will not be admitted unless you wear the ring, otherwise, you shall be left outside in the cold.
If you were to show up, bearing a gift, dressed in a tux, perfectly on time, but without the ring, who’s fault would it then be if security did not let you in?
In the same way, if someone thinks that they can get to heaven any old way, so long as they are a good person, they will find that, as the Bible says, there is only one way to heaven (or one way to avoid hell, depending on how you look at it) and no amount of good deeds will cover over their sin.

I know the above example has lots of “real world” flaws, obviously the person throwing the party could just come to the door and make an exception because he knows the person, but this is not the case with God.

“Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Mathew 7:23 NIV

The ring is salvation, your verbal and mental acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice.

The gifts would be “Good Deeds”, martyrdom, souls brought to Christ, or help given to the poor, the Bible says that we will receive crown for these things, which we can then lay at Christ’s feet to show our love and gratitude.

The “Good Clothes” represent Personal Character, what you do alone when no one is watching, why you do good deeds, and what you think, separate from what you do.

Being punctual represents coming to Christ at an early age, or as soon as you hear of him. Many people know of God, and many believe Christ exists as well, but they refuse to accept his blood to pay for their sins. God does not welcome someone who truly accepts Christ the day before they die any less than someone who has known and loved Him since the day they heard the Good News.
That does not mean God does not appreciate the things we do, but that He does not allow them to cause Him to think less of his more wayward children, as seen in the last part of the story of the Prodigal son.

25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' “Luke 15:11-32 NIV

All these things are not required to “go” to heaven per say, but if you truly do understand and accept the sacrifice Jesus paid, you cannot possibly go on living without at least trying to change, even if you have only one day to live. (Why do you think so many people try to set things right with their family on their deathbed? When faced with their own mortality, many accept Christ, and attempt to help further His kingdom with their dying breath. Even those who do not accept Christ try to fix things, because in our soul, we know that the true reason for being here is to serve a greater power. Although many do not acknowledge exactly what that power is before they die, they still try to make amends on their own, not knowing that without Christ their efforts do no good, aside from the relief it may give to others.

You might think the parable I used a bit farfetched, but in reality, it is a modern adaptation from one in Matthew 22:2-14, look it up if you do not believe me.

In Conclusion, as Jesus states quite clearly in John 14:6
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

No one “gets” to heaven except by accepting the priceless gift Jesus paid.

This is a post primarily for Christians who already believe God (as defined in the Bible) exists, if you do not believe this, please feel free to ask questions, but please don’t make useless comments like “You idiot, There is not god! We evolved from monkeys!” This post is not about proving Evolution or Creation is true, it is based on the assumption that the God who wrote the Bible (By literally putting words in the mouths of men, whole different post/argument) Created the earth, and then sent His Son to die for us.

If you read this post, and asked questions, but still do not feel satisfied enough to accept Jesus into your heart, I would like to encourage you to read a Bible (NIV would be easiest to understand, I know many dislike the NKJ version) and then find a Church to attempt to learn more.

One thing you must do, if you are seeking these truths, is be careful not to accept what the staff of said church says at face value. Once you have heard a sermon or teaching, compare it to the Bible to make sure it is sound. There are many pastors out there who teach entire sermons without using a single Bible verse, or assume things they have been told without checking the Bible. I nearly fell prey to such a fallacy in writing this post, I had initially thought there was a verse in the Bible explaining that everyone will get a chance to accept Christ. I thought those who died before getting that chance would get it after their death, and after seeing Jesus, making their decision that much easier, but upon further research, I could not find this verse. That is when I realized that the “tribe of pygmies” issue was more complex than the abortion one. You could obviously have “good” and “evil” pygmies, but I do not believe there has ever been an evil baby born.

If you read this post, and agree with some, but not all of what I have said, please tell me why in the comments. I am sure enough of my views that I am not afraid to have them questioned. Be aware however, that I will not accept “feelings” as good reasons for disagreeing. No one likes the idea of even their worst enemy spending eternity in torment, completely separated from God, but that does not mean it will not happen.

Once again I would like to thank Kendra for allowing me to post on her blog, and I hope that this helps someone in some way.
Any ya’ll please make sure to read the other posts that are pushed down by this (extremely long) one, sorry Bethany, I hope you don’t get missed!

I have a new blog by the way, prolly just wasting cyberspace, but if yall want to check it out it is at http://einarslair.blogspot.com/

Political Correctness: Taking our rights, one "favor" at a time

2009-09-25T18:55:00.000-07:00

This post isn't going to be as in-depth, as involved, as long, or as example-laden as others. I'm simply stating my opinion and asking you to respond.

I warn you, I'm not as eloquent as *SOME* other people...

Political Correctness

Today, most of what we say, write, think, or do is impacted by this load of bull. Political correctness is the concept of throwing away the concepts of doing well or badly, and trying to make everyone feel like they're "Just as special" as everyone else.

They aren't.

Some people are just BETTER than other people at things. All men have rights, but they were not created equal.

In a soccer game, why should everyone gets a trophy? Give Trophies to the kids who played *WELL* as positive reinforcement! The kids who don't get one, should understand they need to practice! IT'S NOT THAT HARD!

Comment. Tell me your opinion. Disagree. Argue.

Do it.

~Cavender

Food freedoms

2009-09-25T18:10:00.001-07:00

[How do I start this? Introduce myself? Give a formal into like on a paper? heh]

Bethany here.....if you know me well at all, you know that food and health and such are some of my major preoccupations.

I've always eaten healthily, it runs in the family so to speak. But I only really embraced what almost has to be called a worldview of health when I was about 13. That was when I started getting "political": which I use as a collective term for various general opinions and thoughts classified in my head under keywords as follows:organic, Monsanto, Ron Paul, The Presidensity, food, farms, feedlots, alternative medicine, methylparaben in shampoo, preparedness, Campaign for Liberty, the Constitution, survivalism, doomsteading, Countryside magazine, vaccinations, 2nd Amendment rights, and other hot topics which most people would not call politics at all!

But food. How food is raised, marketed and consumed is a process that I could talk about for way too long.

Freedom of choice (in labeling)
If you are not free to choose your own food, you can't call yourself free.
Labeling.....some states have attempted [and succeeded in PA, I think] to make it illegal for farmers to label their milk as being free of the artificial growth hormone rBGH. The reason? Monsanto company [which makes rBGH] says "it would instill fear in consumers about the safety of rBGH" [in non-labeled milk].
(rBGH is being to some extent discontinued, mostly because it makes the milk cows sick. Dairy cows are already taxed to the limit to produce as much milk as possible; rBGH causes even higher production and a lot of symptoms including mastitis and foot problems and death.)

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not required to be labeled, even though polls have shown that a majority of the population wants labeling. GMOs have not been sufficiently tested over long periods of time [many diseases take repeated, long-term exposure]. There have been a number of tests that show health problems in animals fed GMOs. Yet, they are in an estimated 60% of all processed food today; without being labeled.

Humane treatment of animals
I'm not even going to approach the question of vegetarianism, except to say that I would be a vegetarian if I didn't have access to free-range meats and such; for both humane and health reasons.

The laying hen, like the dairy cow, is bred and fed to produce the greatest amount of eggs possible. This stresses their bodies--most die of "cage-fatigue" which is calcium deficiency--eggshells demand calcium and it will come out of the bones eventually.

I think you've all seen pictures of the tiny crates they are raised in.

Broiler chickens' lives are mercifully shorter. Much shorter, in some cases: apparently a sizeable number die each day in large-scale chicken farms.

The feedlot steer cannot be said to be "happy" but at least it has room to walk about. The danger there is to the consumer.

Health and safety
Food recalls are becoming more common every year, mostly because farms are tending to get bigger. One contaminated piece of meat will get spread at large. [Nice little tidbit of info here: a single hamburger can contain meat from up to 100 different cows.]
E. coli is the largest threat from beef.

Last spring I practically got my thesis in free-range and pasture theory so excuse me if I prattle on for a bit :)

The rumen [stomach] of a grass-fed cow is naturally not very acidic. Cow bacteria, therefore, are not very resistant to the acid in humans' stomachs. Hence, bacterial contamination is not a threat to people.
Grain-fed cows, on the other hand [and all mainstream beef is grain-fed] have much more acidic rumens. The first thing I learned when researching the care and feeding of ruminant animals like cows and goats is: be careful with grain! Over-eating grain causes the rumen to become rapidly acidic, causing acidosis and death. Low-level acidosis [as in beef cattle] causes general unhealth which must be remedied with low levels of antibiotics. And low levels of antibiotics create resistant bacteria. Vicious cycle, hmm?
But oh yes: acid-resistant bacteria are, you guessed it, capable of making people sick.

The meat-packing industry
If you want the real goods on the slaughter-house industry, go read The Jungle.
Oh whoops, excuse me.....that was last century. Nowadays it's Fast Food Nation.
It can be neatly summed up with Eric Schlosser of FFN's memorable statement, "There is [crap] in the meat."

The whole idea of food production is not mainly "prevent contamination" but instead "kill the contamination". Hence pasteurized milk, irradiated produce, and meat cooking minimums.

The raw milk conflict
I live in a state where it is illegal to sell milk that has not been cooked. You can debate all you want on the safety and health of pasteurization but the fact remains that I should be allowed to buy the food I want to.
I have a source [fairly mainstream, at that] for raw goats' milk, and drink it all the time. I don't know if there's a special clause for goats' milk or not, I don't think so. I think it's only a matter of time before that little spot on the shelf is bare.

Raw milk is a question-mark because it has made people sick. My only concern would be tuberculosis, which cows have to be tested for anyway, and goats are immune to.

It is just as "clean" as past. milk when it comes out of the cow....cleaner, in fact, because you have to be a lot more careful if you aren't going to kill the bacteria later on. But of course if you aren't careful with it, it will be dangerous. And it should be labeled with the usual cautions. And I should be able to buy it.

Conclusions: There is a delicate balance between too much restriction and too little. You have the right to know what you are eating: whether it has artificial hormones or GMOs, whether it's organic, local, grass-fed, whatever.
Please comment, ask questions, whatever. I love to talk about this sort of stuff!!

More On Followers Say...

2009-09-23T09:56:00.001-07:00

A few quick reminders and things to say about Followers Say:

1. Make sure you've emailed me if you want to participate. I still need an emails from Katrien Scarlet and Lisabailey (not a follower), but I think everyone else has emailed me.

2. You can post up to three times on up to three different topics.

3. Posts will not be removed due to profanity or insults. I don't believe in removing comments and posts because of that. If you want to sound like an insecure fool, that is up to you.

Topics that I know will be covered:
1. Political correctness
2. "I am a democrat/republican because..."
3. Word Inflation commentary
4. Global Warming
5. Health/food
6. Freedom
7. Our President

Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say this Saturday!!

Announcement

2009-09-19T15:45:00.000-07:00

This is a reminder to all participants of Followers Say! In one week, I will send you an email invitation to post on the blog. You can post up to three posts on up to three different subjects. See the earlier post if you want more information.

For you to participate, I have to have your email address, so if you want to post, please email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com if you haven't already.

The people I have already "signed up" are:
1. Cavender James
2. Katrien Scarlet
3. Einar
4. Christopher
5. Alex Floyd
6. Bethany
7. Muse of Randomness

I'm very sorry I haven't been posting at all lately. I've been trying to decide if I want to continue my series on Evolution, and my conclusion is: no.

My passion is with the Evolution debate partly, but I didn't start this blog to get into science and politics. I started this blog to voice my new and different thoughts and philosophies on life.

I may post on Evolution from time to time, but for now, I'm just going to post the way I used to.

Er, starting NEXT Saturday XD

The New America is Here

2009-09-10T15:27:00.000-07:00

As I was reading through some older (from summer '08) story bits of mine, I came across something that astounded me. (Just in case I ever finish this, no taking the horrible idea XD) I had started a story titled "The New America". One of the most important characters is one that you never meet or see, but just gets talked about. I called him Alexander Williams.

Let me quote from my "Story Ideas" folder:

"Alexander began to see that things were going badly in America. People were losing jobs, inflation was up, global warming was taking over (bite me), people were looking for somewhere to turn. Alexander stood up and said, 'Hey, follow me. Listen to me. I can help you. I can make everything all better. I'll give you jobs, homes, stability, someone to count on and look up to.'

"With the help of a couple of friends, Alexander led the American people slowly to change their thinking. Alexander rose to power, eventually becoming the leader of America. Most people loved him, and anyone who didn't was labled "old-fashioned" or "against change". Alexander promised change, good change, and people believed him.

"After a little while in power, he began to lead the American people to change their faulty ways. He made new laws that, although they were completely against the Constitution, gave Americans less responsibility, and allowed them to lean more on the government, giving them peace and stability. Alexander made laws and regulations that covered so many aspects of life, that things were just plain easy for the people! No one had to take responsibility for anything anymore! It was a dream life.

"Even when Alexander's laws began to restrict things like what you could say, whom you could talk to, and how you could treat sick people, everyone loved him because he would make life better for them.

"Eventually, Alexander had laws governing almost every aspect of life. He had been ruling longer than most other leaders, but no one seemed to mind. Children were taught that Alexander had saved America, and everyone must love him. Alexander had complete power over the people, and no one seemed to care."

There's Alexander for you, just as his character sketch straight from my notes from summer/fall 2008 depict, word for word. Funny isn't it? How personal freedoms and the republic died at the hands of the most popular man in America? Isn't that funny?

Yea, I'm not laughing either.

I know this isn't in my Evolution series, and it's not Saturday, but this has been preying on my mind all day, I wanted to say that.

I don't understand. I just honestly don't understand. I don't understand how someone could swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then say in an autobiography that he thinks the founding fathers have no place in today's society, and the Constitution is a joke. Why would you swear an oath like that if you believed so the opposite? And why haven't people seen that?

How can you try to pass a health reform bill that restricts freedoms and is completely unconstitutional?

How can you promise to give better health coverage, to more people, and swear that it will cost LESS?

How can you peddle all these paternalistic ways of thinking and call this America? A Constitutional Republic? America is not about the leaders patting people on the back and saying, "There, there, I'll take care of you. You don't worry about a thing, I've got it covered." Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

America is about teaching a man to fish, not giving him the fish on a silver platter and then telling him how to eat it.

Big government is what we ran from in England. Small government, power to the people, "give me liberty or give me death", stop taxation without reprsentation. Has America really forgotten all of this? Has America forgotten that people, good people, fought bravely and DIED so that we would never have to live with the kind of government our president is promoting? Have we forgotten, America?

The American people are one of three things at this point:

1. Against the direction our government is heading
2. Ignorant of the direction our government is heading
3. In support of the direction our government is heading

You can't really believe that this is heading a good direction. If you think it is, or you think it's at least not heading in a BAD direction, then you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry, but these kind of laws and ways of thinking lead to only one thing (socialism), and that is NOT what America is all about.

Do you support where this is going? If so, fine. Support it. If you are ignorant of it, please, open your eyes.

I am a strong believer in people chosing their own beliefs, thoughts, principles, ideas. Don't let yourself be indoctinated. Think. Look at history. This story we're living has been told hundreds of times in many different eras and civilizations. Time and time again governments do this. This leads to one thing, and one thing only: socialism, loss of freedoms, and destruction.

I have nothing left to say except, "Think." Think, America. You have a brain. You have a voice. Use them.

Posts 8-12 In One

2009-09-05T11:13:00.000-07:00

I'm a week late posting. I apologize.

I'm beginning to re-think my series. I plan to finish it, but since I did not start this blog for political reasons, I'd like to get through those debates and get back to the things I really want to post about (see my earlier posts).

To do this, I'm going to combine the rest of the Logic posts into this one.

Also, don't forget about Followers Say coming up in just two weeks!

Logical Fallacies to Watch Out For (continued):

8. Straw Man Argument:

Another personal favorite. This occurs when someone distorts their opponent's oppinion to make it easier to attack.

Christians are especially vulnerable to this. This is partly due to the "Inherit the Wind" standard set up, and partly because of the truly stupid arguments some Christians have made.

Darwinists like to make the public think that only the most extreme religious fundamentalists disagree with their theory. This is simple not true. (If you think it is, please provide some evidence.)

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "just 32% of the public accepts [Evolution] as true."

I find it hard to believe that all 68% of America are extreme religious fundamentalists.

Why do Darwinists like to portray the argument as Science vs. the Bible?

Because, guess what? When the debate is set up that way, science always wins.

Despite what many Darwinists say, the evidence for Evolution is shakier than they would like. To draw attention away from this, they set up the Straw Man Argument.

9. Begging the Question:

An argument is said to be begging the question if it assumes the answer to the inquiry in question.

Example:
Question: Why should we believe what the Bible says?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from non-living molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scientific theory just because of religious bias.

The latter answer assumes what is in dispute: that the evidence for chemical Evolution is so strong that only prejudiced people would be skeptical.

In arguments that beg the question, answers usually assume that science and reason are always on the same side.

This fallacy ties in to the Straw Man as well. If you let a Straw Man define the terms, you will always lost.

10. Lack of Testability:

We must learn to distinguish between theories that put themselves at risk (can be tested) and ones that cannot be show to be either true OR false.

Not everything a scientist says is scientific, and some theories coming from eminent scientists might be about as accurate as musings about Heaven. Both Creationism and Evolution can be stated in safe or risky ways.

If a Creationist says that they believe in Creation on faith, then there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove the theory. However, if a Creationist says that the evidence says taht living organisms are the product of intellegent life and could never have come into being by completelyl natural means from a probiotic soup of chemicals, that statement invites scientific testing.

Darwinism was first stated in a testable, risky way. It predicted that fossil hunters would eventually discover a great number of transitional intermidiates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).

Today, Darwin's theory is stated in a risk-free way. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any different theories or suggestions are immediately disqualified as "religion". This makes it impossible to have a scientific debate over whether the theory is true.

11. Vague and Shifting Definitions:

When debating, people (unfortunately mainly Darwinists) like to use the "bait and switch" strategy. They will lead you to agree to a harmless definition, and then use teh definition later in a very different way. Terms that are commonly subjected to this switch are "science" and "e/Evolution".

Someone might lead you to agree that dog breeding is evolution. Well, you might agree with that. Sure. If what "evolution" means is that there are variations within speicies, sure. (By the way, dog breeding is guided, and only variation, not evolution.)

The correct answer, then, for when someone asks you if you believe in evolution is:

"Define 'evoulution'."

12. Original Sin:

We need to look at all the facts with an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out, of course). Beware the original sin: believing what we want to believe. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.

In the words of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."

Thank you, and talk to you next time!

7. Ad Hominem

2009-08-22T07:30:00.001-07:00

This next post seems especially appropriate with the debates getting a little personal and offensive of late. The use of Ad Hominem arguments are much too prevalent nowadays, and more often than not, people fail to realize this.

Ad Hominem literally means “to the man”, and it is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

Remember, someone with wrong motives just might have the right answer, so make sure you’re debating the person’s argument/answer and not his character. Attacking someone as a Creationist or an Evolutionist is just a way of distracting attention from a valid argument.

Well, sometimes.

You see? There are little exceptions to every rule, if you’ll excuse my quoting Esme Cullen ;)

It’s not unfair or Ad Hominem to point out bias in an argument. If someone insists that cracking one’s knuckles isn’t unhealthy, then it is not necessarily fallacious or wrong to point out that he cracks his knuckles constantly. However, assuming that just because he is biased means that he is wrong, that IS a fallacy.

You see, we are all guilty of this at some point or another. Christians are reluctant to give credit to evidence that seems to contradict Bible passages, and sometimes use Ad Hominem or other fallacies to distract from their opponent’s argument. Evolutionists are reluctant to give credit to evidence that seems to suggest that natural selection doesn’t do all Darwin claimed.

We all have a tendency to believe what we want to believe, and Ad Hominem is a great crutch for us when we’re doing that. For example, a business owner might see a study that claims facts that could be detrimental to his company. He might attack the authors of the study, claiming that they are just out to get businessmen and cannot be trusted. Some other zealots might claim that the businessman knew what he was doing was wrong, and that he did it anyway just because the world of business is out to get people.

Ad Hominem arguments are everywhere, we need to watch out for them. This isn’t really a fallacy that you should be aware of in others, it’s more one that you should be aware of in yourself. When our beliefs are challenged, it is a natural reaction to push back and defend our beliefs. That’s fine, but only if it’s done in a classy, fair way.

Also remember that exposing bias is not Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem occurs only when you point out something about your opponent’s character for the sole purpose of distraction from his argument.
Recognize and acknowledge bias, get beyond it, and evaluate the evidence fairly. That is the only way to get anywhere in a debate.

6: Logic: Selective Use of Evidence.

2009-08-15T11:32:00.000-07:00

This is a personal favorite, and will likely rouse many responses from readers, which is always a good thing in my opinion. Let's all think together!

There is a lot of evidence out there, so every theory (whether true or false) will have something to support it, or it wouldn't even be theory. This is something we really must keep in mind when accepting scattered evidence and assuming that all the other evidence goes along with it. This is sometimes, in fact, usually, not true.

It's very important to debate, especially about Evolution, because the two sides are constantly procuring new information either to support their own theory, or disprove his opponent's. Neither side should be allowed to ignore evidence because it's convenient. Creationists and Evolutionists are both guilty of this. Evolutionists need to stop dismissing valid claims, and Creationists need to stop ignoring the hard questions. If it's the truth, what have you got to be afraid of?

Museums like to draw attention to the fossils that could be interpreted as a transitional stage. Museums also like to ignore and not inform its visitors of the greater mass of contradictory evidence and the fact that no transitional fossils haev been found for many major animal groups appearing in teh Cambrian explosion.

One museum in San Franciso has an exhibit called the "Hard Fact Wall". They went so far as to actually put out imaginary common ancestors, thus leading the pubilc to believe the ancestors had actually been found.

When this is pointed out to people, they are astonished and appalled that the museum would do such a thing. The thing is, the museum staff aren't maliciously lying to the visitors, they're just trying too hard to "help" the public come to what they see as the right conclusion.

Think about Piltdown man. Everyone was shocked when the monkey-human skull was procured. It was very convincing, compelling evidence, and cold hard fact.

Until it was proven to be a hoax.

Don't be so impressed at all the "evidence" or take things at face value. What you see in museums, read in textbooks, and hear from some scientists took a lot of biased interpreting to get to. Be careful.

Ask yourself: "Does fossil evidence as a whole tend to confirm Darwin's theory?"

Look closely. Don't just Google "evolution fossils" or go to a museum, see some convincing-looking skeletons and decide it must be true. Really look, deep, deep, deeper. Tear apart the evidence, find the truth. I'm not necessarily trying to tell you that Evolution is false, I'm just saying, a little healthy skepticisim never hurt anyone.

Especially with all the selective use of evidence going around.

Until next time,

P.S. Don't forget about Follower Say...coming up on September 26! The more people the better! So far there are three people participating. Let's take this event to a whole 'nother level, y'all! To "sign up", just leave a comment or email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com. Thanks!

Unrelated: Word Inflation: Is "Love" Officially Meaningless?

2009-08-08T20:15:00.000-07:00

The word "love" has become so over-used lately, that it really means nothing at all. My friend Ellie and I call this over-use "word inflation." When there gets to be a lot of money circulating in the economy, it doesn't seem to matter as much to people, and they spend it all the time. That's inflation. So, word inflation is, guess what? Yup. When people use a word so much that it doesn't really even mean anything anymore.

That's what's happening to "love." The word pretty much means nothing now. Nothing. Seriously. Nowadays, "love" might mean anything from, "Thanks" to "I really want part of that cookie.” In birthday cards, thank you notes, and just notes people pass each other (well, we girls at least) the words "I love you" are pretty much always there.

But do they really mean it?

I'm sure some people do, but still, the whole idea of love has been just totally twisted and made to seem so insignificant. Love is a big deal, y'all! It's not a word to be squandered on Valentine's Day cards to people you met last week! It's not just something you shout at your mom as you're leaving the house. Love is a gift, and by using the word so often and so carelessly, it's completely lost its meaning.

Of course, there are different types of love. You can obviously love someone as a friend and not want to marry them! But still, we should be careful the way we use such a strong word as "love." Do you really? Or are you just saying that? Be honest with people. Be honest with yourself.

Attention All Loquacious Followers

2009-08-05T18:44:00.000-07:00

On Saturday September 26th there is going to be a special eddition of Carpe Noctem: "Followers Say..." You will be granted access to posting on Carpe Noctem from midnight on the 25, to 11:59pm on the 26. You will be allowed to post up to three posts on any of the following topics. You may pick up to three topics, and post up to three times total.

I know my awesome followers have lots to say on lots of issues, and it's difficult to fully explain your point just through commenting.

Topics:
1. "I believe/disbelieve Evolution because..."
2. "I believe/disbelieve in God because..."
3. "My oppinion on our president is..."
4. "I am a republican/democrat because..."
5. "My view on political-correctness is..."
6. "What I think God meant in Genesis is..."
7. "I think global warming..."
8. An in-depth critique or response to any of my previous posts.
9. An idea of your own. (Please email me your idea ahead of time just so I'll know.)

"Rules":
-You can chose 1-3 topics from the above list.
-If you have another topic you would like to discuss, please shoot me an email ahead of time just so I'll know.
-You can post up to 3 times during the 12 hour period.
-Profanity is discouraged, but if that's the only way you can think to express yourself, go right ahead. Hopefully, though, we're all articulate enough to avoid that whenever possible.
-Preferrably, you must be a follower of Carpe Noctem to participate, but you don't *have* to be. I'd appreciate it, though :)

Preferred formatting of your post(s):
-Please put your name and the title of your post in the title.
-Please state which idea you chose at the beginning of your post.
-Please address one idea per post. (Don't address all the possible ideas in a single post.)

This is an extremely laid-back kind of thing. I'm not going to remove part or all of your post because it offends me. Even if it does, this is your time to share, not mine.

If you or someone you know would like to participate in Followers Say...email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com and I'll send you the link to join Carpe Noctem for the day of September 26. Hope you decide to join!

5: Owning the Microphone (Inherit the Wind)

2009-08-04T14:29:00.000-07:00

We're probably all familiar with the famous Scopes Trial, but most people know the "story" from the play Inherit the Wind, which was made into a movie in 1930. Unfortunately, that movie broadcasted a stereotype of Christians and Evolutionists that is not always accurate. Whenever anyone speaks out either for Creationism or Evolutionism, but especially Creationism, their words are placed in the context of Inherit the Wind. Whether you know it or not, you're playing a character in the play, and the casting has already been done. But which part do you play? The idiot, or the intelligent one?

Briefly, let's go over the story of the play. It centers around a handsome young teacher of science named Bert Cates. He's a charming and wonderful man and teacher, but he's jailed for violating the Tennessee state law by teaching Evolution. Bert is also in love with the wonderful Rachel Brown, the daughter of an influential town minister, Reverend Jeremiah Brown.

Sorry about all the names, here's a little chart to help you with them:

Defense/Evolutionists:
1. Bert Cates
2. Henry Drummond

Prosecution/Christians:
1. Matthew Brady
2. Reverend Brown

Reverend Brown is, in the words of Phillip Johnson, "a vicious bigot with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, whose practice of Christian ministry seems to be limited to cursing people like Bert and threatening them with damnation."

Rachel is a slightly spineless girl who loves Bert, but urges him to stop teaching Evolution to avoid making trouble for himself in the small Tennessee town full of religious prejudices.

Bert's trial because a media field day when a lawyer named Matthew Brady offers to be the prosecutor. Brady, a former presidential candidate, is a huge antievolutionist. He gets a hero's welcome from the town, as a clever and sarcastic journalist named Hornbeck comes into the picture. He gets lots of opportunities to exercise his lovely sarcasm as the ignorant townspeople do weird things such as break into singing "Give Me That Old-Time Religion".

Prosecution lawyer Brady makes phony-sounding speeches and eats all the time like a glutton, showing himself to be an arrogant old fool. He also gets poor Rachel to divulge Bert's secrets, planning to use her as a prosecution witness against Bert, whom she is now engaged to.

It is soon announced that the famous Henry Drummond is coming to be Bert's defense attorney. Drummond is the typical viewer favorite, the fearless advocate fighting for justice despite the hopeless odds.

From the moment the trial begins, the townspeople show their ignorance and hate for anything unreligious through loud comments from the audience, which defense lawyer Drummond counters with witticism. Brady tries to score points for himself, but his efforts backfire every time.

The rolls of the play/movie couldn't be clearer: all virtue, humor, and intillegence are on the side of Bert and Drummond, and all malice and foolishness are on the side of Brady and Reverend Brown.

Despite the fact that the defense is intelligent and virtuous, their legal position is pretty impossible. Bert admits teaching Evolution, which is illegal in the town. Brady proves the point of Bert's guiltiness further by unnecessarily calling poor Rachel to the stand, and having her admit all of Bert's thoughts that he so kindly shared with her. Bert then shows his character to be even more impeccable by forbidding Drummond to upset Rachel with cross ex.

After some interesting back-and-forth efforts from both parties, Drummond always being the intelligent and descent one, Brady decides to take the witness stand himself, sure that he can stand up under Drummond's cross ex and defeat the unbeliever.

Drummond skillfully takes advantage of Brady's arrogance. He lulls him into a clever false sense of security with some easy and irrelevant questions, then stuns him by pointing out that the biblical patriarchs did their "begetting" by sexual intercourse.

Apparently, Brady had never considered that embarrassing but undeniable fact, and he blurts out that the Bible calls sex "original sin". The point being is that Christians are party poopers and sticks who want to abolish sex. (Very not true by the way...lol :P)

Drummond shows his genius further throughout the cross ex, and eventually has Brady so confused and nonsensical that even his supports mock him. The moral victory goes to Drummond and Bert, the defense.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the legal side of the trial, so the jury still finds Bert guilty. Bert also refuses bribes to keep quiet about Evolution, instead vowing to continue to speak up for truth and freedom.

Brady tries to redeem himself with a final speech, but is so upset by his own incoherent rant that he has a stroke and dies on the spot.

Rachel tells Bert that she will start thinking for herself, which implies that she will believe with Bert in Evolution instead of following her father's way of thinking.

The two lovers decide to leave the prejudiced little town and get married.

As the play ends, Drummond stands alone in the courtroom, reflecting on the day. He picks up a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species and a copy of the Bible. He balances them in his hands, one book in each hand, as if he were a scale. Finally, he half smiles, shrugs, and puts the two books together in his briefcase.

Symbolically speaking, this tells us that the Bible and Darwin and balance each other--that is if we allow Drummond to do the balancing. This is roughly how people claim to be both Evolutionists and Creationists.

And that's how the play Inherit the Wind goes.

However, the actual Scopes Trial was very different.

The real trial was not a serious criminal offense, but a symbolic confrontation engineered to put the down of Dayton, TN on the map. No joke. That's what it was.

The Tennessee legislature funded a new science education program, and to assure people that science wouldn't be used to discredit religion, a clause was added to the bill forbidding the teaching of Evolution. They also predicted that the law would not be enforced.

The American Civil Liberties Union wanted to test this, though, so they set up the Scopes Trial.

That's basically all it was. There was never any danger of the defendant going to jail, nothing like that.

Honestly, though, the actual trial barely matters compared with the impact the play had.

Inherit the Wind likes to portray life a lot like the story of Cinderella. Once upon a time, there were a bunch of mean Christians who just liked to oppress people and prevent people from thinking, a lot like the stepmothers and stepsisters in Cinderella. Freedom from this comes through Darwin/the Fairy Godmother. Now that the people/Cinderella are free, they are not going to give the Christians/stepmother any more opportunities to enslave them/her.

Here's the story told another way, directly from Phillip Johnson:

"That memory has stayed with me, and shows that there may be more than one way to interpret the play. Let me retell the story with just a tad of artistic license.

"A brilliant young teacher develops a following because he has exciting ideas that open up a new way of life. His friends and students love him, but the ruling elders of his community hate the very thought of him. These elders are themselves cruel hypocrites who pile up burdens on the people and do not lift a finger to help them. The elders rule the peopel by fear and are themselves ruled by fear. They substitute dogmas and empty rituals for the true teaching they once knew, which commands truth and love as its frist principles.

"The elders want to destroy the teacher who threatens their control over the people, but his behavior and character are so exemplary that they can find no fault to justify condemning him. They plan to trap him by convincing one of his closest friends to betray him. Eventually they are able to arrange a rigged legal proceeding and get a guilty verdict. Their victory is empty, however. The teacher wins even when he apparently loses, and he sums up his teaching in these words: 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.' "

That sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? No one is saying that Bert Cates is Jesus, but it does give you something to think about. The seemingly antibiblical play achieves its moral effect by borrowing themes from the Bible.

Inherit the Wind is truer than its authors knew. There is nothing really wrong with the story, either. It's just risky when you have to cast the rolls.

Here's where Owning the Microphone comes in. In the play, as the jury comes in to give the verdict, a character called "Radio Man" is introduced. He talks into his little microphone which broadcasts onto the radio. Radio Man relates everything that happens in the courtroom for the world to listen to. There is only one microphone, and the one wielding it controls what the people hear and therefore believe.

This is why the actual Scopes trial hardly matters; the writers of Inherit the Wind owned the mic.

Today, when creation-evolution conflicts arise, whoever is holding the media microphone casts the roles of hero and villain. What this has meant for a while now is that the Darwinists--who currently hold the legal and political power--appear before the microphone as Bert and Drummond, while the defenders of creation are cast the role of Brady the pompous fool and Brown the despicable bigot.

You see, no matter what actually happens in real life, the story will be told by whoever holds the microphone. It's pretty much impossible because of this to get newspapers to admit that there *ARE* scientific problems with Darwinian Evolution that are independent of what anyone thinks about the Bible. Even if the interviewer really "gets it" during an interview, 90% of the time by the time the article gets checked over by the editors, it comes out with the same formula as always: Christians are trying to substitute Genesis for the science textbook.

That's honestly not the case, however, but until someone a little less biased gets a hold of the microphone, that's how the story will be portrayed. It's kind of an uphill battle because the mic-holding Darwinists can portray their opponents are religious dogmatics regardless of what the opponent is actually saying.

If people try to object to teaching philosophical doctrine as scientific fact, the mic-holders say that they are attempting to stop students from learning.

If people try to tell the other side of the story and bring out evidence that textbooks ignore, the mic-holders accuse them of trying to insert religion into science curriculum, therefore violating the Constitution.

The Rule of the Microphone: "Heads we win, tails you lose."

It's really hard to make any scientific, moral, or political progress playing by those standards and rules, but there is a way to do it.

Step One: Learn to Detect Crap.

Beginning August 15, I'm going to show you how. Using logic, let's turn up our "Baloney Detectors".

Another Apology

2009-08-03T20:16:00.000-07:00

Today was a little crazy. Some people came over to ask my mom about a job, and we had to take my dog to the vet. I usually don't do this kind of thing, so please understand. I'm really sorry! I will *make* time tomorrow to post on Owning the Microphone. Thank you so much for being patient!

Apology

2009-08-02T18:43:00.001-07:00

I apologize for the delay in posting. I will be posting the next segment in the series, Owning the Microphone, tomorrow. Thanks for understanding!

4: Do You Have a Better Idea?

2009-07-25T12:21:00.000-07:00

Well? you're wondering. Do I?

I've been going on and on about how Evolution is wrong, people are being biased, people aren't looking into things, etc. etc. BUT. The real question is, DO I HAVE A BETTER IDEA?

Criticism without ideas for change is basically just nagging. So, unless I have a better idea of what to do with all this, I am the official most annoying Blog-Nagger out there.

But I DO have a better idea.

(Which just makes me the most annoying Blogger out there.)

Here are my ideas:
1. Stop seeing the issue as Bible vs. Science. They don't contradict. Evolutionary naturalists like to portray ALL Christians as "Genesis liberalists who reject the evidence of science for purely religious reasons". Not true. The Bible and good Science don't contradict.

I know some of your are saying, that the Bible says the world is flat, it says the sun rises, it says a rabbit chews cud. Well, yes, it does say that. But that's because the Bible was written in phenomonological (fih-NOH-min-uh-LOH-jih-cal) language, meaning it says things how it looks to us, not how it actually is. It's kind of a form of poetry almost.

2. Stop relying on the "blind watchmaker thesis". Having the world just suddenly "happen" or evolve from a single-celled organism is like trying to make a watch while blindfolded. It's pretty much impossible. All the tiny, tiny pieces have to mesh perfectly, and doing that blindfolded would be inconcievable.

3. Realize the philosophical bias in today's society. Most people nowadays think that "good science" BEGINS with the assumption that there is no God. Without even testing this theory, without opening any other options.

I'm just going to throw this out there: scientists are scard. That's why they make sure to define their terms so that naturalism is true by definition.

Why are they scared? Because their theories are not as sound as they like to make people think.

So, yes. I have a better idea. Those are some ideas, but my main idea is, as always this:

OPEN YOUR EYES.

I am trying to open mine. I research Evolution AND Creation both with an open mind, and I still come to these same conclusions. There are stories of countless Evolutionists who have tried to prove the theory, but instead realized it's holes and improbabilities.

Whether you are a Christian or and Evolutionist, or both, as some claim to be, don't defend your belief without first looking into it. Blind faith is silly. Check your facts, do your research, open your eyes.

3: Faith vs. Reason

2009-07-19T15:09:00.000-07:00

This is possibly my "favorite" mistake in Creation vs. Evolution. All kinds of people, Creationists, as well as Evolutionists, like to paint this debate as "Faith vs. Reason". Science on one side, fantasy on the other. Fact on one side, wishful thinking on the other. Reason on one side, faith on the other. Well, here's something that might surprise you:

Faith and reason are not opposites.

Or, better put, faith and reason do not contradict each other.

In TV debates, newspaper articles, etc., people like to write off Creation by saying it's just faith. No reason involved. Just blind faith. Here's another something that might surprise you:

God does not even WANT us to have blind faith.

God is a very reasonable, logical god! He doesn't want us to follow him blindly. He doesn't want us to take everything every preacher says. He doesn't want us to take in the Bible without looking into it, testing it, questioning it. God thinks that faith and reason should go hand in hand!

Why have faith in something if reason says otherwise? It doesn't make sense, and our God is a VERY sensical God!

Evolutionists like to make God out to be like a grown-up version of Santa Claus. Santa makes little kids feel safe, watched, and loved by someone bigger than just their own family circle. The child has faith, and that's all that matters to him.

As the child gets older and is exposed to more ideas and opinions, he will be told that Santa isn't real. The child will, at first, think this is a horrible lie and refuse to look into it further. As the child gets older, he will probably preform a little expirement and stay up to see if Santa comes.

When the child sees his parents sneaking gifts under the tree, he will be faced with two options: one, stick with faith and continue to believe something he knows is a lie, or two, go with reason and give up his faulty belief.

If the child choses to believe in Santa despite what he has seen, people will probably put up with him, maybe even think he is cute, but they will not take him seriously. If he continues to believe in Santa into adulthood, he will probably be labeled insane.

So, is the God of the Bible like Santa Claus? Just a cute little myth that one must rely on faith to believe? One can defend a myth by saying that it gives comfort, and can even be morally and socially helpful if kept in its place. Even athiests worry about what will happen to society if religion disappears completely. Christians can even buy the tolerance of agnostics by using the "faith escape".

So, for all scientific and intellegent purposes, Christianity is classified as a "higher supersition", which is basically an irrational belief that's relatively respected in society.

But all this isn't true. Faith and reason are not opposites, they are not mutually exclusive, and they do not contradict each other.

I know what you're thinking: "Easy to say. Show me. Prove it."

Okay. I will.

Keep reading, because that's just what I intend to do. I refuse to be one of the Christians who believes in God simply because it's what they were always taught, it makse them feel better, and they don't want to explore other options. I refuse to take what I've always been given simply BECAUSE it's what I've always been given. I refuse to believe in God only because it makes me feel better about my life. God gave me a brain, he gave me resources to explore, and theories that need to be looked into.

I firmly and honestly believe that God is happiest when we challenge him, look into things for ourselves, test him. Wanna know why?

Because God isn't scared.

God has nothing to be afraid of.

God is the truth, so what IS there to be afraid of?

Why should we refuse to test God because we're afraid he won't stand up to it? If we're afraid to look too hard, if we're afraid we'll disprove God, why are we still believing in him? If God is a big phoney, DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW?

That's why this series is not just for Evolutionists. It's for Creationists, too. Don't be afraid to test God. Don't be afraid to look into the Bible, asked the hard questions, tear apart Jesus's logic.

Because faith and reason are not opposites.

2: Caring vs. Detached God

2009-07-15T14:47:00.000-07:00

I apologize for posting so late. I was on vacation and I didn't have my notes with me. Yes, I actually outline my Carpe Noctem posts. Yes, I am a nerd.

Today I'm going to be talking about Common Mistake Number Two: exchanging the Caring God for the Detached God.

One way that people like to fit Evolution and Creation together is by employing this method. They suggest that maybe God created the laws of nature, and then just kind of left things to their own. That isn't true. God created the laws, yes, but he didn't just retire after that. He's alive and doing things here and now. God is a Caring God.

The "Detached God" theory is called "deism".

The "Caring God" theory is called "theism".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both terms came from the Greek. "Deism" coming from the word "deos" and "theism" coming from the word "theos", meaning "god".

This mistake may seem like a fairly minor one because the post isn't as large as some others have been. However, the difference between a Detached God and a Caring God is infinite. Just think about it.

I'm not trying to convince you to become a Christian. I'm not trying to show you that Evolution is wrong (yet :)). This part of my series is just explaining three common mistakes made by both Evolutionists and Creationists. I really hope you'll stick around for the "meat" of this whole series.

Coming up:

July 18: The Opposites Myth
July 25: Owning the Microphone
August 1: Truth (not part of the Evolution series)

**New Series Begins!

Logic:
August 8: Selective Use of Evidence
August 15: Appealing to Authority

Thanks for reading!

1: A Definition Disaster

2009-07-05T19:03:00.000-07:00

Sorry I didn't post yesterday like I was supposed to. It was the Fourth of July, you know, and things were really busy. I'm posting now, though, so yay.

This is the beginning of my first series of posts, Myths (or Mistakes) About Evolution. There are probably quite a few, but I will only be dealing with four.

The first mistake is getting mixed up in the definitions of Evolution. I covered this a little in my last post.

According to the National Association of Biology Teachers, the definition of Evolution is this: "An unsupervized, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historal contingencies and changing environments."

Basically, that definition says that life began as an unguided fluke and evolved into all the beings we have today by chance, strategic inheritance of helpful traits, and changing environments.

Some people, even Christians try to believe in both Evolution and creation by relying on different definitions. Some Christians, fairly well-educated Christians, say that they are Creationists as well as Evolutionists. They do not realize how utterly incompatible the two beliefs are, and one of the ways they confuse themselves is by getting mixed up with the definitions of Evolution. Some Evolutionists will even let such people make that mistake, not bothering to correct them.

Now, if the definition of Evolution were something like "a gradual process of God-guided creation", that might be something worth looking into. Unfortunately, that is not how the intellectual elite of today's society define Evolution.

In short, this post is saying, "Watch out. Check your defintions before agreeing with something." Evolution-believing scientists will go out of their way to make Evolution appeal to people, sometimes even bending the facts and definitions. If they think feeding you a slightly (or extremely) altertered definition of Evolution will make you a believer, they will do it.

I'm certainly not saying that all scientists are scamming little hypocrites. Not at all. I'm not even saying that all EVOLUTION-BELIEVING scientists are scamming little hypocrites. I'm just saying be careful. Don't take things without at least thinking them through. I'm not suggesting you Google and look up every piece of information you come across, but DO use your good sense.

If someone tells you the word gullible isn't in the dictionary, just laugh, okay? If someone tells you that you can be an Evolutionist and stil retain your Christian faith, feel free to laugh at that as well.

Because sorry, folks, that's just not happening.

Before I end this post, I want to get into one more thing: creation itself.

Now, I've (obviously) read the Bible's version of creation in Genesis, and I, too, have noticed that God creates light before he creates the sun.

Don't ask me! I don't know how that's possible! Who knows how literal the creation is supposed to be taken?

I don't.

And some people argue that God couldn't have created the whole universe in SIX DAYS.

My answer is, well, seeing how he's GOD and all, I guess he could if he wanted to.

But, maybe he didn't. Maybe that part of Genesis is figurative. Maybe God counted days differently than we do. But, here's the bottom line when it comes to stuff like that:

It doesn't really matter.

Yes, I wonder. Yes, I'm curious. I don't know how literally that part of the Bible is to be taken. We can't exactly waltz up to Moses and ask him.

But, if you're just arguing over HOW LONG it took God to make the universe, who cares? The important thing about that is that he did, that it wasn't just an accident.

I know I haven't given evidence for or against Evolution or Creation yet, but, all in good time. I want to do this series the right way, and that means taking things one step at a time. It's important to start with a good foundation and then build on that.

I think all of us, Evolutionists and Creationists alike, agree on that, don't we?

And that's what this series is all about: starting with a foundation of solid facts, and exploring the world of true science from there. Thanks for reading, and I hope you stick around for the next chapter in this series, Caring vs. Detatched God.

Appealing to Authority: A Little Healthy Skepticism Never Hurt Anyone

2009-06-27T13:03:00.000-07:00

One thing that really drives me crazy about today's culture is how quick we are to take things in. Or, to put it bluntly, how gullible everyone has become.

Appealing to authority: a logical fallacy when someone believes something just because so-and-so says.

Example: "Leaves DO SO turn purple when they fall off; my big brother says so!"

Everywhere you look, people are shouting out theories and guesses and sometimes even just LIES, and their audience is taking it in like it's proven fact.

Um, sorry, but for something to be "proven fact", it has to be PROVEN first.

Think about all the stuff we Americans are taking in by the minute.

Tabloid gossip.

Global warming.

Evolution.

There are more, but those are the ones that come to mind, and that I'm going to try to focus on.

First of all, I completely understand why tabloids print such awful stuff about celebrities, and I can also understand why people read them. No problem there. The problem comes when the general public BELIEVES all that junk just because a trashy magazine says so. Puh-leez. Sure it's fun to read, but don't you think the writers of those magazines are going to try to put the worst and juciest spin on things?

That's kind of a minor issue in my book, though. So people believe gossip, okay. It's not a matter of life or death, or even public intelligence. It's just silly and vaguely annoying, but that's about it.

Now come the big two:

Global warming and Evolution.

I already ranted about global warming, so I won't do it again, don't worry. I'm just going to say that to believe in global warming, you're forced to rely on the least accurate and smallest pieces of information. If you ask any earnest scientist, s/he will tell you that as much comotion as people are making about GW, it's not really a problem. The earth naturally runs in cycles like this. In twenty years, we'll probably be going through a "global cooling" scare again.

Yes, AGAIN. That already happened. And now we're into global warming.

And the disgusting thing is, WE STILL BELIEVE IT!

COME ON, people! Global cooling? Global warming? They're just big hoaxes designed to get us all stirred up.

Don't believe me, though. I don't want you to do that.

I want you to go do some research for yourself. I've done mine, you do yours. Don't take stuff from me or even big shot scientists without looking into it a little. A little healthy skepticism never hurt anyone. In fact, it's actually been known to help occasionally. Especially in times like these when selective use of evidence is booming.

Which brings me to my final section of this tirade: Evolution.

*sigh*

If you believe in Evolution (capital "E"), you are going to skip this section, so I'm pretty much wasting my breath. Still, I'm going to try to straighten this out even a little.

First, define terms. This is really important, especially in an Evolution debate, because there are two definitions to Evolution, and I believe in one of them.

evolution: the belief that things change slightly over time to adapt to their surroundings.

Evolution: the belief that life began as an unguided fluke, then species gradually changed and mutated into completely different species.

Take a wild guess which one I believe? :)

There's really so much I could say about Evolution that I could do a whole series on it.

Which is exactly what I'm going to do.

I'm going to close this post, and begin my series on Evolution.

I'm sorry if this wasn't much of a post. I feel like I wasted a good thought. Hope you don't feel that way.

Global Warming: Let's Do Some Research...

2009-06-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

Here's the main problem with the theory of Global Warming:

It doesn't exist.

Yeah, you read that right.

Now, before you roll your eyes, say "typical skeptic" and close this window, maybe you want to hear what I have to say?

I'm not an out-and-out skeptic. Not in the usual sense anyway. Yes, I am very skeptical of things until I have looked into them myself, but I DO look into them. I don't just dismiss every theory that sounds unpleasant; I do actually research them first.

I didn't actually challenge the theory of global warming until last semester. I just figured that it was true, or at least mostly true. Well, it's not quite.

Basically, the theory is that if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were to increase too much, the earth would get too warm. But, as civilization has become more industrialized, people have been burning a lot more fuel than they used to. Before the Industrial Revolution, people burned wood and coal to heat houses and businesses, but that was about it. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, however, people are burning coal, wood, natural gas and gasoline in huge quantities to generate electrical power, run manufacturing machinery, etc. As a result, we have been putting a lot more carbon dioxide into the air than we used to.

This is where worries about global warming come from. Carbon dioxide is a participant in the greenhouse effect, which warms the planet. We also know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been rising steadily over the last 80 years or so. Well, increased carbon dioxide means an increased greenhouse effect, which will result in global warming right?Not quite.Although the fear of global warming IS based on scientific reasoning, it's actually more complex than most people think.

If you look at most scientific graphs, you can tell that over the past 80 years, the amount of carbon HAS risen, but then it dropped back down to an extremely low point, where it stays today. Every once in a while, the carbon dioxide level in the air seems to rise, but it always drops back down again. Thus, global warming isn't actually a problem at all. It's almost a hoax even.

Many people who talk about global warming discuss the fact that in their area of the world, the winters have been unusually warm over the past few years. They say global warming must be happening. This neglects the fact that the entire world is often quite different from one person's corner of it. While one area of the world might be experiencing unusually warm winters, other parts of the world might be having abnormally cool summers. As a result, the GLOBAL temperature does not change very much, despite what might be happening in one region of it.

It is also common to hear that certain large ice sheets that have been the same size for a long time are now starting to melt. This is then used to conclude that the earth ahs a whole is getting warmer.This is not sound scientific reasoning.

The fact that an ice sheet is melting is only evidence that *the part of the world that holds the ice sheet* is warming up. For example, a large ice sheet in the Antarctic Peninsula, the Larsen B ice shelf, has experienced a remarkable decline in size over the past few years. Some say that this is evidence for global warming. The problem is that the WEST Antarctic ice sheet has been THICKENING over the past few years. Thus, while the Antarctic Peninsula is getting warmer, the western part of the Antarctic is getting cooler. It turns out that temperature measurements of Antarctica indicate that overall, Antarctica has actually been cooling since the 1960's.

But, if you dig hard enough, you CAN find some evidence to show the earth is warming up as a whole. For example, land-based temperature measurements do show a slight warming trend, even over the past twenty years. The problem with these data, is that they ignore the 70% of the earth's surface, because they ignore what is happening over the OCEANS. When the entire globe is measured by satellites, no significant warming trend is seen.

Thus, to believe that global warming is occurring, you are forced to rely on the least reliable data and ignore the most reliable data. That's not good scientific practice.

Just something to think about. And please do THINK about it. Today's society takes things from the media without even looking into it.

Huh.

I just got an idea for another rant...

Until next time. And don't forget: don't just seize the day, seize the night as well.

(This information came primarily from "Exploring Creation with Physical Science" by Dr. Jay L. Wile.)

Articulacy: Your Wildest Dreams Are A Well-chosen Word Away

2009-05-25T18:02:00.000-07:00

Articulate.

I think everyone ought to know what it means, so when I tell you to puh-leez be more articulate, you'll know what I'm talking about.

To be articulate means to say exactly what you mean. To use good words, ones that carry a lot of meaning and express exactly what you're trying to say. If you're articulate, it makes you more convincing and persuasive and just generally more intelligent-sounding.

The lack of articulacy in today's culture is astounding. It's like nails on a chalkboard when I hear my little sister say things like, "Hand me that thingamajigger over there." IT'S A CAN-OPENER, OKAY??

The world would be such a nicer place if people would just say what they mean. Fewer misunderstandings would occur, and conversations would be so much deeper and more profound. Philosophy might be able to have a comeback, and our minds wouldn't be so lazy.

A real pet-peeve of mine is when people swear because they think it's cool. That is the height of inarticulacy. Honestly, if you can't think of a better word to use than s***, just keep your mouth shut. It doesn't make you seem cool, just extremely dull and unintelligent.

Any idiot can cuss, but to show true distain and anger without resorting to obscenities takes real skill.

People have stopped being articulate. Slang rules, and people always use the simplest words possible. I'm guilty of it, too. Anything that bugs me, is messy, or gets in my way is labeled "crap". But, really. I should try to stop doing that.

There are so many words out there, people! We use so few of them. We could all be such amazing wordsmiths!

We could paint picture in the air with our words!

We could solve disputes in half the time.

We could skip all the tedious daily arguments.

We could persuade people to do all kinds of things.

We could make people understand us.

We could talk our way up the corporate ladder.

We could charm the most uncharmable character.

We could rise to infinite power!

Let's face it: words are powerful. With the right words, you can persuade anyone of anything--almost. With a few well-chosen words, almost anything is possible.

Think about all the great leaders in history. All of them were powerful speakers, people who could get crowds excited and get reactions out of people.

Anything you want is just a well-chosen word away. To be great and powerful requires but three basic things:

Being passionate. Being logical. Being articulate.

And with passion, logic and articulacy, you can do things undreamed of.

So what are you waiting for? Go! Think! Talk! Be powerful.

I dare you.

Terrorists: Live and let live?

2009-05-09T13:07:00.000-07:00

Terrorists: Can't we just live and let live?

To put it simply, NO.

Aren't people basically good deep down?

To put it simply, NO.

I think people are born good to some extent. I mean, we all have a sinful nature and everything, but I don't think anyone is *born* evil. However, people CAN become evil, and once they are, no, they are not "basically good deep down".

Now, some people say that we should stop fighting the terrorists. Leave them alone, they say. Live and let live.

I'm fine with that. You're probably fine with that. Most people (serial killers not included) are good with that!

Except the terrorists.THEY WANT TO KILL US. It's part of their religion. Their Bible says "KILL ALL THE NON-MUSLIMS!"

Ohhhhh but we can't fight back! That's inhumane! They believe they're doing good! LIVE AND LET LIVE!! PEACE!

Yay, peace. Peace is good. But I think for peace to work, both sides have to agree to NOT KILL EACH OTHER.

I am all for peace. Really. As much as I enjoy stirring up trouble and debating, world peace is a wonderful that I want us to have! I think it would be WONDERFUL if we could live in harmoney with the Muslims. Some of them are probably really great people.But as long as they are bombing America, it is America's job to fight back.

America is not "attacking" the terrorists. It is purely self-defense.

What kind of country would we be if we just sat here and let the terrorists kill millions of innocent people just because it's in their religion to do so?

We'd be a wussy country that no one felt safe in, that's what we'd be.

I want peace. But it's not up to us anymore. We HAVE tried to be friends with the terrorists. Didn't work. If we're going to have world peace, it's up to them now. We're fighting in self-defense. Any time they want to come over and have a nice PEACEFUL cup of coffee with us, I say go for it.

But until then, America, keep on fighting. Because we are not a country to be pushed around destroyed just to prove we're "nice guys". We have to fight to be safe. To be free. And that's what America is all about.

Being Great: Are We Really Just Scared?

2009-04-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a quick post, but hopefully still thought-provoking.

Some of you may have heard of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He wrote many essays, the most famous of which is “Self Reliance.” In his essay, he basically tells the reader than people need to depend on themselves. They need to be confident, but not cocky, and respect themselves. If you don’t respect yourself, how can you expect others to?

The most famous statement in the essay is “To be great is to be misunderstood.” When you first hear it, you probably thinking “okay, sounds cool, whatever.” Don’t dismiss it yet! Do you even understand what it means? I had to write a paper analyzing this for school, and at first, I came up with the stupid generic response: the greater someone is, the fewer people there are like them. The fewer people that think the way they do. Therefore, they’re misunderstood.

Wasn’t that just so enlightening?

Here’s another way of thinking about it: if one thinks about all the “geniuses” in history, it appears that all of them were misunderstood (Einstein, Newton, Jesus, Columbus, etc.). Why is that? It certainly has something to do with their thinking being far above others, but also, “to be great” almost by definition is to be strange. People who are considered great pushed the boundaries of their society. They tried new things. They looked at things in new ways. Anyone who is great will be misunderstood, because to be great, one must challenge the common thinking.

I would like to be great. Wouldn’t you? But who wants to be misunderstood? I think that’s what holds a lot of people back: the fear of being misunderstood. When you think outside the box, you’re usually labeled “weird”. Maybe that’s why today’s young people don’t do as many great things as we could.

Yeah; ’cause we’re SCARED.

So, I challenge you. Think outside the box. Challenge common thinking. Be misunderstood.

Be great.

Weird vs. Normal: Does the Problem Even Exist?

2009-04-11T07:54:00.000-07:00

I'd like to call to your attention the difference between Weird and Normal:

There isn't one.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're thinking, "Um, yes, there is. Example: YOU are weird, and the rest of the world is normal."

Not quite true.

Think about it. What is the definition of weird? Something abnormal, right? Something or someone that goes against the trend or social patterns of the world today. And normal is what the majority does, says, and thinks, right?

Well, by those standards, weird and normal change every day, every year, on different continents, countries, and even just states.

Take the 60s for example. Think about the hippies. They were WEIRD. But not to everyone. Some people thought so, some didn't. But either way, they were not nearly as weird then as they would be now, right? Because after all, in the 60s, you at least saw them around. Nowadays, if you saw a hippie-looking person, you would think, "OMG, WHAT A WEIRD-O!" In the 60s, it was more just like "Oh, another weird-o."

But, were hippies weird among other hippies? No. . .

Take peace-signs, too. They originated during the Hippie Reign, and they were actually pretty cool. Little circle with lines through it, whatever. But it was cool. Then, as quick as it came, it was a thing of the past. It was weird again. In the early 2000s if you saw someone wearing a peace sign, you'd probably have though "Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but hippies went out like FORTY YEARS AGO." Now, peace signs are back. A bunch of people are wearing them. It's cool again--normal.

See, here's the thing: Normal and Weird are relative. Weird today, normal tomorrow. Normal today, weird tomorrow. And then normal again. Normal to you, weird to me. Weird to you, normal to me.

Ah, the beautiful of relativity. (Thanks, Einstein. Haha, just kidding.)

Normal doesn't necessarily go out with the times either. It goes out with the place, too.

Weird in the North (sweet tea) is normal in the South. Normal in the North (raspberry tea) is unheard of in the South. Weird in the USA, normal in China. Normal in the Middle East, GET-AWAY-FROM-ME-TERRORIST in the USA.

Weird and Normal are so passing and relative, that there's really no such thing. At all. You're version of weird is different from your neighbor's version, and your neighbor's version may be different from your mom's version.

Normal: the constant average of how people act, think, and speak.
There is no "constant" average of how people act, think and speak.
Therefore, there can't be such thing as a normal.

Or weird.

Weird is the outrageous way of being people don't normally be.
There isn't a way to "normally be"
So there can't be a way people DON'T normally be.

Confusing? Definitely. True? Probably.

Weird vs. Normal. Does the problem even exist? If someone seems weird to you, they may be bringin' in the new trend of twenty-ten. Saying "Omg!" and "lol!" seem normal to you?

In ten years, it'll be our equivalent of "Groovy!"

Think about THAT.

Going Green: Give America A Break

2009-04-04T11:32:00.000-07:00

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for keeping Earth alive for as long as possible, especially considering I live here. But the whole concept of “going green” has gotten SO ANNOYING. I am getting a little fed up with the whole GAHHH!!!-DID-YOU-JUST-THROW-THAT-CAN AWAY-THAT-IS-RECYCLABLE-MATERIAL!!!!!! thing. It’s really starting to get on my nerves.

The whole world is “going green”, which is a fine thing, just not when every time I open a magazine they’re screaming “secrets” about how to go even GREENER than we already are. It’s in children’s programs, even! Entire episodes of Curious George have been dedicated to making sure kids know they’re killing trees with every drawing they create.

My friends and I even have a joke: every time someone throws ANYTHING away (let’s say it’s a plastic cup), we’ll say something like “Kendra! You’re killing the plastic trees!” Or metal trees or Styrofoam trees or whatever-the-thing-happens-to be-made-out-of trees.

I really am all for the environment, and let’s not go dumping oil into the oceans or anything, but the whole thing has just gotten really overdone and out of hand. All the irritating “reminders” and stuff are making people like me resent the whole issue. I’ll just throw away my aluminum cans and take thirty minute showers just to buck the “green” system!

Everyone already knows about being green. Do we have to keep dedicating entire episodes and magazine issues to the movement? Just let it sit for a while. Bring it up again for the next generation.

If we really wanted more “green” tips, we could Google it.

Discrimination: Good or Bad?

2009-03-28T10:11:00.000-07:00

Discrimination.Good or Bad?

Bad, we all think. To judge people before you get to know them is BAD. And that's what discrimination is, right?

Wrong.

That would be called being PREJUDICED. Think about the roots of that word. It's obvious: "pre" and "judge." To judge someone before you know them. That's pretty much just deciding in advance what you think about a specific group of people and everyone in it.

That IS bad, but we all do it. I don't think it's bad to have preconceived ideas—necessarily. I mean, we can't help it. It's bad when you let that get in your way of getting to know someone. I mean, let's face it; if we see a guy that's wearing all black leather with a skull and crossbones tatooed on his bicep and six piercings in each ear smoking a gigarette against the side of a convenience store, we aren't going to think "Gee, he looks like such a nice guy. I think I'm going to go speak to him." Do we think that? NO.

And that's prejudice, right?

HAHAHAHAHAHA, wrong again!Well, maybe it is, but really, THAT'S discrimination.

"Definition: Discriminate: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately"

Think about it. Is it wrong to distinguish between something? If you're picking a babysitter for your children, are you going to pick the girl with all A's, or the twelve year old boy who's been known to attempt parachuting off the roof?

Uhhhhh, not a hard choice.

That's discrimination.

So, I'm saying that discrimination isn't bad, right?

Yup, wrong again (but you probably saw that coming, lol).

Discrimination can be bad as well as good, just like almost anything. You don't want your discrimination to turn into a prejudice. Discrimination when used the right way is perfectly good, healthy, and helpful. Just don't let it get out of hand.

Remember:

Discriminate: to observe a difference, to distinguish between something.

To be prejudiced: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

When you saw the guy loitering around the convenience store, you no longer were without knowledge, though, or reason. Therefore, that was discrimination. See the difference?

I hope so.

We have to stop flinching at the word “discrimination” just out of habit. (Racial discrimination, flinch away. That’s definitely BAD.) Before you accept society’s definition of a word, make sure society has it RIGHT first.

Feminism: Celebrating the Difference

2009-03-21T12:49:00.000-07:00

Okay, I’m a female (duh). But sometimes women’s rights stuff is just irritating.

The whole Women-Can-Do-Anything-Men-Can-Do attitude can be abrasive and frankly, IT’S NOT TRUE. Now, I am a pretty darn stubborn, proud, spunky teenage girl, but let’s face it:

Girls are never going to be suited for the NFL.

Our bodies just aren’t designed to handle that kind of stuff! And sometimes girls/women will go so out of their way to prove to the world that they are just as “tough” as their male counterparts that they come across rude and strange. And they can miss out on some of the really fun parts of being a girl! (Being a tomboy is different, by the way, I speak from experience. Tomboys know that they’re being atypical and just like to do the things that boys do. They aren’t going out of their way to prove a point—necessarily.)

God gave men and women different physical strengths, instincts, and mindsets. If he wanted us to be all the same, we would be, and there would be no such thing as “maternal instinct.” (Latin root: mater = mother.) Or “paternal instinct” for that matter. (Latin root again: pater = father.) Girls can be tough. Very tough. But guys have the “tough guy” mindset already. It’s who they are. It’s what makes male and female different—and beautiful.

Now, definitely don’t think that I’m saying girls should grow up, marry, have kids, and then raise them and that’s IT. Nooooo. (Hello! One of my career goals is to become a lawyer.) I don’t necessarily believe that having kids is for everyone. (But, seriously, that’s kind of a waste of the whole maternal instinct thing.)

Guys’ bodies are made to be, well, stronger in some ways. And they like that in a whole different way than we girls do. I like to be strong and healthy and be able to move that box that my mom says is “too heavy”, but I’m not about to go “work-out” just to get stronger. Not saying that all guys do that, and I’m definitely not saying it’s bad that some do. I’m just saying it is. It’s the physical difference, and the different mindset.

Instincts are just totally different. Guys, you see a hurt bunny, shoot it, eat it, it was gonna die anyway and you’re hungry (haha, okay, so maybe that was a little over the top, but it was funny). Girls, you see the hurt bunny, you help it (most of us girls, anyway). Maternal instincts vs. paternal instincts. Dads take care of the family, moms do, too, but in a different way, and they go about it in different ways.

All of us that have parents know this. When you want to do something that might be dangerous, who do you ask permission from?

I’ll give you a hint: not Mom.

When you need help with something that you really should have done two weeks ago or that you “ought to be able to do by yourself,” who are you gonna go to?

Another hint: not Dad.

See the pattern?

Now, I’m not stereotyping. I’m not even saying that a girl couldn’t become an NFL player. I’m just saying that it’s pretty darn unlikely, and that girls’ bodies weren’t made for that.

And guys can’t make dinner, call the plumber, solve six problems, review a court case, plan tomorrow, make the grocery list and pour the cold medicine for Johnny at the same time. Haha, their brains would totally explode :D

So here’s my point: I’m not saying that women are inferior in ANY WAY. Just different. And I’m thinking that instead of celebrating the fact that women and men can be the same, we should celebrate the difference once in a while.

Cause there is a difference. A big one. And it’s what makes us beautiful.

The New America

2009-03-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

Journal Entry I wrote back in October. WARNING: I AM NOT SLAMMING PUBLIC SCHOOL KIDS. Not really. This was just something that I wrote thinking about the kids at my school. I am well aware that public schoolers can be every bit as smart as Classical kids, okay? Lol, don't be offended. And if you are, that's actually fine. Just comment and share your thoughts.

"Sometimes, I hate our government. It has too much power over us. It’s going against the constitution in a lot of ways. Did you know the 16th amendment wasn’t even ratified? At least that’s what someone told me. I’m going to look into it myself. But now, the CIA doesn’t even have to have a permit to tap your phone line. They can listen in anytime they want. All they have to do is fill out a little form. They don’t even have to be qualified! The government can do pretty much anything.

I also think this bailout is stupid. The economy is going to heal itself. It always has in the past. Why do people think this bailout is necessary? It’s natural for the economy to rise and fall. Leave it alone. The bailout is just going to put us further in debt—the black hole the government created and then jumped in to. They’re never going to pay the debt off, either, so why even put it there? The bunch of hypocrites. We get in trouble if we don’t pay out taxes and credit card bills—debt—but they can rack up debt till kingdom come and not even get in trouble.

And then there’s the whole inflation thing. Doesn’t the government realize they’re making the same mistakes the Romans made? And guess what? The Roman empire fell because of that. Hello! History repeats itself. Get a clue! Those who don’t learn their history are doomed to repeat it. And we’re going to pay the price.

Another example of the government controlling our lives is education. Schools cannot teach creation now. Now, I’m not necessarily saying that only creation should be taught, but at least give it along with Evolution! Our government is corrupt and too powerful. The people of the US are only going to stand this so much longer. Tensions are building. The economy is being tampered with. Inflation is worse than ever before. The government is taking more and more power. Our government is going from good, to bad, to worse. Don’t the people realize this is what we ran from in England and rebelled against in the Revolutionary War?

This is not going to stand much longer, Journal. The people will only put up with this for so long before they explode. Our government is corrupt. There is going to be a rebellion eventually. That’s all there is to it. It’s going to happen. This government has been here a long time.

Nothing lasts forever.

I suggested in class the other day that we should take over the government. We could be so much better. Of course, at the time it was mostly a joke. Now, I see how true it was, though I didn’t know it. When America collapses and the people rebel, we’re going to have to build a new government. Who is going to be in charge?

We are.

The world needs people who can think. The publics schools are not teaching people how to think. We Classical kids know how to think. We will begin building a New America. Better, stronger, smarter than before. We know economics. We know logic. We know history. Science. American government. Public and persuasive speaking. How to write well.

We are the New America.

Now all that’s left is to wait. The timer is ticking for this Old America. How long will she last? We don’t know.

So we study. We learn. We write. We read. With think. We speak. We do.

We must be ready. America’s timer is ticking. When will her time be up? Who knows, but we do know this:

When the timer dings, we’ll be ready.

~Kendra Logan

P.S. And to think, Journal; two months ago, I thought politics was boring! :)"

Velcome

2009-03-13T10:07:00.000-07:00

Bwahahaha, velcome to my dark blog.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :D

Well, I'm going to try to use this blog for my more depressing and/or strangely dark thoughts. Sort of "the other side of me" if you'll excuse my quoting Hannah Montana. Yeah, the blog header is a little dramatic, but it sounded so cool I couldn't resist that either.

So, anyway, this blog will probably not be updated as often as my ~Carpe Diem~, but I loved this name and so I wanted to create this blog anyway. And it will give me somewhere to vent and show my...other side if I feel like it. But then again, maybe I like being secrectly dark... :D

Sorry. You know, you know. I couldn't resist.