Dick, John, and Spot

[vovat]

At the library yesterday, I happened to come across an issue of Wired with a cover story involving intelligent design, the newest form of oxymoronic "creation science." What I really have to wonder about, in regards to creationism, is these people see evolution as such a threat, to the extent that they would deliberately lie and misrepresent in order to promote their alternative. Is the origin of species really that important to Christianity? The creation of the world takes up only a small portion of the Bible, is written in a sketchy manner, and seems to be largely unrelated to Jesus' teachings or self-sacrifice. I can see how the notion that man is an animal undercuts the human-centered view of the Bible, but is it THAT important?

On an unrelated note, the next Simpsons Halloween special is scheduled to air an entire week after Halloween. I thought the fact that it aired a few days after Halloween last year was bad enough. I mean, we all know FOX sucks, but can't they at least make an OCCASIONAL scheduling decision that actually makes sense?


Finally, I watched the vice presidential debates last night. I think it was appropriate that, when the two candidates were introduced, Cheney was basically scowling, while Edwards smiled affably at the camera. Edwards was definitely more personable, and I preferred what he said (which isn't too surprising, as the two of them basically held the same positions as their running mates). Cheney didn't come off as much of an idiot as Bush did in the earlier debates, though. I thought both candidates frequently went off the topic and didn't address the actual question, or they addressed the question only AFTER talking about something else for more than half their allotted time. Also, I noticed a certain sequence of events playing out at least twice:

1. Cheney says something negative about Kerry's or Edwards' record.
2. Edwards flips it on him, by pointing out something equally or more negative about Cheney's record.
3. Cheney doesn't address Edwards' charges, instead simply saying, "I think Mr. Edwards' record speaks for itself."

There was at least one time where Edwards neglected to answer a charge from Cheney, when I think he should have. It was when the two men were discussing taxes, and Cheney said that Kerry and Edwards would support tax increases that would hurt small businesses. I had previously heard this same idea expressed in a pro-Bush radio ad. I'm inclined to think the charge isn't accurate, but I don't recall Edwards saying anything about it. Hopefully Kerry will, if the issue comes up again in the presidential debate on economics. I'm all for higher taxes on millionaires and huge corporations, but I can see how a charge of being against small business could hurt the Kerry campaign.

As with Kerry, I think Edwards took a more moderate stance on issues than I might have liked, but at least he was on the right track. For instance, it bugged me that Edwards said that he and Kerry supported the outdated notion that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Kerry and Edwards are also always talking about the middle class, and, while the middle class is important and tends to get screwed over nowadays, they seem to be neglecting the LOWER class. I think the ultimate goal should be abolishing the class structure entirely, but I can see why a candidate today can't get up and say that. I guess it's sort of the same way with the gay marriage thing, in that so many people oppose it today that a candidate can't necessarily come out totally in favor of it. Still, I do wish we had a candidate who at least thought that gay marriages COULD be possible at some point. I suppose this is one of those cases where the "lesser of two evils" idea kicks in.

Comments

[onib.livejournal.com]

I think Creationism is very important to some people because they cannot accept any inconsistancies in the Bible. If they accept anything as being, not just an issue of interpretation, but being outrightly wrong, then it calls into question the validity of the entire text. They simply cannot allow this possibility to even be discussed. Also, allowing for evolution takes God out of the role of active creator and raises the question of soul. (If humans have a soul, do animals and plants? If only humans have a soul, when and how was the cutoff that seperated the souled from the soulless?) That's just too many questions.


I didn't get home in time to catch the debates, but let me just say that Cheney is a scary, scary man. If Bush stays in control of our nation for another four years, I truly wish him the absolute best of health.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

You're probably right about the creationist viewpoint. I think this actually ties into their constant attacks on minor aspects of evolutionary theory. Since their faith can be apparently be shattered by a small inconsistency in the Bible, then a small hole in evolutionary theory must cause it to crumble, right? Well, no, because science doesn't work that way, but I get the idea that it's how many fundamentalists think.

[countblastula.livejournal.com]

>Since their faith can be apparently be shattered by a small inconsistency in the Bible,

I hate to tell them this, but the Bible itself has two completely contradictory creation stories within, like, the first chapter.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

No! They're just different ways of phrasing the same story! Just like how Jesus' father Joseph apparently has two different dads because one of them is actually MARY'S dad, even though it says nothing of the sort in the actual Bible! You're just interpreting it incorrectly! You're trying to use your own brain! Shut up!

[countblastula.livejournal.com]

>You're trying to use your own brain! Shut up!

Yes sir. You're right. No more brain for me today.

[onib.livejournal.com]

The logic goes something like "some evolutionist once found a pig skull and lied to us, pretending it was an early man, thus all evolutionary theory is bunk."

Ok, I took an Evolutionary Biology course in college, and yes there have been plenty of distortions on both sides of the issue. There also is absolutely no cohesive explanation for the detailed workings of evolution or definative proof to either supports or denies it...but that's science. That's why it's evolutionary theory rather than fact. I mean, evolution either happened or it didn't - you must have one or the other, not both. So, allow people to look at all the evidence and debate that evidence openly and honestly, and we'll all come closer to the truth. [That would be my overt & naive optimism speaking out again.]

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I think I read somewhere that Stephen Jay Gould (I think it was him, anyway) once identified evolution as both a fact AND a theory. Not every aspect of evolutionary theory is necessarily accurate, but I feel pretty confident in asserting that evolution does occur. Even if it could be conclusively proven that it doesn't, though, that doesn't prove the existence of God or intelligent design, as some creationists seem to think it does. But then, closed-minded people like to create false dichotomies. You know, like, "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

I agree that all the evidence should be weighed by the scientific community. In science class, however, it makes sense to teach what is regarded as the most accurate theory. There's room for debate, of course, especially in higher education, but I don't think a science textbook needs to contain information on ideas that aren't based on science in the first place. I mean, objections to modern evolutionary theory should be mentioned, I suppose, but "It's not in the Bible" doesn't really have any scientific backing.

I guess the most important thing is that religion is based on faith, and science isn't. An individual person is free to accept intelligent design if that's what they feel is right, but it has no place in a science classroom.

[onib.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't see how evolution couldn't be taught. And there really is no other scientific explanation for diversity (we all just appeared one day generally isn't an adequate scientific reason). No one can argue with microevolution. We all see it in our own lives basically. But macroevolution does have some pretty big holes in it, especially when you get down to the molecular level. In fact, there are several different camps within evolutionary theory that are vying for dominance, and none of them can fully explain everything. Thus, I have no problem with people discussing the flaws in the different evolutionary theories. That's how you interest people in getting to the bottom of things and finding the truth.

I mean, there's no proof for the Unified String Theory, but it sure does make explaining the different theories about universe a lot easier (plus, it makes for some cool TMBG songs).

Darth Vader for a new generation

[vovat.livejournal.com]

As for Cheney being scary (I meant to put this in my earlier reply, but I forgot), I agree. He seems to enjoy using scare tactics, like his ridiculous charge that another terrorist attack would be more likely under a president other than Bush, which he apparently still stands behind. Incidentally, I've seen two apparently independent sources compare Cheney to Darth Vader.

Re: Darth Vader for a new generation

[onib.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I always thought of Cheney as more like the Emperor: the creepy-looking evil behind the scenes. You never see him, but you know he's scary and probably running everything.

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

I watched part of the VP debate last night. Honestly, it bored me. Cheney looked tired and irritated. Neither man said anything new. It left me wishing that I was a baseball fan, so that I could have switched over to the FOX affiliate.

I will say that Gwen Ifill did an excellent job of moderating the debate. She asked good questions of both candidates.

[tisok.livejournal.com]

your thoughts on the debate are very similar to mine. the only thing i really have to add is that cheney seemed like he was scolding edwards frequently, which was rather amusing.

[zimbra1006.livejournal.com]

Yeah, he was totally condescending too. I loved how he'd stall for time in starting his responses by snarkily saying something like "Well, I'm not even sure where to start, there's so many errors in his argument...." Gah. Kill.

[zimbra1006.livejournal.com]

I think it was appropriate that, when the two candidates were introduced, Cheney was basically scowling, while Edwards smiled affably at the camera.

Hehe. Check out hmfeelyat's debate summary.

Also, I noticed a certain sequence of events playing out at least twice:

1. Cheney says something negative about Kerry's or Edwards' record.
2. Edwards flips it on him, by pointing out something equally or more negative about Cheney's record.
3. Cheney doesn't address Edwards' charges, instead simply saying, "I think Mr. Edwards' record speaks for itself."

Yes! I noticed the exact same thing. Bush does it too, and I certainly hope the American public is smart un-dumb enough to realize that.

I also really liked how Edwards refused to bullshit us and said "I won't like to you, we are not going to eliminate the deficit. We're in too deep a hole."

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree about the lack of bullshit on Edwards' part being refreshing. The impression I get about the Kerry/Edwards ticket is that they don't intend to revolutionize the country, but they DO seem to want to get it back on the right track.

[zimbra1006.livejournal.com]

Yeah. And I personally am just fine with that! And maybe once they got things moving in the right direction they would pull out some total left-wing liberal craziness. :P

[3x1minus1.livejournal.com]

about the tax thing - i could be wrong but i'm prety sure cheney started talking about taxes when the question was about schools. i rememeber him going on about taxes and it wasn't even what he was supposed to be talking about..

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Republican Rule Number One: When in doubt, talk about how the Democrats want to raise your taxes.

I heard a sound byte on the radio today from Bush's speech in Wilkes-Barre. He said Kerry was a "tax-and-spend liberal," while he a "compassionate conservative."

Seriously, what does that term even MEAN? They still screw over the poor, but they feel kind of bad about doing it?

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Okay, I meant "HE'S," not just "he." I'm sure you could figure that out, but I'm a stickler for self-editing.

[onib.livejournal.com]

Actually, Bush was probably more likely to have spoken something like the uneditted version.

Ah, Dubya Speak brings me so much joy. I never thought we'd find a replacement for Quayle so soon. I may not miss him, but I'll miss his flubs.

[bethje.livejournal.com]

I never even saw the context, but remember [not at the debates. On something else] when he said something about how the Democrats' idea of health care was "more like Hilary Care"? And then he got rousing applause. Whuh?