Gotta get this out of the way up top. I'm sure most of you never heard of Christopher Hitchens, though some of you might have. His stock and trade profession was journalism and he was a damn good one, as well as being a supporter of critical thinking, the skeptical movement and an outspoken atheist. Sadly, he was also a heavy drinker and a smoker, which probably contributed to his esophageal cancer and deteriorating health. He passed away on December the 15th, 2011. He was 62. He will be missed by his family (not me), friends (still not me, though I think we'd have gotten on well) and admirers (there I am).
In memorium, Christopher Hitchens, April 13, 1949 - December 15, 2011
Anyway, needed to get this out of my head and on (digital) paper and I don't think Mr. Hitchens would fault me for trying to state something blatantly. There's something that's been troubling me as of late about evolution. It seems a vast amount of people want to quibble about it being taught in schools or not. The whole debate has been getting on my nerves because it seems to come from it at the wrong angle. Let me get my personal feelings out there, which happen to coincide with scientific fact: The theory of evolution is how the natural world makes subtle changes through passing genes, environmental pressures and produces the various species we observe both living today and in the fossil record.*
The issue seems to stem from people either not accepting these facts or claiming such facts assault their religion. To address the second point first, if you're not going to believe in a religion because the facts go against you, there are very few faiths left available to you. Religion practically requires belief in the bizarre, impossible or ridiculously unlikely as part of it's dogma, thus that argument holds no water. If you choose to not accept the fact that evolution is the function by which animals diversify, that's your decision. It doesn't make the "theory" less viable.
Which brings us to the verbiage of science. The word "theory" is a major stumbling block. Yes, evolution is "just a theory," as long as you understand the scientific use of the word "theory." A theory is the end of the scientific process. It's a workable definition that applies to reality. Other examples of theories on par with evolution include gravity, planetary orbits, germ theory of disease (the idea that bacteria, fungi, parasites, viruses and other microorganisms cause illness in humans), thermodynamics, etc. Evolution has been so well established, it boggles the mind that so many people still think it's "just a theory," especially when they don't understand precisely what that means.
Anyway, all that aside, the real reason evolution has trouble getting into schools is religious groups. They seem to think that Creationism (aka Intelligent Design**) should be given as much time in science class as evolution so that students can "make up their own mind" about scientific fact. I wonder, should students be taught similarly about gravity? Perhaps using the Peter Pan theory of gravitation, that states with fairy dust and happy thoughts, gravity is immaterial. Evolution is not something you can have an opinion about, nor is it remotely equivalent to the biblical story (or any religious or mythical story) of creation. It should be taught in schools as what it is; An established scientific fact. If the religious feel that their children should be taught "the other side" of this situation, nothing prevents them from teaching creationism/intelligent design in Sunday school or at home.
For some light closing, I present some of America's representation to other countries in the form of the video that incited me to write this. No, these aren't elected officials, nor are they scientists, nor reputed for being particularly bright people. They are 15 contestants in the Miss USA Pageant answering the question, "Should evolution be taught in schools?"*** One of them "represents" my state, Idaho, and is an idiot. Pretty idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. The frustrating thing is, some of them got so close to saying something that made some scientific sense, but tripped at the finish line. Please to enjoy, catch you later.
*Also humans did not evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor. Subtle, but important, difference which explains the standard question asked of why monkeys are still around.
*For more information on this scientific theory, see The Bible, specifically Genesis.
**Correct answers I would have accepted, "Yes," or "Of course, it's a scientific theory, it should be in science class."
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
General Update & Comrade Kermit
I've fallen from the blogosphere as of late, but I suppose it's time to start the thing up again. We'll see how long I stay on the wagon this time... or off it... whatever. So I'm writing this in my mom's kitchen, listening to the washer runs at 2:30 AM. Why you ask? Don't you own a washing machine? Yes, I'd answer, but the continuing saga of plumbing problems at my house has rendered that area unusable for at least the rest of the week. Why me, astrologists? I thought I was an Aquarius, shouldn't water behave better for me?*
Anyway, the fix I had done earlier this year to relocate my washer box to a less freezable wall was apparently not done properly. Bad news, it was belching hot water and, thus, steam into my floorboards under my washer for the past week or so. Good news, it's a plumbing companies fault, so I don't have to pay for it. Yippee. Should be all fixed soon. Enough about me, let's discuss some idiots.
It seems that our nation's standards for journalism have fallen greatly in the years since I learned about it in junior high school. I was taught that you had to be held to certain standards, typically things called FACTS when you reported on something. Evidently, these rules have been thrown out in modern journalism and it's turned to "print it if it'll get clicks on our website." No one checks facts, no one looks at things incredulously, no one bothers with it anymore. In the past year, I've seen at least 3 different stories on Yahoo News about Nessie-esque monsters around the world. The proof presented? Bad photos and shaky eyewitness accounts of people who don't spend their time at said body of water year round. Are we really this dense? Doesn't anyone ask the important questions like, "What else could that be?" or "Maybe I can't tell a log in the foggy distance from an alleged monster I'ver heard inhabits this lake?" Occam's razor needs sharpening in most cases.**
Of course, if you have no grasp of reality to begin with, I can see where fact checking might be a foreign concept. Recently, a Fox News anchor (already a dodgy source of facts) alleged that the recently released movie The Muppets has a disturbingly anti-corporate, pro-communism, liberal agenda that it was pushing on American youths. Yeah. That happened. Read it again, I'll wait. Need the actual video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl6ekkvWnOE
I can only hope the 9% of people who "liked" this are kidding, but that's hardly the point. The point is that the piece exists in the first place and is treated as though it's serious.
Now, I don't go to Fox for my news; I go there for the occasional cartoon about America's favorite yellow skinned family, but I gather that a fair number of people do get their news from Fox. What kind of moron would think that The Muppets, themselves a corporation, could be anti-corporate? And why does this even qualify as "news?" This is not something that a serious network ought to cover, this is a fluff piece that Entertainment Tonight should look into. I feel like this shows just how out of touch with reality so-called Fox News "journalists" continue to be. The story doesn't matter, the facts don't matter, all that matters is making people paranoid of the "Liberal Agenda." Kermit and company aren't pushing communism just because the villain happens to be a wealthy oil tycoon anymore than Bugs Bunny was for having the same villain in one of his cartoons. I know you don't read this, but please grow up, American media.
I'll try to write in here more often. Comment or complain below.
*And yes, I know that they could twist that around so that water behaves BADLY for me because I'm an Aquarius. It must be nice having a malleable belief system where any result can be misconstrued as a positive outcome... sigh...
**In case you don't know or haven't seen the excellent movie Contact, Occam's Razor is a principle that suggests that the simplest explanation is more often then not true. Ie, the strange objects or lights in the sky are more likely to be (A) man made flying objects, (B) satellites, (C) planets or (D) other atmospheric effects you've never seen than an alien space ship.
Anyway, the fix I had done earlier this year to relocate my washer box to a less freezable wall was apparently not done properly. Bad news, it was belching hot water and, thus, steam into my floorboards under my washer for the past week or so. Good news, it's a plumbing companies fault, so I don't have to pay for it. Yippee. Should be all fixed soon. Enough about me, let's discuss some idiots.
It seems that our nation's standards for journalism have fallen greatly in the years since I learned about it in junior high school. I was taught that you had to be held to certain standards, typically things called FACTS when you reported on something. Evidently, these rules have been thrown out in modern journalism and it's turned to "print it if it'll get clicks on our website." No one checks facts, no one looks at things incredulously, no one bothers with it anymore. In the past year, I've seen at least 3 different stories on Yahoo News about Nessie-esque monsters around the world. The proof presented? Bad photos and shaky eyewitness accounts of people who don't spend their time at said body of water year round. Are we really this dense? Doesn't anyone ask the important questions like, "What else could that be?" or "Maybe I can't tell a log in the foggy distance from an alleged monster I'ver heard inhabits this lake?" Occam's razor needs sharpening in most cases.**
Of course, if you have no grasp of reality to begin with, I can see where fact checking might be a foreign concept. Recently, a Fox News anchor (already a dodgy source of facts) alleged that the recently released movie The Muppets has a disturbingly anti-corporate, pro-communism, liberal agenda that it was pushing on American youths. Yeah. That happened. Read it again, I'll wait. Need the actual video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl6ekkvWnOE
I can only hope the 9% of people who "liked" this are kidding, but that's hardly the point. The point is that the piece exists in the first place and is treated as though it's serious.
Now, I don't go to Fox for my news; I go there for the occasional cartoon about America's favorite yellow skinned family, but I gather that a fair number of people do get their news from Fox. What kind of moron would think that The Muppets, themselves a corporation, could be anti-corporate? And why does this even qualify as "news?" This is not something that a serious network ought to cover, this is a fluff piece that Entertainment Tonight should look into. I feel like this shows just how out of touch with reality so-called Fox News "journalists" continue to be. The story doesn't matter, the facts don't matter, all that matters is making people paranoid of the "Liberal Agenda." Kermit and company aren't pushing communism just because the villain happens to be a wealthy oil tycoon anymore than Bugs Bunny was for having the same villain in one of his cartoons. I know you don't read this, but please grow up, American media.
I'll try to write in here more often. Comment or complain below.
*And yes, I know that they could twist that around so that water behaves BADLY for me because I'm an Aquarius. It must be nice having a malleable belief system where any result can be misconstrued as a positive outcome... sigh...
**In case you don't know or haven't seen the excellent movie Contact, Occam's Razor is a principle that suggests that the simplest explanation is more often then not true. Ie, the strange objects or lights in the sky are more likely to be (A) man made flying objects, (B) satellites, (C) planets or (D) other atmospheric effects you've never seen than an alien space ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)