Dossy's Blog

elfs (yes, that Elf) wrote in his LJ today about Ashley Evans’s rant and it helped me clarify some thoughts I’ve had for a while but couldn’t express in words.

As much as I tend to believe that some theory of evolution is more likely to be correct than some formulation of a creationist myth, I think it is fair to say that there’s a non-empty “gap” in The Theory of Evolution. I can explain why with one question: Which theory of evolution is The Theory of Evolution? The fact that I can ask that question demonstrates the flaw.

Is it Darwinian natural selection? Punctuated equilibrium? Something else entirely?

Ironically, while I said I tend to believe some form of evolutionary theory is correct as opposed to some creationist myth, I have a hard time accepting that any of the currently expressed theories of evolution to be the actually correct one, either.

But, I trust, through good science and rigorous discipline, we’ll continue to iterate towards the correct one.

Tags: religion, science, politics

My friend Steve and I talk about all sorts of stuff, but a snippet from today’s exchange I really wanted to share with everyone:

Steve: My coworker, who’s an orthodox Jew, believes ideas like CD players came from God because he can’t conceive how ideas like that can come from mere mortals. I tried to explain to him that ideas are a dime a dozen and the important key is actually doing it.

Dossy: Right. Motivation comes from God. Because, mere mortals left to their own devices would just sit around naked and masturbate. You know, ’til we got kicked out of the Garden of Eden … and we realized being naked and masturbating was Not Good.

Dossy: That damned forbidden fruit.

Ah, any time you can mash up a world’s creation myth with masturbation, you’ve accomplished a masterwork. I’ve met my quota for the day.

Tags: religion, Christianity, God, heresy, funny

The season 1 finale episode, Parasite, aired recently.  In it, there was an incredibly insightful piece of dialogue between Nathan Petrelli and Mr. Linderman:

Linderman: You see, I think there comes a time when a man has to ask himself whether he wants a life of happiness or a life of meaning.

Nathan: I’d like to have both.

Linderman: Can’t be done. Two very different paths. I mean, to be truly happy, a man must live absolutely in the present and with no thought with what’s gone on before, and no thought of what lies ahead. But a life of meaning, a man is condemned to wallow in the past and obsess about the future. And my guess is that you’ve done quite a bit of obsessing about yours these last few days. (Nathan pulls out a gun) Now you can’t have any of my pot pie.

Linderman is certainly the God-character, holding unique knowledge about the nature of reality which has so puzzled all of the other characters.  As mortals, we’re constantly torn between the two ends of the continuum, seeking out truth and meaning but also trying to find happiness.  It’s very clear that they are indeed on two ends of a continuum and our very struggle is what keeps us in the middle of it.

I guess this quote was especially relevant given my recent state of mind.

Tags: TV, Heroes, philosophy

I’ve been reflecting and introspecting lately, especially around the subject of love. Perhaps it was no small coincidence that at this past Sunday’s church service, the second reading was taken from 1 Corinthians 13. Verses 4 through 8:

⁴Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant ⁵or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ⁶it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. ⁷It hears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸Love never ends. [...]

Love is hard for me to be. Love is worth it.

Tags: religion, love

In the January 2007 issue of The Lutheran, in the “Letters to the editor” section on page 56, Kari Stadem of Blomkest, MN, wrote:

Upper- and lowercase

There are two kinds of evolution: Evolution with a capital E, the idea
that people came from rocks by random chance over billions of years–and
evolution with a small e, the theory that species adapt and change through
random mutations and natural selection. I fully agree that evolution has
been shown through scientific observation. But I strongly disagree that
Evolution is anything but a religious view. It can’t be repeated because
it’s a question of origins. It can never be observed because it supposedly
takes billions of years. And it violates at least two of the most
fundamental laws of science: the law of biogenesis
(life only comes from life) and the second law of thermodynamics
(everything in the universe is gradually increasing in chaos, not in order).
Let’s get the whole question of origins out of the science classroom. It has
no place there because it’s a question of history. Teach evolution, not
Evolution, and I don’t think anyone will argue.

(I added the links in the text above.)

When I read this, I couldn’t help but say to myself, “This is exactly
right.” The argument shouldn’t be whether Intelligent Design or Evolution is
right: it’s unprovable, thus pointless. The question is really whether
Evolution (with the capital E) is actually science–clearly, it’s not. It’s a
set of beliefs held as true in the absence of observable facts. It’s a
religion. And, in a science classroom, as Kari points out, it has no
place.

It’s this kind of intelligent thinking and discussion that we need. Not
more useless debate as to whether Intelligent Design or Evolution is actually
correct: they’re both religions and neither are provable. Let people freely
believe what they want to believe. Lets just make sure that what’s taught in
the classroom as “science” truly is just that.

Tags:
religion,
science,
Intelligent Design,
Evolution