Creationism vs Evolution (Part I)

The Creationist Periodic Table of Elements. There's no doubt, creationism, or intelligent design (ID) is reaching new levels of popularity (and hilarity) in today's world. In fact, just last week I recieved an unwanted snail-mailed publication called "Last Generation" which has a substaintial creationist bent.

Even fellow bloggers have went to bat in support for this "alternative theory". Such as Volokh.

In any case, many supporters of "ID" claim that: "it posits something that may or may not be true (organisms "look like they were designed because they were designed," to quote one proponent of the intelligent design school, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson) -- and that is in fact more plausible to many people than evolution is."

Now, however tempted I am to go on a diatribe pointing out this is a law professor, not a professor in the sciences, I won't. I'll just leave it at that.

Should we decide whether to teach things because they're "plausible" to people? Of course not. Most people think it's plausible that "F=mv", (That is, Force=motion * velocity) because they need to exert a constant force to keep a body in motion on a frictional surface. We disabuse them of this notion because we've learned by hard experience that, actually, "F=ma", (That is, Force=motion * acceleration) and that "F=mv" only seems to explain the case of a block on a frictional surface. The difference between "F=ma" and "F=mv" is the difference between a bridge that collapses and a bridge that stands.

Evolution, like physics and all other sciences has mathematics at its core. As we all know mathematics is based on a system of axioms that are (in principle) independent of the outside world, while ID is a statement about the outside world.

ID is analogous to this same misconception that produced "F=mv". Like "F=mv", it is manifestly false because it provides no explanatory value. What does the "theory" of ID predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution. ID's "answer" is always the same:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? The designer put it there.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? The designer put it there.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? The designer put it there.

Contrast these to the explanations offered by biology:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? Molecular Phylogenetics.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? Explantion of photorespiration.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? Convergent Evolution.

Even supporters of ID must admit that the only reason it is clung to like a dog on a milkbone is to keep from sinking into a sense of nihilism when they realize that God may very well not be in control - and indeed regulated to the level of superstition.

A New Look

Well, I've decided to revamp the look of this humble blogging-project.

If you don't like it; then too bad, because I do. ; )

Minor Freakout

Take a long, hard look at that image.

Yes.

I know.

It's nasty.

But that's the result what I have to look foward to with my upcoming tonsillectomy. That's of course, after the the scabs fall out - and apparently all blood drains from ones mouth.

Why am I getting the vague feeling that this whole tonsillectomy venture may not be worth it?

Don't get me wrong, I'll still do it, I'll man up, and won't even ask for directions to the hospital.

Which brings us to todays topic: manliness.

What defines it in todays shifting culture?

Well, according to Harvey Mansfeld, the appropriately named author of the book "Mannliness" essentially defines manliness as confidence in the face of risk. He also makes the assersation that feminism has hijacked this very essence. "Men are still free to be manly; but there's no justification for it, no welcome for it, no respect for it."

He may be right. Yet, at the very core of feminism isn't an anti-masculine approach, its simply working from a hypothesis of gender-equality. Thus, the shrinkage of manhood may not be due to the ideals of feminism, but the practices. Which, by and large, are based on rejecting "traditional" feminine roles in favor of more masculine ones - from occupations to the family.

Of course, I'm not suggesting women be turned away from high positions in business or elsewhere. However, one must ask themselves why adopting the traits of say, a more powerful "group A" over a less powerful"group B" empowers that "group B". Is it so much of a "man's-world" that women must, at least in some form, become men? Is it, alternately, so much of a "straight's-world" that gay couples must marry?

I would say, in an ideal world, all groups and individuals could simply affirm their equality and move on. Yet, that's hardly, if ever, the case. Can "Group A" so overpower a culture's practices that there seems no other way besides their way? Could the overwhelming desire to adopt a more powerful groups practices stem from a need to "legitimize" oneself, or does it just stem from a lack of creativity?

Just some stream-of-consciousness thoughts for you. :)

Modern Philosophers

Most people wouldn't see modern day rock-bands as philosophers. But most people have bad taste. How else do you explain the success of boy-bands? -- But the moronic total control prepubescent girls weild over our culture is a topic for another post.

Anywho, Rammstein, a somewhat controversial band aus Deutschland, who have somehow managed to be branded both homosexual and fascist almost simoutaneously (figure that one out) have managed to convince me of one of their less spoken of talents: philosophical insight.

Take their song Engel, (query youtube for it). Here are some interpretations of the songs various meanings:

• The song Engel is about not wanting to aim at perfection all the time because oftentimes, something that seems perfect and pleasurable is in fact elusive. What one would think as a blissful existence is actually fearful and lonely: when the angels in the chorus sing: wir haben Angst und sind allein (we are afraid and alone).
• The song can also be interpreted as doubting the existence of God and angels: Den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann warum man sie nicht sehen kann (you look to the sky and ask why can't you see them).
• Yet a third interpretation can be sexual in nature. Angel (Engel) can be a slang term for a lifelong virgin, that is, a person that dies without ever having sex, and so the song could be seen as the thoughts of someone who doesn't want to die without experiencing at least some really swell oral sex; which by the way I personally consider a chief tenant of stress relief: Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein (God knows i don't want to be an angel). Some other lyrics also support this interpretation: sie müssen sich an Sterne krallen (ganz fest) damit sie nicht vom Himmel fallen (They must cling onto the stars, very tight, so they won't fall from heaven) could be seen as a metaphor for masturbation. Which is also a chief tenant of stress relief. Also, the video made for this song seems to imply through imagery of the main character being teased by a stripper holding a snake (possibly an image of Eve and "Satan" from the Christian Bible) that the man is a virgin fighting off the temptation of lust. Two children also appear in cages dressed as cherubs with black eyes, probably representing the innocence of youth. The woman then turns into the same that was watching her with black around the eyes, possibly representing that his inner sexual urges were leading him astray. He is then trapped in a prison, perhaps of his own design either by succumbing to temptation or by resisting.
• The Fact that a group of who appear to be the main character's friends leading him into a strip club is also reminiscent of a bachelor party thrown by a man's friends before a wedding and this could in fact lead to a fourth interpretation. Perhaps, that of a man who will be getting married in the near future and his friends convince him (perhaps unknowingly) to call it off by bringing the man to a strip club where he decides he'd rather remain single instead of being metaphorically imprisoned by marriage. In either case this seems to work with the Sehnsucht album's theme of Longing (for sex and/or freedom). These are most likely not the true meaning behind the lyrics, but may be deliberate as Rammstein is well-known for their use of puns and double-meanings.

(German Lyrics)

Wer zu Lebzeit gut auf Erden
wird nach dem Tod ein Engel werden
den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann
warum man sie nicht sehen kann

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehen
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

Sie leben hinterm Sonnenschein
getrennt von uns unendlich weit
sie müssen sich an Sterne krallen (ganz fest)
damit sie nicht vom Himmel fallen

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehnkann
man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

(English Lyrics)

Who in their lifetime is good on Earth
will become an angel after death
you look to the sky and ask
why can't you see them

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel

They live behind the sunshine
separated from us, infinitely far
they must cling to the stars (very tightly)
so they don't fall from the sky

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel


Poetic, eh?

Why I blog

I was doing some self-reflection, and considering why I even continue to do this:

Because I can?
Well, yes.

Plus I find that my near-dyslexic, quasi-ADHD brain tends to go in odd directions; and I may as well document it. AND, I hereby promise that when my schedule is less hectic I'll resume posting my brilliant insights at a more constant rate.






Just kidding!!
They won't be brilliant.

Russia goes nuts (yet again).

President Vladimir Putin chose a little-known government official to become Russia's new prime minister Wednesday (effectively dissolving the government), a surprise move that set off fevered speculation over whether loyal technocrat Viktor Zubkov was being groomed to replace Putin next spring.
The move came a few hours after Putin dissolved the Cabinet of his long-serving prime minister, Mikhail Fradkov, saying he needed to appoint a government better suited to the election campaign and to "prepare the country" for life after the elections.
The nomination of Zubkov, who has overseen investigations into suspicious financial transactions, caught much of the political elite off guard, which appeared to be Putin's intention.
Most observers said they did not see Zubkov as Putin's successor, but rather as a caretaker prime minister, perhaps to be replaced closer to the March presidential vote. Others said they considered his appointment a signal of Putin's intention to retain control after he leaves the presidency.
In promoting Zubkov, whose nomination could be approved by the lower house of parliament as soon as Friday, Putin showed he is still calling the shots.
The plucking of Zubkov from relative obscurity reminded many Russians of Putin's own ascension to power, which began when former President Boris Yeltsin suddenly named him prime minister in August 1999. After the Kremlin secured control over the lower house of parliament in elections the following December, Yeltsin again shocked the nation by stepping down on the last night of the year and naming Putin acting president.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/12/russia.parliament.ap/index.html

,,Die Augen sind die Seelefenster"

That's a nifty little german phrase, its english-approximate being "Eyes are the window of the soul." And as it turns out, it may just be true. Anthropologists have uncovered some interesting findings about our eyes and how others percieve us.
Of course, how we "read" people determines an essential aspect of choosing your future partner. As it turns out, the iris of the eye has two physical traits that have been linked to personality differences. The number of "crypts" or pits in the iris signal how likely you are to be warm, tender and trusting. And the number of "furrows," or curving lines along the outer edge of the iris, signal the degree to which you are likely to be neurotic, impulsive and willing to assuage your cravings. In both cases, the more crypts or furrows, the more likely you are to be, respectively, tender hearted or spontaneous. These traits develop in the womb. In short, we have evolved a remarkable and subtle biological strategy to signal who we are.
In an evolutionary sense, this is a very efficient strategy of helping determine potential mates -- afterall, anything that saves time (instead of spending several months or even years trying to figure out if someone is really loyal, or just manipulative) is inheriently energy saving. Thus, you save resources; and have a better chance of survival. In a wider sense; finding loyal mates that will stick around and support offspring, and yourself, is in terms of survival: excellent.
This also leads to some interesting aspects of culture and history. Nearly every culture throughout history has accentuated the eyes to some extent. Ancient near-eastern peoples would use makeups. For Egyptians specifically, both men and women would use mascara to draw attention to the eyes (plus, the darker paints around the eyes reduce sun-glare -- similar to the way modern day football players stripe their faces before a game.) Not to mention cultural rules on maintaining eye-contact.

Source: http://www.helenfisher.typepad.com/