« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
with the preparation for and execution of a trip to the left coast, this space is on a bit of a break until early March. suggestions and/or advice for the Oregon Coast and points north can be made in the comments, if you haven't already e-mailed them (and thanks if you have!).
a blog named after our closest genetic relative would be remiss to not pass along a good piece of writing on intelligent design and where it really fits in to the debate over evolution. (which is soon to be joined by the debate over global warming in the overwhelming evidence category. ironically, the tipping point in that battle may have just been provided by the evangelical movement.) the following comes from Gregg Easterbrook's most recent NFL column, which as you could infer is not always just about football. and it allows me to once again employ the services of a quality writer to say things that would be much less eloquent coming out of my fingers.
No Higher Power Is Guiding "Intelligent Design" Politics : Yours truly thinks the "intelligent design" idea is being given the short shrift by the mainstream media. Yes, some intelligent design advocates want to use I.D. as a Trojan horse to put religious doctrine into public schools -- forbidden by the First Amendment, and wisely so in the opinion of this churchgoer. And some intelligent design advocates believe young Earth creationism, a nutty idea for which there isn't one iota of scientific evidence. But as they mock the notion of intelligent design, the mainstream media is systematically avoiding a substantial question mark in evolutionary theory: it does not explain the origin of life. That organisms evolve in response to changes in their environment is well-established -- anyone who doubts this doesn't know what he or she is talking about. But why are there living things in the first place? Darwin said he had no idea, and to this day science has little beyond wild guesses about the origin of life. Maybe life had a natural origin that one day will be discovered. Until such time, higher powers or the divine cannot be ruled out. Exactly because I think intelligent design is a more important concept than the mainstream media will admit, I really wish right-wing screwballs would stop advocating I.D. -- they're giving the idea a bad name! First, it's common to hear them say evolution can be disregarded because it's "just a theory."This is ill-informed. In everyday usage, "theory" can mean a conjectural or unlikely claim. ("See, I have this theory why Maria Sharapova would go out with me.") In science, a theory is an idea that has well-accepted supporting principles, has been tested successfully and that no one has falsified; in science the word theory conveys high standing. For instance, first relativity was an analytical idea, then a hypothesis, then after many years of testing was acknowledged as a theory. When in 1996 Pope John Paul II called Darwinianism "more than a hypothesis," he was choosing words precisely. Many on today's anti-science right appear ignorant of such basic precepts as the definition of the word theory.
The screwball fringe keeps proposing I.D.-related legislation that shows it doesn't even understand the limits of evolutionary theory. Two years ago some science illiterates in Cobb County, Ga., got the local Board of Education to mandate stickers on biology textbooks reading, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of living things. The core quandary of Darwinian logic is that we can imagine how living things evolve but cannot imagine how they came into existence in the first place. Now a know-nothing Utah state representative has proposed this bill that "requires the State Board of Education to establish curriculum requirements and policies that stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life … is correct." Hey, Utah state legislature, there are no theories on the origin of life. A few biologists have made wild guesses involving RNA, clay or hot ocean vents, but no scientist has offered anything nothing remotely near the level of a testable theory. (The details on that point) Given the presence of life is so mysterious, a creator God may be why we are here. But please, science illiterates, stop attempting to enact rules about intelligent design; you are ruining the idea.
weasel's had a bit of a run through on the whole Islam/Denmark cartoon dustup that has created this worldwide furor, and it was in thinking about who had the right to be upset and how these things are supposed to play out in a free and open society*. as it happens, i re-discovered the following thesis statement from a David Foster Wallace essay in which he reviews Bryan Garner's A Dictionary of Modern American Usage and talks about the state of the fight over what determines correct English usage. it seemed highly appropriate and so i'll reproduce it here:
"A Democratic Spirit is one that combines rigor and humility i.e., passionate conviction plus a sedulous respect for the convictions of others. As any American knows, this is a difficult spirit to cultivate and maintain, particularly when it comes to issues you feel strongly about. Equally tough is a DS's criterion of 100 percent intellectual integrity -- you have to be willing to look honestly at yourself and at your motives for believing what you believe, and to do it more or less continually.This kind of stuff is advanced US citizenship. A true Democratic Spirit is up there with religious faith and emotional maturity and all those other top-of-the-Maslow-Pyramid-type qualities that people spend their whole lives working on. A Democratic Spirit's constituent rigor and humility and self-honesty are, in fact, so hard to maintain on certain issues that it's almost irresistibly tempting to fall in with some established dogmatic camp and to follow that camp's line on the issue and to let your position harden within the camp and become inflexible and to believe that the other camps are either evil or insane and to spend all your time and energy trying to shout over them.
I submit, then, that it is indisputably easier to be Dogmatic than Democratic, especially about issues that are both vexed and highly charged."
so how does that apply to the situation at hand - one in which neither side of the argument is particularly palatable? the mature/Democratic thought process would seem to prescribe that you allow for the cartoonists right to draw the cartoons and the newspapers right to print them while also acknowledging Muslims' right to be upset about being personified in such a grossly stereotypically, potentially hateful light. then the artists and newspapers refuse to apologize and some Muslims threaten and then execute violence in retaliation. so you have the overly permissive Dogma of Free Speech against the overly restrictive Dogma of Islam. but the problem is that Islam's Dogma at its most extreme levels refuses to recognize the right of differing viewpoints to so much as simply exist, whereas the extremist side of Free Speech contributes to a diversity of ideas and viewpoints. which is why i think that we can not let a small cadre of extremists shape the debate by shouting down those with whom they disagree and demanding vengeance. history is too fraught with religiously-backed violence. it's also too fraught with stereotyping/racism/mistreatment/genocide so we certainly have to guard against any indications of active persecution. there's more to say about this i'm sure, but i can't make it come out right.
* your humble author is all too aware that these adjectives don't describe a lot of the Muslim world and they may barely apply to the U.S. a lot of the time.
**UPDATE** - for a much more informed perspective, please read Daniel Radosh's coherent breakdown of this situation including the American media's standardly ham-handed attempts to cover it.
...."Viva Knievel" (1977) starring Evel Knievel, Gene Kelly, Lauren Hutton, Red Buttons, Leslie Nielsen and Frank Gifford. i'll let the imdb synopsis handle this:
"As the legendary stuntman travels to Mexico to prepare for one of his greatest stunts yet, he takes time out of his schedule to meet his fans, help out lonely orphans, and try to get his alcoholic mechanic to reconcile with his son. While all of this is going on, Evel's main rival is plotting to have Evel killed and then get rich by using the Team Evel 18-wheeler to smuggle cocaine into America."
no luck locating an mp3 of the theme song, which as you might guess is freakin' great for about 20 seconds. the wife and i had a brief discussion as to who the modern day equivalent of Evel would be. the best we could come up with was David Blaine - that's just depressing. surely someone out there can come up with a better answer. meantime, check out Evel's astrological chart.
unknown to me until just now: one of Kathleen Hanna's pre-Bikini Kill bands was called Viva Knievel.
a mini-thread in the comments of the previous entry had us coming up with fake Euro-style (aka Euro poseur) names for MLS clubs fictitious and real in the style of Houston 1836, FC Dallas and Real Salt Lake. then today, the NYTimes got into the act , wondering how long it will be until MLS gives us Dynamo Cleveland. i will grant that even these farcical names are better than the "Dallas Burn" and the "Metrostars", but how far can you take this? below are some suggestions i'm compiling. feel free to contribute your own. then we can sell them to MLS for $25,000 apiece.
Bayern Minneapolis
Boston Albion (thanks, Weasel)
Dynamo Cleveland
PSV Albuquerque
NAC Boise
Spartak Detroit
Inter Milwaukee
Atletico Miami
those with a stomach for more soccer/footie/futbol (i'm just not comfortable with any of those names) should check out Jon's musings on the state of the U.S. World Cup squad. those who are sick of this crap can get a laugh out of this old Forbes piece i stumbled across that includes this actual quote: "the XFL is already a huge success."