Random Rants

Thursday, March 13, 2008

And now, because you have all been bad and need to be punished (not in the fun way, don’t get excited) it is time for some random rants!!!

First off, Ben Stein, an admittedly very smart man, is attempting to use his influence as a celebrity to help Florida legislators to allow "challenges to evolution" to be taught in science classes. Now, while I would support the teaching of alternate theories that were based purely on scientific evidence, this is just another attempt to have creationism taught as a science. The cold hard fact is that creationism is not a science, it is a religious philosophy. Someone wrote it down in a book or a scroll a long time ago, does not qualify as scientific evidence. I am all for creationism/intelligent design being covered in a comparative religion class or a class that is a survey of various philosophies, it is still not a science and should not be taught as such. Another problem with allowing it would be deciding where we draw the line. After all, don’t almost all religions have a creation myth? All of those myths have just as much scientific credibility as creationism/ Intelligent design.

As a side note, while Mr Stein is a highly educated man, none of his training is in the natural sciences.

While we are on the subject of science, is there anyway we can get people to stop saying stupid things like: "There are some things that are beyond science." in a vain attempt to seem wise?!?! Statements like this demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the concept of what "science" is. It is not some stagnant thing that says what is or is not possible. It is a living, vital, changeling, adapting thing. Pure science never says "no". It says, this is what we have observed so far and this is what we can demonstrate. It may say "as far as we know, it seems highly improbable", it may even say "if everything we think we know so far is absolutely correct, then it is impossible" but it never says "no". Scientist who have become far too enamored with their own intellect say "no" but never science. Remember that a great many things that we now take for granted were labeled as "impossible" by scientists of the day. The one thing that science does say it "prove it". Science does have all the answers, we just don’t have all the science.

Could someone tell me what is wrong with these people who cry and get all torn up when a celebrity that they have never meet and would likely have never met dies. Heath Ledger’s death was the most recent one to bring this up. Now while I am a fan of his work and am very disappointed that I will never be able to see any new performances from him, barring intersection of a parallel universe or resurrection, I have not cried nor am I all that broken up over his death. Know why? I never met the man! I am sorry for his family and am grateful that he was able to share his talent with the world, but his death really doesn’t affect me in any meaningful way. Now, had he be a friend of even just an acquaintance, then I am sure I would be crying like a little baby. What makes someone in the public eye, that much more deserving of sympathy that anther soul that no one has ever heard of. I have to wonder about these people who get all broken up over the death of a celebrity. Do they get broken up over the millions of people who shuffle off each day? If not, doesn’t that sound just a tad hypocritical to you? If they do, how do they get anything done? Just a thought.




Rant Over... For Now