A CULTURE OF LIFE
I really didn't want this blog to get political or religious or any of that crap. Everyone's got their own opinions and it's pretty pointless to try to change people's minds about religion and politics. Plus, if anyone's gonna get on their soapbox it ain't gonna be me. Not because I'm shy or anything, but because I'm not exactly an expert in these fields.
But all this Roe V Wade stuff is getting my hackles up again. I'm pro-choice. I'm not afraid to say "pro-abortion." I know what abortion is and what it does. I don't need to see a picture of an aborted fetus to know it's disgusting-looking. I also know that open-heart surgery is disgusting to look at, but I'm still all for it.
Anyway, if you disagree with me then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
What I really want to rail against is George W Bush going around saying he wants to promote a "culture of life." What he needs to do is just come out and say he wants to ban abortion. That would be honest and not hypocritical. I could disagree with him and still, perhaps, respect his opinion. But, when this man says he wants to promote a culture of life, I just want to vomit. This is a man who executed 152 people as governor of Texas. Now, I'm not saying I'm against the death penalty. I'm kind of on-the-fence about that one. But don't kill 152 people and then say all life is sacred. As president, this man has caused thousands of people to die in the Iraq liberation. Of course, some of those lives were evil, and you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, right? My point is that if you support a war and the death penalty, then you've got no right to tell me that every single life is a blessing. How in God's name (literally) can you be pro-war and pro-death penalty but anti-abortion? You might say, "because embryos are innocent." Yeah, well a whole hell of a lot of innocent people die in wars, too. You may say that you have to kill some innocents for the greater good. Well, then how can you be against stem-cell research? I don't begrudge anyone their true opinions, I just wish people would think through the logic of their statements.
Friday, January 21, 2005
EVOLUTION II: THE WRATH OF IRA
Today's Newsday had a brilliant and succint version of my spiel in its "Letters to the Editor" section. Here it is:
Where to teach about God
Regarding "A matter of 'intelligent design' " [News, Jan. 14]: The main problem with the Theory of Intelligent Design is that it is based on the theory that God exists. Belief that God exists (held by most people in the world) is not proof that God exists.
One can debate the findings and interpretations of Charles Darwin in a science course, which is appropriate. A debate over the existence of God is not appropriate in science courses. A debate about the attributes of "the God we believe in" belongs in our churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.
This is not a question of government atheism or the separation of church and state. It is dealing with facts, not beliefs.
Ira Perlman
Massapequa
That is precisely what I was trying to say last week, but Ira said it much better. Thanks, Ira!
Today's Newsday had a brilliant and succint version of my spiel in its "Letters to the Editor" section. Here it is:
Where to teach about God
Regarding "A matter of 'intelligent design' " [News, Jan. 14]: The main problem with the Theory of Intelligent Design is that it is based on the theory that God exists. Belief that God exists (held by most people in the world) is not proof that God exists.
One can debate the findings and interpretations of Charles Darwin in a science course, which is appropriate. A debate over the existence of God is not appropriate in science courses. A debate about the attributes of "the God we believe in" belongs in our churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.
This is not a question of government atheism or the separation of church and state. It is dealing with facts, not beliefs.
Ira Perlman
Massapequa
That is precisely what I was trying to say last week, but Ira said it much better. Thanks, Ira!
Sunday, January 16, 2005
IF EVOLUTION IS OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL EVOLVE
There was a huge story in Newsday the other day about the controversy over teaching evolution in public schools. I want to start off by saying that it's the year 2004 AD and the concept of evolution is considered "controversial." The very basic conflict is that scientists and most other thinking people believe that humans and other animals became what they are today through millions of years of mutations and natural selection, while religious zealots believe that God said "poof" and every species came into existence as they appear today.
Let's put aside our opinions about this for a second. Let's imagine that we are all adults and can respect someone else's differing opinion. It'll be tough, I know, but I think we can do it for 2 minutes. The religious folks want to either outlaw the teaching of evolution because it conflicts with the Bible, or else they want equal time for the "creation" or "intelligent design" opinion. What I don't understand is how religious beliefs have any place in a science class! The kids are there to learn SCIENCE. Science is constantly evolving. Textbooks need to be updated year after year as we discover new things. THAT is what Science is. I would not expect to learn about pronouns in a science class. If my crazy neighbor started shouting "Chickens are made of limburger!" I would not expect this hypothesis to appear in a textbook. What students learn in Science Class is a conglomoration of what scientists have learned. Why would you expect a Biblical story in there? Would you ever hear about inert gasses during Sunday school? Has any Bar Mitzvah speech mentioned aerobic vs. anarobic respiration? No! And why not? Because it's completely irrelevant! If you were in a Theology Class, I would fully expect the evolution/creation debate to be tackled in a fair and balanced manner. But "science," according to www.dictionary.com, means:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Now, most of those words could apply to the creation theory, but not "experimental investigation." If you want your children to learn your Biblical values, then by all means, send them to a private Christian school. No harm, no foul. But why let Christian dogma enter the public school when you won't allow secular ideas into the Church? When I was in Hebrew School, I tormented the teachers there with questions like, "How come there were no dinosaurs in the Bible? Were Adam and Eve cavemen? Why were the fish spared in the great flood?" The teacher always said the same thing: "The Bible is not a history book." That was the greatest information she ever gave me.
Now, how could I live with myself if I were as hard-headed as the religious folks? I heard that last week in Georgia, a judge ruled on this very topic. Apparently, some God-fearing folk demanded that stickers be put on their science books reading: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." The ACLU and other hippie-type folks demanded the stickers be removed because they indirectly promote creationism. Now, I gotta say, I don't agree. Evolution is a theory. Nobody can actually record the process in real time situation because it takes millions of years to happen and humans don't live that long. We also can't prove that George Washington existed. There are no photographs or DNA samples. Yet, it makes sense that we go along with the theory of his existence until proven wrong. Evolution is a theory and I see no problem with saying so in a textbook. If the sticker had read: Evolution is a guess, but the Bible is God's word!" then I would take offense at it. But it didn't.
There is an episode of FRIENDS in which Ross, the scientist learns that Phoebe doesn't believe in evolution. He spends the entire episode trying to convince her, to the point of harrassment. He states that evolution is fact and that Phoebe is just plain wrong. Phoebe counters by reminding Ross that hundreds of years ago, scientist were SURE that the Sun revolved around the Earth and before that, they were SURE that the Earth was flat. She convinces Ross in the end that a person can never be 100% sure about anything and that all beliefs, including Science, require a dash of faith. I always loved that.
So, to recap: I believe in evolution, but I acknowledge that humans know a lot less than what they don't know. I also believe that religious beliefs have no place in public schools, except in a theology class or similar line of study. Go rent Inherit The Wind. 'Night.
There was a huge story in Newsday the other day about the controversy over teaching evolution in public schools. I want to start off by saying that it's the year 2004 AD and the concept of evolution is considered "controversial." The very basic conflict is that scientists and most other thinking people believe that humans and other animals became what they are today through millions of years of mutations and natural selection, while religious zealots believe that God said "poof" and every species came into existence as they appear today.
Let's put aside our opinions about this for a second. Let's imagine that we are all adults and can respect someone else's differing opinion. It'll be tough, I know, but I think we can do it for 2 minutes. The religious folks want to either outlaw the teaching of evolution because it conflicts with the Bible, or else they want equal time for the "creation" or "intelligent design" opinion. What I don't understand is how religious beliefs have any place in a science class! The kids are there to learn SCIENCE. Science is constantly evolving. Textbooks need to be updated year after year as we discover new things. THAT is what Science is. I would not expect to learn about pronouns in a science class. If my crazy neighbor started shouting "Chickens are made of limburger!" I would not expect this hypothesis to appear in a textbook. What students learn in Science Class is a conglomoration of what scientists have learned. Why would you expect a Biblical story in there? Would you ever hear about inert gasses during Sunday school? Has any Bar Mitzvah speech mentioned aerobic vs. anarobic respiration? No! And why not? Because it's completely irrelevant! If you were in a Theology Class, I would fully expect the evolution/creation debate to be tackled in a fair and balanced manner. But "science," according to www.dictionary.com, means:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Now, most of those words could apply to the creation theory, but not "experimental investigation." If you want your children to learn your Biblical values, then by all means, send them to a private Christian school. No harm, no foul. But why let Christian dogma enter the public school when you won't allow secular ideas into the Church? When I was in Hebrew School, I tormented the teachers there with questions like, "How come there were no dinosaurs in the Bible? Were Adam and Eve cavemen? Why were the fish spared in the great flood?" The teacher always said the same thing: "The Bible is not a history book." That was the greatest information she ever gave me.
Now, how could I live with myself if I were as hard-headed as the religious folks? I heard that last week in Georgia, a judge ruled on this very topic. Apparently, some God-fearing folk demanded that stickers be put on their science books reading: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." The ACLU and other hippie-type folks demanded the stickers be removed because they indirectly promote creationism. Now, I gotta say, I don't agree. Evolution is a theory. Nobody can actually record the process in real time situation because it takes millions of years to happen and humans don't live that long. We also can't prove that George Washington existed. There are no photographs or DNA samples. Yet, it makes sense that we go along with the theory of his existence until proven wrong. Evolution is a theory and I see no problem with saying so in a textbook. If the sticker had read: Evolution is a guess, but the Bible is God's word!" then I would take offense at it. But it didn't.
There is an episode of FRIENDS in which Ross, the scientist learns that Phoebe doesn't believe in evolution. He spends the entire episode trying to convince her, to the point of harrassment. He states that evolution is fact and that Phoebe is just plain wrong. Phoebe counters by reminding Ross that hundreds of years ago, scientist were SURE that the Sun revolved around the Earth and before that, they were SURE that the Earth was flat. She convinces Ross in the end that a person can never be 100% sure about anything and that all beliefs, including Science, require a dash of faith. I always loved that.
So, to recap: I believe in evolution, but I acknowledge that humans know a lot less than what they don't know. I also believe that religious beliefs have no place in public schools, except in a theology class or similar line of study. Go rent Inherit The Wind. 'Night.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
APPLE'S NEW LINE
On January 11th, Apple Computer released a whole bunch of new stuff. I had been hearing rumors for weeks about this stuff but it finally came out today.
I have to say I'm pretty underwhelmed. The software looks good, but the hardware is dumb.
First off, we get a "headless imac." Actually, they call it a "mac mini," sort of like "ipod mini." Personally, I thought they should have called it "minimac", but hey. Anyway, it's a misguided attempt to supply a cheap, simple computer. It's $500, about the size of a personal pizza and comes with nothing; no keyboard, no mouse, no monitor. I suppose it's good for a very small niche of the population, but it's hardly anything to get excited about. It's basically a $500 hard drive and CD burner. Another problem is that the computer is so small, there's no room for the power supply, so it comes as a seperate box that you plug into. On the website, all the galleries show how clean and simple it is, but only one picture that I found showed the entire system, including the external power supply. Apple tried to do this back a few years ago with the G4 cube. It was the same concept, and nobody bought it.
Next is the new ipod! It sounds so exciting! It really isn't! Like the monitor-less new mac, the ipod has no screen. "Well, how can you decide what to listen to?" You can't. It's called the "ipod shuffle" and basically the point is to use it for random play only. It's "only" one gigbyte, versus the previous 20 or 40gig models and it costs about $100.
So both new things are cheap and simple, but who the hell's gonna use them? I guess I can't blame them for trying to innovate, but these two things seem like big missteps to me. To support my feelings, I'll mention that Apple stock dropped over $4 today. Dammit.
The software is basically all updates of old software like iDVD, iTunes, Keynote, GarageBand, etc. They added one new program, called PAGES. It's a cheap word processor. I suppose it's good for simple and cheap, but anyone halfway serious is gonna go with Microsoft Word. I may hate the practices of Microsoft and their operating system, but Word is a great program.
Anyway, Apple is still da man, but I'll be watching them a little more suspiciously for a bit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)