Beyond Reason


Posted in News by Abigail on February 3, 2007

British schools may soon implement/require ID teaching? That’s what I heard on the news recently. But it wouldn’t be in science class. It would be in religions class. The purpose? According to the TV station I was watching, they want more morality. The station discussed the potential implementation of ID in British schools directly right showing a spree of anti-Semitic acts in Britain.***

Various sources

10 out of the last 14 years are the hottest on record. My question is: how long is our record? 200 years? I don’t know. I haven’t researched this. I have one friend who thinks I should watch An Inconvenient Truth. It would be interesting… Could at least see if Al Gore is ever interesting. I think one time he made a joke.

Mac vs. PC – has there ever been a better set of commercials?! That stuff is brilliant. I just saw the latest, where PC is in a hospital gown because he’s getting an operation: the addition of Vista. And the Mac feels sorry for him, has compassion. That is hilarious.


***It turns out that the program I was watching was the 700 Club. I’m not sure what other program would make such an audacious implication.


10 Responses to 'Random'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Random'.

  1. Jai said,

    ID as a religion class seems to fit. At least its generating discussion. Generally speaking ID falls under philosophy of science which in itself is truly philosophy and not science. When folks argue “based on science”, typically there is a philosophical underpinning. That doesn’t mean I’m arguing for or against ID (I’m a young-earth 7-literal day creationist myself, but I have no problem discussing origins with someone who disagrees), but I do think its cool that this discussion is being generated

    Algor funny? nope… as far as the last 200 years, that sounds about right for accurate (more or less) climatological data (temperature by region). I wonder if ice ages (putting origins questions aside) aren’t typically on the scale of thousands of years according to most scientific literature I’ve read. On the other hand, greenhouse gasses (particularly Methane and Carbon monoxide) have been on the rise since the beginning of the industrial age (core samples taken from glaciers have bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them), so there may be something that needs to be looked at here. But… I am glad for the lack of snow and warm winter in Dayton (viva global warming!).

    PC all the way… I think the funnier commercials were the career builder commercials during the super bowl, but other than those, this was an abysmal year for superbowl ads (

  2. amandalaine said,

    Yeah, I know. The superbowl was almost as good as the commercials… and you know it’s a bad year then. 🙂

    I like what you had to say about ID being philosophy of science. Very very good point. I’ve actually never heard anyone make that point before. That kinda clears up the matter… theoretically. I’m sure people will get riled up about it anyway. But that’s a very good point. Would you say the same about evolution? That that is also an issue of philosophy of science?

    You know, Al Gore actually was funny. He made a joke at the beginning of that movie (I heard a clip) about how he was briefly the president, or something like that. I always respect people who can take self-inflicted jabs. But, he is still mr. cardboard man who “invented the Internet.” That’s hard to live down.

  3. Jai said,

    Actually DARPA invented the internet (honest… it used to be called ARPAnet and I’m not just saying that because I’m assigned here temporarily!)…. But evolution… no, that’s not technically philosophy of science. Naturalism would be a philosophy of science, or skepticism could also be considered a philosophy of science when applied to examining the underpinnings of “why” we do things a certain way. Evolution (micro) is just a way biological organisms change and adapt over time. Evolution (“macro” or “Theory of Evolution”) is how some scientists believe the genetic diversity that is presently observed came about assuming certain cosmological underpinnings (old universe and all that nonsense). Even if the current theory of evolution is proven true (you might try asking a scientist who believes in this stuff to give you what the current evolutionary flavor is, but it currently is not set up as Charles Darwin posited it), it does not necessarily “do away” with God. Cosmology is the real question of if God exists or not (how the Universe began, not how life began on earth), and that certainly has more to do with the “philosophy of science” you approach it with than evolution. So, if you approach cosmology (and thereby evolution) from a naturalistic worldview or a Christian worldview, the debate is really between Christianity vs. Naturalism (and thereby athiesm). Cosmology (and thereby biology) from a Christian worldview posits a designer controlling the shape of the universe and then you get Intelligent Design. ID doesn’t necessarily do away with evolution (see Michael Behe author of Darwin’s Black Box), since you can discuss (academically) evolution from the standpoint of someone guiding/designing the process and you wind up with what some call “theistic evolution”. Theistic evolution I personally think weakens the Biblical argument of an all-powerful God (why would God “need” evolution to create humans), but it certainly doesn’t question his existence and some very smart people do believe God worked that way. And now I forgot what else I was going to say… oh well

  4. Oleg said,

    Ok, I’ll bite.
    Disclaimer: It’s not my intention to convince everyone that the viewpoint I take on those things is the “true” and “correct” one. Nor do I look for someone to try to convince me otherwise. But, if you care to know what I think on the “evolution” matter at this point in time – read on. In the past year or so, I’ve read different sources (both creationist and scientific) on this subject and i’ll just paraphrase some of the stuff that I’ve read and with which I now agree.

    Evolution is not “macro” or “micro”, it is simply a process that results in heritable changes in population spread over many generations. This is a fact, and it is necessary to separate facts from theories. Theories can be used to explain facts. I’m not a biologist, but from what I understood, Darwin’s theory proposed one of the mechanisms of evolution – natural selection.

    Facts don’t go away when scientists argue about different theories that can be used explain them. Gravity – it’s a fact. However, modern physics uses Einstein’s general relativity to describe it, but in the past, Newton’s gravitation law provided decent approximations and apples did not hang in mid-air pending the outcome of the debate. May be in the future someone will derive yet another theory that will be more accurate than Ensitein’s.

    What creationists usually imply under “evolution theory” is really the theory of common descent. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that all living species on this planet have come from a common ancestor, but it can hardly be called a “fact” since in some cases the evidence is very strong, but not so in others.

    Concerning the origin of the Universe – the description given in the book of Genesis can’t be scientifically proven or disproven. Simply because we can’t make a test to see the difference between the Universe created by God, and the one which appeared without Him. I personally think that our Universe is God’s creation. People can only argue about interpretations of the book of Genesis.

    Concerning weakening the argument of an all-powerfull God: what did or didn’t happen is not necessarily an indication of what could or couldn’t have happened.

    Alrighty, now you can burn me for my heretical views.

  5. Oleg said,

    …zips-up flamesuit…

  6. amandalaine said,

    Oleg! My friend. I am so glad you posted your fabulous controversial views.

    At this point in time I have no time to throw any flames at you … but I will later. Just kidding. I’ll reread this again when I have more time and provide a serious response. Flame and all. 🙂

    (I’m so glad you posted – you know more than me. I would like to do reading on the topic, but, you know, have to do school work and the like.)

  7. amandalaine said,

    Oleg – Your second paragraph calls evolution a fact. Are you referring only to natural selection?

    I’m not too informed on the subject, but didn’t Darwin’s theory propose more than just natural selection? The title of the book is The Origin of Species. I believe this controversy rides on that one topic – Origins. That seems to me to be the beating heart of the matter.

    Also, as far as I understand, there really is what we might call macro and micro evolution. Jai defined these two terms in his post. As far as I understand, macro is more controversial and is the theory part and micro really has no controversy because it’s testable and has been proven (and in no way challenges anyone’s beliefs about the meaning of life).

    I liked your line about apples not hanging in mid air. Very nice.

    Well, I finished reading your “heretical” post and actually couldn’t find anything heretical in it. How disappointing! I have no fire to throw at you. 🙂

    Never mind, I did find something “heretical”. Let the flame throwing begin! The common descent theory would be pretty antithetical to a creationists position since many, if not most, creationists view the Bible’s account as divine and therefore accurate. The Bible states that each animal, since the beginning of time, begat its own type. It couldn’t be more clear.

    Still in your flamesuit Oleg? 🙂

  8. Jai said,

    … Lights flamethrower … *whoosh*…
    Seriously tho! Well said Oleg! Thanks for correcting what I was stating “theory” vs. fact.

  9. Oleg said,


    By evolution I refer to the ongoing process of heritable changes in occuring in the population of species across many generations. Natural selection – is one of the mechanisms. Other mechanisms include mutation, migration and associated gene shuffling. Indeed, the controversy lies in the question about how life originated and whether or not it took billions of years for everything to come to the current state. It’s the right of creationists to stick to their interpretation of Genesis.

    Oh, by the way, Macs are still the best.

  10. Amanda O said,

    Macs are the best, huh? Not so sure about that…

    🙂 Although, their commercials are the best. They definitely get points for that!

    The evolution controversy? Thanks for your thoughts and explanations!! I generally have no business discussing the controversy at length because I am poorly informed. Someday, possibly, I’ll post questions/comments on the topic, but, only after I’ve done some reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: