Know what I hate? People. Stupid, stupid people. Human beings just can’t stop being irrational, spiteful jackasses. On top of that, they have the audacity to lay claim to some measure of intelligence. Such arrogance!
Take for example the architect of a semi-recent email about who Barack Obama really is, an email designed to strike fear into the hearts of every former slave-owning, white Southerner who lacks education and refinement. The email, sent to me by parties who shall remain anonymous, was intended to dissuade me from supporting the junior senator from Illinois. Problem is, I think for myself. My opinion is not easily manipulated. So let’s examine the email with a critical eye because really, that’s what anyone should do.
The email begins innocently enough by saying everything is factual. Heck, the info is right there on snopes.com, and by golly, if it’s on the internet, it must be true…”Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from Wichita, Kansas.” Hmm, okay, not that innocently. Barack’s name is pointed out for obvious reasons (he’s related to Saddam Hussein! OMG!). Then the author spells out in caps the word “Muslim,” as if that’s so vital a point as not to be missed. As an atheist, I‘m practically offended. As everyone knows, evil atheists orchestrated the brutal and oppressive communist Soviet government all those years ago. But it looks like we’ve got nothing on Muslims.
“Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.” Again, “Muslim” is spelled out in caps while “Catholic” is not, as the author intends/pretends to appear, uh, fair and balanced. What is not mentioned here is that in that Muslim school, no one is taught Islamic doctrines. Catholic schools on the other hand, well, I think they’re busy even today teaching kids that the Sun goes around the Earth.
“Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.” How are they trying to do that exactly? I’m pretty sure that if he talked the talk and walked the walk (praying five times a day to Mecca, strapping bombs to his chest—because all Muslims do that—while shouting ‘God is great!’), someone would notice. In what manner does Obama act like a radical and how does his staff cover it up? Have they been hiring Cheney’s people or what?
“Keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead, the Koran.” Actually, according to snopes.com, this is false. Sooooo, where-the-*$@# does the author get off previously stating all the information was factually correct, being that it appear on snopes.com?? What’s also worth mentioning here is that religious tests are not required to hold office. Again, wtf? Is the author implying that we should only trust Christians? Why the hell would I trust anyone who says they are a follower of Jesus Christ but doesn’t act anything like him? And isn’t the Catholic Church busy going bankrupt because their priests couldn’t keep their hands off kids? I’m just sayin’…
“Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience…Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.” Factually incorrect again, not to mention sensationalist. Obama was photographed without his hand over his heart while the national anthem played. Make of that what you will, just be sure to look around the stadium next time you’re at a ballgame. See how many patriots can’t be bothered to put down their beer while the Star Spangled Banner plays. At any rate, I’d rather have a president who doesn’t put his hand over his heart for the national anthem than a president who treats the Constitution like toilet paper.
“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!” So…George W. Bush is a Muslim? Oh, sh*t!
The author closes by saying that while Oprah may want Obama to be president, he does not! Well, who are you going to trust, Oprah, or some jackass who won’t give you their name or credentials? I don’t typically give a hoot what celebrities say, but I’m gonna trust my gut and go with Oprah on this one. I don’t know about you.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Vegan Bikers Who Smoke Are Stupid
First, a letter witten to the Portland Mercury by a member of the vegan-bicyclists-who-smoke community, a group of people "Not Invited Back in '08" by the free periodical...
DEAR MERCURY—I hate to point out the obvious, but I've read your scathing words toward "vegan cyclists who smoke" enough times to feel the need to do so ["Things Not Invited Back to 2008," Feature, Dec 27]. I'm VEGAN because it depresses the shit out of me to eat flesh and otherwise cause suffering to living things. I BIKE as an alternative to the glaring destruction caused by both absurdly inappropriate methods of transport and oil dependency. And I SMOKE, on the street and in backyards, and the harm I cause is reserved to my own lungs—because when it comes down to it, the only thing I'm okay with hurting is myself.- Mandee
My response...
Dear letter-writing, sh*t-for-brains, vegan cyclist who smokes—if pretense were a steak, you’d be the whole f'ing cow. You’re vegan because you don’t like to cause living things suffering? Wtf do you think plants are? Ah, but they’re okay to eat because they lack a nervous system you can relate to, right? Perhaps your double-standard is reasonable given the IQ of broccoli, but as long as we’re all pointing out the obvious, who do you think gets taken advantage of, working the fields where your produce is grown? In even more obvious news, your bike is made of composite materials made possible only through the miracle of industrialization. You think industrialization doesn’t hurt people besides yourself? And then there’s the matter of your cigarettes, which I can smell within a half-mile of wherever you’re smoking them. It harms more than your health; it also endangers mine. Now, judging by the scorecards, we see that it’s Suffering-3, You-0. I think it’s time you drank a nice big cup of shut-the-f*ck-up.
My work here is done.
DEAR MERCURY—I hate to point out the obvious, but I've read your scathing words toward "vegan cyclists who smoke" enough times to feel the need to do so ["Things Not Invited Back to 2008," Feature, Dec 27]. I'm VEGAN because it depresses the shit out of me to eat flesh and otherwise cause suffering to living things. I BIKE as an alternative to the glaring destruction caused by both absurdly inappropriate methods of transport and oil dependency. And I SMOKE, on the street and in backyards, and the harm I cause is reserved to my own lungs—because when it comes down to it, the only thing I'm okay with hurting is myself.- Mandee
My response...
Dear letter-writing, sh*t-for-brains, vegan cyclist who smokes—if pretense were a steak, you’d be the whole f'ing cow. You’re vegan because you don’t like to cause living things suffering? Wtf do you think plants are? Ah, but they’re okay to eat because they lack a nervous system you can relate to, right? Perhaps your double-standard is reasonable given the IQ of broccoli, but as long as we’re all pointing out the obvious, who do you think gets taken advantage of, working the fields where your produce is grown? In even more obvious news, your bike is made of composite materials made possible only through the miracle of industrialization. You think industrialization doesn’t hurt people besides yourself? And then there’s the matter of your cigarettes, which I can smell within a half-mile of wherever you’re smoking them. It harms more than your health; it also endangers mine. Now, judging by the scorecards, we see that it’s Suffering-3, You-0. I think it’s time you drank a nice big cup of shut-the-f*ck-up.
My work here is done.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
George W. Bush: Terrorist? No, Idiot.
“George W. Bush: Terrorist.”
I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.
I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.
While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.
Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.
We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.
Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”
So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”
It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.
In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.
So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?
I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.
I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.
While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.
Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.
We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.
Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”
So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”
It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.
In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.
So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?
Friday, January 4, 2008
Entertainment "News"
Know what I hate? I hate entertainment news. I hate it because it's no longer informative of the art that is entertainment. There was a time—in a galaxy, far, far away—when entertainment news meant the latest information about books, movies, theater, music, and an artist's art—not the bull'ish that currently passes for entertainment news. Now, pausing to scan the entertainment headlines means getting a load of what Li-Lo (Tipsy Lindsey Lohan) did this time. When did the lives of celebrities become breaking news? Shouldn't we have stopped caring when Zsa Zsa Gabor married her 23rd husband?
How did America get to the point where anyone gives a flying (pardon my French) what Britney does in her spare time? It's not like she was ever a promising talent in control of her own destiny. I think we all know she was screwed in the head when she cheated on then dumped poor Justin Trousersnake. I mean, how do I even know about all that?
An oft given explanation is that human beings like to build each other up in order to have someone/something to tear down. Goddamn, what does that say about our supposedly intelligent species? That doesn't sound particularly (explicative) sharp for a species that has only gotten as far as it has by cooperating more often than not. Yet a market appears to exist for just this kind of "journalism." Rags like The National Enquirer, People, and Star magazine sell the dirty laundry of a privileged and usually famous class. AND MAKE LOTS OF MONEY DOING IT! Do people without money hate the rich so much that they can rationalize buying these kitty box liners so that they can have deep and meaningful discussions about what Jamie-Lynn should do with her baby? [I'm pro-life in a perfect world, but the world is not perfect.] I'm pretty sure what some gossip-slinging douche-bag on the street has to say about the Spears family is not going to change who they are (demons). Actively seeking news about Brit's wild ways does not make Britney a loser. It makes the reader a loser. As in, L.O.S.E.R.
Then there's the Watching-A-Train-Wreck defense some attempt to invoke, but that plane doesn't fly with me. I am not the kind of guy who slows down to see how many people died in that collision between the two drunk soccer-moms driving unwieldy SUV's—I have places to go. Such a justification tells me one thing, that you don't think your life is so bad by comparison. Well, guess what, you're dead wrong! Your life does sucks, which is why you even have the time to slow down and take a look in the first place. Oh, but I know poor dears, I know. What would your wretched lives be like without the vital information that Li-Lo spent 84 minutes in jail for her thirteenth DUI? Imagine not having access to that information. Why, you might get something important done, like cooking the kids a meal! Uh oh, scratch that. Parents today don't know how to cook because they're too busy either trying to be like Paris or drooling over the skank. Put the yippee dog down and give it a chance to run away before I kick your teeth down its throat. At least the dog stands a chance of still making something of itself. Simply accept the fact that some people are above the law, that you are not one of them, and get on with your life. Oh-bloody-kay?
When news broke that one of my all-time favorite singers—Rob Halford of Judas Priest—was gay, I thought, "So beeping' what? The SOB can scream like a mother beeper." I care about his talent, not his personal life. Why should I care If Lance Bass of N'Suck is reportedly gay? Like no one had that figured out already! What bearing on my life does the news that Lance Bass is gay have on my life? NONE. I don't give a damn what anyone outside of my circle of friends and family does with their personal time unless it directly impacts my life. Marilyn Manson getting divorced does not impact my life. Miley Cyrus upset over leaked photos does not impact my life. Just learn never to name your daughter "Miley" and move along.
So make a New Year's Resolution: When tempted by headlines of Britney having another meltdown, show some, SOME will power and skip it. We all know it's going to happen, so the details aren't really important. Leave Britney alone? I'd love to leave Britney alone! You should too, all of you. If we're lucky, we'll once again know when a new Radiohead album is going to be released (this Tuesday, had no clue). I'm not even a Radiohead fan, but I'd rather hear about their new album than another Amy Whorehouse relapse.
Of course I could be wrong. I therefore challenge anyone to make a compelling argument in favor of celebrity gossip. No? Didn't think so…
Still Waiting...
How did America get to the point where anyone gives a flying (pardon my French) what Britney does in her spare time? It's not like she was ever a promising talent in control of her own destiny. I think we all know she was screwed in the head when she cheated on then dumped poor Justin Trousersnake. I mean, how do I even know about all that?
An oft given explanation is that human beings like to build each other up in order to have someone/something to tear down. Goddamn, what does that say about our supposedly intelligent species? That doesn't sound particularly (explicative) sharp for a species that has only gotten as far as it has by cooperating more often than not. Yet a market appears to exist for just this kind of "journalism." Rags like The National Enquirer, People, and Star magazine sell the dirty laundry of a privileged and usually famous class. AND MAKE LOTS OF MONEY DOING IT! Do people without money hate the rich so much that they can rationalize buying these kitty box liners so that they can have deep and meaningful discussions about what Jamie-Lynn should do with her baby? [I'm pro-life in a perfect world, but the world is not perfect.] I'm pretty sure what some gossip-slinging douche-bag on the street has to say about the Spears family is not going to change who they are (demons). Actively seeking news about Brit's wild ways does not make Britney a loser. It makes the reader a loser. As in, L.O.S.E.R.
Then there's the Watching-A-Train-Wreck defense some attempt to invoke, but that plane doesn't fly with me. I am not the kind of guy who slows down to see how many people died in that collision between the two drunk soccer-moms driving unwieldy SUV's—I have places to go. Such a justification tells me one thing, that you don't think your life is so bad by comparison. Well, guess what, you're dead wrong! Your life does sucks, which is why you even have the time to slow down and take a look in the first place. Oh, but I know poor dears, I know. What would your wretched lives be like without the vital information that Li-Lo spent 84 minutes in jail for her thirteenth DUI? Imagine not having access to that information. Why, you might get something important done, like cooking the kids a meal! Uh oh, scratch that. Parents today don't know how to cook because they're too busy either trying to be like Paris or drooling over the skank. Put the yippee dog down and give it a chance to run away before I kick your teeth down its throat. At least the dog stands a chance of still making something of itself. Simply accept the fact that some people are above the law, that you are not one of them, and get on with your life. Oh-bloody-kay?
When news broke that one of my all-time favorite singers—Rob Halford of Judas Priest—was gay, I thought, "So beeping' what? The SOB can scream like a mother beeper." I care about his talent, not his personal life. Why should I care If Lance Bass of N'Suck is reportedly gay? Like no one had that figured out already! What bearing on my life does the news that Lance Bass is gay have on my life? NONE. I don't give a damn what anyone outside of my circle of friends and family does with their personal time unless it directly impacts my life. Marilyn Manson getting divorced does not impact my life. Miley Cyrus upset over leaked photos does not impact my life. Just learn never to name your daughter "Miley" and move along.
So make a New Year's Resolution: When tempted by headlines of Britney having another meltdown, show some, SOME will power and skip it. We all know it's going to happen, so the details aren't really important. Leave Britney alone? I'd love to leave Britney alone! You should too, all of you. If we're lucky, we'll once again know when a new Radiohead album is going to be released (this Tuesday, had no clue). I'm not even a Radiohead fan, but I'd rather hear about their new album than another Amy Whorehouse relapse.
Of course I could be wrong. I therefore challenge anyone to make a compelling argument in favor of celebrity gossip. No? Didn't think so…
Still Waiting...
There's No Conspiracy About Theories
The following disclaimer appeared in the science text books of Cobb County, Kansas in 2002: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Many evangelical, Fox News-loving conservatives would like you to believe there is an apocalyptic battle raging over the strength of evolution as a theory. It is their conviction that because the definition of fact and theory differ, this somehow allows for the insertion of their own ideas about how human life in particular began. Evangelicals have submitted, for what is likely the sake of brainwashing their constituents, the theory of Intelligent Design (or simply, ID); that is, that the universe is too complex to have happened by accident and by implication, was designed to be the way it is. However, much like in any given episode of Three’s Company, there’s been a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding comes from the misappropriation of the word, theory.
Let’s pretend its an early spring afternoon in Seattle, its raining, and we’ve got nothing better to do than to pick up the friendly neighborhood Oxford English dictionary. We look up the word theory and this is what we find: 1 A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 An idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 A set of principles on which an activity is based. We also learn that theory comes from the Greek word theoria, which means to contemplate or speculate.
In this sense, evangelicals attempting to sneak religion into the classroom have used the word theory appropriately in the description of their ideas about how life began; ID certainly does qualify as speculation. It qualifies as speculation in much the same way one might speculate JFK was assassinated by inanimate garden gnomes. It’s merely an idea to account for some given incident. The question is whether or not such speculation carries the validity of a theory as the word is applied within the scientific community.
According to the highly regarded National Academy of Science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inference, and tested hypothesis. In short, scientific theories are substantiated by evidence.
For example, The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the universe began. Based on information gathered from numerous observations and known scientific laws (as opposed to theories, laws have outcomes that can be predicted without fail), we can reasonably infer that a big bang started the universe we live in. If we look at the evidence for evolution, which is all we can do because we cannot observe this action directly, we can be reasonably sure that evolution is the mechanism by which one species becomes another. The particulars may be incomplete, but the inference holds.
The conclusions drawn from the observation of evidence is why the theory of Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory and should properly be regarded or dubbed as being a hypothesis or speculation. Why does ID fail the scientific qualifications of a theory? Most notable is the fact that there are no tests from which one can infer the universe was designed and that proponents of ID ignore evidence that clearly contradicts what they believe. As George H. Smith said of these two notable failures, “Evidence for Intelligent Design are those things not found in nature.” We recognize designs because we know what man-made objects look like. The last time I checked (which would have been this morning), no man has ever created a universe.
A ruling in early 2006 in an evolution vs. ID case in Dover, Pennsylvania was highly critical of the differences between evolution and Intelligent Design as theories. In a 139-page ruling, Judge John Jones (a George W. Bush appointee no less!) ruled that ID was in fact not a scientific theory because the advocates of ID had made several critical mistakes. Foremost among those mistakes was the direct implication that Intelligent Design invokes supernatural causation, which cannot be tested to have its results predicted. Another flaw pointed out by the judge saw that the idea of an intelligently designed universe was predicated upon circular, instead of linear, reasoning. As it applies to ID, the basis of the argument in question is assumed to be true prior to rigorous (let’s make that any) investigative work.
Theories do differ from ideas that are regarded as facts. Though scientific theories are the best explanation for a given phenomenon based on the evidence at hand, theories are possibly falsifiable if reliably contradictory evidence becomes available. In the light of additional evidence, a theory is also amendable. To consider this is to make the word theory a bit malleable. This does not alter the fact though that in the scientific community, a theory is testable. If reasonable predictions cannot at least be guessed regarding the theory, it was never a scientific theory to begin with. It is merely, at best, a hypothesis. That distinction should always be made clear.
To quote the late philosopher Ashley Montague as it pertains to the debate on what is or is not a theory (particularly as it pertains to evolution); “Science has proof without any certainty; Creationists have certainty without any proof.” I could not put it any more succinctly.
Many evangelical, Fox News-loving conservatives would like you to believe there is an apocalyptic battle raging over the strength of evolution as a theory. It is their conviction that because the definition of fact and theory differ, this somehow allows for the insertion of their own ideas about how human life in particular began. Evangelicals have submitted, for what is likely the sake of brainwashing their constituents, the theory of Intelligent Design (or simply, ID); that is, that the universe is too complex to have happened by accident and by implication, was designed to be the way it is. However, much like in any given episode of Three’s Company, there’s been a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding comes from the misappropriation of the word, theory.
Let’s pretend its an early spring afternoon in Seattle, its raining, and we’ve got nothing better to do than to pick up the friendly neighborhood Oxford English dictionary. We look up the word theory and this is what we find: 1 A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 An idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 A set of principles on which an activity is based. We also learn that theory comes from the Greek word theoria, which means to contemplate or speculate.
In this sense, evangelicals attempting to sneak religion into the classroom have used the word theory appropriately in the description of their ideas about how life began; ID certainly does qualify as speculation. It qualifies as speculation in much the same way one might speculate JFK was assassinated by inanimate garden gnomes. It’s merely an idea to account for some given incident. The question is whether or not such speculation carries the validity of a theory as the word is applied within the scientific community.
According to the highly regarded National Academy of Science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inference, and tested hypothesis. In short, scientific theories are substantiated by evidence.
For example, The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the universe began. Based on information gathered from numerous observations and known scientific laws (as opposed to theories, laws have outcomes that can be predicted without fail), we can reasonably infer that a big bang started the universe we live in. If we look at the evidence for evolution, which is all we can do because we cannot observe this action directly, we can be reasonably sure that evolution is the mechanism by which one species becomes another. The particulars may be incomplete, but the inference holds.
The conclusions drawn from the observation of evidence is why the theory of Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory and should properly be regarded or dubbed as being a hypothesis or speculation. Why does ID fail the scientific qualifications of a theory? Most notable is the fact that there are no tests from which one can infer the universe was designed and that proponents of ID ignore evidence that clearly contradicts what they believe. As George H. Smith said of these two notable failures, “Evidence for Intelligent Design are those things not found in nature.” We recognize designs because we know what man-made objects look like. The last time I checked (which would have been this morning), no man has ever created a universe.
A ruling in early 2006 in an evolution vs. ID case in Dover, Pennsylvania was highly critical of the differences between evolution and Intelligent Design as theories. In a 139-page ruling, Judge John Jones (a George W. Bush appointee no less!) ruled that ID was in fact not a scientific theory because the advocates of ID had made several critical mistakes. Foremost among those mistakes was the direct implication that Intelligent Design invokes supernatural causation, which cannot be tested to have its results predicted. Another flaw pointed out by the judge saw that the idea of an intelligently designed universe was predicated upon circular, instead of linear, reasoning. As it applies to ID, the basis of the argument in question is assumed to be true prior to rigorous (let’s make that any) investigative work.
Theories do differ from ideas that are regarded as facts. Though scientific theories are the best explanation for a given phenomenon based on the evidence at hand, theories are possibly falsifiable if reliably contradictory evidence becomes available. In the light of additional evidence, a theory is also amendable. To consider this is to make the word theory a bit malleable. This does not alter the fact though that in the scientific community, a theory is testable. If reasonable predictions cannot at least be guessed regarding the theory, it was never a scientific theory to begin with. It is merely, at best, a hypothesis. That distinction should always be made clear.
To quote the late philosopher Ashley Montague as it pertains to the debate on what is or is not a theory (particularly as it pertains to evolution); “Science has proof without any certainty; Creationists have certainty without any proof.” I could not put it any more succinctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
