I swear I will have nightmares about cutting an endless pile of polar fleece for cranky/indecisive customers. Hancock's had a big polar fleece sale on Monday, which would have been a pretty big flop, if it weren't for several ladies who came in and bought over six hundred dollars worth of material.
I know. I was frightened too.
They came over (and of course I was one of the ones that got stuck cutting for them) with over three shopping carts full of fleece. They had also made a gigantic pile of material in one of our aisles. They then proceeded to wiffle over just how much they wanted of each one for what seemed like forever. I know it wasn't as long as I think it was, but, hey, I was cranky!
The sales were massive, and it's company policy that we can't double up discounts. But, these ladies, missed the train to Intelligenceville and kept asking how they could get more and more money off their purchases. Let me clarify, this was not for personal use, this was for resale. Um...the damn stuff is already on sale! What do you want me to do? Give it to you for free?
But, enough crabbing about the interesting people I see everyday at work. I've just bought my first major piece of software with my own money (that I earned). I got the full Photoshop CS2 and I absolutely love it! We're using it in my Graphics in Archaeology class to do all sorts of weird-ass things. Our homework for the class was to play with the software.
Can you see me doing the happy dance?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Antievolution as a Post Modernist Perspective
For a little light news, I now have a job. You will now be able to find me at Hancock Fabrics a block from the A&M campus feeding my crafty addiction. You will find (as I will probably do posts about it in the future) that I love crafts. Sewing, knitting, crochet, needlework, tatting...I love them all! It's something that I can do in my spare time that helps me forget about the rest of my crazy life. I've often described my hands as "itchy." I need something to occupy them at all times or I get fidgety.
My most recent project is a Halloween costume for my baby cousin. We call her "pumpkin," so three guesses as to what the costume is (last two don't count, of course). I'm making the little pumpkin out of jersey-knit t-shirt fabric, as it will be light enough for the hot, southern Texas weather. I'm also finishing a huge crocheted afghan for my best bud back in Tennessee.
But, the biggest shocker is that I am now gainfully employed and can now start setting back money to help pay off the student loans that are ticking like a time bomb in the corner. I've pretty much accepted that I'm going to be in debt up to my eyeballs since I have at least 5 more years of school to go. I've found that acceptance freeing in an odd sort of way. It means I'm an adult now, with major fiscal responsibilities.
I'm still really enjoying my classes. A week hasn't changed anything in that perspective. We had a fantastic discussion in Biological Anthro today about Creationism/Intelligent Design/Antievolutionism vs. Evolutionary/Scientific Theory. Of course, everyone in the class came from an evolutionary perspective, so we just agreed with one another on most things.
I want to say up front that I am not attacking anyone whose views are different from my own! I personally accept evolution and think and evolutionary thought process is necessary for understanding much of our way of life and the world we live in. I also accept that not everyone thinks the same way I do and not everyone endorses evolutionary theory as correct or viable. I find Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism fascinating and I wish to further educate myself in their tenets so I may discuss them better in the future. I will use the acronym ID to refer to a antievolutionary perspective for the rest of this entry. I do this with the understanding that Intelligent Design does accept certain facets of evolutionary theory (in reference to the antiquity of the earth and the evolution of species other than Homo sapiens sapiens). Antievolutionary perspectives are far-ranging and diverse; there are the flat-earthers, there are those who dismiss evolutionary theory all-together, there are those who accept some evolutionary theory, there are those who reconcile a belief in God with accepting evolution, etc. But, for my purposes here it is easiest to refer to an antievolutionary perspective as simply "ID."
To see where I stand in much of these arguments, you must first understand what religious beliefs I hold. I do believe that there is some supernatural force at work in the universe. What you choose to call that force is your own choice. I was raised in a mainstream Protestant household (Presbyterian), but some of my religious ideological beliefs might be considered more along the lines of some eastern religions, Judaism, or Catholicism. I have never been one that has responded well to being boxed into a restrictive framework, whether that refers to religion or scholarly pursuits. My idea of God is very different from anyone I have ever met (except for perhaps my best bud back in TN or my parents). I don't usually talk about religion or my personal religious beliefs as they are such a personal subject. I actually tend to react rather badly when someone wants to discuss religion and I back away quickly. I had some bad experiences in my adolescence that are behind my aversion to these topics (High School sucks), but I'm finding the anonymity of the internet (even though some people reading this journal know exactly who I am) empowering. Also, people tend to look at me funny when I explain just exactly what I believe.
I believe that whatever supernatural force that exists shows himself (him the in gender neutral sense, people!) in many different guises to many different peoples. That force that shows himself as God to Christians is the same force that is Allah, that is Buddha, that is Mithras, that is the various deities in Norse religion or any other pagan religion. I believe that religion is supposed to make you happy and fulfill a part of your life that nothing else can. It isn't supposed to be restrictive or make you fearful. And, due to the vast sweeps of variation in human population, different people are fulfilled in different ways. One person is happiest believing in the Christian God and another is happiest as a Wiccan and another is happiest as an Atheist. And that's OK with me. This personal set of beliefs also allows me to pull in various theories and ideologies from religions other than Christianity that I have a particular fondness for. That's why when people ask me what religion I believe in, I have a hard time answering.
OK, now onto antievolutionism.
ID and other Creationists are feeling attacked by the scientific community and believe that science fosters a mindset that leads people to dismiss God. They fear that if you accept evolution, then you can't accept God. Behind this is the idea that the Christian Bible is to be read literally. One must remember, though, that the Bible went through an evolution of its own to come to us in the form it does today. Many people had a hand in choosing which books would be included and which were pertinent to the Christian culture of that time. Context, context, context! Many books of the Bible were written well over two thousand years ago for a culture (generally referring to American) that has changed, dare I say evolved?, a great deal. I'm not saying that the Bible isn't pertinent in today's world at all, it certainly is, but one must remember that the world is different now.
Science and the scientific community does not wish to foster a mindset where God is dismissed. Science simply wishes to take hypothesis and perform experiments and observe. A hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. You can't necessarily prove a hypothesis true, you can only disprove the alternatives. One cannot disprove the presence of God (or other deities) and thus the hypothesis and any experimentation to determine God's existence is unscientific. Science is a methodology, religion is an ideology. Science deals with the natural world, religion the supernatural. Thus, science tends to shy away from dealing with ideological beliefs. It is outside its realm.
I see religious beliefs as being sort of layered on top of the scientific framework. Its something that the scientists (the people) need rather than science itself needing God.
ID attempts to prove the existence of a Designer by taking structures that are "irreducibly complex" and saying that these indicate God. For example, take the human eye, if one took away one structure or function of the eye it would cease to function entirely. So, how could such a thing evolve at all? Wouldn't it have just been plunked down in its entire form? So, if it couldn't have evolved, it must be (insert your chosen deity here).
This is the classic circular argument. A equals B because B equals A. Or, a structure is irreducibly complex because it is designed and it is designed because it is irreducibly complex. As one learns in any introductory Philosophy/Critical Thinking course, these types of arguments are incredibly flawed and must be dismissed because of their illogical nature.
But, why do we need to place limits on evolution in the first place? With enough time, anything will change and develop into something else. In a billion years the world will be completely different than what it is today. Humans might not be Homo sapiens sapiens anymore. Who knows what the world will be like. It seems to me that these limits are placed on evolution only because some of them have bearing on the human race. The human eye is no less complex than other structures found anywhere in nature: a dog's olfactory system, the eyes of any creature, etc.
Western Christianity tells us, as humans and as Christians, that we are special, that we have some favor with God, that God created us in His image. If we are just the products of chance, of random process working to adapt, doesn't that take away that specialness? I don't believe it does. I find it all the more amazing that we came to be from natural selection. How awe inspiring is it that we are here today, getting on with our lives?
One thing that does irk me though, is when people chose to argue against any subject without knowing anything about it. If you don't know the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Also, on the flip-side, if you don't know anything about Creationism you shouldn't immediately dismiss it either. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I feel I do know a little about the Creationism side of things as well as having trained as a scientist. One should endeavor to expand their knowledge in all areas of life. My biggest pet peeve is people who are willing to live in ignorance and are happy about it.
Also, humans did not descend from apes. That is not what evolution is trying to say. Evolutionary theory puts forth the hypothesis that apes/chimps/primates and humans descended from a common ancestor. Don't worry, LuLu the Chimp isn't your grandma...more like your several billionth times removed cousin.
I believe in some supernatural force. I also accept the tenets of evolutionary theory. I know that I will probably never know if I am correct in my ideological beliefs, but that doesn't really bother me. It feels good to me, it feels right. Thus, I believe it because it gives me comfort. I can't scientifically prove I'm right or wrong. But, again, that's not the point. I accept the scientific methodological framework and believe an ideological system. I accept it. To me there is no problem in reconciling it.
So, to conclude my really long rant...
May (insert your chosen deity/ies here) be with you.
My most recent project is a Halloween costume for my baby cousin. We call her "pumpkin," so three guesses as to what the costume is (last two don't count, of course). I'm making the little pumpkin out of jersey-knit t-shirt fabric, as it will be light enough for the hot, southern Texas weather. I'm also finishing a huge crocheted afghan for my best bud back in Tennessee.
But, the biggest shocker is that I am now gainfully employed and can now start setting back money to help pay off the student loans that are ticking like a time bomb in the corner. I've pretty much accepted that I'm going to be in debt up to my eyeballs since I have at least 5 more years of school to go. I've found that acceptance freeing in an odd sort of way. It means I'm an adult now, with major fiscal responsibilities.
I'm still really enjoying my classes. A week hasn't changed anything in that perspective. We had a fantastic discussion in Biological Anthro today about Creationism/Intelligent Design/Antievolutionism vs. Evolutionary/Scientific Theory. Of course, everyone in the class came from an evolutionary perspective, so we just agreed with one another on most things.
I want to say up front that I am not attacking anyone whose views are different from my own! I personally accept evolution and think and evolutionary thought process is necessary for understanding much of our way of life and the world we live in. I also accept that not everyone thinks the same way I do and not everyone endorses evolutionary theory as correct or viable. I find Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism fascinating and I wish to further educate myself in their tenets so I may discuss them better in the future. I will use the acronym ID to refer to a antievolutionary perspective for the rest of this entry. I do this with the understanding that Intelligent Design does accept certain facets of evolutionary theory (in reference to the antiquity of the earth and the evolution of species other than Homo sapiens sapiens). Antievolutionary perspectives are far-ranging and diverse; there are the flat-earthers, there are those who dismiss evolutionary theory all-together, there are those who accept some evolutionary theory, there are those who reconcile a belief in God with accepting evolution, etc. But, for my purposes here it is easiest to refer to an antievolutionary perspective as simply "ID."
To see where I stand in much of these arguments, you must first understand what religious beliefs I hold. I do believe that there is some supernatural force at work in the universe. What you choose to call that force is your own choice. I was raised in a mainstream Protestant household (Presbyterian), but some of my religious ideological beliefs might be considered more along the lines of some eastern religions, Judaism, or Catholicism. I have never been one that has responded well to being boxed into a restrictive framework, whether that refers to religion or scholarly pursuits. My idea of God is very different from anyone I have ever met (except for perhaps my best bud back in TN or my parents). I don't usually talk about religion or my personal religious beliefs as they are such a personal subject. I actually tend to react rather badly when someone wants to discuss religion and I back away quickly. I had some bad experiences in my adolescence that are behind my aversion to these topics (High School sucks), but I'm finding the anonymity of the internet (even though some people reading this journal know exactly who I am) empowering. Also, people tend to look at me funny when I explain just exactly what I believe.
I believe that whatever supernatural force that exists shows himself (him the in gender neutral sense, people!) in many different guises to many different peoples. That force that shows himself as God to Christians is the same force that is Allah, that is Buddha, that is Mithras, that is the various deities in Norse religion or any other pagan religion. I believe that religion is supposed to make you happy and fulfill a part of your life that nothing else can. It isn't supposed to be restrictive or make you fearful. And, due to the vast sweeps of variation in human population, different people are fulfilled in different ways. One person is happiest believing in the Christian God and another is happiest as a Wiccan and another is happiest as an Atheist. And that's OK with me. This personal set of beliefs also allows me to pull in various theories and ideologies from religions other than Christianity that I have a particular fondness for. That's why when people ask me what religion I believe in, I have a hard time answering.
OK, now onto antievolutionism.
ID and other Creationists are feeling attacked by the scientific community and believe that science fosters a mindset that leads people to dismiss God. They fear that if you accept evolution, then you can't accept God. Behind this is the idea that the Christian Bible is to be read literally. One must remember, though, that the Bible went through an evolution of its own to come to us in the form it does today. Many people had a hand in choosing which books would be included and which were pertinent to the Christian culture of that time. Context, context, context! Many books of the Bible were written well over two thousand years ago for a culture (generally referring to American) that has changed, dare I say evolved?, a great deal. I'm not saying that the Bible isn't pertinent in today's world at all, it certainly is, but one must remember that the world is different now.
Science and the scientific community does not wish to foster a mindset where God is dismissed. Science simply wishes to take hypothesis and perform experiments and observe. A hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. You can't necessarily prove a hypothesis true, you can only disprove the alternatives. One cannot disprove the presence of God (or other deities) and thus the hypothesis and any experimentation to determine God's existence is unscientific. Science is a methodology, religion is an ideology. Science deals with the natural world, religion the supernatural. Thus, science tends to shy away from dealing with ideological beliefs. It is outside its realm.
I see religious beliefs as being sort of layered on top of the scientific framework. Its something that the scientists (the people) need rather than science itself needing God.
ID attempts to prove the existence of a Designer by taking structures that are "irreducibly complex" and saying that these indicate God. For example, take the human eye, if one took away one structure or function of the eye it would cease to function entirely. So, how could such a thing evolve at all? Wouldn't it have just been plunked down in its entire form? So, if it couldn't have evolved, it must be (insert your chosen deity here).
This is the classic circular argument. A equals B because B equals A. Or, a structure is irreducibly complex because it is designed and it is designed because it is irreducibly complex. As one learns in any introductory Philosophy/Critical Thinking course, these types of arguments are incredibly flawed and must be dismissed because of their illogical nature.
But, why do we need to place limits on evolution in the first place? With enough time, anything will change and develop into something else. In a billion years the world will be completely different than what it is today. Humans might not be Homo sapiens sapiens anymore. Who knows what the world will be like. It seems to me that these limits are placed on evolution only because some of them have bearing on the human race. The human eye is no less complex than other structures found anywhere in nature: a dog's olfactory system, the eyes of any creature, etc.
Western Christianity tells us, as humans and as Christians, that we are special, that we have some favor with God, that God created us in His image. If we are just the products of chance, of random process working to adapt, doesn't that take away that specialness? I don't believe it does. I find it all the more amazing that we came to be from natural selection. How awe inspiring is it that we are here today, getting on with our lives?
One thing that does irk me though, is when people chose to argue against any subject without knowing anything about it. If you don't know the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Also, on the flip-side, if you don't know anything about Creationism you shouldn't immediately dismiss it either. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I feel I do know a little about the Creationism side of things as well as having trained as a scientist. One should endeavor to expand their knowledge in all areas of life. My biggest pet peeve is people who are willing to live in ignorance and are happy about it.
Also, humans did not descend from apes. That is not what evolution is trying to say. Evolutionary theory puts forth the hypothesis that apes/chimps/primates and humans descended from a common ancestor. Don't worry, LuLu the Chimp isn't your grandma...more like your several billionth times removed cousin.
I believe in some supernatural force. I also accept the tenets of evolutionary theory. I know that I will probably never know if I am correct in my ideological beliefs, but that doesn't really bother me. It feels good to me, it feels right. Thus, I believe it because it gives me comfort. I can't scientifically prove I'm right or wrong. But, again, that's not the point. I accept the scientific methodological framework and believe an ideological system. I accept it. To me there is no problem in reconciling it.
So, to conclude my really long rant...
May (insert your chosen deity/ies here) be with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)