Tuesday, September 13, 2005
my bad spanish grammar
Just a little name change from estoy to soy temporal. It just so happens that there is two "to be" verbs in Spanish: Estar and Ser... and I of course used the wrong one. I think I understand why too: I am permanently in a state of impermanence... entonces hago un poco cambio. I think my spanish teacher thinks I am weird (or a wanker) too. "Can you give me a context for that?" she asks, her head to the side. Um. Por ejemplo: el hombre es mortal. The man is mortal. "Like to to be or not to be, you mean? Ser o no ser?" Sí. "That's very existential Glen. In that case you would have to say 'soy temporal'."
Monday, September 12, 2005
evolution is just a theory...
Depending on the outcome of a US federal court case this year the science classes of a public school in the Dover School District, Pennsylvania may find their evolution lessons preceded by something of a disclaimer. "…Because Darwin's Theory is a theory,” the district super-intendant would read, “it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.” Advocates claim that they are attempting to strengthen and not weaken science as their critics argue. With what they call Intelligent Design Theory, proponents mean to challenge what they describe as the “Darwinist Inquisition” that has spread through out public educational institutions, stifling genuine scientific inquiry and anything that might challenge Darwinist orthodoxy. They offer what they argue is genuine and scientific alternative to evolution.
“A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view,” the super-intendant continues. Proponents of Intelligent Design point to holes and errors in the logic of evolution and its reliance on the chaotic nature of the universe, i.e. random mutation. According to the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think-tank that has been at the forefront of promoting origins science, ID is a scientific theory that “holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” They argue that their are elements far too complex to be coincidental and they mean to scientifically prove that there is nothing random about 'evolution'. The Institute and many defenders of ID are at pains however, to point out that their theory is separate from creationism, a literal interpretation of the bible and not science, nor do they claim that theories come close to determining the identity of this creator.
So the super-intendant reads on: “The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families…” Similarly the Discovery Institute do not advocate the teaching of ID in classrooms, instead they urge that states and school districts “focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems.” In sum “evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.”
It all seems reasonable enough.
Now I could take the view that all this is really the wolf in sheep’s clothing. That Discovery Institute, as one critic put it “use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda,” by highlighting flaws real or apparent in the science of evolution to a largely unscientific and generally undiscerning public.
Instead I choose to accept their claims as genuine, that they are defending science from evolutionist dogmatic beliefs in favour of more dispassionate objectivity. Never mind that many of the Institute are staunchly Christian and that on occasion they might overstep the bounds of science. For example when the Institute’s William Dembski (with doctorates in mathematics and philosophy) said at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting that “if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.”
In the spirit of this pluralism that conservative Christianity has taken to heart in defence of science, not to further their own religious objectives but to further objective (and rigorous) scientific inquiry I offer my own disclaimer in the hope that in this spirit it is also accepted with open arms and churches across the world adopt this or something similar to precede their sermons.
It reads:
“Because Christianity is just a belief it must not be confused with science that uses verifiable facts to support theories based on observation. There is as yet no proof that God exists and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that the events in the bible have a supernatural explanation. While Christianity is a belief that gives spiritual and moral guidance to millions across the world the same words are interpreted differently, as religion is based on personal faith there cannot be one correct interpretation. Indeed there are many faiths different from that which is presented to you now, equally based on belief and may or may not be equally valid or correct as Christianity. We have placed their texts and promotional literature in the lobby should anyone be curious after completion of today’s service.”
Links:
http://www.discovery.org/
Steve Benen, The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design,' Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
“A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view,” the super-intendant continues. Proponents of Intelligent Design point to holes and errors in the logic of evolution and its reliance on the chaotic nature of the universe, i.e. random mutation. According to the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think-tank that has been at the forefront of promoting origins science, ID is a scientific theory that “holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” They argue that their are elements far too complex to be coincidental and they mean to scientifically prove that there is nothing random about 'evolution'. The Institute and many defenders of ID are at pains however, to point out that their theory is separate from creationism, a literal interpretation of the bible and not science, nor do they claim that theories come close to determining the identity of this creator.
So the super-intendant reads on: “The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families…” Similarly the Discovery Institute do not advocate the teaching of ID in classrooms, instead they urge that states and school districts “focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems.” In sum “evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.”
It all seems reasonable enough.
Now I could take the view that all this is really the wolf in sheep’s clothing. That Discovery Institute, as one critic put it “use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda,” by highlighting flaws real or apparent in the science of evolution to a largely unscientific and generally undiscerning public.
Instead I choose to accept their claims as genuine, that they are defending science from evolutionist dogmatic beliefs in favour of more dispassionate objectivity. Never mind that many of the Institute are staunchly Christian and that on occasion they might overstep the bounds of science. For example when the Institute’s William Dembski (with doctorates in mathematics and philosophy) said at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting that “if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.”
In the spirit of this pluralism that conservative Christianity has taken to heart in defence of science, not to further their own religious objectives but to further objective (and rigorous) scientific inquiry I offer my own disclaimer in the hope that in this spirit it is also accepted with open arms and churches across the world adopt this or something similar to precede their sermons.
It reads:
“Because Christianity is just a belief it must not be confused with science that uses verifiable facts to support theories based on observation. There is as yet no proof that God exists and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that the events in the bible have a supernatural explanation. While Christianity is a belief that gives spiritual and moral guidance to millions across the world the same words are interpreted differently, as religion is based on personal faith there cannot be one correct interpretation. Indeed there are many faiths different from that which is presented to you now, equally based on belief and may or may not be equally valid or correct as Christianity. We have placed their texts and promotional literature in the lobby should anyone be curious after completion of today’s service.”
Links:
http://www.discovery.org/
Steve Benen, The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design,' Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
Thursday, September 01, 2005
boogey man
The inner city glow reflects off the dispersing cloud cover, as strong winds blast Melbourne. Branches crack, grown and screech against windows while the front gate bangs open and shut, as I try to peg my clothing to the clothes-line. Fumbling with pegs as I hold the hills hoist still with the other hand, spinning, catching the wind every time I bend down to the basket; the temperature is mild and the sky is moonless but the fluorescent incandescence of the public housing tower down the road casts an odd light onto the backyard. Ever since I was a kid weather like this had inspired in me a sense of drama. I’d watched a TV documentary when I was eight or nine about Nostradamus as wind had whipped around the house (much like this) and I had been convinced that this was the beginning of the end that he had prophesied.
What a shitty night I’ve had, I think to myself: dinner with the family in some Indian restaurant in Camberwell that started with an argument and ended in almost total breakdown in communication. The family got on fine that is, light hearted, amiable chatting going on all around me… except I spent the night staring intently at my curry, the waiters, the chef preparing naan or roti or whatever in some glass booth extension to the kitchen. Anything to distract myself from the fact I was sitting there sullen not talking to anyone. In the end I made my excuses and left placing a twenty on the table. I arrived home feeling miserable and sorry for myself and with little else to do I set about doing the washing.
There seems something wrong about drying your clothes at night- relying on the wind. More than sheer lack of organization and planning, but something more base and primal, it feels unnatural. As if I were abandoning the sun and light, the true partner of the dried cloth for the unholy night: a pact with the devil. Maybe there is some verse in Leviticus that prohibits all this. I think this as I hang my clothing, dead palm leaves drop from the tree behind me as I stare out between my t-shirts, towel and pants as they rotate in the wind, to the alleyway that runs behind my place. A chill runs through me and I almost expect someone to walk past. Shaking my head, I decide to concentrate on the task at hand: pegging up my undies.
It is late and the rest of the house is asleep, silent and all I can hear is the sound of the wind, the gate and the trees rustling around me. I remember the childhood feeling of being the last left to fall asleep, listening to the sounds outside, scared to look out behind the blinds, to go to the toilet, afraid of what I might see or who or what might be out there. Aware the heavy darkness that enveloped the house, something menacing on the other side of the wall: an ashen face that would appear at the window if I paused just long enough in front of it.
I recall the story of Albert Fish that I read a couple of months ago: a house painter who drifted across the United States in the inter-war and boasted to having killed a child in twenty-three American states. A frail and emaciated old man with grey hair and moustache, Fish lured children away from their homes (many of them African-American) with money and candy where he molested, tortured, murdered and ate many of them. In New York the three year old witness to an abduction, found on the roof of his family’s appartment block, was asked about the disappearance of his four-year old playmate: he replied “the boogey man took him.” Sentenced to death by electrocution, Fish was executed on January 16, 1936 and in the end could offer little if any account for his crimes other than what he called his blood lust and a psuedo religious cause, citing imaginary bible verses like “Happy is he that taketh Thy little ones and dasheth their heads against the stones.” Had God thought what he did wrong, Fish reasoned, then “an angel would have stopped me, just as an angel stopped Abraham in the Bible.”
I looked at the fence again and accuse myself of doing this on purpose, trying to freak myself out.
Grabbing the clothing basket I dart up the pathway to the backdoor making sure not turn around. Closing the laundry door behind me, locking one, two three locks with inner city ease and I dump the basket, reaching around to turn out the porch light only to see a man’s head silhouetted through the opaque glass only to flick the light switch. FUCK! I jump back. Too scared to turn the light back on, to move, I stand perfectly still. I listen and hear nothing, just the afore mentioned wind, trees and gate.
BOOGEY MAN!
What a shitty night I’ve had, I think to myself: dinner with the family in some Indian restaurant in Camberwell that started with an argument and ended in almost total breakdown in communication. The family got on fine that is, light hearted, amiable chatting going on all around me… except I spent the night staring intently at my curry, the waiters, the chef preparing naan or roti or whatever in some glass booth extension to the kitchen. Anything to distract myself from the fact I was sitting there sullen not talking to anyone. In the end I made my excuses and left placing a twenty on the table. I arrived home feeling miserable and sorry for myself and with little else to do I set about doing the washing.
There seems something wrong about drying your clothes at night- relying on the wind. More than sheer lack of organization and planning, but something more base and primal, it feels unnatural. As if I were abandoning the sun and light, the true partner of the dried cloth for the unholy night: a pact with the devil. Maybe there is some verse in Leviticus that prohibits all this. I think this as I hang my clothing, dead palm leaves drop from the tree behind me as I stare out between my t-shirts, towel and pants as they rotate in the wind, to the alleyway that runs behind my place. A chill runs through me and I almost expect someone to walk past. Shaking my head, I decide to concentrate on the task at hand: pegging up my undies.
It is late and the rest of the house is asleep, silent and all I can hear is the sound of the wind, the gate and the trees rustling around me. I remember the childhood feeling of being the last left to fall asleep, listening to the sounds outside, scared to look out behind the blinds, to go to the toilet, afraid of what I might see or who or what might be out there. Aware the heavy darkness that enveloped the house, something menacing on the other side of the wall: an ashen face that would appear at the window if I paused just long enough in front of it.
I recall the story of Albert Fish that I read a couple of months ago: a house painter who drifted across the United States in the inter-war and boasted to having killed a child in twenty-three American states. A frail and emaciated old man with grey hair and moustache, Fish lured children away from their homes (many of them African-American) with money and candy where he molested, tortured, murdered and ate many of them. In New York the three year old witness to an abduction, found on the roof of his family’s appartment block, was asked about the disappearance of his four-year old playmate: he replied “the boogey man took him.” Sentenced to death by electrocution, Fish was executed on January 16, 1936 and in the end could offer little if any account for his crimes other than what he called his blood lust and a psuedo religious cause, citing imaginary bible verses like “Happy is he that taketh Thy little ones and dasheth their heads against the stones.” Had God thought what he did wrong, Fish reasoned, then “an angel would have stopped me, just as an angel stopped Abraham in the Bible.”
I looked at the fence again and accuse myself of doing this on purpose, trying to freak myself out.
Grabbing the clothing basket I dart up the pathway to the backdoor making sure not turn around. Closing the laundry door behind me, locking one, two three locks with inner city ease and I dump the basket, reaching around to turn out the porch light only to see a man’s head silhouetted through the opaque glass only to flick the light switch. FUCK! I jump back. Too scared to turn the light back on, to move, I stand perfectly still. I listen and hear nothing, just the afore mentioned wind, trees and gate.
BOOGEY MAN!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)