Some of the things you should know about me:
- I am a faithful Christian
- I love my family, all of them...even the crazies, of which I am one.
- I am not overly political, mostly I want the government to leave me alone, and adhere to the Constitution.
- Polarized and reactionary people make me crazy.
The state of Arizona has a bill burning through the legislature, lighting all kinds of fires, on the way to the Govenor. I read the bill, and I'm a little bit upset at all this uproar.
My friends and family are split and I'm not sure if all this craziness is worth it.
How many of us have seen the sign "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"? Growing up in a little beach town I knew that sign and what it meant for a predominantly barefoot little kid. It meant that I could run in and use the bathroom, but if I wanted to sit and eat, or shop, I better find some shoes!
Now before I start getting hate mail from some of my friends, let me clarify.
I am not saying that the right to refuse service on the basis of faith is the same as requiring shoes. One is a health hazard and the other is a religious choice! But I am saying that if a business wants to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, they are protected by the law to run their business as they see fit, as long as it doesn't limit another individual's civil liberties. Now if that business wants to run itself into the ground by limiting the population that it services, good on them, get businesses into the market that want to succeed!
This AZ bill says NOTHING about a particular group of people to be targeted or impacted. What it does say is that the religious beliefs of the proprietor can be exercised in the practice of the business. Which means that a conservative Islamist restaurant would not have to serve an unaccompanied woman...if they chose. A Christian bookstore would not have to sell books to a Buddhist, and a Buddhist monastery could limit attendance to practitioners (which some already do).
Would/could whole communities such as LGBTQ be affected? Of course. And I am not trying to minimize the impact of legislating religious practice in business, either to protect it, or minimize it. Our government was framed by outcasts from a religiously oppressive government, and they purposely designed their new country to be independent of religious affiliation. Bills like this were NOT what the framers had in mind.
As Christians we are called to be Christ-like. Imitators of a radical man who preached tolerance instead of condemnation, love instead of division, and a rejection of judgement in favor of a more qualified judge than we are. We are called to be beacons for his message, fullfilling the needs of the people around us whatever they are, and whoever has them. To understand that each individual on this earth is a part of his plan whether they are broken or whole, full of grief or full of joy, a BS artist or a genuine soul - Christian or not!
I am ashamed of these religious groups pushing for the bill - they are missing the point completely. I am ashamed of the people fire branding and polarizing this bill - they are limiting their business in the other direction.
I got a little off topic here, but let me sum up. If the bill passes, and it may, express your displeasure with your wallet. Move out of AZ if you don't like it (on either side), stop shopping at places that refuse service, don't eat at those restaurants, and don't donate to those groups responsible. We have lost our individual voices and that is one of the saddest things I can think of.
...Nature girl
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Nature girl vs Ken Ham and Bill Nye
Let me start out by saying that I love debates, I am naturally argumentative, and I adore intellectual discussions. The debate at the Creationist Museum almost didn't qualify as either. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart because I believe in intelligent design, AND I am a happy science nerd!
The arguments of both sides were deeply flawed and missed HUGE key points and supports for both sides! Given the position of both these men in their respective communities I frankly, expected more.
Here is the link to the original debate...obviously, my thoughts follow.
Let's start with Mr. Ken Ham.
First, I never would have picked a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) to debate Bill Nye. There is SO much that is left to faith in the young earth model that a persistent atheist (like Mr. Nye) would have no problem showing all the un-backed scientific holes! But aside from that, Mr. Ham left out key points, got MAJORLY off topic, and made assumptions about the Bible that aren't there to make! Much like the assumptions that he accused secular scientists of making!
Second, he spoke often on the differences between Darwinism and Creation "trees of life" and yet completely ignored the fact that Darwin was deeply faithful, and was trying to explain the bible in scientific terms! Now I'm not a Darwin expert, but his "warm pond" theory, to me, never negated the potential for divine intervention. Nothing offered by either side eliminated the possibility that they could both be correct.
Third, unless I missed something about the original question, nothing about the origins of morality, definition of marriage, or the fact that some proponents of YEC are highly educated is valid or relevant to discussing the viability of YEC as an education source. Morality is a faith AND societally based construct. Morays, taboos, and social structure were all in existence BEFORE Christianity as a cornerstone of the process of "civilization". The only thing that Judaism/Christianity did was define a set of rules for a subsection of the population based on an emerging religion. The definition of marriage is for me tough because I see it as a religious tem not a socio/political term. As it stands today it is interchangeable...but now I'm off topic. The ludacris implied statement that YEC is a viable scientific theory to teach children because there are lots of scientists who made big contributions to technology who believe it should have gotten him laughed off the stage, but it only gave Mr. Nye cannon fodder.
Finally, Mr. Ham walked straight into the line of fire when he admitted that some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and some is poetry or stories. The argument that the bible can be taken literally at any point (from his comments on historical science) implies that the bible was written as the contained events occurred. All biblical scholars know that the bible was written by different authors, sometimes years after events occurred! In the case of Genesis, it was written generations later, even if you espouse YEC!
And now for Mr. Nye
If it is possible, I am more disappointed in Mr. Nye than in Mr. Ham. As a scientist there is nothing that should be excluded from creating the best possible theory. True, you can't TEST divinity, but if it fits into the data collected as an option...it is viable.
While Mr. Nye did a much better job of staying on topic his blanket disregard for the possibility of intelligent design was, to use his word, unsettling. He also harped on the need for children and young adults to be "scientists" implying the exclusion of faith and reliance on pure science to find answers that are metaphysical at one end, and existential at the other, also...not relevant to the debate topic! He also fell victim to emotional appeals and personal instead of topical debate.
The idea of intelligent design is not ludacris, it's a belief, like science. His blatant dismissal (though I applaud him for admitting the unknowns of science, "what came before the big bang?") of a possibility that the earth is younger than he thinks and might be constructed by something else, is exceptionally maddening. For Mr. Nye it is apparently completely irrational that some unknown force may have compressed rock layers, or increased the reproductive capacity of animals after the ark to cause a boom in population growth, or spoke the universe into being. And that is what a scientist is supposed to do, find an idea and see if the data contradicts it! Not declare impossibility and reject out of hand.
As did Mr. Ham, Mr. Nye decided to make an unnecessary and inaccurate statement about how educated people validate the system. While Mr. Nye admitted that there are faithful people who are scientists he continued to call for more students to pursue science, invent things and solve problems as if somehow YEC were unable to do that! And while YEC, believers of intelligent design, and secular scientists all believe different things, that has no bearing on the individual's ability to contribute to the scientific community!
I personally found Mr. Nye's persistent "dumbing down" of scientific processes inappropriate and out of place. The people in that audience know that there is no sound in space, we don't need a silent analogy of the big bang. There is also no need to bring a fossil found by the side of the road, to explain a fossil record. Finally, personally, I don't need a description of the evolutionary process of being a simple to complex method...that's what evolution is! Just because intelligent design to you means perfect from the start and then adaptation, doesn't mean that is the only interpretation!
The thing that bothered me the most...about both arguments...is that they completely ignore the concept of God's time (here is a great philosophical paper on if God is bound by time...or above it) and here is a bible verse reflecting on conquering impossibility (Luke 18:27)! Any scientist who dismisses a possibility because it seems rediculous or impossible should turn in his degree! And any man of faith who doesn't acknowledge that the impossible is what makes God...well God...is missing the point!
I hope that the debate...and maybe this...inspires people to ask questions, clarify their thoughts, and maybe be willing to accept the validity of an impossibility as an option.
...Nature girl
The arguments of both sides were deeply flawed and missed HUGE key points and supports for both sides! Given the position of both these men in their respective communities I frankly, expected more.
Here is the link to the original debate...obviously, my thoughts follow.
Now, I know that this is going to spark a lot of e-mails from my deeply religious friends, but that's ok, this is something that should be talked about. The topic was whether Creationism is a viable method of human origin to be taught to school children.
Let's start with Mr. Ken Ham.
First, I never would have picked a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) to debate Bill Nye. There is SO much that is left to faith in the young earth model that a persistent atheist (like Mr. Nye) would have no problem showing all the un-backed scientific holes! But aside from that, Mr. Ham left out key points, got MAJORLY off topic, and made assumptions about the Bible that aren't there to make! Much like the assumptions that he accused secular scientists of making!
Second, he spoke often on the differences between Darwinism and Creation "trees of life" and yet completely ignored the fact that Darwin was deeply faithful, and was trying to explain the bible in scientific terms! Now I'm not a Darwin expert, but his "warm pond" theory, to me, never negated the potential for divine intervention. Nothing offered by either side eliminated the possibility that they could both be correct.
Third, unless I missed something about the original question, nothing about the origins of morality, definition of marriage, or the fact that some proponents of YEC are highly educated is valid or relevant to discussing the viability of YEC as an education source. Morality is a faith AND societally based construct. Morays, taboos, and social structure were all in existence BEFORE Christianity as a cornerstone of the process of "civilization". The only thing that Judaism/Christianity did was define a set of rules for a subsection of the population based on an emerging religion. The definition of marriage is for me tough because I see it as a religious tem not a socio/political term. As it stands today it is interchangeable...but now I'm off topic. The ludacris implied statement that YEC is a viable scientific theory to teach children because there are lots of scientists who made big contributions to technology who believe it should have gotten him laughed off the stage, but it only gave Mr. Nye cannon fodder.
Finally, Mr. Ham walked straight into the line of fire when he admitted that some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and some is poetry or stories. The argument that the bible can be taken literally at any point (from his comments on historical science) implies that the bible was written as the contained events occurred. All biblical scholars know that the bible was written by different authors, sometimes years after events occurred! In the case of Genesis, it was written generations later, even if you espouse YEC!
And now for Mr. Nye
If it is possible, I am more disappointed in Mr. Nye than in Mr. Ham. As a scientist there is nothing that should be excluded from creating the best possible theory. True, you can't TEST divinity, but if it fits into the data collected as an option...it is viable.
While Mr. Nye did a much better job of staying on topic his blanket disregard for the possibility of intelligent design was, to use his word, unsettling. He also harped on the need for children and young adults to be "scientists" implying the exclusion of faith and reliance on pure science to find answers that are metaphysical at one end, and existential at the other, also...not relevant to the debate topic! He also fell victim to emotional appeals and personal instead of topical debate.
The idea of intelligent design is not ludacris, it's a belief, like science. His blatant dismissal (though I applaud him for admitting the unknowns of science, "what came before the big bang?") of a possibility that the earth is younger than he thinks and might be constructed by something else, is exceptionally maddening. For Mr. Nye it is apparently completely irrational that some unknown force may have compressed rock layers, or increased the reproductive capacity of animals after the ark to cause a boom in population growth, or spoke the universe into being. And that is what a scientist is supposed to do, find an idea and see if the data contradicts it! Not declare impossibility and reject out of hand.
As did Mr. Ham, Mr. Nye decided to make an unnecessary and inaccurate statement about how educated people validate the system. While Mr. Nye admitted that there are faithful people who are scientists he continued to call for more students to pursue science, invent things and solve problems as if somehow YEC were unable to do that! And while YEC, believers of intelligent design, and secular scientists all believe different things, that has no bearing on the individual's ability to contribute to the scientific community!
I personally found Mr. Nye's persistent "dumbing down" of scientific processes inappropriate and out of place. The people in that audience know that there is no sound in space, we don't need a silent analogy of the big bang. There is also no need to bring a fossil found by the side of the road, to explain a fossil record. Finally, personally, I don't need a description of the evolutionary process of being a simple to complex method...that's what evolution is! Just because intelligent design to you means perfect from the start and then adaptation, doesn't mean that is the only interpretation!
The thing that bothered me the most...about both arguments...is that they completely ignore the concept of God's time (here is a great philosophical paper on if God is bound by time...or above it) and here is a bible verse reflecting on conquering impossibility (Luke 18:27)! Any scientist who dismisses a possibility because it seems rediculous or impossible should turn in his degree! And any man of faith who doesn't acknowledge that the impossible is what makes God...well God...is missing the point!
I hope that the debate...and maybe this...inspires people to ask questions, clarify their thoughts, and maybe be willing to accept the validity of an impossibility as an option.
...Nature girl
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Nature girl vs the peeves
I have often been prone to bouts of peevishness, melodrama, and temper tantrums...just ask my Mom, Dad and sister who managed to survive my childhood and adolescence.
Last night I lay in bed, completely unable to get comfortable (no thanks to the dog stretched out from my heels to my tush), or drowsy, and getting more and more irrationally irritated at my darling hubby who was only trying to go through his normal routine of falling asleep. He reads the same three pages over and over because he falls asleep halfway through the pages and starts over at the top. This is normal, it happens every night, and I usually put on a sleeping mask and get over it.
For some reason last night every page turn was irritating, the light was irritating, the dog was making me hot, the food wasn't put away from dinner, EVERYTHING was a major violation of what I wanted to have happen!
This is not my most shining quality. I understand that I completely take leave of my brain sometimes and I can usually ground myself again and laugh it off, but it has bled over into today. Probably because I didn't sleep much more than two winks. In my head I am laying on the floor kicking and screaming and having a full blown temper tantrum that would make a two year old take notes!
Instead, I am rocking in my desk chair and writing...much less satisfying.
When my black moods bleed over into days two and three, that is usually when I seek out my girlfriends for coffee, or a trashy tv date, or a cookie date, or a dinner with my borrowed nieces or nephews and family, that will usually snap me back to reality.
Being so far is not helping my mood, and I never developed other coping mechanisms.
Now the sane part of me tells me that this is the perfect time to develop new life skills, the childish side is flipping the bird. I think the temper tantrum is winning.
...Nature girl
Last night I lay in bed, completely unable to get comfortable (no thanks to the dog stretched out from my heels to my tush), or drowsy, and getting more and more irrationally irritated at my darling hubby who was only trying to go through his normal routine of falling asleep. He reads the same three pages over and over because he falls asleep halfway through the pages and starts over at the top. This is normal, it happens every night, and I usually put on a sleeping mask and get over it.
For some reason last night every page turn was irritating, the light was irritating, the dog was making me hot, the food wasn't put away from dinner, EVERYTHING was a major violation of what I wanted to have happen!
This is not my most shining quality. I understand that I completely take leave of my brain sometimes and I can usually ground myself again and laugh it off, but it has bled over into today. Probably because I didn't sleep much more than two winks. In my head I am laying on the floor kicking and screaming and having a full blown temper tantrum that would make a two year old take notes!
Instead, I am rocking in my desk chair and writing...much less satisfying.
When my black moods bleed over into days two and three, that is usually when I seek out my girlfriends for coffee, or a trashy tv date, or a cookie date, or a dinner with my borrowed nieces or nephews and family, that will usually snap me back to reality.
Being so far is not helping my mood, and I never developed other coping mechanisms.
Now the sane part of me tells me that this is the perfect time to develop new life skills, the childish side is flipping the bird. I think the temper tantrum is winning.
...Nature girl
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)