Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

The Natural Hubris of the Western Mind

More on “intelligent design”…

I’m a person who tends to think that if I can define a thing–if I can conceptualize it–then that’s not God. This way of thinking is much more in line with how some Hindus and Buddhists view The Absolute.

I’ve been thinking…isn’t it really just perfectly in line with the individualism of Western society that “intelligent design” enthusiasts should think THEY have it all figured out? That THEY are capable of identifying the work of God?

Jeez…the nerve of some people.

A friend once remarked that she didn’t know what you’d call a God who you couldn’t understand.

My reply–only half joking–I’d call that God “inscrutable”.

Really Dumb Design

Salon.com News | The new Monkey Trial: “Jarboe [an "intelligent design" proponant in Dover, Pennsylvania], who introduced himself as a former assistant professor of chemistry at Messiah College, a nearby Christian school, was convinced that the parents were being used by the ACLU to further its sinister agenda. Like a great many members of the Christian right, he sees the ACLU as a subversive, possibly demonic institution. Quoting James Kennedy, an influential Fort Lauderdale televangelist, he called the ACLU the ‘American Communist United League.’ ‘I maintain it’s a communist front,’ he said.”

Heh, heh….woooo!…heh…

If I had kids in the Dover, PA school system I’d be madder than hell that these nutbars are trying to teach fairy tales as though they were real science. Being childless, I can afford to just be amused. Though, I really ought to keep in mind that if Jarboe and his ilk are successful often enough, we’re going to wind up with a bunch of under-educated fools running the country.

Oh.
Wait…. never mind.
Too late.

“The core idea in ["Of Pandas and People", an "intelligent design" oriented textbook] — and in the intelligent-design movement generally — is that of “irreducible complexity,” the theory that the structure of proteins and amino acids in cells — the building blocks of life — is so complex that only a supernatural force could have choreographed it. “Because of the high level of improbability that cells could be generated by the random mixing of chemicals, some scientists believe that the first cells were created from the design of some outside, intelligent force,” the book says.”

Those of you who are regular readers will recall that I wrote–very briefly–about this topic a week or two ago. I may have been a little abstruse then, so I’ll try to provide a clearer explanation of what I think.

People who look at the structure of a cell and, noting its complexity, conclude that it must have been designed by an intelligence of some sort, are engaging in a common logical error. They’re projecting their own presumptions and expectations onto what they’re seeing and, not realizing that they are doing this, they come to a faulty conclusion. This sort of thing is a huge danger for researchers because it’s one of the most insidious of all the errors. We see what we expect to see. Part of what makes this such a tough problem is that our minds evolved specifically to organize data into familiar patterns. This skill has been a tremendous help to our species in things like learning to avoid animals with big teeth and growly voices or finding water and food in unfamiliar places, but it’s no good at all for cutting edge science.

Okay, so how does all of this apply to “intelligent design”? Our entire idea of what constitutes “intelligence” is based solely upon the way our own minds organize data. When we look closely at the way a cell works, for example, we can’t help but superimpose our own data-organizing concepts upon what we’re seeing. Noting how every little part of the cell seems to work so perfectly with every other little part, we can mistakenly conclude that the cell must have been “designed” to do so.

Now some of you might think I’ve got a circular argument going here because I’ve referred to how our minds evolved to organize data in certain ways. I believe the kernel of the argument remains valid, though, even if you choose to believe that our minds were created to organize data as they do. (Of course, if your argument is that we humans DON’T have minds that are especially good at organizing data and recognizing patterns, then…well…you’re a complete kook and there’s not much point in continuing with you.)

Anyway. I’ve probably blathered on long enough. If the whole idea of how our minds have evolved interests you, I recommend Steven Pinker’s book “How The Mind Works”. It’s fascinating. Though, I actually don’t agree with all of Pinker’s ideas. His ideas about why humans create art, for example, are pretty weak. Check it out. Great book.

One last bit from the Salon.com article: “This past December, Republican strategist Jack Burkman appeared on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country” to back creationism in terms of populist democracy. “Why should the state and the federal government have a monopoly on defining what constitutes science?” he asked. “I see no problem with presenting a creationist view in the schools, given that 70 percent of Americans want that. The law should reflect democratic desires. It should reflect public desires.”"

I have an answer for Mr. Burkman. The problem is that allowing creationism to be taught to children as if it were “science” results in an intellectually crippled child. Our government is charged with the task of protecting us and the laws should reflect that. They banned DDT, they banned lead paint, they banned Thalidomide. They should ban the teaching of “intelligent design”.

Alberto Gonzales: Very Scary Guy

Gonzales Pledges to Preserve Civil Liberties (washingtonpost.com): “President Bush’s nominee to head the Justice Department in his second term, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, pledged today to preserve civil liberties as the nation wages war on terrorism and vowed to aggressively pursue those responsible for the abuse of U.S.-held prisoners.”

Suuuuuuuuuure. I believe that. You betcha! Never mind that Gonzales is one of the people responsible for the abuse to begin with. That stuff back in 2002, though…that was all just a big misunderstanding. Yeah, that’s it! It was a misunderstanding!

“In his opening remarks, Gonzales pledged that if the Senate approves him, “I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles.”"

Now that’s a fascinating statement, really. The implication seems to be that the objectives of the White House may at times differ from the objectives of the United States and its people. I mean…we all know that already. It’s rare, though, for an office holder to actually admit to it. What it also implies, as far as I see it, is that Gonalez has been willing to support the White House even when Bush’s goals conflicted with what might have been best for the country.

They’re different roles, right? Gonzales says so.

“Attempting to explain his advice [given in a 2002 memo], Gonzales said in his prepared remarks, “After the attacks of 9/11, our government had fundamental decisions to make concerning how to apply treaties and U.S. law to an enemy that does not wear a uniform, owes no allegiance to any country, is not a party to any treaties and — most importantly — does not fight according to the laws of war.”"

And here I thought it wasn’t so much about the “laws of war” as it was about simple integrity and human decency. I always figured it was all about “taking the high road” regardless of what your enemies might do–because you don’t have any credibility if you’re doing the same things as the bad guys. Right? It’s not really all that complicated, I don’t think.

[Gonzales continued,] “As we have debated these questions, the president has made clear that he is prepared to protect and defend the United States and its citizens, and will do so vigorously, but always in a manner consistent with our nation’s values and applicable law, including our treaty obligations.”"

Heh, yeah. Sure. You can see how seriously Bush took that committment.

Not!

[In his introduction of Gonzales, Senator John Cornyn said,] “”President Bush and Judge Gonzales have both unequivocally, clearly, and repeatedly rejected the use of torture. But is there anyone here today who would fail to use every legal means to collect intelligence from terrorists that can save American lives? I certainly hope not…”"

For a public servant, old John’s got a somewhat disturbing reliance on what’s legal, when he ought to be paying more attention to what’s moral.

“Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told Gonzales, “The issue of your commitment to the rule of law is what most concerns us.”"

Precisely. Go, Ted!

“Responding to questions about the administration’s decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to the war against the al Qaeda terrorist network, Gonzales said that conclusion was “absolutely the right decision,” because doing otherwise “would make it more difficult for our troops to win. . . .”"

This guy scares the hell out of me.

Dogs Just Want to Have Fun

My dog-nephew, Gretzky.
Photo by his “mom”, Valerie Runes.

How To Make A Bed

For many people, bed-making is an onerous task. That’s because they simply don’t know how to do it. They circle the bed, round and round, as if looking for the perfect opening to kill the beast. It’s crazy.

Back in my feckless youth, I worked for a while as a hotel maid at the Holiday Inn in Duluth, Minnesota. (This was when they were still down by the lift bridge, before they sold that building to someone else and foolishly built a new hotel downtown. It was before the canal area became Canal Park and all those old warehouses became trendy boutiques and such. Oops. Bad Holiday Inn! Bad!) Anyway, though feckless, I was still alert enough to have figured out that this method of bed-making was WAY better than what I had been doing in my civilian life. I know how to make a bed–and I will share this knowledge with you.

First of all, when putting fresh sheets and blankets and such on the beds, it’s critical that you notice how much sheet or blanket hangs down on each side of the bed when the sheet or blanket is centered in position. It should be the same amount hanging down on each side, yes? Yes!

Okay, assuming you noticed and made a mental note of this, the rest is easy.

As you get out of bed in the morning, toss the pillows on the floor. Your pillows on your side of the bed, your mate’s pillows (if you have one) on his or her side. You’re still standing on your side of the bed, right? Don’t leave that position! Pull off the blanket(s) and/or bedspread and toss them on the floor on your side. The top sheet also goes on the floor on your side. I’m going to assume that you’re using fitted bottom sheets. (Though, in hotels they usually don’t use them–in my experience–because it’s more cost efficient to use a single style of flat sheet for everything.)

Now you’re ready. You’re going to completely make up one side of the bed at a time.

• Straighten and tighten up the fitted sheet on your side of the bed only!
• Pick up the flat top sheet and shake it out over the bed. Lay it down on the bed so the correct amount hangs down along your side of the bed (remember?) and it’s straight along the top of the bed as far as you can reasonably reach without leaving your side of the bed. Straighten and smooth the sheet all along your side of the bed. Tuck as desired.
• Do the same kind of thing with the blanket. Place it so the correct amount of blanket hangs down on your side of the bed and straighten it. Fold your side of the sheet down over the top of the blanket. Tuck as desired.
• Next comes the bedspread or comforter. Do the same sort of thing.
• Put the pillows for your side of the bed in their appropriate places.

What you should wind up with is a bed that’s completely made on one side and is pretty much a mess on the other side.

Okay! It should be pretty obvious what you have to do next. Walk around to the other side of the bed and finish making up all of the layers. It generally works best if you start at the foot of the bed on this second side–straightening and tucking there before proceding up to the head. For Pete’s sake! Pay attention to what you’re doing! Don’t pull any more down to the foot of this second side of the bed than you need. You don’t want everything to be all lop-sided looking!

The idea here is that you should only have to make one trip around the bed to complete the task. It will take a little practice before you master this technique but it ought to pretty significantly cut down the amount of time it takes to make a bed.

Tsunami Victims: How to Help

Click on the title above for a useful article (in the web version of the Washington Post) about contributing to aid the tsunami victims in south Asia.

Now that a week has passed and the shock of learning that over 100,000 people were killed in this disaster has dulled somewhat, I’ve had some time to think about it in a different way. I’m really glad that so many people have responded so enthusiastically to the needs of the victims, but…I wonder why? Why this disaster, when so many other disasters–some of them equal in scale–receive so much less attention? Why??

No doubt, media coverage has had a lot to do with it. I don’t watch the television news–most of my news comes from the web version of the Washington Post–but I understand the tv network coverage has been extensive, as has newspaper coverage. That, of course, leads one to question why the coverage of this disaster has been so extensive when, for example, the crisis in Darfur has received comparatively little attention.

If you don’t know much or anything at all about the situation in Darfur, don’t feel bad. I didn’t really know what it was all about either. I’d heard of Darfur, but I didn’t know where it was or what was going on there.

Darfur is in Sudan (in northeast Africa). What’s going on there is that a government-backed “counter insurgency” militia has been engaged in an “ethnic cleansing” campaign resulting in the death or displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Starvation and disease are rampant. It’s estimated that 150,000 to 180,000 people have left Sudan and have entered the country of Chad as refugees but Chad simply does not have the economic wherewithall to provide care for these people. It’s all pretty horrible.

The Darfur catastrophe is just one of many such disasters.

So…what’s the difference? Darfur’s devastation is man-made. The tsunami…obviously not. It doesn’t take particularly deep thinking to realize, though, that the civilians killed in Darfur were no more deserving of their fate than those killed by the tsunami. Maybe it has more to do with an appearance of the situation in south Asia as being actually “fixable” compared with the mess in Darfur. The Sudanese, after all, apparently have some long-standing problems. Okay. So, then, how about the long drought in Ethiopia and Eritrea? That’s resulted in untold deaths and millions of refugees. Maybe, again, it’s a “fixability” issue. With the tsunami, it’s clear what can be done. We can re-build stuff. We can clean up the mess. We can bury the dead. We can drop off some food and clean water and then we can leave. All fixed. With a drought, though…what is there to do? There’s nothing to clean up or fix.

I don’t have any easy answer. It’s not my intention to make anyone feel guilty for paying more attention to this disaster than to other disasters. Neither do I mean to imply that there’s no point in helping drought victims or the people in Darfur. My only goal here is to honestly examine the situation as I see it. Why help these people–and not those people?

Besides the fact that Eritrea and Darfur aren’t popular vacation spots, I mean….