Sunday, August 21, 2005
The Genome must be Regressive
I am bewildered by the Ridiculous Religious Right's (RRR) attack on science and evolution as exemplified here.
Call me naive. Call me simple. Also, call me a man of faith. Since I was a small boy I've known about and revered science. After all, I'm old enough to have seen both of those Frank Capra films "Our Mr. Sun" and "Hemo the Magnificent" a dozen times before I went to college.
I've never been a scientist, never gotten an 'A' on a Science Fair project, never really saw it as a career choice, but I have always had great respect for those who did make that choice. After all, my mother, who graduated from Denver University in 1939, was a chemistry major and spent her career working in her profession.
Now, I have always seen the marvelous complexity of creation as described by evolution, or the breadth of creation as articulated in the study of the universe, or the subtlety of creation as discovered while studying the human body as proof positive of the existence of God. In fact, the more science explains things, the more I get excited, because science is able to articulate for us the artful existence in which we live. Better yet, scientists are using our Divine gift of observation and deductive reasoning to reach the scientific postulates which illuminate the world for the rest of us.
So the RRR comes along and says that science is wrong or at best misguided. Its response is to throw science out the door and substitute something silly called Intelligent Design. The RRR wants us to relegate our understanding of the world to the 'mysterious' as if God wants us never to really know what He has done for us, as if we will never be able to understand it. What's more, the RRR wants schools to toe the line and ignore science altogether. Teach ID in schools. As if there is something to teach.
What bewilders me is that so many people are falling lockstep into line after these nuts. Suddenly, supporting common, ordinary science is being liberal. PLEASE.
The RRR must be an example of a regressive gene gone wild. Evolution will eventually take care of them. Have no fear.
Call me naive. Call me simple. Also, call me a man of faith. Since I was a small boy I've known about and revered science. After all, I'm old enough to have seen both of those Frank Capra films "Our Mr. Sun" and "Hemo the Magnificent" a dozen times before I went to college.
I've never been a scientist, never gotten an 'A' on a Science Fair project, never really saw it as a career choice, but I have always had great respect for those who did make that choice. After all, my mother, who graduated from Denver University in 1939, was a chemistry major and spent her career working in her profession.
Now, I have always seen the marvelous complexity of creation as described by evolution, or the breadth of creation as articulated in the study of the universe, or the subtlety of creation as discovered while studying the human body as proof positive of the existence of God. In fact, the more science explains things, the more I get excited, because science is able to articulate for us the artful existence in which we live. Better yet, scientists are using our Divine gift of observation and deductive reasoning to reach the scientific postulates which illuminate the world for the rest of us.
So the RRR comes along and says that science is wrong or at best misguided. Its response is to throw science out the door and substitute something silly called Intelligent Design. The RRR wants us to relegate our understanding of the world to the 'mysterious' as if God wants us never to really know what He has done for us, as if we will never be able to understand it. What's more, the RRR wants schools to toe the line and ignore science altogether. Teach ID in schools. As if there is something to teach.
What bewilders me is that so many people are falling lockstep into line after these nuts. Suddenly, supporting common, ordinary science is being liberal. PLEASE.
The RRR must be an example of a regressive gene gone wild. Evolution will eventually take care of them. Have no fear.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Just whom is the N&R "outing?"
Sunday's 'outing' of prospects for the Civil Rights Museum by the N&R is an example of thorough reporting by Margaret Moffett Banks. While it reported all of the right facts, however, it came to the wrong conclusions.
My thanks to David Hoggard for motivating me to go back again and read the article. Comments to his post on it were interesting, especially this comment by Karl which called to question the issue of A&T's involvement with the Museum.
For me it boiled down to that list of names. It seems strange to me, as a development professional, that a list of prospects would be created in such a way as it could be exposed to public scrutiny. Putting amounts by names when planning any kind of fund-raising effort is a normal part of what we do. And the process can seem like wishful thinking especially in the early stages. Making a gift target public before it is time to act can make a gift solicitation awkward and ill-prepared - - kind of like showing the girl the engagement ring as you are taking her out on the first date.
Because of this and some of the issues raised by Karl, I think that the N&R would be well advised to continue this line of investigation, looking at:
UPDATE: Gate City responds to the N&R's article by calling into question their reporting of the possible donors to the Museum. His points are extremely well taken and right on the mark, except that I am not convinced that the staff at A&T was all that sorry that the information got out.
Perhaps the leverage of sunshine is to them a good thing.
My thanks to David Hoggard for motivating me to go back again and read the article. Comments to his post on it were interesting, especially this comment by Karl which called to question the issue of A&T's involvement with the Museum.
For me it boiled down to that list of names. It seems strange to me, as a development professional, that a list of prospects would be created in such a way as it could be exposed to public scrutiny. Putting amounts by names when planning any kind of fund-raising effort is a normal part of what we do. And the process can seem like wishful thinking especially in the early stages. Making a gift target public before it is time to act can make a gift solicitation awkward and ill-prepared - - kind of like showing the girl the engagement ring as you are taking her out on the first date.
Because of this and some of the issues raised by Karl, I think that the N&R would be well advised to continue this line of investigation, looking at:
- How fund-raising is currently being managed
- When public funds are being used for this private project and how they are being accounted for?
- Why would the A&T staff create public documents when if they were created under the Civil Rights Museum staff's authority, they would remain private
- Why is so much of their corporate fund-raising really corporate sponsorship/business relationships? Are these charitable relationships at all?
UPDATE: Gate City responds to the N&R's article by calling into question their reporting of the possible donors to the Museum. His points are extremely well taken and right on the mark, except that I am not convinced that the staff at A&T was all that sorry that the information got out.
Perhaps the leverage of sunshine is to them a good thing.
Just whom is the N&R "Outting?"
Sunday's 'outing' of prospects for the Civil Rights Museum by the N&R is an example of thorough reporting by Margaret Moffett Banks. While it reported all of the right facts, however, it came to the wrong conclusions.
My thanks to David Hoggard for motivating me to go back again and read the article. Comments to his post on it were interesting, especially this comment by Karl which called to question the issue of A&T's involvement with the Museum.
For me it boiled down to that list of names. It seems strange to me, as a development professional, that a list of prospects would be created in such a way as it could be exposed to public scrutiny. Putting amounts by names when planning any kind of fund-raising effort is a normal part of what we do. And the process can seem like wishful thinking especially in the early stages. Making a gift target public before it is time to act can make a gift solicitation awkward and ill-prepared - - kind of like showing the girl the engagement ring as you are taking her out on the first date.
Because of this and some of the issues raised by Karl, I think that the N&R would be well advised to continue this line of investigation, looking at:
My thanks to David Hoggard for motivating me to go back again and read the article. Comments to his post on it were interesting, especially this comment by Karl which called to question the issue of A&T's involvement with the Museum.
For me it boiled down to that list of names. It seems strange to me, as a development professional, that a list of prospects would be created in such a way as it could be exposed to public scrutiny. Putting amounts by names when planning any kind of fund-raising effort is a normal part of what we do. And the process can seem like wishful thinking especially in the early stages. Making a gift target public before it is time to act can make a gift solicitation awkward and ill-prepared - - kind of like showing the girl the engagement ring as you are taking her out on the first date.
Because of this and some of the issues raised by Karl, I think that the N&R would be well advised to continue this line of investigation, looking at:
- How fund-raising is currently being managed
- When public funds are being used for this private project and how they are being accounted for?
- Why would the A&T staff create public documents when if they were created under the Civil Rights Museum staff's authority, they would remain private
- Why is so much of their corporate fund-raising really corporate sponsorship/business relationships? Are these charitable relationships at all?
Sunday, August 07, 2005
What I don't want to stop learning from my summer vacation
That nature provides us with endless opportunities for reflection.
That God gives us a unique gift to seek out beauty.
And the greatest gifts come from the smallest of things.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
What Else I've been learning on my summer vacation
That there are other things more important than worrying about what we worry about in our daily lives ....
Furl It