It is 96 degrees outside and going higher. It is a reminder that I am, yes, back in the desert. When we moved in February, it was too cold to plant a garden, now it is too hot. Gazing out my window, I see the sun shining, the tree rusting in the breeze and can almost believe it is habitable outside, yet I know that is not the gentle breeze I see, but a scorching, parching breath from that furnace outside that will in a few moments time mummify anything that is not metal, cement or underground. It's a good thing we have a basement, although I don't know that I want to spend all summer down there.
We have moved to the desert from Payson where a day like today is as bad as it gets. The nights are cool and the mornings a delight. The people are friendly and don't expect much from you. Aside from a batch of angry retirees and few meth addicts, Payson is just about perfect. Okay, I did have to shovel quite a bit of snow in December and January. Contrary to what my doctor thinks, I did get some exercise in the six months.
We moved here to be closer to our children. Well, not so much our children as our grandchildren. We never asked if they wanted to be closer to us. We have made a startling discovery: the grandchildren are busy. They have lives. Their lives have developed form and function... without us. The traditions we gleefully wanted to establish upon moving here have long ago been set... without us. The pitter-patter of little feet have given away to iPods, ball games and soon to be dates and driver's licenses. But we raised them to be independent and be themselves. There is joy in that.
I'm debating whether I want to sleep in the basement starting in a few weeks. I suppose that would make me a true desert rat. I don't see too many kangaroo rats (our most common variety) out and about in the summer. Those little guys have small brains, but they are not stupid. Not as stupid as I was to move back to the desert.
Oh, here's a phone call. Strawberry shortcake? The grandchildren will be there? Sure, we'll be right over!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Science vs. Religion
Some years ago, I saw a PBS documentary regarding a moth in South America. The moth had a 12 inch snout that could reach the bottom of a 12 inch flower and retrieve life sustaining nectar. The narrator stated that the moth had evolved to be able to obtain the nectar. The question entered my mind as to how the moth survived while its snout was just three inches long during the time it was evolving to 12 inches. Did the moth and the flower evolve together? If so, why did they need to evolve? Couldn't life have been just as good for both if flower and snout had stayed at three inches or 5/8 of an inch or 18 inches? I do not know the answers to these questions and I doubt any evolutionist does either. All the evolutionist knows is that the snout and the flower evolved.
To me, it makes a lot more sense to believe that the moth and the flower were created that way. I have nor argument with science. Questions perhaps, but no argument. After all the computer and keyboard on which I currently type are the creation of scientists. Of course they didn't evolve, they were created.
Years ago, I had a visit with a believing doctor. I was a young Mormon missionary doing what we call tracting (going door to door) in Shreveport, Louisiana. It was rainy and cold that day. The good doctor was a Methodist. He told us that he didn't want to hear what we had to say, but that he would tell us a story about his conversion from atheist to believer. It was an awful day and we were happy to come in where it was warm. The doctor stated that while in medical school, he was working on a cadaver, probing around the eye. He found that a certain muscle ran from the eye, around a kind of pulley and was attached inside the head. This arrangement allowed the eye to move from side to side. This amazed him, but it was when he found that where the muscle ran through the pulley, there was a lubricating gland which made sure that things didn't wear out. It struck him at that moment that the human body had a design. There was a source beyond happenstance that had created the body. The doctor finished his story and turned us back out into the elements.
So did that muscle, pulley, gland system evolve? I have to agree with the doctor that there was an intelligent creation beyond the power of evolution that created the system and hundred of thousands others that keep each of us going every moment.
On the other hand, I know people who say, "The Bible says it, I believe it, end of story." So starting at the beginning, was the world created in seven days? I don't think so. The word "day" in Hebrew refers to a period of time. If there is a God, could he or she have created the world in seven days and made it look like a longer time? I suppose, but what would God's motivation have been to do so? Would it have been to show a superior intellect? No need there. Would it have been to tease us? I don't think God has a sarcastic sense of humor. And to complicate the issue, in Genesis, God says, "Let us go down..." Evidently God had company? That's heresy for most believers, but the Bible says it.
May I bring this to a grand conclusion? We do not know. We were not there at the creation. If there is a creator and designer of this world, and I agree with the doctor mentioned above that there is, we have not been told the processes that were used in the creation of this world. Evolution may have been one of the processes. We do not know enough about religion or science to make a good judgement. What we are supposed to do is get along, love our neighbors (that's good science and religion), treat everyone well, learn as much as we can and don't freak out about things we don't understand.
Blessings.
To me, it makes a lot more sense to believe that the moth and the flower were created that way. I have nor argument with science. Questions perhaps, but no argument. After all the computer and keyboard on which I currently type are the creation of scientists. Of course they didn't evolve, they were created.
Years ago, I had a visit with a believing doctor. I was a young Mormon missionary doing what we call tracting (going door to door) in Shreveport, Louisiana. It was rainy and cold that day. The good doctor was a Methodist. He told us that he didn't want to hear what we had to say, but that he would tell us a story about his conversion from atheist to believer. It was an awful day and we were happy to come in where it was warm. The doctor stated that while in medical school, he was working on a cadaver, probing around the eye. He found that a certain muscle ran from the eye, around a kind of pulley and was attached inside the head. This arrangement allowed the eye to move from side to side. This amazed him, but it was when he found that where the muscle ran through the pulley, there was a lubricating gland which made sure that things didn't wear out. It struck him at that moment that the human body had a design. There was a source beyond happenstance that had created the body. The doctor finished his story and turned us back out into the elements.
So did that muscle, pulley, gland system evolve? I have to agree with the doctor that there was an intelligent creation beyond the power of evolution that created the system and hundred of thousands others that keep each of us going every moment.
On the other hand, I know people who say, "The Bible says it, I believe it, end of story." So starting at the beginning, was the world created in seven days? I don't think so. The word "day" in Hebrew refers to a period of time. If there is a God, could he or she have created the world in seven days and made it look like a longer time? I suppose, but what would God's motivation have been to do so? Would it have been to show a superior intellect? No need there. Would it have been to tease us? I don't think God has a sarcastic sense of humor. And to complicate the issue, in Genesis, God says, "Let us go down..." Evidently God had company? That's heresy for most believers, but the Bible says it.
May I bring this to a grand conclusion? We do not know. We were not there at the creation. If there is a creator and designer of this world, and I agree with the doctor mentioned above that there is, we have not been told the processes that were used in the creation of this world. Evolution may have been one of the processes. We do not know enough about religion or science to make a good judgement. What we are supposed to do is get along, love our neighbors (that's good science and religion), treat everyone well, learn as much as we can and don't freak out about things we don't understand.
Blessings.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
My problem with Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck is probably a good guy. I likely agree with much of what he says. It is the way he says it that bothers me. My problem with him harkens back to my days teaching civics. We spent a lot of time teaching propaganda techniques which are as follows:
- Name Calling
- Glittering Generalities
- Transfer
- Testimonial
- Plain Folks
- Card Stacking
- Band Wagon
I will not take time to define each of these. One may do so with a simple Internet search. Propaganda techniques are used to distort or cover the truth. I just wish Glenn Beck had been broadcasting when I was teaching propaganda techniques. He would have made my job much easier, but at the time, network news and the newspapers did a more than adequate job.
A couple of years ago, Beck came out with an exceptional claim, "Obama is a racist." Later he apologized, but the message had come through loud and clear. This is the most egregious example, but Beck listeners note that Beck uses name calling frequently. It is a common tactic in politics. The use of name calling does not make it right. In a civil society, name calling ought to be left in the dust.
Beck is often heard to say, "We all know..." or "You know..." then the distortion. We don't all know any thing. We certainly don't all agree on anything. Beck has brought out the band wagon.
Note also, that Beck uses a lot of clips taken out of context repeated very quickly. The average person does not have time to process what is being said. It is easy, especially if one generally agrees with Beck's political philosophy, to just accept what has been tossed out as truth.
Another Beck trick is to rapidly change the subject. He will make a statement, go on to something else quickly so the mind does not have time to process the previous statement.
I challenge readers of this blog to spend time with Beck (not too much) or another radio talking head and contribute what you find that may fit the profile above. It is not just the conservatives who engage in such things, although they seem to have a corner on the market right now. Air America, before it went broke, was just as guilty. Walter Cronkite, highly respected, used to end the CBS evening news with "That's the way it is." Not! That broadcast was the way it is according to Cronkite and the brain trust at CBS. They could and did twist it however they wanted. Their broadcast was always filtered and colored through their biases.
I believe, in a free society, that there should be access to rational, objective reporting. Unfortunately, such a concept has all but disappeared in our society. Most of us gather information about the world from two or three sources. It is important to recognize the slant of these sources, recognize them for what they are and form our own opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)