War....What is it good for?

When we went to war in Afghanistan, I understood the reasoning. I understood that it was to bring a government to account for their support and harboring of criminals, murderers and terrorists that planned and supported the tragedy of 9/11. I was in favor, as much as one can be, of the war in Afghanistan--we were seeking justice and to bring the individuals and powers responsible for 9/11 to account.

The war in Iraq I was not in favor of. Not sure why--it just didn't seem to ring true. What I was reading and hearing didn't add up. But more importantly I did not feel it was the United States' responsibility to enforce the dictates of the U.N. If the U.N. passed resolutions and mandates then it was the responsibility of that body to enforce them. Unilaterally enforcing them, as the United States was proposing, I felt was wrong. I felt that this was the perfect opportunity to force change within the U.N. Those were my objections to the war in Iraq, and why I felt and still feel it was unjustified.

So what now? Two of the blogs I read regularly have a good summary on this very subject. The first is written by my brother Rus. The second was written by a friend of mine. Both are well written and articulate some of my feelings better than I can. Take a peek.

Science v. Religion--Continued

Check out this cartoon by Pat Bagley. Sometimes you just gotta love the satirist.

Science vs. Religion

I was reading the online version of the Salt Lake Tribune and came across this article which does a great job of summarizing the current religion vs. science debate. Take it for a quick read.

The following is a quote that I feel best captures the point of the article and the need for SB96 to be defeated.

We need a well-educated workforce to allow us to compete in the world's science and technology-based economy of the future.

We can't afford to discourage or confuse our children. Science classrooms are where we cultivate the mindset of discovery that benefits millions of people worldwide and where we train the workers of tomorrow. The challenge is not to bring religion into those classrooms, but to teach science better than ever, with new imagination and energy.

After reading this article I stumbled upon a wonderfull letter to the editor, which I reproduce below. At first I believed it to be just another sad argument against the teaching of evolution, but quickly realized the sarcastic edge. All I can say is bravo.

Evolution fails here

There can be no doubt that evolution is not only just a theory, but a discredited one as well. We can offer our own Utah Legislature, led by Sen. Chris Buttars, as undeniable proof that man does not, and has not, evolved over time. In addition, at every election, we can point to the return of these wise and learned statesmen to office as further evidence that the concept of survival of the fittest is a fallacy in our beloved state.

(I chose not to print the name)

Then today I read this in the Utah county newspaper, the Daily Herald. The article appears to be an AP publication of an article originally printed in the Salt Lake Tribune though I couldn't find the original article there (didn't look too hard). Needless to say I am not overly surprised with the quote:

They are split on evolution as well, with 60 percent of Mormons supporting a Legislative proposal that would require public schools to teach that evolution is a theory on which scientists disagree, and 40 percent of non-Mormons supporting it.

But the thing that strikes me the most humorous is the following:

They are less divided on banning smoking in bars. Among Mormons, 41 percent support a ban on smoking in private clubs. Among non-Mormons, 27 percent do.

I find this humorous as there is no official LDS church statement on evolution, but there is very strong doctrinal stance by the LDS church against smoking. The contrast I find humorous.

//Fixed formatting errors. Added link to SB96 Jan 30, 2006 @9:03pm

Evolution Continued

Well today we discussed evolution...err...the creation in church. It started out relatively good. Nice discussion on the who and the why's of the creation and the purpose of the creation. Then the wheels fell off, at least for me, when the teacher (not a class member) suddenly shifted the discussion into science and religion, more particularly evolution and creation.

Being that I have some rather non-mainstream-Mormon thoughts on the creation, well really how evolution fits the bill as the mechanism used to create life, I decided to keep my mouth shut and just listen to the discussion. There were several times throughout the discussion, however, where I really, really, really wanted to say something, but refrained.

The first such situation came with the first comment from the class. Being that it came from a more stately (read older) lady of the ward, I can understand the errors as she may not have been up to date on the topic, and maybe even only read or listened to media that glosses over the defeats of the attempts, but she was certain that we would be seeing religion entering into the discussion of evolution in the classroom as it is beginning to be pushed for. I can only assume that she is referring to "Intelligent Design" which has been roundly defeated in the courts as a religious belief and not science, and therefore unconstitutional to be taught in state sponsored schools (and rightly so).

The second situation was when a man (rather well read and educated one) stated that he regularly studies this issue and is intrigued by it, particularly when you start delving into the more hidden aspects of it--the suppressed information. I had to double take on that one--a conspiracy about evolution...wow. I stifled a laugh. It was at this point that I realized keeping my mouth shut was the proper thing as it did not appear that the class would at all be willing to listen to a statement supporting evolution as the mechanism of creation.

The third statement came from another sister after she explained the need to parents to be involved in our children's learning and schooling and to understand what is being taught so that we, as parents, can counter erroneous and worldly teachings (which I agree with when it comes to morality and other core church teachings). She continued to explain that the Earth was formed from unorganized matter (okay with her on this), and that we believe there are multiple worlds out there (also in agreeance). She then went on to discuss how she explains the fossil records and the scientific data about dinosaurs and the fossil records by stating that many of these other planets surely must have dinosaurs living on them and it was from one of these planets, that exploded at some point, that the unorganized matter was obtained to form this Earth--again, I stifled a laugh. Not because the idea was loony, but because when I first studied evolution I tried to think of things along those same lines but quickly ruled it out as illogical in thought. So to now hear it spoken out loud in church just made it sound all the more absurd.

The fourth was the most irritating to me because of where the brother pulled the information from to make the argument. One of the brethren began by stating that the LDS community has three records of the creation: Genesis, Book of Moses, and the temple. He continued by stating that the temple depiction is the most accurate and that when God "placed" the animals on the earth and commanded them to multiply in their respective sphere, he did not say that he "modified their DNA" but "placed" them on the earth, thus implying that evolution is not possible, at all. The reason why it was the most irritating was because the temple is full of symbolism, and is intended to be reserved for those members of the LDS church who are worthy to enter. To pull it into such a common, non-intimate setting just struck me as wrong, particularly when not everyone in the room is able to attend the temple.

Needless to say I left Sunday school laughing to myself and more than frustrated with the lesson. Here was a time set aside to discuss the creation and its purpose in the plan of salvation, but instead the teacher turned it into an anti-science discussion. Take a look for yourself at the Gospel Doctrine lesson manual or study guide. Nowhere does it say to discuss evolution or the scientific theories of evolution, or the origins of life.

I was going to discuss my beliefs on the theory of evolution and religion, but this post is already getting long and has taken me a couple days to write already. So I will conclude by saying that I find it humorous to see how people will construct these fabulously intricate and illogical thought processes and beliefs to protect their religious beliefs when no such construction or protection is needed.

//fixed spelling and grammatical errors. Jan 27, 2006, 19:12

Evolution Just a Theory?
Read this today in the Salt Lake Tribune as well as this in the Deseret News. Apparently Chris Buttars is at it again. His Senate bill (SB96), that just cleared the "Senate Education Standing Committee" seeks to add the following to the state science curriculum.

A requirement that teachers tell students evolution is only a theory, about which scientists disagree.

 --sltrib.com

In reading the bill (see above link) it does not appear to require that teachers state that evolution is only a theory. The legislation seeks to establish the following:

This bill: ...requires the State Board of Education to establish curriculum requirements and policies that: stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct; and do not endorse a particular theory regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race....

According to the Deseret News article Buttars says the following about his bill:

"There is no faith-based in here. They're all inferring that. I don't know why they're doing that," Buttars said. "All the bill says is, don't overstate what you don't know."

My favorite quote appears in this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.

"There is evolution within species," Buttars said. "There are big dogs and little dogs, big cats and little cats, but you haven't seen a 'dat.' You don't see intermediate species."

I am absolutely amazed that people are making such a big issue concerning the teaching of evolution. It doesn't make sense to me. How does evolution disprove the existence of God? How does it supposedly cheapen man as his ultimate creation? Why can't evolution be the device God used to create this world and all the diversity, including humans, that are found upon the face of the Earth? It simply does not make sense to me. Why does it matter what scientist believe?

Martin Luther King, Jr.
This morning as I was perusing my normal news haunts, an article on Dr. King caught my attention. The article discusses a new book written by Historian Taylor Branch's title "At Canaan's Edge". The following is a quote from the article concerning the contents of the book:

In the book, the third in Branch's series detailing King's life and the civil rights movement, the author writes of a longstanding affair King allegedly revealed to Coretta Scott King the year before his 1968 assassination.

Branch, who has not been available for interviews, also writes of heated arguments King had with some of his closest colleagues, including Jackson, whom he accused of trying to use the civil rights movement to promote himself.

Rumors of Dr. King having an affair(s) are not new. I have heard them for several years. In my mind, however, they do not take away from his message nor his stature as a man seeking to end racism and segregation. They merely highlight that he was indeed a man prone to the same mistakes, and temptations as many others. The work he did 30+ years ago was important for this country and, IMHO, cannot be diminished by time nor by these rumors (or even fact).

The issue concerning Rev. Jesse Jackson, well, enough said.

//fixed gramatical and formatting errors. Jan 17, 2006 16:01//