Here it is, as promised. We have a nasty habit of taking words with clear meanings and making less of them. In doing so, we not only make our language more difficult to understand, but we also make the ideas that these words represent more ambiguous. There are countless examples of this occurrence, but I will use the one that I feel has been bastardized the most in the last six years and some change. The word, predictably enough, is the title of this post.
Case 1: Barack Obama. We've all seen the media scratching around for something to throw at the Illinois Senator and presidential candidate. Maybe it's just the fact that they can't find anything substantial that has caused them to go after his lack of a lapel pin displaying the American flag. Who the hell wears one of those on a day-to-day basis? I would consider it tacky to wear one on any day other than a distinctly American holiday. This is an issue that doesn't need my defense. Barack has done a wonderful job downplaying the issue. Wearing a lapel pin has nothing to do with one's patriotism. While an anarchist or soviet loyalist probably wouldn't wear one (except as part of a disguise), it's reasonable to believe that most people of a reasonably indifferent opinion on the matter would wear a flag pin some days and not others. In fact, the only presidential candidate (still in or dropped out) of whom I was able to find a picture with the flag pin was Giuliani. Apparently, that was his whole campaign.
Case 2: Flag merchandise. Right after September 11th, sales of American flag merchandise skyrocketed. By merchandise, I mean decals and magnets for cars, t-shirts, actual flags of all sizes, and miscellaneous other objects, as long as they somehow proudly displayed the Stars and Stripes. I recall hearing something about there actually being a shortage of flag merchandise following this. Since then, the patriotic merchandise market has managed to continue its boom with 'support our troops' ribbon magnets, and 'never forget' propaganda. What does this have to do with patriotism? Not much, really. It has plenty to do with consumerism, which is a uniquely American value, I suppose, but it has very little to do with love of one's country.
This all really boils down to something pretty simple. Patriotism is not external. I could go the rest of my life without buying, wearing, or even seeing a flag, and it wouldn't make me any less patriotic. There are ways of expressing it, just as there are ways of expressing any emotion, but ultimately, patriotism is internal. Express it as you would express any other type of love, by doing what's best for the country. Work hard, support American companies, and do your part to make the country look good. We used to have a pretty good handle on it. I'm not really feeling it anymore. Let's bring patriotism back.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
American Casualties
I have issues with all of the candidates running for the Presidency of the United States right now. Some more than others, of course, but it suffices to say that my intention here is not to attack John McCain. His view, which I will examine, is one I often hear echoed by news anchors on every station. I can't say that I blame him individually so much as I do the political system of which he is a major part. So, McCain is perhaps to blame, but no more than likely thousands of other public figures and millions of other Americans are for going with the flow instead of questioning the way we talk about these things. I set this post up in vague terms intentionally, though the title gives away the topic at hand, in an attempt to avoid prejudice, both in my writing and in the reader.
When we talk about the war in Iraq, we tend to talk about the death toll in terms of American casualties. The information is readily available. Currently, the official casualty count of American soldiers in Iraq is 4,050. Information on other casualties, such as those of Iraqi civilians, is available, but it's never the headline, and it's not what most people are interested in, though it is a much higher number. John McCain recently expressed his view that an increase in troop levels should ultimately decrease the number of American casualties. As much as I disagree with that statement as one of fact, I disagree more with the view that it perpetuates, that American lives are somehow the only ones that count.
Why do so many Americans only care about the deaths of our own troops? The best explanation is a form of egocentrism. It's a natural, but morally unjustifiable, way of looking at the world. Unless it's called to our attention, most people gladly hold an egocentric belief with little or no feeling of guilt. It is, however, tantamount to racism, sexism, and any other form of prejudice one might use to favor those similar to himself while pushing away those who are different.
I like to think there might be other reasons, but what else could there be? We started the war, and they're the ones who signed up to potentially get shot or blown up, so doesn't that mean that we should care more about all of the other deaths that result from the conflict? Maybe it's because they're people we're more likely to be emotionally attached to, either through friendly or familial relationships, but that reasoning doesn't get us far from egocentrism at all.
Americans have a reputation for being selfish, but I hesitate to take this issue that far. We're generally a little inconsiderate, certainly, but I have to insist that we are not willfully ignorant of other people's problems. I don't know that we're willingly ignoring other deaths, either. Most Americans read and watch what they're fed, and what they're fed is what news companies latch onto. A story always sells better if it's about America, so that's precisely what we get on the front page of every paper in the country. I guess we find it more patriotic, and that makes us feel good about ourselves for buying into it. Patriotism is another thing that's been bastardized, but that's a topic for another post.
The simple solution to this admittedly strange problem is to start with yourself. Simply start caring a little more about civilian deaths, and try to be at least somewhat informed on the issue. IBC probably keeps the best count of Iraqi deaths in this conflict. I'm not proposing a solution to the war we're in. Frankly, I don't know what the best strategy is, but at least we can talk about the issue properly, in terms of human casualties rather than American casualties. In order to solve a problem, we must first understand the problem at hand.
When we talk about the war in Iraq, we tend to talk about the death toll in terms of American casualties. The information is readily available. Currently, the official casualty count of American soldiers in Iraq is 4,050. Information on other casualties, such as those of Iraqi civilians, is available, but it's never the headline, and it's not what most people are interested in, though it is a much higher number. John McCain recently expressed his view that an increase in troop levels should ultimately decrease the number of American casualties. As much as I disagree with that statement as one of fact, I disagree more with the view that it perpetuates, that American lives are somehow the only ones that count.
Why do so many Americans only care about the deaths of our own troops? The best explanation is a form of egocentrism. It's a natural, but morally unjustifiable, way of looking at the world. Unless it's called to our attention, most people gladly hold an egocentric belief with little or no feeling of guilt. It is, however, tantamount to racism, sexism, and any other form of prejudice one might use to favor those similar to himself while pushing away those who are different.
I like to think there might be other reasons, but what else could there be? We started the war, and they're the ones who signed up to potentially get shot or blown up, so doesn't that mean that we should care more about all of the other deaths that result from the conflict? Maybe it's because they're people we're more likely to be emotionally attached to, either through friendly or familial relationships, but that reasoning doesn't get us far from egocentrism at all.
Americans have a reputation for being selfish, but I hesitate to take this issue that far. We're generally a little inconsiderate, certainly, but I have to insist that we are not willfully ignorant of other people's problems. I don't know that we're willingly ignoring other deaths, either. Most Americans read and watch what they're fed, and what they're fed is what news companies latch onto. A story always sells better if it's about America, so that's precisely what we get on the front page of every paper in the country. I guess we find it more patriotic, and that makes us feel good about ourselves for buying into it. Patriotism is another thing that's been bastardized, but that's a topic for another post.
The simple solution to this admittedly strange problem is to start with yourself. Simply start caring a little more about civilian deaths, and try to be at least somewhat informed on the issue. IBC probably keeps the best count of Iraqi deaths in this conflict. I'm not proposing a solution to the war we're in. Frankly, I don't know what the best strategy is, but at least we can talk about the issue properly, in terms of human casualties rather than American casualties. In order to solve a problem, we must first understand the problem at hand.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Corn
As most people know by now, the ethanol fuel mandate by the Bush administration has been a complete failure. The price of a gallon of gas is through the roof for a number of reasons, and it seems uncertain whether ethanol is part of the problem or not, but the stuff wouldn't save me any money if it were free. In addition to the cost of fuel, the cost of food has skyrocketed, no doubt largely because so many fields are being used to produce corn for ethanol. This post will detail these irritations. I know a lot of this might bore some people, but it's useful knowledge, so pay bear with me.
Since I became the sole driver of my car, I've kept close track of my gas mileage, with the exception of maybe one or two tanks. I'm a little anal about it. I don't settle for a rough estimate. I like to see my mileage in comparison with the last tank, down to the 100th's place, so I always use a calculator to figure it out. This allows me to see, for instance, if mid-grade or premium gas actually saves me money by making my vehicle more efficient (it does), as well as test certain driving styles and vehicle modifications. It used to be that, assuming I wasn't racing anyone or pulling Jeeps out of ditches, my Outback always got 30-31 miles per gallon on regular gas. Sometimes I could squeeze a little more out of mid-grade or premium, but it never made much of a difference. It never seems to matter, even today, whether I'm driving in the city, on the highway, or something in-between. Apparently, the slower speeds and lower wind resistance of the city balance out the stop-go traffic pattern. But here's the thing. Since the addition of 10% ethanol to all gasoline, my mileage on regular gas has decreased to 25 MPG. On mid-grade, I get 27. I have not tested premium lately, so I can't comment on its effects yet.
This seems fairly counterintuitive. We've changed 10% of our fuel makeup, and my mileage has decreased by roughly 15%. How is this possible? Even if ethanol ran straight through the combustion cycle without participating, it should only decrease power and mileage by 10%, normal logic dictates. So, my engine must not like it. It must be causing an O2 sensor send a signal to the computer, telling it to enrich the mix, thereby increasing fuel consumption and pollution from unburned fuel. It actually makes a great deal of sense. Ethanol is a cleaner fuel than gasoline. Cleaner exhaust hitting the front O2 sensor tells the computer that the mix is lean, and it sends more fuel to the rescue. So, essentially, the problem is that modern computer-controlled engines that are not designed to run ethanol do not run well on ethanol. When I put it like that, suddenly it makes a lot more sense. Coincidentally, this shows that old, mechanically-controlled vehicles should handle ethanol well, since they don't have oxygen sensors.
Why doesn't the government consult me on these things? Seriously, I saw this coming. Before the switch, I tried an experiment. I had heard something about propanol being a better fuel than gas in a gasoline engine, so I poured a quart of propanol (similar combustion properties to ethanol) into my tank and observed the results. It may not seem like enough to matter, but like I said, I take meticulous notes on my mileage, and I was able to calculate that my engine did not use the propanol. So, as a tinkerer, I knew already in 2004 what it would take the country a few years to figure out.
Browsing some news articles, there's some horrendously inaccurate information and, should I say, propaganda, out there. According to DomesticFuel.com, gas at $3.25 with a 10% ethanol blend would otherwise be $3.70. How is this possible? By my calculations, even if ethanol were free, it would only account for a 36 cent difference. There is, of course, the role that supply and demand plays, but that must be an inaccurate calculation as well, given the above calculation that most vehicles are actually using more gas now.
Now we move to the obvious issue of food cost. Millions of acres of American farmland have been switched to corn from other crops due to generous government subsidies rewarding this act. Corn used for ethanol production drives up the cost of corn for uses in food, including feed for livestock as well as high fructose corn syrup, which is a major ingredient in virtually every manufactured food item we consume. There are, of course, other factors governing the cost of food. There is high international demand for American food exports (including corn), and the decreased value of the US dollar has certainly played a role, but ethanol production seems to be the biggest problem that builds on itself as far as food cost goes. We use gasoline and diesel to fuel the equipment that harvests the corn, which we then ferment and distill to make ethanol, actually using more energy to produce that fuel than can be gotten out of it. The ethanol is then pumped into farm equipment again as 10% of its fuel, likely decreasing the efficiency of the equipment, and further increasing the cost of farming corn. Then, the use of corn for ethanol both increases demand for corn and reduces the supply of other crops, driving up the price of everything.
Remember those subsidies I was talking about? Yeah, they're getting us there, too. Subsidies like this one always mean that the taxpayers are getting screwed out of money that could otherwise be used to cut taxes, reduce the national debt, or fund something useful like schools or birth control for the poor or the development of power from nuclear fusion. On top of the $3.49 you're paying for a gallon of gas, we're all paying considerably more because of these subsidies.
There is one light spot I've found in this debacle, though. As mentioned before, high fructose corn syrup is in practically every food item we consume. It's not good for us. Our bodies don't metabolize it well, and it's likely a major contributor to our obesity issue. If corn keeps getting more expensive, it may become cost-effective again for food companies to use sucrose (common sugar) in their recipes. So, at least when we're all out of money and have no choice but to bike to work, we'll be healthy enough to do it. Sadly, I'm not even convinced that this will happen. The reason we've got corn syrup in everything we eat is the same reason we've got ethanol from corn in our gas. The corn industry has a powerful lobby in the US government, and it's going to be hard to free ourselves from its stranglehold.
I hate to be so bitter. Maybe I need to cool down. If anyone needs me, I'll be planting a garden and distilling the ethanol out of my gas.
Since I became the sole driver of my car, I've kept close track of my gas mileage, with the exception of maybe one or two tanks. I'm a little anal about it. I don't settle for a rough estimate. I like to see my mileage in comparison with the last tank, down to the 100th's place, so I always use a calculator to figure it out. This allows me to see, for instance, if mid-grade or premium gas actually saves me money by making my vehicle more efficient (it does), as well as test certain driving styles and vehicle modifications. It used to be that, assuming I wasn't racing anyone or pulling Jeeps out of ditches, my Outback always got 30-31 miles per gallon on regular gas. Sometimes I could squeeze a little more out of mid-grade or premium, but it never made much of a difference. It never seems to matter, even today, whether I'm driving in the city, on the highway, or something in-between. Apparently, the slower speeds and lower wind resistance of the city balance out the stop-go traffic pattern. But here's the thing. Since the addition of 10% ethanol to all gasoline, my mileage on regular gas has decreased to 25 MPG. On mid-grade, I get 27. I have not tested premium lately, so I can't comment on its effects yet.
This seems fairly counterintuitive. We've changed 10% of our fuel makeup, and my mileage has decreased by roughly 15%. How is this possible? Even if ethanol ran straight through the combustion cycle without participating, it should only decrease power and mileage by 10%, normal logic dictates. So, my engine must not like it. It must be causing an O2 sensor send a signal to the computer, telling it to enrich the mix, thereby increasing fuel consumption and pollution from unburned fuel. It actually makes a great deal of sense. Ethanol is a cleaner fuel than gasoline. Cleaner exhaust hitting the front O2 sensor tells the computer that the mix is lean, and it sends more fuel to the rescue. So, essentially, the problem is that modern computer-controlled engines that are not designed to run ethanol do not run well on ethanol. When I put it like that, suddenly it makes a lot more sense. Coincidentally, this shows that old, mechanically-controlled vehicles should handle ethanol well, since they don't have oxygen sensors.
Why doesn't the government consult me on these things? Seriously, I saw this coming. Before the switch, I tried an experiment. I had heard something about propanol being a better fuel than gas in a gasoline engine, so I poured a quart of propanol (similar combustion properties to ethanol) into my tank and observed the results. It may not seem like enough to matter, but like I said, I take meticulous notes on my mileage, and I was able to calculate that my engine did not use the propanol. So, as a tinkerer, I knew already in 2004 what it would take the country a few years to figure out.
Browsing some news articles, there's some horrendously inaccurate information and, should I say, propaganda, out there. According to DomesticFuel.com, gas at $3.25 with a 10% ethanol blend would otherwise be $3.70. How is this possible? By my calculations, even if ethanol were free, it would only account for a 36 cent difference. There is, of course, the role that supply and demand plays, but that must be an inaccurate calculation as well, given the above calculation that most vehicles are actually using more gas now.
Now we move to the obvious issue of food cost. Millions of acres of American farmland have been switched to corn from other crops due to generous government subsidies rewarding this act. Corn used for ethanol production drives up the cost of corn for uses in food, including feed for livestock as well as high fructose corn syrup, which is a major ingredient in virtually every manufactured food item we consume. There are, of course, other factors governing the cost of food. There is high international demand for American food exports (including corn), and the decreased value of the US dollar has certainly played a role, but ethanol production seems to be the biggest problem that builds on itself as far as food cost goes. We use gasoline and diesel to fuel the equipment that harvests the corn, which we then ferment and distill to make ethanol, actually using more energy to produce that fuel than can be gotten out of it. The ethanol is then pumped into farm equipment again as 10% of its fuel, likely decreasing the efficiency of the equipment, and further increasing the cost of farming corn. Then, the use of corn for ethanol both increases demand for corn and reduces the supply of other crops, driving up the price of everything.
Remember those subsidies I was talking about? Yeah, they're getting us there, too. Subsidies like this one always mean that the taxpayers are getting screwed out of money that could otherwise be used to cut taxes, reduce the national debt, or fund something useful like schools or birth control for the poor or the development of power from nuclear fusion. On top of the $3.49 you're paying for a gallon of gas, we're all paying considerably more because of these subsidies.
There is one light spot I've found in this debacle, though. As mentioned before, high fructose corn syrup is in practically every food item we consume. It's not good for us. Our bodies don't metabolize it well, and it's likely a major contributor to our obesity issue. If corn keeps getting more expensive, it may become cost-effective again for food companies to use sucrose (common sugar) in their recipes. So, at least when we're all out of money and have no choice but to bike to work, we'll be healthy enough to do it. Sadly, I'm not even convinced that this will happen. The reason we've got corn syrup in everything we eat is the same reason we've got ethanol from corn in our gas. The corn industry has a powerful lobby in the US government, and it's going to be hard to free ourselves from its stranglehold.
I hate to be so bitter. Maybe I need to cool down. If anyone needs me, I'll be planting a garden and distilling the ethanol out of my gas.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
HAAAAAAAAAAAAY... Fever
Growing up, I had the worst pollen allergy of anyone I've ever met. It's amazing how many effective allergy medications have come out within the last decade or so. Over the years, I've tried different treatments, from antihistamines to decongestants to taking it like a man.
This year, I'm going to try to take a more scientific approach to dealing with my body's reactions to plant sperm. I have Claritin and Allegra samples as a backup, but I don't like to depend on drugs for my well-being. Most of them either make me drowsy when I shouldn't sleep or keep me awake when I should sleep. Even if there were some perfect allergy drug that didn't change my sleep cycle, though, I still would want to avoid it, if for no other reason than the possibility of a zombie apocalypse, or the slightly more likely possibility of having no health insurance in a few years.
So I've searched the Web. I've found sources that say foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids help to prevent allergies. That means cold-water fish, eggs, grain-fed meats and dairy products, and some other things I won't eat. I'm up for some salmon from time to time and eating more often at Chipotle, so I'll see how that works out.
Then there's ascorbic acid, or vitamin C. This study shows that a daily dose of 200-500mg is highly effective in most cases. That's a lot to get from natural sources. Oranges, known for their high vitamin C content, typically contain 50mg vitamin C per 100g. So, in order to get 500mg per day, I would have to eat a kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of oranges or drink the equivalent in orange juice. I want to see if I can get my hands on some guavas, which are twice as vitamin C dense as oranges. If I experience sufficient relief at the 200mg end of the range, I should be fine with one or two guavas per day. We figured out at work that we can order them by the case, so I'm going to try and do that. It's worth mentioning that red peppers, another favorite food of mine, have 190mg/100g, but I typically consume them roasted, and that tends to cause a significant loss of vitamin C. The same is true for broccoli (90mg/100g).
I can't find any information on the subject, but I always feel like, when I get a good, strong workout, my allergies go away. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe it's because my body has to put so much into the task at hand, it doesn't have enough resources left over to produce histamine. Whatever the case, I'm going to try to hit the trails with my bike a lot more.
I apologize if any of you found this boring. My intent is usually to entertain, but sometimes information is more important. Roughly 20% of Americans suffer from hay fever, and I know at least that percentage of my friends and acquaintances do. Many of you may choose the path of medicine, but there's always the danger that it will make you want to kill yourself. Generally, I think that knowing how your body works and making it do what you want through careful manipulation is better than pharmaceuticals. At the very least, I want everyone to know that these options are available.
Happy camping.
This year, I'm going to try to take a more scientific approach to dealing with my body's reactions to plant sperm. I have Claritin and Allegra samples as a backup, but I don't like to depend on drugs for my well-being. Most of them either make me drowsy when I shouldn't sleep or keep me awake when I should sleep. Even if there were some perfect allergy drug that didn't change my sleep cycle, though, I still would want to avoid it, if for no other reason than the possibility of a zombie apocalypse, or the slightly more likely possibility of having no health insurance in a few years.
So I've searched the Web. I've found sources that say foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids help to prevent allergies. That means cold-water fish, eggs, grain-fed meats and dairy products, and some other things I won't eat. I'm up for some salmon from time to time and eating more often at Chipotle, so I'll see how that works out.
Then there's ascorbic acid, or vitamin C. This study shows that a daily dose of 200-500mg is highly effective in most cases. That's a lot to get from natural sources. Oranges, known for their high vitamin C content, typically contain 50mg vitamin C per 100g. So, in order to get 500mg per day, I would have to eat a kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of oranges or drink the equivalent in orange juice. I want to see if I can get my hands on some guavas, which are twice as vitamin C dense as oranges. If I experience sufficient relief at the 200mg end of the range, I should be fine with one or two guavas per day. We figured out at work that we can order them by the case, so I'm going to try and do that. It's worth mentioning that red peppers, another favorite food of mine, have 190mg/100g, but I typically consume them roasted, and that tends to cause a significant loss of vitamin C. The same is true for broccoli (90mg/100g).
I can't find any information on the subject, but I always feel like, when I get a good, strong workout, my allergies go away. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe it's because my body has to put so much into the task at hand, it doesn't have enough resources left over to produce histamine. Whatever the case, I'm going to try to hit the trails with my bike a lot more.
I apologize if any of you found this boring. My intent is usually to entertain, but sometimes information is more important. Roughly 20% of Americans suffer from hay fever, and I know at least that percentage of my friends and acquaintances do. Many of you may choose the path of medicine, but there's always the danger that it will make you want to kill yourself. Generally, I think that knowing how your body works and making it do what you want through careful manipulation is better than pharmaceuticals. At the very least, I want everyone to know that these options are available.
Happy camping.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
I Swear, I Have the Dumbest Friends...
Not all of them, of course. Most of my friends are actually pretty smart. Facebook is a wonderful utility for keeping in touch with friends, acquaintances, and people I don't really remember at all, but sometimes I think it tells me too much. For instance, I would prefer to ignore the fact that some of the people with whom I associate are evangelical Bible-thumpers. I would also like to think that my friends are too smart to believe that, by boycotting a certain gas station, they can lower the price of gas overall. Some of those same friends also apparently have a problem with free speech, and have joined groups expressing that sentiment. People will join groups for any reason, too. One of my friends joined a group objecting to a Chipotle opening next door to a Qdoba.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13165865387
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2366821614
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19355827832
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4050757156
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11125418796
I guess I shouldn't expect so much. I mean, I already had a pretty good sense that these people weren't the sharpest knives in the rainbow (don't think about it - your head will explode). It's just sad that people believe and care about this crap. I'm not going to spend more time on this. It's funny when you're in a good mood, but if you let it piss you off, it's annoying.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13165865387
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2366821614
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19355827832
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4050757156
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11125418796
I guess I shouldn't expect so much. I mean, I already had a pretty good sense that these people weren't the sharpest knives in the rainbow (don't think about it - your head will explode). It's just sad that people believe and care about this crap. I'm not going to spend more time on this. It's funny when you're in a good mood, but if you let it piss you off, it's annoying.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Perry Marshall: Proving God or Proving his Ignorance?
Perry Marshall is a computer science expert who knows a few things about evolution, though there are some fundamental errors of his understanding of the process. His argument, which I intend to refute, can be found here.
Marshall's argument is essentially a modified watchmaker argument. He claims that, while things that perform a function which simply follow patterns, such as tornadoes and planetary orbits, do not require a designer, information does require a designer. Is he saying, as a Christian, that God didn't create tornadoes and the universe as a whole, but only created life within said universe?
Despite his argument being invalid, it seems reasonable on the surface. It just seems reasonable that a sentence describing a thing would have something writing that sentence. There's something different about genetic code, though. It only has four letters, and out of the 64 possible combinations of three, every one of them forms a meaningful codon. In other words, here we have a language in which there are no non-words, and there are different spellings for each word, to the point where there are only 20 words in the language. Suddenly it seems more feasible to create a sentence with some meaning out of random letters. Change one letter, the word might be the same, or it might be different, but it's still going to be a word, and there's a 1 in 20 chance that it will be the best word for that place in that sentence.
Marshall argues that noise is not information and therefore could not produce anything useful, but his argument is a case of equivocation which the average person likely would not catch. When biologists refer to information, they refer to it in the sense of information theory. In this sense, noise is exactly what information is. DNA is information that has become useful for the production of a specific organism through a process of natural selection. In our sentence analogy, if natural selection produced the line, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fish-stick," in one organism, and in the other organism produced the proper line, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool," the latter would be far more likely to survive the selection pressures of English literature and live on to modern times, though the former would perhaps survive in the form of mild humor until the mutation to the proper line occurred by chance.
Marshall seems to be arguing that natural selection does not exist, which is ridiculous at best. Even a fairly devout fundamentalist Christian can see that natural selection occurs because it's so obvious. He mentions repeatedly that noise cannot be the source of meaningful information, completely ignoring the concept of natural selection, and whenever natural selection comes up, he says that it must be the work of a designer, having given an argument for that assumption that is inductive at best, and invalid at worst. In either case, this is not the stuff of proof, but rather, a way of making assumptions until a better concept comes about.
This guy also makes mention of an experiment done with fruit flies, whereby they were given a strong dose of radiation to accelerate mutation, and all of the changes were detrimental to the insects. Of course they were. Natural selection, above all else, takes time to work. When radiation levels are so high that we can expect hundreds of mutations per generation in every offspring, of course it's not going to work. Evolution works one step at a time, allowing the most viable organisms to survive and reproduce, while the less fit struggle more and reproduce less until certain genes are wiped out of the population as a whole.
For an hour and some change of talking, there's not really that much left to say. Marshall argues that all languages have certain characteristics without looking at why they have those characteristics. He takes advantage of the abstractness of information to confuse the audience through equivocation. He equivocates about the meaning of 'junk' DNA, a term of which even most biologists aren't too fond. He claims that the fossil record matches the Bible better than it does naturalistic evolution, a drastic and controversial claim which he fails to support. I found it funny that he reversed stalagmites and stalactites at the beginning of his speech, not really proof that he didn't know what he was talking about, but it turned out to be a good indicator.
Marshall's argument is essentially a modified watchmaker argument. He claims that, while things that perform a function which simply follow patterns, such as tornadoes and planetary orbits, do not require a designer, information does require a designer. Is he saying, as a Christian, that God didn't create tornadoes and the universe as a whole, but only created life within said universe?
Despite his argument being invalid, it seems reasonable on the surface. It just seems reasonable that a sentence describing a thing would have something writing that sentence. There's something different about genetic code, though. It only has four letters, and out of the 64 possible combinations of three, every one of them forms a meaningful codon. In other words, here we have a language in which there are no non-words, and there are different spellings for each word, to the point where there are only 20 words in the language. Suddenly it seems more feasible to create a sentence with some meaning out of random letters. Change one letter, the word might be the same, or it might be different, but it's still going to be a word, and there's a 1 in 20 chance that it will be the best word for that place in that sentence.
Marshall argues that noise is not information and therefore could not produce anything useful, but his argument is a case of equivocation which the average person likely would not catch. When biologists refer to information, they refer to it in the sense of information theory. In this sense, noise is exactly what information is. DNA is information that has become useful for the production of a specific organism through a process of natural selection. In our sentence analogy, if natural selection produced the line, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fish-stick," in one organism, and in the other organism produced the proper line, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool," the latter would be far more likely to survive the selection pressures of English literature and live on to modern times, though the former would perhaps survive in the form of mild humor until the mutation to the proper line occurred by chance.
Marshall seems to be arguing that natural selection does not exist, which is ridiculous at best. Even a fairly devout fundamentalist Christian can see that natural selection occurs because it's so obvious. He mentions repeatedly that noise cannot be the source of meaningful information, completely ignoring the concept of natural selection, and whenever natural selection comes up, he says that it must be the work of a designer, having given an argument for that assumption that is inductive at best, and invalid at worst. In either case, this is not the stuff of proof, but rather, a way of making assumptions until a better concept comes about.
This guy also makes mention of an experiment done with fruit flies, whereby they were given a strong dose of radiation to accelerate mutation, and all of the changes were detrimental to the insects. Of course they were. Natural selection, above all else, takes time to work. When radiation levels are so high that we can expect hundreds of mutations per generation in every offspring, of course it's not going to work. Evolution works one step at a time, allowing the most viable organisms to survive and reproduce, while the less fit struggle more and reproduce less until certain genes are wiped out of the population as a whole.
For an hour and some change of talking, there's not really that much left to say. Marshall argues that all languages have certain characteristics without looking at why they have those characteristics. He takes advantage of the abstractness of information to confuse the audience through equivocation. He equivocates about the meaning of 'junk' DNA, a term of which even most biologists aren't too fond. He claims that the fossil record matches the Bible better than it does naturalistic evolution, a drastic and controversial claim which he fails to support. I found it funny that he reversed stalagmites and stalactites at the beginning of his speech, not really proof that he didn't know what he was talking about, but it turned out to be a good indicator.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
From My Cold, Dead Hands
Actor and political activist Charlton Heston died yesterday. I knew little about him other than that he had been in some movies and was the president of the National Rifle Association. Doing a little research, I've found that he was also a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. It seems he's always fought for freedom, and to that we owe him honor and gratitude.
The only Michael Moore film I've ever watched was Bowling for Columbine. I refuse to watch any more of his films because of how ignorant and immature he was in that film. In it, he interviewed Charlton Heston at Heston's house, asking a few questions about why we've got such a high firearm murder rate. Heston didn't have a whole lot to say on the matter. At the end of the interview, though, Moore began to chastise Mr. Heston for holding gun rallies (scheduled well in advance) after tragic shootings. Here's the clip.
What the clip doesn't show is Mr. Heston walking away with Moore still yelling things. I loved the way Heston just stayed calm and walked away when he realized Moore was going to be a jackass instead of having a conversation.
So maybe Charlton Heston didn't always have the best answer for everything. I think I would have handled the interview a little differently, offering some possible answers. I don't think Moore gave him any opportunity to prepare answers to his questions or do some research, so that was probably part of the reason there wasn't much substance to the interview. Even if every interview were like that, though, Heston still held the right views for the right reasons, and he fought valiantly for those purposes. Perhaps his speeches generally inspired the wrong kind of people, but when it comes to elections, it only matters that they vote.
Charlton Heston, you will be missed.
The only Michael Moore film I've ever watched was Bowling for Columbine. I refuse to watch any more of his films because of how ignorant and immature he was in that film. In it, he interviewed Charlton Heston at Heston's house, asking a few questions about why we've got such a high firearm murder rate. Heston didn't have a whole lot to say on the matter. At the end of the interview, though, Moore began to chastise Mr. Heston for holding gun rallies (scheduled well in advance) after tragic shootings. Here's the clip.
What the clip doesn't show is Mr. Heston walking away with Moore still yelling things. I loved the way Heston just stayed calm and walked away when he realized Moore was going to be a jackass instead of having a conversation.
So maybe Charlton Heston didn't always have the best answer for everything. I think I would have handled the interview a little differently, offering some possible answers. I don't think Moore gave him any opportunity to prepare answers to his questions or do some research, so that was probably part of the reason there wasn't much substance to the interview. Even if every interview were like that, though, Heston still held the right views for the right reasons, and he fought valiantly for those purposes. Perhaps his speeches generally inspired the wrong kind of people, but when it comes to elections, it only matters that they vote.
Charlton Heston, you will be missed.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Acceptance? That's It?
I was on campus the other day, waiting to meet up with my girlfriend before class, when I was approached by a trio of Christian students who invited me to one of their events. I kindly accepted their flier and thanked them. After all, I'm pretty used to people handing out propaganda these days. They stayed and chatted with me, though, and that's when things got awkward. They asked where I was from, what I was reading, and what my major was. You know, general bullshit questions people ask when they want to talk to you about something specific but want to seem casual about it. Of course, with them having already asserted that they're Christians, I knew what was coming. They wanted to talk to me about Jesus.
Then the question came. To be honest, they had me outnumbered, without a lot of time to have a real discussion, and they kind of caught me by surprise. The question was awkwardly phrased: "What's your religious background?"
The question seemed to require a one-word answer, though I would have loved to express considerably more than that. My response, of course, was "atheist." The response of the group member whose turn it was to talk is what puzzles me, and it's the real topic of this writing. "That's cool. I've got lots of friends who hold that view." With that, my phone rang, and they saw themselves off.
Now, these kids were nice, and I could tell they meant well. This isn't an attack on them by any means, but rather an expression of my befuddlement at that response. It reminds me of someone who desperately wants to make himself seem less racist by saying, "No, I'm not racist. I've got lots of black friends," as if having black friends is what keeps someone from being racist. I just found it shocking to get that kind of response in such a secular place as a state university. Have we really made this little progress? Do Christians still have to feel like they're giving me the gift of freedom to believe what seems the most reasonable to me?
Since I'm on the subject, a similar thing happened in a recent conversation with the less religious of my grandmothers. We had a discussion about how people believe crazy shit, and we came to the logical point in the conversation for me to say, "See, that's why I don't believe in God." Grandma said, "and you have every right to believe that."
I guess I should be thankful, and I am. I know plenty of atheists who would have a hard time expressing their beliefs (or lack thereof) to their families, knowing what the responses would be. I'm glad my family is pretty laid-back and secular. It's just strange how, even in my own family, any mention of atheism shifts a conversation from what is good and correct to what is permissible.
I think it's a subconscious (and probably in some cases conscious) effort to maintain the upper hand in some sense. By maintaining the position that they are allowing and accepting other beliefs, Christians are able to make it appear that their religion is somehow correct and superior to others. I'm absolutely sure that it's natural to feel and act this way and there's a biological/evolutionary component to it, but it's the core of egocentrism, which I reject outright, and for good, valid reasons
It's my assumption that these are some of the reasons why many atheists think that religious moderates are more dangerous than the extremists. That's a pretty radical assumption for me to make, but I see where the idea comes from. At least the extremists are up-front about how they feel. The moderates sometimes feel the same way but do a good job of hiding it. This has the potential to keep a dangerous ideology alive in people who are not normally dangerous. I guess it's a matter of whether you'd rather be talked-about behind your back or ridiculed directly.
Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing, and I'm not really trying to make a big deal out of this. It's just something I find interesting. From what I've observed and what I've read lately, it seems like the general US population used to form a near-perfect bell curve of religiousness, atheists at one end and religious extremists at the other. Now, it seems like that curve is flattening out and rising at the ends. This is the sort of trend that, if it continues, typically leads to a revolution in thought. I don't really believe the supposed prophecies of things like the Mayan calendar, but it seems like this is the kind of 'end of an era' the calendar might predict in 2012. The prediction itself is silly, but it predicts a revolution of some sort, and it's time we had one.
Then the question came. To be honest, they had me outnumbered, without a lot of time to have a real discussion, and they kind of caught me by surprise. The question was awkwardly phrased: "What's your religious background?"
The question seemed to require a one-word answer, though I would have loved to express considerably more than that. My response, of course, was "atheist." The response of the group member whose turn it was to talk is what puzzles me, and it's the real topic of this writing. "That's cool. I've got lots of friends who hold that view." With that, my phone rang, and they saw themselves off.
Now, these kids were nice, and I could tell they meant well. This isn't an attack on them by any means, but rather an expression of my befuddlement at that response. It reminds me of someone who desperately wants to make himself seem less racist by saying, "No, I'm not racist. I've got lots of black friends," as if having black friends is what keeps someone from being racist. I just found it shocking to get that kind of response in such a secular place as a state university. Have we really made this little progress? Do Christians still have to feel like they're giving me the gift of freedom to believe what seems the most reasonable to me?
Since I'm on the subject, a similar thing happened in a recent conversation with the less religious of my grandmothers. We had a discussion about how people believe crazy shit, and we came to the logical point in the conversation for me to say, "See, that's why I don't believe in God." Grandma said, "and you have every right to believe that."
I guess I should be thankful, and I am. I know plenty of atheists who would have a hard time expressing their beliefs (or lack thereof) to their families, knowing what the responses would be. I'm glad my family is pretty laid-back and secular. It's just strange how, even in my own family, any mention of atheism shifts a conversation from what is good and correct to what is permissible.
I think it's a subconscious (and probably in some cases conscious) effort to maintain the upper hand in some sense. By maintaining the position that they are allowing and accepting other beliefs, Christians are able to make it appear that their religion is somehow correct and superior to others. I'm absolutely sure that it's natural to feel and act this way and there's a biological/evolutionary component to it, but it's the core of egocentrism, which I reject outright, and for good, valid reasons
It's my assumption that these are some of the reasons why many atheists think that religious moderates are more dangerous than the extremists. That's a pretty radical assumption for me to make, but I see where the idea comes from. At least the extremists are up-front about how they feel. The moderates sometimes feel the same way but do a good job of hiding it. This has the potential to keep a dangerous ideology alive in people who are not normally dangerous. I guess it's a matter of whether you'd rather be talked-about behind your back or ridiculed directly.
Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing, and I'm not really trying to make a big deal out of this. It's just something I find interesting. From what I've observed and what I've read lately, it seems like the general US population used to form a near-perfect bell curve of religiousness, atheists at one end and religious extremists at the other. Now, it seems like that curve is flattening out and rising at the ends. This is the sort of trend that, if it continues, typically leads to a revolution in thought. I don't really believe the supposed prophecies of things like the Mayan calendar, but it seems like this is the kind of 'end of an era' the calendar might predict in 2012. The prediction itself is silly, but it predicts a revolution of some sort, and it's time we had one.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
New Blog. Let's Start This Off Right.
I've built and run a few websites in my day, but they've all been for whatever band I was in at the time. I've always wanted to write about whatever bullshit I want, and hopefully make a little ad revenue on the side, but laziness and indecision have kept me from it until this point. I may still build a real site for this stuff eventually, but this will do for now. This blog is about whatever the hell I want. It will probably be highly political and anti-religious, but I reserve the right to write about other stupid things, too.
The name Disestablishmentarian Press was only the thousandth title that I tried. I suppose it pays to get in early on these kinds of things. I like the name, though. It fits a lot of what I talk about. Anyone who spent his early years talking about the superlatives of life knows that 'antidisestablishmentarianism' is the longest word in the English language, and of course, 'disestablishmentarian' is a core part of that word. While that is probably the only reason I know the word in the first place, it happens to match my views. A disestablishmentarian is one who favors the separation of church and state. From the noun definition, the adjective definition is obvious.
This is the view that lies most at the core of my political beliefs. As atheist as I am, it should come as no surprise. I believe in the separation of church and state so much, in fact, that I don't think church parking lots and public roads should touch. Clearly I jest. My beliefs on the matter fall just short of that, though. Churches shouldn't get a tax break. They shouldn't hold the reign they currently have over politics and politicians. In general, religious groups hold too much power. An introduction is no place for me to elaborate on these points, though. I will reserve them for future posts.
All that's really left for me to mention in this maiden voyage into the blogosphere, whatever the hell that is, is my personality and writing style. Sometimes I'm an asshole, but behind that nougat crunch lies a creamy caramel center. I generally think I'm right, and that's because I try pretty hard to make sure that my beliefs are at least rational and well-thought-out. I welcome criticism, as I think we all should. I think I'm usually right, but I am prone to the occasional error. As you can probably tell, I try to keep things light. That's not to say all of my writing will be riddled with humor, but I do find humor in the strangest places, and I think that it is often the best way to prove a point. Especially when the opponent is perhaps very emotionally involved in a subject, a little neutral humor often brings people back to a state where they can function cognitively. Generally speaking, I'm not out to piss people off, but I often find it necessary, and I don't have too much of a problem with it.
That's all I have to say for tonight. Enjoy the . . . how do you say . . . show!
The name Disestablishmentarian Press was only the thousandth title that I tried. I suppose it pays to get in early on these kinds of things. I like the name, though. It fits a lot of what I talk about. Anyone who spent his early years talking about the superlatives of life knows that 'antidisestablishmentarianism' is the longest word in the English language, and of course, 'disestablishmentarian' is a core part of that word. While that is probably the only reason I know the word in the first place, it happens to match my views. A disestablishmentarian is one who favors the separation of church and state. From the noun definition, the adjective definition is obvious.
This is the view that lies most at the core of my political beliefs. As atheist as I am, it should come as no surprise. I believe in the separation of church and state so much, in fact, that I don't think church parking lots and public roads should touch. Clearly I jest. My beliefs on the matter fall just short of that, though. Churches shouldn't get a tax break. They shouldn't hold the reign they currently have over politics and politicians. In general, religious groups hold too much power. An introduction is no place for me to elaborate on these points, though. I will reserve them for future posts.
All that's really left for me to mention in this maiden voyage into the blogosphere, whatever the hell that is, is my personality and writing style. Sometimes I'm an asshole, but behind that nougat crunch lies a creamy caramel center. I generally think I'm right, and that's because I try pretty hard to make sure that my beliefs are at least rational and well-thought-out. I welcome criticism, as I think we all should. I think I'm usually right, but I am prone to the occasional error. As you can probably tell, I try to keep things light. That's not to say all of my writing will be riddled with humor, but I do find humor in the strangest places, and I think that it is often the best way to prove a point. Especially when the opponent is perhaps very emotionally involved in a subject, a little neutral humor often brings people back to a state where they can function cognitively. Generally speaking, I'm not out to piss people off, but I often find it necessary, and I don't have too much of a problem with it.
That's all I have to say for tonight. Enjoy the . . . how do you say . . . show!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)