George Coyne

When one thinks of Intelligent Design, they normally think of some quasi-scientific-religious argument and so does Coyne. Now he doesn't say this (in so many words), but it is Intelligent Design that has been intelligently designed. This ideological system pretends like it is doing science, but is actually doing religion--and in the end does neither of them. It fails to be scientific because it does not use the scientific method--the bedrock of science. It fails to be religious because in its wake it creates a God that looks nothing like the religious conception of Him/Her. Science needs to stick to its area of expertise--a methodology for understanding the material universe: and religion needs to stick to its area of expertise--guiding the human being to understand their place in this universe. When science seeks to explain morality it generally does a poor job and when religion seeks to explain some logical consideration it also generally does a poor job. If one is going to live in a world with science and religion, one needs to learn to respect the good that each can do and give them their rightful place in the world. As one philosopher said, unto Caesar give what's Caesar; and unto God, give what is God's. Unto science, give what's science's; and unto religion, give what's religion's.

This one had also been sitting on a shelf, and I feel--since this is Museworld--to post it because I feel like it, and that's the level of discourse that belongs here.

Mass Media

This post is on the idea one can understand a complex scenario in a one minute clip, especially where only one side of a story is shown. For instance I watched a clip on a young boy who was expelled from a preschool based on a parent's post on a website. First, they never showed the actual post. But, I was forced to make a 5 second decision based on something I never knew about or cared about. I should be more careful with the word 'forced' because I did click on the link. But, it was such a savory link. However, I decided to play devils advocate and luckily for me so did the host of the lovely clip by showing someone else playing devil's advocate, thanks Kira S.! So I felt doubly bad, instead of doubly good. I could have felt singly good--if I just agreed to agree with what the talking lady said in her voice mocking the careful deliberation of a school board. It feels good to be better than that school board, who probably deserves some ridicule for dismissing some bratty kid. Although many NBA fans might think otherwise *cough* Sterling *cough*. But, I guess Sterling is a 75 year old senile man who is losing his memory, while that kid from Hell gets defended by his horrible Mom, I can play the dress up game too. The bottom line is--one cannot tell everything from a one minute clip and to feel self-righteous standing up for a Mom who could be the greatest Mom in the world or the worst, probably somewhere in between, though I'm leaning towards the bad side. And to deride a panel of experts, probably also a bit rotten--or maybe fed up--school board is probably also decent. But, the question is the boy learns nothing, whether he is inherently good or evil, and so probably starts coming out a little evil. The school board was probably wrong to dismiss the student, or expel if you prefer to be dramatic, and the mother is probably not a good human being, because if she was she would get off of her high horse and set an example for her son by not complaining and dealing with the situation like a grown woman. Ah, but it is so much easier--and singly good--to deride that school board (and incidentally praise the poor, distraught mother). If we can dismiss Donald Sterling for one bad act, we can certainly dismiss that boy for the thousands of bad acts that came up to that point.

This  post had been sitting on a shelf, bit the last point I felt was so poignant I decided to post it.