Sunday, April 30, 2006

The Scientist

One of my best friends from school pointed out how "negative" I'd been lately. And that's something I can't deny - I only point to the many posts I've made in the past on the Religious Right, Christian Conservatives, and the Intelligent Design/Creationism movements. I don't talk about that much anymore because I think that pretty much everything you can say about all of that has pretty much been already said; all of the recent developments that have been made like the court trial in Dover aren't really anything new so much as they are just reiterations of what we've already known all along: Intelligent Design/Creationism is neither a scientific theory nor a scientific school of thought, but rather a socio-political movement designed to forward a Neoconservative Right-Wing agenda heavily based in Christian Fundamentalism.

This can all be proven by looking at what they say or do, and comparing it with - well, reality in general. However, when all is said and done though, there's one question left to be asked. Why care?


Nobody said it was easy

I suppose it could be easy to just say, "Well, these people are obviously crackpots; no one takes them seriously and the people who do are just a marginal part of society anyway.", and use that as an excuse to be blissfully apathetic to the whole situation. That'd be easier, wouldn't it? No more having to rant and rail about Creationism this or ID that.

It's a valid point; it's a wrong point, but it's nevertheless valid. It's wrong when you look at just how popular and pervasive the mindset is in the US which encourages a hostile attitude towards science (not the least of which being evolutionary biology). There's no mistaking that Christianity is the de facto majority religion in the United States. And the segement of that religion which is the most powerful is the most sympathetic and agressive element in forwarding a distinctly anti-science agenda. Case in point: George Deutsch, A George W. Bush appointee who was involved in the censure of scientists over Global Warming, among other things.

Believe it or not though, that isn't what does it for me.


No one ever said it would be this hard

For all of the polemics that Creationists and ID advocates toss around, terms like "honesty", "truth", and "atheist" are tossed around a lot. Modern science (and by extension, scientists) are dishonest, and biased against the Truth (note the big T) in their blatantly materialist, atheistic position. In short, scientists are people deeply immersed in secularist, materialist, atheistic thought who are at best blissfully ignorant about the Truth of Creationism, and at worst are wicked intellectual criminals who delude people through lies and deceit into thinking that God didn't create them in Six Days.

Coupled with that is the invariable implication that they themselves are far more qualified and knowledgable to study biology and science than the people who have spent their entire lives devoted to their fields of research - regardless of their intellectual background. Philip Johnson, "Father" of the ID movement is a lawyer, for example. William Dembski is a mathematician (though some would argue that calling him that is being overly charitable). Look at the credentials of many Creationists or IDists and you'll notice a pattern: hardly any have a rigorous, reputable, and solid foundation in the natural sciences.

Science is hard. And I don't mean school and classes hard - I mean...it's hard work to actually do it. Two research projects and two summers of field work have thoroughly convinced me of that. There's a lot of blood, sweat and tears that go into a paper that may be only five pages long and may end up forgotten to history in a library. But it's the journey along the way to get to that paper that matters.

If you look at the history of science, you see that also rings true of past scientific accomplishments. Looking at the path modern science has taken, you really can't get past the fact that science is a long, arduous process involving a great deal of effort and sacrifice.

The attitude of the people attacking science simply spits in the face of the extraordinary effort that people have made to further our understanding of the natural world. It is a statement that the knowledge and benefit that science and biology have given to society is not only meaningless, but actually evil in its agnosticism. It never came from the Bible, so therefore it must be wrong.


Oh take me back to the start

I feel passionate about this because I care. Because fundamentally, at my very core, I feel that it is important that we study and protect our natural resources before they are destroyed by our own greed.

I've seen for myself with my own eyes how beautiful and wonderous nature is, and how much it needs to be protected and studied before it is lost forever. It just disgusts me than one person's view of religion could compel them to disregard that as "atheistic" nonsense. After all, we shouldn't focus on conserving the rainforest...we should be focusing on converting the people living in the forest to Christianity! No, we shouldn't care about effective scientific study of our world, because it's not Biblical!

I have a right to be upset. I have a right to be angry and sad, and depressed and bitter because I have to fight people who are so set in their own self-important arrogance to even bother to notice that the world is dying around them. As long as they can put in another notch on the scorecard they give to their vision of God, it's all good for them.

I have a right to be angry. And no one can take that away from me.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

The Canadian Universities Lightbulb Joke

For some reason, back in high school I used to get this email as a forward practically every week from some random person on my MSN, AIM or ICQ list who I probably only talked to once in my entire life. It's still quite funny after all these years, and it shocks me that practically no one I know has heard of it, given how often it was passed around back when I was in OAC. Anyway, without further ado...

How many Ryerson students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Trick question; Ryerson isn't a real university.

How many Lakehead students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* None, Thunder Bay doesn't have electricity.

How many University of Toronto students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Two, one to change the lightbulb and one to crack under the pressure.

How many Algonquin students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Only one, but he gets six credits for it.

How many Laurentian students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* None, Sudbury looks better in the dark.

How many Queen's students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* One, he holds the bulb and the world revolves around him.

How many Waterloo students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Five, one to design a nuclear-powered one that never needs changing, one to figure out how to power the rest of Waterloo using that nuked lightbulb, two to install it and one to write the computer program.

How many Western students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Five, one to change the lightbulb and four to find the perfect Tommy Hilfiger/L.L. Bean/Eddie Bauer outfit to wear for the occasion.

How many McMaster students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Two, one to change the bulb and the other to say loudly how he did as well as any Queen's student.

How many Windsor students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Two, one to change the bulb and one to complain about how, if they were at a better school, the lightbulb wouldn't go out.

How many McGill students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* One, but she can't do it on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night.

How many University of Calgary students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Seven, one to change the bulb and six to throw a party because he didn't screw it in upside down this time.

How many University of Alberta students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Two, one to change it and the other to boast how it was so "Indisputably Recognized" around the world.

How many Guelph students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Seven, one to screw it in and 6 to figure out how to power it on manure.

How many Mt. Allison students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Five, one to do it and 4 to be in the Macleans photo of it.

How many University of Victoria students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* None, lava lamps don't burn out man!

How many UBC students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Four, one to do it and three to translate the instructions.

How many University of Saskatchewan students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* One, there's nobody else around to do it.

How many Laurier students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Five, they make it campus affair.

How many University of Manitoba students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* There's a university in Manitoba?

How many York University students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Three, one to take directions from the science student, the science student, and one to philosophize about life as a lightbulb.

How many University of Ottawa students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* One, (s)he screws everything, why not a lightbulb?

How many Carleton University students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* Two, one to change the bulb and one to brag about how they did it faster than the Ottawa U students did it.

How many Laval students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* One, but she would insist that the way she did it was distinct.

How many United States University/College students does it take to change a lightbulb?
* That depends; how much is the athletic scholarship worth?

Friday, April 07, 2006

In which I bravely decide to weigh in on the timeless Abortion issue (or: Procrastination Unlimited)

Quebec vs. Canada. Israel vs. Palestine. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. Mac vs. PC. All timeless struggles between two diametrically opposed sides, both self-righteously validating, inflexible, both simply irreconcilable. (Well, except for the last one, I guess.)

I walked by Sidney Smith hall, the main Faculty of Arts and Sciences building to see the makings of yet another interesting day in the life of U of T. At the far side of the long open space in front of what is now the new student space, large placards mounted on poles in a horseshoe arrangement. Closer to the main entrance, a table manned by bright-eyed and rather friendly looking kids no older than me, wearing pink buttons. The placards in the back paint a very ominous picture, comparing abortion to animal rights abuses, etc. And that's when it clicked. Ah ha, these are the guys who've been making waves comparing abortion to the Holocaust. And I say "guys" in a very literal sense; as I remarked to some of my fellow classmates in BIO 328, I found it...interesting that all of the people manning the anti-abortion booth were, all, well...male. The Pro-Choice table on the other hand, had around two girls (I know one was at the booth) present...it's one of those "things that make you go hmmmm..."


I know I'm right, because you know I'm right

I had a really nice conversation with a girl in my class about the whole thing who's very opinionated about...well...a lot of things, I think. Anyway, she said a lot of things about her justification for approaching people who don't agree with her, but what really stuck to me was just how assured she was of the correctness of her position. No, I wouldn't call it arrogance, because with the badge of "arrogance" comes the connotation of condescension, and her expression of her correctness came in a very matter-of-fact style of expression, with no malice implied.

I'm not mentioning this because I think ill of the way she views discussions...far from it in fact, but talking to this girl really brought up in my mind the importance of cross-talk between two sides of any bitter conflict.


If debating you is wrong, I don't wanna be right

I'm what you would consider a fence-sitter in the whole abortion thing. I think that abortion is simply inexcusable as a "lifestyle choice", an easy way out of a situation that perhaps, could have been avoided. (I was going to list a hypothetical example, but I decided not to because I really don't want to sound judgemental on the whole "premarital sex/dating thing", and besides I think it's fairly intuitive as to what I'm talking about.) On the other hand, there are a lot of extenuating circumstances in which abortion may be not only understandable or allowable, but even justifiable: rape, incest, and life-threatening medical situations where the mother or the child's life may be at stake.

Another potential situation where I think abortion should be allowable is for children with potentially debilitating and highly destructive birth or genetic conditions. Tay-Sachs Disease comes to mind, as my Classics mentor in high school had a daughter with Tay-Sachs. Mothers with drug or alcohol addictions also count.

Unfortunately, this position doesn't hold much water, I'm afraid, with either side of the debate. To one side, I'm still an atheistic feminist baby-eater...to others, I'd probably be just another man who thinks they know better than a woman about what a woman should do with her body.

Having been blessed with a set of friends in my life that have been grossly biased towards the feminine persuation, and having been raised a devout Roman Catholic, I'd like to think that I understand what both sides are saying. And I think that's important, because, as I said to this girl's friend in class, there is always some truth and meaning to what The Other Side is saying in a debate (yes, this includes you, Creationists/Intelligent Design-ists). Yes, I think that it's just disgusting for a man to think that they know better than a woman about how they should think of, and look at their own body. I mean, hell, I don't have a vagina*, and my penis doesn't bleed every X number of weeks. Oh yeah, and I don't have to carry and pop out a screaming mass of humanoid out of my rear end. I don't know anything about being female...and I don't profess to know.

On the other hand, I've met people who would have no problem having sex and aborting the baby if it posed a "threat" to their future plans in life. And to me that just seems wrong. People seem to forget over and over that actions have consequences, and what makes humans truly human in this context is our understading that we need to take responsibility for what we do in life. A child is a tremendous responsibility, one which should never be trivialized or taken lightly.


This is the part where I start to sound like an 1980s ABC Afterschool Special

I think the solution to all of this is quite simple, and doesn't involve any of the vitriolic bile-filled conflict: increased funding and support for effective, no-nonsense sex education. Make it mandatory even in Catholic and private schools. They too have to abide by Province-wide standards, don't they? Why not make it part of that? Teaching students about sex empowers them to make informed choices about sex. This isn't like giving clean needles to crack addicts...this is like telling people to do research on candidates during an election before they vote. Knowledge is power. And empowerment is critical in making an informed choice. If two people decide to sleep together, they'll know what they're getting themselves into. I don't think it'll make the issue of abortions go away, but it'll help towards some resolution at least.

But it isn't going to work until both sides are willing to do some talking. And of course, there's the rub. How do you get them to talk?

I don't have an answer to that, but I will say that there is a time to stand your ground, dig your heels in, and revel in the incontrovertible righteousness of your position, and there's a time to say that something has to change; that obviously open warfare between two immovable sides is totally futile. Both sides can be both right and wrong. For one side to win, the other side doesn't have to lose.



*PS: Damn you Renay for getting me so used to saying the word "vagina" with a straight face. If only you know how much trouble that's gotten me into with people...

PPS: Ang and Kavitha - the addendum with your posts to the first Carnival of the Snoggers is coming...seriously.