God is like Intellectual Property

The more you try to get to know Him, the more you realize He is a mirage.

Stager on Reading First

Gary Stager:

Any parent who has watched a child spontaneously learn to read must question mechanistic theories of human development that oversimplify complex issues.

Thinking of my own child, I couldn’t agree more. Stager offers colorful commentary on the results of the NCLB Act’s Reading First program while cutting through the spin here.

my current views on capital punishment and abortion

A recent dialog with another got me thinking to write as clear a statement as I could on two issues: abortion and capital punishment.

1) An abortion is not automatically morally wrong. If the case is that the embryo is unwanted, it should be expelled as soon as it is safely possible to do so before it becomes a person.

2) Death penalties are unethical because they qualify as the premeditated execution of an incarcerated person. Killing a person under such circumstances is morally wrong.

float where?

No matter. Barrels of fun ahead.

Hey, that’s me he’s talking about!

Christian, anti-abortionist and capital punishment supporter, Neil:

If people want to make jokes about inconsistencies, a better example would be those who don’t mind [legalizing] the [early term] crushing and dismemberment of innocent human beings (without anesthetic) but protest when a convicted murderer is to be executed and who want to ensure he dies as painlessly as possible.

I thought Neil’s microscope on Reality was a little smudged, so I added the two sets of bold box brackets to temper his emotional plea. I didn’t subtract anything though his wording was a little sloppy joe. For instance, a large percentage of abortions are done 6 weeks or less into gestation so “crushing and dismemberment” might not be the most accurate description for all abortion. I left “innocent” in there because technically speaking, a human fetus lacks the mental requisites to be anything other than harmless…even though being told so is awkwardly redundant. And while “human being” is a poor word choice (it overgeneralizes) when speaking of abortion, an embryo/fetus, though not a person is taxonomically speaking, still a human being. But other than those minor details, he’s talking about people like me!

Oh, and the “Christian” part? Normally I wouldn’t bother mentioning if someone believes in God or not as that isn’t necessarily relevant. But in Neil’s case, he is clearly someone who not only believes in God, but speculates as to what “God” thought. He then uses that speculation to convince others of his views:

Remember, God thought that the death penalty was ok as some point in time.

I thought it was important that readers understand the angle he’s coming from.

on “God” and reason

Comments on Clay Burell’s “sermon” got me thinking:

One could hold a belief in “God” yet remain adequately critical. If one does not claim to “know God” or use “God” to explain phenomena, then the belief on its own poses no difficulties. However, it’s clear that most don’t tread with reservation. Most speculate. The instant any speculation as to the nature of “God” occurs, the speculator rejects reason. Unfortunately, most people who believe in “God” speculate. Whether abstractly (e.g. “God’s will” or “God watches” or “Designer”) or more concretely (e.g. “God had a Son who He sent”), conjecture is common. Further unsubstantiated conjecture is self-gratification often cloaked in piety.

Theists should stop speculating while atheists are best not debating the existence of “God” at all. To keep theists in check, we all (theists especially) should question the absurd claims often uttered from the supposition. After all, it’s the absurdities that stir mischief, not an indescribable belief.

Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

Tweeting Vicki Davis to ask if she planned on seeing “Expelled” led to challenging her conflation of belief and theory, which led to this:

@petrock - Theory is not a synonym for belief, however, we may choose which theory that we believe ourselves, scientists do it all the time.

Scientists discern (i.e. “choose”) based upon evidence. To equate discernment between scientific theories with choosing between supernatural beliefs is an insult to science.

@petrock When you start judging the “legitimacy” of a theory — you are by definition interjecting your personal belief system.

When a theory is supported by evidence and one continues to test that evidence to see where it leads, this is not a “personal” journey. There’s a reason why scientific communities come together, and it isn’t because they share an “interjected”, “personal” belief. They simply share the urge to discover.

On Twitter, I was so taken aback by Vicki’s remarks that I made a rather useless retort wondering if she had been watching too much FOX (one of her favorite sources that has a reputation of having “news” anchors who often use similar reasoning). My apologies. I hope this post helps Vicki see where my thinking is at.

mission statement mashup

Meier:

The central purpose of schooling is to help each and every child find something worthwhile they love to do [...]

Kozol:

The best reason to give a child a good school…is so that a child will have a happy childhood, [...]

on moths, orchids, and darwin

Today. a tweet from my friend Alec led to this:

understanding free software: who is in control?

Microsoft to customers:

As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers. You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play.

When we use free software, nobody can control us this way.