Intelligent Design

I watched an interesting documentary last night called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It tackles a lot of the things that really bother me when it comes to the intelligent design debate. One of the most interesting parts of the film is the interview above featuring Dawkins, a leading evolutionary biologist and Ben Stein.

Something else that really struck me is the animosity that some scholars and scientists have towards the idea of intelligent design. They don't actually attack the actual idea that someone or something put all of this into motion. The don't even argue against it, they just repeatedly call it "idiotic" or "ignorant."

I am not in any way a scientist, but this fact does not keep me from thinking or forming my own opion. In my limited experience, one thing has always been true: that nothing comes from nothing. The very fact that we exist stems from two basic ideas. Either something put everything in motion or nothing put nothing in motion and it happened anyway. I'll leave that argument up to logic.

I couldn't help but be reminded of times on my mission when I defended the doctrines and beliefs of the LDS church. Sometimes the more reasonable and rational my answers were, the more unreasonable and irrational the responses became. The behavior in my estimation comes from insecurity. If you are secure in your thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and endeavors, you will welcome discussion, debate,  and exploration of other ideas, thoughts and beliefs.

I like to think. I like to think about big ideas. I don't like being called names for thinking something different than the current trend. I'm not trying to bash Darwin. I think it's time to start thinking about him like we have other brilliant scientific minds, that he made valuable contributions that helped us gain a better understanding of the bigger picture. The fact that we've expanded on, further developed, and sometimes cast doubt on or disproved theories of scientists such as such as Galileo, Newton, and Einstien does not in anyway diminish their legacy or value.

Everything Right Now

I posted this comment on RSL's blog today. It took me a few minutes to write, so I thought I'd put it up here too.

There is a really strange attitude in American soccer fans and RSL fans especially. No matter what happens, there is something to complain about. I think it comes down to what has become a very American attitude - wanting everything right now, without paying the price.

The same people who sell out huge football stadiums all across the U.S. for meaningless pre-season friendlies of European super clubs turn their backs on their home town MLS clubs. They want to have the quality of top European teams, but don't want to do anything to support the domestic league. The English top flight was pretty average in the world for a lot of years. It has risen to the top because of their growing consistent, passionate fan bases who sell out their games, buy tons of merch, and consume lots of beer and chips. The teams have become woven into the fabric of their communities and culture. This takes time.

MLS is set up to be a very even league. Only 2 or 3 teams per year ever really separate themselves from the pack. Most of us thought RSL would be one of those teams this year, and it didn't happen. It's a bummer, but being bitter about it gets to be annoying. For the fans who sit behind me at every game, RSL has never committed a foul. Conversely, RSL is fouled every time they lose the ball. Every referee is out to get RSL. Here's my theory: soccer is a hard process. It is hard to score. It is hard to win. It is hard to perform consistently over an entire season. That is what makes it great.

I don't think that every fan should be an eternal optimist, but calling for the coach or GM's head after every loss or tie gets pretty old. I suffered with all of you through Ellinger's tenure, hoping each game that we could get lucky and score a goal and win a game every once in a while. I had a pretty good idea that we weren't going to do much with Ellinger at the helm, but I still lent my support to the team.

Through it all, I feel like I've matured a bit as a fan. I care a lot about the team, but I've learned to take it for what it ultimately is: entertainment. Home games when the team is clicking and the crowd is into it are great theater and away games are gripping reality tv.

Confronting Superficiality with Superficiality

First off, I'm pleasantly surprised with the response from my first philosophy post. It spurred some very interesting discussion and insight. Who knew weeds would stir up such varied and interesting thoughts? I hope the discussion continues, and I hope to post some more ideas over the next little while.

I came across an ad the other day for a new reality series by FOX called More to Love. Apparently, it is basically "The Bachelor" with the exciting twist that everyone on the show (including the bachelor and all the contestents) is substantially overweight. The advertisement kept using the phrase "real women" as it showed generic show clips of talking heads, romantic moments, drama, etc.

It really bothered me, and it took me a minute to figure out why. I don't have anything against people who are overweight, but there was something fundamentally wrong with the message. They were attempting to confront superficiality while being completely superficial. For a show that's trying to play the "beauty lies within" card, why would the first requirement of any contestant be body type? Because someone eats too much and doesn't exercise enough, they are a more genuine and "real" person than someone who takes good care of their body? What does that say about me? I am underweight according to doctor's height and weight charts, does that mean I am an exceptionally fake person? (Don't answer.)

FOX, you got this dead wrong. The show may turn out to be a hit (it probably will), but it is clearly sending the wrong message. I wonder if the producers at FOX are really that naive to miss the huge flaws in the show's concept. I tend to think there is a target audience they are feeding with the kind of things they want to hear. Despite their pretensions, I don't think the producers really care what they are conveying as long as people watch. What do you think? Am I wrong here? Am I overly sensitive as an underweight person?

Argument for the Exsistence of God: Part 1

I posted the other day about wanting to explore some philosophical/metaphysical ideas. Then, I realized that I don't have any time to research to support my writing so I thought I would take a more simplified and sometimes comical approach to the subjects. In the time since, I have come up with a pretty strong and simple argument for the existence of God.

First, I'll start with a definition of Evil. Evil describes someone or something that is morally reprehensible, completely selfish, causing harm or destruction.

To find a perfect, tangible example of evil, one must only walk out his or her front door. Somewhere nearby there exists a weed. A plant whose entire existence is self serving, destructive, and reprehensible. Anyone with any experience gardening would have a hard time arguing in behalf of any redeeming qualities of weeds.

From here it is easy. We have tangible and irrefutable evidence of the existence of evil. Evil can not exist without good, just as darkness cannot exist without light. Else what is darkness? The ultimate goal of evil things is to administer pain and misery to our existence. Good seeks
to uplift and bring joy to our existence.

Here's where the discussion kicks in. Is it enough at this point in the argument to say that God exists? We've established tangible physical evidence that evil exists, therefore can we deduce that tangible physical good must exist? Does this argument require an "earthy" example of something that is completely good in opposition to the complete evil that weeds represent, or can we argue that God is the tangible, ultimate good?