I think a lot can be told about a person in the way he or she loves. I don't believe this tells whether this person is good or bad. I don't even believe the amount of love in a person's life tells that, because I'm talking about love(a): giving a piece of your heart to someone, being attached to someone; not love(b): you are my neighbor and I am nice to you, I put you before myself because I'm not a selfish person. Love(b) takes integrity and effort. It is not more shallow than love(a) but in many ways it is less complex and encompassing and dynamic. Love(a) comes, for the most part, naturally and it takes effort to fight it and we truly express this love in very different ways. (Gary Chapman, actually, has consolidated these into what he calls the five love languages.) Anyway, I guess what I really want to say here is that if we've seemed to lose ourselves our best way to get back on track with our identity is by looking at our caring for those close to us. I only say this because I have experienced it, and maybe I have no idea whether it's true with anyone but me. But when I seem to blend in with those around me, or, rather, when everyone in the crowd seems to have a stronger personality than I do (or whatever it is), if I look to how I care about people, to those I really love, that love is strong and true and tangible in my actions and feelings. And so I know that I'm real.
I think that I originally had more to say about this. Oh well.
Anyway, another heated discussion in biology yesterday. I'm gonna illustrate here the point I don't think I communicated very well in class:
We are studying possibilities for the origin of life and I have a problem with it because they are taught as theories and so, in other words, they are presented as consented fact.
Science is based entirely on observation. We look at the world around us, observe the way things interact with each other, watch nature, detect patterns, and draw conclusions that -- emphasized strongly by the teacher ("Proof is the bad p-word! No such thing! We don't ever say 'fact'!") -- are justifiable but not set in stone. (Justified vs. unjustifiable is a topic among my friends in TOK, actually. Maybe I'll bring it up later.) There are entire systems set up (the scientific method, for example) that ensure that scientists are drawing valid conclusions and not being hasty. Complex processes are required in the scientific community, always encouraging the researcher and observer to think creatively but always completely objectively. And nothing is (that is, should be) accepted by the scientific community unless it has successfully passed through this security system.
Every single scientific believer/researcher/student/whatever that puts faith in one of the 'theories' for origin of life is brushing the "We only draw valid conclusions!" doctrine off of his shoulder with a scoff. The observable data that is the entire foundation for every single valid scientific conclusion drawn (every theory) is made up in the origin of life theories. The problem with figuring out what was going on at the creation of life is that at the time, life hadn't been. So, um, we weren't there to observe it. Nobody knows, or has any way of knowing, the composition or state of earth a kajibillion years ago, and science isn't even close to being agreed on any possibilities concerning that topic.
Every theory I've heard for the origin of life is a great, plausible possibility for how life began. It is not a valid conclusion. The only conclusion that can be drawn is, "If the circumstances on earth were exactly like the ones I made up for my experiment, life probably would have begun this way." If somebody could show me that a meteor containing organic matter landed on earth under the right conditions a kajibillion years ago, then I would say, "Yeah, you know, panspermia is almost certainly the way to go with how life began." If someone could confirm that Miller and Urey were right on in the atmospheric conditions they created with their experiment I'd be of the opinion that Oparin was way cool. If someone was able to prove to me (or even just give some evidence!) that there was a lack of atmosphere on earth and the sun's rays weren't as intense a kajibillion (which is, in fact, a mathematical term [incidentally I'm lying]) years ago, then I would have no trouble agreeing that the top 300meters of the ocean probably froze over and that whatever origin of life idea that depends on this condition I can't remember is probably correct.
It is very frustrating for me when people assume that I am stupid or ignorant because I am a Christian. I will bet those people a thousand dollars of which I am only sort of in possession that I have thought about it a significantly greater amount more than they have. I'm an intellectually- and logically-based, critical, inquisitive person. I have a lot of trouble believing something if it hasn't been logically and rationally worked out for me. I ask the same questions you do, and then I find answers to them.
I am so sure this topic will come up again, but for now I will leave you with some lyrics and a recommendation to read some C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity, specifically.
The Truth, by Relient K
And I've collected all these thoughts
and I'm dying just to lose them
and if your words are true or not
I'll die trying to prove them
But I'll just have to accept
That my mind is so inept
When the only thing that's left
For me to do is to trust you
Convince me
Because I really need your help
Oh convince me
Because I can't see this for myself
I'll put the emphasis on the evidence
Begging for the proof (whoa)
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe
Is the truth
This is so unnerving
I know you've never lied to me before
But the things you're telling me
I can't yet believe yet can't ignore
But I'll just have to accept
That my mind is so inept
And the only thing that's left
For me to do is to trust you
I'll put the emphasis on the evidence
Begging for the proof
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe
Is the truth
You said to place our lives into your hands
Confide in what you'll do
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe
Is the truth
It's a world full of cynics
Who say to stay alive in it
You gotta stick with what you know
But the soul is always aching
For the heart to start taking
A chance by letting go
So let go
Let go
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe
Is the truth
You said to place our lives into your hands
Confide in what you'll do
Sometimes when you're trying to sleep
And all your doubts and your faith don't agree
It's because
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the Truth
Current music:
Daisy, Switchfoot
Darlin', Between the Trees
The Truth, Relient K
Rules and Regulations, Rufus Wainwright
Currently reading:
Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
I want to love (people, God) in my songs, prayers, statements, appearances, words, thoughts, hopes, dreams, passion, outreach, very actions, and do not much more if I can help it.
I think that there are a lot of superfluous intentions floating around in our lives. I want to do things only in love. I want to wear clothes not to make an impression, say things not to further my reputation, get involved in something not to increase my pride in myself.
It seems very easy to jump on one bandwagon in order to avoid another. I'm sure we've heard this a million times before, but I think it's very important to be sure not to jump on any bandwagons at all, not even the young Christian one. A Mainstay lyric comes to mind:
So take me home but keep me feeling lonely
when everyone is around
You're trying to show me how to hear Your song
down here by the water.
Far away from the lights I see that I can't live two lives.
I don't want to downplay the importance of fellowship in any way. This, I think, is an extremely thin line and so I have a lot of trouble expressing myself. But I don't think that Christianity is, or should be, a movement in the sense that movements pass and are often about support and popularity. They feed on emotions within us that are often temporary rather than feeding on the passion of God within us. People in the movement are held together by each other (rather than by God) and often depend on the movement itself for their interest in the ideal or program or goal.
The song ends with:
Night time lends its ear to the sound of my disappointment.
When the ideal fades I don't want to complain
I just want to hear You sing.
Also, when we are caught up in movements, it seems we are often consumed by them rather than by God. We are distracted by promoting the movement (along with ourselves, more often than not) and even forget about what the movement is promoting. And this can be okay in some cases, I think, but only if our intentions are kept pure and our eyes focused on God, rather than focused on finances or flashy new t-shirts or our new popularity.
Current music:
soundtrack for Notre-Dame de Paris
A Time for Yohe, Between the Trees
The Minstrel's Prayer, Cartel
Currently reading:
Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller
I think that there are a lot of superfluous intentions floating around in our lives. I want to do things only in love. I want to wear clothes not to make an impression, say things not to further my reputation, get involved in something not to increase my pride in myself.
It seems very easy to jump on one bandwagon in order to avoid another. I'm sure we've heard this a million times before, but I think it's very important to be sure not to jump on any bandwagons at all, not even the young Christian one. A Mainstay lyric comes to mind:
So take me home but keep me feeling lonely
when everyone is around
You're trying to show me how to hear Your song
down here by the water.
Far away from the lights I see that I can't live two lives.
I don't want to downplay the importance of fellowship in any way. This, I think, is an extremely thin line and so I have a lot of trouble expressing myself. But I don't think that Christianity is, or should be, a movement in the sense that movements pass and are often about support and popularity. They feed on emotions within us that are often temporary rather than feeding on the passion of God within us. People in the movement are held together by each other (rather than by God) and often depend on the movement itself for their interest in the ideal or program or goal.
The song ends with:
Night time lends its ear to the sound of my disappointment.
When the ideal fades I don't want to complain
I just want to hear You sing.
Also, when we are caught up in movements, it seems we are often consumed by them rather than by God. We are distracted by promoting the movement (along with ourselves, more often than not) and even forget about what the movement is promoting. And this can be okay in some cases, I think, but only if our intentions are kept pure and our eyes focused on God, rather than focused on finances or flashy new t-shirts or our new popularity.
Current music:
soundtrack for Notre-Dame de Paris
A Time for Yohe, Between the Trees
The Minstrel's Prayer, Cartel
Currently reading:
Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller
Thursday, August 16, 2007
TWLOHA, evolution, big bang theory
First of all, please check this out: to write love on her arms.
Also, the movement's myspace page.
And, lastly, this music video by Between the Trees.
I just found this and it's made an impact on me. Read the story. Watch the video. Hop on?
Evolution discussion in my biology class today. The theory of evolution as the origin of the species really kind of baffles. There are so many holes in the 'theory' (more on this later) that no one has been able to plausibly fill for me, and it's really discouraging and a little bit insulting to me to think that the sophisticated scientific community would really hold on to this idea. So I'm assuming that there are explanations of which I'm not yet aware. Please let me know. Argue with me. Really.
So let's go through evolution as an explanation for the beginning of life really quick. Okay, so the idea is that there was a piece of organic matter that became an organism that became an organism that became an organism that...etc. to make what we are today, right? Except that original first and second and third and fourth, etc. generation species organism is still here for some reason, even though, according to natural selection, the whole point is that they died off because they were inept (convenient because then we can create this chain of evolution just by looking at what's here). Anyway, if we're all on the same page and there's no dispute so far, I'm going to use the jump from primates (apes) to humans as an example. The idea is that these primates were around but some of them were different than the others (smarter, upstanding, less hairy), and these different ones eventually evolved into humans, yeah? Tell me if I'm wrong. My problem is that being ape and not human didn't become a problem (that is, disadvantageous -- and so by natural selection they would evolve) until there were humans, who came and started taking other species out. So what was the reason for apes becoming humans? And if they did, why are the apes still around? This wouldn't happen on its own, purely for the survival of the species. It wouldn't have been advantageous. Agreed? Which is the only motivation, so to speak, of a species to do or change anything, correct? So there must be some other force coming into play here that is putting its motivations into action. And because this force has, apparently, a unique ability to make things happen, have control, is it not correct to know it is a higher power?
So who, now, is going to tell me that evolution disproves God? Who is going to tell me that they believe in evolution because they don't believe in God? Evolution has always been introduced to me as an alternative to Creationism - the origin of the species story for non-believers. It doesn't seem, to me, that it is a very good one.
And if the primates to human example doesn't work for you, we can talk about wings. Wings are a very complicated piece of anatomy, agreed? There are tissues and organs and it's an entire limb, for crying out loud. So do you think that wings were one sole mutation that occurred and turned a species into flying creatures? I wouldn't say so. I'd say that it would have to happen in a series of mutations, a series of genetic variances that would be adapted and incorporated into the genetic makeup of the species rather than one HUGE ODD MUTATION that was suddenly very advantageous (this bird must have lived forever to be able to reproduce enough to keep these new wing things going in the whole scheme of the population). Right? So if this is happening gradually, what kind of variance that will eventually become wings would be at all advantageous enough to survive in the species? Don't you think that little stubs where wings will, at one point, be would be really awkward and annoying for these future-aves? Don't you think the poor mutant birds would be made fun of at school by the normal, stubless ones? Wouldn't that lower their self-esteem, making them less likely to find mates, and therefore less likely to reproduce, therefore not passing on these would-be wings?
But, needless to say, birds have wings. It happened. Why is that? What kind of force is intervening here and telling would-be birds that, "Hey, I know these stubs here are really annoying right now, but just think! Eventually you'll FLY! Just think of the (great, great, great, great, great...) children!" Because somebody's gotta be saying that if this is how birds happened to become birds. The birds didn't decide to become birds. Who wants stubs? They were content as a land-limited species. They didn't have the power of thinking ahead for their own good like that (WHAT IS THIS TERM?), and even if they did, what's the point in becoming that complex? They were happy enough, yeah?
Another thing: is there anyone here that wants to point out a huge, gaping flaw in the theory of protein transport across cell membranes? or cohesion? Or hydrogen bonds? Or the idea that blood circulates and carries oxygen? None of these are laws (so they are theories), but they're all pretty much considered fact. We've reached a consensus. But I think the reason we've reached such an agreed consensus (redundant) is that no one's really been able to point out some huge fallacy in the theory. They're pretty darn airtight. Why, then, do so many people want to take evolution as truth? Why is there the same blind faith in evolution as I have in Creationism? I have faith in creationism because I'm religious and I believe in God -- not because there's a huge amount of scientific evidence for it. Evolution (I'd like to remind everyone that I mean evolution as a theory for the origin of life), to me so far, cannot be accepted beyond a reasonable doubt at all. There are too many holes to trust it. And so I don't understand why so many people want to trust this theory the same way that they trust that the reason it hurts when my finger gets sliced open is that I have nerve endings.
Stemming from that, if you're going to say, "Well, we just don't know. Science isn't exact. We don't have answers for everything.", then I'm gonna have to say, "Then please don't start off telling me you do. Evolution is not a viable theory. I'm glad we've both reached that conclusion." I'm not going to try to prove Creationism to you. I don't consider it a valid scientific theory. If you want to argue with me, I really won't be able to convince you. It's not relevant to me, as a Christian. I believe it because I'm a Christian. I don't need it to convince me to be a Christian -- there are so many more valid and important things that have done that for me. (And I'd love to talk to you about those.) So my intention here is not to convince everyone that, as far as origin of life goes, creationism is right and evolution is wrong. I'm just trying to understand why evolution is so easily accepted and how it earns its standing as a theory.
So I realize that I'm posting this at great risk of being torn apart (since my whole rambling argument there is pretty easily responded to, though it at least has a basis that I can't, myself, find an explanation for), but I guess that's what I'm asking for, right?
One more thing:
Big Bang Theory: There was nothing, and then BANG, there was something.
Creationism: There was nothing, and then BANG, there was something. God made it happen.
We might not disagree so greatly, after all.
Current music:
the soundtrack for Notre-Dame de Paris
Albatross, The Classic Crime
Words, Between the Trees
Currently reading:
Catch-22, Joseph Heller
The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini
Also, the movement's myspace page.
And, lastly, this music video by Between the Trees.
I just found this and it's made an impact on me. Read the story. Watch the video. Hop on?
Evolution discussion in my biology class today. The theory of evolution as the origin of the species really kind of baffles. There are so many holes in the 'theory' (more on this later) that no one has been able to plausibly fill for me, and it's really discouraging and a little bit insulting to me to think that the sophisticated scientific community would really hold on to this idea. So I'm assuming that there are explanations of which I'm not yet aware. Please let me know. Argue with me. Really.
So let's go through evolution as an explanation for the beginning of life really quick. Okay, so the idea is that there was a piece of organic matter that became an organism that became an organism that became an organism that...etc. to make what we are today, right? Except that original first and second and third and fourth, etc. generation species organism is still here for some reason, even though, according to natural selection, the whole point is that they died off because they were inept (convenient because then we can create this chain of evolution just by looking at what's here). Anyway, if we're all on the same page and there's no dispute so far, I'm going to use the jump from primates (apes) to humans as an example. The idea is that these primates were around but some of them were different than the others (smarter, upstanding, less hairy), and these different ones eventually evolved into humans, yeah? Tell me if I'm wrong. My problem is that being ape and not human didn't become a problem (that is, disadvantageous -- and so by natural selection they would evolve) until there were humans, who came and started taking other species out. So what was the reason for apes becoming humans? And if they did, why are the apes still around? This wouldn't happen on its own, purely for the survival of the species. It wouldn't have been advantageous. Agreed? Which is the only motivation, so to speak, of a species to do or change anything, correct? So there must be some other force coming into play here that is putting its motivations into action. And because this force has, apparently, a unique ability to make things happen, have control, is it not correct to know it is a higher power?
So who, now, is going to tell me that evolution disproves God? Who is going to tell me that they believe in evolution because they don't believe in God? Evolution has always been introduced to me as an alternative to Creationism - the origin of the species story for non-believers. It doesn't seem, to me, that it is a very good one.
And if the primates to human example doesn't work for you, we can talk about wings. Wings are a very complicated piece of anatomy, agreed? There are tissues and organs and it's an entire limb, for crying out loud. So do you think that wings were one sole mutation that occurred and turned a species into flying creatures? I wouldn't say so. I'd say that it would have to happen in a series of mutations, a series of genetic variances that would be adapted and incorporated into the genetic makeup of the species rather than one HUGE ODD MUTATION that was suddenly very advantageous (this bird must have lived forever to be able to reproduce enough to keep these new wing things going in the whole scheme of the population). Right? So if this is happening gradually, what kind of variance that will eventually become wings would be at all advantageous enough to survive in the species? Don't you think that little stubs where wings will, at one point, be would be really awkward and annoying for these future-aves? Don't you think the poor mutant birds would be made fun of at school by the normal, stubless ones? Wouldn't that lower their self-esteem, making them less likely to find mates, and therefore less likely to reproduce, therefore not passing on these would-be wings?
But, needless to say, birds have wings. It happened. Why is that? What kind of force is intervening here and telling would-be birds that, "Hey, I know these stubs here are really annoying right now, but just think! Eventually you'll FLY! Just think of the (great, great, great, great, great...) children!" Because somebody's gotta be saying that if this is how birds happened to become birds. The birds didn't decide to become birds. Who wants stubs? They were content as a land-limited species. They didn't have the power of thinking ahead for their own good like that (WHAT IS THIS TERM?), and even if they did, what's the point in becoming that complex? They were happy enough, yeah?
Another thing: is there anyone here that wants to point out a huge, gaping flaw in the theory of protein transport across cell membranes? or cohesion? Or hydrogen bonds? Or the idea that blood circulates and carries oxygen? None of these are laws (so they are theories), but they're all pretty much considered fact. We've reached a consensus. But I think the reason we've reached such an agreed consensus (redundant) is that no one's really been able to point out some huge fallacy in the theory. They're pretty darn airtight. Why, then, do so many people want to take evolution as truth? Why is there the same blind faith in evolution as I have in Creationism? I have faith in creationism because I'm religious and I believe in God -- not because there's a huge amount of scientific evidence for it. Evolution (I'd like to remind everyone that I mean evolution as a theory for the origin of life), to me so far, cannot be accepted beyond a reasonable doubt at all. There are too many holes to trust it. And so I don't understand why so many people want to trust this theory the same way that they trust that the reason it hurts when my finger gets sliced open is that I have nerve endings.
Stemming from that, if you're going to say, "Well, we just don't know. Science isn't exact. We don't have answers for everything.", then I'm gonna have to say, "Then please don't start off telling me you do. Evolution is not a viable theory. I'm glad we've both reached that conclusion." I'm not going to try to prove Creationism to you. I don't consider it a valid scientific theory. If you want to argue with me, I really won't be able to convince you. It's not relevant to me, as a Christian. I believe it because I'm a Christian. I don't need it to convince me to be a Christian -- there are so many more valid and important things that have done that for me. (And I'd love to talk to you about those.) So my intention here is not to convince everyone that, as far as origin of life goes, creationism is right and evolution is wrong. I'm just trying to understand why evolution is so easily accepted and how it earns its standing as a theory.
So I realize that I'm posting this at great risk of being torn apart (since my whole rambling argument there is pretty easily responded to, though it at least has a basis that I can't, myself, find an explanation for), but I guess that's what I'm asking for, right?
One more thing:
Big Bang Theory: There was nothing, and then BANG, there was something.
Creationism: There was nothing, and then BANG, there was something. God made it happen.
We might not disagree so greatly, after all.
Current music:
the soundtrack for Notre-Dame de Paris
Albatross, The Classic Crime
Words, Between the Trees
Currently reading:
Catch-22, Joseph Heller
The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini
Friday, August 10, 2007
Soldiers.
I don't know what kind of comments I'm going to get for this, but please watch this video.
Right now, someone I knew in middle school is missing her boyfriend in Iraq. We're praying for a church member overseas. One of my co-coaches won't see the love of her life until Christmas. He's been gone since early July.
It's very, very odd to me how close this is hitting to home. I don't know what I would do in that situation. How easy it would be to be selfish, to make my boyfriend or husband or brother stay home, to keep the people I love the most safe. How easy it would be for them not to step up to this plate. But they have, and they're doing it. My own peers are experiencing this sacrifice, this pain. And they're doing it because they're thinking outside themselves.
I've made it a habit of staying away from the war in Iraq and my feelings toward it. I'm torn and feel the conflict of bringing it up is unnecessary. But no matter the issues, these people are defending ideals that they, apparently, hold more dear than their own lives. They're defending a country they believe in. And I think the least we could do is believe in them.
Right now, someone I knew in middle school is missing her boyfriend in Iraq. We're praying for a church member overseas. One of my co-coaches won't see the love of her life until Christmas. He's been gone since early July.
It's very, very odd to me how close this is hitting to home. I don't know what I would do in that situation. How easy it would be to be selfish, to make my boyfriend or husband or brother stay home, to keep the people I love the most safe. How easy it would be for them not to step up to this plate. But they have, and they're doing it. My own peers are experiencing this sacrifice, this pain. And they're doing it because they're thinking outside themselves.
I've made it a habit of staying away from the war in Iraq and my feelings toward it. I'm torn and feel the conflict of bringing it up is unnecessary. But no matter the issues, these people are defending ideals that they, apparently, hold more dear than their own lives. They're defending a country they believe in. And I think the least we could do is believe in them.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Anger is a worthless emotion.
I don't understand anger, as an emotion. I understand being upset; I understand being sad or hurt by someone's actions. But what is anger? Why would something make me angry? Is anger surprise at the depravity of another's action? It is more than disgust; it is personal offense. It is more than, "How could (s)he do this to me?" That is sadness. It seems to me that anger is pride. Anger is "Since when is life not fair? Where is the karma? I'm too good for something like this to happen to me." Anger is "I would never do something like that." (Oh, but you would! Though this is a different topic entirely.) What right do I have to be angry, when I am just as guilty as the next sinner? I am, however, sad.
Anger is so fleeting and it comes so easily, without thought or logic. We flare up immediately following an event that makes us unhappy. We get so much power, fuel from anger. We use it to justify so many things, to get attention, boost reputation, gain power, kill. Anger is rash. Anger is to become something that is not me -- or, at least, something I don't have control over.
Suddenly I understand anger (wrath) as one of the seven deadly sins.
And I think it is a mistake to believe we need anger. (To fuel, provoke, cause, manipulate, motivate action or whatever.) Banishing anger is not the same as banishing passion -- to not get angry over something is not to say I can't feel strongly about it.
Current music:
Daisy, by Switchfoot
The Blues, by Switchfoot
Shadow Proves the Sunshine, by Switchfoot
Who I Am Hates Who I've Been, by Relient K
I So Hate Consequences, by Relient K
Poison Ivy, by Matthew Thiessen and the Earthquakes
Currently reading:
The Bourne Identity, by Robert Ludlum
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
Anger is so fleeting and it comes so easily, without thought or logic. We flare up immediately following an event that makes us unhappy. We get so much power, fuel from anger. We use it to justify so many things, to get attention, boost reputation, gain power, kill. Anger is rash. Anger is to become something that is not me -- or, at least, something I don't have control over.
Suddenly I understand anger (wrath) as one of the seven deadly sins.
And I think it is a mistake to believe we need anger. (To fuel, provoke, cause, manipulate, motivate action or whatever.) Banishing anger is not the same as banishing passion -- to not get angry over something is not to say I can't feel strongly about it.
Current music:
Daisy, by Switchfoot
The Blues, by Switchfoot
Shadow Proves the Sunshine, by Switchfoot
Who I Am Hates Who I've Been, by Relient K
I So Hate Consequences, by Relient K
Poison Ivy, by Matthew Thiessen and the Earthquakes
Currently reading:
The Bourne Identity, by Robert Ludlum
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)