Yesterday I wrote an article about the flaws in intelligent design theory. So my friend Jason added this link to his web site. Again, this stuff is so obvious, how can we accept intelligent design as a valid possibility? It’s narcissistic and ludicrous.
Archive for August, 2005
More evidence decrying intelligent design
Thursday, August 11th, 2005The wrong approach to solving gas prices
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005Wisconsin Congressional Representative Ron Kind is not wrong in asking why gas prices are high now. Neither is Republican Party Third Congressional District Chairman Gary Arneson. However, Arneson suggests that Kind is wrong by looking at alternative energy sources. Furthermore, he blasts Kind for voting against drilling in the Arctic Circle for more oil. That is extremely short-sighted of Arneson.
Arneson’s argument has major holes. First, alternative energy sources for powering our homes affects fuel prices. By using less fuel in power plants, producers can provide more to motorists. We see prices change with the seasons because of production of facility (homes and businesses) heating fuel. That same fuel comes from crude oil.
Second, crude is a limited resource. By drilling for more of it, we’re only postponing the problem. Former President Jimmy Carter proposed looking for alternative fuel sources over two decades ago when people were literally sitting in line to put gas in their cars. Instead of becoming more independent of fuel, we Americans entered the 1980′s with a new “manifest destiny” mentality, thanks to President Carter’s successor killing the alternative energy program. We started buying vehicles (that is, sport utility vehicles) that consumed more gasoline, and when the industry responded with vehicles that guzzled more fuel, we bought more of them (like anyone would need a Mercedes-Benz or Cadillac SUV). We are only now reacting to the prices when we should have been actively looking for alternatives more than 20 years ago (and who says history does not repeat itself).
Third, our wasteful consumerism has driven the price of crude oil to skyrocket. The United States now relies on foreign manufacturing, and foreign manufacturing relies on fuel to power their plants. Because the finite supply continues to decrease and the demand across the planet continues to jump, economic supply and demand kick in and require costs to go up. As I stated, drilling for more oil is merely a temporary solution. Once all of the fuel is used up, what do we do then?
Finally, Arneson argues that wind power, solar energy, and ethanol cannot be quickly integrated into the economy, so we must remain dependent on gasoline. But he fails to mention that this technology is not new. Ethanol has been available for over two decades. Wind power was used in Europe in the form of windmills when the Native Americans were the only people on this continent. And solar collector technology continues to move forward as researchers develop more economical ways for it to be used in many parts of the western United States.
These arguments are not new. They’ve been around since the last fuel crisis. As a nation, though, we just decided to ignore it and focus on our own grandiose ambitions instead of acting as proper stewards of the world (since we have the power to). But any person with an ounce of intelligence and some awareness of recent events does not have to read this to know the facts… they merely need to look at the historical record to find that out.
Everyday evidence of evolution
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005The debate between creationism and evolution is again at the forefront of our psyches (we obviously are tired of hearing about all of the US soldiers dying in Iraq, only 27 months after major combat had been declared “ended,” and we only have more important issues to really deal with, such as our dependence on foreign oil, state and federal deficits, and the offshoring of our jobs). The latest argument that I’ve heard is called “intelligent design.” This theory suggests that we could not have evolved by chance; some divine power was involved in the creation of all living beings. To me, it seems like an attempt to bridge science and faith. But it’s too simplistic, and it lacks any empirical evidence that evolution offers. And now there’s a push to require it to be taught in our schools.
The “proof” that I recently read about refers to the development of the eye. Certain creatures have special photo receptors that allow them to see things that other creatures cannot. Per intelligent design advocates, this could not have developed by chance; some form of intervention was involved. But biologists point to the fossil record and show that a slight mutation that led to survival is the explanation for its development. The fossil record has plenty of evidence of that. I further argue that there are creatures that have eyes that are not very useful. For example, bats have eyes that they do not fully exploit; since they are nocturnal hunters, they rely much more on their sonar abilities. And since the nocturnal carnivores tend to live in caves, the need for an alternative to the eye further shows that evolution had a greater part in the development of sonar; it could not have evolved by design. If that were the case, creatures with similar lifestyles would also have this ability.
But there is more evidence that intelligent design has less viability than evolution. And this evidence exists in our everyday lives. For the past fifty years, we’ve relied on antibiotics to destroy unwanted bacteria that invade our bodies and wreak havoc on our health. During that time, bacteria that escaped the demise brought about by penicillin and such have come back stronger and more resistant to the drugs that we’ve developed. It’s probably a simple example of evolution, but there is plenty of empirical evidence, and it was not the result of divine design (but rather of human ingenuity and overuse).
I think additional evidence is apparent in the cultures of the world. If you look at the different languages that are spoken, many of them developed quite differently across major regions. Spoken languages in Europe differ from those in Africa and Asia. The sounds vary, some are still only spoken, and some use sounds (such as clicking) that are considered bizarre in other cultures. The way different cultures write are further evidence that human language was not developed by design. If they were, I would think that we’d see closer similarities to the languages. Although the Bible’s Old Testament explains these differences away in an incident with lightning striking a very tall tower in Babel, it’s too simplistic and does not explain the huge disparities in language and culture (or as I like to say, the Onion is America’s finest news source). It’s so obvious that one cannot miss why European languages are written from left to right, yet middle-eastern (including Hebrew) are written from right to left, or why European names are in given name, surname order while oriental names are surname, given name order.
These are simple yet compelling examples of how life evolved by chance rather than by design. Simple explanations of “because it’s in the Bible†don’t hold water. It makes no sense to believe everything you read. And the argument of development by design does not have much credibility either, as I’ve just demonstrated.
Time Magazine article, “The Evolution Wars” (the full online article is only available to subscribers; look for the August 15 issue at your newsstand or library)
Time Magazine article, “Face-Off: Darwinians vs. Anti-Darwinians”
Wisconsin’s farm future and the agency that helps promotes it
Monday, August 8th, 2005I received a message from the Secretary at work today that included a column from the Governor. Governor Doyle applauded the agricultural efforts of Wisconsin and recognized how the residents are tied to farming, even if they aren’t farmers. Wisconsin’s agricultural industry generates $51.5 billion annually, and we’re investing in new initiatives, such as bio-energy, to continue expanding the industry. Wisconsin is number one in cheese production in the United States (thus the name “America’s Dairylandâ€), and has more specialty cheese makers than any other state. And it is the first state to pass legislation that will increase animal health surveillance. Furthermore, Wisconsin had strong consumer protection legislation that became the model for national legislation in the early 20 th century.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) Secretary Rod Nilsestuen e-mailed a note to recognize all of us employees today. His message was very meaningful:
“Although the work of the many DATCP employees who do much of the day to day work to help support this progress, doesn’t always create headlines, it is nonetheless important. Thank you for all you do.â€
DATCP employees work very hard and care deeply about their work, and I enjoy working with all of them. So today’s blog is dedicated to all of my fellow coworkers.
Governor Doyle Column: Investing in Our Farm Future
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board FAQ: What makes Wisconsin America’s Dairyland?
The problem with bottled water
Friday, August 5th, 2005I’ve often wondered how the bottled water industry got such a huge leap. Just a dozen years ago, I would have thought purchasing bottled water was a waste cash. Today, you can expect to spend as much as $3 for a bottle of water at a movie theater (apparently the nearby water fountain is inadequate). I still think purchasing bottled water is wasteful, especially since people are willing to spend more per quart of water than per gallon of gasoline. Although I agree that there are benefits to buying bottled water (such as in the middle of a third-world country where you should not drink the local tap water).
I found the following article from my friend Jason. It puts the entire issue into perspective and makes me really wonder why people are still willing to pay for water. I recently went shopping with a friend that didn’t worry about buying a case of bottled water, yet he’s concerned about money. He fell ill to the cryptosporidium epidemic in Milwaukee back in the early 90s, so he could justify the cost of bottled water. However, I suggested a water filter would cost him so much less and would contribute much less to the recycling bins. I personally use a water filter to take out certain sediments that would otherwise clog my coffeemaker, but I’m not opposed to drinking tap water.
Bottled water also results in some distressing issues. In addition to the environmentally damaging consequences of bottling and shipping water in plastic bottles and disposing of the empty containers, I found the following statement too real and absolutely disturbing:
“Of course, tap water is not so abundant in the developing world. And that is ultimately why I find the illogical enthusiasm for bottled water not simply peculiar, but distasteful. For those of us in the developed world, safe water is now so abundant that we can afford to shun the tap water under our noses, and drink bottled water instead: our choice of water has become a lifestyle option. For many people in the developing world, however, access to water remains a matter of life or death…
“Clean water could be provided to everyone on earth for an outlay of $1.7 billion a year beyond current spending on water projects, according to the International Water Management Institute. Improving sanitation, which is just as important, would cost a further $9.3 billion per year. This is less than a quarter of global annual spending on bottled water.â€
Bottled water does seem to epitomize the excesses of our lavish lifestyles.