Evolution vs. Creationism - The Debate

The battle for the ages!!  And depending on which side you are on, the "ages" is either billions and billions of years - or just 6,000 years.  I didn't know a thing about this until after it had started, but became increasingly and increasingly fascinated by the argument for both sides.  

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" has been very outspoken on his stance on evolution and how dangerous creationism is to the youth of America.  Ken Ham has built a multi-million dollar creationism museum in Kentucky.  He believes the word of the Bible to be as scientific as anything the scientist can prove.  He has taken Nye's threats personally because it goes against his direct teachings to his followers.

The debate was awkward at times, but I was fascinated by how both men kept their cool.  At some point, I think I would have taken my pen and tried to attack the other side.  Both men used the same evidence as the basis for their beliefs.  Neither was going to be convinced that the other was right.  Both thought the other was dead wrong.  In other hands, this would have deteriorated into a "your momma" contest.  The fact that it lasted as long as it did and there were no punches thrown was pretty amazing.

When asked what would convince them to change their beliefs, Bill Nye responded, "Evidence!"  Ken Ham, on the other hand, responded, "Nothing."  There lies the problem.  You can't win an argument with a man who already claims victory.  Presented with a mountain of evidence, creationism advocates will claim that it's not. Ham says he believes in "observational science" and not in "historical science."  Nye responds that there is no such categories of science - All science, in a sense, is historical science.

Much was made about Noah and "the flood" happening 4000 years ago.  Ham has a lifesized replica at his museum.  Nye's proof lies with the kangaroos.  If the arc landed in the Middle East, and Australian animals walked from there to Australia, surely one of them would have died on the way.  When asked the question on how life began, Nye admitted that it was a mystery.  Ham pointed to the Bible.  

Some scientist were annoyed at Bill Nye for giving Ken Ham credibility by debating him.  Creationism believers mostly viewed this as another futile attempt to prove wrong what they have already claimed is impossible to prove.  Both sides claimed victory in the press and social media.  I've read that both sides handled themselves poorly and should be embarrassed.

Growing up in Central Texas, I was taught the same basic bible stories that all other kids are - Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah's Arc.  As I grew up and became educated, evolution seemed to make more sense to the logical part of my mind.  However, I think both sides are basically wrong.  And I think that both sides could be right.  Nye believes that creationism is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Ham believes in the Bible.  If he's wrong, then his whole world is wrong.  I would contend that in many ways, both could stand on common ground.

The wold is older than 6,000 years old.  It just is.  To argue otherwise, as Ham does, would ignore a gluttony of evidence and many branches of science.  The laws developed in these sciences are logical, they work, and are proven over and over.  Radiation, fossils, rock layers, astronomy.....all taken together make for a compelling case.  However, many scientist are devout Christians who believe in the Bible and many of the lessons taught.  How is that possible?

It's possible because I think there is some truth in both and some assumption (or at least educated assumption) in both theories.  Ham is correct that nobody SAW evolution happen, but wrong that we have to discount it because of that fact.  Nobody SAW God create the earth, but he takes his word for it.  Ham believes that if evolution is true, the literal translation of the Bible will not be.  God created the heavens and the earth in six days.  But, and I'm probably wrong on this point, who is to say that a day is 24 hours when this happened?   What if each day was a million years?  10 million years?  Could it have happened then?  Ken Ham danced around the "literal" translation of the Bible.  

I believe that there is too much beauty and meaning in the world for this all to be one big cosmic accident.  I believe that SOMETHING magical had to happen for all this to begin.  I do not think that you have to be anti-religion for evolution to work.  It is part of science.  By using Ham's own argument, the Bible isn't to be taken "literally" but "naturally."  In other words, some of it is to be taken literally, but much of it is to be taken as poetry.  I guess then the trick is to figure out which is the poetry and which is the literal parts.  I think everyone's personal faith should define that.  

Hobby Lobby's Probby

Let's jump in head first.  Obamacare is a bad idea.  It just is.  For me it is anyway.  I'm sure there is some segment of our country that is high-five'ing the television for some part of it.  But, it is what it is at the moment and even though it cost me more for less care than I had last year, it is, at this moment, the law we must follow.

Except Hobby Lobby apparently.  They have religion on their side.  Obamacare is "raising the standard" of health care and forcing business to cover more choices, even if they are unnecessary.  This raises a problem for Hobby Lobby because they are pro-life and one of the "options" for women and their birth-control options is the "Plan B" line of birth-control (The "Day After Pill" etc).  They are refusing to pay for the Plan B medication, facing million-dollar-per-day fines.  The case will head to the Supreme Court soon.

So, the left is forcing the right to use drugs that the right says kill babies.  That's the jist of the argument.  Again, Obamacare is a bad idea as a health-care plan.  It's intent is to offer affordable health-care to ALL Americans, yet few Americans actually see the benefit.  Instead, most Americans are funding those who don't have benefits.  At least that's the way it feels when I get my check with a bigger chunk of money gone, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays.

The question from either side is a one part question.  From the middle, it's actually two parts.  1)  Should the government dictate what my health care should be?  AND 2) Should my employer be able to do the same?  

My answer is NO to both questions.  I complained and complained about my previous healthcare - high deductibles, high co-pays, long waits, headaches all around.  However, why can't the insurance companies be regulated to charge reasonable amounts.  Insurance companies have tuned it into a scam - a fixable scam.  Breaking a finger doesn't REALLY cost $22,000, but that's what it says on the bill.  Then, the prices is "negotiated" down to $50.  It's all to make sure that we HAVE their insurance.  So, now with Obamacare, I get to KEEP the same insurance, but Obamacare makes them do it their way, causing all of my deductibles and co-pays to go up.  Now, the focus is on making enough money to cover the people that don't have to pay a thing for their healthcare.  Hardly seems fair from my little working job.

But, shockingly, it has raised a more troubling question - does my employer get to pick and choose what medications I can be covered for because of their religious beliefs?  Hobby Lobby is basically refusing to pay for a specific section of drugs because they don't believe it's moral.  They are telling the women in their company that they value their employment, but forget to take a birth control pill ONE TIME, and suffer the consequences.  What if Hobby Lobby were Catholics and decided that they didn't believe in pre-marital sex to the point that any employee having sex that wasn't married was subject to termination.   Any pregnant non-married employee would be let go immediately.  What if they were Scientologist and didn't believe in mental health drugs?  What if they decided that it was required for you to pray to Allah instead of healthcare?  I know, it's silly.  But so is any religious-based health care decision.  

Believe what you want to believe.  But don't force it on those that are not breaking any laws.  The whole problem with Hobby Lobby's defense, in my opinion, is that they have a false opinion on what the Plan B drugs do.  The Day After pill makes the environment unfriendly for an egg (fertilized or not) to attach itself to the uterine wall.  And, a woman is not pregnant until she becomes the life-line for that egg.  So, the pill does not kill a fetus - it prevents it from forming.  In a sense, this is an argument about when life begins.  Hobby Lobby is moving the legal line to where their beliefs lie.  They believe that life begins when an egg is fertilized.

If the Supreme Court rules on the side of Hobby Lobby, regardless of if you are pro-life or pro-choice, it opens up a dangerous world where employers will start using this case to get out of paying for a menu of items that we would normally get if we purchased our own, private insurance.

Neither side is close to right in this case.  Americans and employees lose both ways.  

America the جميل

For my first blog post on my new little blog, I'll tackle something very current.

During last night's Superbowl, which was a blowout 90% of American weren't expecting, this ad from Coca-Cola ran.  now, with everybody in such a foul mood over thier team getting blasted, this probably got more of a response than the other, more entertaining ads on the TV last night.  I think that's exactly what Coke was trying to do.

I immediately thought that this would be a topic of discussion on Monday's social media, especially among my right-wing friends who believe that the borders don't have enough barbed-wire on them.  And my poor left-wing friends who were just innocently sitting there, enjoying the game and all of a sudden they get to defend their stance on why we should just all hug and embrace and sing John Lennon's Imagine.

One response I saw (on a right-wing woman's site of all places), defending how they thought America shold be, quoted a speech from Teddy Roosevelt:

Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Yup.  Teddy Roosevelt said that back in 1907.  107 YEARS AGO!!!  Isn't there something a bit more current that they could hang their hat on?  Because, back in 1907, there were a BUNCH of things that were thought and said that I would reckon would rather be forgotten these days.   This was 12-13 years before women were allowed to vote.  So yeah - probably not the strongest example to base your 2014 opinion.....unless your opinion is still a 1907 opinion.

Those against the ad think we should just speak American cause this is 'Merica!  Like the people singing in their native language don't know English.  I mean, if they're singing "America the Beautiful" there are probably one or two things gong on.  1)  They are Americans, which means they probably live here and at least have been to exposed to English or English speaking people.  If they took the test for citizenship, they had to take it in English, right?  OR 2) They aren't Americans but they sure do love our country enough to learn one of our national songs.  That's awful nice of them, isn't it? 

Now, as an ad - <yawn>.  I would have rather seen well known Americans, preferably sports stars, who are of different nationalities with the same lyrics.  I think I would have been more entertained by the ad AND gotten the message a little clearer.  But, I don't think Coke cared about that.  I think they did it for the debate they knew would ensue.  Had this been played during a repeat of The Walking Dead, I'm sure very few would have blinked.

In MY 'Murica - the one where I work side-by-side with many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, some knowing little to no English but working their butts off to build houses for people of ANY nationality, but usually for American soldiers based out of Ft. Hood - not everybody has to speak English to get by.  As long as they get by with respect from and to the person they are working for/with.