Skepticism of Evolution

This is a post I submitted for an online "Environmental Science" class. I thought it worth sharing. (Also, I finally managed to access my blog, obviously.)

A definition of the terms:

Evolution: comes in two forms:
Micro-evolution: The changes within a species, such as breeding animals. A common day, reproducible occurrence.
Macro-Evolution: The change over time from one species to another, as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Creationism:
The idea that our world did not create itself out of chaos, but was created by a supreme being, in a state comparable to now.

Intelligent Design:
The acceptance of the theory of Evolution, but with an affirmation that God led the evolutionary process.

I hope to make a small case for Creationism in this submission.

I will start with this quote from Carolyn Peters (that’s our instructor…):
“Most biologists believe in evolution. It is a logical format for biological succession. It would be difficult to teach biology without believing in evolution. I believe in evolution. I however do not mix my religious beliefs with scientific fact. It is really too bad that evolution has had this type of following.”

With all due respect, this kind of a statement is implying that any defense of creation must be by a religious fanatic (“this type of following”) who doesn’t understand a thing about science (“I however do not mix my religious beliefs with scientific fact”).
Two other statements are that “most biologists believe in evolution”. Oddly enough, our very own textbook explains why a large number of supporters do not make a claim valid – the same way that perhaps 99% of the scientific world supported the flat earth theory. Majority is not a basis for truth.
And lastly, the comment makes no distinction between the changes within a species (which is of course the basis of much of biology) and the changes from one species to another.

Now, here is a famous quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (quoted from Phillip E. Johnson’s book “Defeating Darwinism”).

I bring this up to demonstrate that even among some of the most highly regarded scientists, science does not lead them to the acceptance or denial of God’s existence, rather, they have a PRIOR commitment to fitting any evidence they find into an atheistic view, no matter how awkward it is.

I will not argue the rest of this with quotes and statistics (which tend to only lead in circles, stacking statistics on both sides to see who has the bigger pile). [Edit: I think that honest research would show less evidence for evolution than modern claims to its general acceptance might suggest, but I prefer, in a short essay, to argue through logic, which doesn't require a large amount of references.]Instead I will present just two thoughts that are more than enough to convince me:

1. Information. It is not uncommon for scientists to include “information” as a third essential part of the universe, together with matter and energy. The interesting thing about it is that, as our chapter discusses, energy goes from more useful to less useful (or more dispersed) forms. Similarly, information has never, in any way, be known to create itself. Yes, experiments recreating the “early earth” have produced some of the amino acids necessary to create a cell, but a few acids do not contain information – the information of hundreds of books necessary for one strand of DNA, which would be necessary to make the leap to a cell, the smallest possible unit of life.
2. Continuity. There is an often ignored assumption embedded into Evolution that there is a stream of mutations that are CONTINUOUSLY beneficial all the way from a cell to any living being. That means that, at any point in Evolution, it was always beneficial to move towards the “next” species, not back. Imagine it as a mountain-climber. He starts in the valley as a cell, and spends millions of years climbing the first hill. When he gets to the top, he sees the real highest point of the mountain, but he has to go down a little to get there. Now, Evolution cannot get there, because it is blind – besides, that little valley might take 100,000 years to cross, in which time the species would be less likely to survive, and survival of the fittest would destroy it. Or, A prime example: Someone mentioned in a different discussion that we come from apes and so do monkeys. Monkeys gained tails over time. Nice. My question is this: During the first 2000 or so years when monkey were developing their tail, and it was 1 inch long… um. What use was it, and how did it help them survive? Why would the monkeys with the little mutation of a stub on their rear reproduce more?

Given my second thought, one could take it to simply support Intelligent Design, not creationism. Although I doubt that after admitting that God can have direct influence on the world there would still be sufficient evidence for any cross-species development to support an evolutionary theory.

The Country Of Life

Disclaimer: Written in one draft, with only a basic concept in mind, so it's still a bit shaky.


"Mark, slow down, man."
Zach was getting nervous.
"Calm down! Look, I'm only going eighty, that's fifteen over."
"Still, I don't think it's safe."
"Oh, come on, Zach! I'm just having a little fun...that's what the speed limit is there for, so you can break it."
"I don't know about you, but I always thought it's a good idea to follow the law."
They zipped past a small farming complex. It was only a blur, since Mark, in annoyance at Zach, had unconsciously increased his speed to 90mph.
"Quit talking about the law! Man, you're so judgmental... alright, if you say you prefer to follow the law, fine. But what if I don't want to? Different strokes for different folks, you know."
"I didn't judge you, the law did. It has nothing to do with 'different strokes'...all I'm trying to say is that it would be safer, and cheaper, if you just followed the signs."
Mark started to answer: "Ok ok, so I'm breaking the law. Fine. But I've never seen a policeman. I doubt - ", but he was interrupted by a siren behind them.
Mark pulled over, still brooding. The officer was at his window in an instant:
"Do you know how fast you were going?"
"Ninety Miles an hour."
"And did you see what the signs say?"
"Well, they have a number 65 on them, but that could mean anything, I mean, I thought it was maybe the ideal temperature for the road, or maybe it was a suggested speed, or they were out of date, or -"
"Please refrain from being an idiot, sir. Do you realize that speeding is against the law?"
"Against the law? Excuse me, officer, but I think you're just biased against me. You hate me, don't you?"
The officer did not answer, but instead handed Mark a booklet of the laws of the road.
Mark looked at the cover: "Country Of Life Road Laws - oh, come ON! You really take this stuff literally? This is just a guide for how to be happy."
"Actually, it's a guide for how to stay alive," the officer pointed out.
"So I'll admit, I was speeding. That isn't really wrong, though. I don't care what that book says.
"Sir, it is wrong. Are you able to pay for your mistake?"
"Of course I am! Why wouldn't I be?"
"Sir, no one can pay. Will you need help?"
"Heck no! I still don't see what I did wrong...except for maybe according to that silly book of yours. It's no big deal."
"If you will not follow the book, than you will be sent out of this Country."
"Wait! You said yourself that no one can pay the price!"
"Yes. But you did not even try - or admit that you need help. You said you do not like this book. You do not want to be a part of it. The book is the country. If you want to be far from the book, you do not want to be in this country. And now, please get out of the vehicle. You are under arrest."

love and affection

This week is tech week for the "Sound of Music" production of the community theatre, and I am their rehearsal/performance pianist. The show is quite fun, I love meeting all the people there and have a great time. Lately, one scene in particular has really been bothering me. It embodies today's misunderstanding of love, the Hollywood style. The captain has just confessed his love to Maria, and before they kiss, she says:
"The Reverend Mother always says: 'When the Lord closes a door, somewhere, he opens a window."
Captain: "What else does the Reverend Mother say?"
Maria: "That you have to look for your life."
Captain: "Is that why you came back?"
Maria: [nods]
Captain: "And have you found it?"
Maria: "I think I have." [kiss] "I know I have."

Question: What is wrong with this picture? Perhaps this other quote will show it more clearly...

Elsa: "Well, what would you call me, Georg?"
Captain: "Lovely, charming, witty, graceful, the perfect hostess...and, you're going to hate me for this...in a way, my savior."
Elsa: "Oh, how unromantic."
Captain: "I'd be an ungrateful wretch if I didn't say at least once that it was you who brought some meaning back into my life."

Figured it out yet? The captain is Maria's life, Elsa is the captain's savior, and the one who brought meaning to his life. You know what that's called? Simple: A god. An idol.

Now, before you get mad at me and say I'm unromantic and don't understand love, take this into consideration: How many people - in real life - do you know, who try to find meaning in their life through romantic relationships? And how many do you know who are repeatedly disappointed by them? What do all the songs tell about, all the movies? Either how there isn't true love, there are no loyal people...or of how they finally found "the one" who is everything to them.
Occasionally, yes, a person will be able to stay happy with a relationship (as their god) for quite a long period of time.
Nonetheless, It is still clear idolization. We are to love each other, of course. But love is not to be adoration. Adoration means worship. That's what you do towards God. At the same time, fellow believers, do you adore God? That feeling that we get when we "fall in love", is the feeling we should have towards God. Isn't that what faith is? You become blindly trusting, you want to give everything, you cannot think of anyone else. That should be towards God. By all means, I am not saying that I always feel this way. In fact, it is rare. I still have a lot of growing to do, and pray that I will grow closer to Christ, to see Him more clearly, that I can fall in love with Him.

Let me put it this way: Love people, but don't fall in love - let Love fall into you.

At the same time, we need to understand that love without worship is something far more practical, tangible. It is simply this: "I will do whatever is best for you, at my own cost." - if doing good for someone also is good for you, it did not require any love...it is not bad, but it is not love - real love is like this: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13). It doesn't say, "that one be obsessed with his friends." They might even really get on your nerves (!). Let me illustrate with one little story:

Yesterday, everyone else had to leave to the "Sound of Music" rehearsal half an hour earlier than I. So, they asked me to take the dog on a walk. I had really planned to practice piano during that time, and was really really angry inwardly at having my plans thwarted. I said I would do it, but was sure to let them know through my voice that I was not at all happy. Well, I knew this was unloving, and after walking half a block, realized that this was a chance - in fact, the only way - to show true love to my family. I had to give up about ten minutes of practicing (not that big of a deal, if I think about it now) - so that they could leave on time. Why was I mad? I worked hard on my mind and prayed and tried to change the way I saw it. Not that that the feelings are important. In fact, the anger didn't go away, I still felt it. But when I got home, and they were just leaving, mom thanked me. And I ignored the anger. I said, kindly: "No problem, I probably needed a walk anyway." (both of which are true statements). I did not feel any affection, I was not in love with my family. I simply decided to put others over myself. In a seemingly small way - but that is irrelevant.

So, with that, I love all of you! And I like some of you!

Have a nice day!

Benny


Edit: Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh here, I am not saying that we should not have affection or romance...trust me, I'm a romantic at heart. But those feelings may come and go.

Practice makes a little better, sometimes.

Well, everyone following this blog has asked for an update (being one person). Here goes.

I decided before school was out that I would practice four hours a day this summer - minimum. I had several good reasons: I'm accompanying two musicals (Sound of Music, Frog and Toad); I'm also hoping to get into a music conservatory next summer.

I've kept it up for the first six days now, I'll probably not practice much on Sundays - I believe in a day of rest.

Anyway, this seemed as good a time as any to share some of my observations on practicing:

1. You've practiced enough for a day if you cry out of frustration.
Which means that I very rarely really practice enough, although when I was younger I occasionally did.

2. The faster you want to play it, the slower you have to practice it.
Slower practicing is much more painful. But it trains muscle memory far better, any fast pieces I play, or cadenzas, start out as fast as Pachelbel's Canon.

3. Sometimes it gets a lot worse before it gets better.
Which is rather frustrating, so it's always good to remember that...

4. Every hour you put in, you get back out.
Have you ever heard someone regret how they practiced so much when they were younger? "Oh, I wish I were your age again, so I could be less diligent and waste more time"? Didn't think so.

5. Bach is the core.
I've been playing the second Partita for several months now, and it has improved my accuracy and speed quite a bit. Interestingly enough, I also can play Jazz far better if I played Bach beforehand.

There. And now, a short summary of what I'm working on:

Bach - Partita II, c minor
I have a sort of love hate relationship with this, especially the last movement, which is insane. Literally. Look it up on youtube by Martha Argerich, and you'll know what I mean.
Playing the whole thing has an interesting effect on me - it transports me into Bach's world, more than playing just a prelude or something would. You can almost feel his era - especially, I am overwhelmed with the amount of values, virtues, morals, and diligence that people had, then. Yes, that comes across in his music. And the lack of absolutes is exactly what defines our times, "postmodernism" if you will. Perhaps that is why it's presence is so vivid to me in his music.

Brahms - Cello Sonata in e minor
This piece is a monster. And also, amazingly rewarding to play, even if I haven't started practicing with Maury the cellist yet. Brahms is undoubtedly one of my favorite composers. His music is so rich, dramatic, honest - and unlike other composers, I do not always understand what is happening rhythmically and harmonically. That makes it all the more fun.

Chopin - Two Polonaises - A major (military) and c minor
Well, these are very Chopin. Beautiful and fresh, harmonies to blow your mind, and always a subtle counterpoint between the melody and the bass line.
Also, I have discovered that you can slam a chord as loud as you need to and it won't sound too harsh if you balance it well - usually towards the top and bottom.

Beethoven - Fifth Piano Sonata - c minor
I don't know why I play so much in c minor. Just a great key, I guess. This Sonata is surprisingly simple, but at the same time, somehow, incredibly difficult. It has a lot more musical intricacies than one might think.
The second movement has a terrible problem: The cadenzas are notated in triplet 64ths, whiles the left hand continues the 8th note accompaniment. Not so bad - until you realize that the rest of the piece is almost only 8th notes. So, unless it is to sound like a dirge played in your sleep, these passages have to be tearing fast - and still light, to fit the gentle mood of the movement.


Well, that's all for now, I need to do some chores and perhaps go swimming. I finished my practicing today, though! (I am tempted to add more...you reap what you sow)

God bless!

In The Beginning...

Hello, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Lately, I have been very busy with musicals, jazz combos, and school work. So I decided to try my hand at a new form of distraction and begin my own blog. We have yet to see how regular I will post on it.

Anyway, let's all give me a warm welcome!