Yesterday America was shocked and perplexed by the shooting and death in Virginia of a reporter and a camera man while conducting a live interview. Such tragic deaths have become too commonplace in the United States. Along with the shock and sorrow, there is also plenty of blame to go around for why these things happen. Many say we need more or better gun control. Others say we need to enforce existing laws. Some say the problem is mental illness.
Despite all the accusations, it seems evident to me that the problem is partly a result of a nation of people who want to claim every freedom and embrace the widest diversity, but who consider moral duties beneath them. We need a new set of American values. We must start with "charity for all" that President Lincoln referred to in his second inaugural address.
As it is now, do we teach our children to laugh at or take advantage of people or do we teach them to appreciate the good in others and even sacrifice our own time or resources for the benefit of others? I think most people teach the first one.
Do we teach them to look down on people who aren't as capable, wise, or successful as themselves or do we teach them to forgive people's weaknesses, help those less capable, and lift others by their successes? Again, I think most people teach the first one.
It's up to each of us as individuals to promote concern for others as the number one American value. All the laws in the world aren't going to stop these killings until as a nation we all value each other. It will continue to get worse as long as our number one value is individualism.
Take a little time to evaluate your own attitudes toward other people. How do you view other drivers on the road? How do you react? How do you treat people who have hurt you? How do view those who are unpopular or unpleasant?
Answers to these kinds of questions will give some insight into a major problem in our lives and our nation. Imagine these kinds of attitudes present in an unstable person. They get those values from the rest of us. They get them from our "entertainment" as well.
The worst we routinely see in people is a magnified view of problems in our culture. Change people and you'll change the culture. Change the culture and you'll change the people. It starts with each one of us.
What to teach children:
- Teach children that we are all valuable and important
- Teach them to forgive others who hurt them
- We should try to understand how others feel and do things that help them feel good
- Often when people hurt us, they don't fully realize what they are really doing
- Sometimes people are mean because they were taught to be (by family, friends, culture, etc.)
- If we hurt someone else, we should always try to make it better (apology, correct the problem, etc.)
- Teach them to accept responsibility for their own actions, rather than blaming others
Media and friend influences
- Always try to be aware of what messages your children are getting from TV, movies, Internet, books, etc.
- Limit the amount of violent and self-serving behavior they see in media
- Encourage media that uplift and inspire - avoid mindless media just to fill time
- Discuss with them any violent or selfish behaviors they are exposed to
- Assess what they are thinking about what they have seen
- Help them see the harm those things can bring when people do them
- Help them to understand that life can be better for everyone when we care about others
- Know whom your child spends time with and get to know them
- Get to know their parents too
- Have regular conversations with your children about what they are doing with their friends
- Assess what they are learning from them and how they are thinking about it
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Saturday, July 11, 2015
My New Project
Eleven years ago, I retired from the U.S. Air Force. Because of my situation, I retired with no education benefits. A few years after I retired, I was notified that I qualified for the new Post-9/11 GI Bill. That was really good news. By 2012, I had decided to use that benefit to pursue a bachelor's degree in business. And now, I just graduated in May 2015!
I started working on my business degree with the idea that I would graduate and look for a job in management or perhaps start my own business. But over the course of these three years, I became acutely aware of fundamental issues in American culture that are slowly destroying us. I discovered that many of our problems stem from deeply ingrained values that most of us hold as Americans. One of these is an overriding sense of individualism, that tends to crowd out more benevolent virtues.
As time has progressed, I have felt a strong need to make efforts to use my new knowledge and skills to help establish a new moral foundation based on values that unite our people. My first effort in that direction, beyond this blog, involves the upcoming presidential election.
Below is a link to my Prefundia.com project, which explains more. I'm asking that you help me out by clicking on the link and giving your input on what you see there. It has a place for comments below the project description. Prefundia.com is intended to help people refine their projects before taking them to crowd-funding sources.
Please click and make a comment! Thank you. Emil
http://prefundia.com/projects/view/election-2016-values-study-and-report/5854/
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
To Follow God or Not--That is the Question
Value addressed: Seek Truth
We are at a crossroad in America, where we must decide if we will be a nation under God, or a nation that believes man has all the answers and operates as such. Although no one is saying it in the media, I believe this is what’s at stake for the upcoming presidential election in 2016. Will the United States of America be “one nation under God,” guided by principles given by God; or will it be a godless nation, seeking hedonistic pleasures, and denying any higher authority than self (or man-made government)?
Every American who believes in God and wants the freedom to act as God directs, must raise their voices in support of a God-inspired nation. We must not let lies overshadow what is true. We must be firm in our faith, not cast about by every wind of popular opinion.
I believe that most people who don’t believe in God these days have been influenced to a large extent by the Theory of Evolution. Some of the facts presented by science on the topic are true, but there is a whole range of questions on the subject that science has not yet answered, but has only speculated. We have been sold a big lie, while the truth is subdued or cast aside as out-of-date.
If this is an age of reason, let’s reason sensibly and accurately. We must no longer accept lies as truth, just because some scientist said it. We also must not accept lies just because someone of the clergy said it. We have the means to analyze so much more than anytime in the past. We can compare the validity of religious arguments and scientific arguments. The whole point of both religion and science is to learn and apply truth for the betterment and well-being of people. Let’s work with both to establish what is true and strive to live by it.
I’m impressed with the following speech by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, who stood up for the truth. May we all be so bold in standing for the truth. May we also teach our children to stand for what is true and right.
Watch the video of Rabbi Jonathan Cahn addressing members of Congress at a service at the Capitol.
What to teach children:
- They have a responsibility to work to discover and learn what is true (this includes education and faith)
- There are many things people will tell them that are not true (even authorities, publications, etc.)
- Evolution is taught as a fact, but there are many questions that science has left unanswered
- Some answers science has provided are based on false presuppositions
- As science discovers new things, it often gives new evidence for evolution as well as a creator
- The potential consequences may be worse to deny a creator when he in fact exists than to believe, though he doesn’t exist. At best, they are equal. Believing is therefore a better choice in the absence of proof.
- Teach critical thinking skills
- Teach them about God
- Teach them about your faith and get them involved (yes, that means you need to be involved too)
- Many people claim to have experiences that they attribute to divine aid or involvement
- Until these and a number of other questions can be adequately explained by some other cause, reason cannot deny a divine creator
- Teach them to be kind as they stand firm for truth
Friday, March 20, 2015
We Are All Needed
Value addressed: Love people
Often people look down on others because their job has a lower social status or they resent an individual who achieves great economic wealth. This is far from a legitimate way to view people.
We need everyone who works a legitimate job. We need the janitors, the truck drivers, the entrepreneurs, and the cashiers. We need the managers, the CEOs, and the school teachers. We need the engineers, the sales people, and the assembly workers. We all contribute to the economic vibrancy of the nation. We all contribute to the system that provides for our many needs and wants. There is no one to look down upon. Sure, maybe someone gets paid more than you or maybe less than you. They are still part of the system that provides for your needs. Maybe their jobs take less skill than yours. They are still contributing a necessary function in the overall fabric of production and consumption. Maybe she stays at home, raising her children. Again, a great contribution to the well-being of our nation.
We must always respect one another, no matter their status, their job, their race, religion, political view, and so on. We don't have to agree with everyone's ideas, but we must always remember they are human beings like us, with hopes and dreams, successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses. They were created in the image of God and came here as babies like everyone else. We all grow up in cultural environments that help shape our thoughts and behaviors. Our environments may instill good values leading to good behaviors or those environments can develop destructive values that lead to delinquent behaviors. Our environments are different, but we are all of equal worth as people and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, even when we're wrong or make mistakes.
What to teach children:
- Treat people with respect
- That means acknowledging them and listening when they speak
- It means doing things that are helpful to others
- It means avoiding intentionally irritating or annoying others
- It means accepting everyone when possible (of course it is always important to protect themselves)
- It means having patience with other people's weaknesses and mistakes
- Help kids see the good side of people who are different
- Help kids see the good even in those who have done wrong and hurt others
- Help children understand that often people hurt others out of ignorance or social conditioning more than hatefulness
- Explain that you are teaching these things so they are not like those who hurt others
- Teach them that it is behaviors that are bad, not people
- Involve children in helping others without pay
Avoid:
- Avoid talking badly about groups of people or individuals
- Avoid identifying people by their faults or mistakes (as in "they stole; they are thieves and bad people")
Often people look down on others because their job has a lower social status or they resent an individual who achieves great economic wealth. This is far from a legitimate way to view people.
We need everyone who works a legitimate job. We need the janitors, the truck drivers, the entrepreneurs, and the cashiers. We need the managers, the CEOs, and the school teachers. We need the engineers, the sales people, and the assembly workers. We all contribute to the economic vibrancy of the nation. We all contribute to the system that provides for our many needs and wants. There is no one to look down upon. Sure, maybe someone gets paid more than you or maybe less than you. They are still part of the system that provides for your needs. Maybe their jobs take less skill than yours. They are still contributing a necessary function in the overall fabric of production and consumption. Maybe she stays at home, raising her children. Again, a great contribution to the well-being of our nation.
We must always respect one another, no matter their status, their job, their race, religion, political view, and so on. We don't have to agree with everyone's ideas, but we must always remember they are human beings like us, with hopes and dreams, successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses. They were created in the image of God and came here as babies like everyone else. We all grow up in cultural environments that help shape our thoughts and behaviors. Our environments may instill good values leading to good behaviors or those environments can develop destructive values that lead to delinquent behaviors. Our environments are different, but we are all of equal worth as people and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, even when we're wrong or make mistakes.
What to teach children:
- Treat people with respect
- That means acknowledging them and listening when they speak
- It means doing things that are helpful to others
- It means avoiding intentionally irritating or annoying others
- It means accepting everyone when possible (of course it is always important to protect themselves)
- It means having patience with other people's weaknesses and mistakes
- Help kids see the good side of people who are different
- Help kids see the good even in those who have done wrong and hurt others
- Help children understand that often people hurt others out of ignorance or social conditioning more than hatefulness
- Explain that you are teaching these things so they are not like those who hurt others
- Teach them that it is behaviors that are bad, not people
- Involve children in helping others without pay
Avoid:
- Avoid talking badly about groups of people or individuals
- Avoid identifying people by their faults or mistakes (as in "they stole; they are thieves and bad people")
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Fifty Shades of Crap
Values addressed: Love people, Keep passions in their proper place.
Fifty shades of crap smeared on the movie screen. Swarms of people run to see. What are they hoping for? Will they get their money’s worth? Will they get some twisted thrill? The gatekeepers turn a blind eye to any harm society may receive—their pockets are lined, from producer to theater.
So what about the cognitive triangle? Do we not know that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are linked? Put crap in our thoughts, it creates crap in our feelings and behaviors. It’s pretty simple to see and yet there they are: swarms of people waiting, as the gatekeepers—or shall we say the Pied Pipers—gleefully lead them on.
Where is prevention today? It was once said that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure. But our Pied Pipers say, “Who gives a d$$$. It’s not our job to prevent abuse. It’s not our job to elevate moral standards. If people buy, we’ll produce!”
But think: this is just the beginning! Where will they lead us next? What twisted, despicable worlds will they drag us into? Or will they think, “Okay, I guess I’ve made enough money. Now I can actually produce something uplifting or useful”? Doubtful I’m sure. We the people support their cause, handing them money to teach our young men how to treat our daughters.
Is innocence so undesirable that we’d rather jump in and swim in the crap? It’s just a movie you say? Don’t forget the cognitive triangle! Thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influence each other. We don’t watch crap and remain unaffected. Either we turn more against it or we become more conditioned to accept it.
So if you have, or plan to have, children one day or if you have nieces or nephews that you care about, be sure about whom you pay to teach them how to live in this world. The media are powerful influencers of our cultural values. What harm they cause today can linger for decades. It’s just a movie now, but piled together masses of entertainment shape our culture for good or for bad.
What to teach children:
Sex is a private and gentle expression of love between a husband and wife.
It brings children into the world and helps unite their parents.
Many people have turned it into a plaything, which causes many problems in our world.
In some ways, it's like a drug that can get people hooked.
Sex is not the same as love.
Love is the greater goal. Sex is only a special part of married love.
Movies and other entertainment involving sex degrade it and make it less special.
Such media also lead more people to treat it just as a plaything.
We must be careful what entertainment we consume.
What we watch, listen to, and read can affect us in ways we may not understand until it's too late.
People who produce bad entertainment are not bad people; they usually don't fully realize what harm they are causing.
What people wear (especially girls) and what they talk about can entice another person to want sex, stirring desires in wrong times and places.
Help them understand that as their parent you want to help them make the best choices about media, dress, associations, etc.
Teach them to come to you with questions about these things.
Before they know what sex is, teach:
No one has a right to touch their bodies without permission.
Their private areas are meant to stay private to keep them safe.
Exceptions to privacy are at the doctor's office or with a parent for cleaning/bath time (until old enough to care for themselves).
Avoid:
Avoid making sex sound like it's evil, dirty, bad, etc. It just has a proper place and time.
Avoid labeling people--label only behaviors as wrong.
Avoid overreacting to their questions, ideas, etc. They are young and learning.The world will put things in front of them and it is your job to help them see why the world's idea may not be so good.
Fifty shades of crap smeared on the movie screen. Swarms of people run to see. What are they hoping for? Will they get their money’s worth? Will they get some twisted thrill? The gatekeepers turn a blind eye to any harm society may receive—their pockets are lined, from producer to theater.
So what about the cognitive triangle? Do we not know that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are linked? Put crap in our thoughts, it creates crap in our feelings and behaviors. It’s pretty simple to see and yet there they are: swarms of people waiting, as the gatekeepers—or shall we say the Pied Pipers—gleefully lead them on.
Where is prevention today? It was once said that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure. But our Pied Pipers say, “Who gives a d$$$. It’s not our job to prevent abuse. It’s not our job to elevate moral standards. If people buy, we’ll produce!”
But think: this is just the beginning! Where will they lead us next? What twisted, despicable worlds will they drag us into? Or will they think, “Okay, I guess I’ve made enough money. Now I can actually produce something uplifting or useful”? Doubtful I’m sure. We the people support their cause, handing them money to teach our young men how to treat our daughters.
Is innocence so undesirable that we’d rather jump in and swim in the crap? It’s just a movie you say? Don’t forget the cognitive triangle! Thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influence each other. We don’t watch crap and remain unaffected. Either we turn more against it or we become more conditioned to accept it.
So if you have, or plan to have, children one day or if you have nieces or nephews that you care about, be sure about whom you pay to teach them how to live in this world. The media are powerful influencers of our cultural values. What harm they cause today can linger for decades. It’s just a movie now, but piled together masses of entertainment shape our culture for good or for bad.
What to teach children:
Sex is a private and gentle expression of love between a husband and wife.
It brings children into the world and helps unite their parents.
Many people have turned it into a plaything, which causes many problems in our world.
In some ways, it's like a drug that can get people hooked.
Sex is not the same as love.
Love is the greater goal. Sex is only a special part of married love.
Movies and other entertainment involving sex degrade it and make it less special.
Such media also lead more people to treat it just as a plaything.
We must be careful what entertainment we consume.
What we watch, listen to, and read can affect us in ways we may not understand until it's too late.
People who produce bad entertainment are not bad people; they usually don't fully realize what harm they are causing.
What people wear (especially girls) and what they talk about can entice another person to want sex, stirring desires in wrong times and places.
Help them understand that as their parent you want to help them make the best choices about media, dress, associations, etc.
Teach them to come to you with questions about these things.
Before they know what sex is, teach:
No one has a right to touch their bodies without permission.
Their private areas are meant to stay private to keep them safe.
Exceptions to privacy are at the doctor's office or with a parent for cleaning/bath time (until old enough to care for themselves).
Avoid:
Avoid making sex sound like it's evil, dirty, bad, etc. It just has a proper place and time.
Avoid labeling people--label only behaviors as wrong.
Avoid overreacting to their questions, ideas, etc. They are young and learning.The world will put things in front of them and it is your job to help them see why the world's idea may not be so good.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Free Speech and the Need for Self-censoring
The following is a letter to the editor that I got published in the Utah Statesman, the newspaper for Utah State University. This is what I submitted; the published version (22 Jan 2015) was slightly altered.
The other day, I read in The Utah Statesman the article “Censored: Threats and attacks inspire discussions of freedom of speech.” As discussed in the article, it is clear that the recent cases of violence against people because of what they printed are appallingly inappropriate responses. As an American citizen, I learned to value our Bill of Rights, just as other Americans. But on the other hand, as an intelligent and thinking human being, I have been increasingly concerned that we often justify too much in the name of rights, such as “free speech.”
I’m concerned that too many Americans may have become overly concerned about preserving their rights while neglecting their duties and responsibilities that come with those rights. In the case of freedom of speech and press, we have a duty to keep our public expressions within proper moral bounds. Freedom of speech and of the press in the Constitution had more to do with ensuring that the truth of a matter was not suppressed. It was never intended as a license to publish any disgusting, offensive, or deceptive thing that man might conceive.
Imagine a meeting of top decision makers in a business or government entity who meet together for an important decision. Throughout the meeting, all the attendees shout out their opinions and viewpoints at the same time, without listening to the others. They hurl insults and false information at each other. Where would such a meeting be headed? Will these leaders make a great and profound decision? Or would it more likely be a futile exercise in chaos? Clearly the situation merits some level of control and organization. There must be some boundaries for the communications that take place.
The same is true for our public expressions through print and broadcast media, art, or any other public communication medium. In order to retain our freedom of speech, we must take seriously our duty and responsibility to consider the effects of what we publish. We should ask ourselves questions such as these: How will it affect others? Am I just framing it this way mainly to offend some target group? Am I intentionally misleading anyone? How might this affect the culture or community? Consideration for others is a substantial part of civil society.
If we routinely abuse our rights and freedoms, in time we will loose them. Examples of this abound in our government regulations. For example, lending institutions lost the freedom to control how they express information about their loan policies; they must follow the requirements of the “Truth in Lending Act.” Sarbanes-Oxley is another example of limits on freedom in the business world. Food marketers must follow the requirements for food labels. Advertisers have requirements that restrain some of their freedom of speech. Often such regulations came as a result of individuals or groups using their freedom of speech to mislead people. Laws against slander and libel are also limits on our free speech. Sexual harassment laws came about mainly because too many men exercised their “free speech” in ways that offended too many women. But the limits and restraints imposed against someone abusing a right don’t always come from government, as the recent violence suggests. In cases where one provokes a reaction by the abuse of a right, pushing the boundaries of propriety, the reactions can sometimes be unpredictable and come at a much higher cost than expected.
A close-to-home example of such costs relates to the recent cancellation of Anita Sarkeesian’s appearance at USU. Video game companies abused their freedoms and rights in order to produce video games depicting virtual women being abused and murdered at the whim of their male gamers. The unexpected high cost is that they have created a culture of gamers that would threaten and intimidate a real woman who would dare speak against these games.
In our individualistic culture, we often elevate the status of “me” while disregarding the value of “them.” We are too ready to claim our personal rights, while at the same time too unconcerned about the effects of our actions on the wellbeing of others around us. Unrestrained freedom and diversity can destroy our nation. We must remember that freedom and diversity must be moderated by such uniting moral values as caring for others, self control, and a genuine desire to know and share what’s true.
The other day, I read in The Utah Statesman the article “Censored: Threats and attacks inspire discussions of freedom of speech.” As discussed in the article, it is clear that the recent cases of violence against people because of what they printed are appallingly inappropriate responses. As an American citizen, I learned to value our Bill of Rights, just as other Americans. But on the other hand, as an intelligent and thinking human being, I have been increasingly concerned that we often justify too much in the name of rights, such as “free speech.”
I’m concerned that too many Americans may have become overly concerned about preserving their rights while neglecting their duties and responsibilities that come with those rights. In the case of freedom of speech and press, we have a duty to keep our public expressions within proper moral bounds. Freedom of speech and of the press in the Constitution had more to do with ensuring that the truth of a matter was not suppressed. It was never intended as a license to publish any disgusting, offensive, or deceptive thing that man might conceive.
Imagine a meeting of top decision makers in a business or government entity who meet together for an important decision. Throughout the meeting, all the attendees shout out their opinions and viewpoints at the same time, without listening to the others. They hurl insults and false information at each other. Where would such a meeting be headed? Will these leaders make a great and profound decision? Or would it more likely be a futile exercise in chaos? Clearly the situation merits some level of control and organization. There must be some boundaries for the communications that take place.
The same is true for our public expressions through print and broadcast media, art, or any other public communication medium. In order to retain our freedom of speech, we must take seriously our duty and responsibility to consider the effects of what we publish. We should ask ourselves questions such as these: How will it affect others? Am I just framing it this way mainly to offend some target group? Am I intentionally misleading anyone? How might this affect the culture or community? Consideration for others is a substantial part of civil society.
If we routinely abuse our rights and freedoms, in time we will loose them. Examples of this abound in our government regulations. For example, lending institutions lost the freedom to control how they express information about their loan policies; they must follow the requirements of the “Truth in Lending Act.” Sarbanes-Oxley is another example of limits on freedom in the business world. Food marketers must follow the requirements for food labels. Advertisers have requirements that restrain some of their freedom of speech. Often such regulations came as a result of individuals or groups using their freedom of speech to mislead people. Laws against slander and libel are also limits on our free speech. Sexual harassment laws came about mainly because too many men exercised their “free speech” in ways that offended too many women. But the limits and restraints imposed against someone abusing a right don’t always come from government, as the recent violence suggests. In cases where one provokes a reaction by the abuse of a right, pushing the boundaries of propriety, the reactions can sometimes be unpredictable and come at a much higher cost than expected.
A close-to-home example of such costs relates to the recent cancellation of Anita Sarkeesian’s appearance at USU. Video game companies abused their freedoms and rights in order to produce video games depicting virtual women being abused and murdered at the whim of their male gamers. The unexpected high cost is that they have created a culture of gamers that would threaten and intimidate a real woman who would dare speak against these games.
In our individualistic culture, we often elevate the status of “me” while disregarding the value of “them.” We are too ready to claim our personal rights, while at the same time too unconcerned about the effects of our actions on the wellbeing of others around us. Unrestrained freedom and diversity can destroy our nation. We must remember that freedom and diversity must be moderated by such uniting moral values as caring for others, self control, and a genuine desire to know and share what’s true.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Evolution Is Still a Theory With Holes
On the 4th of November, I posted the following in reply to a post on Disqus. See if you think I made some good points against blind acceptance of evolution.
You must admit that there are some things that are real that science can never fully help us understand. For example, returning to my sugar analogy. Science can never help us to know what sugar tastes like, yet the taste is as real as we are. Science can do a lot with sugar: it could help us produce it, it can explain why we taste sugar, it can explain how sugar functions in the body. But again, it can never show us what sugar tastes like. It must be experienced to realize the truth of it.
Regarding the DNA issue, I suppose my wording and my not using the proper scientific terminology made it less clear.
My basic point is that the genetic code was present in the earliest organisms. If life came into existence unaided by some sort of intentional plan, would we really expect these most primitive organisms to contain a coding system that could be used to eventually create humans billions of years later? Is this a reasonable belief? I don't think it is. I believe that earlier organisms would have had some primitive system of coding that would have had to change over time before more complex creatures could be produced. The DNA coding system that existed in the earliest organisms had all that was necessary to be capable of producing humans if only the correct sequence were put together. To me that suggests a framework for life that was put in place from the beginning.
Based on unaided evolution, we must then assume that random forces somehow not only produced a form of life, but produced perhaps the only form of life that contained this DNA coding system that could change and mutate sufficiently to produce humans. I just don't buy it. Scientist haven't proven this to be the case, but only make guesses and assumptions based on their current understanding of things.
I don't buy the concept of an unintelligent process somehow yielding a result so superior to itself, the most complex and intelligent being on the planet. Is this concept reasonable? We have no precedent for it. Perhaps man's most advanced creations are computers or fighter aircraft, maybe nuclear power plants. None comes close to the complexity of human beings. Yet each of these creations took much knowledge and intelligence to create, as well as intentional efforts. Other than man's theories, what precedent do we have for a process creating something so significant, so complex, so impossible?
I believe in science and find the workings of the universe fascinating. But when we try to use science to dispute something that is beyond the realm of science, then I have a problem with that. Rather than using science to somehow feebly disprove the existence of a creator, I believe we should look for evidence that there is a creator. I think we should use our knowledge that we gain from science to better understand our creator. His knowledge is greater than our own, as evidenced by the vast complexity of life and our earth. Maybe we could learn something from him.
- Posted on disqus on 4 Nov 2014
I mentioned above, the scenario regarding the taste of sugar. We could extend this some more. For example, science also can't help a person to know what the color blue looks like if they had never seen it. Now with these two sensory experiences, the taste of sugar and the color blue, we can see another issue. We must experience the particular item through the proper medium. In other words, you can't see or hear what sugar tastes like, but you must taste what sugar tastes like. And with the color, you can't taste or hear what blue is like, but you must see what the color blue looks like.
In terms of a creator, who created us, we must experience a connection with him through the proper medium. Perhaps this explains why science can't give much insight to the existence of God. It has the means to detect many things through various media, but what medium can scientists use to examine God? For those who believe, the medium seems to be through the "heart" or emotions and feelings. But this medium also seems to include events that an individual senses are acts of God on his or her behalf, for his or her benefit. Obviously, this is a very simplified, non-scientific description of the medium through which one might come to know God. We would also have to somehow include the Holy Spirit in this medium. The medium likely is quite complex, thus eluding scientists and their "all-knowing" instruments.
Another question that evolution scientists have not yet answered is whether natural selection can really cause changes from one species to the next. Experiments have proven that various conditions can indeed cause a particular species to change in various ways, such a color changes or changes in size of bird beaks. But this is only a small revelation that in no way proves that these incremental changes could actually lead to a whole new species with a different genome than the previous species.
One experiment has been going on for over twenty years using e. coli bacteria. Because of the rate of multiplication of the bacteria, these twenty years are equivalent to many thousands of years of evolutionary activity. In the study, researchers have observed changes in the bacteria that in fact seem to be effects of natural selection. However, with all the changes, they still only have e. coli bacteria.
I would argue that natural selection can only go so far, strengthening a species to the maximum that is possible within the species for the present conditions. Within the species, natural selection will lead to a peak in survivability for the prevalent conditions where the species exists. Beyond that, it is likely natural selection can't do much; there will never be a new species evolved from the e. coli bacteria in the study.
There are still more questions to be answered about evolution. I challenge biologists, and other evolution science practitioners to test this hypothesis. We need an answer.
You must admit that there are some things that are real that science can never fully help us understand. For example, returning to my sugar analogy. Science can never help us to know what sugar tastes like, yet the taste is as real as we are. Science can do a lot with sugar: it could help us produce it, it can explain why we taste sugar, it can explain how sugar functions in the body. But again, it can never show us what sugar tastes like. It must be experienced to realize the truth of it.
Regarding the DNA issue, I suppose my wording and my not using the proper scientific terminology made it less clear.
My basic point is that the genetic code was present in the earliest organisms. If life came into existence unaided by some sort of intentional plan, would we really expect these most primitive organisms to contain a coding system that could be used to eventually create humans billions of years later? Is this a reasonable belief? I don't think it is. I believe that earlier organisms would have had some primitive system of coding that would have had to change over time before more complex creatures could be produced. The DNA coding system that existed in the earliest organisms had all that was necessary to be capable of producing humans if only the correct sequence were put together. To me that suggests a framework for life that was put in place from the beginning.
Based on unaided evolution, we must then assume that random forces somehow not only produced a form of life, but produced perhaps the only form of life that contained this DNA coding system that could change and mutate sufficiently to produce humans. I just don't buy it. Scientist haven't proven this to be the case, but only make guesses and assumptions based on their current understanding of things.
I don't buy the concept of an unintelligent process somehow yielding a result so superior to itself, the most complex and intelligent being on the planet. Is this concept reasonable? We have no precedent for it. Perhaps man's most advanced creations are computers or fighter aircraft, maybe nuclear power plants. None comes close to the complexity of human beings. Yet each of these creations took much knowledge and intelligence to create, as well as intentional efforts. Other than man's theories, what precedent do we have for a process creating something so significant, so complex, so impossible?
I believe in science and find the workings of the universe fascinating. But when we try to use science to dispute something that is beyond the realm of science, then I have a problem with that. Rather than using science to somehow feebly disprove the existence of a creator, I believe we should look for evidence that there is a creator. I think we should use our knowledge that we gain from science to better understand our creator. His knowledge is greater than our own, as evidenced by the vast complexity of life and our earth. Maybe we could learn something from him.
- Posted on disqus on 4 Nov 2014
I mentioned above, the scenario regarding the taste of sugar. We could extend this some more. For example, science also can't help a person to know what the color blue looks like if they had never seen it. Now with these two sensory experiences, the taste of sugar and the color blue, we can see another issue. We must experience the particular item through the proper medium. In other words, you can't see or hear what sugar tastes like, but you must taste what sugar tastes like. And with the color, you can't taste or hear what blue is like, but you must see what the color blue looks like.
In terms of a creator, who created us, we must experience a connection with him through the proper medium. Perhaps this explains why science can't give much insight to the existence of God. It has the means to detect many things through various media, but what medium can scientists use to examine God? For those who believe, the medium seems to be through the "heart" or emotions and feelings. But this medium also seems to include events that an individual senses are acts of God on his or her behalf, for his or her benefit. Obviously, this is a very simplified, non-scientific description of the medium through which one might come to know God. We would also have to somehow include the Holy Spirit in this medium. The medium likely is quite complex, thus eluding scientists and their "all-knowing" instruments.
Another question that evolution scientists have not yet answered is whether natural selection can really cause changes from one species to the next. Experiments have proven that various conditions can indeed cause a particular species to change in various ways, such a color changes or changes in size of bird beaks. But this is only a small revelation that in no way proves that these incremental changes could actually lead to a whole new species with a different genome than the previous species.
One experiment has been going on for over twenty years using e. coli bacteria. Because of the rate of multiplication of the bacteria, these twenty years are equivalent to many thousands of years of evolutionary activity. In the study, researchers have observed changes in the bacteria that in fact seem to be effects of natural selection. However, with all the changes, they still only have e. coli bacteria.
I would argue that natural selection can only go so far, strengthening a species to the maximum that is possible within the species for the present conditions. Within the species, natural selection will lead to a peak in survivability for the prevalent conditions where the species exists. Beyond that, it is likely natural selection can't do much; there will never be a new species evolved from the e. coli bacteria in the study.
There are still more questions to be answered about evolution. I challenge biologists, and other evolution science practitioners to test this hypothesis. We need an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)