7th grade poem I wrote:

Sammy The Squirrel

From the "I can't believe stuff like this sticks in my head" file comes:

Sammy the Squirrel

Once upon a time in a land faraway,
There lived a squirrel named Sammy,
Who loved to run and play.

One day at a local tree- Sammy made some friends,
They dared him to do something,
That he never did again.

"On the other side of the road" said they,
"A great genie waits"
"And if you find this genie you get three wishes a day!"

So he ran up to the roadside- and right past the big white line,
It was then that he spied it,
A truck speeding nigh.

He started to run- he ran like the wind,
Little did he know,
That this was the end.

There in the middle of Highway 64,
Sammy Squirrel met his death,
Sammy was no more.

The End.

Words mean things. And other useless trivia...

I constantly go off on rants, I just usually don't let anyone find out. This time however, I'm going to make an exception.

Develop: To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment. To improve the quality of, refine. To cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate.
Evolve: To undergo gradual change; develop. (Biological:) To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.
(definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com)
Something that is constantly (and consistently) driving me nuts, is the constant use of the term evolve, in place of the more contextually correct word develop.
It is true that the normitive definitions of the words are in fact functionally the same, however, in today's functional usage, it is common knowledge that the word evolve cannot be separated from it's biological context.

Because of this, when you say something "evolved", it is deductively implied to be using the same function, or mode, as the biological theory of evolution.
This, however, does a radical disservice to the English language as it makes 'evolution' appear to be omnipresent in daily life, when, in fact, it is nowhere.

Take this reference headline, lifted straight from today's slashdot.org:
"Linux: Evolution of a 100% Free Software-Based Publisher"
What is the first, superficial deductions that will be taken from the headline? Linux has been around a little while. Linux is better now than it was at first. Linux is software. Linux is free.
This is reasonable, correct? Unfortunately, to say that Linux "evolved" does a horrible disservice to the thousands of code-monkeys who have spent many more thousands of hours writing code, writing drivers, testing, breaking, fixing, testing again, the code and applications that make up the software generally referred to as Linux.
Because to use the word evolve in it's bioloigical sense, as most people think of it, means that the improvement that happened, did so purely by chance and accident. In order for Linux to actually have evolved, it would have to be better now than it was before, but only by random errors occuring in the code. (Also, while all of the beneficial errors would naturally be used and propagated, the harmfull errors would have to somehow be nullified.)
Whereas in actuality, the beneficial changes to Linux, were the result of: intelligence to discern a problem or opportunity for imprrovement, desire to effect the change, intent to effect the change, and the ability to carry out the change.

In all four of these steps we have the polar opposite of what is the essence of biological evolution. Indeed the word develop seems that much more appropriate, since it encompases those four steps. So, for the love of Pete! Use the freakin' word develop instead of evolve, when it is appropriate!
Ok, I'm all done now.

 

{Below you will find a copy of one of my posts from Theologyweb.com. Hope some of you will find it interesting. See it in it's natural habitat here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1610643#post1610643}


 The range of what a single symbol may represent does not equate with it's inherent complexity (or lack-thereof). Single-symbols only have whatever meaning the user assigns to them. If you have two states, you need either two different symbols, or two of the same symbols, at a minimum.

If I want to use symbols to express two discrete states: TRUE and FALSE, then I need either two different symbols: "1" and "2", or I can take one symbol and state it either once or twice: "1" and "11". The only difference is in what I alluded to earlier, vertical vs. horizontal complexity.
Because you can use a symbol, series of symbols, or a string of symbols, to represent something else, that does not equate to the inherent complexity of the symbols.

Another example: If I want to express any integer from 1 to 10, I can use 2 Base-10 symbols: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10. Or, I can use 4 Base-2 symbols: 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100, 0101, 0110, 0111, 1000, 1001, 1010. From this example you can see that you have to use more symbols to express something of a specified complexity, if you are using a lower Base system.

To put it a different way: if I only use 1 Base-10 symbol, I can express 9 discrete states/ideas/etc. (not including zero). If I only use 1 Base-2 symbol, I can express only a single state/idea/etc. (not including zero.)

It sounds to me like your are thinking backward in your example [see above link for context] in that 'expressing "love" with only 1s and 0s is less complicated because there is less variety than if I expressed "love" with letters'. This ignores that you can't express "love" without more of the 1s and 0s, than if you were using letters. To wit: you need 4 Base-26 symbols, or 19 Base-2 symbols.

When you say "There are just 1s and 0s (which are symbols) at the lowest level but now they can represent a word which can represent a sound which can represent an emotion. ", you also must remeber that there are just letters (which are symbols) at the same level, but now they can represent a word which represents a sound which represents an emotion. The only usage-discrimination amongst Base-X systems is that of preference and appropriateness for the situation. There is no difference in their ability to express complexity.

 

by Ben Johnson

Marriage. Definition.
Dictionary.com:
1.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.


3 de-facto intents of marriage.
These are not mutually exclusive. Combinations of any or all may be present.
1.Public Commitment of a man & woman to each other. This is a social dynamic in which the couple are making a public statement of their intent to be committed to each other physically, emotionally, etc.
a.Presupposition: Cultural environment influences each person of the couple's ideal of what marriage is, and hence what it is exactly that they are publicly stating.
b.Presupposition: The couple is not in making a public statement in defiance of the cultural environment.
2.Legal Commitment of a man & woman to each other. This is a legal, or contractual, commitment which entitles each party to not only certain favorable treatment under the current system of government, but restitution under certain circumstances of moral impropriety or wrong doing.
a.Presupposition: There are either favorable opportunities or certain protections afforded by the legal system under which the individuals are seeking marriage.
b.Presupposition: One or both parties in the marriage desire to avail themselves of the benefits or protections of a legal marriage.
3.Religious Commitment of a man & woman to each other. Such as is generally or specifically described within their religion.
a.Presupposition: One or both parties is a practitioner/follower of the religion under which they are seeking marriage.
b.Presupposition: The religion under which the parties are seeking a marriage are doing so of their free-will and are not coerced directly by an aspect of that religion.

Discussion of the social institution of marriage.
In the United States of America, and to a large but decreasing extent in most of the rest of the '1st world' countries, the social and cultural aspects of marriage convey an 'official' and/or legitimate connotation to the co-habitation and physical intimacy of a man & woman. In an equal proportion, they express a monogamous commitment between the parties.
a.Presupposition: The 'legitimate' connotation may vary greatly in interpretation depending on local culture.
b.Presupposition: This section does not address polygamy, or similar situations.
The social institution of marriage is not recognized as legally binding.*
* Common-law marriage does convey a legal standing on a de-facto social marriage after a period of time. However, at least in the USA, this is statistically a minor factor.

Discussion of the legal institution of marriage.
In the United States of America, and to a large extent in most of the rest of the '1st world' countries, the legal aspects of marriage serve to identify a man & woman who wish to be treated as a co-joined legal entity. Each holding jointly and in common their possessions. Additionally, they share, to a certain extent, legal responsibility with regard to each other. They also share certain legal protections from each other, should one party act in violation of their marriage contract, or in violation of certain other pre-existing laws. Only the legal aspect of a marriage is recognized and availed upon in courts of law.
In the United States of America, the legal institution of marriage is only available to a man & a woman.

Discussion of the religious institution of marriage.
In the United States of America, Christianity is the dominant professed religion. Moreover, it is also by far the most outspoken on the subject of marriage. It is outspoken not only on the religious institution of marriage, but also the legal institution of marriage, as they generally consider it to be inextricably linked to that of the religious. Because of this, they generally tend to be opposed to any change that would further deviate it from the religious institution of marriage.
The religious institution of marriage is not recognized (in and of itself) as legally binding.

Overview of legal, social, and religious institutions of marriage.
Due to a variety of cultural reasons, including the decreasing role of religion, the legal institution of marriage is considered the primary, and the social and religious institutions considered the secondary and tertiary. This is due in large part to the protections included in the legal institution of marriage. This is also due in part to the decreasing social and religious liability of a dissolved* marriage. Therefore, marriage's connotation in today's American culture consists almost entirely of the legal aspect (although there is in some social environments a significant ceremonial expectation).
Since changes in legislation effect all those under the (and certain individuals who desire to be under the) legal institution of marriage, this has served to even more focus current debate on the legal aspects and to downplay the social and/or religious aspects.
The current debate is whether or not certain individuals currently prohibited from entering into legal marriage (currently homosexuals, polygamists etc.), should now so be allowed, through additional legislation.
The favorable arguments given for this allowance include (but are not limited to):
The denial of legal marriage is illegal discrimination, and/or in violation of their individual rights,
The denial of legal marriage is based on current cultural and/or religious environment, as opposed to reason,
Opposing arguments to the proposed changes include (but are not limited to):
An appeal to social/cultural tradition,
The contention that the law is rightfully** discriminatory against the individuals.

*"dissolved" is used here in a general, non-technical sense, i.e. divorced.
**"rightfully" here is based in majority on religious positions, or an appeal to tradition, but is also occasionally based on a naturalistic a-posteriori philosophical position.

Opinion:
The 3 intents and contexts of marriage need to be separated back into their respective realms. The confusion, miscommunication, and emotion present in today's debate stem from the mixing of these areas and the lack of distinction between them in the minds of the people discussing them.
Let society dictate what the public commitment of marriage be. Let the law dictate what the legal ramifications of a marriage contract are. Let the respective religions dictate the religious aspects and stipulations.
Let the government no longer recognize "marriage" at all – instead let it enforce 'personal contracts', with the same ability to integrate and co-manage assets, certain responsibilities as stated within the contract, and certain courses of action available to the parties should either transgress pertinent laws. Similar contracts are entered into every day as Corporations are formed. Should we prohibit individuals a weaker corporation when they in fact present a comparatively smaller burden on society should the venture collapse?
Let then religion take all the more seriously it's duties in the role of marriage. Let not the pastor or priest preside over a marriage, only to hand the party the signed legal marriage certificate after the ceremony with the offhand remark "Now it's official!" The parties' religious marriage should be held in much higher esteem between them than that of the state contract.
Also, let not those who currently are not legally permitted 'marriage' to equate a legal contract with social and/or religious acceptance or support.
Speaking personally as a Christian, when I think of a gay couple that cares not a bit that they are not legally married, or what mainstream society thinks of their partnership, and sees themselves simply as committed to each other, I think in some respects have a better understanding of the overall intent of marriage than some Christians seem to. We seem today to be so outwardly focused when we talk about marriage, when we should be upwardly and inwardly focused, instead.
I also find that many other Christians have the attitude that the legal aspect of marriage currently does, and should continue to, exist for the function of endorsing their religious view. And when the legal aspect is to be modified, they take it as an attack on their own religion. I wish that they would see the legal system for what it is – an institution of man, rather than of God. They also tend to take it implicitly that for something to be legal, it is morally right, virtuous, etc., when a moment's thought renders the idea ridiculous. I do not care so much what the government permits or does not permit, I care more about what people desire to do, even above what they are allowed to do. To enter into a public or legal commitment of marriage, in my own experience there lies a greatly decreased probability of experiencing the co-union of man and wife as God intended it. A couple married in the church should be much more concerned with their behavior in the eyes of God, rather than in the eyes of their state.

"...I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the [Muslims] tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. (...) There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
- C.S. Lewis

 

The basic thrust of the book is two-fold:
1. Christians don't need to assume evolution conflicts with the Bible (?"Come on baby, don't fear evo-lu-tion")
2. Christian belief in evolution should be henceforth called BioLogos in place of the former term, Theistic Evolution.

In the beginning of the book, the author does an excellent job describing his background, both culturally and the various theological aspects of it. He does a good job of describing various cultural tones and issues within the scientific community, relating them to their theological and philosophical implications.

Next in the book, the author begins to rail against 'Christians who fear science' as scientific Luddites. Perhaps it's a function of the culture here in the N.E., but his harping on this seems a little over-done to me. If I recall correctly, the author has spent his fair share of time in the south or mid-west, where this kind of fundamentalism may be more prevalent. If I don't recall correctly, I think he is overdoing it just a bit. I think his attitude may also be the left-over taste from the majority of his life being spent as an atheist. Since in my experience, this is precisely how many atheists view 99% of Christians.

Now in an attempt to assert the superiority of theistic evolution, you must first assert the superiority of evolution in general (specifically, macro-evolution). In order to do this, you must first discredit competing views. The author takes on Y.E.C. (young earth creationism), and I.D. (intelligent design), both of which are generally considered friendly to the typical Christian worldview. He ignores pan-spermea, the only atheistic alternative to Y.E.C., I.D., and Evolution.

Y.E.C. holds to a fairly literalist interpretation of the first account of creation, starting in Gen 1:1. This tends to be the view held by the majority of 'overly'-fundamentalist Christians, although it does have its share of adherents in academia.
While this is not the view I personally subscribe to, the author almost completely and utterly ignores one of its main points; namely that the universe (& hence earth) were created with apparent age. Mostly because of this, the author is just plain wrong in many of his criticisms of Y.E.C.

I.D. on the other hand, does not purport to explain the method of creation so much as that it introduces and applies the concept of "irreducible complexity" to the origins of life (it also happens to be the theory to which I generally subscribe). It therefore asserts micro-evolution, and denies macro-evolution and atheistic a-biogenesis.
The usual popular-level reference work for intelligent design theory is Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. While the author does recognize this, he apparently didn't take the time to read it. In attempting to refute what the author believes to be Behe's assertions and premises, he makes multiple logical errors of both equivocation and straw-man, as well as the usual mathematical and physics-related errors evolution-proponents typically make in this area. The author continues to make several rookie mistakes regarding Evolution and I.D. throughout the entire section, including (but by no means limited to) the 'primoridal soup + electricity = amino acids' experiment, which has been discounted for years. The superficiality with which the author discusses I.D. causes me to wonder if he's ever spoken with someone who understands it, as his own understanding seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia.org, or possibly some 9-year old with whom he discussed it on the internet. The examples which the author purports to explain away are a great case in point (and further discussion is available upon request) of his fundamental misunderstanding of irreducible complexity.

Back to the good. The author's explanation of theistic evolution/BioLogos is well and reasonably presented, and he has spared evolutionary theory the embarrassment of pretending to account for a-biogenesis. I see virtually no problems with his assertions for this theory, nor for his use of the term BioLogos in place of theistic evolution. Indeed, none other than C.S. Lewis appears to subscribe to theistic evolution in the writings of his that I have read.

Summary:
The beginning and ending of the book I greatly enjoyed, and in general, I would have no trouble recommending this to "scientist types" who are not Christian, despite the shallow understanding the author presents of competing view points. The author does very well in presenting his own case, and only where he tries to explain away I.D. (and to a lesser extent Y.E.C.) does he impale himself upon his lack of understanding. This, however, shouldn't be a problem for the average secular scientist who is unlikely to have a more thorough understanding of these theories.