According to this ABC News report, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science allows private tours for children so that the displays can be properly interpreted to keep them from accepting the displayed, scientifically derived explanations as true. Yes, the actual science displays are being specially interpreted to support Young…
“There is no evidence whatsoever that flowering plants evolved.”
I can understand this resistance to believing that orchids evolved without the help of God-the-Artist. I understood this resistance while strolling through an extraordinary display of orchids today at the Missouri Botanical Garden.
It was like looking at fireworks. Just when you thought you had seen it all, you would see yet another dazzling package of color and shape. Why would “Nature” waste such time on crafting such masterpieces? For those primed by a religious upbringning, the emotions would compel the thought that flowers of this type must be no less than “God’s” aesthetic gift to Humankind.
Such thinking, of course, is prevalent among creationists. Prevalent and wrong. Not that orchids sculpted by natural selection are any less stunning in appearance that those that might have been crafted by an omniscent deity. They are what they are. They are compelling beings, those orchids. They are beautiful and they are alive. And they can be appreciated by anyone, of any world view, who comes to view them. I imagine that, today, many creationists lined up with those who are convinced by evolutionary theory, all of them appreciating the orchids.
Viewing this orchid display reminded me of Darwin’s writings regarding the many versions of finches Darwin observed on his trip to the Galapagos. Regarding those finches, Darwin concluded that, in geographical isolation, the various species of finches evolved from a small number of common ancestors so that each species …
As usual my head is abuzz with the social media explosion and the impact technology has on my world. While communication has always been a part of the technology, folks that barely own computers are becoming familiar with Linkedin, Facebook, myspace, and twitter. iPhones are being advertised so deliciously on…
On Feb. 28, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. submitted House Congressional Resolution 305 for consideration to the House of Representatives: “Recognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation.” I assume that this resolution is a perfectly valid reaction to this boneheaded statement by one of Bush’s appointees.
I don’t think Blumenauer’s resolution has any chance of passing, because it suggests that some money now going for highways should actually be used to encourage people to use bicycles for their transportation needs. God forbid that we actually encourage such a perfectly sensible mode of transportation. You know the arguments, prevents obesity, uses no fossil fuel, cheap, is perfect for urban commutes. I’ve previously posted on some of the many reasons to use a bicycle for commuting. There are, indeed, many reasons for doing so, especially in an urban area where many commutes are fewer than five miles. BTW, what would a bicycle-friendly city look like? Here’s one version.
I learned of Bluemenauer’s resolution by reading Andrew Leonard’s article in Salon.com, “Life and death and bicycling.” Just because you use a bicycle doesn’t mean you are “green.” Leonard includes a Sierra Club test to see how “green” you are. I am a rather cool 92 out of 100, a very green cyclist!
I do want to publicly thank Representative Blumenauer for bringing some much-needed attention to bicycles as a serious mode of transportation. His resolution is chock full of statistics that should (but likely won’t) wake up those who don’t …
This is an interesting concern. I've been following the issue from sources like this and this. It turns out the Microsoft is planning to finally pay full regard to the standards board that was in place before Microsoft joined the web. Internet Explorer has been a very forgiving browsing environment,…