Conflict: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action. Pornography: (3): the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction. What else could it be, other than conflict pornography, when a major media source unnecessarily frames a story in such…
You can find some artistically inspiring monuments in cemeteries for the rich and famous. For example, consider the elegant mournful figure below:
The above monument can be found in Bellefontaine Cemetery, in St. Louis, Missouri. The brochure distributed by Bellefontaine rightfully indicates that Bellefontaine is “recognized as an arboretum as well as a sculptural museum.” Bellefontaine includes dozens of aesthetically memorable monuments tucked among equally memorable trees. It is a large, quiet and contemplative space that I visit each year or so, even though I don’t know anyone who is buried in Bellefontaine.
Bellefontaine is “home” to many notable personalities, including Thomas Hart Benton, Adolphus Busch (the brewer) and Sara Teasdale (the poet).
Yesterday, I took my two daughters to view the monuments and trees of Bellefontaine, including the monument marking the grave of William Clark (of “Lewis and Clark”). At Clark’s burial site, he is accurately touted as a great explorer. It’s a simplification of this complex man, however, chiseled in stone. Clark accomplished far more than co-lead the famous expedition. In cemeteries, we make cartoons of the dead, and we overlook their faults entirely.
While my daughters and I walked about Clark’s grave site, I commented that it’s sometimes necessary to see their graves to remind yourself that the famous people in American history once really lived and walked about. They weren’t simply stories or legends.
I previously wrote that I bought a little camera that I try to take everywhere. Having that camera nearby forces me to look more carefully at the startling sights that are everywhere. Many of those sights are the postures and expressions of people, but privacy concerns keep me from freely photographing or sharing the photos of strangers (I haven’t given up somehow accomplishing this!). To this point, I’ve focused on taking photos of nature and architecture. This morning, my wife Anne and I took a walk in Forest Park (in St. Louis, Missouri). In the morning light, we came upon some startling bursts of color, causing me to take out my little camera.
When I look at biological wonders, I sometimes imagine standing with Charles Darwin and learning from him. That’s how I felt a few weeks ago at an orchid show at the Missouri Botanical Garden. Even before Darwin published his findings there were various levels at which one could appreciate nature (it’s beautiful, it’s functional, it inspires poetry). Darwin added an explosive new level, however. Such was his impressive legacy. Before I appreciated Darwin’s contributions, my attention to plants was limited. But now I see functionality embedded in the beauty–there is now so much more to behold [I was also inspired last year when I viewed David Attenborough’s Private Life of Plants and Life in the Undergrowth (focuses on bugs). These are both spell-binding must-watch collections].
There are life and death wars going on out there …
In 2009, many of us will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of On the Origin of Species. In these modern times, where Darwin is vilified by millions of people who cherry-pick their apocryphal holy books, it is refreshing and humbling to…
“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 …