Evolutionists, Creationists, and War Profiteers.

The origin of life: a topic of discussion sure to offend at least someone, so obviously I had to bring it up. Many humans insist evolution and creation are polar opposites, like Democrat and Republican, vanilla and chocolate, or some other superficially-illustrative-but-actually-non-antonymous pairing. (It's more accurate to say politician and taxpayer, vanilla and seawater, or chocolate and regurgitated stomach acid.) If you view evolutionism and creationism as the extreme ends of a spectrum, brace your egos for impact, people. You're wrong.

What those who insist on conflict regarding the grand mechanics of life are really comparing is science and religion. Their mistake, besides being an overly-emotional mammal (wait, emotional and mammal – that's TWO mistakes), is trying to compare two different variables on a single continuum. This isn't a black and white number line with infinite integers of gray between them. What's necessary for accurate representation is a coordinate grid. Enter the abscissa and the ordinate.

Consider the level of acceptance an individual has with what's in the Bible and what's been studied by biologists for the last 150 years. As these are variables completely independent of each other, they plot like an X and a Y.

Take Young Earth Creationists as an example. By the way, mismatching adjectives and subject in that name can create some funny mental images. Like pre-schoolers rolling playdough balls. The label is a simple way to categorize those who adhere literally to what's written in the first page and a half of Genesis: the Earth is 6000 years old and is part of a divine creation out of nothing which took six 24-hour periods to complete. High literal belief in Genesis chapter one (y axis), zero acceptance of scientific research on the topic (x axis). Might look like this.

Similar but with a key difference, Old Earth Creationists take the timeline of Genesis figuratively. “Days” is a reference to a non-specific time period. As a result, they accept the findings of geologists and astronomers about the age of the solar system and the Earth, though there is variation in acceptance of biological principles.

Billy Graham, a well known Christian leader once made a statement regarding his faith and the principles of evolution.

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74)

My interpretation would be to put him here, overlapping the Old Earth Creationists, but with a bit more leeway about the scientific evidence accepted.

I've been made aware of another individual with some impact on modern Christianity. Pope John Paul II was some kind of a clergyman of some denomination or other. He gave a statement in 1996 to a scientific group of his church.

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. October 22, 1996)

I would place him on the diagram like this.

There has been a more recent movement known as Intelligent Design. The premise of this group is that unanswered questions in the explanations of evolutionary mechanisms suggest other sources of change, perhaps a higher, unmeasurable power. The observations so questioned span molecular and subcellular development all the way to evaluations of galactic parameters. All fascinating questions. At first glance this seems to be a happy combination of belief in God and acceptance of science. When presenting their hypotheses though, they meet with resistance from the scientific community, because any hypothesis involving the existence of deity is untestable. The Deitometer has yet to be invented and properly calibrated with positive and negative controls. Had they paid attention in grade 10 biology, they would know that eliminates their questions from the realm of scientific query. It doesn't necessarily make them wrong, though. An inability to measure something is not proof of non-existence, only non-science. Hmm. Deitometer. I smell research funding proposal with high costs and low expectation of results. Maybe I should change jobs...

But what of the evolutionary biologists? Percent of scientists who don't accept evolution: 0.015%. They are the ones whining because they can't get published or hired. Couldn't be the fact that they misunderstand the junior high basics of what science is...
(Chang, Kenneth. "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition" (php), The New York Times, 2006-03-21. Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). Dissent From Darwinism 'Goes Global' as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution.)

Scientists who believe in a higher power fall mainly into a group known as Deistic Evolutionists. An impersonal entity organized the universe as we know it, or at least set the events in motion, but he or she or it doesn't have a personal presence in people's lives. The rest of the higher-power-believers are Theistic, the only difference from the former being the personal nature of said power. They believe there is personal involvement and even daily interaction.

Any discussion of this topic would be incomplete without Atheism. Typically with full acceptance of scientific findings, those in this group are more likely to be disinterested by anything but that which is measurable and testable. However, disproving God with science is as useless as proving. Nothing to measure, nothing to test, all that's left is personal belief and faith. Whether that faith is in a presence or absence is irrelevant for this argument. Either way it's religion and not science.Where do they go on the chart? I don't know. How about here...

The final diagram looks nothing like a continuum. Told ya. More like the colorized left side of a Rorshach blot (I see a male turtle's plastron with sexy tattoos, and I'm really losing my focus, here). Also, it's a mess of disagreement and argument and difference of opinion, flavored by arrogance, ignorance, and mistrust both earned and gratuitous.

Okay, that was cynical. I wrote a bit longer than I could hold to the professional detachment. Back to objectivity.

What I find the most interesting is what groups exhibit the most variation. It's those who include some form of Creation in their beliefs. To pin down a Christian definition of how Creationism and Evolutionism relate is impossible. There is too much variety, too much personal interpretation of too little data. My non-cynical nature (located in one of my toes) thinks this is great. A huge variation in religious belief is tolerated and even encouraged. In not many places is that possible. Still, why attack the science which takes no stand on a deity when other Christians disagree on the preferences and commandments and even the very nature of that said deity. It's fine to scrutinize someone else's house, ignoring the crews which are subdividing your Father's house into tenement apartments?

Even those with full acceptance of a century and a half of observation have some variety in their theological side. Again, the personal life aspect. So does the disagreement in these two groups mean religion just makes a mess of things and is irrelevant? I'm trying to be a nice turtle, so I will make no comment. Okay, one. Maybe two. First, wars with a religious flavor, which is most of them: humans don't need divine help to be that stupid. Second, peaceful and community-centered religious teachings are biologically helpful. No, the problem stems from some of the believers.

Is it that science is just too rigid and unwilling to accept outside ideas? Doesn't matter, because without a testable hypothesis, Creationism of any flavor can't ever be considered science.

The issue isn't complete without a discussion of motivation. Why is so much energy spent pushing various interpretations of 1.5 pages of a thousand-plus page text? Why are scientists attacked for failing to take into account that which isn't even measurable? Some subjectivity is possible in my illustrations, but the greater variation, the lack of unity, lies within the Creationists. Yet they don't bother each other. Either they don't realize others interpret two chapters differently, or they don't have the courage to bring it up and challenge one another. Maybe they don't want to cause contention. That's a good Christian reason, but it's not the real one.

A review of how Creationism is pushed with overpriced books and videos, in huge auditoriums packed full, and I think it becomes pretty clear. Sure, scientists write text books, but very few people buy them. They teach in auditoriums, but to one or two groups over a semester, not a different crowd paying for seats sufficient to pull in a biology department Ph.D.'s salary in three days.

What's the real issue? American humans swarm to controversy. They pay well to hear it. Controversy requires a villain, though. Until recently, scientists were too busy expanding human knowledge to bother about being so labeled. Now the superficially evangelical but greedy-beneath-the-facade have swollen the ranks of the scientifically illiterate to the point of concern for public education and research. Scientists try to fight off the inverse renaissance and Creationists cry foul. I guess they missed that Golden Rule thing Jesus said.

Forget the Deitometer idea. I'm gonna start a multi-level Creationism marketing company.



P.S. Some useful reading material, but not very funny.

Evolution, Religion, and Free Will .
http://www.americanscientist.org/issue/id.3747,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

Myth: Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R8

72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations support rejection of Creationism as science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

And now for something completely different

Why do humans make such a big deal out of wealth? My guess is sexual selection. They're drawn to those most likely to provide for offspring. But doesn't the birth rate decrease to two offspring per mated pair the further a country gets from poverty? So the more resources available for offspring, the less their number?

I 'm sorry. I meant this to be a nice posting, which is hard for me. Where I was going before giving humans a hard time was the good that can be accomplished with money. Its ability to defy physics and cycle through systems if used carefully is fascinating, and I even have a good example. The World Traveling 25 dollars.

Mr. Derick William Dalton, out of guilt or court-order, or perhaps philanthropic bent (cough, cough), sent 25 dollars as a microloan to a woman in the Phillipines. She used it to start a food market and provide for her kids. Along with bundles of 25 bucks from other lenders, she got the money she needed, and has since paid it all back. Interest free. But this was not the end for the fearless 25 dollars.

Followed by a heroic-sounding John Williams score and a red line, it sailed over a tan and blue map to the Dominican Republic, where it helped a small group start a clothing store. When its work there was done, it contributed to a general store in a nearby town, then headed to Mexico as part of a home improvement loan. I would be impressed right there. But the 25 was just getting started.

Lebanon and a construction company. Mongolia for a butcher shop. Bolivia for weaving supplies, Uganda for automobile spare parts for retail, and then Cambodia to be in a student loan. Next, I think the 25 will use all its frequent flier miles to see its own back-up specie at Fort Knox, then get to work again.

First, I am duly and sincerely impressed. DWD has gotten more work out of the 25 than anyone has ever gotten out of him. I can't get the interest-free part, though. How are the lenders of the 25 bucks supposed get reimbursed for the temporary absence of their money? How are the CEOs of companies that organize the lending supposed to get filthy-rich if they don't charge usury? Maybe they should take a break, examine some bigshot bank managers and Wall Street tycoons. Those people know how to run money and make it work for them.


A note from DWD:

Kiva.org is a non-profit organization which funds its work through donations, allowing 100% of all money lent to reach borrowers in developing nations and areas of poverty nearly world-wide. Skip a week of latte and help a fellow Homo sapiens. Then another. And another. It's worked out better than anything I did through Washington Mutual or Countrywide.

www.kiva.org

News from Lake Woebegone

I hope you will all pardon my self-indulgence. It's not often a girl is asked to do an interview with a major fashion magazine. Especially one exhibiting the epitome of panache from one end of Duluth, Minnesota to the Saskatchewan border.

My debut with the Eveleth Elle:

EE: Shelly - can I call you Shelly?
SBT: That's my name.
EE: Good. I hoped this could be a first-name basis, up-close and personal talk.
SBT: Okay, but only if you brushed your teeth.
EE: (Laughs) Well, we were overwhelmed by the followers of your blog among our readership. They were urging us to find out more about you.
SBT: Both of them?
EE: Three, actually.
SBT: Hmm. I'll have to check my site again. Number three, whomever you are, welcome!
So, what do you want to know? I'm a Zodiac atheist. I like long walks under logs and couches, and eating long earthworms with handsome men Lady-and-the-Tramp style.

EE: The big question everyone keeps asking involves the rumors of getting in front of the camera.
SBT: Liked those Valentine's cards, did you?

EE: No no no no. The children's book rumors! Stop being so modest.
SBT: I guess I'm the last to know. Fill me in.

EE: Ooh! I get to dish the good stuff?
SBT: Come on, who's the author? What's the illustration style? What's the subtle political agenda I'll be pushing?

EE: That much I don't know, but if you were making all those decisions, what would be the result?

SBT: That's a shallow dish, girl. Result? Newberry award. Twice in a row.

EE: Okay, but before that.
SBT: You want names? Hmm. Unfortunately Dr. Seuss has passed. He did nice work with Yertle. And he could pick a meter and stick to it. That's an unfortunate rare skill in children's literature. But poetry's not really my thing. Maybe Oscar the Grouch as author. I think he's a mammal, but he sure doesn't let it show.

EE: So you want an author-illustrator team?
SBT: Two perspectives, you know? To capture the feel of dual monocular vision.

EE: I don't know what that means... but go on.
SBT: This is a tough decision. Bill Watterson is out, though.

EE: Too hard to contact? Too expensive?
SBT: No, I want him to voice the audio version. Who doesn't want to hear him impersonate Calvin's Dad?

EE: I think that reference must predate me...
SBT: I'd need time to choose between Mercer Mayer, Maurice Sendak, and Fumi Kosaka, since Michelangelo is dead.

EE: Now there's a group of illustrators. What about that guy that did Poky Little Puppy?
SBT: Um, really? Didn't you see how cute those puppies were? He even made the lizard adorable. I wanted to see the black spider, but some moron editor cut that illustration out.

EE: That's true. What was he thinking, removing a black hairy arachnid picture from a baby book.
SBT: Now you are making me hungry. You're buying lunch right?

Adverts make the heart grow fungus

I've been lucky this Valentine's season. Not in the way humans hope to, but in finding ideas for carrying Derick William Dalton's blog for him, the bum.

In this case, it's a letter he wrote which I found in C:\Desktop\Letters\Angry\To manipulative corporate sycophantic s***heads. It's not a mushy one to his wife, obviously. Those are under C:Desktop\Letters\Seductive\My Bitsy Pookums Snoogy Woogy Wips.

Yes, I puked also.

The letter in question today is filled with the angst of a man crushed between the pressures of being romantic and the lack of time and creativity to do so. Then having his inadequacies repeatedly tossed in his face by popular culture.

The poor sap. He writes:


Dear Kay Jewelers and Hallmark Greetings,

I write to express my opinion regarding your advertising campaigns and products. I'm not concerned with cards contributing to rainforest destruction by lack of pre- or post-consumer recycling. I could care less if you purchase your uncut diamonds from militant tyrant regimes in Africa.

I'm disturbed by the misanthropic view of males which you project, and subsequent attempts to capitalize on perceived inadequacies.

"To My Valentine..." open card, "words can't express my love for you."

Really. Then why did you write those? To practice your calligraphy?

"To my dearest love..." open card again, this time with trepidation, "I wish you a sudden rush of whatever brain chemicals make you experience lust."

At least this one had real information, but you are insulting men blatantly instead of covertly. Are you suggesting Valentine's Day is really about men giving themselves a gift by bribing their partners? Okay, maybe to some guys, but be subtle! If that works, it's because the guy already accomplished the necessary seduction. Do you see the fine, blurry line between bribery and payment for services rendered?

To the jeweler, relationships exist for a different end. Judging by your advertisements, you gained a comprehension of women by watching fiances fawn over rocks while you were supposed to be polishing ancient crushed coal - no firsthand experience. The excitement is the man, the moment, not the sparkly ice. Sure, some guys wish they could skip the romantic dates, commitment, learning of first names, and get right to the sex. They have alcohol, and it's much cheaper than diamonds. Women see your commercials, obviously aimed at insecure single guys, and are repulsed. Not just at the guys exhibited, but their girlfriends who become neurotically ecstatic when on one knee he offers a bit of jewelry. Real men want to give you a wedgie and a swirly, real women want to change the channel.

Continue to remake romance in your own image. Associate your products with happiness and ecstasy. The world needs more hollow products to fill our emotional voids.

Leave me the hell alone,

Derick William Dalton


A chill pill. Double dose. Or a day off, that's what DWD needs. Personally, I'm grateful male turtles are the alcohol and no-commitment types, sans alcohol. So much less complicated.

I could go for something chocolate, though.

Be my Valentine's Day marketing demographic

The season seems to be softening me like a deficiency in vitamins A, C, and D. This post is therefore dedicated to all who read it. Free of charge, I'm offering full reproductive permission.

Whoa, that came out wrong. Please don't ever ask me what you can and can't do with your jeans and genes. And to that Russian tortoise who keeps emailing me, that certainly was NOT the invitation you've been hoping for.

Do you see why I stick to cynicism? So much less confusion.

Many people need pre-made Valentine's Day cards. I'm not above associating myself with popular culture in the name of self promotion. So print and use to your heart's content, and may St. Valentine bring you whatever it was you asked when you sat on his lap.

Gene Autry solves for x

I decided to skip another season of hibernation. Partly because Derick William Dalton vented his childhood issues onto you poor unsuspecting counselors. I Apologize and will prevent that in the future. Mostly, I chose to stay conscious thanks to a question from astute reader Trujilla Gila, a non-monstrous lizard who lives near the suburbs of Roswell, Nueva Mexico. She writes:

Dear Ms. TheBoxTurtle (sic. It's Madam Turtle, please),
My recent terrarium escape was motivated by your adventures. Emboldened by your revolutionary approach to physics instruction, I have taken it upon myself to bring an algebraic Renaissance to the reptilian masses of the Chihuahuan Desert. Problem is, I am algebraically inept. Can you get me started?
Venomous but slow,
Trujilla

Trujilla, you will be the Freeman Dyson of the Desert when I'm through with you. The first trick is eliminating the numbers and using analogies familiar to the student. Then you bring the numbers back after the concepts are understood. Given your situation, I would LOVE to a do a herpetology-themed introduction. Hibernation, ectothermic behavior, benefits of a combined rectum/urethra/reproductive tube, those would be fun. But I have to pander to a nearly all-mammal audience. Darn this economy and my pedicure bills.

You're in the Southwest. How about country music? Is that popular enough to cross taxonomic boundaries and interest hairy lactators and scaly egg-layers alike? I think so. Ready? Let the numbers float out of your head and feel the folksy twang!

The first thing to consider is the use of variables. This a symbol that represents an unknown quantity. By manipulating everything that is known, what's left is the value of the unknown. Or in the music analogy, everything that the lyricist has lost and is now lamenting.

Sort through the variables. Eliminate three sides of a rectangle from its perimeter, and you're left with the fourth side.

Side 1 + Side 2 + Side 3 + Side 4 = Perimeter
Side 4 = Perimeter– Side 1 – Side 2 – Side 3

Not following? Here's the country music parallel. Sift through those hurt most by repeated over-consumption of beer, and see who's most important as they leave.

(Beer Night)^hobby – Who's Most Important = Loneliness
(Beer Night)^hobby = Wife driving away in your truck

This brings up a new concept: exponents. That's the “hobby” part. As the value of “hobby” becomes greater than that of Non-Beer Night (365 - Beer Night), the Who's Most Important variable becomes an exponentially less attractive person.

Here's another key to algebra, combining of like terms. Variables of the same symbol indicate the same value, even if unknown. These can be combined to help with finding solutions.

x + x = 2x

Here our rustic music analogy breaks down as combinations of rhyme don't have to be all that close. Assonance is good enough, and I mean that in both a grammatical and an insulting sense.

Next let's discuss one of the basics of algebra. Order of Operations. In an equation like this, where does one start?

3(x+2) – (y/12)^0.03

There are plenty of websites where one can look up a list. You know, do the exponent first, then parenthetic operations, multiplication and division, finally addition and subtraction. I prefer that way, being cold blooded and analytically orthodox. But most people prefer a literary approach. A story.

Three kids gettin' out to do their chores
:)
: |
: (
plus the two hound dogs layin' on the floor
:P
:b
makes me feel good inside, almost as much a Coors. But there's the monthly mortgage payment
:{(
the 3% penalty's a shame and... Makes me want to pull out my mustache.
: (

Speaking of stories, algebraic Story Problems are often difficult. Here, the Nashville approach is vital in developing a solution. A typical ballad involves an elaborate narrative at the outset to stage the oft-repeated but simplistic catch-phrase or aphorism. This is so similar to story problems leading to long division, I'm actually writing lyrics, but so far no one from the music OR textbook industries are interested. Makes me want to pull out my mustache.

One final pitfall to avoid. Mathematics is an excellent instrument for estimating, but such lack of precision is calculated. Purposeful. Here, poor habits can be learned if our country music analogy is carried too far. Algebra isn't particularly useful in glorifying mediocrity, and such glorification results in poor use of a numerical tool. Yet, this is exemplified in many songs. This is the case whether responsibilities are shirked to the boss or to Jesus. Not that there is anything wrong with relying on a deity. From what I hear Derick William Dalton teaching his kids, Jesus seems happy to help. But I imagine he's pretty busy.

I suspect someone crying into their beer while they wait for Him to fix all their problems (algebra, loneliness, money, etc.) makes Him want to pull out His mustache.

Holiday Recipes

As I bask in my infrared snuggly-light, I'm watching the thermometer and the snow falling and falling outside. One of these years I ought to hibernate, but for now I'd rather get in on Thanksgiving. The food, the family, the heart-warming life-affirming television specials that help us realize the industry really cares about our needs first and foremost...

Terrapins have our own Thanksgiving story, you know. It's pretty similar to the Squanto and Pilgrims tale, only in the turtle version, the larger picture of stable biomes and the detrimental effect of non-native species was understood. So Squanto the turtle showed the European newcomers all the toxic fungus to eat and the rocky soil where they couldn't dig below the frost line to hibernate. That's why native North American turtles don't live on reservations and we maintain our original caustic culture. Now if we could just keep kids from taking us home as pets and removing us from the breeding population. That's frustrating on many levels.

Hmm. I got sidetracked by vengeance and innuendo. Imagine.

I really wanted to talk about the food at a Shelly-style Thanksgiving. First – no turkey. It's too close of a relative. That would be like humans eating another mammal. Blah. No, we go for the mealworm and cricket bake, just like momma used to make. Don't let the misleading name give you nausea, though. It's not really baked, just warmed to about ninety degrees. That way the mealworms are more active and tempting to the palate. Sometimes the crickets can be a problem, though. I remember having to be the one to pull the legs off some of them so grandpa could catch his Thanksgiving feast.

Mom always tried to get us to eat our salad after that. Not that we didn't like salad, it's just that we wanted to save room for the earthworm pudding. Who wants vegetables, even if they are firm and colorful and sweet, when there is food that is trying to get away? It's nutrition and entertainment and stimulation of the hunting instincts. All at once! Not to mention the sheer joy of plunging one's face into a huge container of slimy, wiggly goodness.

Ah. The memories.

I hope you all make some of your own memories this year. Hear that kids? Try plunging your face into a container of baked pumpkin, whipped cream-y goodness. When your stuffy aunt is watching. Before the pie is sliced and served. I promise your mom won't ever forget it.

Happy Thanksgiving!