Bad news

I realize I've been out of the game for some time now and that my public is probably wondering where I've been and when, oh when I'll make another post. I would really very much hate to disappoint either of the people who occasionally glance at this in times of desperate boredom.

Firstly I'd like to make just an ever so brief comment on the Ohio Board of Education. I heard the story on NPR the other morning concerning their repeal of standards that encouraged teachers to present the theory of evolution critically. In this report, board member Martha Wise is quoted saying that it is unfair to mislead children about the nature of science and that the standards for critically presenting the theory of evolution are "bad news". Is this really the kind of logic going into these decisions? Is there a reason anywhere in these arguments, or do we just get vague statements like "the nature of science" and declarations like "it's bad news"? If anything is unfair to the children it's being taught a theory as if it were proven fact and having decisions made for them without reason or rationale. I have no idea what the nature of science is, but I'm fairly sure it would include investigating all theories and presenting the strengths and weaknesses of each. These types of decisions are promoted by judicial bullying and cemented by fear. There is no logical reason not to teach the theory of creationism in public schools. It is not unconstitutional and it is not unscientific to do so, and I have not heard one good argument to convince me otherwise. Teaching that a "higher energy" designed and created the universe is very, very far away from teaching that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and is still further away from any of the theistic religions in the world. Simply because a theory involves an event outside our understanding does not necessarily mean the theory is "unscientific". The fact of the matter is that no one knows how life originated on this planet and every theory we currently have available must always remain a theory because there must have been an event or a set of events that we cannot fully explain. Hence we have the big bang theory, the theory of creation, the autocatalytic set theory, and even Francis Crick's incomplete theory of directed panspermia, in which he states that an alien race might have planted life here on earth. Why can we not see that to accept any one of these theories as truth requires some level of faith and that to single one of them out because it requires faith in a higher being is illogical? Why don't we just explain to the kids that some people believe things happened this way for these reasons, and that others believe they happened this way for these reasons? At least then we could stop lying to them (and maybe ourselves) and covering it up with phrases like "the nature of science".

I would also like to offer my congrats to those men who participate in the sport of the two man luge without any apparent coercion. A more compromising position for a man to find himself in on network television, I do not believe one could find and I appreciate you making that sacrifice for the sake of your sport.