http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:19:54 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/25/001954.php Raul HarnaschThe first thing that pops into a persons mind upon mentioning "evolution" is the thought of coming from, or "evolving" from monkeys. Being not too far from the truth, the thoughts, however, are still unwarranted. Evolution can be split into two, macro and micro. Macroevolution futilely depicting one species diverging into two and microevolution describing variations within a species. While macroevolution remains on the shelf of uncertainty, microevolution has a practical grasp on reality. Attempting to explain everyday occurrences and how one day we all will have no hair. Evolution was originally thought up for a means to explain the simple aspect of adaptation. Nevertheless, the simple origins play not a part in its "innocent" encroachment on the beliefs of others. With such laws set in place, "Separation of Church and State" for example, one may wonder how the school system can get away with teaching a theory as truth and attempting to supplement religious beliefs for this "truth." Remaining firm in my stance with my faith in God, I cannot help but question the fairness of the state taking "pop-shots" at my beliefs by supplying evolution as a scientific substitute for God. While the Church cannot defend itself in the school system, Science can poke at the minds of the religious inside and outside the "state" freely. As to why religion has not been given such liberties, only the Supreme Court may know. While I would disagree with evolution as a whole, I cannot disagree with it being taught. Evolution, or the concept therein, has caused much growth, not only in the scientific field, but in the religious field as well. If not for the theory, I would not be able to support my own faith as strongly. My quarrel is with evolution being taught as a fact, when it remains to be a theory. Macroevolution has yet to be proven or supported by any evidence whatsoever and, in my eyes, holds to be one of the most absurd pieces of ideology to be labeled as theory, yet I constantly hear, "this is how it happened." Being confronted as to how I cannot prove something I have never seen, I feel the entire scientific community needs to be reminded of one simple thing when it comes to the argument of faith: science changes, religion does not. Science is changing, constantly coming up with theories and laws that try to patch the holes it left when stitching together the "reasons why. . ." to the universe. Religion, Christianity to be exact, has not and remains to be constant. From its beginning, it has not once attempted to "fill in" gaps, not once tried to re-explain what has already been explained, or prove what has already been proven. Natural selection, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. While we watch our greatest scientific minds discredit the one thing that might as well save all of humanity, I cannot help but laugh that they, too, will be replaced by someone half their age. What possibly could save all of humanity? Simply put, faith. If we cannot step out in faith, if we cannot live our lives without goals or aspirations, what is the point of living? I digress, evolution hardly destroys the idea of "faith" as a whole, but does however, take away the power in believing in what cannot be explained by science and religion alike Culture16783@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:19:54 EDT