Blog #8

"It is fair to require students to understand something but there is a difference about learning and believing" (Matzke). This simple quote from the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design packet sums up the very complicated issue of teaching intelligent design and or evolution in public schools. Although evolution may be a science, there are gaping holes in the argument. What fills these holes? A higher power. Who is this higher power. No one knows for sure. Therefore, we must BELIEVE in who/what fills that gap. Belief is a personal experience, and no one can tell another what to believe. Intelligent Design forces children to have a belief on a very touchy subject: religion. I believe Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools.

According to Richard Buggs in the article "The Guardian," Intelligent Design "does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition-only scientific evidence." How is this so? There is absolutely no scientific evidence of a "higher power," there is just a hunch. What if man is just not smart enough to figure out the answer to how the world came to be? It seems as if man can't find the answers, so takes the easy way out and says it is just beyond his mental capacity.
Also, Intelligent Design completely does rely upon a religion. One must believe that there is a "higher power." What is the difference between a "higher power" and God? Do scientists have any evidence to prove there is a higher power? No. Therefore, it forces the student to believe in something that cannot be proven. It forces the student to have a religious belief, whether the pro-intelligent design side likes it or not. Religion does not belong in schools, so Intelligent Design doesn't either.
In the movie"Flock of Dodos" it was said that "you cannot scientifically prove Intelligent Design." Because of this, Intelligent Design is totally faith based. The definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof" (Websters Dictionary). Intelligent design has no scientific proof. Also in the movie, it was said that all Intelligent Design is just "repackaged creationism." I couldn't agree more. What is the difference between creationism and Intelligent Design? Nothing except the evolution of the world. Who put it there is exactly the same for both.

Law and Justice, Blog #7

"Absolute obedience to the law may bring order temporarily, but it may not bring justice." This quote, taken from the "Law and Justice" packet sums up the lack of difference between the two concepts. Both are connected. Without laws, there would be no justice. Laws bring order, while justice brings peace. To have peace, we must have order and laws. Man naturally will want what is best for him, and laws keep man in check. Keeping man in check will give peace. This topic is actually very relateable. Over this last weekend, I saw a very good movie called "Law Abiding Citizen." The whole plot of the movie revolved around a man who desired revenge of anyone who got in the way of his "justice." His family was killed, and the defense attorney gave the murderer a deal because he wanted to uphold his "98% conviction rate." This man wanted "justice." Justice is defined as the fair treatment of all human beings. Therefore, justice brings peace. He knew the law, and that the murderer was still going to get off easy regardless. The law may have been on his side, but justice was not. Law is just what we must abide by to maintain "order" (Law and Order). Both however, are necessary. To keep justice and order, we must have laws. The history goes back to when laws were much more personal and by mouth or common respect for others. Now, laws are all written and impersonal because of our times.
Law and Justice work hand and hand.

Inherit the Wind Blog #6

"It might have been yesterday, it could be tomorrow." This quote is taken directly from the note preceding the play Inherit the Wind. This quote is, in fact, true. The theme of government, "interfering" on citizen's lives is prolific and will always be an issue that cannot be resolved. In the time of the play (1925), Bert Cates is on trial for teaching evolution in classes. Today, teachers are getting disciplined for teaching sex education in classes. No matter what the issue is, someone is always going to disagree. That one person is always going to believe government has nothing to do with it, and that person will always be angry with the way it was handled. Let's face it, there is no way to make everyone happy. The playwrights imply that there have always been, and always be issues concerning government involvement. The note says, "...the issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed..." The playwrights are saying that the issue has evolved; the issue of government involvement. When should the government back down and let the people live their lives? That answer will never be agreed on.
The relevance of these themes are very evident to date. For example, in the class video "Sex, Drugs, and Consenting Adults," there was a case of a man who was jailed for smoking marijuana. He said it was a "victimless act." He also said he was participating in this act in his own home. To an extent, this is believable. However, who is to define "victimless act." Isn't this man the victim? Shouldn't the government protect him from himself? That is another answer less question. This connects to the play. By Mr. Cates teaching Darwin's theory, there technically is no victim. The townspeople believe the children are the victims, although not hurt on the surface. The court's job is to figure out what the issue is, and if anyone is truly hurt. Again in the movie, a reverend said that if we make things illegal, the push for these illegal things become violent. Yes, this may be true. The other side says that making these things legal is like saying it is OK to, for example, do drugs or buy pornography. Who wants to live in a society where these things are legal?
The play Inherit the Wind is more of an allegory than a play. The issue of evolution, although still relevant, represents any issue that the government intervenes on. The topic of government involvement is a touchy subject that will never be resolved. The playwrights make this evident in this play.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be A U.S. Priority?

Although America always wants to help other countries, I believe those countries should have their own government at their own discretion. I believe America should not intervene on other countries, just as we don't want other countries in our business.
First of all, money is a huge issue. In our current economic times, can we really afford to be sending our troops over to Iraq and other countries to "promote democracy?" The article sates that The Middle East Partnership Initiative spent just under 28 million dollars. Only about 2 million went to organizations to help them expand their work. Where is this money coming from and why are we supporting this cause? Second, we are not providing a positive example to Iraq, our current "fix." American liberalism has only caused the people "death and chaos", not positive government like we would have hoped.
The other side of the argument says that in order to keep peace and earn it back is to make democracy a global government. I couldn't disagree more. Other countries believe their form of government is best, like we believe democracy is best. In our class discussion, you told us about a foreign exchange student who was from China. When a remark was made about communist China, he backed up his country and government he believed in. Asking for one type of government is like asking for one type of religion.
America, unless it can prove it is a country with few flaws, should be concerned with government directly influencing America, not worry about what other countries believe is right.