On Government Harassment and Waste, not necessarily in that order

Posted on April 6, 2007 by me

Did you know that there was such a thing as the National Center for Education Statistics? They are a part of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Just having 3 layers of bureaucracy like this should be enough to clue you in that money is being wasted – but just wait until you find out how.

Some of you may have been lucky enough to have received a letter toward the end of last year from the aforementioned bureaucrats advising that they have a program entitled the National Household Education Surveys Program (another big name that just has to cost money) that needs your help. Households are being contacted all around the country “to learn about educational experiences of both adults and children.”

As a token of their appreciation, a $2 bill was enclosed.

At one such household that I know of, the $2 was pocketed and the letter tossed with the rest of the junk mail. Then, Westat, a private “social research firm,” started calling. And calling. They were more persistent than yellowjackets. Westat was told to go away, but they wouldn’t. Persistence turned into harassment, as the phone calls came 2 or 3 times a day. “All we need is 20-30 minutes of your time,” they’d say. “What time would be better?” they’d ask. Then, it turned into, “Just let me ask 5 minutes of pre-questions; you may be disqualified after that.” However, the “pre-questions” wanted names, birthdates, and other personal information. Westat was told to go away for good.

Another letter came from the aforementioned government bureaucrats encouraging the family’s participation. Then more calls came. Westat was told in no uncertain terms to back off.

Then, came the clincher: another letter came, this time by FedEx. (You’d think they’d use the U.S. Postal Service at least…) Inside the large cardboard envelope was another letter – and another $2 bill.

As far as I know, the calls have finally stopped – for now. But at what cost? Is this a free country? Does freedom of speech include the freedom to not speak to phone solicitors? What does our government actually think they are buying with their $2? Does that obligate the recipient to anything?

Again, at what cost? $4 in paper money (I’m sure it costs the government less…), and FedEx postage. How many other people out there have been harassed to the same extent? How many $2 bills have been FedExed? And, how much is Westat getting paid for every successful phone call?

If it happened to me, I would be pretty upset at the waste. I’m upset enough the way it is.

All this begs the question: why do we have a Federal Dept. of Education Nosiness in the first place? Hillary wants our children raised by a village (in her case, a village that is a front for some socialist regime – my interpretation); GW wants no child left behind (which means essentially that kids are being shuffled through the system instead of being told they failed). It’s not working. Let the local village – including parents who wish to homeschool – take care of education. Anytime big government gets involved – and in many places that includes State government – it just gets screwed up, and money is wasted.

Dump the bureaucrats, end the surveys, everybody send their $2 bills back, and hire teachers with the money. And stop harassing people to justify your own existence.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | 1 Comment

Exile, marginalization and the promised land

Posted on April 5, 2007 by me

I love it when conversations converge, such as when I’m reading something on a certain topic and then someone else provides unsolicited input on that same topic. It’s even cooler when input from three different sources converge on a topic. It could be seen, depending on your worldview, as design – the concept that your thoughts are being guided by some known or unknown intelligence. Or, it could just be the random pattern generated by thousands of conversations coincidentally coming together. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Anyway, I’ve been reading Bruce Feiler’s Where God was Born, which is an excellent, excellent book exploring the ancient & religious history of the Middle East, especially the area that was Babylon, and which is now Iraq. Feiler is Jewish, and makes some interesting points about Israel in exile, specifically how exile was good for Israel; Israel actually thrived in Babylon, and as the Bible makes clear, Israel’s fortune depended on the fortune of Babylon. (Jeremiah 29:7 – “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.“)

Then, last Sunday I walked into a conversation about Ephesians 6, where Paul writes concerning how the Christian should live “in exile” (For our struggle is not against flesh and blood …), and how that applies to the current “Christian conservative” movement and their political strong-arm tactics.

The 3rd coincidental conversation came Monday on a friend’s blog, where he writes On Why Atheists are So Angry:

What we are angry about is the idea that we have to buy into Christianity to be real Americans. That in most social situations we have to shy away from revealing that we are godless. That we were born 500 years too soon to experience a Societal Enlightenment in which reason will have finally won out over religion. That we are told to sit down and shut up because we aren’t important enough to have our voices in the discourse over comparative religion classes. That we are called fools for not believing in God. That we have to pretend to some religion in order to run for public office.

My comment on the blog included:

Perhaps the moral of all this is that no one likes to be marginalized. … It is the nature of people that the majority tends to marginalize the non-majority as much as possible, which in my opinion is always a fatal defect.

Even though we have Jeremiah and the rest of the Old Testament to teach us how to live in exile, even though we have Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings about how to live “in the world but not of the world,” Christians still don’t know how to live in exile. We don’t accept the reality that God’s people thrive and prosper in exile. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, and we devise theologies and bumper sticker slogans (“I’m a King’s Kid!”) to prove it.

What is also becoming more apparent is that exile has taught many Christians nothing about living in the Promised Land, either. For, we tend to do exactly what we don’t like others to do to us: we quickly marginalize all minority viewpoints, we flaunt our majority rule all over them, enslave them, and make martyrs of them, the exact opposite of what Jesus clearly taught (this is in all 3 synoptic Gospels):

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20:25-28

All of this, of course, begs the question: Are we ready yet for the Promised Land, or do we (Jim Dobson, are you reading this?) need another good dose of exile?

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, My Own Personal Religion, Politics/Current Events | Leave a comment

Deeper issues, bigger truths

Posted on March 30, 2007 by me

As my faithful readers know, I’ve been lately fascinated by the ID v Evolution debate, such as it is. It’s really not so much a debate, really, it’s more like the Israelites against the Philistines (1 Sam. 17:3): “The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them.” They lined up like this for 40 days, hurling insults. While a few on either side may consider themselves a Goliath, so far no David has shown up to lay the opposition flat, so the insults continue.

While the issue is indeed fascinating (and at the same time frustrating, as the Goliaths on both sides tend to use embarrassing logic), it seems that the real issue – at least among those of loud voice – is not actually evolution, or even science. If you read the blogs and pay attention to the news and recently published books on the issue, it becomes more clear that the real issue is, in fact, God.

For Creationists, of course, this has always been the issue – but I’m not talking about them. It is obviously an issue with some IDists (ID is not necessarily Creationism although there is some overlap), but not with all. What is interesting is that the issue of God – or rather, the lack of God – has become such a major issue with many evolutionists (obviously this is not an issue with all evolutionists, as many of them are also God-believers).

We could expect some ID people to raise the issue of God – after all, we really only have a couple of options when discussing the identity of the “I”; we have a god of some description, or we have the space alien theory (I guess if we could also propose some type of Star Wars-like midi-chlorian cosmic Force). There are those IDists who believe that the ID hypothesis can prove design (as opposed to simply inferring design), and as such, prove the existence of God. What is interesting is that some in the evolutionist circles have followed these IDists into focusing on the proof – or disproof – of God. Again, it seems that the debate has drifted from science into theology, which is fine; I enjoy theology more than biology anyway.

Consider the recent book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or the one by Victor J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis. Now, check out some of the blogs: we have Richard Dawkins site, RichardDawkins.net, where he seems more like a champion of atheism than anything else. Or, take a look at the blog by science prof PZ Myers, making sure to look at his religion and anti-ID posts (at times, he’s actually interesting, but he often resorts to Goliath-like name-calling and ranting). There are, of course more – start following links from the sites above and you’ll find them.

All of this makes me wonder: Has God now been drafted into the realm of science, as Stenger appears to propose, or has science moved back (note the word “back”) into the realm of philosophy & theology?

What scientists may be realizing is that there are, of course, deeper issues and larger truths than that of evolution, such as whether there is a God and where science fits in the overall picture. Are there limitations to science? If all that exists is the natural world, then it is perhaps the world that is limited. However, if I am right, then science only shows us part of the picture.

On to deeper issues and bigger truths…

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 1 Comment

Irrational minds differ, too…

Posted on March 24, 2007 by me

(By the way, I’m only focusing on the ID – Darwinist issue as it’s my current diversion; it’s not an issue of faith or focus for me. I do have other issues in mind to write about very, very soon…)

As I said in my last post, rational minds differ. It’s often frustrating, but it’s true. Two very intelligent, rational, clear-thinking people can look at the same set of facts, but because of their different grids / worldviews / lenses, they form different opinions. I’d like to think that if they sat down and reviewed the same set of facts and drank enough beer, they’d eventually agree; but, I’m not sure that is the case.

Take Francis Collins for example: head of the famous Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God, Collins is a Christian who believes not only in evolution, but also in common ancestry. He makes some good points in support of Darwinism, and against ID. Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic biology prof and author of Finding Darwin’s God, is also a totally committed Darwinist. Now, multitudes of scientists (and not just Theists) don’t buy macroevolution, claiming that the facts don’t support it at all; and, they also make very good arguments why scientists, including Miller and Collins, are wrong. Who’s right? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so the debate goes on.

The problem of getting to a common understanding – and even of getting to a common agreement as to the issue – is made more difficult when people on either side side of an issue won’t look at the issues raised by the other side, choosing instead to throw out red herrings or resort to ad hominem or other obviously fallacious arguments. It doesn’t help resolve the issues, or even help those of us who rely on the expert assessments of others, if no one actually talks about the issues. As someone who has observed a number of civil trials on a number of issues, I can tell you that you can never make a conclusion by listening only to one side’s spin of the issues. By the time the Plaintiff is done presenting their case, you are sure there’s no hope at all for the defendant (even with cross-examination of witnesses). However, when the defense presents their case, you see how the defense has to be correct. It’s only in the reconciliation of both sides that you can even make anywhere near a good decision on what might be “truth.”

In a move of complete and utter silliness, a group of Darwinism supporters have started a smear campaign on an M.D. (Dr. Michael Egnor, who has expressed support of Intelligent Design) which includes creating hundreds, if not thousands, of links to articles discrediting him, so that by googling Egnor, that’s all you see. Obviously, there’s no attempt to even address the issues, which I would think would be simple enough to do, if he’s that out to lunch. It’s ridiculous, it’s reactionary, and it’s certainly not science. Egnor might have completely irrational arguments (I haven’t examined them, myself) but we’ll never know if this is the only treatment he gets. We need a rational discussion of the issues.

An example of how tricky parsing the arguments can be can be found on the Uncommon Descent blog (admittedly a blatant pro-ID site). Here, William Dembski points out the bad logic that Kenneth Miller (mentioned above) used to discredit an argument of Dembski’s. It’s more subtle, but it’s no less helpful. Dembski outlines Miller’s logic as follows:

  • Design theorist argues for X.
  • Design theorist takes pains to make clear that X is not Y.
  • Darwinist nonetheless attributes Y to design theorist.
  • Darwinist shows that Y is ridiculous.
  • Darwinist concludes ID is a failed intellectual project.

I haven’t examined Miller’s logic myself, so I won’t say for sure Dembski is right; however, this is often the logic I see used by some Darwinists in response to various ID arguments. And, I don’t doubt that anti-Darwinist folks use similar bad logic as well; however, much of the ID arguments are not anti-someone as much as putting forth their own arguments.

The point is not to say one side is better than the other; just to complain that the continued bickering and game-playing – no matter who is playing them – does not help to advance the cause of science or of religion.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 4 Comments