Tag Archives: Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh Blogfest 4!

Be there or be square. 🙂

Put on your Sunday’s best kids, we’re going to Finnegan’s Wake!

WHAT: Pittsburgh Blogfest 4

WHEN: Wednesday, November 9th 2005, 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM and beyond!

WHERE: Finnegan’s Wake (near PNC Park, 20 General Robinson St., North Shore, 412-325-2601), in the Pub Room

WHO: All of you bloggers!

Radio Daze

Powerball presents further evidence that terrestrial radio is dying.

"Classic rock fans who tuned in WRRK-FM (96.9) [Tuesday] morning got a rude awakening when…the Steel City Media station, licensed to Braddock, flipped to ‘Bob FM‘…"

I really hope 96.9 follows Sacramento’s 92.1 and ditches Bob in favor of an all-80’s format.

Intelligent Design

"There seems to be in both extremes [of creationism and unguided evolution] an ‘either/or’ mentality: either everything as we know it was created as it is now by God in the beginning, or there was no creation or God of creation at all."

….

"One can very comfortably believe that God is the Creator, and also hold the theory that creation had within it the seeds of an evolutionary development that would take place over eons."

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl, Bishop of Pittsburgh

Creationism is a belief founded in faith and has no place in a secular scientific classroom. The logical consequences of creationism’s claims (such as earth being only thousands of years old), however, can be tested like any other scientific hypotheses and be proven or disproven (I suspect the latter). On the other hand, evolutionary theory goes too far when stating that the underlying processes are entirely random. At best one can state that they appear to be random. A great number of phenomena appear to be random, but are actually quite deterministic in nature. Actually, to honest, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the term "random". A process can be random and still be highly predictable. Scientists take advantage of this whenever they state that a process has such-and-such distribution. IOW, one can predict, with varying degrees of precision, future values of variables. Also, some processes may appear random but only really be pseudorandom, such as "random" numbers generated by computers.

What am I getting at? I’m saying that both sides, at least as presented by the media, are wrong. Creationism doesn’t belong in schools and evolutionary theory cannot prove that perceived randomness is truly random rather than only pseudorandom. Thus, introducing "intelligent design" into science classrooms is unnecessary. Teachers need only make room for guided evolution by not assuming more or less causality than the data indicate. If fundamentalists want to go farther than guided evolution, they should either not send their kids to public school. Either that or be willing to have their kids taught a broad variety of mythological creation stories from religions representative of America’s cultural and religious diversity.