Waking up

Today was 55 degrees, and the street literally woke up, went outside, and said hello tp each other.

We put up the swing. Sat on the porch. And said hello to the street again. Autumn had a great time with her kids, Audrey, Patrick and Caroline.

It's spring. Gavin is getting older. Standing with the help of furniture. There's actually nothing he loves more. He stands up, and the smile goes across his face and lights up the room.

And then, he'll get on the ground and drag himself across the room.

It's not crawling.

It's more like dragging.

But I think he'll be walking in about a month. When he'll sleeping through the night is open for debate.

On Darwin's 200th birthday

According to Gallup, only 39% of Americans 'believe in the theory of evolution."

39%.

Check out this image:



What's really going on here are two things that are important to me. The first is that this questions is meant to pit evolution vs. creationism. But here's the thing: they aren't in conflict.

Creationism proposes the untestable theory that life began when something (they never say god) popped life into existence. Some creationists think that happened billions of years ago, some think it happened 6,000 years ago.

But the theory of evolution has nothing to say about that 'pop' moment. That's a whole different branch of science called physics. The theory of evolution doesn't address the creation of life. That's important to understand, because when you do, you'll see there isn't actual conflict between evolution and creationism.

To say one doesn't believe in evolution merely shows how uninformed, and dogmatic a person can be. With millions of species, and billions more to be discovered, it seems very simple minded to suggest that a creator is responsible for all of them. And yes, that's sort of a strawman too, because a creationist can say God created fish, but then some fish evolved, but that's personal opinion, not science. Once one goes down the creator road, they are on a one-way street to religion.

Interestingly, the theory of evolution doesn't comment on where life came from, but it does comment on how we came to be us. And that, really is the crux. The bible says that man was created in his image.

The Theory of Natural selection proves we weren't.

There's a substantial fossil record (one doesn't here the term missing link anymore) that shows that we indeed evolved from somewhere else. The evidence is fairly hard to ignore, which is why some creationist concede the earth is billions of years old. But in doing so, they attempt an end around of the debate.

If they can get people to think it's possible that someone (like god), popped the universe into being 14 billion years ago, then it's possible to take them down what road I referenced earlier.

Once someone thinks the big bang was helped by a force called god, then it isn't hard to begin suggesting that after a few billion years (what the bible helpfully calls days), God popped out man and planted fossils to help us with our curiosity. I made that last part up, but my point is this: when you add the God end-run, the discourse in this debate is purposely dumbed down.

And I think that's on purpose.

I don't want to Dumb down learning.

The answer, "Because God did it" is an end to the argument. It can't be refuted or explored. And this brings me back to the original premise of my problem. I want my kids to explore. I want my kids to ask questions, to wonder why. If the answer is 'God did it', then there's no incentive to ask why any more.

I've often thought that I will have way more fun with my kids than a fundamental religious dad will. When his kids ask: "Dad, how does a tree manage to 'pump' water from the roots to the very top against the force of gravity?" The religious dad will just say, "that's how god designed it."

I'll start by making a whole pile of shit up, then my kids and I together will explore the nature world to figure it out.

Whose kids will be in a better place to succeed? Now, one could argue, and they will, that the God-fearing kids will be more moral. But that's a straw man argument. Morality doesn't depend on God, Allah or Yaweh.

Ironically, morality has been hardwired into us thanks to Natural Selection.

There's a real sense of a need for educational changes in the US. And when I see things like this Gallup poll, I'm set off. I'm set off because being open to new ideas and new possibilities is what learning is all about.

"God did it" isn't learning. It's a cop out. And this learning cop out trickles down to the point where we get un-curious kids. And moving forward, that's a massive problem.

Hat tip

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution (telegraph.co.uk)

Best team ever?

Image by mutantlog via Flickr

Glenn Howard's team just one their fourth Ontario Championship, basically kicking the crap out of the field again. One can wonder from this two things:

1. Does everyone else in Ontario suck?
2. Is Glenn Howard's team the greatest ever?

This was actually asked on a blog post by Bob Weeks. I answered it there, and elaborate here.

To answer the question of is Team Howard the best team in Ontario, I want to take you back to the lat final versus Martin.

If you recall, in the seventh end Howard was up one with playing Martin. Martin was sitting two, with lots of guards around. Originally Howard was going to just pick out one of Martin's and give up a steal of one.

Then, as he sat in the hack, he saw a whole to shot rock and decided to play for one through a little port. The port consists of a guard and second shot rock, so the miss is to hit second shot (in essence, playing the original call).

As Howard throws the rock, I swear I don’t think there’s a team on the tour that doesn’t sweep it to ensure it hits more of the top one. They are relaxed, not screaming right off, or sweep. It hits just enough of the top rock, and just enough of the back one to just get three by enough.

My point: either they froze, or they are so confident in outcomes that they wait for the outcome.

I remember when I used to deal blackjack. I could tell who was going to beat the table because they were the ones who were not afraid to lose.

To me, that last shot is indication that they are not in the least bit afraid to lose. It hit a comfortable amount of the rock, but again, there aren’t too many teams, if any, that let that curl.

They are 4 relaxed guys who simply aren't afraid to miss. That might be because they have the greatest pure thrower of the rock at skip, but it also might be because they've learned as a team that misses will come, but they will also be overcome.

As a team, I think they are the best curling has ever seen.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Howard's improbable triple gives him Canadian Open title (cbc.ca)
• Howard completes career curling slam (canada.com)

Gavin, the sensitive little dude

Gavin doesn't like the boat rocked. If he's sleeping, or merely resting on your lab, god forbid you shout to someone in the other room because he'll most-likely scream bloody murder.

Mom calls him her sensitive little dude.

Case in point: last night I'm in the kitchen with Autumn working on getting her some strawberry milk. this is the conversation:

Autumn: I want some strawberry milk.

Me: what do you say?

Autumn: please.

Me: no Autumn, how do you ask?

Autumn: Puuuullleeease.

Me: put them altogether.

Autumn: Can I, may i have some strawberry milk, PLEASE!

At this point, mom calls from the other room to tell Autumn that did a good job. But mom raised her voice a little so that it would carry into the kitchen.

That upset the little dude. Who proceeded to wail like, well, like a baby.

Ah, the joys of parenthood.