Flu Blues

Philosophy

virus

 

Dear Evolution,

I really wanted to thank you for demonstrating that you are in fact the method by which life progresses both to the benefit and detriment of mankind. I’ve always felt a close connection to you what with all the time I spent in biology and philosophy courses discussing your fundamentals established by Charles Darwin.

While we can always argue that God kicked you in to gear or that you came along and began yourself, you no doubt have expressed that you are definitely in charge when it comes to biological laws.

There are those who doubt you. After all, you challenge the very basic notion of God’s role in life and its ever-changing nature.

But you demonstrate your might on a regular basis, most notably in life’s smaller forms including bacteria and viruses.

Just three weeks ago I received a shot for influenza in hopes of staving off a possible infection. I have a 4-month-old baby and was doing my best to preserve her still pristine immune system.

I was assured that the particular inoculation I received was engineered to combat the particular strain of influenza passing around these days.

Just yesterday, after dealing with a bout of chills and sore muscles, a nurse jammed a swab up my nose to test for the flu. Results came back— Type A.

The doctor told me that the flu shot this year has been quite effective, although I was the second patient that day to report getting the flue after getting the vaccine.

Thanks for nothing Evolution. This is what I get for defending you.

 

Yours,

John

 

Advertisements

God Threshold

Uncategorized

Allow me to be a hypocrite.

Not long ago I wrote about how everyone is trying to turn back the clock on science. So many religious fundamentalists and leftist activists are trying to deny the basic principles of sciences when they disagree with the conclusion.

In the past year, noted physicists including Stephen Hawking have made the conclusion that the idea of God’s place in creating the universe isn’t “necessary.” Interesting. They are basing their conclusions on the notion that every time they derive equations and close some gap regarding an unknown aspect of the universe and its creation, they find a reasonable explanation sans supernatural. So while there are still some mysteries about the spawning of the universe, they feel that whatever they discover, it will be based on something reasonable and not founded in divine mysticism.

I’m a Prime Mover man myself. While there are so many elements in life easily explained by evidence, such as atomic structures, evolution, DNA, etc., there still is no explanation or proof about what set this giant mechanism known as the universe into motion. Something had to do it. Even if physicists uncover what did spawn the universe, they can’t explain why it was created. Science is not concerned with the why, only the how. This is fine. It’s what science does— to provide explanations to the phenomena around us.

The theory of God’s necessity works the opposite for me. Every time they uncover something, whether it’s about atoms or the universe, they find yet another, unexplainable facet of their structure which needs investigation. It never seems to end. They have faith in that they will continue to find things deeper and deeper.

But at some point, there has to be an impetus, or a threshold from what we can perceive and understand to an area completely beyond our ability to experience. By ability to experience I do not mean something we can’t experience yet. I mean something that’s impossible to see, hear, taste, smell or touch.

I think there’s a gulf that we can never cross because there’s no ship to sail over it.

Maybe that’s where God is. Or isn’t.

Science War

Uncategorized

For whatever reason, everyone these days up and down the political spectrum, are denying science. There is no regard for how much research scientists do in certain fields. Global warming, evolution, DNA, vaccines.

Evolution is just a theory. Global warming isn’t real. Vaccines cause autism. Voluminous amounts of pages are produced about these subjects but the public will eyeball the entirety of the discipline and deny it.

I think the problem is, as it always is in cases of misunderstanding, human nature. Anything that tells us something we don’t want to hear, we don’t want to believe. Take global warming, neutralized lately by deniers as “climate change,” 99 percent of climatologists have pretty much agreed that our spinning rock is getting hotter. They also agree that human activity is to blame. We use too much fossil fuels. We create too much emissions. It traps heat on the planet. Ice cores. Data modeling. It’s all there.

But, unfortunately, global warming is a commentary on our lifestyle. We are mobile animals but it comes at a cost to our surroundings. We don’t really want to believe it’s true. Fixing it requires us to change a fundamental part of our mobile structure. What are we going to do? Ride bikes? Build miles and miles of electric rail? Walk? Electric cars?

Not in this life. So what do we do? Pretend it isn’t happening? Nope. Worse. We attack the very research which proves consistently that there’s a problem.

That is the tragedy of science today. It is a whole ideology based on empirical facts and an ethic that the basis of a theory can change with discovery. It’s all about what can be perceived by senses.

But people process science like they process religion. It’s all about belief. Because people don’t understand the science behind theories, they turn to faith instead. That creates a tendency. Much like religion, people believe in something that brings them some kind of positive feeling. Saying that our driving a car is destroying our comfy world is not warm fuzzy.

I have discovered that people’s “belief” in science is often proportionate with how much they benefit by it.

Nobody questions medicine, homogenized milk or the combustible engine. But when you say the sky is getting warmer and pollution levels are high, people get defensive.

More on this.