On Monday (18 October), Edmonton had a civic election. Turnout, according to the Edmonton Journal, was 34%. I had a bit of a moral dilemma. As I'm currently trying to finish up my thesis, I have little spare time - yes, I realize the irony of saying this in my blog- so I didn't have as much time to educate myself on the candidates as I would have liked. I didn't go to any forums, so I was limited to candidate websites.
One of the unfortunate issues that flared up recently is the closure of the downtown municipal airport. Proponents of closing the airport argue that a downtown airport has much too valuable property to be used as an airport. Using it for residency and commerce would yield much higher revenue for the city. Further, with an international airport just outside the city, there is little need for an airport inside the city, so the argument goes. Advocates for keeping the airport open invariably point to the airport's historical value and the MedEvac planes that land there to take patients to a nearby hospital.
It's not that the arguments for closing the airport for development are incredibly strong, it's that the arguments for keeping it open are incredibly weak. If we stop development for the sake of preserving historical buildings, our downtown core would consist of a bunch of century-old 2-storey buildings without electricity or running water. Granted, this is an extreme argument, but the point is that preserving history doesn't require us to stop development. We can preserve history by creating historical musea. The university preserves history in its old horse barn, which has been physically relocated a few times, even though the barn itself closed long ago. Furthermore, the MedEvac argument is weaker than it seems. With an airport just outside the city, critical patients can get flown into the city with little extra hassle. Truly critical cases are choppered in, not flown in, so the downtown airport has little to do with truly critical cases. In the non-critical cases, an extra 20 minutes in an ambulance won't be the difference between life and death, so there is little point in keeping the airport open.
In spite of all this, the issue is still alive and a number of mayoral candidates voiced their support for keeping the airport open. I hope that, eventually, the city realizes the folly of keeping a downtown airport open with an international airport only 30 km away. In the meantime, here's to celebrating the victory of the one guy who didn't specify whether the airport should be kept open.
PS. Found this in my unpublished list from months ago, so this is probably outdated by now. Oops.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Intelligent Design Theory
Every once in a while, the subject of incorporating intelligent design theory in high school science curricula. At the root of the debate is some sensitive, and often misunderstood, information. To tackle the issue of intelligent design theory, it's important to analyze what intelligent design theory is and isn't, and what the limits of science curricula are and ought to be. I need to stress that I'm not talking about intelligent design - the idea that God created the world with an idea in mind- but am strictly talking about intelligent design theory - the idea that the world is too complex to not have an intelligent creator behind it.
First, intelligent design theory. The fundamentals of intelligent design theory rest on the argument that some things are too complex for us to wrap our heads around (e.g. DNA methylation, orientation of DNA, etc.), therefore they couldn't have arisen by chance. In other words, the things we don't understand are of God's doing. Such an approach makes God a "fill-in-the-blank" God, whose being begins where our knowledge ends. There are dangers in having such a definition of God as the boundaries of our knowledge are constantly shifting with new discoveries. Our body of knowledge now is vastly different from a century ago. Western society used to believe God lived above the sky and that diseases such as cholera or Bubonic plague were God's punishments for our wickedness. Space programs showed God to be invisible above the skies, while advancements in microbiology showed bacteria to be the culprit behind cholera and Bubonic plague. If our definition of God is to fill in the blank of everything we can't explain, science will eventually destroy God as less and less blank space exists in our knowledge of the natural order. Intelligent design theory therefore will continually have to redefine its idea of God and cannot survive lon-term if the limits of our knowledge are used as a basis to define who or what God really is.
The other spin on intelligent design theory is that the inherent complexity of life points to an intelligent mastermind, but complexity is not conclusive proof of God's existence. Complexity in the natural order can exist without God's presence and God's presence can exist without complexity in the natural order, so God and complexity are mutually exclusive. If we expect complexity to be a prerequisite for God's existence, then we are creating our own God by setting arbitrary standards. This is improper because then God becomes a figment of our mental creation, rather than an independent entity, which violates the assumptions of Christianity. Christianity is based on the idea that God exists and we are a result of his existence, not the other way around. It is therefore crucial that we not use complexity as an arbitrary standard of proof for God's existence but actively search conclusive evidence for God's existence.
Should intelligent design theory be taught in scientific curricula, then? The answer is a clear no. Science curricula should only contain scientific theories. One of the main pillars of intelligent design theory is that complexity cannot come about on its own, therefore it must be God's doing. Scientifically, this is riddled with inaccuracies. There is no objective, conclusive evidence presented of the inability of complexity to exist on its own. More importantly, the link between complexity and God is unproven and is based on artistic feeling rather than objective reasoning. The scientific method is based on evidence and deductive reasoning, which is clearly absent in intelligent design theory, but not in evolution theory. This is why evolution theory, based on fossils, dating, red shift, etc., is objective and deserves a place in scientific curricula, while intelligent design theory does not. What science curricula ought to do is to include evolution theory, exclude intelligent design theory, while emphasizing that evolution theory by itself does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Just because evolution flies in the face of a 5000 year old scientific theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may just mean that our scientific capacity 5000 years ago isn't as enhanced as it is now. The point of science curricula is to teach science, not religion. Schools should stick to that.
First, intelligent design theory. The fundamentals of intelligent design theory rest on the argument that some things are too complex for us to wrap our heads around (e.g. DNA methylation, orientation of DNA, etc.), therefore they couldn't have arisen by chance. In other words, the things we don't understand are of God's doing. Such an approach makes God a "fill-in-the-blank" God, whose being begins where our knowledge ends. There are dangers in having such a definition of God as the boundaries of our knowledge are constantly shifting with new discoveries. Our body of knowledge now is vastly different from a century ago. Western society used to believe God lived above the sky and that diseases such as cholera or Bubonic plague were God's punishments for our wickedness. Space programs showed God to be invisible above the skies, while advancements in microbiology showed bacteria to be the culprit behind cholera and Bubonic plague. If our definition of God is to fill in the blank of everything we can't explain, science will eventually destroy God as less and less blank space exists in our knowledge of the natural order. Intelligent design theory therefore will continually have to redefine its idea of God and cannot survive lon-term if the limits of our knowledge are used as a basis to define who or what God really is.
The other spin on intelligent design theory is that the inherent complexity of life points to an intelligent mastermind, but complexity is not conclusive proof of God's existence. Complexity in the natural order can exist without God's presence and God's presence can exist without complexity in the natural order, so God and complexity are mutually exclusive. If we expect complexity to be a prerequisite for God's existence, then we are creating our own God by setting arbitrary standards. This is improper because then God becomes a figment of our mental creation, rather than an independent entity, which violates the assumptions of Christianity. Christianity is based on the idea that God exists and we are a result of his existence, not the other way around. It is therefore crucial that we not use complexity as an arbitrary standard of proof for God's existence but actively search conclusive evidence for God's existence.
Should intelligent design theory be taught in scientific curricula, then? The answer is a clear no. Science curricula should only contain scientific theories. One of the main pillars of intelligent design theory is that complexity cannot come about on its own, therefore it must be God's doing. Scientifically, this is riddled with inaccuracies. There is no objective, conclusive evidence presented of the inability of complexity to exist on its own. More importantly, the link between complexity and God is unproven and is based on artistic feeling rather than objective reasoning. The scientific method is based on evidence and deductive reasoning, which is clearly absent in intelligent design theory, but not in evolution theory. This is why evolution theory, based on fossils, dating, red shift, etc., is objective and deserves a place in scientific curricula, while intelligent design theory does not. What science curricula ought to do is to include evolution theory, exclude intelligent design theory, while emphasizing that evolution theory by itself does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Just because evolution flies in the face of a 5000 year old scientific theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may just mean that our scientific capacity 5000 years ago isn't as enhanced as it is now. The point of science curricula is to teach science, not religion. Schools should stick to that.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Build the Cordoba Centre
I recently read an article about a proposed mosque or Islam centre (Cordoba Centre) to be built at ground zero in New York. There is considerable opposition to this centre, mostly centering on a "don't-let-the-terrorists-win" argument. While ensuring that we do not send out signals or symbols that would show the superiority of terrorists, opposition to the Cordoba centre is misguided and will more than likely backfire.
First, there are the extremists. While building a mosque is likely going to give them some fuel for a "we won" argument, denying permission to build the mosque has far graver consequences. It would fuel the idea that western countries are intolerant of Islam and thus those citizens are a collection of infidels that justify a jihad. In other words, it would exacerbate an existing problem. Building the mosque, on the other hand, would not work to the extremist advantage. While extremists certainly would gloat about having a symbol of Islam at ground zero, the very same symbol would also serve to highlight that there are Muslims who are genuinely devastated at 11 September attacks, thus bringing the contrast between the extremists and mainstream Islam to the spotlight. Highlighting the fact that extremists do not speak for the vast majority of Muslims would reinforce the image that mainstream Muslims are peace-loving, respecting individuals much like the rest of us. The more the mainstream image is promoted, the worse the extremists look and the more isolated they become. Thus, any positive effect that an Islam symbol would have on promoting the jihad movement is completely destroyed by the negative effect of isolation.
The second reason why we should build the mosques are our values as a democratic society. Freedom of religion allows for mainstream religions to exercise their faith so as long as there is no hate speech. The people behind this centre are attempting to promote interfaith understanding and respect, so it would be extremely improper for us to group them in with a handful of extremists just because they belong to the same religious umbrella. If a Christian centre or a Jewish centre were built, this controversy would not exist, so the pleas for respect for the 11 Sept. victims' families is the result of stereotyping. These pleas should not be heeded. The Cordoba Centre is not an attack on the victims, the US government, or Western society as a whole; it is a religious centre and should be free to exercise its freedom of religion.
Having a mosque at ground zero does not wave a white flag; it emphasizes our tolerance of different religions and opinions and highlights the ideals of our democracy. If anything, the Cordoba centre would be a beacon.
First, there are the extremists. While building a mosque is likely going to give them some fuel for a "we won" argument, denying permission to build the mosque has far graver consequences. It would fuel the idea that western countries are intolerant of Islam and thus those citizens are a collection of infidels that justify a jihad. In other words, it would exacerbate an existing problem. Building the mosque, on the other hand, would not work to the extremist advantage. While extremists certainly would gloat about having a symbol of Islam at ground zero, the very same symbol would also serve to highlight that there are Muslims who are genuinely devastated at 11 September attacks, thus bringing the contrast between the extremists and mainstream Islam to the spotlight. Highlighting the fact that extremists do not speak for the vast majority of Muslims would reinforce the image that mainstream Muslims are peace-loving, respecting individuals much like the rest of us. The more the mainstream image is promoted, the worse the extremists look and the more isolated they become. Thus, any positive effect that an Islam symbol would have on promoting the jihad movement is completely destroyed by the negative effect of isolation.
The second reason why we should build the mosques are our values as a democratic society. Freedom of religion allows for mainstream religions to exercise their faith so as long as there is no hate speech. The people behind this centre are attempting to promote interfaith understanding and respect, so it would be extremely improper for us to group them in with a handful of extremists just because they belong to the same religious umbrella. If a Christian centre or a Jewish centre were built, this controversy would not exist, so the pleas for respect for the 11 Sept. victims' families is the result of stereotyping. These pleas should not be heeded. The Cordoba Centre is not an attack on the victims, the US government, or Western society as a whole; it is a religious centre and should be free to exercise its freedom of religion.
Having a mosque at ground zero does not wave a white flag; it emphasizes our tolerance of different religions and opinions and highlights the ideals of our democracy. If anything, the Cordoba centre would be a beacon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)