The Problem with Evolution

The problem with evolution is that no one really believes it. For within the system of evolution, there's either no form or essence of anything, or there's not one that's really worth preserving or even able to be preserved. Yet everyone believes this, regardless of whether they acknowledge it.

If man is nothing other than an ape gone off its head, and an ape a large rodent-turned-biped, and so on, then man is nothing but an ape gone off its head, but really, he's simply an amoeba severely distorted.

This doesn't in itself deny a nature. Some sort of theistic evolutionism could argue that all evolution lead up to man, that he is the pinnacle of evolution and, therefore, man could no longer evolve. Fine, but let's consider popular evolution.

If this growth from amoeba to man happened entirely naturally, then there's no termination point. That is, there's no reason why man should continue as man. Conditions, desires, survival needs are constantly playing their part, forming the living things to the environment.

But if that's the case - I'm not ready to affirm or deny it one way or the other, why is everyone so intent on preserving man? What are they preserving?

It's obvious that most everyone, everyone not a lunatic, believes that certain things are wrong and should be prevented: murder, rape, incest, etc. But these must be wrong for a reason; they implicitly assume that to be man is to be something, and that that something is a higher standard than accidental conditions.

For example, some starving village in the poorest part of Africa raids a more affluent village and steals what it can. In the natural world, people call this "survival of the fittest." In the world of human affairs, this is called "mass murder", "terrorism", or even, the more fanatic sensationalists included, "genocide." Evolution begins with intraspecies development. The first to go would be the weaker. But not in our society. The weak are protected, they're provided for. Why? Because everyone innately believes that human life is something special, that human life isn't simply for the end of procreation, like every other species. So then, which is it? Evolution? or is man expected to be higher than "survival of the fittest?" Evolution demands that man is just another animal. Experience positively proves he's not.

See, people can get their mind into an isolated cosmic reality that quickly dissipates once the nature of the world demands their attention. One can theorize all they want that man is constantly progressing, or degressing, but at least evolving, but given an oppurtunity to see this in action, they quickly forget their theories.

Apparently I got Tagged

"As it goes, the exhibit is meant to show the world how similar men are to apes (They kind of look like apes, I guess, what with the arms and legs and eyes and protruding brow.). "

What can I say? It's so true.

Want to know how to tag?

1. Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.

Jene here (fancy that)

TAC Anagrams, sent to me by a friend (who is also a friend of Andrew Whaley because the world is small), courtesy of the Late Night Players, who apparently once came here if you can imagine that. (I doubt it was one of those formal dinners, oh yes.) Because any comedy troupe that can link Paris Hilton and TAC is an obvious font of creative jeenyuss equaled only by Mr. Applebee, who definitely quoted The Life of Brian, The Shining, and Fiddler on the Roof today in section. (Some of it he sung.)

Speaking of SPEAKING OF MISLEADING WORDS:

Protestant: What the heck is it we're protesting? **wonders** Because I'm actually relatively sure all of the formal complaints that got nailed onto a door back in the day have been fixed. (Or so I'm told by people who spend lots of time looking for ironies like this and yet have still remained Protestant.)

Or maybe it's more correct to say, we've lost the idea that there is anything about which we should protest.

I was reading a friend's blog a bit earlier, watching her parents accuse her in halting prose of being in a cult and chirping at her that Christ was the only way to salvation because she mentioned casually that she was checking into Divine Liturgy times for the Orthodox church in my hometown.

The funny thing is, I once thought that to protest something you have to have the idea that there's another way that's right, not just going around insisting that other people are obviously wrong for thinking that they're right.

Not that the Protestant movement hasn't always been defined by negatives, but for a bunch of people (I tried lots of words here: group, sect, denomination - funny how I never thought of myself as a 'Protestant' until I came here; if you don't know any Catholics, that word is barely in your vocabulary -) who go around insisting so many things aren't so loudly, they aren't really very good at coming up with other ideas that don't involve negation in and of themselves. Non-denominational, of course, being chief among them. (Hi, we're a group whose tagline is that we're not anything!)

Speaking of Misleading Words...

Conservatism. What, exactly, are they conserving? And Democrat and Republican: do those words have even a shade of their true meaning?

Politics and the English Language, George Orwell, at right, is an excellent read. (Though somewhat paranoid and conspiracy-theorist.)

On Capitalism

Last year I suppose you could have justly called me a Buchananite. While I mostly renounce that stance, a doubt lingers. Most wise men would agree that, if it's not simply bad, then it's at least a bad idea for an individual to become wealthy for wealth's sake; perhaps even that much wealth is unhealthy. It is, after all, harder for the rich man to get into heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle.

But why does this axiom suddenly not apply to a nation of individuals? Isn't it just as dangerous for a nation to become exceedingly wealthy? Athens' demise, Rome, now America.

Standard of living is a misleading term. If a government exists to protect the good of the people, then the unchecked selfishness of Capitalism is a failure on the part of the government. Poor and happy is a better combination than rich and wretched.

Time as Luxury; and Daily Life

On Monday I found out my morning class for the next day was cancelled, meaning I didn't have to wake up until 1:30 or so if I felt like skipping lunch. I did what little homework I had, then grabbed my Chesterton and read until two. I could read extra-curricular books without the slightest guilt. What a wonderful feeling! The next day I slept in, prepared for the day leisurely, had some coffee, then back to the daily grind. 100+ pages of Tacitus, Latin, choir practice, impenetrable Aristotle...and tomorrow I have 4 classes, that's 5 hours of class time, which, when put like that, doesn't really sound like all that much. But it is. (Philosophy - the Physics - as a night class? That ought to be interesting.)

My roommate convinced me to go on a run today. Bad idea. 2 miles just about did me in. Maybe tomorrow it will be easier. It's all part of my post-don rags rejuvenation. Study harder and get into shape: The college life.

Quick Thought Provoked by Tacitus

So what is the primary end of history? I suppose this contains two questions, really: What is the primary end of writing a history? What is the primary end of reading a history?

Most people, those that I've asked, answered the two questions from the same angle. History is written to teach a lesson; it is read to learn it. That is, the practical application of lessons vicariously learned from the mistakes and glories of others is the primary end of history. (I suspect Orwell would hate that sentence, but I don't have the time to change it.) Doesn't this reduce history to ethics?

I stood in solitude with my answer to this question; not one person has agreed with me, but I'm not convinced I'm wrong. A few examples illustrate what I believe.

A friend comes back from Europe and, in conversation, tells you all about the trip. You listen excitedly.

A father or a grandfather tells a (grand)son stories about his youth, his parents, his fatherland. The son is entranced.

An author writes a book. One reads it joyfully.

I'd say that both the reading and writing of histories are far more similar to these analogies than a philosopher sitting down to write, and a student to read, a treatise on ethics. I doubt anyone, considering the question of how one ought to act, picks up a history book to find the answer. I know I read Patton's war diary because it was fascinating, not for ethical insights.

With the author, perhaps, there might be more of the idea of moral lessons involved, but I'd still say that above all else, the magnificence, infamous, tragic, and glorious stories motivate the historian to write. To record the glorious deeds of men, as Herodotus would say.

Will I be convinced?

Stress Test

Take one here

More Pound Related Stuff...

I did some research(= Googling) and found some sculptures by Pound's friend, Henri Gaudier-Brzeska. He apparently had so much insight into the planes and lines of bodies in nature that he could read Chinese characters (pictorial shorthand of natural things) without any study of them. In the words of Pound, "he was amazed at the stupidity of the lexicographers who could not discern for all their learning the pictorial values which were to him perfectly obvious and apparent."

L'Oiseau de Feu (National Gallery of Australia)

The Heiratic Head of Ezra Pound (Nasher Sculpture Center)

Birds Erect (Museum of Modern Art, New York)

Maternity

Bird Swallowing a Fish (National Galleries of Scotland)

Crouching Fawn (Tate Gallery, London)

The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry

Thanks to Overlyconscious for finding this essay which I've been meaning to read for some time now (i.e., since I read ABC of Reading). Very interesting.

I've linked to it at right. Above it is the Orwell essay with some similar themes, specifically those regarding english.

Serious isn't Somber

I wonder about the psychology behind singing the Alleluia like a dirge. Why is it that everyone insists on signing it so slowly, with rallantandos up to wazoo? "Praise God, please kill me" is the mood of the tune when sung like that.

Ulysses

has some beautiful passages, no doubt:

"Beauty: it curves, curves are beauty. Shapely goddesses, Venus, Juno: curves the world admires. Can see them library museum standing in the round hall, naked goddesses."

More Nonsense from Time

“The church and religious fundamentalists have been at war with science for centuries. They have lost every battle along the way, and they are certain to lose the fight challenging evolution because they cannot stop the accumulation of knowledge or search for truth.”
- from a letter in Time Magazine

This sentence is absurd. What's beyond absurd is the number of people who, upon picking up their Time for this month read it, nodded presumptiously, and said, "that's right. way to tell it like it is!" The Church has been at war with science for centuries? Really? I wonder if he could be referring to Mendel. That lowly monk strove with everything he had to discourage modern science from discovering the secrets of character traits and the eventual discovery of genes and DNA.

No, that can't be right. I suppose the correspondant has in mind Galileo, as do all prejudiced and historically ignorant people. Like the Inquisition, much scholarship has gone into refuting the romantic idea of Galileo's "E pur si muove". (hastily found reference here and here) Also like the Inquisition, little has been done to educate the majority of people about the true history.

No need to go into the details here; you could see the above-linked articles. Suffice it to say that the Church, prior to Galileo, endorsed the Copernican heliocentric theory. One never hears of Copernicus or Kepler being condemned by the Church. Galileo was condemned not for heliocentrism, but for dabbling in theology and philosophy above and outside his realm of science.

One could even argue that Christianity gave birth to the science of Western Civilization. Besides the few brilliant exceptions - Aristotle, Galen, et al. - science and the natural world were relatively obscure to the pagans. Mythology dominated philosophy and science. Even such luminaries as Archimedes did little to further technology, which is often confused with science these days. As related by Plutarch, Archimedes invented many strange and fantastic machines - trebuchets, arrow-shooting machine guns, machines capable of flinging Roman ships about from the confines of the city walls. He, however, thought little of the practical application of his knowledge, seeing them as trifles. He did not bother to teach anyone or leave records of his inventions.

A further point: with the great heresy of Islam, the growth in science and technology in the muslim world became completely defunct. The "closed gate" of knowledge prevented any further learning. This was emphatically not the case in the West. When all else failed, leading to the Dark Ages, it was the Church, especially the monastaries, that preserved learning and science, preparing for the Renaissance.

It would be really cool if people were taught even the barest facts about history. It would be really cool if highschools no longer taught theories disregarded by scholars even 100 years ago.

You May Not Be Into This But...

check out this Etymological Dictionary! Awesome reference now linked to by Into the Unordinary.

The TAC Dating Scene

Bridget stole a piece of yellow chalk from the library today, and tonight we're going to draw a large striped area around the T-shaped sidewalk entrance to our dorm that says MOTH FREE ZONE, because, you know, it's ridiculous when you can't find space to get into your dorm because there are like Noah's Ark Plus Ten couples blocking your way staring obliviously into each other's eyeballs.

(This is called "mothing", because they tend to collect around the fronts of the dorms at night, like little furry bugs to light. Incidentally, I would just like to mention that we sidewalk-possessive sorts can think of about a billion places that are more romantic than St. Therese's front gate at 10:55 PM when the entire campus is coming back for curfew.)


- Posted by JENE

Hooray for Cheap Books!

Here's a list of great books I bought all for a total of $5:

Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke;
Chamber Music, Alec Robertson;
A Third Testament, Malcolm Muggeridge;
Cancer Ward, Solzhenitsyn;
The Real War, Richard Nixon;
Leaves of Grass, Whitman;
"We Hold These Truths": Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition, John Courtney Murray, S.J.;
Interpretations of Religion and Poetry, George Santayana;
Eight Plays by Moliere;
The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha; ed. by E.A. Burtt

Ezra Pound Says...

"The author's conviction on this day of New Year is that music begins to atrophy when it departs too far from the dance; that poetry begins to atrophy when it gets too far from music; but this must not be taken as implying that all good music is dance or all poetry lyric. Bach and Mozart are never too far from physical movement."

The author of this blog is convinced that a seriously interested student of literature should read the book from which this is an excerpt: ABC of Reading, by Pound.

JENE Contributes! (2)

This is an actual offical memo of my school, which is really good at wheedling its way out of Congressional legislation. (It is perhaps most famous for finding some loophole in national law that allowed it to serve alcohol to underage students up until last year.)

This memo is perhaps the second-funniest memo the Collej has ever issued, behind the one that encouraged us not to drink, but if we did feel the need to drink, since this is a dry campus surrounded by expensive avocado farms and ranchers that sleep lightly, please drink at this spot and this spot in the federal forest, map provided with helpful "drink here" and "here" but "not here" illustrations drawn by one of the juniors on official college stationary. Thanks, your ever-loving prefects. (PS, please don't wake up the Rottweilers.)

The new memo reads:

The United States Congress last year legislated that any college of university participating in educational assistance programs funded by the citizens of the United States (Stafford Student Loan program, Pell Grant program, etc.) shall hold an educational program for its students on the United States Constitution on September 17 of each year. This date was chosen because teh Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787.

Thomas Aquinas College considers the Constitution an important work. Accordingly, the study of the Constitution is a formal part of the College's academic program, being read and discussed each year in the Junior seminar. The order of the seminar, however, necessitates that the Constitution be studied late in the academic year and not on September 17.

To honor the date of the Constitution's signing, and to observe the aforementioned law, the College is making copies of the Constitution available to any student who wishes to acquire one. They are available free of charge in the bookstore.

So, translation:

The College despises almost all federal laws, especially this one. However, the College likes the fact that it runs its postal system on federal money and that federal tax dollars are, as above mentioned, paid out of it to Canadians for shutting themselves in cabinets. The College will give a cursory hat tip to this law by doing exactly nothing, but pretending as though having a quarter of its students read the Constitution at a random time already instated in March satisfies this new and obnoxious legal requirement. Oh and, we'll make a few photocopies for you, in case you felt like suing.

- posted by JENE