Change of Purpose

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

Pet Hate: Distraction
Pet Love: Post-exam relaxation
Subject of Admiration: Lara

Okay. This blog is no longer my random everyday life blog. For more random everyday life, see my LJ or MySpace blogs. MOO now has a new purpose: creation vs. evolution. This purpose may extend to other issues I have strong opinions about but for the moment it's just that.

Q&As:

1. Why is it called MOO?
That stands for Me and Other Oddities. This blog has that title because that's the title it was born with. But it's still curiously appropriate. All my life I've found that if you think about anything hard enough, it will seem a little odd. I've done this with many things, from life itself to having this pointy thing sticking out of the middle of your face. Also, I've always felt like I was completely different--or even odd--when compared to most of the other people I knew. I suppose then, it would be fair to say that nothing much in this world makes sense to me except for one thing underlying it all--God. If there is no God, life makes little sense. What do I prefer? Noses are noses just because? Or noses are noses because God made them like that?

Both are fairly simplistic answers but I'll always remember the line my siblings and I constantly threw at each other when we were young: 'because' isn't an answer.

2. Are you a creationist or an evloutionist?
Creationist. Sometime in June/July, I will write up a post detailing my exact position on the issue. Until then, read Genesis 1 and 2 and you'll know what I believe.

3. Isn't evolution undisputable fact?
No. Evolution is unfalsifiable (as is creation for that matter). This means we'll never know for sure that it's true no matter how much information we may interpret in favour of it. It is always a theory. There has been no test concieved which can prove or disprove either theory.

4. Isn't creation relgious mumbo-jumbo?
No. Yes, it is based on the Bible. But, the Bible has proved true about many other matters so why not creation? By dismissing creation on the basis that it comes from a book people say was inspired by God, you are not upholding your scientific responsibility. If a theory holds any water at all, it doesn't matter where the opposition stems from, you should be able to answer the arguements with science and logic without resorting to attacking it's source. So if evolution and it's supporters have a leg to stand on, they will be able to 'disprove' (see question above) creation by presenting logical arguements without having to rely on insulting the Bible and creation supporters. I firmly believe this and you'll be hearing a lot about it.

Also, creation may be based on the Bible but that's not the only thing going for it. Scientists have been making investigations into proof for young earth and lack of evidence for evolution between species and so forth.

5. Why do you spend so much time disproving evolution? Why don't you try and prove creation?
Because creation is very straight-forward and there isn't much that needs proving. I'll touch on this more in future posts, including that one about my beliefs re: origins.

6. What is the scientific method?
Now, this isn't vertabim quoting of it but it runs something like this:
- Identify the question
- Create a hypothesis
- Formulate a test for that hypothesis
- Test the hypothesis
- Interpret results and modify hypothesis
- Test again until hypothesis fails

Why test till it fails? Because no matter how many experiments confirm a hypothesis or theory, you can never really be 100%, undeniably sure that the hypothesis is fact. Without getting too deep or heretical, most of science technically is theories. Just very well tested theories that haven't yet failed. When a hypothesis fails, it obviously isn't true.

7. Revisit of Q&A 5 in light of Q&A 6.
So, I'm testing the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. When one fails, it becomes less true. However, because both are unfalsifiable (there is no test which can disprove them), it's hard to unequivocally deny either. I base my belief (opinion) on how many times each theory has failed a test.

Of course, it should be noted that all results must be interpreted. That is why there is such a long standing debate between evolution and creation. Evidence interpretation depends on the individual.

8. Long-standing debate? What long-standing debate?
See Q&A 3 and 4. In at least one debate I've been in over this issue, a person on the side of evolution basically said there is no 'competition' between creation and evolution. He said I must either be ignorant, stupid or mentally ill if I believed in creation (see Q&A 4 for my response to this) because evolution was the most well-supported theory of the 20th century or some such nonsense. I believe there is scientific grounds for creation, or at the very least, something other than evolution.

9. What are your qualifications?
I studied physics and chemistry in high school. Beyond that, I have no qualifications in natural science, theology or philosophy. I am studying a Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Business through the Universtiy of New England. "This degree combines excellent communication and analytical skills with solid business knowledge and has been developed in response to increasing student demand and employer preference for recruitment of combined degree graduates." I may be keeping a transcript of units completed and their marks to at least prove to the meaner portion of society that I do have brains, 'excellent communication and analytical skills.'

Beyond formal education, I will be doing the following to increase my knowledge of the area:
- Reading/participating in debates on evolution
- Creating and working through a reading list on physics, chemisty, genetics, evolution theory, creation theory, Chrisitian apologetics and other relevant topics
- Reading the TalkOrigins.org archive, on recommendation of one of the better opponents I have discussed this with
- Discussing the matter with my uncle, Dr. Philip Kerr, Ph.D.
- Subscribing to scientific journals from both sides of the debate
- Reading and responding to questions in the comments
- Taking suggestions of reading material from the comments
- Reading the textbooks for the Bachelor of Science from UNE

I will be maintaining a list of material I intend to read and material I have read so you can have some idea where I'm coming from.

10. What are you going to post on MOO?
I will be posting in a couple of different categories:
- Reading, which will involve reviews, responses and summaries of my readings
- Articles, which will be articles I've written on the debate from the point of view of natural science, philosophy and faith.
- QA, which will be more question and answer posts like this in response to questions I have encountered, asked myself or been asked
- Self defence, which will be short posts similar to Q&A's 3, 4, 5 and 9 in the model of Q&A 4: respond to the question not the questioner. My post about my specific beliefs (opinions) would also fall under this category.
- Definitions, which will be elongated discussions of why I use terms such as 'evolution', 'belief' and 'science' the way I use them. The terms discussed will be added to a list--a personal a dictionary-type affair.
- Debate, which will be records of debates I have participated in, posted with permission of all involved, or merely my part in the debate


Disclaimer: I reserve the right to clarify or modify any of the above statements. MOO is a project to increase my own knowledge-base and to increase the knowledge-base of the readers. It is written through the tint of my own opinions and life experiences, as any written work is, although I strive to maintain objectivity. Over the course of my research, my views and opinions may be subject to change, as any opinion is. This should serve only to increase the value of my research and opinions as it proves I am open to the information rather than discriminating it according to my beliefs. I would appreciate this post and blog is read with a similar open mind and all responses are made polietly with regard to Q&A 4.