Well it's down to the final count. Only five more days until the wedding! Thankfully everything is pretty much done. We had all the big stuff like picking a date & location done early on. Most of the other major details fell into place as well. Most of the effort has been on the details. Things like the invitations and programs being printed and made just the way you want them. Right now the few details remaining are just juggling the timing of the wedding day, writing our thank you speech, being prepared to go away on our honeymoon for 2 weeks, and how to be organized when we get back.
This last week and past week or so have very much been a blur. Things are going so fast and we've been so busy. It feels like life is on fast forward right now with most of our time (aside from work & sleep) is being taken up by the wedding plans. As distracting as it is being this busy I really think it's better this way. I think if there wasn't stuff going on and being in constant thought & motion about the wedding that I would be a ball of nerves.
As Christine & I have been talking about our wedding day & how fast it seems to be approaching I'm rather glad that I'm not the only one who is all done with details. We both are anxious and can hardly wait. But we're not sure what we are more excited about: The ceremony & reception or the 2 week honeymoon/vacation afterwards? Like if we could somehow hit fast forward and be getting married life would be infinitley easier.
BTW, don't expect a TON of posts while on our honeymoon or when we first get back. But I plan to put up a thing or 2 and maybe make a small update to our google webpage http://the.duffyz.googlepages.com
2008-10-20
2008-09-26
Creation vs Evolution - The Debate Rages On
Surprisingly, it seems that the teams have switched sides: A prominent scientist calls for creation to be welcomed into the science classroom while the Church of England claims creationism & Darwinism are compatible and offered an apology to Darwin for judging him too quickly.
Last week I was surprised to read an article that Michael Reiss, professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and director of education at the Royal Society (an old and respected scientific institution), had said that Creationism DOES have a place in the science classroom. Now, He is far from proponent of creationism, intelligent design, or anything other that evolution. Rather he feels that open discussion with students who do believe in origins other than evolution is an approach that a science teacher can hope to at least ensure the students understand the evolutionary position. A rather open minded approach for a proponent of evolution.
However, just a week later a Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown posts articles on the birthday of Charles Darwin celebrating his life and contribution to science and the theory of evolution. All of this on the official Church of England website. Now I know the Anglican church is FAR from evangelical in it's beliefs and practices. But when did the Christian & scientific communities trade places on this issue? While I found Professor Reiss comments to be open minded, honest, and encouraging I find Dr Brown's writing be ignorant fluff more interested in public relations than the pursuit of truth.
He claims:
Whilst it is not difficult to see why evolutionary thinking was offensive at the time, on reflection it is not such an earth-shattering idea. Yes, Christians believe that God became incarnate as a human being in the person of Jesus and thereby demonstrated God’s especial love for humanity. But how can that special relationship be undermined just because we develop a different understanding of the processes by which humanity came to be?
I guess on the surface the concepts seem very compatible. However the biblical & evolutionary worldviews are polar opposites. The bible tells us that God created a perfect world, as a result of mankind sin death entered the world, and now we need to be saved by Jesus. Evolution says that the universe and everything in it created itself through countless generations of things living & dieing they improved through random chance, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. So if you accept evolution as true then death existed long before mankind and isn't a result of our sinful nature, and if you don't have a sinful nature then you don't need Jesus as yopur personal saviour.
The doctor also claims that the theory of evolution has been missaplied to creat the concept moral progress. The basic premise being that, if humans are continuing to evolve physically then the same must be true socially & morally. He then says this misconception of moral progress was the basis for racism or Nazism. He said that Darwins theory on physical evolution was hijacked to create a "social Darwinism". In reality, the concept of physical evolution has social implications. It doesn't have to be hijacked or misapplied (whichever term you prefer) in order to have logical implications on social thought & structure.
The basic concept of evolution is that through natural selection and survival of the fittest a species changes over time (for the good). In other words, animals with weaker traits for survival and reproduction are weeded out of the gene pool while animals with stronger or new more benficial traits garner prominence simply by the fact that they are the ones that live & live longer. Logic therefore dictates that if the species homo sapien sapien (humans) are evolving too then the same must be true about them. By that logic, humans with weaker physical traits are inferior to those with stronger traits. So if someone kills a person with triats deemed to be inferior then that person is simply giving mother nature a helping hand and is actually helping the human race to be better & stronger. This was of course the justification for the slaughter of native americans, slaves and segregation in America, and of course the holocaust.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the biology professor at the univeristy in Kansas, whom he quoted as saying "The kids (who believe evolution to be heresy) know that if they want a good job they need a degree, and if they want a degree they have to work with evolution theory. Creationism is for church, as far as they’re concerned. Here, they’re Darwinists". Honestly, I don't have to believe the world is flat in order to learn that people thought that way, so I don't have to believe in Darwin's conclusions just because it's part of the curriculum. Thankfully the doctor disagrees with the professor as well.
However he does want a rapproachment between Christianity and Darwinism as a matter of integrity. Yes, as Christians we are called to live with integrity. Yes, as Christians we are called to, in love, give people the benefit of the doubt. But first and foremost we called to put our faith in God and His word. When something disagrees with God & His word then we have the freedom, nay, the obligation to rebuke it and disenfranchise ourselves from it. Sadly most Christian churches, groups, and organizations are doing the exact opposite. It's the doctor unknowingly already has his wish.
Since God is the author & creator of all things and truth, good science being the pursuit of truth, then there is one statement he made that I can embrace without question: "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."
Last week I was surprised to read an article that Michael Reiss, professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and director of education at the Royal Society (an old and respected scientific institution), had said that Creationism DOES have a place in the science classroom. Now, He is far from proponent of creationism, intelligent design, or anything other that evolution. Rather he feels that open discussion with students who do believe in origins other than evolution is an approach that a science teacher can hope to at least ensure the students understand the evolutionary position. A rather open minded approach for a proponent of evolution.
However, just a week later a Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown posts articles on the birthday of Charles Darwin celebrating his life and contribution to science and the theory of evolution. All of this on the official Church of England website. Now I know the Anglican church is FAR from evangelical in it's beliefs and practices. But when did the Christian & scientific communities trade places on this issue? While I found Professor Reiss comments to be open minded, honest, and encouraging I find Dr Brown's writing be ignorant fluff more interested in public relations than the pursuit of truth.
He claims:
Whilst it is not difficult to see why evolutionary thinking was offensive at the time, on reflection it is not such an earth-shattering idea. Yes, Christians believe that God became incarnate as a human being in the person of Jesus and thereby demonstrated God’s especial love for humanity. But how can that special relationship be undermined just because we develop a different understanding of the processes by which humanity came to be?
I guess on the surface the concepts seem very compatible. However the biblical & evolutionary worldviews are polar opposites. The bible tells us that God created a perfect world, as a result of mankind sin death entered the world, and now we need to be saved by Jesus. Evolution says that the universe and everything in it created itself through countless generations of things living & dieing they improved through random chance, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. So if you accept evolution as true then death existed long before mankind and isn't a result of our sinful nature, and if you don't have a sinful nature then you don't need Jesus as yopur personal saviour.
The doctor also claims that the theory of evolution has been missaplied to creat the concept moral progress. The basic premise being that, if humans are continuing to evolve physically then the same must be true socially & morally. He then says this misconception of moral progress was the basis for racism or Nazism. He said that Darwins theory on physical evolution was hijacked to create a "social Darwinism". In reality, the concept of physical evolution has social implications. It doesn't have to be hijacked or misapplied (whichever term you prefer) in order to have logical implications on social thought & structure.
The basic concept of evolution is that through natural selection and survival of the fittest a species changes over time (for the good). In other words, animals with weaker traits for survival and reproduction are weeded out of the gene pool while animals with stronger or new more benficial traits garner prominence simply by the fact that they are the ones that live & live longer. Logic therefore dictates that if the species homo sapien sapien (humans) are evolving too then the same must be true about them. By that logic, humans with weaker physical traits are inferior to those with stronger traits. So if someone kills a person with triats deemed to be inferior then that person is simply giving mother nature a helping hand and is actually helping the human race to be better & stronger. This was of course the justification for the slaughter of native americans, slaves and segregation in America, and of course the holocaust.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the biology professor at the univeristy in Kansas, whom he quoted as saying "The kids (who believe evolution to be heresy) know that if they want a good job they need a degree, and if they want a degree they have to work with evolution theory. Creationism is for church, as far as they’re concerned. Here, they’re Darwinists". Honestly, I don't have to believe the world is flat in order to learn that people thought that way, so I don't have to believe in Darwin's conclusions just because it's part of the curriculum. Thankfully the doctor disagrees with the professor as well.
However he does want a rapproachment between Christianity and Darwinism as a matter of integrity. Yes, as Christians we are called to live with integrity. Yes, as Christians we are called to, in love, give people the benefit of the doubt. But first and foremost we called to put our faith in God and His word. When something disagrees with God & His word then we have the freedom, nay, the obligation to rebuke it and disenfranchise ourselves from it. Sadly most Christian churches, groups, and organizations are doing the exact opposite. It's the doctor unknowingly already has his wish.
Since God is the author & creator of all things and truth, good science being the pursuit of truth, then there is one statement he made that I can embrace without question: "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."
2008-08-25
Olympic Politics
I felt it was important to wait until the Olympics had come to a close before commenting on this issue. So here it is:
In response to criticism of why China got the Olympics, despite its horrible record on human rights, I heard one response say that made me think for a day or 2 before dismissing it. The argument was that the Olympics isn't a forum for politics or politcal agendas. Rather, it has always been, and continues to be, a place where people can set aside cultural and political differences (like wars) and compete against each other in the arena of sports.
When the Olympics was first played and perhaps even when the modern version first began it met or came close to achieving this altruistic goal. But now the Olympics is ENTIRELY about politics.
The people who decide which city/nation will get to host the Olympics have been revealed as nothing but opprotunistic pilferers. They accept numerous gifts and benefits in exchange for their endorsement.
Those who actually base their opinion on proper reasons it usually boils down to infrastructure. The Olympics is SO huge that the city needs to be able to accommodate the influx of hundreds of thousands of athletes and visitors from many different countries, speaking many different languages. It requires action on behalf of the city, provincial, & federal governments (politics) to make sure the infrastructure is there and can handle it.
Then there is the most obvious element of the athletes themselves. Training at the level of an Olympic athelete is an extremely expensive endeavour. Corporate sponsorship can help. But it can only go so far. And seriously, isn't the Olympics supposed to be an amateur competition? Without sustained political pressure for athletic funding & support then a country can't put together a competitively relevant program.
So with all the politics that are invloved in the Olympics, I think it's perfectly fair and relevant to discuss a countries record on human rights issues when determining a city/countries suitability (or lack thereof) as a host city.
In response to criticism of why China got the Olympics, despite its horrible record on human rights, I heard one response say that made me think for a day or 2 before dismissing it. The argument was that the Olympics isn't a forum for politics or politcal agendas. Rather, it has always been, and continues to be, a place where people can set aside cultural and political differences (like wars) and compete against each other in the arena of sports.
When the Olympics was first played and perhaps even when the modern version first began it met or came close to achieving this altruistic goal. But now the Olympics is ENTIRELY about politics.
The people who decide which city/nation will get to host the Olympics have been revealed as nothing but opprotunistic pilferers. They accept numerous gifts and benefits in exchange for their endorsement.
Those who actually base their opinion on proper reasons it usually boils down to infrastructure. The Olympics is SO huge that the city needs to be able to accommodate the influx of hundreds of thousands of athletes and visitors from many different countries, speaking many different languages. It requires action on behalf of the city, provincial, & federal governments (politics) to make sure the infrastructure is there and can handle it.
Then there is the most obvious element of the athletes themselves. Training at the level of an Olympic athelete is an extremely expensive endeavour. Corporate sponsorship can help. But it can only go so far. And seriously, isn't the Olympics supposed to be an amateur competition? Without sustained political pressure for athletic funding & support then a country can't put together a competitively relevant program.
So with all the politics that are invloved in the Olympics, I think it's perfectly fair and relevant to discuss a countries record on human rights issues when determining a city/countries suitability (or lack thereof) as a host city.
2008-08-22
Points Are Not The Point
Well, last night I competed at the 2nd Burlington Slam Project. I started off with my new piece "What's The Point?". I only got 25 points I think. An average score of about 8.3, which is okay. But I'd like get some more 9's.
Again I was in last place the second round so I was the last slammer to take the mic. Which normally just means you're nervous all the way until the end. But the band downstiars always seems to start before we are done. This made it a little tough to do a soft touching reading of what I called "The Christmas Love Poem" (the poem I wrote for my then girlfriend and now fiance for a Christmas present). That being said everyone went "AWWW" when I was done. LOL Especially when I kissed my fiance before taking my seat. The judges gave me a 26 point something, which is an average of 8.8 points.
I know they say that "the points are not the point, the poetry is the point". And it's true. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to place a LIIIIIIITTLE higher than last place each time or maybe even when it!
Come on though, I've only done this three times! I've just started doing this as a hobby. I'm going up against people who have been doing this a LOT longer and have their peieces much more practised and honed. Most of them have their own book, or cd, or have featured at an event! So it's not that I'm epecting to be there already. But like I said, it'd nice to get just a little bit closer.
I know that the biggest thing that's holding me back is MEMORIZATION! Everyone loves my pieces. And NO! not just my fiance, friends, & family saying so (though they do and seem genuinely surprised when I get low scores). All the poets and performers I look up to and admire have approached me and said so. I've even had a few say that I have "presence" on stage and that it would come across so much more if I was able to get off the page.
So when it comes down to me getting higher scores and possibly winning or getting accolades and compliments from other poets, I prefer the latter! However, I'd also like to be complimented on my stage presence too. So it's a good that the wedding planning, day & honeymoon are going to keep me too busy for another slam in the next couple months. That way, the next time I hit the mic for a poetry slam, I'll have the pieces down pat.
Again I was in last place the second round so I was the last slammer to take the mic. Which normally just means you're nervous all the way until the end. But the band downstiars always seems to start before we are done. This made it a little tough to do a soft touching reading of what I called "The Christmas Love Poem" (the poem I wrote for my then girlfriend and now fiance for a Christmas present). That being said everyone went "AWWW" when I was done. LOL Especially when I kissed my fiance before taking my seat. The judges gave me a 26 point something, which is an average of 8.8 points.
I know they say that "the points are not the point, the poetry is the point". And it's true. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to place a LIIIIIIITTLE higher than last place each time or maybe even when it!
Come on though, I've only done this three times! I've just started doing this as a hobby. I'm going up against people who have been doing this a LOT longer and have their peieces much more practised and honed. Most of them have their own book, or cd, or have featured at an event! So it's not that I'm epecting to be there already. But like I said, it'd nice to get just a little bit closer.
I know that the biggest thing that's holding me back is MEMORIZATION! Everyone loves my pieces. And NO! not just my fiance, friends, & family saying so (though they do and seem genuinely surprised when I get low scores). All the poets and performers I look up to and admire have approached me and said so. I've even had a few say that I have "presence" on stage and that it would come across so much more if I was able to get off the page.
So when it comes down to me getting higher scores and possibly winning or getting accolades and compliments from other poets, I prefer the latter! However, I'd also like to be complimented on my stage presence too. So it's a good that the wedding planning, day & honeymoon are going to keep me too busy for another slam in the next couple months. That way, the next time I hit the mic for a poetry slam, I'll have the pieces down pat.
2008-08-08
I'm A REAL Writer
They say that a true writer/poet is never finished editing their work. We are our own worst critics and won't statisfied until it's absolutely perfect. I guess this means I've arrived.
I sat down to write a new poem today. And I did! However, I borrowed part of it from an old poem and reworked it to fit. Then I went to another poem I had been hoping was mostly finished wound up adding a little tongue-in-cheek introduction to explain it a bit more.
I sat down to write a new poem today. And I did! However, I borrowed part of it from an old poem and reworked it to fit. Then I went to another poem I had been hoping was mostly finished wound up adding a little tongue-in-cheek introduction to explain it a bit more.
2008-08-06
Paris Hilton for President ???
This one is TOO funny! So John McCain, the 2008 deomcratic presidential candidate, recently put out a tv ad attacking Barack Obama, the 2008 republican presidential candidate. The ad depicts Obama as just another shallow celebrity, like Paris Hilton & Britney Spears, in an attempt to question his ability and depth as a leader.
Really, it was just a matter of time before the mud slinging began. I don't know who threw the first punch, but it doesn't matter. The fact is both candidates always end up with mud on their hands & face. What makes all this noteworthy for my blog is this... that Paris Hilton is the one who has come out on top.
Turns out Paris Hilton made her own "ad" and posted it online. She uses her dumb blond celebrity fame to make fun of the attack ad. The most startling part of the video is that when she starts discussing Energy policy... she makes sense!!! In fact, she makes more sense than the 2 candidates. Using CLASSIC Paris Hilton venacular the video ends with her saying, "I'm Paris Hilton, and I approve this ad because it's Hot!"
Really, it was just a matter of time before the mud slinging began. I don't know who threw the first punch, but it doesn't matter. The fact is both candidates always end up with mud on their hands & face. What makes all this noteworthy for my blog is this... that Paris Hilton is the one who has come out on top.
Turns out Paris Hilton made her own "ad" and posted it online. She uses her dumb blond celebrity fame to make fun of the attack ad. The most startling part of the video is that when she starts discussing Energy policy... she makes sense!!! In fact, she makes more sense than the 2 candidates. Using CLASSIC Paris Hilton venacular the video ends with her saying, "I'm Paris Hilton, and I approve this ad because it's Hot!"
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
2008-07-31
BSP site is up and running
Tomy & Selina have have been working hard for sure. The first event was a hit and they we already promoting next months event! I'm sure that the quality of the flyers is only going to add to the greatness.
The most impressive part is the grassroots push they are giving it. They've already created a YouTube account and uploaded the open micers, Gypsy Eyes (the feature), and the 1st round slammers, with 2nd round poems to come.
Now I'm surprised that I missed the launch of the Burlington Slam Project's website when it was posted on the SLAMtario blog.
BIG things are going to happen. So get in on the ground floor and come out to the next slam: 8pm Thursday August 21st @ The Dickens Pub (upstairs).
The most impressive part is the grassroots push they are giving it. They've already created a YouTube account and uploaded the open micers, Gypsy Eyes (the feature), and the 1st round slammers, with 2nd round poems to come.
Now I'm surprised that I missed the launch of the Burlington Slam Project's website when it was posted on the SLAMtario blog.
BIG things are going to happen. So get in on the ground floor and come out to the next slam: 8pm Thursday August 21st @ The Dickens Pub (upstairs).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)