Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.

There are many problems with a naturalistic explanation for life. To begin with, they hold tightly to the belief of "Spontaneous Generous" which is the theory that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms. This theory, however, was scientifically proven false through Redi and Pasteur's experiments. Scientific naturalism chooses to transform the limitations of science into the limitations on reality. In fact, there is nothing "fact" about the naturalistic explanation for life and it fails to answer vital questions. Another issue is the complexity of the cell. Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, asked it best- "Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" It's as ridiculous as Texas being covered ten feet in quarters, and a blind man, on his first try, picking up the only 2010 one- it's illogical! Further, there is the entire issue over which came first- proteins or DNA? Both are essential to the others existence, yet the Naturalistic fails to answer this question and many others that are essential to our existence. The issues with the naturalistic are truly endless. In addition, there fails to be any fossil evidence to support their view of cambry: the sudden geological appearance of most major groups of animals. However, despite this "conclusion," there is absolutely no fossil evidence to support that they came from a common ancestor, and all animals appeared with major differences. From the beginning of Darwin's naturalistic "experiments," he has been lying to himself and others. He attempted to prove through the Galapagos Finches beak sizes changing in shape in size, that macro-evolution is true. However, the changes in the beaks are temporary and they change back and forth! Though this supports micro-evolution, this in no way supports macro-evolution, and any naturalistic that chooses to believe it is a fool. Naturalist explanations are drooped in fradulence and errors, and truly has no facts to believe it. It's true when God says "man's heart is foolish"- our modern naturalistic scientists are prime examples of this.

Delight in Disorder Poem

Delight in Disorder

By: Robert Herrick

A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness;
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction;
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthralls the crimson stomacher;
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribbons to flow confusedly;
A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat;
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility;--
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.

After I read this poem, I fell instantly in love with it! Though after research I saw it could be interpreted diversely, I chose the more innocent approach. I saw this literally as a man who is in love with a woman who is less than “tidy”—in fact, she mirrors a disaster, constantly in disarray. Overall, Herrick seems to be attacking the universal belief that “organization” is “right.” The fact he condemns the current art portrays the lack of contentment with the “neat and tidy.” This portrays early signs of an art movement, now fully seen in “abstract” art. Written in 1648, it is clear Herrick is way ahead of his times with the whole “Post Modern” movement.  

This entire poem appears to be a paradox. Just looking at the title “Delight in Disorder” would seem contradictory to the people in his day and age. However, as he goes on to explain this idea, he creates more paradoxical comparisons. In the first line, he comments on her dress being a “sweet disorder.” Usually disorder has a connotation of “stress” and means turmoil- something not delightful. When paired with “sweet,” it portrays a completely new contrasting idea. This also sets up for the interpretation that the two lovers have been “fooling around” aka having sex. That would further explain the specific diction within the poem. Rather than being mistaken for a father’s love of his “disordered” child, Herrick purposefully chooses words that place this love in the context of a dating or marriage relationship. Words, such as, “tempestuous” and “bewitch” display the sexual drive the man feels toward this woman, and it is evident his love is not merely in her “lack of order.” Rather than seeing “I like he,” he chooses passionate words, such as, “bewitch” demonstrating how he feels “powerless” and “under a spell”- very common depictions of love, or rather lust.

It’s hard to imagine the man truly “loves” the woman because he only talks of physical attributes. Her clothing: her dress, her shoulders, her ribbons, her shoelaces are all “fine distractions”- but lacks bringing any depth to the poem. He even compares her to art- a very physical item.

                The rhyming scheme within the poem further matches its message. Rather than all rhyming, or all free style, Herrick combines them like he mixes “wild civility.” He takes two extremes and puts them side by side. However, the neat outline of the poem is rather ironic to its content. He chooses simple words that convey strong feelings/ actions. Herrick purposefully makes this an easy read, in order to enable his reader to relate. Perhaps he feels other gentlemen agree with his belief, but cannot put words to it. His details are easily pictured in one’s mind, and therefore evoke emotion and a personal connection. Despite the fact the author’s tone is detached, (which supports the belief that the woman is a prostitute) as a reader, one can take this scene, and add their own passion to it. Since it is not vivid descriptions, rather a “rough outline,” the reader can adapt a more personal aspect to it- perhaps putting a face and therefore passion to the “Delight in Disorder” person.

The Oxen

Christmas Eve, and twelve of the clock.
"Now they are all on their knees,"
An elder said as we sat in a flock
By the embers in hearthside ease.

We pictured the meek and mild creatures where
They dwelt i ntheir strawy pen,
Nor did it occur to one of us there
To doubt they were kneeling then.

So fair a fancy few wouild weave
In these years! Yet, I feel,
If someone said on Christmas Eve,
"Come; see the oxen kneel

"In the lonely barton by yonder coomb
Our childhood used to know,"
I should go with him in the gloom,
Hoping it might be so.

This poem is about a man reflecting on his innocent childhood and belief in "The Christmas Story" as taught by the elders. He then acknowledges he no longer believes this and it is not common in "these days." He goes on to confess he would go to a stable scene if someone invited him, but he would go in disbelief though he wishes he could believe. Within this poem, two tones are extremely evident. Originally when talking about his childhood, Hardy has a pensive/ reverant tone. He is looking back on his past wistfully. His imagery such as "embers in the hearthside ease" portray a wistful tone as he exaggerates the "fairytale perfection" of those times. The "meek mild creatures" description further establishes this reflective and contemplative tone. However, in line 9 at "So fair a fancy few would weave in these years!" the tone drastically changes. The fact, this is on the only time an exclamation is made shows the significant transition. Before merely reflecting on his past, he now satirically mocks our society in his outburst of passion. He asknowledges people no longer believe in this yet they still stupidly cling to this "ideal stable Christmas scene." After his exclamation, his tone returns to one of pensiveness. While before it was more "happy" rememberance, now it is lacking hope and is "in the gloom" so it shifts to a more sorrowful pensiveness, yet returns to his original calm and peaceful demeanor.

Personality Test

My type of personality is characterized as "ENFP." I am 33% extraverted, 62% Intuitive, 25% feeling, and 22% perceiving.

This personality combination is known as the "Idealist Champion." I thought it was very interesting that only 2-3% of the population is an "ENFP." The results state that this type of person considers "intense emotional experiences" as being vital to life. The Champion is very outgoing and strive towards personal authenticity with others. They are keen and probing observers, and their attention is rarely "passive"- on the contrary, they are alert and fully focused on who they are with. They are known to be full of energy and having alot of friends.

After reading the analysis, I found it scary how much it sounded like me. I've always felt that the various aspects of my character don't "fit together," but the "ENFP" results combined all of them! The only thing I thought was surprising is I anticipated I would have a higher percent of "perceiving" within the results.

Crime and Punishment Thought Piece #1

"All is in a man's hands and he lets it all slip from cowardice, that's an axiom. It would be interesting to know what it is men are most afraid of. Taking a new step, uttering a new word is what they fear most" (5).

Throughout his novel, Dostoevsky analyzes the human mind, and seeks to reveal why a particular person acts in a certain way. He also challenges what is "socially acceptable" and mocks humanity, as well.

Dostoevsky uses this quote in the very first chapter to set up the theme early on within the story. It not only outlines the entire story, in my opinion, but it causes the reader to think about this concept in his own life. In fact, the reason this quote stood out to me was because it made me analyze my own life. I had to ask myself, "Am I afraid of taking a new step"? Interestingly enough, I found that change is one of the things I tend to dislike most or that brings out an irrational fear within me.

Back to the story, this quote makes the story universally relevant to all people. Every person has a fear of change. Crime and Punishment reveals what would happen (in Dostoevsky's opinion) if man attempted to overcome this fear or "jump over the fence." This really makes the whole book a predictation. The story is not only an interesting fiction piece, but rather Dostoevsky's theory on man's limitations and greatest fears.

It's also significant how Raskolnikov believes man holds "everything in his own hands." Dostoevsky mocks man's prideful attitude and how man believes himself often to be the "supreme being". Since Dostoevsky has this idea ruin Raskolnikov and drive him mad, it's inadvertently reveals his belief that there is a higher power. When man takes life into his own hands and believe himself "above" the moral code, it will ruin him. For no one is above this. It also suggests that there is a higher "moral law" that all man is subject to.

Since every person has this fear of change, as well as curiousities, this piece is truly relevent to all mankind. In everyday experiences, there are boundaries. What would happen if I behaved "above" the boundaries? How would it affect me, as well as others? Crime and Punishment answers all these questions. While murder seems a great extreme, it also applies to less radical concepts in the 21st century. Do I REALLY need to pay my taxes? Is it REALLY necessary for me to follow the dress code at my school? Is it REALLY wrong for me to cheat on this test? Dostoevsky's story reveals the dangers of these thoughts, as innocent as they may begin. Whenever someone thinks themself "above" the set boundaries, it is no doubt due to pride. Pride is the worst vice, which is truly at the center of all sin. So while disobeying the dress code may not seem "that bad," it encourages the pride within one to grow, which will lead one down a slippery slope to more and more compromises.

The Blog Test

I am currently watching the Seahawks' game in my Seahawk sweatshirt and eating an M & M cookie!