Study of Origins

The study of origins in natural science class is a politicized issue and thus produces generally unproductive discussion. Because of the strong emotions and disparate stances, the issue appears to be unresolvable. The analysis below is an attempt to re-frame the argument in a more productive light and perhaps bring about an equitable resolution.

Evolutionists say that only natural science should be taught in natural science class. Intelligent design (ID) proponents want their perspective included in the discussion as well, despite its irrelevance to natural science. In order to mediate this discussion, one should trace the argument back to the point where the two sides agree and then work from there to build consensus.

One has to go to the most basic point of the discussion to find where the two sides agree - the definition of natural science. There are many slight variations on this definition, but here is a working draft: "Natural science is a collection of testable theories which have been thoroughly observed, described, experimentally investigated and which remain unrefuted."

From here, both sides must agree that only that which falls within this definition should be taught in natural science class. At first, this might appear to be a clear 'win' for evolutionists, since this means that proponents of intelligent design must stop calling for ID to be taught in natural science class (no one was there to observe a deity create the worlds, and no one can reproduce this for observation and study).

However, if the definition is to be followed strictly, evolutionists also must stop teaching their hypothesis on how matter first organized itself (e.g. primordial soup, big bang, etc); that a fish became a bird, or anything else that cannot be reproduced for observation and study.

This does not limit teaching the aspects of evolution that are currently observed and studied in natural science class. There is plenty to observe, study and teach in the field of evolution that meet this criteria. However, any unobservable hypothesis (whether it includes deities, natural selection, or anything else) simply should not be included in natural science class. Otherwise, the name of the class should be changed to "natural science and untestable guesses."

Discussions on non-testable hypotheses of origins should continue - just not under the guise of natural science. Educational institutions should offer separate classes that provide a forum for this debate. Perhaps a worldview or historical studies class would be appropriate. All sides would be able to offer hypotheses and provide evidence (archaeological, scientific, sociological) for their beliefs. This would help remove the political baggage from this important debate, turning it into an academic discussion to be argued on merits instead of emotions.

Also see the WikiaCampaign's article on evolution and intelligent design.

American Immigration

The issue of American immigration is emotional and complicated. There are two major sides to the story, and it is helpful to consider both perspectives when weighing the issue: 1) What is best for the USA? and 2) What is best for American immigrants? The answers to each question can be integrated to find the best solution for both parties. Below is the beginnings of such an argument.

What is best for the USA?
Border Security
Some think that border security and immigration are antithetical to each other, but this is untrue. For example, immigration during the 1800s was not a free-for-all; rather, European immigrants had to enter through processing stations such as Ellis Island. This did not prevent them from entering; it provided a needed level of control. This needed, strong border security has a neutral affect on legal immigration.

Economically
It is simply a fact that immigrants are willing and eager to hold jobs that US citizens reject - and for a lower wage. This allows American businesses to sell their products at a lower price, which benefits the consumer (and perhaps allows US businesses to compete with businesses in countries with cheap indigenous labor).

Culturally and Linguistically
Throughout the years of massive waves of immigrants, America has successfully assimilated immigrant music, language, cuisine and arts into our culture without ever losing our own identity. We as U.S. citizens should be proud of our unique identity just as all other countries are proud of theirs, and make no apologies for our culture and heritage. Neither should we be rigidly opposed to the integration of other flavors into our society (as are the French). We need to keep English as our national language and the one on which we base our economy and culture ...however, we should not be afraid of a little Spanglish, spice and Salsa.

Capacity
America does not have the ability to accept infinite waves of people from destitute countries. We need to maintain a measured pace for migrations with an eye towards future capacities. However, setting the ceiling for legal migration too low increases the need and propensity for illegal immigration. This creates a large population living hidden lives in the U.S. This is not good for national security or public policy planning, for how does one incorporate an invisible population into ones policy when planning for public needs?

What is best for the American immigrants?
Immediate
Immigrants uproot their families, separate themselves from friends and loved ones, and risk their lives because they see no other choice. They live in poverty and turmoil. Sickness and starvation await them and their children if they stay...they cannot stay. In the short-term, it is best for them to leave their countries in order to survive. However, it is detrimental to people's safety and well-being to engage in illegal immigration. Not only does it make it harder for them to get into the US (creating a dangerous and lecherous black market) but it makes them a hidden people while in the countries of resettlement (further opening themselves to unscrupulous people).

Long Term
The majority of immigrants would stay in their country if they were able to make a life for themselves and their children. Unfortunately, the current migratory trend drains countries of their human resources, further reducing the likelihood of creating a stable economic and socio-political structure. Ultimately, it would be best for immigrants and their home countries for them to stay and live well, but a lot of development and redirection of resources need to occur before this can be a reality.

A Solution
The U.S. currently has both the resources and need to allow large groups to immigrate legally. However, it cannot remain the long-term solution for these peoples. The U.S. should create a program which supports immigrants' short term needs and makes available the cheap labor our economy needs. However, the program should not attempt to make all the migrants citizens of our state. We should equip the migrants, while they are here, with the skills, resources and political theory they need to support their economy and restructure their governmental systems.

Such a symbiotic relationship will support the U.S. economy now while providing for migrants' short-term needs, and create strong economies and friendly democracies in which this migratory population can raise their families and with whom the U.S. can continue long term positive trade and diplomatic relationships.

Definition, Definition, Definition...

A key element to communication is using words in a universally defined manner. Verbal ambiguity (i.e. equivocation - a logical fallacy) detracts from productive discussions and leads to meaningless arguments. Equivocation is not often recognized because people tend to assume that the other person is using the word as they are (people also tend to assume their debate is substantive and not merely semantical).

An example of equivocation used in the Wikipedia article (linked above) is helpful in understanding the problem:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Sometimes reaching the "far side of complexity" is simply stopping an argument and ensuring that both parties are using terms similarly. In some instances, it will become apparent that both sides were arguing different issues. Nervous shuffling of feet and a sudden interest in weather might follow these discoveries, but perhaps next time the topic arises the discussion will be more fruitful.

Real world example:
Nick Clooney (yes he is George's dad) argues that for someone to think that their beliefs are the "right" set of beliefs is an intolerant stance (Tolerance Collides with Intolerance). Unfortunately, Mr. Clooney is not using the word tolerate correctly. He means (and should be using) the word "embrace." One can tolerate another point of view without agreeing with it, but one cannot embrace another point of view without agreeing with it. With that clarification, Mr. Clooney can have a much more productive discussion. He can argue that we should embrace all views and others can argue that we should only tolerate all views.

A Clarification

It is important to note that reaching "the far side of complexity" is not accomplished because one has a high IQ or has "higher thoughts" than others. Rather, this is about:

1. Taking a step back from ones biases in an attempt to view all things equally.
2. Taking the time and resources to reason through the issues thoroughly.
3. Discussing ones conclusions and being open to criticism.
4. Repeat.

No, it is not vanity which drives this person, but the desire for truth. The defining characteristics should thus be modesty and diligence.

The Explanation

No one likes to live in complexity, it is too confusing and disorienting. This is because, as humans, we need simplicity and peacefulness.

Unfortunately, this causes some people (perhaps even a majority) to never work through the complexities of life. They do not question socio-political norms. When questions do arise, they do not address the multifaceted issues and question prevailing biases. They choose to remain in a simplicity which is foundation-less and hollow.

However, this type of simplicity is not mankind's only choice. We can push through the complexities, biases and clouded knowledge to reach a simplicity on the other side of complexity. This is not easy - but well worth the effort.

The Goal

I wouldn't give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity;
I would give my right arm for the simplicity on the far side of complexity.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Also, see an explanation and clarification for this quote.