Science textbooks should present BOTH views

In my classmate William Gee’s blog entry “Texas School Board of Gym Teachers”, he discusses the controversial topic of creationism vs. evolutionism. William is an advocate of only teaching evolution in science textbooks, with no reference to creationism or religious beliefs. Ultimately, William thinks that adding any sort of religious reference would be demeaning to science.

I disagree. I think that alternative views should be posed so people are not forced into believing something. Whether it’s Darwinism or religious beliefs, they are both theories and it all depends on where/who/what you are putting your faith in. Being a firm Christian believer myself, I do not think it is fair to present only one side of the argument in our textbooks. We are all entitled to our beliefs and I do not think that our society can continue to keep religious beliefs out of textbooks in regards to evolution. Since “science has no claims to absolute knowledge” (refer to William’s blog), creationism should also be an argument in textbooks for that reason.

William mentions that “one is based on facts, while the other is based on deeply rooted beliefs.” Yes, there was proof about finches and tortoises. But finches stayed finches. Tortoises stayed tortoises. They adapted, but were still primarily composed of the same genetic make up. It’s not like a finch evolved into a cow. Darwinism/evolutionism provides no factual evidence to prove how the world came to exist and ultimately cannot disprove the bible. There is not proof on how a human came to exist or that humans evolved from monkeys. I believe that God alone created humans and the earth. Again, this all depends on where you put your faith, in science or in religious beliefs.

William also states that religious people “shrug science in fear of turning their back on God”. I speak for myself here, but as a Christian I am not afraid of turning my back on God. I know that my God is an understanding and merciful God, but I believe in Him for his love. I do not believe in God because I am afraid of what he will do to me if I don’t believe. This is a whole other spiritual conversation that I should probably not get in to.

This controversy probably is never going to go anywhere. There will always be contradictory beliefs. Since it’s not a matter of proving who’s right and who’s wrong, why not just provide both arguments in textbooks?

Decisions, decisions

Perry or not Perry? That is the question. At this point I honestly don’t know if I would vote for him in a presidential election. Given the option of Perry vs. Obama? Hands down Perry (most of my views are republican based). But Perry vs. another republican in the primary? That decision needs more thought and research on my part. Perry definitely has his pros and cons. But, being a potential presidential candidate, every decision, viewpoint, and comment seems to come back into play with an even more critical eye.

Here’s a little blast from the past, with a decision that struck a sour note in me. In 2007, Perry delivered an executive order requiring all sixth-grade girls to receive the Gardasil series of three vaccinations. These were thought to prevent most strains of HPV, which is the primary cause of cervical cancer. I understand that Perry was trying to protect young women against STDs and cervical cancer, but there are others ways to do so. Force-feeding these expensive vaccinations is not the way to do it. It is not an appropriate place for the government to step in. This is a parent’s decision for their child. Unlike other vaccinations that are required for school like mumps and measles that are airborne and easily spreadable, HPV is a completely different disease. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and is 100% preventable if you are not having sex. Gardasil is still very new (even newer when this order was made in 2007!) and the health implications are not entirely known. There is no conclusive evidence that it is completely safe and it is not yet known what the effects are on the next generation of the vaccinated. Gardasil would also give young girls a false sense of security and ultimately give them more excuses to have sex at a young age, thinking, “well if I’m already protected then why not?” Just imagining this gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Perry was very upset with the legislature when they overturned his decision, saying that they must not care about the health of young women. That’s not true. You just can’t force something like this on people. I think a better approach would be to promote abstinence programs. It’s the only way of preventing STDs including HPV. If you kill the roots, you kill the plant. Advocating abstinence would help lead to healthier teens and young women, giving them an understanding what HPV is, rather than giving them a shot that they probably don’t even know what it’s for.

Now this doesn’t make or break Perry for me, and isn’t enough to make me not want to vote for him. It just raises questions for me and intrigues me to do more research. If he is a presidential candidate, one thing remains the same – he is from Texas and that sense of familiarity about his past and present issues (positive and negative) is important to me.

The sonogram lawsuit hearing

In a blog post from BURKABLOG, Paul Burka discusses the recent sonogram lawsuit hearing that states that the ultrasound requirement violates the First Amendment rights of both the patient and the doctor.

Burka is senior executive editor for the Texas Monthly and is pretty well known in the blogging industry. Having such a high status in the Texas Monthly (an acclaimed Texas magazine), it demonstrates that he has expertise and that it is likely that what he says will be credible. In this article in particular, he has inside information about the sonogram lawsuit hearing, in which he attended. Whether you agree or not, this inside information is intriguing to readers and blog followers (his audience).

Burka believes that the lead counsel in this hearing did not do a very good job. One of these reasons being that the Center made no “undue burden” argument. This, along with more discussion of law, led to the law appearing more and more vague which resulted in confusion. Burka maintains that the lack of an “undue burden” claim was a direct cause of the judge thinking that the law was vague. Upon reading this blog entry, it was unclear to me what an undue burden argument is. After doing extensive research, I understand that an undue burden argument is used to determine constitutionality and is defined as indicating significant difficulty or expense. So, in this case it would be a statement about why the statute is so difficult and why a woman should be forced to listen to a sonogram prior to an abortion. This personally clears up some confusion for me, and I now feel that Burka’s argument is valid. Had the Center made such an argument, some of the vagueness could have been cleared up.

Burka’s main claim refers to the First Amendment argument in the lawsuit, and whether the Legislature has the “power to invade the doctor-patient relationship to the point that it can mandate speech”. While I think that this is a legitimate argument that people cannot be forced to hear the fetus’ heartbeat and description, I tend to disagree. I feel that this is no different than an oral surgeon telling their patient the risks of getting their wisdom teeth taken out. A doctor would be giving the heartbeat and description in order to make sure that their decision is sound and that they are trying to prevent any regretful decisions. Doctors are fully demonstrating the severity of the patient’s decision.

Although I am in favor of the law, overall I think that Burka did make a valid argument and I do agree that some points of the law are vague.  I respect his opinion and thoughts because he is such a credible and convincing source.  His full blog post can be read here.

Smoking Ban

In June of 2011, the editorial board from the Austin American Statesman wrote an editorial about the proposed statewide smoking ban that had an opportunity to be looked at in the special session. Creditability is established based on the fact that the Austin American Statesman is a well-respected and reputable newspaper in Austin. However, it could be considered less credible because the author is not clearly stated. It only says "Editorial Board". Who exactly is the editorial board? Also, because the Statesman is more of a liberal newspaper (it's an Austin Newspaper!), there may be some bias present in regards to healthcare. However, the statistics that this editorial provides are pretty captivating, and in my opinion does a good job of connecting to the audience, who are health conscience Texans and business owners. This editorial is also targeted towards people who are worried about exposure to secondhand smoke, which is inevitable when someone is smoking in a public place like a restaurant. The full editorial can be read here.

The Statesman editorial board argues that the Texas legislatures should revisit this issue in the special session because of the healthcare money it would save in regards to people who need treatment from being exposed to secondhand smoke. The editorial board provides evidence that a ban on indoor public smoking would save, “$404 million in health care costs” and that there would be a “general fund savings of $13 million in the 2012-2013 biennium should the bill become a law”. These are logical statements. If there are not as many opportunities to be exposed to secondhand smoke, then there will be an obvious decrease in patients who have clinical complications (such as pneumonia and bronchitis or the even more extreme, lung cancer and hear disease) due to secondhand smoke. The only thing that is unclear is what the government would be doing with those savings. Regardless, everyone has lungs. Everyone has a cardiovascular system. Just like the editorial states, there is no safe place for secondhand smoke.

The editorial also argues that since more and more Texan municipalities have already adopted bans on indoor smoking, other Texans would too if given the choice. It is stated that San Angelo “approved an indoor smoking ban by a whopping 60 percent”. Now I’m not sure if 60% is considered whopping, but nevertheless, it is the majority. I agree that if many cities already have banned indoor smoking, then it seems to be a popular idea that other cities would not mind adopting through a statewide ban.

Based on these arguments, this statesman editorial board feels that the proposed indoor smoking ban should be discussed in the special session since both science and Texans would back it up.

I am in agreement. As far as the evidence in this editorial goes, it is accurate because when I researched this topic, I have seen the same figures - it is hard evidence. Overall, this editorial provides a good argument in wanting to ban indoor public smoking in Texas.

Perry's Death Penalty Stance

Texas is tough on crime, but the number of death penalties since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1974 is shocking. What is even more shocking is that Governor Rick Perry has overseen almost half of them during his time in office. Perry’s constant support of the death penalty will either make or break his chances in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. Perry’s approval of the death penalty primarily only hands him votes of the conservative states. When it comes to democrats, Perry will appear as George W. Bush just turned up a couple of notches in regards to his eager support of the death penalty.  The truth will lie in the swing states, and the death penalty could potentially be a hard topic to sell.

Even though I do consider myself a conservative, I am also very pro-life and do not think that the death penalty should even be considered under any circumstance. No one deserves death.  The statistics in this Texas Tribune article are extremely disturbing. On many accounts Perry has commuted a death sentence to a life in prison, even up until a few hours before an execution. An innocent man was almost executed twice. Many clemencies have been given.  All Rick Perry has to say on the matter is that this is just proof that the justice system is working and that they will continue to “find errors that were made and clear them up”.

The death penalty is not something that should be taken lightly. There is no reason for such extremities, especially when so many mistakes are made and so many sentences commuted. At this point, despite the severity of the issue, Perry’s stance on the death penalty never seems to be a hot topic of debate in primaries.