Friday, June 16, 2006


We are a culture of convenience. In going about our daily activites, there are hard ways and easy ways. We usually choose the easy option. It's rare when there isn't one. In theory, it makes life better, more restful, and more productive.

But what about when choosing the easy path is damaging? Sure, it takes a fraction of the time to drive to the store than to walk, but driving requires more energy, and the energy comes from unrenewable oil rather than renewable food. Does anyone else find it ironic that many of us sit at our desks all day, then pay our hard-earned money to go to the gym to get some activity? It seems to me that this is an "easy" way that's damaging, or maybe more accurately, it's the hard way. Why not just work in your garden to feed yourself? Because cable TV doesn't grow in the backyard.

Our president has just announced the formation of a new marine sanctuary. That's good. But he also has plans to destroy parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That's bad. Why pick and choose? Because the ANWR has oil, and Hawaii does not. It's easy to form a refuge when you're protecting something that doesn't interfere with your other agendas.

It's extremely strange that supporters of the intelligent design theory think their agenda should be taught with equal seriousness as the theory of evolution because, they say, evolution is only a theory. And yet they "believe" in the theory of gravitation with no qualms. The evidence is equally compelling for both, hence their equal scientific classification as "theories." Why not dispute gravitation? Because the bible doesn't have phrases like "And God created man, and man could float."

Oh well.

No comments: