Well, bro is visiting for Christmas. I have great plans to get him to watch some Doctor Who. (insert evil laugh) My darling cat seemed very excited by this return - as I was trying to sleep, I suddenly spotted him attacking my Daleks. He nibbled on them, smacked them around with his paws, seemed to find the bumps very intriguing. After a while of that, he came to sleep in my bed, the Daleks left knocked down. Cat 1, Daleks 0.
So, anon, I've decided to take on your dark!fic challenge. I offer a bit of teasing cheese.
"The Daleks would kill all of creation. A billion planets - or just a few. I made the choice it would be the latter."
"You killed them. Your own people."
"Yes." His voice is harsh, burrowing into her. "I did it. My people died and I did it."
"But you're sorry," she replies, staring at him.
"I would do it again."
"No."
"I would."
She's never really known him at all, she thinks.
He doesn't say anything more, she doesn't ask, and for a while, it is as if the words were never spoken. For a while, the grain of doubt in her mind lays still. But words haunt and humans let them.
There is storm brewing in her mind and the grain has become a desert. (....)
She kisses him; framing his head in her hands, feeling his lips hard and unresponsive against hers. She has to stand on her toes to reach, pressing herself against his body and almost feeling his heartbeats through skin and cloth. After a moment, he takes her by the elbows and breaks the kiss, his eyes ice as he looks at her.
"I'm not Mickey," he says flatly. "That's not going to make it all right."
'I know!' she wants to hurl at him. She knows, oh, she knows. Mickey doesn't do this to her, doesn't spin time around and dance among falling stars as if it's rain. Mickey doesn't hold death in his voice and life in his offered hand. Mickey doesn't have two hearts, one for her and one for the Universe.
Might have to do the CSI/Doctor Who crossover at last as well, since I have been yapping on about it forever (and even written some on). A few of the other ones look tasty as well. We shall see how inspo strikes.
Me thinks Arnold needs a waaaaaahmbulance
Judge bans itelligent design design from being taught in Dover schools
In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific ratherthan religious belief.
He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.
The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
Ouch! That's some slam-down, Judge (and apparently, the guy is a Republican). Let me fangirl you for a moment. "Beathtaking inanity" - oooh, do it again, Judge. It's so sexy.
I must admit, ID just leaves me baffled. Not that it exists in itself, but that people are trying to get it hailed as science and has museums dedicated to it. It seems to me to fail several scientific criteria (falsification, for instance). Granted, evolution as a theory hasn't been completely proved, but scientific theories never are. The ones who stick around are those who are failed to be disproved. Stick God into it directly - as ID does - and you got a mess. People are still arguing over proof-disproof God exists and they have for eons. That one's not getting settled fast. Besides, it's not like you can't think God is behind evolution.
But of course, I live in a country where ID in schools seems about as likely as Norway ever winning the football world cup in the nude except for Viking helmets and we find the whole thing extremely odd and besides, we're all probably going to hell here anyway (says Phelps) for thinking it okay that gays can get married in our country, so might as well do it in style. Science, science, science, oi, oi, oi!
(Do it again, Judge.)
So, anon, I've decided to take on your dark!fic challenge. I offer a bit of teasing cheese.
"The Daleks would kill all of creation. A billion planets - or just a few. I made the choice it would be the latter."
"You killed them. Your own people."
"Yes." His voice is harsh, burrowing into her. "I did it. My people died and I did it."
"But you're sorry," she replies, staring at him.
"I would do it again."
"No."
"I would."
She's never really known him at all, she thinks.
He doesn't say anything more, she doesn't ask, and for a while, it is as if the words were never spoken. For a while, the grain of doubt in her mind lays still. But words haunt and humans let them.
There is storm brewing in her mind and the grain has become a desert. (....)
She kisses him; framing his head in her hands, feeling his lips hard and unresponsive against hers. She has to stand on her toes to reach, pressing herself against his body and almost feeling his heartbeats through skin and cloth. After a moment, he takes her by the elbows and breaks the kiss, his eyes ice as he looks at her.
"I'm not Mickey," he says flatly. "That's not going to make it all right."
'I know!' she wants to hurl at him. She knows, oh, she knows. Mickey doesn't do this to her, doesn't spin time around and dance among falling stars as if it's rain. Mickey doesn't hold death in his voice and life in his offered hand. Mickey doesn't have two hearts, one for her and one for the Universe.
Might have to do the CSI/Doctor Who crossover at last as well, since I have been yapping on about it forever (and even written some on). A few of the other ones look tasty as well. We shall see how inspo strikes.
Me thinks Arnold needs a waaaaaahmbulance
Judge bans itelligent design design from being taught in Dover schools
In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific ratherthan religious belief.
He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.
The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
Ouch! That's some slam-down, Judge (and apparently, the guy is a Republican). Let me fangirl you for a moment. "Beathtaking inanity" - oooh, do it again, Judge. It's so sexy.
I must admit, ID just leaves me baffled. Not that it exists in itself, but that people are trying to get it hailed as science and has museums dedicated to it. It seems to me to fail several scientific criteria (falsification, for instance). Granted, evolution as a theory hasn't been completely proved, but scientific theories never are. The ones who stick around are those who are failed to be disproved. Stick God into it directly - as ID does - and you got a mess. People are still arguing over proof-disproof God exists and they have for eons. That one's not getting settled fast. Besides, it's not like you can't think God is behind evolution.
But of course, I live in a country where ID in schools seems about as likely as Norway ever winning the football world cup in the nude except for Viking helmets and we find the whole thing extremely odd and besides, we're all probably going to hell here anyway (says Phelps) for thinking it okay that gays can get married in our country, so might as well do it in style. Science, science, science, oi, oi, oi!
(Do it again, Judge.)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:00 am (UTC)As for ID, I'd heard that the judge smacked them down, but I didn't realize it was such an utter pwning. Theories are things about which you can form hypotheses and test. You can't test faith, dumbasses.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:19 am (UTC)No indeed. If you could, we wouldn't been having wars about it for the last millenia. There's a reason it's called faith and not "fact", a concept that some seem unable to grasp.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:06 am (UTC)I still don't understand why so many people think evolution (or any other central and commonly-accepted scientific theory about the universe) is supposedly incompatible with belief in God. Or Goddess. Or Gods. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one has ever explained this to me in a way that makes sense to me.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:14 am (UTC)I have a friend who says he worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ^____^
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:22 am (UTC)It was such a beautiful moment I want it on repeat.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 06:55 pm (UTC)It's hard for many people to think outside their education.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:18 am (UTC)And if all the other plotbunnies from the anon holiday fic challenge refuse to bite you, you could still write an AU ending for Parting of the Ways in which your cat saves the universe from the Daleks.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:22 am (UTC)YOU ARE EVIL! ARGH!
*tries to kill bunny*
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:51 am (UTC)"Breathtaking inanity"... sex.
Science = Sex.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 09:30 am (UTC)And I have a bone to pick with that, "Life is too complex to be explained by evolution, therefore an unseen power must have had a hand in designing it" idea. It's just such a laughable statement from a scientific view that it's embarrassing this "theory" was considered anywhere in this country at all. I mean, not once did I see anyone uttering it do anything to show HOW life was so complex (no mathematical equations, no nothing but a refusal to comprehend evolution... and BUSH of all people saying "life is too complex" just had me rolling on the floor), then there's the "Uh, where did that 'higher power' come from?!" factor... not to mention, it just smacks of, "We don't understand evolution, and we don't want to, therefore we're arguing against it!"
Sorry, evolution vs. anti-evolutionism is kind of one of my "set off on a rant or ramble" topics...
It's fun making fun of Pat Robertson when I see these articles and reports, though...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 06:28 am (UTC)*ponders*
Pat must be having a bad year, not-poor man.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 09:42 am (UTC)I feel very ignorant because I had to google intelligent design...
...and I did too post a challenge in the anon meme !*evil laughter*
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 06:25 am (UTC)ID isn't very predominant in Europe, we can safely say.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 10:41 am (UTC):D
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 11:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 01:27 pm (UTC)I feel the ache in my teeth from the sweetness of fandom beginning to recede. It goes without saying that this is greatly, greatly anticipated.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 02:10 pm (UTC)Ahh, crap, looks like the BBC's website is inaccessible to me just now. I tried to ping it and am getting no reply, with either my Earthlink or my Surfside connections. Someone must have screwed up big-time.
On the Dover decision:
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. (Yes, it has been observed. No, I don't mean to sound snippy . . . It's just that this is a common misconception and I'm a bit pissy this morning.)
Pharyngula has a LOT of cool stuff on the decision just now. The judge is apparently a Bush appointee. Great quote from him about the "activist judge" accusation:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Delicious, isn't it? I savor the irony that most of these accused "activist" judges are actually Bush or Reagan appointees. It's just that the things the Republicans want them to approve now are so repulsive, so manifestly unconstitional and illegal, that not even right-wing judges will rule in their favor.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 06:08 am (UTC)I want to shower this Judge in chocolate. He kicks ass.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 03:28 pm (UTC)In a recent US Supreme Court Case, evolution was ruled as "humanism" and if ID is "Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whatever" would not forcing Christian students to learn evolution be religious opression as humanism is a religion. Which religious oppression is illegal here. Just my thoughts on it. I personally think origins of the universe should be taken completely out of text books and just have them do what science is, how things work. Like how flowers do their thing, and all that jazz. But that's just me.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 05:04 pm (UTC)For anyone else, I'll just respond to the comment about taking evolution out of science teaching with the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky:
Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:My response, part 1
From:Re: My response, part 1
From:Re: My response, part 1
From:Part 2 (bloody comment length limit)
From:Re: Part 2 (bloody comment length limit)
From:Re: Part 2 (bloody comment length limit)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 09:03 pm (UTC)Another question I always like to put to proponents of a form of creation is whose creation myth should be taught. Inevidentibly, they will say theirs...
P.S. Beathtaking inanity = love
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 06:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-12-23 04:41 am (UTC) - Expandno subject
Date: 2005-12-23 07:53 am (UTC)That also makes me wonder if the show itself will ever go there in the future, make Rose face that fact that the man she loves is guilty of genocide twice over. That fact could be used by an enemy to undermine her faith in the Doctor. Ah, such potential for breathtaking angst!
I also love the idea of a CSI/Doctor Who crossover. While I'm not a fan of CSI, I have seen an episode here and there, so I'm somewhat familiar with the show. After sci-fi, mysteries have also been my second favorite genre.
As for the ID vs. evolution, I think it's important to remember that evolution is science, and not faith or religion. The theory of evolution is based on the observable and repeatable. ID is not, and can't be, because it's not science, therefore it should not be taught in biology class. Now if you have a philosophy or comparative religion class, then go for it and talk about ID, that would be appropriate. To say you are being oppressed because you have to learn evolution in biology class it just not true. I mean, where do you stop with that argument? If you don't agree with the Big Bang theory in astronomy or astrophyics class, does that mean you are being oppressed because you have to learn it?
Astronomer's didn't just pull Big Bang theory out of thin air (I was going to say "out of their ass" but that just sounds so wrong :) They have a long chain of scientific evidence to support that theory, just as do biologists with evolution.
Are Seventh Day Adventists oppressed if they have a job where they have to work on a Saturday?
Are Mormons oppressed because they are not allowed polygamy?
I find the whole discussion rather disturbing, because I don't like seeing literalism and fundamentalism rising it's ugly head in my country, a country that was founded on the basis of religious freedoms by founding fathers that were as often as not radicals, agnostics, atheists and deists. Bringing the church into government is exactly what our founding fathers wished to avoid, their example being Europe of that time. That was the deal, you see. Churches here pay no taxes, but then they have to stay out of government affairs. Ironically the Baptist Church in the early days of the United States was a strong proponant of separation of church and state, because they were in turn oppressed by the Puritans. Whose branch of Christianity reigns in the end?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 10:46 am (UTC)Which leaves fanfic, I suppose.
I think you're bang on with the trouble of the "oppression" claim. I mean, if I believe the Earth is flat, can I claim teaching me stuff with a globus is oppression? Certain scientic facts are just beyond belief because they can be *proved*.
It seems to be a bit sadly ironic that the US, founded on the idea of state and church being seperate actually having various churches influence government more than for instance the Norwegian state church, where the seperation principle isn't founded in any constitution.
Times do change.