Should Creationism be Taught Along Side Darwinism?

Many people have debated for some time that the religious ideas of Creationism should be taught alongside the scientific ideas of Darwinism in school. Personally, I feel that this idea is completely wrong. This country was created with the idea that there would be separation of church and state. If we apply religious ideas, mind you of only one religion, into school teachings, then we are completely ignoring the separation of religion from state. And if we're going to apply Christianity into school, why shouldn't we be putting in the ideas of Hinduism (who believe in evolution), Islam, Judaism, or Scientology (I hope not).

What's more, one could say that the ideas of Atheism should be put into school teachings. Some might argue that Atheists already believe in evolution, but I have never heard that evolution is a direct belief of Atheists. They claim that there is no God, but they do not claim to follow Darwinism. If we can teach religious ideas in school, then we should be allowed to teach scientific ideas in church. A lot of the ideas of both are completely conflicting, and I don't believe that we can push religious ideas onto impressionable kids and teenagers. Science is a part of what we study, along with math, english, and history, among other things. The teachers don't claim that science is right, but that it is one of the main theories held to be true. Although some people think teaching science in school is unfair when not presenting religious ideas, I think that scientific studies are made of fact and the ideas of something that uses logic and can be proved should be taught in school. The ideas made up by some men who decided to get rich of a book that people would hold so holy, they would kill others for it, do not prove anything. Religion can poke holes in science but science can always find new ideas to be scientifically and physically proved. With religion, one can poke holes and the head of the church will come up with new ideas, but those can never be proved. So who are we to trust? The side that has physical evidence through years and years of observation, study, tests, and proven results, or the side that claims radical miracles and yet has no proof that has ever been tested and proved positive? I choose the former.

Global Warming

Global Warming Today

As many disgustingly wealthy oil company heirs and super conservative Republicans would like you to believe, global warming is not real. But how can we deny something that is killing of species from animals and harming our environment when it is right in front of us? I'll tell you why. Because these groups of people want to keep their money and huge SUVs. Why do they need them, you ask? I haven no idea. They are a waste of space, especially when you see one single woman driving towards Beverly Hills to buy her new Gucci shoes, alone in her gold Escalade. But now I have gone off topic. If America is worried about tax payers having to pay large sums of money to cut down the costs of CO2 emissions, why don't they look at how much we pay Israel every day. Recent countings have shown that we give 10 million dollars a day to Israeli lobbyists. Add that and the money going to the pointless war we are in, and we could have tons of money going towards cutbacks on CO2. I think that we need to pay attention to the problems that we are creating for our environment today, and how they will have an effect on tomorrow. People can deny the problem, but the more they push it under the rug, the bigger its gonna grow, and in the end if will have a greater impact. So if people just save energy, recycle, stop wasting water, and cut back on their CO2 emissions, we could make a better world for tomorrow. Mother Earth is our beautiful home, and I'd like to keep it that way for years to come.

Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

This question is often debated as an issue related to ideas of health and violence in today's society. So should marijuana be legalized? My answer is yes. For one thing, large amounts of the young and older population partake in smoking marijuana. It's an easy drug to come by and isn't very expensive. It is probably the simplest drug that can be bought and used, and is therefore commonly regarded as a harmless drug. Many people use marijuana for medical uses, such as relieving pain of glaucoma and cancer. Marijuana can be obtained for people suffering from these illnesses through licensed stores where the buyers must own a "club card" in order to be sold marijuana legally. But obtaining a club card is extremely easy nowadays. Even I have friends who have club cards for the simplest reasons, such as an injury that they can claim causes them pain. Some people might correlate violence as a result of marijuana, but I personally feel that the restrictions put on this drug are what actually lead to violence. Because the drug is illegal, people have to operate much more secretly in order to obtain marijuana and violence can outbreak as a result of conning from one drug dealer to another. If the government legalized marijuana, and had control over the sale of it, then there wouldn't be violence revolving around the drug because it would all be out in the open and the government could regulate the use of it. As with alcohol, I believe that there should be restrictions put on the use of marijuana, such as an age limit and driving restrictions. Drugged driving would be illegal because it can put not only the driver, but the others inside and outside the vehicle in danger. But the same can be said for alcohol, and alcohol is legal. I actually feel that alcohol is a much more dangerous drug. Based on what I have heard and learned from research, drugs don't generally make one belligerent or violent, as alcohol often does. According to several resources, there are two different kinds of highs while under the influence of marijuana, those being "active" and "passive" highs. Active highs, are those who take the drug and feel the need to be up and about, put into action. They often find being lazy while high to be extremely agitating and it makes them anxious. Contrastly, for passive highs, the drug makes the user feel much more relaxed than normal. It makes them want to lounge around instead of being up and about. From what I have learned, neither of these make a person feel violent, but rather happy and satisfied. For alcohol, it is often said that one's true self comes out. If one has inner motives of hurting people and decide to drink, they can end up hurting those who they subconsciously which to cause harm to. Rastafarians are known to use marijuana for a spiritual use, in that it brings it closer to God. Marijuana is legal in countries like Jamaica, a heavily Rastafarian country. Many reggae singers, like Bob Marely, smoked marijuana ritually. Although it may not be the most arguementative claim against keeping marijuana illegal, reggae music often gave messages of peace with lyrics like "Give thanks and praise to the Lord and I will feel alright; Let's get together and feel alright" from one of Bob Marley's most famous songs, One Love. Many other artists in this genre of music sang about equality and love amongst man, not violence. I actually believe that religious is a much more violent and corrupt tool in today's world than marijuana is. If you look at society today, it seems there are many more deaths related to alcohol use then to the use of marijuana. Cigarettes, which are often talked about when asking the question of legalizing marijauna, are legal but are completely addictive and cause diseases such as emphysema and cancer. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not addictive and has been scientifically proven to not cause cancer. If we look at this, we can see that cigarettes are much more detrimental to the human body and to the others around it (second hand smoking) than marijuana is. As well, if marijuana were legalized, it wouldn't become as much of a novelty anymore. For a while, everyone would be doing it because it would finally be legal to obtain. But eventually, the idea of weed being something cool (often because it's illegal) would wear off. Overall, I feel that marijuana should be legalized because it could lower the rate of drug-related crimes and because it could actually benefit the government with great income from taxing and selling of the drug. Just as well, it could most likely create a much more calm environment amongst the stressing times of the economy right now.

A List of People Throughout History

that have admitted (or been found out)

to smoking cannabis:

• Al Gore

• Andy Warhol

• Anjelica Huston

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (Current governor of California)

• The Beatles

• Bill Clinton

• Bill Gates- unconfirmed yet strongly hinted in his Playboy interview

• Bill Murray

• Bob Dylan

• Bob Marley

• The Bishop of Monmouth

• Brian Eno

• Boy George

• Carlos Santana

• Carrie Fischer

• Cary Grant

• Charles Dickens (there have been claims)

• Charlize Theron

• Cheech Marin (no duh)

• Chris Farley

• Chris Rock

• Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court Judge)

• Conan O'Brian

• Count Basie

• Dave Gilmour

• Diego Rivera

• Dizzy Gillespie

• Dr. W.B. O'Shaughnessy

• Drew Barrymore

• Duke Ellington

• Edgar Allen Poe

• Elvis Presley

• Emperor Liu Chi-nu

• Emperor Shen-Nung

• Ernest Hemingway

• Francis Ford Coppola

• Frank Sinatra

• Ganesh (a Hindu god)

• George W. Bush

• Howard Stern

• Kurt Cobain

• Jack Nicholson

• Jackson Pollock

• Jane Fonda

• James Brown

• Janis Joplin

• Jennifer Aniston

• Jerry Lee Lewis

• Jimmy Hendrix

• Jim Morrison

• Joe Strummer

• John Belushi

• Johnny Carson

• Johnny Depp

• John F. Kennedy

• Johnny Cash

• Julie Christie

• Jules Verne

• John Wayne

• Kirk Douglas

• Little Richard

• Lord Byron

• Marlon Brando

• Martin Sheen

• Mary Tyler Moore

• Michael Phelps

• Mick Jagger

• Mike Tyson

• Miles Davis

• Neil Diamond

• Oasis

• Oliver Stone

• Oscar Wilde

• Pablo Picasso

• Pancho Villa

• Paul Simon

• Pharaohs (Egypt): traces found in body samples

• Pierce Brosnan

• Peter Sellers

• Peter Tosh

• Pink Floyd

• Queen Victoria (medical purposes)

• Ray Charles

• Richard Branson

• Richard Feynman

• S Club 7

• Salvador Dali

• Sigmun Freud

• Sonny Bono

• Stephen King

• Sting

• Tenessee Williams

• Terry Gilliam

• The Who

• Timothy Leary

• UB40

• Victor Hugo

• Van Gogh

• Walt Disney

• Whitney Houston

• Willie Nelson

• Winston Churchill

• Woody Harrelson

Source: Cannabis Forums Message Board

While I do not claim that all of the people listed have been 100% proven to partake in the use of marijuana, many of the people listed have admitted to using it, and some are even activists. As we can see, a lot of the people on the list have had great artistic cultural output on society. I think we can all learn a lesson from the great impact these people have had on our world today and learn that marijuana might possibly have a positive creative effect.

Arnorld Schwarzenegger

Charlize Theron

Aaron Carter

Jackass Steve-O

Cameron Diaz

Michael Phelps, Olympic Gold Winner

Bob Marley

Kristen Stewart, Star of "Twilight"

Deductive Logic

There are three types of deductive logic, those being Syllogism, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens. The first, syllogism, can be simply explained through the idea that "if A=B" and "B=C, then A=C". The two premises being made (Which would be A and B in the equation) are called the Major and Minor premises.

EX of Syllogism:

Every high school student takes math.

Johnny is a high school student.

Therefore, Johnny takes math.

Somewhat differently, Modus Ponens refer more to equations of cause and effect. The equation for a Modus Ponen could be simply put as : If A, then B. A, therefore P. This differs from syllogism because no longer is one using three variables in their logistic hypothesis. They are now stating the outcomes of a cause, and whether they happened. With syllogisms, one deduces knowledge based off of passed down facts from one subject to another with correlating ideas. With Modus Ponens, one is saying what will happen as an effect of an event, and then that the event did (or in some cases, did not) happen.

EX of Modus Ponen:

If Sara gets a date, she will go to prom.

Sara got a date, therefore she went to prom.

The third form of deductive logic is the Modus Tollen. The Modus Tollen consists of the equation, if A, then B. Not B, therefore Not A. The Modus Tollens are very similar to the Modus Ponens, yet they differ in the fact that the events did not happen, there for the effect never occured. The order of the second statement is also switched around so that one is saying the effect did not occur, therefore one can logically deduce that the cause must never have occured either. Modus Tollens are different from syllogisms similarly to Modus Ponens, in that they deal with cause and effect factors, not major and minor premises. 

EX of Modus Tollen:

If I eat, I will be full.

I am not full, therefore I did not eat.