Hello '09

What is there to say about 2008? I don't really want to go into too much detail in this post about the ups and downs of the year for me, but what I can definitely say about '08 is that this year was an eye-opener. I think I've learned the most this year, academically, about others, and about myself. But for kicks, the stuff I can think off the top of my head (in no particular order):

The Good
I voted! Obama! Olympics opening ceremony and Michael Phelps. Everyone else turning 21 and doing 21+ grown-up thangs. Good grades. Las Vegas x2. Being more independent. Falling deeper in love. Reconnecting with old friends. Seeing Q-Tip, The Cool Kids, Pacific Division, Usher. 198 & co. adventures. Amazing year for movies in general. Turning 22. Asserting my convictions.

The Bad
Economy. Tons of notable & celebrity deaths. Prop 8. Losing my religion (ironically I'm still thinking this could be a blessing in disguise). Political/election drama. Working everyday of summer. And still ending up semi-broke by winter. Mediocre year for music, in my opinion.

2008 looked liked a great year for me by just comparing the highs and the lows, but I like to think that I had a bigger role than mere chance in the outcome. Besides, it takes the same amount energy to smile and count your blessings as it does to frown and dwell on your misfortunes, so why not just look on the bright side?

I'm not going to make any New Year's resolutions except for taking better care of myself. As long as it nourishes my body, mind, or heart, anything goes. On paper, it sounds rather narcissistic but I feel like by working on myself first, everything else should fall into place - I can take better care of others if I take better care of myself.

Work out. Don't eat too much junk. Read more. Keep an open mind. Forgive and accept more easily. Nurture the relationships you have. Learn to love more.

As for not having other real resolutions, I've noticed that probably only 1/10 of your initial resolutions still have importance by the end of the year. As I get older, I realize more and more what things are most important, and which others can play second fiddle to the real priorities. Although I don't know what 2009 has in store for me, I'm willing to put all my faith in God and the little idea I've been clinging to this year called balance - neither has failed me yet.

O Holy Night

Happy holidays everyone, I don't have much to say except that I hope everyone's enjoying their break and time with family and friends. I wish it didn't take the "holiday spirit" for people - me included - to get back in touch with some old friends to catch up on the past couple months, or even years in some cases.

BnB and Me (the forever tag-alonger) at the annual dinner

Sundance/Mesa Verde Reunion. We've been through it all haha.

Vegas trip with 198 & friends. Taking advantage of our last winter break together :/

Happy holidays from my family to yours

Listening to the homily during today's mass reminded me why I'll still put my faith and trust in God despite this religious funk I've been in. I know lately I've been having inner conflicts with religion in general and understandably so, but I can still wholeheartedly acknowledge that having God in my life fills this inexplicable void that cannot be fulfilled by anything else. I may have lost faith in organized religion and the ability of people to be understanding and accepting towards others, but faith in my God has never swayed and I don't think it ever will.

All I ask is that as the end of the day draws near and you look at all the gifts you've received, if you ask yourself, "Is that all there is? Could there be more? Do I have enough?", look past all the gift wrap and fancy decor and remember what Christmas is really about: honoring the birth of Jesus Christ. Religious or not, I think we all can benefit from seeing the beauty and wisdom within his teachings.

Merry Christmas<3

Searching for answers

I know my recent posts have been heavily centered on politics and religious arguments here and there, but with the significance of this year's election and controversial issues on the ballot, these past couple months have really influenced me in how I view the world and why - pretty much because I forced myself to really sit down and critically think about these issues. It's just been on my mind lately, and while all this introspection is very liberating for my mind, it is also very frustrating.

I guess you could say I'm in some sort of religious/spiritual limbo. More so religious I should say, because what I'm not confused about is my belief in God or my stance on "hot topics" between church and society - abortion, homosexuality, abstinence-only education, etc. - it's crystal clear. What I am confused about is what does this mean for me as someone who was raised Catholic. I just feel that I am not able to commit 100% to being what a Catholic "should be" simply because of what I believe. Even if I were to commit 500% and devoted everything to my faith, I feel like no matter what I absolutely cannot be considered Catholic simply because I believe women should have a choice when it comes to abortion. Or that same-sex marriages are not immoral. Or that sex education is very critical and would help to reduce numbers of abortions and teenage pregnancies to begin with.

Some of it has to do with how the leaders of the church have spoken out against prominent Catholics in politics for their stance on abortion. After VP-to-be Joe Biden received communion in Florida recently, one of the bishops from that area suggested that Biden not present himself for the sacrament anymore, simply due to his pro-choice stance. Biden is not the only Catholic politician in the public eye that has been asked to stop receiving communion. I wouldn't have such a hard time balancing my views if the church authority didn't publicly condemn this middle ground where I stand right now.

There's really no arguing with the Catholic church because of the importance of papal infallibility. This basically means that the pope, working through the Holy Spirit, is free of error when he declares something as right or wrong. This is essentially what makes the Catholic church different from others; it does not stress religious interpretation by the individual but by the church universally. Everyone has their own idea of what it means to be a Catholic, but if you disagree with one of the core messages that the church preaches today, can you really still identify yourself as a Catholic?

I'm not so sure.

I'm not at all trying to put down Catholicism because if that's what works for you, then all the power to you. It's difficult to really devote yourself to a particular faith and if you can do it and it makes you happy, I find that pretty admirable. As for me right now, I don't want to characterize myself as a "cafeteria Catholic", picking and choosing what I like about the teachings. What's the point if you don't give your all? For anything? As of now I feel like a huge hypocrite when I proclaim myself as a Catholic then get into an argument on how we need to fight for reproductive rights or marriage equality.

I know there is a balance somewhere. I know that thinking logically and thinking in terms of religion are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. I just don't know if that entails fully committing to a Catholic faith for me right now. I don't want to distance myself from something I've known my whole life but I feel like there is no compromise...

Science & Religion: Contradictory or Compatible?

For once I'm going to talk about school without complaining about how stressful the workload is or how I have trouble staying awake in class. This is because I actually have a great deal of interest in all of my classes this quarter. There's my Sociology class about what makes certain conditions social problems and how they come to be. My professor's pretty enthusiastic, plus we talk about stuff like the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy and actually try to formulate some sort of useful conclusion about the situation - "isolated incident or social problem?" Interesting stuff... Then I have my International Studies class where I actually feel like I'm learning about things that are applicable to society today. Ever since AP Gov in high school I haven't done my best to keep up with global affairs - hopefully that will change. But what I really want to talk about is my Philosophy of Biology Writing class.

"If God cannot prevent evil, God is not omnipotent; if God can prevent evil but does not, God is not benevolent. But if God is both, and evil exists - how come?"

I honestly don't think that I've ever had to think so hard in one class. Not about formulas or pointless facts that I most likely will never have to apply to my life, but real critical thinking about faith, evolution, and religion, even to the point where I find myself questioning my stance on some of these issues. To be honest it's a little unnerving, the possibility of abandoning some convictions that I've held onto for a long time, but either way the outcome is what's best. Making sure I know why I choose to believe in something is what's most important to me, whether it's a set of new ideas or reinforcing my previous ones.




The basic premise of my class is the debate between evolution and Intelligent Design, which is pretty much the argument that God created the world but it's structured more scientifically, or so it tries to. In a nutshell, the way things are in the world, the great diversity of life, the nature of the world, all are credited to a higher power. One of the most important points of ID is that the designs and structures of organisms are so complex, they cannot have just arisen out of nowhere, so they must have been created by an "Intelligent Designer" (God is never mentioned throughout ID's theory). Furthermore, this Designer is omnipotent and benevolent, which helps to explain how the designs came to be so efficient for each specific creature. He's all-knowing because all organisms were designed perfectly to fulfill their role in nature, and benevolent because this Designer has human attributes, a personality.

An argument used for ID involves a rock and a watch. Say you were out walking and stumbled upon a rock. Your friend asks you, "How did that rock get there?" Most likely you're going to say something about how it's probably just been there all along, just as a part of the natural world. But if you stumbled upon a watch and your friend asked you the same question, you would be inclined to say that it must have come to be because someone made it - a watch wouldn't just come to exist out of nowhere. This is the same logic that advocates of ID use to justify the complex design of life in the world, most importantly humans.

My professor, Francisco J. Ayala (author of the book above that we use in class), argues that Intelligent Design is faulty within its own theory and isn't even compatible with religion as a whole. First there are the imperfections in the design of organisms, like the human appendix & vestigial tail that we grow as embryos (no function) and the blind spot in the eye, which can actually be considered harmful. If the Designer did create everything, and these flaws in design things exist, would he really be that all-knowing? Then take all the cruelty in the world, in the animal kingdom and even human pain & suffering. Is the Designer still benevolent if cruelties & disease exist in the world and were made to be that way? If that's so, ID would have to hold the Designer responsibile for real problems in a not-so-perfect world, like the fact that 20% of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion within the first 2 months. Do supporters of ID really want to hold the creator accountable for such atrocities? What it comes down to is that ID cannot claim that a omnipotent and benevolent Designer is responsible for the design of the world if things such as cruelty, disease, pain & suffering are attributed to that same Designer.

The reason why the argument for evolution is so compelling is that it can account for all the "imperfections" of the world through Natural Selection. Evolution claims that all living organisms are descendants of one last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Unlike ID, evolution is a theory that you can test and observe, and since Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, more and more evidence has supported this theory - including discoveries in paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and most importantly molecular biology. The first skeptics of evolution questioned the notion that one species could evolve from another, but fossils of animal intermediates have been found since then, including ones providing the link between birds & reptiles, fish & amphibians, and most importantly chimpanzees and humans. If you were to compare the bone structures of a human arm, whale fin, a bat wing & other animals, you would be surprised to see how similar they all are to each other.

The best supporting evidence yet for evolution is molecular biology. The fact that all organisms, from bacteria to humans, are all made up of the same components (same nucleotides for DNA & proteins made of the same 20 amino acids) hints at a common ancestor from which we all diverged from. What are the chances of that if each species was supposedly created independently from each other? Differences in genetic information also correlate to how closely related 2 species are - there is only a 2% difference in genetic make-up of humans and chimps. Also, each protein is able to tell its own evolutionary history by tracing it through different organisms and observing the differences.

I really didn't intend for this entry to turn into some persuasive essay or anything. I could go on and on about evidence for evolution, which I personally believe in, but instead I'm going to cut straight to what I really wanted to say.

Sure, we might have heard all of this before about evolution and Intelligent Design, whatever. That's not even what gets me the most. The whole reason why I wrote this blog and the thing that I'm having the most trouble with is the idea that evolution, under science, and religion as a whole do not contradict each other at all and in fact compliment each other, according to my professor. First of all, it needs to be clarified that Intelligent Design proclaims itself as a scientific theory but it really isn't one because it cannot be tested with experiments or observation. It isn't compatible with religion either, because it cannot backup the existence of an all-knowing and loving God. But with that aside, I'm having trouble trying to fathom how evolution/science and religion can coexist without contradicting each other.

One reason why the science and religion supposedly compliment each other is that both cover 2 totally different realms of knowledge. Science deals with the physical world and nature where it can be either rejected or accepted through observation and experiment. Science has laws to explain how the natural processes of the world work. But outside of that world, science hold no authority; that's where religion comes in. It deals with phenomena that we can't observe with our senses, like morals & ethics; these are just as important as Newton's laws for physics or Mendel's for genetics. Religion gives meanings to the world in ways that science cannot. In other words, science & religion ask different questions and seek different answers.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein

I get the argument for this and the logic behind it, but I just have the hardest time applying it to my real life and just sorting this whole thing out. I believe in evolution 100%, but then there's the religious side of me, and both still seem like they are at odds with one another. I still feel like I have to compromise part of my Catholic upbringing in some way in order to accept evolution, and although I'm being told that it doesn't have to be that way, I'm still asking "HOW?". It's like, I know what I believe but I don't exactly know how to explain it, and that's what frustrates me...

Sorry for the all of the word vomit on this entry, but I felt that some things needed to be clarified and understood before I could even try to express my feelings about this subject. I hope I was able to convey where I'm coming from at this point. I usually don't get so worked about something, especially when it originates from school, but this class has really made me think and rethink things that I believe help shape a big part of who I am. Even if this whole entry flew over your head or you don't give a shit about this subject, I would at least recommend reading Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion for some real thought-provoking stuff. Thoughts are greatly appreciated.