Ozarks: Five-Year Plan
My wife has a five-year plan on moving us to the Ozarks.
"I have a five-year plan for getting us to live here," Sun-Ae confided.
"What's the plan?" I replied, somewhat skeptical.
"We move here in five years," she explained.
"That's it?" I observed. "That's your plan?"
"Yes," she confirmed.
"Wouldn't I need a job?" I inquired, thinking momentarily about a little thing called reality.
"You could teach in Ozarka College," she suggested. "There's a campus in Melbourne and another in Ash Flat."
"Why would Ozarka College want me?" I asked.
"You have a PhD from Berkeley," she reminded.
I'm not sure that works to my advantage here. However, my brother Shan also told me that I could probably get a job teaching at a local college, but he suggested other routes than the purely academic one.
"You've got our cousin Velna's husband Curren Everett, who's a powerful politician here in Arkansas and is active on education issues," Shan reminded me. "Why not ask him for help?"
That's a good point. I voted for Curren four years ago, and he has yet to do anything for my interests in Korea -- as I pointed out to him last Wednesday when my daughter, Sa-Rah, was riding his granddaughter Shiney's horse. Curren had laughed when I told him that, and playing along with the joke, he did ask what I needed done in Korea. Maybe I should tell him about my wife's five-year plan...
Labels: Arkansas, Family, Humor, Ozark Mountains
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 9:17 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:
I know a lot of Ozarka College insiders, Jeff!
So does Rick.
Does Ozarka actually need another historian? Or literature instructor? Or whatever it is that I do (something that I'm still trying to figure out)?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Jeff,
Ozarka is in the process of joining forces with the Ozark Folk Center in Mountain View on some education-related projects. That could be a real opportunity.
One of our most treasured English/Literature instructors, Samantha Thornsberry, is moving her family to a reservation in Oklahoma after the semester.
Ozarka's on the grow...it's worth checking out.
But so is UACCB in Batesville, ASU Mountain Home, and Lyon College in Batesville.
Daddio, I'll keep my eyes open. For now, I've got obligations in Korea and am also satisfied there. I'm not sure what my long-term status will be in Korean universities, perhaps not entirely stable.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Well...just so you know you'll be welcome if you ever do give it serious thought.
I suspect I may get into a bit of a tight here but...
Let's see, your PhD is in the History of Science? Now is that science spelled with a capital S or lowercase? The only reason I ask is because some science might be problematic. I'm currently in an online class and I made a seemingly obvious and (to me) not too extraordinary reference to something from a scientific field.
While my Instructor was able to post my grade anonymously (such is the luxury an online course instructor has) the responses my comment garnered were something like 98% "burn him at the stake", 1%, "sentence him to live with Minister So and So" and 1% did not weigh in. (I did get an "A").
Methinks teaching at Ozarka might present some out of the ordinary experiences. Overall however I consider that you would be a fine addtion to the faculty. And moonshine is available nearby, so just in case you are interested in research, I would volunteer for any projects.
I think the wife's plan excellent.
Herschel
Daddio, I'll certainly do so.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Herschel, maybe you did nothing terribly wrong in that class this time, but I'm sure that you've done something sometime to deserve being burned at the stake.
I got 'undeserved' spankings that were justified to me with an argument similar to this one, and while I objected as a child, I've come to appreciate the reasoning as a parent.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Oh no, this time it wasn't evolution in the man to monkey thing. It was that bacteria are getting resistant to antibiotics.
It was explained that it was a "different bacteria."
But do consider a research program at Ozarka. For certain un"related" reasons I doubt your kin would fund it simply on my behalf but. I am willing to, "in the pursuit of scientific knowledge" go somewhat beyond tipsy.
For the sake of science of course.
Oh hold on! I guess I have done something to earn me a place with Joan. I just can't remember what it was.
Herschel D.
Herschel, that about the bacteria is surprising to hear. I've never heard a Creationist argue that bacteria don't develop resistance to antiobiotics.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
That's what I said.
Herschel
I suspect that the persons who argued with you were merely ignorant.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Farewell.
More than I lool forward and I hope for your safe return.
Herschel
Thanks, Herschel.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Creationists are so opposed to evolution that they don't believe in genetic mutations at all? I learned something new. Even though I'm an elementary school teacher, I was concerned about the possible inclusion of "intelligent design" in the curriculum when I was applying for teaching positions. My district is evolution only.
Sonagi
Sonagi, most Creationists that I'm aware of are more sophisticated that the ones encountered by Herschel. And Intelligent Design theorists cover a rather wide range.
As for what should be taught in science class, there might be room for debate over scientific theories, but the general consensus among scientists determines what is "science" and should be taught as such.
Creationism and Intelligent Design haven't yet achieved that sort of consensus, so they don't qualify for science classes except as debating points . . . in my opinion.
If enough scientists come to accept, say, ID, then it would qualify as a theory worthy of inclusion . . . though this would involve some discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory.
My personal view is that ID belongs more to a philosophy class and fits among the teleological arguments for the existence of God.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
A scientific theory must be stated in a way that it can be proven wrong. It is possible to disprove evolution through fossils or gene mapping although so far, such evidence has only rearranged the family tree and not chopped it down. It is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher being and thus, intelligent design is not science and never will be. Creation beliefs do have a place in the school curriculum - world civilizations.
Sonagi
And using fancy words like "teleological" won't convince me. :) I did have look that one up.
S.
Wouldn't proof of evolution falsify Creationism?
As for ID, it would lose much of its prima facie persuasiveness if the fine tuning of the universe were shown to be less fine tuned or if a persuasive naturalistic explanation for it could be presented.
My reference to "teleological" was in the context of philosophy rather than science.
At any rate, I don't see either Creationism or ID reaching scientific consensus.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Wouldn't proof of evolution falsify Creationism?
No. Those who reconcile evolution with creationism believe that God guided the process of genetic mutations and natural selection.
I attended a Catholic elementary school. One of our nuns explained to our class one day that there was no conflict between the Biblical account of creation and evolution. "The earth was not really built in seven days," she explained. "Three thousand years ago, people's understanding of the universe was very, very limited, and God was explaining evolution in a way that people back then could understand." Christians who interpret the Bible literally do have a conflict, but believers who read the Good Book for spiritual guidance, not lessons in history or science, don't. That is my understanding as a former Catholic. What do you think?
I realized "teleological" was a philosophical term. I always enjoy building new synapses to accommodate new words and new ideas to my brain, and your blog is a nourishing source. The artwork adds a visually appealing cultural touch to your entries.
S.
Sonagi, we're using "Creationism" in to very different ways. The Creationists that I've referred to simply reject evolution, period. They would not, however, reject that natural selection works on mutations, though they do argue that such changes would never add up to a change in 'kind' of organism.
I find the nun's view plausible in the sense that a revelation would have to make sense to those receiving it, would have to somehow be interpretable in terms that the recipients would understand.
Anyway, I'm glad that you like my blog. Actually, I didn't think that you were reading it for masochistic reasons, though some readers might do so. Who knows?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Creationism and Creationists are slightly different terms, aren't they? The Catholic Church and its believers believe in God's hidden hand behind the creation of the universe and everything in it but are not Creationists in that they do not reject evolution.
As I understand you, some Creationists accept mutations within a species but the evolution of new species. What do YOU believe?
Anonymous, are you speaking to Sonagi or to me? You noted:
"As I understand you, some Creationists accept mutations within a species but the evolution of new species."
This sounds directed more to Sonagi, based on what she wrote, but perhaps you meant this:
"As I understand you, some Creationists accept mutations within a species but not the evolution of new species."
That would be closer to what I said, except that I would also say that most Creationists whose works I've read would accept mutations within species.
You also ask: "What do YOU believe?"
I think that Sonagi was pretty clear on what she believes, whereas I was being coy, which leaves me to infer, provisionally, that you were speaking to me and requesting clarification.
I prefer ambiguity on this blog. I discuss a lot of topics, but I rarely affirm or dismiss a position on a topic (though I sometimes do). I've spent several post on Obama, for instance, and expressed some admiration for him, based on his first book, but I'll never (probably) explicitly endorse him or any other politician. It's not my style, not on this blog, anyway.
I will say that the earth gives a lot of evidence of being very old, so the so-called "young-earth Creationisn" faces a lot of difficulties. I find ID more plausible since it does not insist on a young earth and argues philosophically from the fine-tuning arguments of intelligent design.
Even the design argument, however, seems a bit 'crude' to me, though a crude argument can also be correct. I rather prefer the sort of elegant argument provided by my friend Bill Vallicella in his book A Paradigm Theory of Existence: Onto-Theology Vindicated. Bill's argument does not depend upon the current, changing state of our scientific knowledge.
But I've gotten way off-topic from a post on my wife's five-year plan. The issues raised about arguments for God's existence belong on a separate post.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
The last post was mine. I forgot to add my signature. Blogger used to allow commenters to enter a name in one of the fields, but that function seems to have disappeared.
S.
Ah, all is clear.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home