Why I Prefer Seth Over Jimmy

There may not even be a point in writing this.  Whether you like Seth or Jimmy more is a matter of preference.  No, I’m not talking about boy names for a child.  I’m referring to the NBC late night talk hosts Jimmy Fallon (of the Tonight Show) and Seth Meyers (of Late Night).  If you’re actually reading this, I’m going to assume you watch one or both of these guys, or at least you are thinking about watching them.  And if you already watch them, you probably already have an opinion about them, and you probably already prefer one of them over the other one (or perhaps you prefer neither).  I suppose, therefore, this writing is directed toward those who say, “How is Jimmy Fallon not everyone’s favorite?!”.  Well, allow me to retort.

Jimmy Fallon is the goofy boy you want to hang out with in high school.  He’s fun, laid back, witty, has a great laugh, and is just a cool guy.  Seth Meyers is a good friend you make in college – a friend you have lots of fun with, but also a friend you enjoy conversing with at a more mature level.  You have fun, but you feel that you’re learning something with him or her, too. 

I like Jimmy.  He has funny monologues, great comedic bits, great celebrity guests, and fun games that he plays with those guests.  It’s entertaining.  Where I begin to lose Jimmy is during the interview portion of his show – the part where he is actually supposed to converse with the guest.  If case you haven’t watched his show -- or in case you haven’t noticed -- here is a rundown of what he often says: “Oh, he’s the best.  She’s the greatest.  He’s the nicest guy you’ll ever meet.  She’s fantastic and hilarious.  I loved this movie.  This TV show is great.  You’re one of my favorite guests.  Come back every month.  Now let’s play a game!”  His comments about so and so come off as perfunctory and a bit superficial, though I don’t doubt his passion.  I know he’s not superficial, but it sometimes feels that way.  He just seems really eager to stop talking and start playing a game.  On the other hand, maybe he just really thinks that everyone is the greatest at everything everywhere.

I love Seth.  He has a sense of humor distinct from Jimmy and many other late night hosts.  He doesn’t rely as heavily on Twitter for most of his comedic bits.  He has 2-3 guests per show, and sometimes 1-2 of them aren’t even actors.  He has had journalists, news anchors, poets, authors, screenplay writers, and producers.  He also uses the interview portion to engage in a real dialogue with his guests, and while the conversation is still humorous, I actually feel like I’ve learned something new from the conversation.  I feel more engaged.  As an added bonus, Seth is a major media nerd, and he even talks about being eager to “geek out” with that night’s guest.  As a fellow media nerd, I find this to be one of the most enjoyable parts of Late Night for me.

At this point, some of you may think I’m implying that Jimmy is without talent or skill.  I am not saying that.  On the contrary, he is very talented! In the six months since he took over the Tonight Show, he has amassed a huge number of fans, he has reinvigorated interest in the show, and he has earned an Emmy nomination for best variety series all in his inaugural six months.  He is also a gifted singer and dancer – talents he displays on his show every week.  The guy is very talented; there is no denying that. 

Again, this really comes down to a matter of personal preference.  I will continue to watch both Jimmy and Seth – they both fill a need.  Jimmy fills the need I have to be entertained and to see actors and actresses just having fun.  Seth fills the need I have to take something away from conversations and to learn.  They fill two different needs.  And for me, the latter need is bigger. 

Thoughts on "Questioning Darwin"

I just sat down for a second viewing of the new HBO documentary Questioning Darwin.  This hour-long documentary explores the life of Charles Darwin as he attempted balancing his religious beliefs and his scientific discoveries; the documentary also contains interviews and viewpoints from current pastors, religious leaders, and historians.  The documentary raises a few issues that I feel I should address.

As a practicing scientist who is a Christian AND an evolutionist, I feel it is important that I hold a viewpoint on this issue and share that viewpoint when necessary.  Again, these are issues raised in the documentary, not issues I have with the documentary itself.  These are also ideas that have recently resurfaced since the Ken Ham--Bill Nye debate.

Darwin

Many people have a warped idea of Charles Darwin.  Many equate him with atheism or assume that he was an atheist.  When he was young, Darwin actually intended to become a clergyman.  Even through his scientific endeavors, he himself wrote that he never considered himself an atheist in that he never denied God's existence.  He knew that what he was suggesting in On the Origin of Species was controversial and would greatly impact future religious and scientific thought.  But he found the evidence of evolution too strong to ignore.  He struggled with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God due to the suffering he saw during his voyage on HMS Beagle: the slavery he encountered and the predation he saw in animal communities.  Of the ten kids that he and his wife had, three died in childhood.  All of these experiences contributed to his views of God, but he was never an atheist: he never set out to destroy religion through his theories.

Darwin spent many years prior to his death "doing science" at his home outside London.  He conducted experiments, observed nature, and theorized more on his experiences on HMS Beagle.  Darwin's writings were not capricious or impetuous: they were well-cogitated and thoughtful.  Upon his death, he was interred at Westminster Abbey, a place of interment reserved for religious persons of influence.

Equating Evolution with Atheism

A common assertion of many religious persons is that evolution is an invention of the atheists, and is inherently atheistic.  Several pastors interviewed in the documentary claim this exact thing: evolution is an idea that atheists created in order to combat creationism.  Another interviewee in the documentary claims that he is more willing to put his faith in the Bible than in secular scientists.  I am not sure whether he was calling all scientists secular or just some of them secular; either way, I see no reason to place that adjective before the noun.

There is nothing inherently religious or anti-religious about evolution.  Many of the religious interviewees claim that evolution takes away the possibility of hope, love, morality, miracles, and prayer since evolution claims that God is not there.  This is simply untrue.  Evolution makes no such claim.  Evolution is a term that scientists use to describe the process of change in the morphology of species over time.  Whether it's controlled by God or not is outside the realm of its definition.  My response is that hope, love, a sense of morality, etc. all come from God.  Even if creation is true, then those attributes still come from God.  The characteristics of humanity can come from God regardless of how humans came into being.

Misunderstanding Evolution

This one might just be an issue of semantics, but I want to briefly address it anyway.  One of the biggest problems that the pastors in the documentary seem to have with evolution is that it "reduces our status as humans to that of an animal" and that evolution "puts man down as just an animal."  Well, guess what, we are animals! Kingdom Animalia includes humans, dogs, sponges, and insects, just to name a few.  In a strict scientific sense, humans are animals who have developed advanced cognitive processes leading to the ability of speech. So evolution does not reduce humans to animals: we are already animals.  I believe what the interviewees really mean is that evolution appears to reduce humans to a lower species that lacks a sense of morality and humanity.

One other item that caught my attention was near the end of the documentary, where a mother reveals that she and her husband chose to home-school their kids due to the prevalence of evolution being taught in the school systems.  When discussing this with a few friends from church, I immediately jumped to the question of why parents would home-school their children based on an idea that is taught for 1-2 weeks in high school Biology.  Does that really warrant 12 years of home schooling? One of my friends who was there then clarified what I knew to be true deep down: some Christians believe that if you are an evolutionist, then you lack a sense of morality, you don't practice Christian principles, and you are probably going to be a bad influence on kids.  So there is much more to it than just wanting to avoid those 1-2 weeks of high school Biology.

My hope here was to address a few salient points that some of you may contemplate or encounter as you live your lives.  I suppose my takeaway points are as follows: we need to better educate ourselves about Darwin and his life before making assumptions about him, we need to clarify the definition of evolutionary theory as a prominent idea in science, and we need to realize that religion and science are both made more powerful when in tandem.  Science addresses how; religion addresses why.  The idea that the two are incompatible is a notion that needs to be disabused.

Brief Thoughts on the Evolution of Higher Education

This week for class, I am reading about the shift in universities from the unitary structure of the 19th century to the federal structure of the 20th and 21st century.  The average university in 1870 had a faculty size of 10, and an average student enrollment of 92.  By 1950, average faculty size had jumped to 134, with student enrollment just under 1500 students.  Those numbers are much larger today.  While there is undoubtedly still a gap between state schools and private universities in terms of student enrollment and faculty size, all higher education systems have moved from a unitary to a federal structure.

If you went to college in 1870, you probably had 6-10 faculty members at your whole school.  You and all of your peers followed the same curriculum (mostly focused on classics and mathematics): no majors or minors, no schools or departments, and no advanced or remedial offerings.  All students matriculated, completed the set curriculum, and graduated.  Today, even the smallest liberal arts colleges can have 20 departments, each with 4-5 faculty members.  Larger state university systems typically consist of at least 70 departments, each department having anywhere from 10-25 faculty members (depending on the popularity of the department). 


This makes me appreciative of two facts: first, that we are all free to choose our own major; second, that we should take advantage of whatever type of school we want to attend.  I knew in high school that I wanted to attend a smaller university where I could experience a feeling of camaraderie and closeness with both students and faculty.  Attending a larger state school as an undergrad works for many students, but I do not think it would have worked for me.  Ball State is a medium-size state school, and to me it seems huge.  However, the graduate programs at Ball State are small enough that they make me feel as if I am still at a smaller university

I do not think one type of university is better than another: where one is lacking, the other is strong.  What is important is that students attend a school that works for them based on their ambitions, personality, and motivations: a school where they're able to best coalesce their new knowledge, old knowledge, and existing skills.