Readers Believe in Evolution

Some questioned the poll topic last week, religion on an urban blog? Well, yes. The two are not mutually exclusive, at least not for some like Eric Jacobson:

Eric Jacobsen the author of Sidewalks in the Kingdom: New Urbanism and the Christian Faith (Brazos Press, 2003) as well as numerous articles on New Urbanism (see related articles). He is a member of the Congress For the New Urbanism and a participant in the Colloquim on Theology and the Built Environment sponsored by St. Andrews University and the Calvin Institute for Christian Worship at Calvin College. He is a full-time student at Fuller Theological Seminary where he is pursuing a PhD in Theology and Culture. He is currently living in Passadena with his wife (Liz) and three children (Katherine – 7, Peter – 4, and Emma – 3). Formerly, he was the Associate Pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Missoula, MT.

With just 16.1% of the general population indicating no religious affiliation (Pew) the results ended up far different than I originally thought they would:

Q: Which of the following comes closest to your view on the origin and development of human beings?

  1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process 70 [63.64%]
  2. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process 29 [26.36%]
  3. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so 11 [10%]

This is interesting since the results are the opposite of the Gallop Poll this was based on:

Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period — and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).

Pew has found similar results:

White evangelical Protestants are particularly likely to believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Roughly two-thirds (64%) express this view, as do half of black Protestants (50%). By comparison, only 15% of white mainline Protestants share this opinion.

They offer much more detail here.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is agnostic  
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson hosts COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey

Even the term “creationist” has nuances:

Do “creationists” necessarily oppose an evolutionary understanding of the history of nature and the origins of species and humanity?

No. In principle all members of the three western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are “creationists” in that they believe the order of nature exists because a reality beyond nature, commonly called “God”, is the ultimate cause of all existence. In this sense of the word, many creationists accept an evolutionary understanding of natural history. However, at least four types of creationism can be identified, and each has a distinctive view of the evolutionary sciences and human origins.

“Young-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text provides an inerrant account of how the universe, all life and humankind came into existence; namely, in six 24-hour days, some 6-10,000 years ago. Human beings were created through a direct act of divine intervention in the order of nature.

“Old-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text is an infallible account of why the universe, all life and humankind came into existence, but accepts that the “days” of creation are metaphorical and could represent very long periods of time. While many aspects of nature may be the consequence of direct acts of divine creation, at very least they hold that the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of humankind are the consequence of distinct acts of divine intervention in the order of nature.

Theistic evolutionists also hold that the sacred text provides an infallible account of why the universe, all life and humankind came into existence. However, they also hold that for the most part, the diversity of nature from stars to planets to living organisms, including the human body, is a consequence of the divine using processes of evolution to create indirectly. Still, for many who hold this position, the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of what is distinctive about humankind are the consequence of direct acts of divine intervention in the order of nature.

Evolutionary theists hold that the sacred text, while giving witness to the ultimate divine source of all of nature, in no way specifies the means of creation. Further, they hold that the witness of creation itself is that the divine creates only indirectly through evolutionary processes without any intervention in the order of nature. (The Smithsonian’s Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer)

As an Anti-Theist (atheist), I believe what many of us have learned through scientific research. Each sunday night for the last couple of months I’ve been tuning in to see COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey.  In terms of St. Louis, these results tell me over 35% will continue to believe something regardless of facts to the contrary. With such numbers it is hard to change perceptions about place in our region. This show has religious folks upset, resulting in an Oklahoma Fox channel “accidentally: cutting out a mention of evolution and weekly stories like this:

Conservative Christians are really mad about the reboot of the legendary science series Cosmos, starring Neil deGrasse Tyson. The complaint? That an ancient myth about creation invented by Hebrews thousands of years ago is not being included in a show that is there to teach science. Christian conservatives have been taking to the airwaves complaining about the non-inclusion of ancient myths in a science program, with Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis whining, “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them,” and Elizabeth Mitchell of the same organization decrying the show for having “blind faith in evolution.” (“Cosmic” meltdown! Neil deGrasse Tyson under siege from Christian right)

I’m just thankful for the separation of church and state!

— Steve Patterson

 

Institutions & Businesses That Might Help Plan Rejuvenation of North Grand Blvd

In a post last week called Rethinking the North Grand Corridor for Jobs, Economic Opportunity I introduced the idea of a collaborative effort to do a corridor study of North Grand from Delmar to I-70, roughly 2.5 miles.

Looking south on Grand from N. Florissant  Ave.
Looking south on Grand from N. Florissant Ave.

Today I’ll continue this line of thought by identifying institutions/businesses/amenities on or near Grand that might be helpful in this process.

Map of North Grand showing institutions, click image to view interactive map
Map of North Grand showing institutions, click image to view interactive map

Here is the list, starting from  Delmar (lower left):

  1. Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis
  2. Grand Center
  3. Cochran VA Hospital
  4. Clyde Miller Career Academy (SLPS)
  5. Justine Petersen
  6. St. Alphonsus Church
  7. Chronicle Coffee
  8. S. Louis Housing Authority
  9. PNC Bank (Page)
  10. Save-A-Lot
  11. Vashon High School (SLPS)
  12. CHIPS Health and Wellness Center
  13. Lindell Bank
  14. Herbert Hoover Boys & Girls Club
  15. ALDI
  16. Fairground Park (St. Louis Parks Dept)
  17. Beaumont Career & Technical High School (SLPS)
  18. St. Louis Public Library, Divoll Branch
  19. PNC Bank (Grand @ N. Florissant)
  20. Grace Hill Settlement
  21. Grace Hill Water Tower Health Center
  22. North Grand Water Tower (coronation column)
  23. Bissell Water Tower
  24. Bissell Mansion

There are likely many more places that can serve as anchors. Grand from Natural Bridge to I-70 is the The Grand Boulevard Vending District, so perhaps this can become an area where retail activity is organized, concentrated, & marketed. Maybe the 2.5 mile length is branded as one district or maybe it it broken up into segments.

It passes through four city neighborhoods:

  1. College Hill
  2. Fairground
  3. JeffVanderLou
  4. Grand Center

It primarily passes through two wards: 3 & 19. Two more wards have a few blocks each: 2 & 4. And a few more wards are very close to North Grand: 5, 18, & 21.

Metro is a big part too with eight MetroBus lines in the area:

  • 70 (Grand)
  • 4 (Natural Bridge)
  • 30 (Soulard)
  • 32 (ML King-Chouteau)
  • 41 (Lee)
  • 74 (Florissant)
  • 94 (Page)
  • 97 (Delmar)

So I’ve identified most of the players that could be involved in coming together to closely examine North Grand, developing a master plan, a marketing plan, etc.

b

b

b

 

An Urbanist Look at the Lewis & Clark Branch Library

For quite a while now I’ve seen the posts about saving St. Louis County’s  1963 Lewis & Clark Branch, located at 9909 Lewis & Clark Blvd.

The east facade of the branch of the St. Louis County Library
The east facade of the branch of the St. Louis County Library features decorative windows

Here are some examples of the posts:

I hadn’t written about this subject before because I’d never been to the Lewis & Clark branch, but that changed Friday. I took the #40 (Broadway) MetroBus to the Riverview Transit Center, then the #27 (No County Shuttle) directly to the library. I spent some time inside both levels, and outside.

Here is an incomplete list of arguments for both sides:

Arguments in support of replacement:

  • Over 50 years old, old plumbing & electrical. etc.
  • Poor relationship to neighborhood, main street
  • Windows are inefficient
  • Doesn’t meet ADA guidelines
  •  Can remain open while new building is built

Arguments in support of renovating/adding on

  • Only branch in St. Louis County considered architecturally significant
  • Designed by Frederick Dunn
  • Design still looks good, fresh
  • Reusing the existing structure more sustainable than dumping it into a landfill
  • This part of St. Louis County has few structures on which residents can take pride.
The library seemed very busy during my Friday morning visit.
The interior of the main room.
The drinking fountains on the lower level don't meet the ADA, still not a reason to discard the rest.
The drinking fountains on the lower level don’t meet the ADA, still not a reason to discard the rest.
Looking back toward the bus stop we need more ADA issues. Site issues, however, don't require  new building to be addressed.
Looking back toward the bus stop we need more ADA issues. Site issues, however, don’t require new building to be addressed.

Based on my observations, the library is too small by today’s standards. It seemed busy during my morning visit, much more space is needed.  ModernSTL proposed a pretty predictable addition, which copies the original design. Good additions to historic buildings don’t mimic or repeat the original. That said, the idea is right. New entry connecting old & new wings.

Concept from ModernSTL with original on the left and addition on the right.  Click to view their post
Concept from ModernSTL with original on the left and addition on the right. Click image to view their original post

I do like the idea of turning the entry toward Lewis & Clark Blvd(367), and getting St. Louis County/MoDOT to put a public sidewalk along the west side of 367 from Chambers Rd to Berwyn Dr, roughly 3/10 of a mile. This would connect users of the #61 MetroBus route on Chambers Rd to the library site. Currently only a shoulder exists.  Better pedestrian connection in the area should be considered and planned for regardless if a new building is built or the existing structure gets a needed addition.

I don’t think the St. Louis County Library board has given any thought toward renovating this historic structure, which is a real pity.  We need leadership that considers retention of historic structures, especially when it is their only one!

— Steve Patterson

 

Poll: Current Thoughts on the Environment

Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar

St. Louis is celebrating Earth Day in Forest Park today:

25 Years of Earth Day in 2014

Join us in Forest Park on Sunday, April 27 for the St. Louis Earth Day Festival from 11am to 6pm, rain or shine.

Don’t miss the Recycling Extravaganza at STLCC on the same day as the Festival (10am-4pm).

I was wondering how readers felt about the environment, and efforts such as Earth Day. The poll this week has six answers representing a wide range plus an unsure answer. The poll is in the right sidebar.

— Steve Patterson

 

A Roadside Stand on Gravois

A little roadside stand occupies the NE corner of Gravois Rd & Mackenzie Rd (map). St. Louis County property records indicate the building only occupies 702 sq ft.

This roadside stand at 9529 Gravois was built in 1948, it has been a Dairy Queen for years now
This roadside stand at 9529 Gravois was built in 1948, it has been a Dairy Queen for years now
It looks like St. Louis County took part of the parcel for traffic, but hasn't taken the building -- yet
It looks like St. Louis County took part of the parcel for traffic, but hasn’t taken the building — yet
Most of the buildings at this corner have nice details, 9522 (left) was built in 1944 and 9530 (right) in 1930
Most of the buildings at this corner have nice details, 9522-26 (left) was built in 1944 and 9530 (right) in 1930
The beautiful detailing is best appreciated in person
The beautiful detailing is best appreciated in person

These buildings all date from the early age of the automobile, when a family might have one car. Parking was just off the roadway, not the gigantic parking lots of today. By today’s standards these buildings are urban, too close to the street. Yet the relationship is poor in terms of road/sidewalk/building. The idea of how to retrofit this intersection to be more walkable is an appealing challenge.

— Steve Patterson

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe