Danielle Hahnemann

                Since Charles Darwin first published his now-famous work, The Origin of Species, the delicate balance between religion and science has suffered from a tension that does not need to exist.   Darwin's studies revealed new scientific information, to be sure, but they did not necessarily eliminate God from the equation.  This is the viewpoint of Phil Dowe, an associate professor of philosophy at Queensland University in Australia.  In his book, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion, he takes the position that harmonious interaction between the areas of science and religion can and does exist.  One of the topics he uses to prove his case is the epic battle between the story of Creation on the side of religion and Darwin's Theory of Evolution that is the heart of modern science.

                Dowe begins by explaining the debate between creation and evolution.  He cautions the reader to place each argument in its historical context and to recognize the difficulties of defending one's own position before beginning to examine the evidence.  He follows with an overview of the two different ways to explain an object.  To look at something teleologically is to define its intrinsic purpose, answering the question "What is it for?"  To explain an object in a mechanical sense is to discuss its mass, position, velocity and force.  Science often tends to look at things in a mechanical sense whereas religion is more partial to teleological thinking.    He moves gracefully into a discussion of William Paley's "design argument."  A watch is complex enough that it could not have just formed in nature; someone had to have designed and created it.  In the same way, certain organs, such as the human eye, are so complex that it is not probable that they formed on their own.  There must have been a Designer, a Creator.  After spending some time with Paley, Dowe moves into the much-awaited conversation regarding Charles Darwin.  He explains Darwin's ideas about the evolution of different species in a simple, easy-to-understand manner and enlightens the reader as to why so many scientists accept this theory.  Dowe criticizes several aspects of both Darwin's theory and the method used to justify it, and he brings in Asa Gray, a man who believed that evolution was most likely initiated by God, as an example of someone with confidence in a relationship of harmony between science and religion.

                This writer strongly agrees with Dowe that science and religion can co-exist peacefully and work together to solve the world's problems.  The topics chosen for discussion in Dowe's book all show great relevance to the overall theme, but this writer saw a particular strength in the conversation about evolution.  For starters, Dowe's style of attacking arguments is strategically brilliant.  He observes the reasoning used in the argument that science and religion are at odds, then counters with more strong, pure logic that provides evidence that this idea is false.  In particular, this writer believes that using the argument of William Paley was genius, especially when placed BEFORE the examination of Darwin's ideas.  The reader still has the notion of complex objects needing a designer in the back of their mind while reading about Darwin's analysis of the complexity of life.  A subconscious connection between evolution and a creator is made in the mind before it is made in the pages of the book. 

Another strength in Dowe's argument is his ability to discredit the reason that scientists accept evolution.  Dowe criticizes the method of "inference to the best explanation" that Darwinists use to justify their belief evolution and the supremacy of science.  This method claims that the hypothesis which is the most probable should be accepted as true.  But Dowe claims that inference to the best explanation is not as firmly supported by evidence as other methods such as enumerative induction (inducing a principle from data) or they hypothetico-deductive method (the basic scientific method).  There is always the chance that the less likely hypothesis is actually the truth.  Scientists cannot honestly claim they know everything about the universe, and it is ridiculous to accept a theory as fact without the proof necessary for its acceptance. 

This writer would also like to point out a few of the weaknesses of Dowe's argument.  The first of these is the fact that this writer believes that more time should have been spent discrediting Darwin's theory.  If readers could see that they had been led astray by science where evolution was concerned, they would be more likely to accept the possibility of a higher power, an Intelligent Designer that put the earth's processes in motion.  In Lee Strobel's bestselling work, The Case for a Creator, Strobel recorded an interview with Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, in which he systematically points out the flaws in the four major icons of evolution (1).  This writer would have liked to have seen a similar argument somewhere in Dowe's discussion of evolution.  Another of the weaknesses of Dowe's argument is that it causes the reader to ask: "So what?"  So what if there is a harmonious relationship between science and religion?  What will that change in one's everyday life?  Most people will not be greatly impacted by the idea that much of what they believe about evolution is wrong.  The bigger issue is that there is something more.  This writer did not see quite enough of God in this argument, and nothing specific enough to get people on the right path if they are curious.

For now, science and religion are at war in the mind of the average person.  Strobel asks if there is a "fundamentally different way to view the relationship between the spiritual and the scientific" (Strobel 27).  It is obvious that Dowe's answer would be yes.  And for the record, this writer happens to concur.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator : A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.

            Different areas of the world have always been passing through various phases of knowledge-seeking; consequently, the world has been involved in a constant struggle to define aspects of life and understanding and to decide which of those aspects are at the top of the list of importance.  The eighteenth century in the Western world was home to one particular movement known as the Age of Reason, more commonly referred to as the Enlightenment.  Just from glancing at the title of this movement, one can probably guess which of the main ways of knowing was the primary focus of the time period.  It was an era of scientific discovery, and a call to return to the basics of nature that one can plainly understand through basic reason filled the ears of the elite thinkers.  They aimed to "apply the methods of natural sciences to human behavior and social institutions" (Harrison). 

The Enlightenment stood firmly on three main concepts: the belief that "all assumptions should be subjected to critical and empirical reasoning," the idea that "nature is ordered, functions reasonably, and constitutes a standard of judgment," and the notion that "change and progress work hand in hand as human beings work to perfect themselves and their society" (Harrison).   These three concepts work together to create the impression that if change and progress and being steered by reason and are aiming to bring humankind closer to nature, it will serve to bring a greater sense of understanding and with it, happiness. 

Thomas Jefferson, in the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, utilized the concepts of the Enlightenment to argue the case of the British colonists against the King of Great Britain.  He was a big supporter of the belief in the supremacy of reason.  Half of the Declaration of Independence is listing the grievances against the King.  He clearly wanted to use logic and common sense, and that to prove his point, he would have to "let facts be submitted to a candid World." He lived in an era that trusted science over emotion, and he knew that pure reason alone would have a chance at standing up to the King.  He also made use of the argument that nature can be used to make judgments.  He said that "all Men are created equal...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  He is coming back to nature, the original state of humankind, a concept wholly embraced by those enamored with the Enlightenment.  In the beginning of time, all men were equals (at least, all white men were equals) and each person was governed only by oneself and no far-away king had any say in the matter.    This particular statement of Jefferson's also gives the reader a glimpse of his Deist beliefs.  Deism is "essentially a rationalistic religion" (Reid) and teaches that the universe is rational and that God himself is a rational being.  Therefore, if God created all men to be equal, then this must also be a rational idea and one worth fighting for, for the sake of both reason and nature. 

Finally, the basic point of the entire Declaration must be discussed.  What Thomas Jefferson -- and all the others who signed the document -- were looking for was, in a word, change.  And there is the last pillar of the Enlightenment.  It is also the most slippery of the three.   The men of the Enlightenment did not desire progress for progress' sake.  Jefferson himself dictated that changes should not be made to any situation "for light and transient Causes."  The primary detail that one must keep in mind when discussing change and progress from the perspective of an Enlightened individual is that change is only regarded as something to be proud of if it has a positive purpose.  There are many instances in history when "change" and "progress" turned out to be less helpful than expected.  The Holocaust would be a prime example of this.  But these men of the Age of Reason believed that "change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" Harrison.  Only when the three concepts of the Enlightenment work together can there be true progress.

The Enlightenment was a difficult period in the rise of modernity.  Science and reason clashed with revelation, and for the most part, the less-educated people clung to their religion, believing that faith in God and common sense were synonymous.  But the Enlightenment did father many brilliant ideas and various innovative progressions in society.  It deserves to be acknowledged for what it was: yet another shift in the world's view of knowledge and understanding.  One day, humankind will stumble upon the perfect relationship between the ways of knowing.  Until then, one can only sit back and watch as the world continues to spin and individuals wander around just as lost and confused as always.

              The idea of truth in a postmodern world is nearly impossible to discuss.  Each person takes pride in a different definition of truth, and the examples used to explain the meaning of truth vary accordingly.  In order to avoid as many complications as possible when conversing about truth, one must accept three "primary truths" before jumping into an argument.  The first is that humans do, in fact, exist (the Scientologists often have a problem with this truth).  The second is the principle of non-contradiction, which simply says that if two things are true, they cannot be contrary to each other.  The third of these is that the human mind possesses the ability to know truth.  One cannot have a discussion about truth without first agreeing to accept these three primary truths.  St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote about the truths of faith and reason in relation to the primary truths in Chapter VII of his work Summa Contra Gentiles.

                Aquinas makes it a point to address the issue of being able to recognize the truths of faith and reason, also referred to as "nature."  He claims that "the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God himself is the author of our nature."  He is saying that one's ability to reason comes from God because he created man.  By saying that God gave man the truth of reason, Aquinas brings into play the third primary truth, that one is able to know truth.  One can know the truth of reason simply because he is surrounded by nature, and God has given him the gift of understanding it.  The truth of faith is slightly more difficult for the majority of people to accept.  Aquinas says that the "truth of Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason."  Many individuals immediately jump to the conclusion that if faith surpasses reason, it cannot be known and therefore cannot be a truth, since the mind is able to know truths.  But this is not the point that Aquinas is trying to make.  The truth of faith can indeed be known; the question is whether or not it can be fully understood by humans' capacity to reason.  There are many truths in the world that exist and can be recognized but that cannot be wholly explained.  The mystery of life would be one example, although that is another topic entirely and must be saved for another time.

In Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas also speaks about the argument of faith and reason being at odds with each other.  He states that because faith surpasses reason, one of the frequently made assumptions is that faith contradicts reason.  Therefore, these concepts cannot both be considered truths.  One or both must be false, and much of the world would agree that faith, being the more difficult of the two to comprehend, must give way to reason.  However, Aquinas believes that "it is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contradictory to those principles which reason knows naturally."  He says that since nature is "instilled into us by God" and faith is "confirmed by God," both truths obviously come from the same source of divine Wisdom.  And since God is not contradictory, neither are the truths that he gives mankind.  Thomas Aquinas says that "God does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge."  Where would faith come from if not from God?  If faith comes from God, and God does not contradict the nature one knows to be true, does it not then make sense that faith and reason can live in harmony?  In this way, Aquinas successfully talks his way around the arguments against faith as a truth in a short, sweet, and to-the-point fashion that leaves the reader with no room for refutation. 

In the age of modernity, the truth of faith seemed to receive the majority of criticism from skeptics.  Reason was placed above all other truths in an effort to make the world stable and secure, to give mankind some sense of organized structure.   As the world transitions into a period of postmodernism, perhaps the opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas will be viewed in a more positive light by the open-minded people of the new movement.  Perhaps faith will no longer have to hide in a closet behind reason and science, only being allowed to emerge and see the light when it conveniently fits with a person's rational, logical explanation of a given situation.  Perhaps now, finally, the world is entering a stage that will allow for faith and reason to have equal roles within the cast of truths that make up what humans call knowledge.  Maybe the world is finally ready to let faith and reason exist in perfect harmony, the way that God intended at the dawn of creation.

               We live in a world of hate and pain, of sorrow and solitude.  We are quick to judge and slow to forgive.  Our hearts are hardened by our agonizing experiences, and we in turn seek to bring a sting to others.  It is a fearful and sickening cycle, and one that has been spinning the world since the dawn of time.  But what causes us to act like this, to turn into monsters when our souls know that we were meant for so much more?  What can we possibly find that can help our world become something new and fresh and beautiful once more?  In the poem "A Brave and Startling Truth" by Maya Angelou, the poet claims that if we could only come to love one another whole-heartedly and without reserve, our world would see hope.  Love, like no other, has the potential to bring peace and healing.

                The poem speaks of all the evil in the world that we must let go of: wars, hate, and senseless arguing.  It declares that "when we come to it" ("it" meaning "love"), all of these problems will be set aside and the world can rest.  It also discusses the beauty of the world: the breathtaking structures, the majestic rivers, the mountains, and the sun.  And Angelou makes the claim that Love is more precious and powerful than all of these.  The beauty of Love surpasses all else.  And at the end of the poem, Angelou states that "we are the miraculous, the true wonder of this world."  She is making the point that through Love, all things are possible.  If we have Love on our side, we can't be stopped.  The evils of the world flee before Love's triumphant march, and we are the ones called to set the stage for this stunning plan.

                Love is one of the world's basic truths.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle would have deemed a truth such as Love "a universal."  Everyone is familiar with the concept of Love, and I hope to God that each individual has experienced it in some way.  It is a striking idea, that one would give of themselves for another, take the pain and suffering of a friend and lay it on their own shoulders.  It is a captivating notion that is often difficult to explain and understand completely.  Yet it is still there, and we should at least make an effort to comprehend it because with understanding comes appreciation.

Some of this appreciation may come from the idea that human beings find great pleasure in imitation.  But how is Love, the most untainted emotion and expression on the face of this planet, an imitation?  I believe that the Love we experience here on earth is only a shadow of what it has the potential to be.  There is something else out there, something bigger than us, that surrounds us and calls out to us in the deepest and purest form of Love.  We sense this, crave it, and want to share it with others.  So we do our best to re-create the splendor of this Divine Love in the world around us, and every time we come close we sigh just a little inside, getting a tiny taste of the potential power that Love can possess.  That is what will save our world.  When we feel God, we feel Love.  And when we feel Love, we can begin to make a difference in the name of all that is good.

The age of modernity had its roots firmly planted in the beliefs of the Enlightenment.  Reason was the primary basis for authority, and many important intellectual developments were made.  Beginning way back in about 1630 and slowly drawing to a close in approximately 1960, modernity held the world in its grip for quite some time.  For much of the twentieth century and also of the twenty-first, there was a particularly strong age of modernity, claiming that science was the only way to discover truth, and the world was drawn to this view as never before.  If one could understand the world around him, then he could find meaning in it and in himself.   Modernity meant progress, visions, and an optimism for the future.  Unfortunately, modernity was not able to fulfill all of its promises.  Bringing weapons of mass destruction, fatal nuclear power failures, and a cold view of spirituality that left people feeling purposeless, modernity proved a failure in the optimism department.  A new perspective was necessary, and when postmodernism came into the picture, it was welcomed with open arms.  What started as an art movement quickly became an entirely new world perspective, including the long-awaited freedom for one to think and feel whatever he wanted.  All thoughts and ideas became possible and probable, and everyone became equal, at least on paper.  One did not even have to think correctly; as long as he thought for himself, he was accepted in the postmodern world.  An interesting way to illustrate postmodernism would be to speak about the following sentence: This sentence serves no logical purpose.  Now this is quite comical, because by claiming to serve no logical purpose, the sentence does just that.  It provides an excellent opportunity to discuss the concepts and ideals of postmodernism.

                To begin with, who says that this sentence serves no logical purpose?  This writer has already countered this argument by claiming otherwise.  But truth is a slippery topic for postmodernists.  They are incredibly suspicious of all claims of truth simply because each person is entitled to their own truth.  What works for one person or even a group of people may not be applicable to someone else.  Objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search are truths that were compelling only in their own time and culture.   But when a person claims to know the truth, they are labeled as deluded or possibly even a danger to postmodern thinking.  To a postmodernist, the sentence above is an opinionated statement, and no one is required to believe what it says.   Any sentence could be devoid of logical purpose depending on the person and how they view the situation.  However, a postmodernist would most likely not get too worked up about the analysis of the sentence currently being conversed about because one cannot really "know" anything anyway; one can only interpret something in whatever way he sees fit. 

                Another reason that the statement "This sentence serves no logical purpose" is interesting in relation to postmodernism has to do with the fact that many postmodernists seem to have thoughtful new ideas on the use of language in any given culture.  According to the views of postmodernism, the way one uses and interprets language - its syntax and semantics - defines the way that one thinks.  Language constructs what we think of as "real" in our everyday lives.  For example, people groups that speak and use only present-tense and infinitive verb forms have a very difficult time explaining things that happened in the past or that are expected to happen in the future.  Because of this, these groups grow accustomed to taking life one day at a time and living in the moment to make communication less complicated.  The typical postmodernist would probably give this writer some advice on how to adjust both the wording and the perception of the discussed sentence to give it less definition and more flexibility so that it does not come across as directing a person to yet another fleeting truth that cannot be proven. 

                The sentence that serves as the subject for these illustrations now leads this writer to think in a different way: If a sentence that claims to serve no logical purpose can, by that very claim, actually serve a logical purpose, does it not then make sense that human beings, who so long to serve a logical purpose, most likely do?  Is that not what postmodernism is about?  During the age of modernity, the only purpose a person had was to learn facts and live by science, but what a cold way to live!  Part of the contribution to postmodernism's charm and popularity is its suggestion that life is about thinking critically, expanding one's mind, and helping those who cannot help themselves, not merely about making scientific advancements that can cause great harm.  Postmodernism is about understanding and being a part of the world, not simply describing it.  Though the age of postmodernism is difficult to define and even more difficult to fully accept, it has become a large part of the culture of the world for a reason, and it deserves to be understood.

A girl is looking out her window at the moon, dreaming about her love that has been missing in the woods.  She's lonely and sad, and doesn't know where to turn.  She feels so lost without him.

On top of the hill that she can see from her window, the girl notices a figure on a coal black horse.  The figure climbs down from his horse and leads the animal towards the little house that the girl lives in.  He sees her looking at him and gives a nod.  She feels her heart skip a beat.  It's him!  She runs outside to greet him, and they stand staring at each other in embarrassment for a few moments.  Without saying a word, he lifts her onto his horse and begins to lead her away.

They walk in this way for several hours, led only by the light of the moon.  They weave through the trees and across a river.  And even though she doesn't know where they are going, she trusts this man fully.  They stop at the edge of a cliff, and the man lifts the girl off of the horse.  They move over to the edge and sit, with their feet dangling high above the ground.  The view is perfect; she can see the entire countryside; the rivers, the trees, a waterfall, a town in the distance.  And the moon lights it all. 

She can see a storm moving in from her right.  The dark clouds rumble and roll, and they begin to cover the moon.  They move closer, closer.  The couple sees lightning flash every few seconds, and suddenly, the storm is right above them.  The man takes the girl by the hand and hurriedly pulls her up and takes her back to the horse.  They both mount, and begin to ride away, seeking shelter from the storm.  They gallop through the night, away from the dark clouds, and hide in a cave, huddled together for warmth and comfort. 

The clouds clear, and the sun is rising in the east.  The couple sighs in content, but their peace does not last long.  Out of the dawn comes a pack of wolves, cranky and hungry from their unsuccessful hunt the night before.  They begin to circle the man and the girl, snapping their jaws, determination in their eyes.  The man lifts the girl onto a low-hanging tree branch and she begins to climb.  The man picks up a large rock and hurls it at the head of the lead wolf.  It strikes its target, and the rest of the pack howls in frustration.  Without warning, seven wolves leap in unison towards the man.  He grabs another rock and begins to swing it around, occasionally striking a wolf but failing to hold them off overall. 

The girl in the tree watches the scene below in horror.  She breaks branches off of the trees to throw at the wolves, but it does no good.  The man, exhausted from fighting so many monsters, is not going to last much longer.  He looks up at the girl, his love that he was given so little time with, gives one final nod, and gives in to the power and strength of the beasts around him.  They fall upon him, tearing him to pieces.  The girl in the tree feels her chest heaving in sobs as she watches the man be ripped apart, thinking only that no one should ever be forced to witness such an event.

 The wolves pull away from the mangled body and disappear amongst the trees.  The woods are eerily still, the only sound being the quiet crying of a young girl mourning the death of her love in the growing light of dawn.

As a child, one is given a set of rules to follow: rules for sharing toys, rules for crossing the street, rules for behaving in public.  One rule in particular that most children are given at one time or another is this: do not look directly at the sun.  It would seem a simple rule, and yet for some reason, the temptation to break said rule is too great for the average kindergartener.  The natural instinct is to discover why such a rule would exist, and the quickest way to make this discovery is by first-hand experience.  So what does any normal child immediately do?  They look at the sun.  And what do they see?  Hanging in the sky, something bright and beautiful and life-giving is circling above them.  The sight of the sun produces a feeling of warmth and awe that is difficult to explain.  It is this way with God.  One cannot help feeling drawn toward the source of light and warmth in all life, though it must be admitted that, like staring at the sun, trying to discover exactly who God is can bring about more hurt than one might realize.  In his well-known book, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, Bishop Tom Wright explores this metaphor of staring into the sun and how it relates to one's relationship with God.
                It is a helpful metaphor, and it gives clues as to how one should approach learning about God.  When speaking about the sun, it is important to note that without it, this world would not exist in its present state.  The sun is necessary for light and warmth that give the planet the ability to sustain life.   This is even truer when talking about God.  For God created the heavens and the earth, and without him there would also be no life.  But unlike the sun, the life that comes from God is "the free outpouring of God's powerful love" (65). 
                Human beings have a complex relationship with the sun.  They depend on it for life, but too much or too little sunlight can cause appalling outcomes.  One's relationship with God is complex as well, so complex that the Hebrew people did not even fully understand what their Messiah's purpose was.  They could not grasp the fact that he would come as a servant and suffer in their place; they believed that the Messiah would wipe out their enemies and give them immediate freedom (107).  They didn't understand the relationship that God wanted with them.
                Since this relationship is so complicated, it is difficult to say exactly what one is able to comprehend about God.  And it's difficult to know where to draw the line.  Just as one can only stare into the sun so long before causing permanent damage to their eyes, one also must accept that there is only so much that can be understood about God.  And this is where things get ugly.  Human beings are wired for understanding; they crave it.  The inability to grasp any concept in life, never mind a concept about the creator of the universe, is infuriating.  The tendency in a situation like this is to give up, turn around, and walk away.  This is where this writer believes that Wright went wrong in his book.  He gives too much information too fast, without giving the reader a chance to process and comprehend what they can.  Someone new to the faith or outside the faith would be on information overload trying to read the section of this book entitled "Staring at the Sun."  For just as someone looking into the sun for the first time will quickly be fatigued and turn away, so someone looking at God for the first time might become overwhelmed halfway through Wright's book and give up on trying to understand God.
                It is this last statement that reveals this writer's opinion on whether or not Wright's book, Simply Christian, provokes readers to further investigate the Christian theology.  This writer believes that the average non-Christian reading this book would be turned off to Christian theology and would seek answers regarding their spiritual needs elsewhere.  Wright simply assumes too much about the accumulated knowledge of the reader.  This writer, who has a strong background in Christian theology and sound knowledge of the Bible, was thoroughly overwhelmed by the information presented in the section "Staring at the Sun."  However, this writer also believes that given the right person, with an inquisitive mind and persistent nature, this book could lead to some wonderful new journeys in the search for more information concerning the theology of the Christian religion.  It presents ideas that connect the concepts of Christianity to the post-modern world and the emotions and "echoes of a voice" that everyone is familiar with.  It catches attention in the beginning section, conveys valuable theological information in the middle, and teaches important lessons about how this theology should be confronted in and applied to everyday life.  Overall, it possesses a great potential to lead people in the general direction while cautioning them to go slowly toward their destination.  Wright points his readers towards God without encouraging them to try to know everything about him, much like a mother tells a young child about the benefits of the sun while gently warning them not to look too closely, for they could be blinded by the light.

Hi!  My name is Danielle, though a couple of people call me Elle, and my camp nickname is Peach...

I'm from Appleton (near Green Bay) in Wisconsin.  I've lived in that area since I was five years old.  I am a Packers fan.  Just throwing that out there. :)

I have a younger brother, Jake (16) who is one of my closest friends.  My younger sister Taya (7) was adopted from China as an infant.  She also thinks she is the boss of everybody.

I am what you might call an outgoing introvert.  Some days I am loud (very loud) and energetic, and other days I am more reserved and thoughtful.  So don't judge until you meet both sides of me!

I LOVE CAMP.  Specifically Camp Luther in Three Lakes, WI.  I feel like that's basically the most important thing that you should know about me.  I love being outside, working with kids, and sharing the Gospel.  And when I work at camp, I can do all three AT THE SAME TIME.  Whoa.

I also love music, specifically choir.  I've never had much luck when it comes to playing instruments.  I sang in the top choir at my high school, but I'm not amazing or anything.  Just not tone-deaf.  And actually enjoying the activity helps, too. 

Ummm.  Some random things about me:
Peach-rings make me sneeze.  And I have a weird sneeze.
Sometimes I squeak when I laugh.
I think that mashed potatoes are disgusting.
I am a Packers fan.  (Did I mention that already?)
I work in a deli at a grocery store.  I clean stuff and slice stuff.
I want to go through the Director of Christian Outreach program at Concordia.

So.  That's some stuff about me.  I feel like I'm missing a ton of really important things, but they're probably the aspects of me that can't really be put into words anyway...

I am so psyched to meet everyone else in the honors program.  Then I'll know some people!  Yay!

~Love Always, Danielle~

 P.S. I am on facebook, look me up!