Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where's the 'Missing Link'?
In my neck of the woods - actually Woods Hole in Falmouth, Mass. to be exact - a new front in the "Culture War" has opened up.
A federal lawsuit has been filed against a biologist at the world-famous Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by a zebra fish researcher named Nathaniel Abraham, alleging his civil rights were violated when he was fired because his belief in creationism.
The same day that story broke in the Cape Cod Times, the Associated Press had a story about how anti-evolutionists have come up with a new strategy in the battle against the unifying principle of the biological sciences.
The AP reported: "arguments for inserting skepticism, rather than religious concepts, into evolution lessons emerged after a federal court ruling nearly two years ago struck down the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes in Dover, Pa., said Michael Ruse, the director of Florida State University's program on the history and philosophy of science."
Ruse calls it "Strategy No. 4." What were the first three strategies?
Strategy No. 1: Prohibit teaching it. The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial put an end to that strategy.
Strategy No. 2: Get creationism taught in schools - the literal biblical account of creation - as an alternative to the "theory" of evolution. But courts rejected that strategy in the 1980s, Ruse said.
Strategy No. 3: Promote "Intelligent Design (ID)" - the notion that "the universe's order and complexity is so great that science alone cannot explain it."
That strategy hit the legal wall in Dover, Penn., where a judge ruled that ID was religion-in-drag, pretending to be science, which meant teaching it in public schools constituted a violation of the separation of church and state.
And that brings us to Strategy No. 4: "Ruse described it as presenting evolution as an 'iffy hypothesis' instead of what it really is - a scientific theory 'that's accepted like the Earth goes around the sun.'"
The new strategy seems to be losing steam too. "A suburban Atlanta school board abandoned its effort to put stickers in high-school science books saying that evolution is 'a theory, not a fact,' and South Carolina's Board of Education rejected a proposal to require students to 'critically analyze' evolution."
I don't know what strategy our zebra fish creationist is employing but I do know that in the "culture wars," as our conservative brethren call it, the teaching of evolution is considered nothing less than a satanic assault on the image of God.
I confess my heresy: like the Jesuit theologian/paleontologist Pierre Teilhard did 50 odd years ago, I'm a believer whose made his peace with evolution. But then, I've never understood why science and faith are discussed as if they're mutually exclusive. Folks who think evolution is an inherently atheist argument or those who think evolution disproves the existence of God are people with little imagination.
The evolution vs. creationism debate may be an unavoidable political fight but much more relevant and revealing is what many evolution-believing secular conservatives and evolution-denying religious conservatives have in common: a belief in social Darwinism.
A popular misconception is that Darwin coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." Actually, Darwin's thang was "natural selection," which turns out to involve lots of cooperation.
The origin of "survival of the fittest" can be traced to British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who had an illustrious career justifying racism and imperialism with his pseudo-science 50 years after Darwin published The Origin of the Species.
Spencer bastardized Darwin's theory and attempted to apply his misunderstanding of evolution to politics and economics. Thus began a political tradition in this country that has reached its apogee today, in which public policy is seen as a vehicle to prevent the weak from being "parasites" on the "fit."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich marvels as I do at how "the modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism."
Listen to Spencer's own words: "Society advances where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hindrance."
Listen to any domestic policy debate about crime or education and you'll hear Spencer lurking beneath the surface in arguments justifying everything from war to incarceration rates on down to wealth disparities.
All that supply-side, Ronald Reagan, freedom stuff about meritocracies and the liberal conspiracy to "dumb-down" America with egalitarianism is social Darwinism - in defense of the liberty of the "natural aristocracy."
So while science battles evolution-opponents, I'm trying to understand a conservative political species that opposes evolution on religious grounds while supporting social Darwinism on the political and economic grounds.
There's a missing link here.
Sean Gonsalves is a syndicated columnist and an assistant news editor with the Cape Cod Times. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
74 Comments so far
Show AllWow! This all a bit much for me. I guess you could say that I'm awe-struck. (No, not Shock and Awe, but AWE as in wonder at the extraordinary multiplicity of viewpoints expressed here and the passion behind them. Yet, I'll have to admit that I'm even more AWE-STRUCK by existence itself. When I reflect upon our lives and the universe in which I am privileged to dwell (and also conscious that I'm committed to living on earth at this particular moment in time whether or not I want to), I'm just blown away.
Although I accept the Christian meaning-story, I don't feel circumscribed by it. The same way with evolution, I don't think of it as a theory, but as the most accurate picture of what has happened and what will happen. But I don't think of it as necessarily complete. There's still a lot more to be disclosed about both faith and science. No way do I think that the book is closed. However, I'm beginning to think that we haven't a whole lot more time as a human race to be discovering new stuff about what makes us tick.
I've heard that some of the most compelling arguments against evolution and for creationism are made by the The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in California.
I once was on their free newsletter list.
As for what we teach children, the last time I looked, most of it was coming from a corporation. The textbook publishers are incorporated, the research houses are incorporated, most of the churches are incorporated, the school districts are incorporated, even the teachers' unions are "entities".
As for Jesus, he is not incorporated, and never was.
Ezeflyer asked above "Why can't one believe in God without religion?" The answer is you absolutely can, and here is my suggestion to you if you want to try it for yourself.
Obtain a copy of the "Today's English Version (TEV) of the New Testament portion of the Bible. This was a completely new translation to English (not a paraphrase) done by dozens of scholars working for the American Bible Society in the 1960's and was called then "Good News for Modern Man". After they also finished the New Testament in 1976, it was called the Good News Bible. It is, in my opinion, the most honest (not "churched up") translation ever done into English, including several done more recently--some to be dumbed down and others to be "churched up".
Therein read the four "gospel" books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John alone. If you feel any softening of your defensive attitude, you may assume that The Holy Spirit is touching you. Ask PRIVATELY in your own words to be forgiven for whatever you have done wrong in your life, and ask Jesus to come into your heart and reveal His words to you. If you "ask, seek, and knock, the door will be opened to you", just as it says.
You CAN have God without "religion" and that's the best way I know to get Him, and possibly even change your eternity, depending on what YOU come to believe about that. Forget about the King James version of the Bible. We haven't talked that lingo for 400 years, and even then, some of it was sort of "formed" to fit the theology of the day. If you want a translation that wasn't, get the Good News. And be aware that words may "come alive" off the page to you. When you strip away corporations and sectarianism, Jesus stands alone and He is neither a myth nor powerless.
Daniel David- I understand your words and your attempt to salvage the sense of spirituality we share as humans. But, I cannot give heed to these writings about men for just men. The ammalgamation of writings through history, compiled by Constantine and the Nicean council (all men) do not represent even a fraction of everything that has been writen about this particular religion.
I also know of the vast history and prehistory of these 3 main religions from that area of the world.
Judaism used to be about a male and female divinity-the Steppe invaders from the Asian continent swept down, bringing viscious male Sky lord stories and in the archaeological record, the female aspect of the divine was removed. It was transformed from an more animistic, environmentally oriented belief into one of conquest and power for the chosen male followers of a very male oriented religion.
Where do women fit into this picture for you? Saying God, or the Lord has nothing feminine in it. I remember as a child being so hurt and so angry that half of the world's population was negated, called evil and relegated to such a little role. And what do have to show for it...a world where the aspect of Mother Nature is being destroyed. Women's ability to control their own bodies and hence the world's populations have exploded, and have been taken over and dictated.
I cannot spiritually condone anything that takes the writings in revelations about punishment and enslavement as the end result.
As a woman, and a native american....what good has the gospels done for me, my world, or our future? Will you hope I "see the light" for my souls sake? Otherwise, I will be doomed, as my ancestors were to die by the sword, or suffer in hellfire for all eternity? This is a sad sad story, that has been repeated for far too long.
Tell me, what is the difference between the Star of the morning and the Morning Star? If Jesus is King of the World, does this negate the notion that Satan was given mastery? Are they in fact the same entity?
How is it sanely possible to think that the teachings of love from Jesus can be equated with the punishments that this same entity will meet out to those who do not believe? Insofar as I can remember, both his love and his vengence are discussed in those gospels.
Where is the female in all you propose? Where are my ancestors rights? This aspect of western godhood is an abusive entity, threatening punitiveness on "his" children for not worshipping him and him alone. That only speaks to half of the equation.
"Why can't one believe in God without religion?"
i'd prefer a religion without belief in God.
And, of course such things exist - Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism may have all their various gods and demigods, but they understand that these gods are metaphors for truths that cannot be explained in normal narrative - and thet're colorful cultural expressions too. Hindus don't regard Shiva or Krisna or Ganesh as "real" in the infantile way that Christians and Muslims and some Jews regard their monothestic god.
I have to go to work PJD, but would like to quickly say that I am having problems with anything that sets up a heirarchy. IMO Religion is just faith used to promote heirarchy. It sets up certain people as dominant over others based upon some belief that the ones in power have a right to be dependent upon srtictures and rules conceived by the ruling class.
I don't have the same issues with hinduism or buddhism that I have with the other 3 abrahamic faiths.
ggpearl to Daniel David: "Where is the female in all you propose?
I actually didn't intend to "propose" anything. But I do think the Christian gospel has a power of its own to attract some people when those people delve into it. My post above was to encourage anyone who would like to try it out without the specific influence of a particular church. One guy had asked if one can have God without religion. I think it's possible.
As for "the female" in religion, I'm aware that the Catholic Church, for instance, has attempted to elevate a sort of female deity with their heavy, heavy emphasis on The Virgin Mary. I'm not a Catholic, so I can't speak to how well that really works for female members of that church.
As for my hopes for you, I'd hope you would try my suggestion with the Good News Bible if you want to, but I didn't mean that post to be any sort of exhortation that I think everyone must do so because I say so. My hopes for you would be that you find your best peace in the way that works best for you and your background.
I'd like to recommend a paraphrase version of the Bible that's shown itself to be very helpful to some people who just can't figure out what the Bible is saying--not that I take any version literally,but Eugene Peterson's The Message is an extraordinary contemporary language version.
"It used to be the word of God, now it's just some guy's opinion."
Seems to work all right for Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, to name just a few.
Hubcap-halo___ liked your list of Christian beliefs,and they seem pretty accurate. It is depressing to think they cannot do better than that, but so it seems. I guess the real sincere ones have as much trouble getting anywhere as the people of the USA have in changing our governments policies.
skippyagogo41..flu does not evolve every year
there are microbes that have an intrinsic ability to survive certain drugs and some that dont have this ability..the ones that do proliferate..there is no additional information added to the genes
luckylefty..for your info they have discovered that the earth is the center of creation..and the earth goes a little over 1000 mph(the earth diameter is 25000miles)and also the earth travels around the sun at close to 70000 mph or about 1,6000,000 a day and about 50,000,000 a month and about 600,000,000 a year..both of yall need to get real and get your facts straight...god bless..
forwhatitsworth must be some kind of plant - a group of evolutionary biologists having a laugh perhaps. I like "no additional information added to the genes" what do you imagine that means? Do you have any concept at all of what genes are? How DNA functions? But even better I like "they have discovered that the earth is the center of creation". Um, who is they? Do you actually know what the solar system looks like? Do you know what our galaxy looks like, and where we sit within it? And do you have any concept of the infinite number of other galaxies out there? And if you do, not only couldn't you spout nonsens about us being in the center of anything, but you might just ask yourself - "what is all the rest of the matter in the universe for?
I like the idea of the center of creation moving around the sun. I think that's one of those colorless green ideas Chomsky talked about.
mr p ...nobody knows who"they" are..but seriously you need to catch up on the latest findings of cosmology..they have plotted all the galaxies and distances..and lo and behold the center of all these concentric circles end up with earth the bullseye...whoopps there it is!!!and all that matter you speak of...is simple stuff a few elements for planets and hydrogen and helium for the stars..life is much much more complicated..God was only practicing making stuff before he made life..God bless
Back in my uni days I took astronomy (not astrology, like a creationist would prefer to take I'm sure) and asked the prof where the centre of the universe was. He looked at me raised both hands and pointed his thumbs outwards. After all, what is the centre of infinity? Someone/thing that lives on a planet tens of thousands of parsecs from us would also be able to claim that they are the centre of the universe, and they'd be as right about it as we would be.
Really cool thing I learned in astronomy is the study of how the stars themselves evolve. Growing from stars that burn only H, to He, then thru the atomic chart til they burn Fe; How the explosions from billions of years ago made the very atoms that make us what we are and use today. That is something that gives true meaning to the word awe. Far greater than any god mankind can imagine is the universe, especially when seen far from the lights of human civilization.
Of course forwhatitsworth is a plant, and is having fun playing devil's advocate. Shame he/she isn't doing a very good job of it.
Yes, I can see a bunch of people sitting around taking turns on the keyboard logged in as 'forwhatitsworth". They are biologists, and astronomers, physicists and chemists, paleontologists and geologists, and they are laughing their heads off as they make up more and more outrageous things. Oh come on, they will say, in between beers, no one could believe that even an evangelical was that stupid (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Religion/). And then they write stuff about Earth being the center of the universe, and the rest of the universe being made out of "simple stuff", and they laugh and laugh and laugh. What else can you do?
Actually both sides are right and wrong at the same time. To wit (whatever the hell that means): A common misconception is that the galaxies are receding from each other, but actually it is space that is expanding, creating the illusion that galaxies recede from all directions. But they would do that no matter where you are in the universe, just as dots on a balloon all distance themselves from each other as the balloon is blown up. Who woulda known? In other words, every point in the universe is the center, and none are. Now is everyone happy?
Weight an evangelist carries with God = 1 billigram
lpenek of course you are correct, but with forwhatitsworth we aren't discussing relativity. Whoever they are may well have seen some kind of discussion along those lines - but what they believe is that it means the Earth is literally, and uniquely, the center of the universe. There is no sophisticated thought going on here. They don't understand that their description of what is going on with the flu virus "there are microbes that have an intrinsic ability to survive certain drugs and some that dont have this ability..the ones that do proliferate" applies to every living organism, including humans, and that therefore we continue to evolve, as a simple statement of logic. I know there is no point in argument here, but it served to entertain me for a few hours.
We can see only so far in all directions. That doesn't make us the center of the universe, it makes us the center of our sphere of vision.
And we're supposed to believe there are unnamed and amorphous authorities who've made "discoveries" that contradict everything we've read about science, and even believe their illogical and conveniently pulled-out-of-nowhere "facts?" I don't think so.
barely human;
But it's a most fun discussion. I misstated about the question I asked my proff too. I asked him where the big bang happened, not where the centre of the universe is. Not that it matters much, afaik no scientist has seen the 'edge' of the universe. What we can see is about 12-15 billion years away, with better telescopes we might see further, or there might be nothing there. It's still infinate, and the centre of an infinate expanse is where you are; right?
My grandfather was a priest who loathed fundy's, said they were blasphemers of the lowest form as they worshiped a book rather than god. He always argued that the scientists told us how the world was created and the best the bible could do was to try and tell us why it was.
people will never be able to believe in God..unless they believe in Jesus Christ..then you can know God..and the only way to believe in Jesus Christ is to have your blind eyes open to see that guilt is the underlying problem of all problems...there is no such thing as stress or anxiety or chronic fatique or even restless leg syndrome..there is guilt..worry gets mixed up in with guilt and the devil uses that to confuse people to the real problem..there are two types of guilt..1.that is the guilt from the things you have done wrong..2.and there is guilt from what people have done to you..Jesus death on the cross dealt with both... his great love and his substitutional death for sin..i hope you will pray to have your spiritual eyes opened to this great truth..that is to know God you have to know Jesus...God bless
More powerful drug than opium indeed! Jesus is nothing more than a mystery cult which originated in Ancient Egypt. He has not a whisp of influence in evolution, the movements of the stars planets nor in the 'hearts of men' He didn't die for our sins, and your claim that we have to know jc to know god is blasphemy. Yes, I do wear glasses, but I'm not blind. Nor do I have any 'spiritual' eyes; well, I suppose after a few alki bevies my eyes are affected by spirits. Sometimes I wake up with someone I don't want to wake up with after those evenings, I don't drink that much anymore...
That's an interesting theological theory forwhatitsworth, but I think Jews and Muslims (for a start) would object to being categorized as atheists. And even if what you've said is true (aside from the denial that stress, anxiety, chronic fatique or restless leg syndrome exist--that's indisputably incorrect), it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. All the Christians I know accept evolution as science and Genesis as allegory. And if you say that means they don't believe Jesus is God, then I'll know you're a liar to be ignored.
LOL, all these talks of theories thats so high in the sky makes me want to laugh so much.....
Lets all go work in a sweatshop, breath in air filled with coal for the rest of our lives....don't worry, during all these times your firm beliefs in either creationism or evolution will pull you through(please note this is suppose to act as a reminder not condemnation....I apologize for lack of better wording)
and to forwhatisworth.....I hate criticizing in anyway even if I am pretty sure I am have a good argument, but you have hit a spot which really hurts. Tell all that to the people who have died in wars, natural disasters, human manupulation, and all those who are still suffering from one or other forms of oppression, ignorance, life's experiences, or even simply births at the "wrong place" etc etc. And to the people who are doing the best they can to combat and prevent these in real life, and to those who are trying to learn form the blood,sweat,hate, love,tears and laugher of countless people over countless decades before them who tried to improve the world in their own way--------THOSE IDIOTS NEED TO HEAR YOUR VOICE OF GOD TO GET THEIR SALVATION!!!THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SIN, GUILT, THE TRUTH!!!!!THEY NEED GODS BLESSING AND SPIRITUAL EYES SHIPPED TO THEM OVERNIGHT THROUGH UPS!!!!