As I write this essay, the hearings in Kansas that I like to call "Monkey Trial 2" are winding down. In the middle of all the press reporting and opinion pieces I've seen on the subject, I came across a most remarkable document, supposedly leaked from our good friends at The Discovery Institute . This delightful item says it is an outline of the Creationists' strategy to bring "Intelligent Design" into the mainstream of scientific thought and public opinion in general. Man, are these guys in for a rude awakening!
First off, let's see what they think will happen as a result of their work. Their goal, stated in the leaked memo, is: "...nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." These people rail against the "utopianism" of their enemies, and put a far different one in its place. The central point here is that these folks are fundamentalist Christians and they want to bring to the world the "good old days" when their religion was king of the hill. I mean, let's brush away the "cultural legacies" of an all-Christian world: The Inquisitions, pogroms, the Dark Ages and so forth. Apparently this time they expect to get it right. How they can be sure of that, I expect they don't have a clue.
But the thing that I find most amusing is this "logic" they quite often employ, leading them from an "intelligent designer" to a Christian God. Read pretty much anything by Lee Strobel (a "former atheist" who's making a killing with his schtick) to get a look at this phenomenon.
I really don't think these people have thought this through well enough. They don't seem to realize that when they talk about invading the world of science, they are encountering a world of objectivity. For the vast majority of these people, this is a world they know pretty much nothing about. This is an area of significant difference between science and religion. In science, the answer is never pre-determined. In religion, it always is.
Intelligent Design pushers say "If you find something that is designed, then you can tell something about the designer." Oh really? Are they sure they want to go there? If the universe is purposely designed by God, that means this God designed viruses. We're talking about things like flu, smallpox and AIDS. It also means that God is directly responsible for the cellular mutation mechanism that leads to cancer. We can also lay Alzheimer's Disease, ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease), malaria, dysentery, ebola, "Mad Cow Disease," STD's and all the other medical horrors that humans encounter in this vale of tears -- all at the feet of this Designer they want us to accept and worship.
Well, the problem of amoral evil has always been a thorn in the side of theology students. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts... all these and many more would have to be laid dutifully at the Designer's doorstep. After all, these events are purely natural occurrences, well-understood by science. If nature has a designer that you want to call "God," then you can't really expect us to accept that only parts of nature are part of the Designer's handiwork, and not others. That's a central point of science. An explanation has to work for everything or it's useless.
What's that I hear? The addition of new "scientific concepts" to explain these issues while hoping to retain the concept of a "loving, Christian God"? Might there be an Intelligent Destroyer? A being who generates vast amounts of entropy throughout the universe? Or will we be talking about a scientific explanation of "sin"? This mysterious force that ruins the efforts of the Intelligent Designer really needs to be studied, don't you think?
I sure hope the scientists at the Discovery Institute are working hard on this. When we throw out the part of science that restricts research to purely materialistic measures, we're going to need a lot of new technology to handle measuring sin and reliably telling the difference between things designed by God and things designed by God's enemy. Hopefully, they'll also be able to objectively describe "sin," measure it and find a cure that works more reliably than the non-technical crap we've had on our plates for the past 3000 years.
The bottom line here is that science is strictly about facts. You have a question about the material world? Science is your best bet.
Now, that's all fine, this discussion of scientific ramifications (if you could really call them that) of "Intelligent Design." What about the social issues? Isn't this what gives the Discovery Institute and all other "think tanks" of this sort their appeal?
These people carry on about the social problems that they claim are caused by the theory of evolution. They say that it's a horrible thing to teach children that they are "mere animals," and that there are "no moral absolutes." Once again, this sort of drivel is OK for consumption by your average pew-sitter. My guess is that not many of them have ever bothered to study sociology, comparitive religion or history. If they had, I would expect far less support for this nonsense.
Many people would be quite surprised to hear that many religions teach a connection between humans and all other animals. In fact, from a biological perspective, trying to separate the two groups makes no sense at all. Saying that humans are not the same as animals implies that animal testing of drugs (for instance) is useless. I wonder what these people would say if they took the time to dissect a human cadaver and a dead gorilla, one right after the other...
But what about the desire for "moral absolutes"? Are there any? What are they? Well, let's take a look. Through history, from a Christian point of view, all proper, absolute social norms have been handed down to the unintelligent, brainless humans who can't figure things out for themselves by the "higher power" known as God. These norms are contained in the Bible, I'm guessing.
Funny thing about these "absolutes." It looks as though they've changed through history! First off, we'll have to toss out the moral absolute against killing other humans. There are not that many Christians who find that an absolute. In fact, I believe that such folks, ones who are against state executions and war are in quite a minority.
Next, let's look at marital fidelity. Seems like a pretty stable, "absolute" thing, until you look a little deeper at what constitutes "marriage." You think that's an absolute? Look at the Old Testament. The vast majority of "families" in that part are polygamous. Talk with a sociologist. You'll find that the idea of monogamy is fairly rare and, over the history of the world, pretty new. What about the associated concept of "women's rights"? Hey, Chrisatians themselves are pretty well split on that, so there's no moral absolutes there to be seen.
What about slavery? Well, that was supported by an awful lot of Christians for centuries, based on the moral instructions found in the Bible. Perhaps humanity has strayed from God's pure purpose for moral living? I've heard some Christians here in the South who would agree. We'll need to move on, I suppose.
What about telling lies? Well, I agree that this is wrong, and that it comes pretty close to being an absolute. After all, when dealing objectively with the world, facts really ought to have a special status. But let's face it... in the world of Christianity (and the Discovery Institute) lying is hardly seen as a bad thing. In fact, many original Church Fathers explicitly stated that lying in order to further the Kingdom of God is a good thing. Certainly, if you look over the material put out by the good Christians at the Discovery Institute, you'll find a fine attention paid to creating and propagating some of the slickest lies regarding science and the theory of evolution you'll ever encounter.
Let's see here... what supposed absolutes are left? Well, there's stealing, I suppose. The only trouble I see there is that it implies a matching moral absolute of private property. Funny thing is that private property is not a universal value for human societies. Heck, if you read the Book of Acts, you'll see that it wasn't even a value for the first Christian community!
You know, from what I can see, the screaming of Creationists about the decay of society and the loss of "absolute moral values" sounds like a bit of grandstanding. There really are no moral absolutes to be found in the Christian religion. Society may be in trouble, but I really doubt it has anything to do with the teaching of evolution.
I hear that a lot. "Teaching evolution gives kids the message that they aren't special." I find that amusingly ironic, since this usually comes from folks who are highly critical of teaching methods that aim to boost self-esteem. "Teaching evolution gives kids the message that there is no God, that they aren't accountable to a higher power." Well, that's pretty odd, considering that most mainstream Christian denominations don't, in fact, object to it. Certainly, one can infer both of those statements from pretty much any theory that doesn't specifically mention God, but it's not a necessary link, so far as I can see.
So what is the true heart of the Creationists' objection to evolution? Do they believe that if you throw out the account of creation in Genesis as fact, it will make their entire religion collapse? Or do they think that every claim of fact in the Bible needs to be accepted as objective fact in order for their religion to be accepted as "true"? Or is there some other emotional response at the bottom of it all? I don't know. I have never found an introspective, calm fundamentalist to discuss the matter with. But I think it's likely to be a combination of the first two things I mentioned.
These people have a little sympathy from me, mainly because I used to be somewhat like them. No, I never objected to science the way they do; but I did despair at the condition of the world around me and hope that the Bible held the answers to the problems of the world. It's understandable that they would feel as if they were drowning in a world washed deeply in evil. They see their religion as a way to save the world. And like a drowning man, they are grasping at this I.D. movement to help them. The sad thing is... it can't. I've shown you exactly why it can't
And their religion can't save the world. History shows you exactly why it can't. It's time to move on.
