Science is more than just sitting in a laboratory randomly throwing things together to try to make pretty colors or a puff of smoke. Scientists by and large don't sit in an ivory tower trying to decide how we can further the Evil Athiest Conspiracy. Granted the argument could be made that science is atheistic, but only by virtue of the fact that the actions of any god or gods is an unscientific proposal. It's not that scientists don't believe in God (although some don't). It's that regardless of whether God, god, or gods were involved in the creation of the universe, there is no experiment we can perform which would give us any information as to the nature of said gods. I have met a number of athiest scientists; but I have met a far greater number of scientists of all faiths who have absolutely no difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with their scientific pursuits. Christians (several flavors thereof), Muslims, Jews, Pegans... Some of whom hold their religious beliefs very strongly, yet are able to find a middle ground where their beliefs and their science can exist harmoniously. As one of my associates put it: "those whose faith is so weak that their God can only exist within the confines of science; and who force science to fit their definition of God; have done nothing to deserve faith."
The problem with bringing God into science is simple: science stops. What makes science such a wonderful pursuit is that it is never-ending. Every time you answer a question, it brings you in new directions, makes you ask new questions. It forces your mind to think in a way that you hadn't thought before. Once you bring God into the scientific process, you have nowhere else to go. How did the universe get here? God snapped Her fingers. How did we get such a complex array of life on this planet? God declared it so. God pretty much obliterates any questions you might ask. You can perform no experiment which would tell you how She'd do it. You simply stop asking questions, and if you stop asking questions, you stop learning. Why the hell would God want us to stop learning about the world?
Thomas Jefferson once said "Question with courage even the existence of God, for if there is one; he surely must prefer the homage of reason to that of blindfolded fear." Postulating the existence of God, it strikes me as completely non-sensical that She would be nice enough to provide us all with free will, then be enough of a prick that She doesn't want us to use it. It's completely non-sensical to me that She wants us to learn about the universe from a book that has been re-written, re-translated and revised dozens of times since the dawn of time; and to alienate those who dare consider the possibility that the Bible might not be the best scientific resource.
I have no issue with religion, actually, I don't even have an issue with including one religion in the public arena. For me the issue is the exclusion of all the others. We have had people insisting that a monument of the ten commandments had to remain outside a courthouse; but what if someone had insisted that we include the Wiccan Rede? People would respond with absolute outrage. What if we included prayer in public schools, but insisted that it had to take the form of a Hindu prayer, or a Taoist or Buddist meditaion? What if we said that students had to read the Tao or the Koran every day before class began?
Why are these suggestions any more absurd than including Christian prayer in class, or the ten commandments outside a courthouse?
My point is simple: worship or don't worship in whatever way you see fit. If it's as simple as meditating for a few minutes every day, fine. If you pray to God, or Allah, or Jesus, or his brother Bob; so be it. But if you pray to God, don't tell the guy sitting next to you who's praying to Bob that he's doing it wrong.
If that makes me an evil athiest, so be it. I'd rather be an evil athiest than a pious bigot.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Saturday, June 10, 2006
On Constitutional Amendments
I'm trying hard to decide whether these people are completely devoid of any capacity for logical thought, or simply stupid. Heck, the idea of actually having facts to back up their blind assertions is apparently completely foreign to them.
Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.
I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."
If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.
Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?
The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.
Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.
The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.
Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.
By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.
The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.
There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.
Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.
I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."
If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.
Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?
The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.
Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.
The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.
Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.
By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.
The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.
There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.
Monday, May 08, 2006
The Gap between Science and Faith
I had a bit of an epiphany the other night. As those of you who read this page on a relatively-regular basis know, I have a rather deep interest in the recent debate between the theory of evolution and creationism (or its more politically-correct cousin: Intelligent Design), and for the most part, my position has been pretty consistent: teach science in science class. Intelligent design "theory" has no more place in a science class than evolution has in church.
All throughout this time, the one question I never asked, largely because I couldn't see any way of answering it was "why?" Why would people who are otherwise relatively intelligent either deny or ignore the very plain evidence for biological evolution? How can they claim that what they provide is science when just about every claim they make is directly contradicted by scientific data? To take the extreme position of Young-Earth Creationism; namely that the earth (not to mention, the universe as a whole) is actually thousands, rather than billions of years old, one has to completely ignore just about every scientific finding that has been made in just about every branch of the sciences in the last three hundred years. How can they claim to be acting on behalf of a benevolent God, then completely ignore that whole "not bearing false witness" thing She laid out in the book of Exodus?
And more importantly, what on earth makes people dumb enough to listen to them?
Anyhow the realization I came to was remarkable only in its simplicity. People like absolutes. They like for the world to be divided into black and white; up and down; good and evil; us and them. They paint the world in black and white, ignoring in the process that the entire world is a gray area.
So coming back to the intelligent design debate. Basically, what you have is a group of religious fundamentalists whose faith is so weak that they simply cannot accept that a given passage of the bible is not literally true. From their perspective, the Bible is either absolutely 100% correct, or it's 100% wrong. Apart from being a demonstration of unfathomably weak faith, in my opinion; this is also the type of very dangerous thinking that leads to things like crusades, Holocausts and 9/11s.
Once they have people on the hook, though, they start applying the same logic to science. Evolution, they posit, is either 100% right, or 100% wrong. They nitpick little flaws in the theory (real or perceived); with the (oft unverbalized) assumption that unless a scientific theory is 100% right on every single point, then it's completely wrong.
It should be mentioned, critically, that these people claim to be scientists; or at the absolute least, they claim that their approach is scientific; and yet this approach belies a complete lack of understanding of how science works.
The difference between faith and science is that any scientific theory carries with it the implicit assumption that it is wrong. In fact, as soon as a theory is concocted, the first thing you do is start looking for ways in which it is wrong. You design new experiments, you put together new systems, you try new models. In short, the first thing you do once you have a theory worked out is try to prove yourself wrong.
No scientist, to the best of my knowledge, has ever made the claim that the theory of evolution; or any scientific theory, for that matter; is absolutely correct (Although I suppose one might (and I emphasize: might) be able to argue that by calling his theories "laws," Newton was claiming that he was working with immutable truth, but he was a bit of a pretentious asshole; he was a brilliant scientist, make no mistake, but that doesn't make him immune from being a prick). Even as Einstein crafted his theory of relativity, he knew there were parts of the theory which wouldn't be absolutely correct. Even as Darwin put together his theory of evolution, he knew there were some points for which he didn't have evidence. When Hodgkin and Huxley developed the ionic theory of membrane excitability, they knew that the science they were founding would be very different than it was now; and when Frank and Starling came up with the so-called "law of the heart," they knew that it would be added to and changed as time passed. In short, science, by its very nature, changes. It is a living, changing approach to the universe where the assumption is always made that anything we know today may be seen as absurd tomorrow. To try to approach science with the assumption that it deals in a black-and-white world is ludicrous.
And the beautiful irony of the whole situation is this: let's suppose that tomorrow, the theory of evolution is completely disproven. This would pretty much be the ID proponents' greatest fantasy: to see the evil theory of evolution proven incorrect. The irony of the ID position is that if evolution is disproven, that doesn't make intelligent design right. It just makes evolution wrong.
A friend of mine said that trying to mix faith and science was like mixing vanilla ice cream with a spoonful of manure. It won't hurt the manure much; but it'll ruin the ice cream. It's worth noting that he didn't specify which of the two represented which. And he was right. When you mix science and faith; neither one gets the one thing that they both want: answers.
All throughout this time, the one question I never asked, largely because I couldn't see any way of answering it was "why?" Why would people who are otherwise relatively intelligent either deny or ignore the very plain evidence for biological evolution? How can they claim that what they provide is science when just about every claim they make is directly contradicted by scientific data? To take the extreme position of Young-Earth Creationism; namely that the earth (not to mention, the universe as a whole) is actually thousands, rather than billions of years old, one has to completely ignore just about every scientific finding that has been made in just about every branch of the sciences in the last three hundred years. How can they claim to be acting on behalf of a benevolent God, then completely ignore that whole "not bearing false witness" thing She laid out in the book of Exodus?
And more importantly, what on earth makes people dumb enough to listen to them?
Anyhow the realization I came to was remarkable only in its simplicity. People like absolutes. They like for the world to be divided into black and white; up and down; good and evil; us and them. They paint the world in black and white, ignoring in the process that the entire world is a gray area.
So coming back to the intelligent design debate. Basically, what you have is a group of religious fundamentalists whose faith is so weak that they simply cannot accept that a given passage of the bible is not literally true. From their perspective, the Bible is either absolutely 100% correct, or it's 100% wrong. Apart from being a demonstration of unfathomably weak faith, in my opinion; this is also the type of very dangerous thinking that leads to things like crusades, Holocausts and 9/11s.
Once they have people on the hook, though, they start applying the same logic to science. Evolution, they posit, is either 100% right, or 100% wrong. They nitpick little flaws in the theory (real or perceived); with the (oft unverbalized) assumption that unless a scientific theory is 100% right on every single point, then it's completely wrong.
It should be mentioned, critically, that these people claim to be scientists; or at the absolute least, they claim that their approach is scientific; and yet this approach belies a complete lack of understanding of how science works.
The difference between faith and science is that any scientific theory carries with it the implicit assumption that it is wrong. In fact, as soon as a theory is concocted, the first thing you do is start looking for ways in which it is wrong. You design new experiments, you put together new systems, you try new models. In short, the first thing you do once you have a theory worked out is try to prove yourself wrong.
No scientist, to the best of my knowledge, has ever made the claim that the theory of evolution; or any scientific theory, for that matter; is absolutely correct (Although I suppose one might (and I emphasize: might) be able to argue that by calling his theories "laws," Newton was claiming that he was working with immutable truth, but he was a bit of a pretentious asshole; he was a brilliant scientist, make no mistake, but that doesn't make him immune from being a prick). Even as Einstein crafted his theory of relativity, he knew there were parts of the theory which wouldn't be absolutely correct. Even as Darwin put together his theory of evolution, he knew there were some points for which he didn't have evidence. When Hodgkin and Huxley developed the ionic theory of membrane excitability, they knew that the science they were founding would be very different than it was now; and when Frank and Starling came up with the so-called "law of the heart," they knew that it would be added to and changed as time passed. In short, science, by its very nature, changes. It is a living, changing approach to the universe where the assumption is always made that anything we know today may be seen as absurd tomorrow. To try to approach science with the assumption that it deals in a black-and-white world is ludicrous.
And the beautiful irony of the whole situation is this: let's suppose that tomorrow, the theory of evolution is completely disproven. This would pretty much be the ID proponents' greatest fantasy: to see the evil theory of evolution proven incorrect. The irony of the ID position is that if evolution is disproven, that doesn't make intelligent design right. It just makes evolution wrong.
A friend of mine said that trying to mix faith and science was like mixing vanilla ice cream with a spoonful of manure. It won't hurt the manure much; but it'll ruin the ice cream. It's worth noting that he didn't specify which of the two represented which. And he was right. When you mix science and faith; neither one gets the one thing that they both want: answers.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Pat Robertson to Dover Pennsylvania: "Don't turn to God if you Need Help"
You really couldn't make this kind of stuff up. Seriously. You don't need to really look to hard these days to find complete crackpots.
Pat Robertson; famous for calling for the assasination of president Hugo Chavez; for blaming 9/11 upon pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way;" for claiming to have directed the course of Hurricane Gloria which caused millions of dollars of destruction along the US' east coast in 1986; and made similar claims about Hurricane Felix in 1995; and my personal favorite: describing femanism as "a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians;" has again issued one of his PatWas.
No, I'm not making this stuff up.
"I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover," Robertson announced in a November 10th airing of The 700 club, "If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there."
There's compassionate conservativism for you. Apparently, feeling bad about his comments, Robertson later clarified: "God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."
Now, what's deliciously ironic about all this is that those who have been pushing the Intelligent Design Curriculum have been very careful to avoid any mention of the word "God" in any of their publications (although that sorta fell apart in the courts in Dover, when one of the witnesses on the stand admitted that he felt that the Intelligent Designer was the Christian God). The reason for this is pretty obvious: Intelligent Design, designed (no pun intended) to undermine the scientifically-sound theory of Evolution is basically just creationism made more politically correct. If you look at the Intelligent Design Network's Homepage, they offer the following:
On paper, that sounds pretty good. No mention of any of the standard biblical creation beliefs which would make Intelligent Design a violation of the establishment clause of the American Constitution.
Then Patty baby decides to go and blow all that hard work the ID proponents have been doing out of the water. According to them, Intelligent Design is merely the science of detecting evidence of design in nature; having nothing whatsoever to do with Pat Robertson's God. If we go by Robertson's reaction, it would seem that they were mistaken.
Pat Robertson; famous for calling for the assasination of president Hugo Chavez; for blaming 9/11 upon pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way;" for claiming to have directed the course of Hurricane Gloria which caused millions of dollars of destruction along the US' east coast in 1986; and made similar claims about Hurricane Felix in 1995; and my personal favorite: describing femanism as "a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians;" has again issued one of his PatWas.
No, I'm not making this stuff up.
"I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover," Robertson announced in a November 10th airing of The 700 club, "If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there."
There's compassionate conservativism for you. Apparently, feeling bad about his comments, Robertson later clarified: "God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."
Now, what's deliciously ironic about all this is that those who have been pushing the Intelligent Design Curriculum have been very careful to avoid any mention of the word "God" in any of their publications (although that sorta fell apart in the courts in Dover, when one of the witnesses on the stand admitted that he felt that the Intelligent Designer was the Christian God). The reason for this is pretty obvious: Intelligent Design, designed (no pun intended) to undermine the scientifically-sound theory of Evolution is basically just creationism made more politically correct. If you look at the Intelligent Design Network's Homepage, they offer the following:
We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
On paper, that sounds pretty good. No mention of any of the standard biblical creation beliefs which would make Intelligent Design a violation of the establishment clause of the American Constitution.
Then Patty baby decides to go and blow all that hard work the ID proponents have been doing out of the water. According to them, Intelligent Design is merely the science of detecting evidence of design in nature; having nothing whatsoever to do with Pat Robertson's God. If we go by Robertson's reaction, it would seem that they were mistaken.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The logic (or rather the absence thereof) in Intelligent Design
Let's ask ourselves perhaps the most pertinent question in Intelligent Design theory; one that nobody seems to be able to answer: What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how may it be empirically tested?
Not one person yet has been able to answer this one simple question, and I openly challenge anyone who is within the sound of my electronic voice to provide an answer.
Evolution has been tested time and time again. It has been the prevaliling scientific theory to explain the diversity of life on earth for over 150 years; ever since Darwin was tromping around the Galapogos Islands. The fossil record supports it; modern genetics supports it... In fact, to date, not one study has been performed which contradicts evolution.
But let's suppose, hypothetically, that one had. One day a scientist stumbles upon irrefutable evidence that evolution simply cannot be the mechanism by which life on earth arose and diversified. Let's presume, just for the sake of argument, that tomorrow, we find out that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Guess what? The theory of Intelligent Design still wouldn't be a scientific theory.
See, according to the IDiots out there (although they don't explicitly say so, their strategy so far makes it quite clear) hacking holes (whether real or perceived) in the theory of evolution equates to proving Intelligent Design.
This is, of course, bullshit. No scientific theory is accepted until they at least have a solid falsifiable hypthesis and have either supported or disproven it. Frankly, where Intelligent design is concerned, it is very possibly impossible to falsify an act of God; and since She isn't coming forward to tell us how She dun it, Intelligent design will have to be viewed as it is by the scientific community: pseudo-intellectual crap.
Now, I know that the tone of this posting is a little harsher than I usually use, and I apologize, but the simple truth is that I see Intelligent Design as a slap in the face to everything I've decided to dedicate my professional life to. To take religion, specifically the book of Genesis, cloak it in pseudoscience, then try to force-feed it to high school students as if it were an accepted scientific theory; that is something I simply cannot accept. As a scientist, I simply cannot look upon Intelligent design with anything less than utmost contempt.
Not one person yet has been able to answer this one simple question, and I openly challenge anyone who is within the sound of my electronic voice to provide an answer.
Evolution has been tested time and time again. It has been the prevaliling scientific theory to explain the diversity of life on earth for over 150 years; ever since Darwin was tromping around the Galapogos Islands. The fossil record supports it; modern genetics supports it... In fact, to date, not one study has been performed which contradicts evolution.
But let's suppose, hypothetically, that one had. One day a scientist stumbles upon irrefutable evidence that evolution simply cannot be the mechanism by which life on earth arose and diversified. Let's presume, just for the sake of argument, that tomorrow, we find out that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Guess what? The theory of Intelligent Design still wouldn't be a scientific theory.
See, according to the IDiots out there (although they don't explicitly say so, their strategy so far makes it quite clear) hacking holes (whether real or perceived) in the theory of evolution equates to proving Intelligent Design.
This is, of course, bullshit. No scientific theory is accepted until they at least have a solid falsifiable hypthesis and have either supported or disproven it. Frankly, where Intelligent design is concerned, it is very possibly impossible to falsify an act of God; and since She isn't coming forward to tell us how She dun it, Intelligent design will have to be viewed as it is by the scientific community: pseudo-intellectual crap.
Now, I know that the tone of this posting is a little harsher than I usually use, and I apologize, but the simple truth is that I see Intelligent Design as a slap in the face to everything I've decided to dedicate my professional life to. To take religion, specifically the book of Genesis, cloak it in pseudoscience, then try to force-feed it to high school students as if it were an accepted scientific theory; that is something I simply cannot accept. As a scientist, I simply cannot look upon Intelligent design with anything less than utmost contempt.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Something which, for some reason didn't occur to me before
So I was thinking about the recent presidential election and I recalled one particular interview that was held just outside one of the polling stations on CNN. The woman who was about to vote announced, proudly, that she was going to vote for Bush.
When asked why, she immediately responded: "because I believe that the lord wants him to be President."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Lord, in fact, wants a smirking alcoholic, C-student, chimpanzee cheerleader to be president. Has anybody considered the possibility that maybe this wasn't a blessing?
Reading your bible, you'll find that the Old Testament God was pretty keen on the whole concept of smiting. He comes off a little nicer in the New Testament and the Koran, but my point stands. The Flood; the plagues of Egypt; the Tsunami; Bush.
If we postulate for the sake of argument that the Lord, in fact, wants Bush to be president; doesn't it make far more sense that this is much more a punishment than it is a blessing?
Maybe that's just me.
When asked why, she immediately responded: "because I believe that the lord wants him to be President."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Lord, in fact, wants a smirking alcoholic, C-student, chimpanzee cheerleader to be president. Has anybody considered the possibility that maybe this wasn't a blessing?
Reading your bible, you'll find that the Old Testament God was pretty keen on the whole concept of smiting. He comes off a little nicer in the New Testament and the Koran, but my point stands. The Flood; the plagues of Egypt; the Tsunami; Bush.
If we postulate for the sake of argument that the Lord, in fact, wants Bush to be president; doesn't it make far more sense that this is much more a punishment than it is a blessing?
Maybe that's just me.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Arguing with God.
Alberta's an interesting province. Our population is somewhere to the right of Alan Keyes; we routinely vote Conservative in every riding whenever we have a federal election; and the scariest conservative MPs tend to run, and win in Alberta.
Yet, at the same time, we have a substantial younger population that has either moved in or has grown up here and is starting to actually vote.
The reason I bring this up is that Stephen Harper has vowed to revisit the Gay Marriage issue if he's elected prime minister. His logic, he claims, is that the majority of Canadians do not want Gay marriage, ergo, it should not be law.
Mr. Harper, apparently, has failed to understand the concept of Tyrrany of the Majority.
But that's really not what I wanted to address. The point I want to get across is that if he's elected, it means that he's going to be elected, at least in part, based on the promise of being the first Prime Minister in the History of Canada to use the Notwithstanding clause. For the non-Canucks of you out there; this means that he could get elected, at least in part, based on a promise to suspend the civil liberties assured by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a very scary precedent.
What I don't get, completely, is why this is an issue. The law is very specific that no religious institution will be forced to perform any marriage which is outside their belief system; ergo the Churches have exactly the same leeway as far as marriage is concerned that they did a year ago. All this law means is that the rest of us aren't necessarily required to fall in line with their doctrine.
I recall I was wandering around downtown around about the time that Bill C-38, the Gay Marriage law, was being voted upon in the House of Commons. I don't think anyone seriously believed that the bill would be defeated; but nevertheless you had people out there waving signs, and screaming that allowing people that they did not know and had never met (and, I imagine that it's reasonably safe to assume, had no desire to associate with) to marry would somehow cause society as we understand it to crumble.
This is, clearly, ridiculous; but this is apparently what they believed. Among these people was one woman who was waving a sign which read, simply Leviticus 18:22. First off; if you don't have at least a passing understanding of the bible, you hadn't the faintest clue what the sign meant (incidentally, that passage of the King James' version of the bible reads: "Thou shalt not lie with Mankind as with Womankind; it is an abomination"). Second, as far as this woman was concerned, that one passage of the bible; one line among thousands; ended the debate.
One line of one volume of one book written by people who have been dead for hundreds of years in a different country was the final word on the subject, as far as she was concerned.
Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, that might not be the best way of running a country.
That, and, let's face it, it's kinda hard to argue with God.
Faith is one thing; blind faith is something completely different. Belief in something that may not be scientifically observable is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. I personally believe that there are a number of phenomena which cannot now, and may never be empirically observable. But to blindly take one set of rules and assume that that is the final word on any given subject basically creates a system where you're not allowed to think for yourself. We see that happening far too often in the states, and to a lesser degree in Canada.
The problem with politics is that it's seen too much as a factor of us against them; without much of a well-defined position on who we or they are. The US is divided into "Red States" and "Blue States." In Canada we have our "Liberal Provinces" and our "Conservative Provinces."
Just once, at least in the US, I'd like to see a running team for president throw that whole concept out the window. I'd like to see a third party team stand a solid chance in a run for president. I'd like to see a pair of independent candidates; people with no strong ties to either party... or even better: a bipartisan running team; one former Democrat, one former Republican running for a third party... I'd like to see them run, and I'd like to see them win.
I'd like to see us lose this concept of "Swing States." I'd like to see so-called "Red States" get a little Bluer, and "Blue States" get a little redder.
In short, just once, I'd like to see partisanship become secondary to what's best for the country.
Yet, at the same time, we have a substantial younger population that has either moved in or has grown up here and is starting to actually vote.
The reason I bring this up is that Stephen Harper has vowed to revisit the Gay Marriage issue if he's elected prime minister. His logic, he claims, is that the majority of Canadians do not want Gay marriage, ergo, it should not be law.
Mr. Harper, apparently, has failed to understand the concept of Tyrrany of the Majority.
But that's really not what I wanted to address. The point I want to get across is that if he's elected, it means that he's going to be elected, at least in part, based on the promise of being the first Prime Minister in the History of Canada to use the Notwithstanding clause. For the non-Canucks of you out there; this means that he could get elected, at least in part, based on a promise to suspend the civil liberties assured by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a very scary precedent.
What I don't get, completely, is why this is an issue. The law is very specific that no religious institution will be forced to perform any marriage which is outside their belief system; ergo the Churches have exactly the same leeway as far as marriage is concerned that they did a year ago. All this law means is that the rest of us aren't necessarily required to fall in line with their doctrine.
I recall I was wandering around downtown around about the time that Bill C-38, the Gay Marriage law, was being voted upon in the House of Commons. I don't think anyone seriously believed that the bill would be defeated; but nevertheless you had people out there waving signs, and screaming that allowing people that they did not know and had never met (and, I imagine that it's reasonably safe to assume, had no desire to associate with) to marry would somehow cause society as we understand it to crumble.
This is, clearly, ridiculous; but this is apparently what they believed. Among these people was one woman who was waving a sign which read, simply Leviticus 18:22. First off; if you don't have at least a passing understanding of the bible, you hadn't the faintest clue what the sign meant (incidentally, that passage of the King James' version of the bible reads: "Thou shalt not lie with Mankind as with Womankind; it is an abomination"). Second, as far as this woman was concerned, that one passage of the bible; one line among thousands; ended the debate.
One line of one volume of one book written by people who have been dead for hundreds of years in a different country was the final word on the subject, as far as she was concerned.
Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, that might not be the best way of running a country.
That, and, let's face it, it's kinda hard to argue with God.
Faith is one thing; blind faith is something completely different. Belief in something that may not be scientifically observable is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. I personally believe that there are a number of phenomena which cannot now, and may never be empirically observable. But to blindly take one set of rules and assume that that is the final word on any given subject basically creates a system where you're not allowed to think for yourself. We see that happening far too often in the states, and to a lesser degree in Canada.
The problem with politics is that it's seen too much as a factor of us against them; without much of a well-defined position on who we or they are. The US is divided into "Red States" and "Blue States." In Canada we have our "Liberal Provinces" and our "Conservative Provinces."
Just once, at least in the US, I'd like to see a running team for president throw that whole concept out the window. I'd like to see a third party team stand a solid chance in a run for president. I'd like to see a pair of independent candidates; people with no strong ties to either party... or even better: a bipartisan running team; one former Democrat, one former Republican running for a third party... I'd like to see them run, and I'd like to see them win.
I'd like to see us lose this concept of "Swing States." I'd like to see so-called "Red States" get a little Bluer, and "Blue States" get a little redder.
In short, just once, I'd like to see partisanship become secondary to what's best for the country.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
On Intelligent Design, and the Scientific Method
This occurred to me last night: assuming that the state of Kentucky makes Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum in the coming year (which is seeming increasingly inevitable), can Intelligent Design be taught concurrently with Scientific Method?
The Scientific Method is the basis for all scientific theory. A falsifiable hypothesis is generated, that hypothesis is subjected to a series of experiments which either validate or disprove it; and from that a theory is created which explains the experimental results. Then the process begins all over again.
Intelligent design has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny. No falsifiable hypothesis has been created; no experimentation performed; ergo no theory has been advanced.
So that raises the obvious question of how can we, out of one side of our virtual mouths, tell high school students that the scientific method is the manner in which postulate becomes theory; while out of the other side we promote Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory? If you can tell me how that is not fundamentally hypocritical, you're smarter than I am.
Now, if someone wants to study Intelligent Design in, for example, a comparative religion course; or a social studies course (the sociology of Intelligent Design proponents is actually quite fascinating), I have absolutely no issue with that. But to present it as a scientific theory is a slap in the face to those of us who do genuine science. Frankly, it's insulting.
I've decided to devote my professional life to the pursuit of scientific knowledge; to understand, through scientific methodology the world around me. To have a small group of people present barely-veiled religion, calling it theory, and teaching it to students as valid science is an affront to everything I have tried to learn in the last ten years.
Not only that, but as far as I can tell, if they want any student to actually believe Intelligent Design; they're going to have to stop teaching the scientific method. In other words, they will be teaching science class, without actually teaching them how to do science.
Now, someone has to have thought about this before me; since I'm not smart enough to have been the first. So why isn't this issue getting far more mention than it is?
The Scientific Method is the basis for all scientific theory. A falsifiable hypothesis is generated, that hypothesis is subjected to a series of experiments which either validate or disprove it; and from that a theory is created which explains the experimental results. Then the process begins all over again.
Intelligent design has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny. No falsifiable hypothesis has been created; no experimentation performed; ergo no theory has been advanced.
So that raises the obvious question of how can we, out of one side of our virtual mouths, tell high school students that the scientific method is the manner in which postulate becomes theory; while out of the other side we promote Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory? If you can tell me how that is not fundamentally hypocritical, you're smarter than I am.
Now, if someone wants to study Intelligent Design in, for example, a comparative religion course; or a social studies course (the sociology of Intelligent Design proponents is actually quite fascinating), I have absolutely no issue with that. But to present it as a scientific theory is a slap in the face to those of us who do genuine science. Frankly, it's insulting.
I've decided to devote my professional life to the pursuit of scientific knowledge; to understand, through scientific methodology the world around me. To have a small group of people present barely-veiled religion, calling it theory, and teaching it to students as valid science is an affront to everything I have tried to learn in the last ten years.
Not only that, but as far as I can tell, if they want any student to actually believe Intelligent Design; they're going to have to stop teaching the scientific method. In other words, they will be teaching science class, without actually teaching them how to do science.
Now, someone has to have thought about this before me; since I'm not smart enough to have been the first. So why isn't this issue getting far more mention than it is?
Monday, March 14, 2005
Supreme court to hear case on Ten Commandments
(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)
I have said this before, and I will say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against religion in any form. I have no issue with people of strong faith. I have no issue with faith in general, provided that faith isn't blind.
At the same time, I firmly believe that faith and government should be separate entities. No one faith has any right to force their beliefs on those who do not believe in that faith, and likewise, the government should not demonstrate any form of favortism towards one faith in particular.
In short, faith should be a private thing, not a public one.
Right now, the US supreme court is hearing a case wherein the question is whether a state courthouse should be permitted to display stone tablets listing the ten commandments.
I find it very depresing that this is even being debated.
The argument being made in favor of keeping the tablets in place is that "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law."
Let's consider this for a moment:
The ten commandments, translated from the original Hebrew:
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Let's start here, shall we? This is a direct contradiction to the first amendment to the bill of rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not a good start for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
Graven image is not terribly well defined. It could be argued that a monument displaying the ten commandments would directly contradict this commandment.
At any rate, there is no law in the US which prohibits this.
Zero for two.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
No law exists in the United States which prohibits this. In fact, prohibition of such speech could be construed (within reason) as a violation of free speech; in direct contradiction to the bill of rights.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
First off, we don't know when the Sabbath day is, exactly. Ask the seventh day adventists, and you'll get a different answer than when you ask the Catholics.
Second, no law exists which prohibits working seven days a week.
Zero for four.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
No law exists which states that you have to honour your father and mother. No law exists which states that you have to even like them. In fact, you can legally divorce your parents and declare your independence from them.
Zero for five.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Okay, we now officially have one commandment which is actually supported by US law. Of course, the commandment not to kill is not original from the Ten Commandments. Actually, it's been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws.
One for six.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultry.
Generally frowned upon, but not illegal in any juristiction.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
two for eight.
Of course, not stealing has also been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws, so it's hardly original with the ten commandments.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
May or may not be illegal, depending upon the context.
False witness, when placed upon the witness stand is perjury; when printed (only in public, and only if it serves to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is libel; when spoken (only in public, and again, only if it can be shown to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is slander.
Otherwise, false witness is pretty much legal within the US.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
As of this date, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted for coveting.
So, as of today, recapping, a total of three of the ten commandments are actually endorsed by American law. One of those is only supported in very specific cases (9th) and the other two (6th and 8th) are not exactly original with the ten commandments.
Not exactly a stellar argument.
--Drew
I have said this before, and I will say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against religion in any form. I have no issue with people of strong faith. I have no issue with faith in general, provided that faith isn't blind.
At the same time, I firmly believe that faith and government should be separate entities. No one faith has any right to force their beliefs on those who do not believe in that faith, and likewise, the government should not demonstrate any form of favortism towards one faith in particular.
In short, faith should be a private thing, not a public one.
Right now, the US supreme court is hearing a case wherein the question is whether a state courthouse should be permitted to display stone tablets listing the ten commandments.
I find it very depresing that this is even being debated.
The argument being made in favor of keeping the tablets in place is that "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law."
Let's consider this for a moment:
The ten commandments, translated from the original Hebrew:
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Let's start here, shall we? This is a direct contradiction to the first amendment to the bill of rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not a good start for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
Graven image is not terribly well defined. It could be argued that a monument displaying the ten commandments would directly contradict this commandment.
At any rate, there is no law in the US which prohibits this.
Zero for two.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
No law exists in the United States which prohibits this. In fact, prohibition of such speech could be construed (within reason) as a violation of free speech; in direct contradiction to the bill of rights.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
First off, we don't know when the Sabbath day is, exactly. Ask the seventh day adventists, and you'll get a different answer than when you ask the Catholics.
Second, no law exists which prohibits working seven days a week.
Zero for four.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
No law exists which states that you have to honour your father and mother. No law exists which states that you have to even like them. In fact, you can legally divorce your parents and declare your independence from them.
Zero for five.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Okay, we now officially have one commandment which is actually supported by US law. Of course, the commandment not to kill is not original from the Ten Commandments. Actually, it's been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws.
One for six.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultry.
Generally frowned upon, but not illegal in any juristiction.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
two for eight.
Of course, not stealing has also been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws, so it's hardly original with the ten commandments.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
May or may not be illegal, depending upon the context.
False witness, when placed upon the witness stand is perjury; when printed (only in public, and only if it serves to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is libel; when spoken (only in public, and again, only if it can be shown to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is slander.
Otherwise, false witness is pretty much legal within the US.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
As of this date, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted for coveting.
So, as of today, recapping, a total of three of the ten commandments are actually endorsed by American law. One of those is only supported in very specific cases (9th) and the other two (6th and 8th) are not exactly original with the ten commandments.
Not exactly a stellar argument.
--Drew
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Sometimes, truth really is stranger than fiction.
Oh, my God.
It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.
Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?
And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.
I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.
It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.
How is this accomplished, you might ask. It's a dead man switch that will automatically send the emails when it is not reset.
Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?
And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.
I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
On the Role of the Catholic Church in my Life
I got into a discussion with my significant other's family over the Gay Marriage issue. They're strongly Catholic, but they are also very strongly in favor of Gay marriage, so to some degree it wasn't so much a discussion as an agreement; but we did cover some very interesting ground in that chat.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Fun with Fanaticism
So, I'm at home after work, and I'm tired. I'm just about to start making dinner, when there's a knock at my door. I open it.
On the opposite side of said door stands a young woman in her mid-to-late 30's, blonde hair, wearing a long, dark trenchcoat; along with a young man in roughtly the same age bracket. He was wearing a toque, so I don't know what colour his hair was. They were both standing there looking awfully self-righteous, and I immediately thought: "aw, crap. Not again."
"Excuse me, sir, we were wondering if we could borrow a few minutes of your time."
"That depends; how are you planning on giving them back?"
"Pardon?"
"Never mind. What can I do for you?" I replied, deciding on the spot that these people had had their senses of humor amputated.
Which meant that I could have a lot of fun with them.
"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dover Pennsylvania School Board has made Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum as an alternative evolutionary theory."
I wasn't actually aware of it, but I chose not to interrupt him.
"We were wondering," he continued, "if you would support a motion to make similar changes to Calgary's public school curriculum."
"Well, public schools do not generally have religion classes," I pointed out.
"No, we would like to include it in the science curriculum."
"Really?"
"Absolutely, sir. Evolution is a theory (and you could actually hear him stress the word) whose time has passed. It is time to consider alternatives." The man told me.
I glanced down at my watch. I decided that I could spare a few minutes, so I said: "I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with that theory. Could you please explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"
"Intelligent Design suggests that as opposed to a Big Bang..."
"Wait a minute," I held up my hand, "back up a bit. I thought you were talking about Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. Why are you discussing the Big Bang?"
"Well, Evolutionary theory (and yes, he stressed it again) states that the universe began with the Big Bang and..."
"No it doesn't."
"Excuse me?"
"Evolution is a biological concept; the idea that we developed and became more complex organisms over a process of mutation and propagation of beneficial genes. The Big Bang is a cosmological concept; the idea that all energy of the universe once occupied a single point in space. Two very different concepts. So, are you suggesting that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution, or an alternative to the Big Bang?"
"Both."
"I don't understand. You just said that you wanted to teach it in the science curriculum as an alternative to Evolution. Since I have never read any textbook on evolution which claims to have all the steps between the Big Bang and an Otter, I think it's somewhat silly to be talking about the Big Bang in terms of Evolution."
"But sir, don't you think that students should..."
"Tell you what, how about we start in an area where Evolution actually does make some claims: say, the first appearance of life on earth."
He seemed a little flustered now, and I couldn't help but note that the blonde hadn't spoken since she asked if she could borrow a few minutes of my time, she was just standing there looking pious. "Well, Intelligent Design theory suggests that a supreme being (for some reason, throughout this conversation, he avoided actually mentioning God) created all life on earth approximately 6000 years ago and that life has been unchanged since that time."
"Okay, explain the scientific approach you used to develop this theory," I told him, "start with your falsifiable hypothesis, and move on from there."
"Well, we merely suggested an alternative explanation to the existing data..."
"Oh, so what predictions does Intelligent Design make about future observations?"
"Excuse me?"
"Well, the whole point of a scientific theory is to make reasonable and evidence-supported predictions about what we will observe in the future. That's what makes science a continuous process. Each question we answer raises more questions. So what unanswered questions does Intelligent Design leave?"
"None. It's a complete system which explains everything."
"Then it's not a scientific theory."
"What?"
"The whole point of a scientific theory is that it doesn't have all the answers; it's a jumping off point for people to add to or modify that theory. As such, the theory of evolution has been tested quite possibly more than any theory in scientific history."
"Well the Intelligent Design theory (and notably, he didn't stress the word this time) doesn't have that problem."
I shrugged, "it's not a problem. This is how science is done. We make observations about the world around us, we provide an hypothesis which explains those observations, then we perform experiments to determine if our hypothesis is supported by further data. So, by your own admission, you don't have a scientific theory here; the absolute best that you can claim is that you have a hypothesis, and considering that it requires the action of a Supreme Being, it may well not be falsifiable; and even if it *were* falsifiable, you wouldn't allow it to be falsified. So, I'll tell you what, when you have a falsifiable hypothesis, and you have performed some kind of experimentation which supports that hypothesis, then I'll most definitely support a motion to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Until then, I'm sorry, but no. If you want to have it taught in some kind of comparative religion class, on the other hand, that's a different matter."
"But sir," he held up a hand before I closed the door, "do you really want our children to be taught as fact that we descended from monkeys?"
"Apes."
"Pardon?"
"Apes. We descended from apes, not monkeys; and if you're going to lecture people on biology, you should at the very least know that distinction." (just for the record, yes, I am aware that the claim not that we descend from Apes, but rather from an Ape-like common ancestor, but I figured, judging by the level of scientific knowledge they'd demonstrated, that distinction would likely be lost on them)
"But my point stands, sir. Do you want our children to learn that we descended from apes?"
"You prefer the idea that we descended from dirt?" I shrugged.
"Excuse me?"
"So in addition to an ignorance of the scientific process, biology, and the theory of Evolution, you also lack an understanding of the book of Genesis; the very documentation you're proposing as an alternative?"
"But sir..."
"Thank you for your time. I'm hungry and I need to make dinner." I closed the door.
I stood there for a few minutes to see if they would knock again. They didn't.
I don't know if this was an actual serious motion on their part, or if they were just sending out feelers to see what public opinion was; but I tell you, I was in the absolute best mood for the rest of the evening.
On the opposite side of said door stands a young woman in her mid-to-late 30's, blonde hair, wearing a long, dark trenchcoat; along with a young man in roughtly the same age bracket. He was wearing a toque, so I don't know what colour his hair was. They were both standing there looking awfully self-righteous, and I immediately thought: "aw, crap. Not again."
"Excuse me, sir, we were wondering if we could borrow a few minutes of your time."
"That depends; how are you planning on giving them back?"
"Pardon?"
"Never mind. What can I do for you?" I replied, deciding on the spot that these people had had their senses of humor amputated.
Which meant that I could have a lot of fun with them.
"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dover Pennsylvania School Board has made Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum as an alternative evolutionary theory."
I wasn't actually aware of it, but I chose not to interrupt him.
"We were wondering," he continued, "if you would support a motion to make similar changes to Calgary's public school curriculum."
"Well, public schools do not generally have religion classes," I pointed out.
"No, we would like to include it in the science curriculum."
"Really?"
"Absolutely, sir. Evolution is a theory (and you could actually hear him stress the word) whose time has passed. It is time to consider alternatives." The man told me.
I glanced down at my watch. I decided that I could spare a few minutes, so I said: "I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with that theory. Could you please explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"
"Intelligent Design suggests that as opposed to a Big Bang..."
"Wait a minute," I held up my hand, "back up a bit. I thought you were talking about Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. Why are you discussing the Big Bang?"
"Well, Evolutionary theory (and yes, he stressed it again) states that the universe began with the Big Bang and..."
"No it doesn't."
"Excuse me?"
"Evolution is a biological concept; the idea that we developed and became more complex organisms over a process of mutation and propagation of beneficial genes. The Big Bang is a cosmological concept; the idea that all energy of the universe once occupied a single point in space. Two very different concepts. So, are you suggesting that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution, or an alternative to the Big Bang?"
"Both."
"I don't understand. You just said that you wanted to teach it in the science curriculum as an alternative to Evolution. Since I have never read any textbook on evolution which claims to have all the steps between the Big Bang and an Otter, I think it's somewhat silly to be talking about the Big Bang in terms of Evolution."
"But sir, don't you think that students should..."
"Tell you what, how about we start in an area where Evolution actually does make some claims: say, the first appearance of life on earth."
He seemed a little flustered now, and I couldn't help but note that the blonde hadn't spoken since she asked if she could borrow a few minutes of my time, she was just standing there looking pious. "Well, Intelligent Design theory suggests that a supreme being (for some reason, throughout this conversation, he avoided actually mentioning God) created all life on earth approximately 6000 years ago and that life has been unchanged since that time."
"Okay, explain the scientific approach you used to develop this theory," I told him, "start with your falsifiable hypothesis, and move on from there."
"Well, we merely suggested an alternative explanation to the existing data..."
"Oh, so what predictions does Intelligent Design make about future observations?"
"Excuse me?"
"Well, the whole point of a scientific theory is to make reasonable and evidence-supported predictions about what we will observe in the future. That's what makes science a continuous process. Each question we answer raises more questions. So what unanswered questions does Intelligent Design leave?"
"None. It's a complete system which explains everything."
"Then it's not a scientific theory."
"What?"
"The whole point of a scientific theory is that it doesn't have all the answers; it's a jumping off point for people to add to or modify that theory. As such, the theory of evolution has been tested quite possibly more than any theory in scientific history."
"Well the Intelligent Design theory (and notably, he didn't stress the word this time) doesn't have that problem."
I shrugged, "it's not a problem. This is how science is done. We make observations about the world around us, we provide an hypothesis which explains those observations, then we perform experiments to determine if our hypothesis is supported by further data. So, by your own admission, you don't have a scientific theory here; the absolute best that you can claim is that you have a hypothesis, and considering that it requires the action of a Supreme Being, it may well not be falsifiable; and even if it *were* falsifiable, you wouldn't allow it to be falsified. So, I'll tell you what, when you have a falsifiable hypothesis, and you have performed some kind of experimentation which supports that hypothesis, then I'll most definitely support a motion to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Until then, I'm sorry, but no. If you want to have it taught in some kind of comparative religion class, on the other hand, that's a different matter."
"But sir," he held up a hand before I closed the door, "do you really want our children to be taught as fact that we descended from monkeys?"
"Apes."
"Pardon?"
"Apes. We descended from apes, not monkeys; and if you're going to lecture people on biology, you should at the very least know that distinction." (just for the record, yes, I am aware that the claim not that we descend from Apes, but rather from an Ape-like common ancestor, but I figured, judging by the level of scientific knowledge they'd demonstrated, that distinction would likely be lost on them)
"But my point stands, sir. Do you want our children to learn that we descended from apes?"
"You prefer the idea that we descended from dirt?" I shrugged.
"Excuse me?"
"So in addition to an ignorance of the scientific process, biology, and the theory of Evolution, you also lack an understanding of the book of Genesis; the very documentation you're proposing as an alternative?"
"But sir..."
"Thank you for your time. I'm hungry and I need to make dinner." I closed the door.
I stood there for a few minutes to see if they would knock again. They didn't.
I don't know if this was an actual serious motion on their part, or if they were just sending out feelers to see what public opinion was; but I tell you, I was in the absolute best mood for the rest of the evening.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Boiling a frog
We've all heard the metaphor of the boiled frog. You throw a frog into boiling water and it jumps right out, but if you put a frog into cool water, then slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there until it boils to death.
Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.
One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.
The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.
There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.
Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.
Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.
There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...
Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.
Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.
One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.
The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.
There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.
Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.
Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.
There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...
Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
