Sunday, September 11, 2011
AFTER 9/11 - A LONG ROAD
And I wished for so long...
I cannot stay
All the precious moments...
Cannot stay
It's not like wings have fallen...
I cannot say
Without you something is missing...
I cannot say
Holding hands of daughters and sons
In their phase they're falling down
Down, down, down
I have wished for so long...
How I wish for you again
We all walk the long road
I cannot stay
There's no need to say goodbye
Oh, the friends and family...
All the memories going round
Round, round round...
I have wished for so long...
How I wished for you today
And the wind keeps rollin'
And the sky keeps turning grey
And the sun is setting
The sun will rise another day
I have wished for so long...
How I wish for you today
I have wished for so long...
How I wish for you today
Will I walk the long road?
We all walk the long road
Thursday, September 08, 2011
BEATING UP ON PACIFISTS
Here is a post from Scott Lawson's blog For What It's Worth. Scott is a non-Menno, non-GCer, non-Goshenite who lives and writes about things in Northern Indiana. Scott contacted me a while back about Goshen College's decision to drop the National Anthem for other 'appropriate' tunes like America the Beautiful. I have previously written about my opinion here and here.
Ah, pacifists. Sometimes, you make it so easy.
Goshen College, located somewhere in or near Goshen, Ind., has people aching for a fight.
The school was founded on Mennonite principles and had never played the national anthem before any athletic contest. Eventually, that led to a minor uproar a few years ago, so under a little pressure (OK, that's my conjecture), they began toying with the idea of starting games with songs of America -- including a non-lyrical version of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Their problem with Francis Scott Key's poem to war and America? As Mennonites, they don't believe in war or, on some levels, countries. Mennonites and related religions have the distinction of being Christians who were, centuries ago, beaten up by both Protestants and Catholics via the state churches. So they tend to be very pro-separation between church and state.
After two years of tinkering with songs, the college decided to do something stupid. They adhered to their principles. And that provoked a myriad of profound responses throughout the Internet (and I imagine to the inboxes of Goshen College administrators).
"I think this fine institution of higher learning needs to move to Mexico or Rwanda, so they experience the diversity there and get away from hateful whitey. Not 60 years ago, our ancestors knew how to handle this b.s., the problem is, we've become a nation of sheeple. "
"Want alternatives to the national anthem? Here's one: The Star Spangled Banner. Here's another: You don't like it, get out of rotten old America and go to Europe. They don't like us, either."
"You don't like the National Anthem? Then I suggest you pull up stakes and move to another country. This country has not survived and thrived because of a bunch of pacifists, but because of people who fought and died for this America to be founded as a free country, and to remain free in subsequent wars. You want the benefits of living in a free land then put yourself out for it. It isn't about you it is about America."
Now, I don't have all that much in common with anyone at Goshen College. For instance, they are either college educated or getting a college education; they attend church dozens of times a year; they know where Goshen College is and they have a principle of avoiding confrontation.
Of those aspects, I can kind of tell you about where Goshen College is; somewhere in or near Goshen. Kinda close to South Bend. Probably closer to Elkhart.
But that's about it. My college education is lacking. My church attendance more-so. And my moments of being non-confrontational are limited.
So it's easy for us to beat up on Goshen College. I mean, what have they done for us? During wars, Mennonites have routinely been conscientious objectors -- working in health and agricultural fields in nations overseas but avoiding fights. Well, that's kinda Christ-like and all, but Christ doesn't protect our oil fields or homes.
Alas, in an era of I'll-out-patriot-you-with-a-bigger-flag-pennant-on-my-lapel, Goshen College students and officials have decided they'll avoid patriotism. I guess they don't think Jesus Christ would put his hand on his heart for America. I hope that doesn't mean they don't believe he roots for my favorite football team to win as well when I have $50 on the game...
I tried contacting several Goshen College students from Northwest Indiana, to no avail. Maybe they just don't want to be questioned about it anymore.
However, I did hear from one of their alums.
"I was very much chagrined by the decision to play the National Anthem at GC and am pleased that the 'trial period' has ended," Douglas Swartzendruber wrote me in an email.
I can barely spell his name. I can't imagine he's very smart or important to America. Oh, wait... upon further review........
What has he done for America? I guess he's fighting cancer while he works at Pepperdine University or doing research in Colorado.. Well, la-de-da. What's that ever done for us? It certainly hasn't helped lessen traffic on our interstates.
He was one of the original signers of the request not to use the song. And he has caught some hell for it. But, in his mind, it's not something that's going to send him on a path to Hell.
Here's the thing: I like pacifists. I like the concept. I'd be terrible at it, but I think they are actually doing things -- in general -- the right way. I know a guy who isn't a pacifist who sits down during the national anthem. He isn't making a statement of conviction -- he is trying to piss people off. But Goshen College isn't trying to anger anyone. They are simply standing by their convictions. And if you strike them out of anger, or believe you are a better American than they are because you think our country is based on a flag and a song, you're missing out a key element.
We're a country of people and of laws. And good people who respect those laws, even if they reject some of our country's cultural traditions, should be just as respected as anyone else. If a private, religious institution decides they don't want to promote war, why strike their face? They'll probably just offer you the other cheek.
Still, I'll be honest, if I'm at a Goshen College game (which would be surprising because I don't really no where it's located), and someone starts to give them any grief ... I'd be happy to be John Book to their Eli Lapp. Well, not with nearly a good as a right hook...
But, alas, they'd just offer you paz. And that's not a candy that causes cavities...
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
REYNOLDS ON PERRY
And lastly, John Mark Reynolds, a philosopher at Biola University, responded to the same question:
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
A. Rick Perry really did it this time. He dared wonder about Darwinism in public. He better realize that hell hath no fury to match that of a Darwinist scorned. Denunciations will follow, because every age produces people who enjoy denouncing anyone daring to wonder about what they know to be true.
That’s too bad, because there are good discussions that could be had about Darwin, Darwinism, evolution, and evolutionism.
Charles Darwin was a world class scientist and natural philosopher. His writings suggest a general view of how to do science, of reality, and he proposed several scientific theories that most scientists continue to find useful. Read Darwin. Interacting with his ideas is always stimulating to better thinking. Darwin, like most scientists of his day, wanted to limit science to natural causes partly because they thought natural causes could explain everything. When he told how species originated naturally, he thought the story was done.
Let’s call his general philosophy “Darwinism” and his scientific ideas “evolution.” Most Americans rightly reject “Darwinism,” but confuse this sensible rejection with denying that “evolution” happens.This mistake is encouraged when loud Internet atheists consistently push the two things together. “Darwinism” is certainly incompatible with Christianity and quite possibly wrong. Nature, matter and energy, are not all there is. Mind exists and so things can be caused by intelligence as well as impersonal forces. If scientists decided to limits themselves to the impersonal, then science will not be able to explain some important things. They will leave that job to some other field of knowledge. For example, science can give endless detail about what is the case, but it can never tell a rational man what ought to be the case. If science refuses to consider more than what makes up a thing, then it will never know the purpose of the thing. An exhaustive description of what makes a star does not tell what a star is without the further dubious philosophical assumption that things the sum of their parts.
Governor Perry wants to leave room for God. Darwinism does not, but evolution can if understood modestly. Internet atheists will be eager to confuse this issue, as will a few religious believers, but there is an important issue here. Schools should teach the scientific consensus, but not smuggle secularism or Darwinism in with it. They do and it should stop. If these discussions cannot take place in science class, then there should be a good class in philosophy offered.
Of course, there is the further question: “Is evolution true?”
Darwin’s best idea, evolution, came with many other related ideas. Very soon some of them were rejected by scientists as they learned about genetics. Others have continued to enjoy the support of almost all practicing scientists. A few scientists and philosophers have seen problems with modern forms of evolution. They think these problems are serious enough that the entire theory is called into question. They differ in how radically they wish to challenge the established orthodoxy, but often find that Darwinism prevents their being able to make their challenges heard.
That would be too bad.
Other scientists, theologians, and philosophers have a more radical idea. They think that science took a wrong turn by excluding personal causation or theology. Philosopher J.P. Moreland argues in Christianity and the Nature of Science that while generally a harmless error to practicing scientists, eventually a closed philosopher of science will limit progress. The first group of skeptics about evolution contain those who believe in a Creator and a few who do not. The second group are “creationists,” though like any intellectual movement they differ amongst themselves about where to draw lines. A Christian is presented with a cheerful situation. He can, if he wishes, accept the scientific consensus. It is compatible with his faith. On the other hand, the God-given right to wonder may lead him to try bolder experiments in relating his religious knowledge to his scientific knowledge.
All Christians, from Francis Collins an evangelical who accepts evolution, to Michael Behe, a Catholic who is critical of some ideas, to Kurt Wise, a paleontologist and creationist, should agree in rejecting philosophical Darwinism.
What do I think?
I am very skeptical that evolution, as we understand it, is adequate, but cautious knowing I am not a scientist. Separately, I believe science should be more open, at some level, to intelligent causation and believe “creationism” solves some important philosophical problems. It makes sense to commit and see. Finally, I don’t think any of our “big theories” are flawless and enjoy wondering about all of them.
Christianity does not force me to believe any of those things. Intellectual curiosity did as did an aversion to Darwinist bullying. Meanwhile, none of that prevents me from using our best present ideas in thinking about the world. The scientific consensus may not be “true,” but it is still useful.
Like a man with an imperfect tool, I will keep using it until a better one comes along. I suspect one will, but meanwhile am patient.
Plato told a truth about both religion and science in his Timaeus. Both religion and science give humanity useful ideas and theories. Science can better our physical well being and religion heals our souls. Since body and soul are linked, both good science and good theology together produce happy flourishing humans. Plato called the fusion of science and religion a myth. He did not mean by “myth” a false story about gods, but a big explanation for everything that can never be more than likely given our humanity. Christians know that being right about some details doesn’t mean that we have put them together correctly. Scientists know this as well, which is not surprising since science originated in an overwhelmingly Christian society. The danger is when we become rigid about our interpretation of scientific data or our interpretation of religious data or how the two should relate. Worse we can treat either science or religion as having nothing to teach us. This arrogance leads to the vitriol on this issue so easy to find.
My own position has been to encourage a maximum set of possibilities in these discussions. I suspect that people will look back and realize that most of what we believed scientifically today was just a subset of some greater series of theories. My suspicion is that Genesis will have been useful in that process.
Governor Perry should think more about these issues. While policy should be made from the current scientific consensus, he should make sure dissenters are heard. He should keep wondering.
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
A. Rick Perry really did it this time. He dared wonder about Darwinism in public. He better realize that hell hath no fury to match that of a Darwinist scorned. Denunciations will follow, because every age produces people who enjoy denouncing anyone daring to wonder about what they know to be true.
That’s too bad, because there are good discussions that could be had about Darwin, Darwinism, evolution, and evolutionism.
Charles Darwin was a world class scientist and natural philosopher. His writings suggest a general view of how to do science, of reality, and he proposed several scientific theories that most scientists continue to find useful. Read Darwin. Interacting with his ideas is always stimulating to better thinking. Darwin, like most scientists of his day, wanted to limit science to natural causes partly because they thought natural causes could explain everything. When he told how species originated naturally, he thought the story was done.
Let’s call his general philosophy “Darwinism” and his scientific ideas “evolution.” Most Americans rightly reject “Darwinism,” but confuse this sensible rejection with denying that “evolution” happens.This mistake is encouraged when loud Internet atheists consistently push the two things together. “Darwinism” is certainly incompatible with Christianity and quite possibly wrong. Nature, matter and energy, are not all there is. Mind exists and so things can be caused by intelligence as well as impersonal forces. If scientists decided to limits themselves to the impersonal, then science will not be able to explain some important things. They will leave that job to some other field of knowledge. For example, science can give endless detail about what is the case, but it can never tell a rational man what ought to be the case. If science refuses to consider more than what makes up a thing, then it will never know the purpose of the thing. An exhaustive description of what makes a star does not tell what a star is without the further dubious philosophical assumption that things the sum of their parts.
Governor Perry wants to leave room for God. Darwinism does not, but evolution can if understood modestly. Internet atheists will be eager to confuse this issue, as will a few religious believers, but there is an important issue here. Schools should teach the scientific consensus, but not smuggle secularism or Darwinism in with it. They do and it should stop. If these discussions cannot take place in science class, then there should be a good class in philosophy offered.
Of course, there is the further question: “Is evolution true?”
Darwin’s best idea, evolution, came with many other related ideas. Very soon some of them were rejected by scientists as they learned about genetics. Others have continued to enjoy the support of almost all practicing scientists. A few scientists and philosophers have seen problems with modern forms of evolution. They think these problems are serious enough that the entire theory is called into question. They differ in how radically they wish to challenge the established orthodoxy, but often find that Darwinism prevents their being able to make their challenges heard.
That would be too bad.
Other scientists, theologians, and philosophers have a more radical idea. They think that science took a wrong turn by excluding personal causation or theology. Philosopher J.P. Moreland argues in Christianity and the Nature of Science that while generally a harmless error to practicing scientists, eventually a closed philosopher of science will limit progress. The first group of skeptics about evolution contain those who believe in a Creator and a few who do not. The second group are “creationists,” though like any intellectual movement they differ amongst themselves about where to draw lines. A Christian is presented with a cheerful situation. He can, if he wishes, accept the scientific consensus. It is compatible with his faith. On the other hand, the God-given right to wonder may lead him to try bolder experiments in relating his religious knowledge to his scientific knowledge.
All Christians, from Francis Collins an evangelical who accepts evolution, to Michael Behe, a Catholic who is critical of some ideas, to Kurt Wise, a paleontologist and creationist, should agree in rejecting philosophical Darwinism.
What do I think?
I am very skeptical that evolution, as we understand it, is adequate, but cautious knowing I am not a scientist. Separately, I believe science should be more open, at some level, to intelligent causation and believe “creationism” solves some important philosophical problems. It makes sense to commit and see. Finally, I don’t think any of our “big theories” are flawless and enjoy wondering about all of them.
Christianity does not force me to believe any of those things. Intellectual curiosity did as did an aversion to Darwinist bullying. Meanwhile, none of that prevents me from using our best present ideas in thinking about the world. The scientific consensus may not be “true,” but it is still useful.
Like a man with an imperfect tool, I will keep using it until a better one comes along. I suspect one will, but meanwhile am patient.
Plato told a truth about both religion and science in his Timaeus. Both religion and science give humanity useful ideas and theories. Science can better our physical well being and religion heals our souls. Since body and soul are linked, both good science and good theology together produce happy flourishing humans. Plato called the fusion of science and religion a myth. He did not mean by “myth” a false story about gods, but a big explanation for everything that can never be more than likely given our humanity. Christians know that being right about some details doesn’t mean that we have put them together correctly. Scientists know this as well, which is not surprising since science originated in an overwhelmingly Christian society. The danger is when we become rigid about our interpretation of scientific data or our interpretation of religious data or how the two should relate. Worse we can treat either science or religion as having nothing to teach us. This arrogance leads to the vitriol on this issue so easy to find.
My own position has been to encourage a maximum set of possibilities in these discussions. I suspect that people will look back and realize that most of what we believed scientifically today was just a subset of some greater series of theories. My suspicion is that Genesis will have been useful in that process.
Governor Perry should think more about these issues. While policy should be made from the current scientific consensus, he should make sure dissenters are heard. He should keep wondering.
THOMAS ON PERRY
Cal Thomas was also asked to comment on Rick Perry's views of evolution:
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
It is a useless argument because creationists will never persuade evolutionists they are right and evolutionists will never persuade creationists they are right. No one was there “in the beginning” so I am going to trust what God said. If people don’t want their children taught evolution as fact, they have options. They can home school them, or send them to schools that teach what they believe. If they choose to send them to public schools where evolution -- and the consequences of that theory -- are taught, then they have made a decision that will result in their children learning humans are material and energy shaped by pure chance in a random universe, with no author of life, no purpose for living and no destination after we die. ..a little more complex than a cabbage, but of no greater moral significance. This is the outworking of evolutionary theory. If parents send their kids to public schools, they should be aware of this and not try to rationalize their decision.
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
It is a useless argument because creationists will never persuade evolutionists they are right and evolutionists will never persuade creationists they are right. No one was there “in the beginning” so I am going to trust what God said. If people don’t want their children taught evolution as fact, they have options. They can home school them, or send them to schools that teach what they believe. If they choose to send them to public schools where evolution -- and the consequences of that theory -- are taught, then they have made a decision that will result in their children learning humans are material and energy shaped by pure chance in a random universe, with no author of life, no purpose for living and no destination after we die. ..a little more complex than a cabbage, but of no greater moral significance. This is the outworking of evolutionary theory. If parents send their kids to public schools, they should be aware of this and not try to rationalize their decision.
DAWKINS ON PERRY
H/T to the Sensuous Curmudgeon for pointing toward three disparate responses to Rick Perry's view science, and evolution in particular. Here is the first of the three, from the never-soft-spoken Richard Dawkins:
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
A. There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Any other organization -- a big corporation, say, or a university, or a learned society - -when seeking a new leader, will go to immense trouble over the choice. The CVs of candidates and their portfolios of relevant experience are meticulously scrutinized, their publications are read by a learned committee, references are taken up and scrupulously discussed, the candidates are subjected to rigorous interviews and vetting procedures. Mistakes are still made, but not through lack of serious effort.
The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.
A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.
What any theory of life needs to explain is functional complexity. Complexity can be measured as statistical improbability, and living things are statistically improbable in a very particular direction: the direction of functional efficiency. The body of a bird is not just a prodigiously complicated machine, with its trillions of cells - each one in itself a marvel of miniaturized complexity - all conspiring together to make muscle or bone, kidney or brain. Its interlocking parts also conspire to make it good for something - in the case of most birds, good for flying. An aero-engineer is struck dumb with admiration for the bird as flying machine: its feathered flight-surfaces and ailerons sensitively adjusted in real time by the on-board computer which is the brain; the breast muscles, which are the engines, the ligaments, tendons and lightweight bony struts all exactly suited to the task. And the whole machine is immensely improbable in the sense that, if you randomly shook up the parts over and over again, never in a million years would they fall into the right shape to fly like a swallow, soar like a vulture, or ride the oceanic up-draughts like a wandering albatross. Any theory of life has to explain how the laws of physics can give rise to a complex flying machine like a bird or a bat or a pterosaur, a complex swimming machine like a tarpon or a dolphin, a complex burrowing machine like a mole, a complex climbing machine like a monkey, or a complex thinking machine like a person.
Darwin explained all of this with one brilliantly simple idea - natural selection, driving gradual evolution over immensities of geological time. His is a good theory because of the huge ratio of what it explains (all the complexity of life) divided by what it needs to assume (simply the nonrandom survival of hereditary information through many generations). The rival theory to explain the functional complexity of life - creationism - is about as bad a theory as has ever been proposed. What it postulates (an intelligent designer) is even more complex, even more statistically improbable than what it explains. In fact it is such a bad theory it doesn’t deserve to be called a theory at all, and it certainly doesn’t deserve to be taught alongside evolution in science classes.
The simplicity of Darwin’s idea, then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.
There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
A. There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Any other organization -- a big corporation, say, or a university, or a learned society - -when seeking a new leader, will go to immense trouble over the choice. The CVs of candidates and their portfolios of relevant experience are meticulously scrutinized, their publications are read by a learned committee, references are taken up and scrupulously discussed, the candidates are subjected to rigorous interviews and vetting procedures. Mistakes are still made, but not through lack of serious effort.
The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.
A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.
What any theory of life needs to explain is functional complexity. Complexity can be measured as statistical improbability, and living things are statistically improbable in a very particular direction: the direction of functional efficiency. The body of a bird is not just a prodigiously complicated machine, with its trillions of cells - each one in itself a marvel of miniaturized complexity - all conspiring together to make muscle or bone, kidney or brain. Its interlocking parts also conspire to make it good for something - in the case of most birds, good for flying. An aero-engineer is struck dumb with admiration for the bird as flying machine: its feathered flight-surfaces and ailerons sensitively adjusted in real time by the on-board computer which is the brain; the breast muscles, which are the engines, the ligaments, tendons and lightweight bony struts all exactly suited to the task. And the whole machine is immensely improbable in the sense that, if you randomly shook up the parts over and over again, never in a million years would they fall into the right shape to fly like a swallow, soar like a vulture, or ride the oceanic up-draughts like a wandering albatross. Any theory of life has to explain how the laws of physics can give rise to a complex flying machine like a bird or a bat or a pterosaur, a complex swimming machine like a tarpon or a dolphin, a complex burrowing machine like a mole, a complex climbing machine like a monkey, or a complex thinking machine like a person.
Darwin explained all of this with one brilliantly simple idea - natural selection, driving gradual evolution over immensities of geological time. His is a good theory because of the huge ratio of what it explains (all the complexity of life) divided by what it needs to assume (simply the nonrandom survival of hereditary information through many generations). The rival theory to explain the functional complexity of life - creationism - is about as bad a theory as has ever been proposed. What it postulates (an intelligent designer) is even more complex, even more statistically improbable than what it explains. In fact it is such a bad theory it doesn’t deserve to be called a theory at all, and it certainly doesn’t deserve to be taught alongside evolution in science classes.
The simplicity of Darwin’s idea, then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.
There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
FREE FOOD - KORBEL DINNER
On the evening of August 24, thanks to son-in-law Jonathan Moyer, I was on the receiving end of a free dinner at the downtown Denver Hyatt [well, it was almost free - we had to pay for parking]. Daughter Rachel had a work conflict, so I got to be the replacement. The event was the Fourteen Annual Dinner for the University of Denver Joseph Korbel School of International Studies, where Jonathan is currently working toward a PhD. Basically it's a fund-raiser with lots of schmoozing and catering to rich folks, but it's also a time to recognize some folks who have had an impact in Denver and the world. This years honorees were Chauncey Billups, Timothy and Bernadette Marquez, and Ban Ki-Moon, who also gave the keynote address.
But this is not about the event - it's about free food! We were greeted at the top of the escalator by staff serving champagne. Then it was on to the open bar for a Blue Moon and a glass of Merlot. Dinner was First Course - Butter Leaf Lettuce & Endive Salad with Honey Glazed Pecans, Fresh Figs and Local Fort Collins Goat Cheese with a Sherry Garlic Vinaigrette; Entree - Creek Stone All Natural Filet Mignon with Boursin and a Syrah Reduction, Parmesan Truffle Risotto, and Asparagus & Half Roasted Roma Tomato; Dessert - Dulce Picchu. Everything was very good.
What is the fascination with free food? I don't think that it's only me. I certainly did not grow up hungry, but I think that perhaps it all started in college. At Goshen College, the meals were strictly rationed - not even a second glass of milk was allowed during my first couple of years at GC. And, being growing and active boys, we were always looking for more food, and the cheaper the better. Many times we would toast up a whole loaf of bread and top it off with peanut butter and jelly. Our roommates from Vietnam introduced us to "noodle" and we could fill up for pennies! During graduate school days, we students would keep a keen eye out for any event that was accompanied by free food. Thus, I became hooked on the concept that if one looked around, one could find an abundance of free food, from holiday receptions hosted by administrators to departmental seminars and gatherings to happy hours featuring free food bars.
While I still keep on the lookout for free food, our focus now is more on cheap food at Happy Hours! But free is still good, and thanks Jon - that was the best free food I have had in some time :-)
But this is not about the event - it's about free food! We were greeted at the top of the escalator by staff serving champagne. Then it was on to the open bar for a Blue Moon and a glass of Merlot. Dinner was First Course - Butter Leaf Lettuce & Endive Salad with Honey Glazed Pecans, Fresh Figs and Local Fort Collins Goat Cheese with a Sherry Garlic Vinaigrette; Entree - Creek Stone All Natural Filet Mignon with Boursin and a Syrah Reduction, Parmesan Truffle Risotto, and Asparagus & Half Roasted Roma Tomato; Dessert - Dulce Picchu. Everything was very good.
What is the fascination with free food? I don't think that it's only me. I certainly did not grow up hungry, but I think that perhaps it all started in college. At Goshen College, the meals were strictly rationed - not even a second glass of milk was allowed during my first couple of years at GC. And, being growing and active boys, we were always looking for more food, and the cheaper the better. Many times we would toast up a whole loaf of bread and top it off with peanut butter and jelly. Our roommates from Vietnam introduced us to "noodle" and we could fill up for pennies! During graduate school days, we students would keep a keen eye out for any event that was accompanied by free food. Thus, I became hooked on the concept that if one looked around, one could find an abundance of free food, from holiday receptions hosted by administrators to departmental seminars and gatherings to happy hours featuring free food bars.
While I still keep on the lookout for free food, our focus now is more on cheap food at Happy Hours! But free is still good, and thanks Jon - that was the best free food I have had in some time :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)