"Intelligent Design"

Recently I watched a documentary called "Flock of DoDos". And in it they discuss the relatively recent push of Creationists attempt to provide a more scientific approach to their beliefs under the flag of "Intelligent Design". The Documentary did a fairly good job of presenting the evidence, and the guy doing the documentary was very up front about his firm belief in evolution.

The basic premise is this.... Creationists were not winning any ground because of the "Separation for Church and State" portion of the Constitution. So they came up with this concept of Intelligent Design which is meant to be packaged as a more scientific approach. It basically claims that life is far too complex to have been developed through random acts of nature, thus it must have been formed by some Creator. They are quick to point out that the "Creator" may or may not be God. This allows them to cry out that this should be taught in schools along side the "Theory" of Evolution.

I don't intend to get into the details, but I will call out one humorous example they use. After being shown a picture of a normal Mountain Range, they ask the person to describe the forces required to create that Mountain Range. They then show a picture of Mount Rushmore and ask the same question. Their point being that... This is analogous to life. Life is so complex that, like Mt. Rushmore, it must have been created by a designer. Well I could write at length how that really isn't a comparable analogy. But instead I want to address a different concern I have with this approach.

In my opinion, this is a very dangerous approach. Honestly I think I prefer the view of hard core Creationists. They state that God did and base their faith on the Bible. While I may not agree, I don't think their views challenge the Scientific Approach like the Intelligent Design approach does. It basically comes down to this one question... What is the practical purpose of believing in Intelligent Design? That is to say, if we choose to accept that idea how then should we proceed?

Now if the answer is that we should still continue to pursue the ultimate causes, that we should continue to scientifically study the underlying forces that created life... Then what's the difference in believing in Intelligent Design versus Evolution. The difference becomes moot since you still believe that science plays a role and is capable of discovering the truth. Thus by practical implication, this cannot be the true purpose of believing in Intelligent Design. So this really only leaves one other choice... That we should not bother trying to learn or study the forces of Evolution, but should instead accept that it was created by some grand designer and move on to other things.

And this is where I have a huge problem. Who gets to decide that evolution of life is the one aspect of Science where we should cease our attempt to understand, and leave it to the concept of a higher power? This becomes merely a subjective decision. If we were to apply this same logic to all science, where would we be today? What if scientists looked at the Himalayas and decided that these mountains were so majestic we couldn't possibly begin to understand the Creators Methods? What if we looked into the universe and decided that it was so complex and amazing that we simply didn't need to bother studying it? How little would we know of our universe?

The concept of Intelligent Design is not simply a creative way for Creationist to repackage their beliefs. My personal opinion is that it is ultimately detrimental to the very pursuit of Science because it seeks to place subjective limits on what we can and what we cannot know. And if that isn't what it seeks to do then it has no practical value other than to simply be stubborn about accepting Evolution as a fact. In short, there is nothing intelligent about the "Intelligent Design" Theory.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Ignorance

I'm not likely to provide any new perspectives in this post, but I wanted to capture my own thoughts and perspectives. 

It is in our very nature to look for people or groups who do not fit in to our society, or at least the vision we have of our society. When tolerance and common sense finally allow us to recognize our faults, we simply shift our ignorance to another group.  Ultimately one would hope that we can begin to recognize this and stop the cycle, but I fear that may never happen.  It's fine to distrust others; it's when we use that distrust to enforce our perspectives on others that things get ugly.

So let me start with a few assumptions.  First, I'll make the assumption that most people would agree with the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Now, if we assume "these truths to be self-evident" then we can make a few other assumptions as well.  What is the primary purpose of any "law" in our government? Well, obviously it's first purpose is "protection".  But if we keep in mind the first assumption, we can better clarify the nature of law...  Beyond just protection, the purpose of any law is not to protect me from myself, but rather to protect me from anyone who would hinder my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This can be seen by the fact that most common laws are created to "prevent" certain activities.  You cannot drive faster than this limit, you cannot steal, you cannot rape, you cannot kill.  All of these laws are designed, not to enforce our "moral beliefs" but to protect individuals from being negatively affected by the actions of others (there would be no speed limit laws if speeding was completely incapable of harming others).  However, there are also laws which prescribe actions.  You must pay taxes (is just one primary example).  But even these laws are meant to "protect".  We have these laws not because we are trying to enforce a moral code, but because we "protect" fairness.  Without these laws, some individuals would most certainly never pay their taxes, which over burdens those who do. 

Now unfortunately there are laws which have been passed which seek to do more. And despite your personal and moral beliefs, it seems imperative (to me) that we understand that the nature of any law should be to protect our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness from any group or individual who would attempt to take that away.  [And yes this means, despite my own personal beliefs, laws against the personal use of drugs really violate that premise - but I'll save that for another day.]

So now we come to the irony, and the primary purpose of this post.  There is a movement going on right now which seeks to define marriage as only the right of a male and female, essentially depriving gays and lesbians from the right of marriage (and this actually recently happened in North Carolina).  I say ironic, because if we accept the assumptions listed above, this law would (and does) allow the government to deprive individuals of their basic rights because of the religious intolerance of others.  If we accept those fundamental concepts, then in truth, there should be a law that states, no one shall prevent the marriage of two consenting individuals.

Yes, marriage is a religious sacrament.  And if there is no religious denomination that is willing to "marry" 2 individuals, then so be it.  But marriage is also a legal recognition of 2 individuals entering into a legally binding contractual obligation that provides for certain benefits and protections.  For example, being "legally married" allows me to cover my spouse on my Health Insurance policy.  Being "legally married" allows me to file as such for taxes and claim the same benefits as any other married couple. 

But more importantly (perhaps) is the fact that "allowing" any 2 consenting individuals the right to "marry" doesn't in any way impact the rights of those who choose to marry in the traditional fashion.  Legalizing gay marriage does not deprive anyone of their right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; denying that right does.

Obviously this discussion could go on forever.  Right wing conservative Christians want to use the Bible to attack gay marriage.  The validity of that approach can certainly be debated.  You can also point to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's for African Americans (as well as Women's Rights) as examples of past intolerance's.  Perhaps we still have strides to make in these areas, but we are certainly much further along than we were 50 years ago.  I can only hope that it doesn't take us 50 years to reach the same conclusion with respect to Gays and Lesbians (or any other minority).  There are many ways to debate this issue.  But for me, there is nothing to discuss.  If we can agree that laws are not meant to enforce the beliefs of one group or individual, but instead to protect its citizens' civil liberties - then this entire subject is moot.  If you do not want homosexuals in your church, that is your right.  You want to use your Freedom of Speech to speak out against Homosexual behavior?  That, too, is your right.  But if you want to deny others the same basic rights that all human beings should have, then you have crossed the line.  And there should be laws which prevent that. 

Ignorance is only blissful to the ignorant; it's hell for those subjected to ignorance.

This time, I'm not completely wrong...

Capital Punishment

Ok, I've been holding on to this subject for long enough.  Capital Punishment is one of those extremely sensitive and polarizing subjects which can cause many arguments.  And this is also one of those few cases where I cannot clearly state that my belief has any more merit than another.  However, my intent with this post is to examine some of the more common justifications to truly understand the logic behind these ideas.  So with that in mind, let's start with one of the most often used justifications...

Capital Punishment is a deterrent: First off, from the small amount of research I've done, the evidence does not seem to support this.  But even without research I think that a firm understanding of how we act and re-act can also show this statement to be invalid.  There are numerous types of murder, but let's focus our attention on the 2 big players...  Pre-Meditated and Crime of Passion (by Crime of Passion I simply mean that the act of killing was neither planned nor accidental).  If you consider the motivations of these events, can you actually believe that the Death Penalty would actually stop the action, especially on a large enough scale to notice?  If a person is planning to murder another person, this implies that the person is already aware of (and understands) the consequences, but is choosing to murder in spite of the known "deterrent". In the case of a Crime of Passion, I think it is pretty self-evident that the person is in a state of emotional confusion and any concept of the "deterrent" is not likely to stop the action from occurring, especially if this person is already pre-disposed genetically to this type of crime.  In short, we tend to believe that Capital Punishment is a deterrent because the majority of people are thinking rationally about a situation most of them will never find themselves in.  In keeping with my general philosophy, I just do not think humans (in general) stop to consider the consequences of an action they are already committed to.

Related to the concept of the Death Penalty as a deterrent, I once read an article which presented an interesting idea.  Consider you have robbed a bank. Now during the course of this heist, either your face was seen (or your identity was somehow compromised), or worse someone is accidentally killed (whether by your actions or not).  Now - your punishment just went from a few years in jail to the Death Penalty... IF you get caught.  So at this point, what reason would you have for leaving anyone else alive.  If you kill everyone in the bank, you've reduced your chances of being identified, and even if you are caught, they can only kill you once.  So, in this case, the concept of Capital Punishment can actually cause a single fatality to escalate exponentially. 

Eye for an Eye: This is one of my favorite justifications.  Supporters of Capital Punishment love to use this over-quoted Bible verse, as though it single handed justifies Capital Punishment.  There are 2 things I find to be humorous about this.  First is the fact the people love to use this one verse because of it seemingly unquestionable nature.  And although it cannot be said that Jesus was "against" Capital Punishment, he certainly presented a much more compassionate behavior towards people.  But you don't hear people quoting Jesus when calling for Capital Punishment; instead they only use the verses that support their causes.  Secondly, is even more ironic.  Murder is the only crime for which we (typically) shout "Eye for an Eye".  There are virtually no other violent crimes for which we cry "Eye for an eye".  If a man brutally rapes a woman, no one cries Eye for an Eye then.  No matter how heinous, murder is virtually the only crime for which people suddenly want to cry Eye for an Eye.  If this one statement really does justify the nature of punishment, why do we not use it as the basis of all punishment? 

Capital Punishment as a Punishment:  The very name can also tell us something.  Despite your personal belief, the purpose of incarceration in the U.S. is supposed to be more for "rehabilitation" than it is a punitive measure.  However, Capital Punishment (as the name implies) is meant to be just that.  But who are they actually punishing??  On the off chance that the person actually goes to a firery abyss, well then I suppose that is certainly punishment. But let's suppose for a second that he doesn't... Then what?  You've ended this person's life. Which means they are no longer in any pain or miscomfort. The only people you are truly punishing are the loved ones of this person.  They will have to endure life knowing that their loved one was put to death (regardless of their guilt).  And furthermore, these people are often burdened with negative judgements for simply being related to a murderer.  If, as a society, you feel that punishment is warranted, why wouldn't you punish the person responsible and not other innocent family members?

Our "Judicial System": The few times I have told people that I was not a supporter of Capital Punishment, invariably I have to hear..."Oh you think they should just be allowed to sit in prison and watch TV, play games, read, excercise, etc....?"  Nope.  Why would you assume that??  I said I didn't support Capital Punishment. I didn't say "I'm a complete moron who doesn't understand 'justice'". I'm not going to go into my particular beliefs right now, but suffice to say I think that people who are truly guilty of such heinous crimes should be truly punished, and death (in my opinion) is just an easy way out.

And finally, there is the issue of guilt.  This is problaby the most difficult part of the argument in my opinion.  But the bottom line is simply that, there are just sometimes when you cannot know the absolute truth.  We must hope that our legal system does everything within its power to ensure the accused has a fair trial.  Regardless of the "punishment", there is always the chance that new evidence could later prove the innocence of the accused.  But given that this is the case, it's even more reason to move away from Capital Punishment.  Once the accused is dead, there is absolutely nothing that can be done.  However, if the accused was alive and being punished, the accused could at least be released and compensated for his suffering.

At the end of the day, Capital Punishment will always be a very emotional subject. Yes - I certainly try to evaluate.."How would you feel if someone killed one (or both) of your children?"  Yes I can imagine that there would be an overwhelming sense of vengenace and hatred.  But my emotional state at that time, does not change the facts.  Killing the accused would do little to comfort me, and would do nothing to actually punish the guilty person(s).  But I can onlyu hope I am never in that situation. 

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

WWJD

What Would Jesus Do?

So a few years ago there was a huge movement in which this slogan was plastered on everything. On the surface, it seems pretty straight forward. Think about your actions... is this something Jesus would do? ... Or how would Jesus handle this situation? Unfortunately there are a few problems with this.

First off is the obvious. It continues to reinforce the concept that we cannot think for ourselves. I am obviously incapable of making the right decision on my own... I'd better stop and consider what Jesus would do.

OK, is let's say I do this. Isn't this a bit like telling a physicist to ask What Would Einstein Do? I mean, it is the extraordinary qualities that made those people who they were. If we could all accomplish what they did just by thinking like them... Well those people wouldn't have been very special. There is a reason we place such value on people like Jesus. Despite your religious beliefs he was an extraordinary historical figure... literally. He was not ordinary, and to think that the average person could just "be like Jesus" is foolish.

But there is another problem I have with this question. And it really is a core principle of my own personal philosophy. I touched on it in a previous post... It is the simple notion that humans rarely stop and ask themselves "how" they should behave. And even if they do, they rarely behave in a manner contrary to their nature simply because they processed someone else's theory. In fact, the opposite tends to be true more often than not. Humans are compelled to act, and they do so according to their nature. And they will either maintain a belief system which supports that behavior, or they will find a way to rationalize that behavior within the belief system they have become accustomed to. You can ask yourself all day long... What Would Jesus Do? But the person that answers will still be you. And you will dig through your limited knowledge about this one person, and dig up the answer that best justifies the action you were already going to take. Only now, you've denied yourself the satisfaction of understanding your own potential and traded it in for the belief that someone else has helped you, or worse yet... made the decision for you.

I have been impressed and amazed by numerous figures throughout history... Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Mohammed.... the list can go on for a long time. All of these people helped to change the world. But none of them ever changed who we are as people. And I could stop every time I had an important decision to make and try to imagine what any of these great people might do in a similar situation. And the only thing it will do is waste time.

So go ahead... Ask what Jesus would do. At best you will simply arrive at the decision you were already going to make. At worst, you will make a decision which you cannot justify or rationalize to yourself, and you will regret it forever. Jesus never asked, What would Dad do? Jesus acted according to his will, and his beliefs. You want to act as Jesus did? You should do the same. Act according to your will. Stop trying to be someone you aren't.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...