"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...

The Devil and God's Plan

There is an interesting facet to human actions. It's nothing new; you've heard it all before. When individuals do "good" we generally praise the individual. Rarely do we praise God for the actions of a "good" person. But when someone does something truly evil, we are quick to blame the Devil. No one (especially those of religious faith) wants to accept that people can do "evil" on their own, or that God could allow such actions. Again, this is no great revelation.

However, there is another peculiar irony in which we are also guilty...one which I have not heard discussed very often. Let's examine the human reaction to "natural" phenomenon.

When we see beautiful things in nature, we are apt to praise God. When a new child is born, when the crops come in plentiful, when the sun breaks through a particularly heavy storm, etc.... In these cases we so often thank God for his creation, wisdom, and mercy. But when major catastrophes occur, something interesting happens... we do not blame the Devil. When an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, etc.... kills countless humans, we do not blame the Devil (in fact we don't blame the Devil anytime a life is taken). Instead we consider it to be part of "God's Plan". "God works in mysterious ways." We still cannot accept that God would allow these actions to occur, but rather than seek out something to vilify, we rationalize the occurrence as being a part of a grand scheme which we cannot understand. And this leads to 2 conclusions.

First, the "Devil", that is to say a negative deity, was created out of the distinctly human condition known as "free will". You see, even the perception of free will ultimately leads to the concept of morality...that our actions are a result of choices. The concept of the "Devil" was created to both rationalize "evil" actions, while at the same time creating a negative consequence in an attempt to deter future evil actions.

Second, because we cannot associate the "actions" of the natural world with free will, we cannot associate these unfortunate natural occurrences with choice. And as such these events seem to be outside the realm of the Devil. The natural world, the events which govern it, and its consequences are all solely governed by God.

Now...why is this important to recognize or understand? Well in many ways it just comes down to rational thought processes. If we choose to believe that God is in control... If we choose to believe that God takes an active role in this world... Then we are forced to believe that God either makes these horrific tragedies occur, or that (at very least) he allows them to occur. And the only way to rationalize that concept is with the absolute epitome of all Deus ex Machinas..."God's Plan". When humans cannot know the cause, or rationalize, an action, they have no choice but to admit that their conclusions were wrong, or resolve the problem with some unknown force/creation.

And now the plot thickens. As I pointed out in my last blog, the reality is, no one can ever fully know the original cause of all that is. So in many ways, we are all forced to accept (at some point) a Deus ex Machina. But the current problem is that many accept that Deus ex Machina long before they should. Bill O'Reilly was famously quoted recently as justifying the existence of God because of the tides. Right or wrong, for Bill O'Reilly his Deus ex Machina was the tides. To him, that was the ultimate unexplainable proof that God existed. We, of course, know that the tides do have a very real cause (gravitational pull of the Moon) as governed by the physical laws of nature. But for many others, their Deus ex Machina comes in when they can no longer rationalize the shear horror of natural catastrophes. Because they are incapable of accepting that their concept of God is wrong, they must rationalize that it is simply God's Plan which they are incapable of understanding.

But there is a far more logical answer. The universe was created by God, but the universe operates without God's interference. Admittedly, the concept that "God created the universe" is, in itself, a Deus ex Machina. But it is one which no rational thought can disprove. Regardless what scientists discover, they will never be able to prove that God did NOT create the universe; they can only continue to prove that His creation does not require his involvement. Within the universe, all actions are governed by a set of physical laws. The universe simply exists. It's actions are only "bad" when we deem them to be bad because of the impact to us as a species.

In Summary: Rationally speaking, the Devil cannot exist without God. But the opposite is not true. God can exist without the Devil; and in all likelihood...He does. And God does not cause "good" things to happen, nor does he allow "bad" things to happen. God's creation simply exists as it was meant to.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Does God Exist?

It is probably one of the most pivotal questions in the history of humanity, as a rational, thinking species. Is there a higher power? The existence of God has generally answered 2 primary questions: 1) How was this all created? and 2) What is the objective basis for morality? For now, I will focus solely on God's existence as creator, not judge.

There is an interesting argument called the Creation-Evolution Argument. But here is the irony. "Creation" as defined by Judeo-Christian theology is actually the combination of both the Creation of the Universe and the Creation of Life. While the Bible handles these 2 "events" together - science has 2 distinct theories about these events. The Creation of the Universe is explained by the Big Bang model, and the Creation of Life is described by the Theory of Evolution. Yet the common Judeo-Christian complaints are generally focused more on the Theory of Evolution. Both scientific theories are in direct opposition of the written "Word". But the Theory of Evolution attacks the ego of man as it implies that we are the descendants of a "lower" species. But I digress.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, I will consider the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be related in the sense that they describe the formation of both the universe, and life within it. But there is also another correlation between these two theories that I will address later.

Now - in this discussion it is imperative that we disregard the Bible as a "source" of record. I certainly value the faith others may have - but belief in the Bible is, in many ways, just a symbol of faith. You may have Faith that it is the literal translation of God, and that is fine. But within the realm of a serious analysis, it is no more reliable than a child who believes all good people come from rainbows. And many would be furious at this point After all, if we accept this to be "fair" terms have we not disarmed the Judeo-Christian beliefs altogether??

I say no. Proof of God's existence is everywhere to be found without the Bible. And therein lies the problem. So you see, without the Bible, and its parables - we can find evidence of a grand architect, of a creator. But that does not imply that he created the universe as written in some book. In spite of all the physical evidence, it is just extremely difficult to imagine that all of the complexity of life has been the result of random accidents.

And yet it is that very randomness which is the primary correlation between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. Both theories share a common idea... Within a constrained set of laws, and given enough time and space, randomness will create complexity. The galaxies, and stars, and all of the various types of planets are all creations of random acts within a constrained set of physical laws (gravity, magnetism, etc...). Similarly, all life has evolved through a series of small random changes over billions of years within the constraints of physical (and chemical) laws.

Now - speaking of cop outs... It is easy to state, "Well if this is truly how nature works, then that is how God intended it to work." In the scheme of things, there really is nothing wrong with this premise - and I will be coming back to it. But recently, I'd say "science" has been guilty of the same thing. Recently, Stephen Hawking proposed that the Universe does not "require" a God. What was his premise? Randomness. You see - Hawking theorized that perhaps our universe was only one of an infinite number of other universes. So we are right back to the original notion... Given enough time, randomness will create complexity. So while there may very well be an infinite number of universes out there which have produced nothing more than disparate gases - other universes like ours, have created vastly complex systems of life. The only "soundness" to this theory is that it is consistent with out basic concepts of creation, scientifically speaking.

So where does this leave us? Judeo-Christians may cling to their written Word, but ultimately the Bible is no proof or disproof of a God. Atheists may cling to the science of the random, but again this is no proof or disproof of the existence of a God.

The answer? Faith. Just faith. On the surface, this answer seems to imply that we must have Faith that God exists. But in truth it goes beyond that. The mind is incapable of conceiving of the beginning of time and space. We can theorize about it as a concept, but we are not actually capable of understanding any moment in which Space and Time did not exist...thus we are incapable of fulling understanding how all of this could have been "created". So, from an atheistic perspective, the only answer our minds can comprehend is to simply state that "it has always existed". But even this is difficult to swallow, because the mind has just as hard a time trying to understand infinity. The point is this....science may one day prove how everything began, but I very seriously doubt it. Either way, at this point in our civilization there is no proof either way. Thus an atheist's claims are based on faith just as much as a Christian's claims. In the end, an atheist must rely on faith that the universe was created and runs due to randomness - because there is no way to conclusively prove that it's creation was itself a random act. And what else is Faith but belief in the absence of proof? And of course from a religious perspective, having faith that God created all, does not necessarily imply that God must be an active participant in his creation.

So there it is... Ultimately the question of God's existence is a bit of a moot point with respect to human knowledge and understanding. Science may one day prove itself, and of course there is always the possibility (I guess) that religion may prove itself (rapture, etc...). But until either of those days are upon us, atheists and Christians alike (as well as all other religious beliefs) are resigned to faith for a creation belief.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

What is Faith?

Faith is not "belief in spite of proof." Faith is "belief in the absence of proof."

This is an important distinction to me. It amazes me how many "Christians" I meet who try their best to deny, and even disprove, Evolution. Yet curiously, the same people are not vigorously trying to disprove the theory of gravity, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics.

I recently read an article which gave a wonderful definition of "fact". As it stands, nothing can truly be none as 100% factual. After all, you could always question the very nature of existence itself (perhaps we are all just dreaming). So scientifically, fact is generally accepted to mean that the probability is so great that there is no meaningful reason not to support that idea. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is only factual in so far as - there is no meaningful reason to consider that it wouldn't.

Now based on that definition, evolution is a fact. There has been no legitimate scientific discourse in the last 100 years that has attempted to suggest otherwise. What is currently unknown is the mechanisms which cause Evolution. But it is a fact, that all life on Earth has evolved from simpler organisms and will continue to evolve.

But back to the matter at hand... So many absolutely refuse to accept this "fact" based on the false pretense of "faith". I call it false, because they believe they are being faithful - by continuing to believe in the Bible, rather than all rational evidence at hand. This is not faith. Faith is not the blind acceptance of spiritual ideas that contradict all natural evidence. If you want to know how the natural world was formed and continues to form, you need only understand the natural facts. If you want to have faith in spiritual possibilities, you must have faith in the absence of all proof - because the natural, physical world will never provide you with any proof of the spiritual world.

Faith is not belief in spite of proof. Faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...