On Darwin’s evolution: Why Science and Religion can live together in harmony

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools, May 21, 2008
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/861_united_methodist_church_adopts_5_21_2008.asp

At its General Conference held in Fort Worth, TX, from April 22 to May 2, 2008, the United Methodist Church adopted three resolutions relevant to the teaching of evolution in the public schools.  First, and most directly concerned with education, the UMC expressed its opposition to “the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools,” noting that “the United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and [s]tate” and that “[t]he promotion of religion or any particular religion in the public schools is contrary to the First Amendment.”

Second, in the course of a statement on science and technology, the UMC affirmed, “We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology….  We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and Word are enhanced.”  And third, the UMC revised its resolution on “God’s Creation and the Church,” to endorse the Clergy Letter Project (founded by Michael Zimmerman) and “its reconciliatory programs between religion and science,” in which it urged its clergy to participate.

The text of the resolutions — 80839, 80050, and 80990, respectively — is available by using the Legislation Tracking feature of the UMC’s website for the General Convention.  The UMC’s General Conference is the denomination’s top policy-making body, which periodically revises church law and the “Social Principles” (related to a wide range of social and economic concerns) and adopts resolutions on various current moral, social, public policy, and economic issues.  With over eight million members in the United States served by over forty-five thousand ministers, the United Methodist Church is the third largest religious denomination in the United States.

——————–

It’s no mistake that I was raised United Methodist.  We were taught the interpretation of Genesis was allegorical, not literal, in nature, and, consequently, there was no real “clash” with evolution.  To a United Methodist, science is merely the discovery of God’s creation, not the enemy of it.  Since the term “day” was invented by man and man, himself, has changed in its meaning over time (day used to be the time from sunrise to sunset; now it is a 24-hour period that includes the traditional day and night), it seems folly to impose man’s literal interpretation of Genesis upon a superintelligent God, which is exactly what literalists are doing.  Darwin’s theory of how the world began and “The Big Bang” theory are only scientific ways of explaining how God created the universe to a United Methodist.   

“In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is based on the observed Hubble’s law (expanding universe, which solved Einstein’s Theory of Relativity):  redshift (the light from distant stars and distant galaxies) of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle indicate that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaitre model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.”  (http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html)

 Likewise, the concept that God’s “days” could last eons or literally billions of years would not be illogical, given that He is supposed to be infinite.  How irrelevant is time to an infinite being?  Only man is concerned with measuring time, because for man time is finite.

The recent release of the sequel to The Da Vinci Code, called Angels and Demons, broaches the subject of “the God particle” and the Large Hedron Collider:

“…a particle accelerator-an atomic peashooter more powerful than any ever built. It’s called the Large Hadron Collider, and its purpose is simple but ambitious: to crack the code of the physical world; to figure out what the universe is made of; in other words, to get to the very bottom of things….

Physics underwent one revolution after another. Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) begat the general theory of relativity (1915), and suddenly even such reliable concepts as absolute space and absolute time had been discarded in favor of a mind-boggling space-time fabric in which two events can never be said to be simultaneous. Matter bends space; space directs how matter moves. Light is both a particle and a wave. Energy and mass are inter- changeable. Reality is probabilistic and not deterministic: Einstein didn’t believe that God plays dice with the universe, but that became the scientific orthodoxy.”   (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text)

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was flawed because he assumed that the universe was static – neither growing or shrinking.  When Hubble (the guy the telescope is named for) discovered clear evidence that the universe was expanding, it became clear that Einstein’s assumption was wrong.

The bigger issue here is the political one.  There has been a systematic attack on science by the so-called Christian Right against science, this being only one of the areas of contention.  The administration of GWB has declared a war on science within his administration, allowing political editing of scientific documents.

Andrew C. Revkin, “Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming”, NYT, June 8, 2005, (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dd80c073dd8&ei=5089).

Dan Vergano, “Science vs. politics gets down and dirty“, USA Today, Updated 8/7/2007, (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-05-science-politics_N.htm).

Council on Foreign Relations, December 2007 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15079/political_interference_with_climate_change_science_under_the_bush_administration_december_2007.html).  Full report:  United States House of Representatives: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, December 2007 (http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf).

Jonathan Adler, “Bush Appointees Blocked Health Report Release”, The Volokh Conspiracy, July 29, 2007 (http://volokh.com/posts/1185724235.shtml).

Written Testimony of Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists; Director of the Scientific Integrity Program, Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection, “Oversight Hearing on Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions”, May 7, 2008 (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Written-Testimony-for-5-7-08-EPW-Hearing.pdf).

Daniel Smith, “Political Science”, NYT, September 4, 2005 (http://www.cspo.org/Political_Science.html).

And there are many more articles like these.  We know what the agenda of the Christian Right is:  they believe that science usurps their beliefs and decays their children’s thinking (a sad statement on religion in our country, I must add).  But what was the Bush agenda in his war on science?

I submit that it is the need to control information.  Much like the Roman Catholic Church during the times of Galileo (when they tortured him to make him recant about discovering a new planet), Bush, the evangelical champion, appointed himself Keeper of the Truth.  That is, the “truth” according to Bush.  This is one of the most powerful tactics used by Karl Rove on behalf of Bush in controlling the political message by obfuscation.

So, what do we do?

Well, we need to take action, and fast.  As is evident in the article I quoted here, if Texas is able to muddy the line between religion and science in the classroom, textbook editors will soon follow.  Their agenda is to sell textbooks. 

And the agenda of all freedom-loving people should be to preserve the separation of Church and State, which is a concept borne of religious tyranny.  We cannot allow this Creationist movement to poison the minds of our young people for generations to come with regard to science and the importance of objectively seeking the truth.

Where does America rank in healthcare quality and efficiency?

The assault on healthcare reform has begun. For the next three years, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and other halthcare profiteers will spend billions in advertising and more billions in lobbying to convince us that we have the BEST healthcare system in the world and that reform will ruin our system. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have claimed a reputation for quality healthcare by deceit. We are not the best in the world; we are 37th on the list behind most EU countries with government-run simgle-payer universal healthcare.

Single-payer government-managed healthcare is the only way to bring costs down. I have worked in several hospitals and clinics while in college and shortly after, so I am not speaking in ignorance.

The real problem is that insurance companies must make a profit, and to do so, they must up the premiums and deny as many claims as possible. When care is denied, it results in loss of life or loss of quality of life. Further, most insurance companies do not pay claims for preventive healthcare. They wait until the problem becomes chronic or acute, when it is too late and when the costs for healthcare go up astronomically.

The old standby fear-mongering that “a government bureaucrat will decide your healthcare” can easily be countered with the fact that WE ALREADY HAVE BUREAUCRATS DECIDING OUR HEALTHCARE — INSURANCE COMPANY BUREAUCRATS — and they do not have our best interests at heart, but rather the health of the company.

If the government provides the same healthcare as all Federal employees have available to them, that is an improvement, but not the best we can do. A better solution is for the government to put us all on the same basic coverage as Medicaid, but Federally run rather than State run. The premiums for those not indigent would be lower and the defaults for emergency care of indigent would be significantly less. It would profit us in the long run by having a healthier populace but, more important to business, a healthier workforce and less overhead to figure in the cost of labor for Big Business.

This would make us far more competitive with foreign labor (with the exception of the third world countries who treat their workers and citizens as expendable resources). Real reform in healthcare will only be possible with some government control over cost. I do not believe the value of a person’s life or quality of life should be sacrificed to the bottom line.

Arius (from another blog) said:
France, Germany, and Great Britain all have nationalized health care – and they ALL spend less per capita than we do. Stick THAT in your stethoscope and listen to it.

There is a theory that competition will bring prices down. So far it has not. There is more price-fixing among medical practices, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs than there is real competition that benefits the consumer. Competition does not guarantee a low price. Examples of how government cost regulation kept prices low is when they controlled milk prices when I was young. When the regulation ended, prices went up astronomically. And then there is the breakup of Ma Belle that was promised to lower our phone bills and improve our service than’s to competition. Well, our phone bills went up immediately after the break-up and the service went down, and this has been going on for a while now. Even the introduction of the mobile phone did not improve long-distance prices for land-line service, which is why most folks use a mobile phone for long distance calls, and many (especially the young) only have a mobile phone.

Arius is right. The superiority of our healthcare is a myth. Here is a good list of resources regarding world health statistics: http://search.who.int/search?ie=utf8&si … itesearch=

The following table shows where the US ranks in comparison to other countries in terms of healthcare systems and their efficiency (infant mortality, etc.). The US in 37, behind virtually every EU country and Canada.

So, don’t pretend that we are so superior to everyone else. We are not. For the U.S. to be 37th in the world is shameful given the resources that we have.

Table 1. Overall efficiency in all WHO member states
                         [Country names shortened by blogger]

1	France	96	Fiji
2	Italy	97	Benin
3	San Marino	98	Nauru
4	Andorra	99	Romania
5	Malta	100	St. Kitts & Nevis
6	Singapore	101	Moldova
7	Spain	102	Bulgaria
8	Oman	103	Iraq
9	Austria	104	Armenia
10	Japan	105	Latvia
11	Norway	106	Yugoslavia
12	Portugal	107	Cook Islands
13	Monaco	108	Syria
14	Greece	109	Azerbaijan
15	Iceland	110	Suriname
16	Luxembourg	111	Ecuador
17	Netherlands	112	India
18	U.K.	113	Cape  Verde
19	Ireland	114	Georgia
20	Switzerland	115	El Salvador
21	Belgium	116	Tonga
22	Colombia	117	Uzbekistan
23	Sweden	118	Comoros
24	Cyprus	119	Samoa
25	Germany	120	Yemen
26	Saudi Arabia	121	Niue
27	U.A.E.	122	Pakistan
28	Israel	123	Micronesia
29	Morocco	124	Bhutan
30	Canada	125	Brazil
31	Finland	126	Bolivia
32	Australia	127	Vanuatu
33	Chile	128	Guyana
34	Denmark	129	Peru
35	Dominica	130	Russia
36	Costa Rica	131	Honduras
37	U.S.A.	132	Burkina Faso
38	Slovenia	133	Sao Tome &  Principe
39	Cuba	134	Sudan
40	Brunei Darussalam	135	Ghana
41	New Zealand	136	Tuvalu
42	Bahrain	137	Côte  d’Ivoire
43	Croatia	138	Haiti
44	Qatar	139	Gabon
45	Kuwait	140	Kenya
46	Barbados	141	Marshall Islands
47	Thailand	142	Kiribati
48	Czech Republic	143	Burundi
49	Malaysia	144	China
50	Poland	145	Mongolia
51	Dominican Republic	146	Gambia
52	Tunisia	147	Maldives
53	Jamaica	148	Papua New Guinea
54	Venezuela	149	Uganda
55	Albania	150	Nepal
56	Seychelles	151	Kyrgyzstan
57	Paraguay	152	Togo
58	South Korea	153	Turkmenistan
59	Senegal	154	Tajikistan
60	Philippines	155	Zimbabwe
61	Mexico	156	Tanzania
62	Slovakia	157	Djibouti
63	Egypt	158	Eritrea
64	Kazakhstan	159	Madagascar
65	Uruguay	160	Viet Nam
66	Hungary	161	Guinea
67	Trinidad & Tobago	162	Mauritania
68	St. Lucia	163	Mali
69	Belize	164	Cameroon
70	Turkey	165	Laos
71	Nicaragua	166	Congo
72	Belarus	167	North Korea
73	Lithuania	168	Namibia
74	St. Vincent & the Grenadines	169	Botswana
75	Argentina	170	Niger
76	Sri Lanka	171	Equatorial Guinea
77	Estonia	172	Rwanda
78	Guatemala	173	Afghanistan
79	Ukraine	174	Cambodia
80	Solomon Islands	175	South  Africa
81	Algeria	176	Guinea-Bissau
82	Palau	177	Swaziland
83	Jordan	178	Chad
84	Mauritius	179	Somalia
85	Grenada	180	Ethiopia
86	Antigua & Barbuda	181	Angola
87	Libya	182	Zambia
88	Bangladesh	183	Lesotho
89	Macedonia	184	Mozambique
90	Bosnia & Herzegovina	185	Malawi
91	Lebanon	186	Liberia
92	Indonesia	187	Nigeria
93	Iran	188	Congo
94	Bahamas	189	Central African Republic
95	Panama	190	Myanmar
		191	Sierra Leone

 

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf. p. 18

Comic boundaries and women

Comedy is a very valuable reflective and introspective tool in our society.  Comics can make us laugh at ourselves or, at least, not take ourselves so seriously.  Comics can put the world in perspective when we get too caught up in political combat to “see the forest for the trees.”  And they can speak truth to power as only a court jester can and has for centuries. 

Comedy is an art, not a legal court proceeding or a news item.  I honestly believe this cause célèbre is more of a distraction than a real issue.  We are confusing the biased and deliberately inaccurate reporting by the MSM with comedy, which is an art.  And, like all arts, art is in the “eye of the beholder.” 

The right to free speech can only be measured by how a society treats the speech with which  it does not agree or approve.  Should there be reasonable limitations?  Of course!  And there are — in factual media:  they are libel and slander law.  But in comedy, where it is clear the comments are not meant to be factual, but rather entertaining, libel and slander do not apply, or, at least, the bar is significantly lower.   And this, for the most part, is a good thing.   Comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and programs like Saturday Night Live may often blur the line between information and entertainment, as Katie Couric called it on her first broadcast, “infotainment,”  but there main function is the entertain.  If they can inform in the process, so much the better.

Was Letterman making a “bad” joke?  Maybe.  Was it in poor taste?  Possibly, but he did not cross the line or even lower the bar — all these kinds of jokes had been made before about other teenager girls (Paris Hilton, Nicole Richey, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Courtney Spears, Chelsea Clinton, Amy Carter, the Nixon girls, the Johnson girls and the Bush twins) in the public forum — even as underage teenagers.  His intended “victim” was the “of age,” formerly married Bristol Palin (who he confused with her younger, underage sister Willow).

Sarah Palin, like all politicians, knew when she entered the political arena that she and her family would be “fair game” for the media, both journalistic and entertainment.  She knew that any mistake her kids made would be subject to public scrutiny. 

She also knew that, when Bristol got pregnant out-of-wedlock and underage, that, given her political beliefs and her public evangelical Christian-based positions, that both she, her family and, especially, Bristol, would be the fodder for many jokes, and, frankly, reasonably so.

When Bristol decided to make “abstinence” ads targeted to prevent teen pregnancy, certainly Sarah should have known and informed her daughter if she didn’t know, that Bristol would be putting herself in the public forum and inviting public scrutiny and public humiliation.

So the false outrage shown by Sarah and her family mischaracterizing what Letterman said was not only a bit hysterical, it was more than a bit hypocritical.

II honestly believe this is “much ado about nothing,” or, at least, almost nothing.  Certainly, it is not a measured and rational response.  Further, it distracts from the real issues facing women.

If women want equality with men in all areas, including politics, they must be willing to accept the good with the bad.  Men in politics have been the brunt of jokes and personal attacks from the MSM for centuries now, as evidenced by every president, especially Bill Clinton and GWB. 

We wanted equality, now we have it.  Suck it up and focus on the real issues that can advance the causes of women.

Intolerance, political correctness and effective government

“An event has happened, upon which it is difficult to speak, and impossible to be silent.” — Edmund Burke

Regarding the recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum, it amuses me that white supremacy, interestingly enough, does not seem to include Jews, which are often white, whether European or Arab. Jews are a “subclass” of whites which apparently don’t “make the cut” for white supremacists.

But the bigger issue is intolerance and the lack of respect for those with whom we disagree. Even more important is our lack of respect for the RIGHTS of those with whom we disagree. Who you are intolerant toward is not so much the issue.  We live in a polarized world where the extremes are constantly at war (verbally or physically) and the middle has to take a side or be considered “the enemy.” In such an environment, there can be no real progress or real stability.  How we fix this, I don’t know. But I do know it is getting worse. And both extremes — right and left — are equally wrong.

“Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.” — Confucius, The Confucian Analects, Chinese philosopher & reformer (551 BC – 479 BC)

One of the driving forces that led us to become a representative democracy instead of a “pure” democracy is the fact that our Founding Fathers were victims of persecution from the intolerant societies they had escaped. They wanted to ensure that the majority could never infringe the rights of the minority. And their belief that rights were inalienable and God-given was the foundation of this philosophy of individualism.

That’s why, when we see states voting on whether or not a minority segment of our population can enjoy the rights you and I have (to marry whom we please or to speak freely, even if it is against the government or in the form of burning the national flag), it is wrong to even consider holding a vote, or, at least, our Founding Fathers would have thought so based on how they approached structuring our government.

But because most of this intolerance is based on ideology and religion, which requires us to hate those things that are “wrong” and the people who practice these “wrongs”, it is tolerated by our society, or even accepted.  In other words, we demonize those who disagree with us.  We are not content to simply acknowledge that we disagree; we must create a mortal enemy against which we must wage war (or, perhaps, jihad?).  But this intolerance is what is really wrong, and it comes from both extremes in the political spectrum.

There is no justification for murdering a doctor who performs a legal operation that you do not agree with, or hanging a man from a tree on a Saturday night just because his skin is black or a different color than yours, or blaming an ethnic group for all society’s problems because they work hard and enjoy success, or murdering over 2,000 innocent civilians by flying a plane into a building – all these examples are merely expressions of the same problem — extreme INTOLERANCE.  And this intolerance is based on the belief that you have the right to dictate to the rest of the world how they should think and feel and live — a sense of moral supremacy, if you will.  And it’s wrong.

But it’s more than wrong, it’s ineffective. At least, it’s ineffective if your goal is to live peaceably with your neighbors, live your life fully and raise your family to be happy and successful. 

When I was working on an IT project in Manila, Philippines, the manager of the project for which I was consulting was a racist Australian that treated the Filipinos shamefully. He actually announced in the middle of a project meeting of 70 people, many of whom were department managers and the vast majority of whom were Filipino, that “Filipinos are lazy and stupid.” I was shocked. Had he done this in the U.S. or most European companies, he would have been fired that very day. I was embarrassed and ashamed for him and to be working with him, but I held my tongue until after the meeting and followed him back to his office. I told him that he comment was unacceptable and morally wrong, but I wasn’t going to waste my time arguing the merits of his comment with him because I knew that if he believed it was wrong, he wouldn’t have said it in the first place. What I did want to suggest to him was that “It was ineffective.” The successful completion of the project depended on those people that he had just called lazy and stupid to do their job. And to insult the people on whom YOUR success depended was, in itself, stupid, or, at least, INEFFECTIVE. This concept does not only apply to that project, it applies to our nation and our world.

The bottom line was it didn’t matter how he felt about those people, he needed a good working relationship with them to be effective. This is the attitude that we need to reawaken in our society. Our democracy dependends on each of us having the tolerance and the foresight to realize that we can’t be successful as a nation unless we are tolerant of each other and respect each other’s rights — especially when we don’t agree — and work together effectively for common goals. We don’t have to agree to like each other or like each other’s ideas in order to work together effectively. Our success or failure as a society depends on this.

The greatest concern I have right now is the social trend to infringe on our God-given, inalienable right to freedom of speech and sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness. Fashion, fads and opinions change from day to day, if not moment by moment, and what is politically correct today may not be tomorrow. But once we allow any government to infringe on anyone’s right to freedom of speech today, it will still be gone tomorrow for all of us, and, if not forever, certainly for a long, long time.  As MLK said, “If one of us is not free, then none of us are free.”

“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” — John Morley

Silence — “shutting people up,” or, oppression –  should not be confused for changing hearts and minds, but it often is perceived as such.  We called that silence which produces the illusion of perceived compliance or acceptance acquiescence.  And this silent approval or the perception of it, is very dangerous.  This is how the Nazis moved Germany from a modern Western country to accepting the Holocaust.  The reason there is a Holocaust Museum is because we need to be reminded of how thin the veil of civilization truly is.

The greatest problem our nation has is not the economy or health care or any other issue like abortion or gay marriage — these are merely distractions from or symptoms of the problem.  It is the fact that our government is not operating effectively.  The gridlock in our government that prevents it from operating effectively is directly due to the polarization in our society and the concept of moral absolutism that prevents compromise and views it as weakness or, worse, evil.

Politics is the art of compromise. It is discernment — knowing which points are negotiable and which ones aren’t — that brings the “art” into play, and this, above all else, is the job of the politician. And until we get over ourselves and our image of ourselves are morally superior and, therefore, entitled to absolute rule, it is not going to get better any time soon.

In the long run, intolerance is a characteristic of a fool, because, just like any foible human being, intolerant people need the compassion and understanding that only comes from tolerance, and if you don’t offer tolerance, acceptance and understanding to others, you have no right to expect it when you need it from them. And you will need it, because we are all flawed and imperfect.

The fact that this shooting occurred at the Holocaust Museum should not be overlooked, because anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Western world due to the efforts of Islamic PACs and organizations supported by Muslim nations (especially Saudi Arabia). The interpretation of multiculturalism as being achieved through political correctness (by suppressing free speech) that is being sold by extreme liberals is starting us down the path of oppression. Such a proposal is before the U.N. as we speak. And, as Edmund Burke said, “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” — Edmund Burke

And you are accepting a delusion for reality if you believe silencing criticism will lead to acceptance and tolerance.  It will not.  It will simply force the critics and dissenters outside the system (underground) and encourage them to become more dangerous.  Being able to freely criticize (hopefully, respectfully so) any religion or religious practicioner or government or political party or politician is fundamental to our right to free speech that cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. To sit silently by while others practice hate speech is equally wrong, because failing to stand up for our values is effectively the equivalent of having none.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” — Narration from Sergei Bondarchuk’s Soviet film adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s book “War and Peace” which has been misattributed to Edmund Burke.

Let’s continue to remind ourselves of how easily a Western society slipped into an autocracy led by a madman who committed some of the most heinous crimes in recorded history. And, even more important, this societal descent into madness took only a short time to achieve.

“A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds…
   to a suggestion rather than to reasoning,
   to an image rather than to an idea,
   to an affirmation rather than to proof,
   to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments,
   to prestige rather than to competence.” — Jean-Francois Revel

And, finally, we must stop having to “relearn” the lessons of the Holocaust: 

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” — George Santayana quotes (Spanish born American Philosopher, Poet and Humanist who made important contributions to aesthetics, speculative philosophy and literary criticism. 1863-1952)