Monkey Girl

On the recommendation of a fellow blogger, I picked up a copy of Monkey Girl by Edward Humes from the library. It is a chronicle of the infamous Dover, Pennsylvania, incident in which the local school board desired to teach creationism in its high-school science classes. Eventually this led to a national firestorm on evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design and the like. Humes retells the story, and he proclaims on the inside flap of the dust cover that the book covers the perspectives of all sides of the debate. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Humes has the worst kind of bias—one that is not admitted. In fact, he gives a façade of objectivity by claiming to be a simple journalist, one who is committed to the truth. In reality, he is committed to the status quo. He sees the standard scientific model as unassailable—any dissent is jumped on, with all weaknesses exposed. What he fails to do is understand his own position’s weaknesses. He has no time to waste analyzing his own belief in evolution, because he is much too busy producing ad hominem attacks on William Dembski, Michael Behe and others and using suspect arguments in his defense of naturalistic science.

There are two incredibly frustrating leitmotifs in Monkey Girl. The first is his insistence on the absolute dichotomy between science and religion. I have a simple rebuttal for this: Why? Why must science and religion be separate? Science with its methodological naturalism has no room for divine activity in the physical world. (To be true, science will occasionally throw the dogs of religion a scrap from the table—God could have used evolution as his means of creation, but that’s for the theologians [said with great disdain] to worry about—we deal with the facts.) But consider this: If it is true, as I believe, that God was and is actively and detectably involved in nature, then methodological naturalism has a false presupposition. Everything, then, that flows out of it is also suspect. Given the implications of this, is it not prudent at least to investigate such an idea? Science answers with a resounding No! The fact that science is unwilling even to ask such a question is evidence that there is more than just science at stake in this debate. Philosophies and worldviews are on the line.

The second continual source of frustration in Humes’ book is the all-too-common tactic of using a slippery definition of the world evolution. Evolution can mean anything from the breeding of dogs to the common descent of all animals from a single cell, depending on the context. After all, what does “change over time” really entail? It depends on whom one asks, and how it is asked of them. Humes uses this slippery word to his advantage numerous times, especially by stating repeatedly that evolution has been proved. To which type of evolution is he referring? The reader can never be sure, and I doubt that this is unintentional.

You might note at this point that I have not mentioned much regarding the actual content of the book but have only identified certain of the author’s presuppositions. This is purposeful; in light of his deliberate biases and dogmatic support of the status quo, I find that the content of Humes’ book is worthless in the science/religion/whatever debate. In fact, the main bit of knowledge I came away with after reading it was a hefty insight into the author’s “objective” belief system. Do I have biases? You bet. But at least I try to be honest and open about them. I don’t pretend to tell “all sides of the story” as Humes does.

That being said, I would not recommend this book. Humes’ declared objectivity is extremely suspect, which therefore causes me to doubt the entirety of Monkey Girl’s content. In my mind, he is little more than a minion of methodological naturalism, a serf of the status quo. Had he really strived for objectivity, perhaps he could have composed a book worth reading. In this case, he did not.

Thou Shalt Not.

Something occurred to me on Sunday night while I was watching the 400^th Simpson’s episode. For those of you who missed it, anchorman Kent Brockman uttered “the worst possible profanity” on live television after Homer spilled hot coffee on Brockman’s lap. Kent quickly realized that no one saw his faux pas because no one watched his show. Flanders, however, had taped and watched it (and also many other shows) specifically to find offensive material, about which he could then complain to the FCC. When asked by his son what he was doing, Flanders replied, "Imploring people I never met to pressure a government with better things to do to punish a man who meant no harm for something nobody even saw."

It occurred to me that this is the way many people perceive Christians (there goes my incredible perceptivity again). I’m not sure I can blame them for it, either. Many of the more vocal Christians have become little more than professional protesters. They are against same-sex marriage, abortion and any other politicized moral issue—but their protests are hollow. They offer no “better plan,” no hope. They say they believe in Jesus, but they act more like Pharisees. One might sum up their position with three words: Thou Shalt Not.

How these people would implement Thou Shalt Not is also worthy of comment. For them, politics has supplanted Jesus as Messiah. How do we change lives? By voting the right people in office. Politics will fix everything. I mean, Jesus will fix everything…through Congress.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with Christians being involved politically or arguing against certain issues. I myself “protest” things on the Tiger. I think there is everything wrong, however, with making an idol out of politics and fighting the wrong battles. I, for one, am concerned about living a godly life and influencing the people in my circle. Does that mean I don’t care about politics? No. I care, and I try to be a responsible and educated voter and citizen. But I don’t think politics can save us. I don’t think mandating our secular society to be accountable to Christian standards will work anymore. What I do think will work is a Church that pursues God and desires to be the vessel through which God acts. What I do think will work is changing one life at a time. What I do think will work is loving gays and teenage mothers with the love of Christ.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

What Would You Change?

If you could change anything about yourself, what would it be? This is an often asked question, and of course everyone has something to change. Some want to be taller; some want to be shorter. I'm sure Jewel would want to fix that little fang she's got going on there. The list is endless.

If you asked me what I would change, I would say, "Nothing." This isn't to say that I don't want to change, but I take that question to mean What would you change instantly about yourself, without any effort on your part?

I like who I am. It is true that I have done some pretty bonehead things in the past, but without them I wouldn't be the same person I am today. I wish some of my present circumstances were different (I could sure use a few million dollars, for example), but without the constant challenges in life I wouldn't grow. I have pipe dreams for the future, but I wouldn't want to achieve them without undertaking the journey to get there first.

Perhaps that ultimately is why I answer the initial question the way I do. I am enjoying the journey of life. I am excited about where I am and where I am going to be. I don't regret the regrettable things I have done, although I do seek forgiveness, because God has used those things to teach me. Sometimes I would like better stuff, but then I remember that it's just stuff. All stuff can do is draw me away from God, and I do that well enough by myself. And the future? What good is a prize if you didn't run the race to get it?

I do some things well, some not so well. Some of my features I like, some I don't. I have had good jobs and bad. I have given up some things I love, and pressed on doing things I don't. I was never tall enough or coordinated enough to play basketball in high school; I was never a fast enough runner to make it to nationals in college. And I wouldn't trade those memories for anything.

The Law of American Karma

I hear the word “karma” used an awful lot these days. When someone mentions karma, they are usually referring the following law: If you do something good, something good will happen to you; if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you. This is the Law of American Karma. I am intrigued with this idea of karma because I see it as a caricature of real religion.

I am reading An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey currently, because I wanted to know more about the real idea of karma. I have had a hunch that most Americans have a skewed view of it, and from what I have read I am right. Karma is a Buddhist belief that is intertwined with the cycle of rebirth and the attainment of nirvana. In a very brief nutshell, Buddhism teaches that suffering is caused by desire. A person must eliminate desire to escape the cycle of rebirth, which doesn’t happen until he or she attains nirvana, a state of complete non-attachment in which a person is neither conscious nor unconscious. Karma is the idea that your actions influence—and this is key—your future lives. Your current life is influenced by your past lives’ karma. This means that to speak of an action’s karma influencing you in the present life, as far as I can tell, is not a proper Buddhist interpretation. Furthermore, a person who believes in karma necessarily believes in reincarnation.

What does this mean? Most importantly, it means that I am a card-carrying member of Anal Retentives of America (ARA) and the Obsessive Readers’ Guild (ORG). I think it also means that there are many people out there who don’t put a lot of thought into the important questions of life. In this case, people latch on to the word karma, which has been ripped out of its original context and given a new meaning, and go about their merry way. The same happens with many religious words: God/god, spiritual(ity), Jesus. Many people are quite happy to go to the smorgasbord of religion, pick out what looks good to them and alter it to fit their needs.

Is this a good way to look at religion? I would think not. A person’s worldview influences all else he or she does; might it then be more important than grazing at a salad bar? Shouldn’t some thought be given to whether or not his or her religious beliefs equate with reality? One does not get to pick and choose the realities of life; why would one expect to choose their explanations? Likewise, the universe does not care if it “works for” you; therefore, perhaps your worldview should “work for” the universe.

At any rate, for many people, five minutes' worth of serious thought on the subject might be revolutionary.

Are there any other ARA or ORG members out there? Maybe we should get t-shirts or something.

Addendum: For another good example of "religious smorgasbordianism" see this blog on Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

DAM

Yesterday I went to the Denver Art Museum for the second time. My wife's uncle and his significant other were in town and wanted to go, so my wife and I played the role of tour guide. (For the record, I got lost in downtown Denver.) For any of you who are in the area, I highly recommend going for a visit.

The progression of art is actually very interesting. Until I met my wife, who has an art degree, I never paid much attention to art and art history, but (in my case) a little education can open up a world I never knew existed. Jessica (my wife) has helped me to understand some of the technical aspects of painting and photography, as well as the progression of art throughout history. The other main source for my very basic understanding of art (which reflects much more on the student than on the teacher) is How Should We Then Live? by Francis Schaeffer. In this book, he presents his ideas on the flow of culture from the Ancient Greeks to the present day, often using art as the method of his cultural hermeneutic.

I am, admittedly, a left-brained visitor trying to understand a right-brained world. Some things I get, and some things I don't. I think, however, that I have learned at least to appreciate human creativity more. In fact, I think this is one of the key areas in which we are made in God's image. God created the world; we get to create things, too. Some of us are better at words, some at music, some at art, but we all create. We all have an imagination. We are all, in a sense, little gods running around creating new worlds. I bet that brings a smile to God's face.

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. - Gen 1:31

Sicko

Well, here we go again. Michael Moore is putting out yet another movie this summer. This time it’s his autobiography, appropriately entitled “Sicko”. Just kidding—it’s really about the state of health care in America.

This is a good time, then, for another discussion of the role of moral truth in society. Mr. Moore’s films are propaganda that play fast and loose with the facts. (For brevity’s sake, I will not defend this statement; there are plenty of others who have.) He calls his works documentaries, yet all he truly documents is his insatiable desire to have his own views accepted. If that means a few lies along the way, then so be it. His is a classic example of the ends justifying the means.

Moore won an Oscar in 2003 for “Bowling for Columbine” in the category of best documentary. Did anyone on the Oscar committee bother to do any fact-checking on this film? If I had to guess, I would say no. “This is Spinal Tap” portrays a more realistic picture than Moore’s movie. So why did Moore win the Oscar? Even in the materialistic world of verifiable facts, “Bowling” comes up short.

I think the answer is political power. The reign of morality was overthrown in the last century. One of the results of this was the removal of barriers for the powerful. In a moral void, what prevents a head of state from killing his subjects, knowing that retribution is unlikely? What prevents a dictator from controlling the press and filling the papers with propaganda? What prevents a movie director from using lies and misrepresentations to advance his political agenda (with a little help from his friends at the Oscars), all while under the protection of the First Amendment?

I doubt if Moore cares about the veracity of his films as much as their verisimilitude. He is simply trying to be the strongest in a solely physical world, and in so doing, strangely enough, he is fulfilling the commission bestowed on him (and all of us) by our society. Though he has perpetuated a slovenly appearance throughout the years, I doubt that he is stupid. I think he may be more perceptive than most, and more courageous in a perverse way. At least he lives out what our culture has taught us to believe—but thank God more people don’t!

Whether you watch “Sicko” is, of course, up to you. I myself will pass, thank you very much. But I would encourage you to give some thought about the reasons that overarching moral truths are important. Michael Moore is just one example.

Spiderman 3 vs. Romans 1

I saw Spiderman 3 on Sunday. I must admit, apart from the play-by-play commentary from the couple behind us (to whom I wanted to say several times, “I was confused by that obvious plot development, thanks for clarifying”), I thought it was the best of the trilogy. The reason I liked it so much was because of the main theme: You always have the choice to do what is right.

Hearing this on the big screen was refreshing for several reasons. For one, the idea of personal responsibility today has given way to situational ethics. Who is to say what is right or wrong in a situation? He was just a victim of the circumstances; you can’t really fault him. Recall Lewis’ opening example in Abolition of Man of the person who believes this kind of thing—right up until he is the one wronged. At that point we discover he really does have a standard of Right and Wrong, to which he expects everyone else to adhere.

Second, today we tend to suffer from a myopic, if not outright blind, view of the past. For example, when someone says, “I didn’t choose to be such and such,” they are thinking about their current state. But do they give thought to the perhaps thousands of decisions they did make to arrive at this state (if you have seen the movie, think about the Sandman)? This reminds me of Romans 1:21-32:

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

At the point when God gave them over to their desires, they may well have said, “I didn’t choose to be this way.” And in the short-term, they didn’t. God chose for them to be this way. But in the broader context, in effect their whole life was a choice to edge closer and closer to the precipice. When the Wind knocked them off the ledge, they had no choice but to fall. But they did choose where to stand.

Modern Times

I just finished Modern Times by Paul Johnson. At almost 800 pages of history written by a dry British author (dry and British? Now I've seen everything), it took me about 20 hours of total reading time over the course of the past month to get through it.

Johnson recounts all of the important people and events from the 1920s through the early 1990s, and he revisits several overarching observations throughout, one of which is the effects of moral relativism. Johnson contends that moral relativism, when combined with a will to power, was a major reason that Hitler, Lenin, etc, were able to come to power and kill millions. He also credits secular humanism for lending a helping hand to such despots. Johnson believes that the 20th century proves the evilness of these ideas, and after reading the book, I am inclined to agree with him.

If up to the task, I highly recommend this book. It is a good overview of recent world history for those of us who need a refresher course upon occasion. It is written from a conservative (and I believe Christian) perspective, so it makes no attempt to justify or ignore the injustices of totalitarian regimes. Finally, even if you have no interest in history, Johnson's vocabulary is extensive. Here are just a few of the words I learned from this book: Caravanserai, cynosure, degringolade, inure, nugatory, opprobrious, sartorial. I am looking forward to using these words in insouciant conversation, most likely about various sporting teams, heavy, earth-moving machinery and the philosophical weaknesses of postmodern thought. "His raucous dance and stentorian paean in the end zone was self-opprobrious and an obloquy to the league. It was a true nadir for him."

Jumping on the Global Warming Bandwagon

Global warming concerns me. It probably doesn’t concern me for the reasons you might think, though. What concerns me about global warming is that not many people are challenging it. Let me clarify at the beginning—I am not saying that the earth is not heating up, or that we should not treat the environment responsibly. I am saying that in the last six months, it seems that everyone has decided that global warming is here, its destruction will be complete in nature, and we are directly responsible for all of it.

There are a few questions I have about global warming that not many people seem to be asking. First, how do we know what temperature the earth is supposed to be? The standard scientific view says that the earth is 14 billion years old. We have accurate temperature data for certain parts of the world for the last 150 years. By evaluating ice-core samples, scientists have a pretty good idea of the temperatures for the last 1,000 years. This means that we have empirical temperature data for roughly 7.14x10^-6% of all earth’s history. It seems odd to me that one could take such a small data sample and make such large claims with it. Besides, I recall learning about ice ages and heat waves that happened long before humans appeared. How is the current warming trend different?

Second, the environment is dynamic, with a multitude of factors at work. How can we be so sure that man-made carbon dioxide is the root cause an impending catastrophe? Carbon dioxide is just one piece of the environmental pie. I am not suggesting that it plays no role whatsoever, but there is no guarantee that if we all stopped driving cars, the earth would suddenly revert to “normalcy” (whatever that is).

Third, computer models predicting future temperature changes vary widely. For that matter, the five-day weather forecast isn’t always accurate. Why do we put so much stock in them? Is it because it’s technology (which, of course, is always good) used by scientists (who, of course, are always correct and unbiased)? Where have our critical-thinking skills gone?

I am afraid that our society has yet again succumbed to the tyranny of the present. As Ann Coulter stated a few years ago, “For many people, history started this morning.” Never mind that twenty years ago the feared global ice age never happened (I am just old enough to remember this). Never mind that Y2K was a dud. “This time, we mean it!”

Again, let me stress that I am not advocating mistreating our planet. If we can take better care of things down here, then by all means, let’s do it! But I fear that we are blindly following the latest cultural craze, which may or may not turn out to be true. (If it turns out to be false in twenty years, I guarantee that no one will admit to having believed it—it will be forgotten and abandoned without a second thought.) We should be critical of global warming, not because of a lack of concern for the environment, but because history’s past failures demand it of us.