Archive for December, 2009
Is Evolution Untouchable?
I’ve noticed the complaint from a few different sources lately that evolution is simply ‘untouchable’. It usually is attacking atheists for clinging to evolution so devoutly, claiming that anyone with a religious background is simply unable to even question the theory. Is there some truth to that claim? Trying to think about it objectively… well, maybe so. But it’s not what they would have you believe.
Let’s examine the situation a little more deeply. Question: What is the real connection with evolution to any kind of disagreement on theology? Answer: Absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, evolution has been dragged into this fight presumably without first consulting it. There is nothing about atheism that connects with evolution any more than atheism connects with gravity or knot theory. But evolution had the misfortune to have some implications that certain religious groups couldn’t reconcile with their long held myths, so it has been branded a religious debate. Let’s not pretend that this is a completely one-sided fault either. While there may have been some Christian science watchdogs analyzing the theory of evolution and its implications from the start, there probably was an equivalent force on the other side, waiting for the opportunity to say “Hey! Look, you guys are wrong, and we have proof!” The debate is what it is today, and it’s short-sighted to claim that it was one side’s fault over the others.
But is it really untouchable? I don’t think that it’s completely out of line to say that this debate has become so polarized, that some people are so incredibly invested in one side or the other, that they may ignore any criticism from the outset. Honestly, I’ve spent enough time on the internet to know that these people are around for just about every debate you might have. It’s only because of the enormous fame of this one that these people have actually gotten real publicity. But I think that the real problem comes from a confusion of terminology that plagues evolution already. People who don’t understand the terms that scientists use will snicker at the “theory of evolution”, when it’s actually quite a solid idea. The terminology that gets lost here, though, is what people mean when they say “Evolution”. Richard Dawkins is often misinterpreted when he says that there is no doubt in his mind about evolution. “Oh REALLY?” his opponents say. “You must have some strong FAITH in that THEORY!” Or something like that. But it’s all rubbish. There is evolution the theory and evolution the fact, and it’s important to understand the distinction.
When Dawkins says that evolution is a fact, he’s stating something that we can be almost 100% certain of – creatures evolve. It has been seen; it’s a known effect. The overarching principles, the explanation of the effect, the reasons, that’s the theory. Suppose that someone said that gravity was a fact, and he was dead certain about that. Any qualms with that? Nope, he’s perfectly justified in saying that because we see the effect. Things fall down; masses are pulled together. We see it. It happens. Fact. Why does it happen? How does it happen? Can we quantify it? Those are questions for the theory. The Law of gravity is, essentially, wrong. Newton described things quite well, but he was ultimately wrong. So our theory changed, but the fact is still true. The one we have now seems pretty good, but who knows? It could change again, but I still will see things falling no matter what our best understanding is of the reasons.
I think that very few real thinkers would actually claim that we have an exact scientific theory with no holes or open questions, which will be solid forever, about evolution. What they get defensive about is that people are trying to force the idea out of consideration all together. “Look at this problem with evolution…” is ultimately followed by “Life doesn’t evolve”, which is the mistake. It would have seemed incredibly silly for Einstein to say “I see problems with the Law of Gravity… Gravity must not exist!” But it happens every day for evolution. Science progresses by observing and theorizing, then repeating, over and over and over. Claiming that problems with our theory discount the observation is backwards – so don’t do it.
Yes, evolution is somewhat untouchable – evolution the fact. We’ll be refining evolution the theory for a long time to come.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Hospitals and the Supernatural
It’s been an interesting week for thinking about my usual topics. There’s been a little bit of family medical stuff going on, and it’s the first time since I really started thinking about religion that I’ve been in this kind of situation. The things that seem just normal to most people are very odd to me indeed now.
For one thing, as you may know from the FAQ, I’m from a Catholic family, and it would seem that not very many of my family members have strayed from that. I’ve reached an age now where politely refusing the communion being brought around the hospital room is no longer a silly kid trying to rebel. Now, it’s cause for self-righteous glares and smug comments. It’s interesting the things you pick up on as an adult that never seemed to be present. Do you ever think back on little exchanges from your childhood that didn’t make a lot of sense until you reconsidered them as an adult? It seems to happen to me all the time. Hospitals tend to have a lot of praying going on, and that’s really no problem to me. As long as the doctors have a sane approach, patients and families are more than welcome to soothe themselves as they please. And yet, it can never stay that way can it? I happen to be an only child, so if there are ever any tough medical choices to be made for my parents I get the final say. But it makes me wonder about what would have happened in my family if one of my aunts or uncles had been so openly not-Catholic in that situation. Especially with Catholicism, the rules are very well defined. Do this, and do not do that. If one of them disagreed, how do you resolve that? It’s an unfortunate example of the problems that come with a dogma – you don’t get to think for a given situation. The answer is already decided.
The other thing that comes to mind is a brush with the supernatural I had. Well, not really of course, but it almost could have been. One night after coming back from the hospital, I was getting ready for bed and I felt a sort of brush on my shoulder. Nothing much, but it seemed quite more than a breeze. Yet, I was alone. I go back the next day and find the shocking information that…. nothing special happened last night. Yeah, the odds were against me on that one, but what about the odds overall? How often do we dismiss sensations as nothing, simply because nothing special is happening at the time? Is it so hard to imagine that a few people might feel that brush around the same time as a loved one dying and forever sing the miracle of ghost contact? In fact, I’d be surprised not to see those events correspond at least some of the time, to some of the people out there. Yeah, nothing happened to me, so I forgot about it (until now). But if something HAD happened, think how moving it would be!
It’s also a reminder of the old question “How much do you humor them?” When someone close to you is struggling and they want you to pray with them, how much do you do? I’m pretty sure that it helps no one to be harsh and confrontational. Maybe you agree to stand there respectfully and listen. Maybe you take the next step of some sort of participation. If you grew up in the tradition, you could probably even lead the prayers if you were asked to. It’s a little different than being asked to lead a prayer before dinner. These people need serious comfort in a very hard time.
Yes, I’m all over the place. It’s just that sort of time right now. Plus, I have a cold I just can’t shake, so my brain is a little fuzzy and hard to follow. Anybody got any miracle cures?
