01.02.06
Dover, PA, Will Evolve
It seems a shame to me that so much of our time as a nation should be wasted on activities so patently contrary to those envisioned by its founders when they spoke of individuals’ liberties and the “pursuit of happiness”. We were never, as a nation of people as varied as autumn leaves, intended to beset one another with litigious conflicts over matters of personal persuasion. The yearly Butter Battles would, in light of their modern extents, confound the senses and pain the hearts of more than a few of our nation’s founders, I’m quite sure. Although there are certainly issues worthy of intense, extensive and ongoing conversation in the hallowed halls of our government’s branches - universal healthcare, say, or abortion, or dismantling institutionalized racism - we seem all too easily tied up in lesser issues that more than border on the absurd. Perhaps the situation is indicative of slippage in the quality of education in our schools and, causally related, in our homes.
Case in point: Evolution v. “Intelligent Design”.
To characterize it as “science vs. religion” is to absolutely miss the point that there is no real conflict between the two, save insofar as there are those foolish individuals who would create one. In a nutshell, by way of refuting the false dichotomy, scientific thought does not - nor could it, even if it were so inclined - address religious belief, per se. Science deals solely with the observable, measurable, investigable, testable and otherwise empirical data of the world. In short, science deals with facts; it studies facts, discovers facts and theorizes about those facts so that, at the end of the day, it can test its theories against the facts to see what of its theories remains. The theories of science are akin to the theorems of mathematics; one may, with an educated effort, prove or disprove them. Religion, on the other hand, does not do as science does. Religion is a whole other animal, more akin to philosophy and the arts. There are certainly places where the two may meet, and their boundaries might there become blurry and blended, but for the most part they are as two sides to life’s coin: one would have to fold things in some rather amazing way - like a Möbius strip - to unite them (not that people haven’t tried).
Much gratitude ought to be enthusiastically given to Judge John E. Jones III for his lucid and thorough routing of the “intelligent design” folks in Dover, PA. Though any thinking person who supports the scientific study of evolution should yet feel a bit worried that it ever came to trial, the results were worthy of a general “Huzzah!” at the end of the proceedings. Scientists and the U.S. Constitution together won a significant battle, though, as should be obvious, in no way have they seen the end of the war. The embarrassed resignation of the antagonists who sat on the Dover Area School Board, the disingenuous back-peddling of the likes of Sen. Rick Santorum and the Discovery Institute, and the far-reaching nature of Judge Jones III’s punitive decision against the disgraced board and ID itself, have set a more difficult course for creationists, under whatever guise, to pursue in future.
It is worth hoping for, that this brownout era - I dare say I wouldn’t call this period in history an actual dark age - will pass with the help of such judgments as meted out by Judge Jones III, along with a general uptick in public interest in what science actually says, is and does. I do not believe that Americans are so stupid as to be comfortable forever in allowing narrow-minded, ignorant blowhards to dictate to us what “We the People” shall think and accept, however cynical I may feel at times when confronted with all we’ve allowed the Bush (43) administration to get away with in the name of so-called “homeland security”. That the DASB failed as it did is indicative of the true American spirit asserting itself.
Please understand, I have no issue with folks having religious beliefs, nor in their attending churches, synagogues, mosques, temples or what-have-you. What I have a problem with is any religious organization or individual attempting to force their beliefs on others. There are no two ways about it: the DASB attempted a religious coup in the science department, one which, had they been successful, would have opened the door to further religious intrusion into students’ secular schooling. Such intrusion would have ultimately gained the distinct properties of certain so-called Christian sects, such that any religious upbringing at the students’ homes would potentially have also been undermined by the official imprimatur of the state, which would indicate, as Judge Jones III points out in his decision, that those who disagree with the officially sponsored message are outsiders.
There are some who would argue that the state is already putting its official seal of approval on “secular humanism” by allowing “only Darwin” to be taught in science classrooms. However, such an argument is at best specious. Firstly, science, as a field, does not speak to religious issues any more than mathematics or music theory does. Whatever the beliefs or thoughts of any scientist may be, the theory of evolution has nothing to say, pro or con, about the validity of religious beliefs. Secondly, although it is true that scientists will argue with anyone about the age of the earth or the positions of the planets in relation to the sun, they do not tell people what to believe, and they will offer evidence to support their statements. Science points to tests. Science says, “If x is true, then (eliminating all other factors for non-x) we should be able to determine y and z”, and then it performs tests on the prediction. If “proving x and determining y and z” has the appearance of disproving a religious belief of some group or another, this is hardly the fault of science. Yet scientists or scientific organizations do not attempt to infiltrate churches or other religious institutions for whatever reason. Science, which grew up at the knee of religion, did not seek to supplant or overthrow religion; that was the accusation of certain religious people.
But there is no reason for science to be considered the enemy of any religion. Science, if anything, is a friend to many religious people (scientists included) who find in its studies and discoveries more to adore, more to celebrate in what they perceive to be “God’s [or the gods] creation”. For certain agnostics and atheists, science offers something akin to a religious respect of the known universe.
In the end it is all a matter of perception, isn’t it, really? Life continues to be what it is, for each one of us, regardless of what any other believes about it. In the end, we have to fight for what we can prove to ourselves to be true. In the end, that is why we must go through any number of otherwise senseless fights. Which is both “too bad” and “simply life”. It would do us all a favor if we could, however, at least withdraw ourselves from the really pointless stuff, rise above the petty and nonsensical. But I am either preaching to the choir or banging my head on a brick wall as thick as all eternity, I know. Still, it’s important to try.
