Earnest Questions About Baby Facts
On NPR this morning, they had a story about Kansas once again trying to misinform their kids by eliminating evolution from science classrooms. Instead of creationism--which won and then failed in Kansas, this time it's "Intelligent Design." ID says that there is too much order and complexity for it all to be one big "accident," and there must've been a creator, read "God"--the Christian God to be exact.
They interviewed a Harvard astronomer who has room for both evolution and "lower-case" intelligent design in his head. He seemed reasonable, but his last statement was telling. He said that there must've been a creator because he just couldn't believe that all this was a "macabre (random) joke." I forgot one word in there, but he did say "macabre" and "joke." (You can check it out for yourself on npr.org, morning edition.)
That's my first question: If evolution is just a big "accident," why describe it in terms like "macabre" and "joke?" Who's pulling this joke? To me, nature is not "cruel" or "peaceful" or possessing of any other humanish emotion. It just IS. It's telling that some people, like me, consider the WHOLE thing a source of wonder and joy--a phenomenon too big for our monkey brains to get around, at least right now. For others, and especially, I've noticed, for those grim believers, the idea is that we're being punished by some cosmic joker or, worse, evildoer.
My second question is: How do you, as a believer in some manifestation of God(s), deal with evolution? I am surrounded by highly intelligent people who believe in God and even go to church on a regular basis, and I'm curious as to how they reconcile these seemingly disparate beliefs that, to my mind, really aren't. Do you make the link between the current, bewildering battle over evolution and the past battle over heliocentrism? If fundamentalists manage to get rid of evolution in our schools, how long before we backpedal and get rid of all scientific knowledge that runs counter to some version of one religion's book?
Finally, I'll explain the "baby facts" title. Not long ago I heard a scientist say that the theory of evolution wasn't a "baby fact" that, in time, would grow up to be a Fact. Theories, he said, EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution is one way of explaining the FACT of evolution. I'm with that fella. If proponents of intelligent design, creationism, etc. want to teach their theory of evolution in our public science classrooms, then they need to submit their theories to scientific scrutiny. If they hold up, then fine! It's telling, though, that so many would claim "science" to dismiss a theory that, while it's not "complete," has held up for decades while dismissing science to get their so-far only faith-based theories in our science classrooms. If you submitted ID or creationism to the same scrutiny that they save for the theory of evolution, they would've been pounded into dust and blown back into the cosmic soup. Except for one thing . . . they have faith on their side.
But faith, while valid, is not exactly scientific. Is there no middle ground here?
They interviewed a Harvard astronomer who has room for both evolution and "lower-case" intelligent design in his head. He seemed reasonable, but his last statement was telling. He said that there must've been a creator because he just couldn't believe that all this was a "macabre (random) joke." I forgot one word in there, but he did say "macabre" and "joke." (You can check it out for yourself on npr.org, morning edition.)
That's my first question: If evolution is just a big "accident," why describe it in terms like "macabre" and "joke?" Who's pulling this joke? To me, nature is not "cruel" or "peaceful" or possessing of any other humanish emotion. It just IS. It's telling that some people, like me, consider the WHOLE thing a source of wonder and joy--a phenomenon too big for our monkey brains to get around, at least right now. For others, and especially, I've noticed, for those grim believers, the idea is that we're being punished by some cosmic joker or, worse, evildoer.
My second question is: How do you, as a believer in some manifestation of God(s), deal with evolution? I am surrounded by highly intelligent people who believe in God and even go to church on a regular basis, and I'm curious as to how they reconcile these seemingly disparate beliefs that, to my mind, really aren't. Do you make the link between the current, bewildering battle over evolution and the past battle over heliocentrism? If fundamentalists manage to get rid of evolution in our schools, how long before we backpedal and get rid of all scientific knowledge that runs counter to some version of one religion's book?
Finally, I'll explain the "baby facts" title. Not long ago I heard a scientist say that the theory of evolution wasn't a "baby fact" that, in time, would grow up to be a Fact. Theories, he said, EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution is one way of explaining the FACT of evolution. I'm with that fella. If proponents of intelligent design, creationism, etc. want to teach their theory of evolution in our public science classrooms, then they need to submit their theories to scientific scrutiny. If they hold up, then fine! It's telling, though, that so many would claim "science" to dismiss a theory that, while it's not "complete," has held up for decades while dismissing science to get their so-far only faith-based theories in our science classrooms. If you submitted ID or creationism to the same scrutiny that they save for the theory of evolution, they would've been pounded into dust and blown back into the cosmic soup. Except for one thing . . . they have faith on their side.
But faith, while valid, is not exactly scientific. Is there no middle ground here?
posted by lulu | 5:01 AM
17 Comments:
Intelligent Design is everywhere right now. The last issue of "Newsweek" had a cover story on it. Try going to http://www.msnbc.com/news/NW for a list to the online magazine.
1) I have faith in the presence of God. I also believe that evolution explains the operations of nature in the world. How to reconcile these things? Well, I think that God set in motion the natural operations of evolution. I do NOT think that creation occurred as the Bible describes it. Scientific study, experimentation, and observation have proven as conclusively as we currently can that the natural world operates in some structured fashion that we call evolution. The ID people claim the amazing intricacies of the eyeball or the liver could not have resulted as a result of random mutations.
2) Rigid evolutionists, who have no place for God in their theory (and why should they since it is unprovable), must spin their theory back to the unknowable beginnings and conclude that a natural event or series of events started all of the evolutionary process. That, I believe, is where the word "theory" best applies to evolution, since that is all it can ever be. We were NOT witness to the creation/beginning, so we must simply fall back on theory. I think that at that moment of dim past, strict scientists get as close as they will to what church-goers call "faith."
3) What gets the ID/Creationists all upset is the notion that Man is not special. If evolution is accepted, there is no plan, no reason, just a series of random moments of happenstance that resulted in the human race. That does not coincide with the notion that God has a plan and that some people are chosen or destined or better.
4) But maybe God's plan is all about what you do here and now. Why not stop worrying about what might have happened in the past and try to live up to a religious/decent/righteous life right now, while you have the chance? I can't prove/disprove what happened millenia ago or even on October 26, 1544 BC. It is my charge as a Christian to live a decent, well-meaning life NOW and try to use my gifts and skills to improve the lives of those around me.
The solution has always seemed simple enough to me: before a class tackles evolution (which usually only has a day or two of class time devoted to it anyway), the teacher should hold a brief discussion with the class about how this is a complicated issue that conflicts with the religious faith of some (but not all) believers. She or he should encourage the kids to research the controversy on their own and talk to their parents, friends, church members, etc., about it. The teacher should also emphasize that evolution is a theory, albeit one that is strongly supported in the scientific community. (The teacher might also point out that some other concepts, like gravity, are technically only “theories”!) Then, away we go!
The “intelligent design” movement infuriates me. It’s deceptive, sneaky, and underhanded. Its proponents use all this touchy-feely language to make people think that they just innocently want to talk about the complexity of life and the possibility of a guiding hand of some generic, benevolent creator that could fit into anyone’s faith . . . and it’s all a big bunch of bullshit. Make no mistake, their ultimate goal is to have all teachers break out the Bible in the classroom, read from Genesis, and tell kids that that’s how the world came about, end of story, no questions allowed. (I’m not sure how they plan on deciding among themselves whether the world was created literally in six days or whether the six days of creation in the Bible is a metaphor or relative time scale. Cagefighting, maybe?)
I disagree that Intelligent Design and Creationism are identical. The creationists are trying to hijack intelligent design, but they are not the same people. I've read biochemist Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"--a classic example of the ID argument. You can see an editorial by Behe at the NY Times from at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?oref=login&oref=login
The ID movement makes a simple argument at its core. If you are walking on the beach and find a pocketwatch, do you assume someone made it, or do you try to explain how the parts happened to come together all on their own? The pocketwatch itself is the evidence of intelligence--you don't have to offer any more proof than that about the existence of the external intelligence.
ID advocates say that when you look at DNA code, when you look at the molecular machines that operate within cells to build life, you are looking at something with as much inherent design as a pocketwatch (more actually). I watched a spectacular animation illustrating internal cell operations recently done by ID proponents. It is really something to see and it does make you think about the possibility that life here on Earth may be an artifact, not a purely spontaneous development.
Carl Sagan (in his novel Contact, and in various essays) speculated about what kind of message the designer of the universe would leave that would be unambiguous proof of his existence. In Contact, Sagan has the scientists find a message embedded deep in the number Pi. Since Pi is intrinsic to the universe's structure, a message there could only have been put in by a god-like intelligence that built the universe.
ID proponents--unlike most creationists--are hard edge scientists, mathematicians and researchers. They publish in scientific journals and write books for science publishing houses. Their articles are peer reviewed. They hold conferences and give papers. They include some top names in physics and biology, and I don't know any who are Christian fundamentalists. They do not believe that Genesis is literally correct. Many are not Christians at all. At least a few of the physicists who embrace a designed universe are Buddhists. I would also stress that ID proponents do not think that human beings sprung from the ground fully formed. They do believe in evolution in the sense that life forms adapt and change over time--as I said these are working scientists who know the evidence. But they also believe that life, at its basic core, is designed. They correctly point out that evolutionary theory cannot and does not explain how life originated in the first place--it only explains how life changes and adapts over time. No one currently has a viable [pun intended] theory as to why or how life began from non-living elements.
Intelligent Design, though not with that name, began in the physics community. The ID movement, so-called, is the result scientists in other disciplines, particularly biology and mathematics coming to think, as some physicists do, that the implicit order in the very structure of the universe and inside all life, is itself evidence that the universe and life are artifacts, not natural. They see a message in DNA, in celluar mechanics, in the various natural laws of the physical universe. It is the same message that finding a pocketwatch on a beach sends, the message that there is an intelligence behind everything we know.
Politically, I think two things are going on. First, I think the ID movement is itself akin to Deism in the Enlightenment. It allows scientists who believe they see order in life and the universe to express it in a way compatible with science. Second, I know that creationists and Christian fundamentalists are trying to use the ID movement to piggyback their ideas into the classroom. And it does pose problems for boards of education, because some of what ID discusses is perfectly appropriate to a science class, and so it is hard to say no. Of course, Genesis and Biblical literalism is not appropriate to a science classroom.
Designing a proper science curriculum with ID but without creationism requires people doing the curriculum to be really on the ball and aware of the science and I am not sure that's doable at high school level. For the same reason, I do not think evolution should be taught in high schools. High school science teachers rarely have anything more than a BSc in science. Many have only a degree in science education. Evolution is a complex and difficult theory. It relies on an understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics that is beyond the education most teachers have received, let alone students. So what ends up being taught is classical Darwinian evolutionary theory. This would be better taught in a history class, just like we teach Ptolemy's theory of the earth-centric universe in history class. As a theory Darwinism as Darwin presented it is largely outmoded, naturally so, since Darwin knew nothing of DNA, modern genetics, or modern biochemistry. Modern evolutionists have so elaborated, modified and altered Darwinism that what ends up being taught in the schools isn't really what scientists think about evolution at all.
Kids should be taught science in stages, moving from the elementary to the complex. Evolution is not elementary. I think, like quantum mechanics, tensor calculus, genetics, and other very high-end sciences and maths, evolution should be left to college. Do we really need to teach this to kids who write poorly, cannot do algebra, fail at writing chemical equations, and do not understand much history or basic science?
Wow, someone's got A LOT of spare time at work!
First, I'm signing anonymous cause I don't have an account. This is Perk.
Ok, in the first place, you ask tough questions. I warn you now that my responses will involve my bearing religious testimony. That is how I deal with these issues. I'm not trying to convert but share my thoughts and feelings on the subject. That said, here goes.
I think Flipper's comment about how to teach it in the class suits me just fine. In fact, that's exactly how I would address it. It includes the ideas of ID, which I think are popular enough that they should be addressed briefly, as well as opening up the basics of evolution, which is the current scientific theory propounded by most scientists.
As for how the faithful can believe in creation and still view the evidence supporting evolution, that's a difficult question to describe in writing on a blog. I can share with you my perspective. I, and people of my faith, believe that the biblical account of creation, modified by modern revelation, are true. However, we see the days as representative as large periods of time rather than specific amounts of time. In that sense there is a great deal of symbolism that is not directly literal.
How do you reconcile that, even with eons, with the idea that at one point and time there as an Adam and an Eve? I'm not sure exactly how to link them in terms of science. I suppose this is an issue of faith. I'm comfortable enough with my faith to realize that there are some things I just don't understand and may not understand until I reach the other side. God is, after all, enormously more intelligent than any of us. Why should I complain that I don't understand it? If I can't quite grasp Einstein's theories about a constantly expanding universe, why should this be a problem for me?
Faith for me is a motivator and a compelling force. But it is not blind. I used to be very skeptical of religion in general for these very reasons we are discussing. All the arguments you (and I mean all of you in our group), I've thought them all too, and made them. But I have had experiences that have been repeated on occasions when I know God has spoken to me. I didn't hear words or see angels or lightning flashing through the sky. But I have felt the power of the Holy Ghost in undeniable fashion such that it illuminated my entire being, and I know based on those experiences that God does, indeed, live, and that the things I believe are true. I know what I've experienced and I know the source.
So, does that mean faith is blind? Not for me. I've actually questioned many things, and received guidance on many issues. Not always powerful and potent, but that's not how it works. The Spirit speaks with a still small voice. You have to listen to know it is there.
So I know what I believe, I know what I don't know (and that is a whole heck of a lot), and figure, as Burb said, that the best thing I can do is try to continue to be the best person I can be and wait for the answers to come when they will.
Anonymous, that’s an excellent discourse on the merits of ID theory, and I agree that in the context in which you discuss it, it has plenty of intellectual merit and deserves attention and discussion. I can assure you, however, that the political arena in which this controversy is playing out is not host to such rational, philosophical ideas. When I attended central Ohio’s public hearing on ID v. evolution at Vet’s Memorial a couple years ago, the ID crowd was all about “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” with Bibles everywhere and t-shirts with crosses on them and a whole bunch of praying out loud, hallelujah, amen. The two ID speakers spent the entire time focusing on exactly where Darwin was wrong, to great cheers and applause every time “Darwin” and “wrong” were uttered in the same sentence. (Call me prejudiced, but I can’t imagine this crowd was even on the level, scientific-knowledge-wise, of Anonymous’s woefully ignorant science teachers.) Oh, they also related the “pocketwatch on the beach” analogy, which is quite a common argument. That’s about it. It’s all a different issue when you look at it on a pragmatic rather than intellectual level.
Whether or not any of this should be taught in high school is a whole other matter. If you believe, as Anonymous does, that all high school students are drooling, blithering idiots and their teachers not much better, then it shouldn’t be. Of course, a lot of stuff shouldn’t be attempted at the high school level, in that case. Maybe we should change the curriculum to include skills such as walking upright, foraging for berries, and telemarketing.
Flipper: I agree it is a different issue at the political level. What you saw in Ohio was exactly what I'm worried about--the hijacking of ID by creationists who see it as a Trojan Horse that can be used to sneak Genesis into the science classroom. One of the reasons I wanted to stress that ID and creationism are not the same is that it helps to undermine creationism.
If enough people make it clear that ID is different, then, hopefully, 2 things will happen: first, boards of education will realize that people with a religious agenda are invoking ID to help their agenda. At the moment the confusion of creationism with ID makes it seem to laymen politicians as if some scientists have evidence that the Biblical literalists are right. Equating ID and creationism gives credibility to the demands of creationists for inclusion in the classroom. Clearly separating ID from creationism helps deny creationists their ability to invoke ID in defense of a religious agenda. It takes away some of the ammo they can use in political presentations to state boards.
Second, if we are clear about the real ideas of the ID movement, we can hope that creationists themselves will become disillusioned with using ID for their own purposes. It is a huge leap from an intelligent designer of DNA and physical laws to the God of the Bible and the Christian Jesus. There is no straight-line connection, and I really think if creationists look closely at what ID proponents are saying, they will see that it actually undermines biblical literalism.
To my Christian yet evolution believing friends, I would also ask this question. The crux of Christian faith is that all human beings are fallen creatures, creatures whose sinful nature traces back to the original sin of Adam and Eve. Our sinfulness is intrinsic to our nature, and for this reason Jesus had to be sent to Earth to die for people's sins and redeem them for God. Isn't this the absolute minimal essense of Christianity? If you do not believe in sin and Christ as redeemer of sin, then you are not a Christian, whether or not you are literalist or see the Bible as metaphor. That being the case, if human beings evolved gradually, how could they ever have fallen from grace? If there is no original sin, no sinful nature, then there is no need for Christ's redemption.
We do not say that animals are sinful. My cat is annoying at times, but she doesn't need to accept God's grace to get into heaven. Australopithicus was more animal than human, yet was our ancestor. Homo habilis used tools, acted very human in many respects, but was not human. Homo neanderthalensis was human in all respects, with tools, culture, etc., but went extinct. Did Neanderthals have original sin? Were they punished for it? If not, were they then not human, despite the nearly identical DNA? Was there some point as humans evolved where God said: "Okay these ones have evolved to the point I want. I will put sin into them. The rest stay animals." You can't really say that people evolved into being sinners... That would mean there were creatures in the evolutionary chain who were "half-sinners." Either we are sinful creatures or we are not. It seems to me that even if you are not a biblical literalist, if you accept the basic Christian notion of a fallen nature and original sin that needs redemption, you have a position fundamentally at odds with evolution. No?
Seems to me that what ID proponents are trying to do is ultimately prove that a creator exists. That's fine with me--I've always felt that the burden of proof should be on the people who claim that something is there--especially something that you cannot see or easily measure. (Anyone who is skeptical of scientific evidence pointing toward, say, global warming should accept that.)
One of my problems is that this "creator" is often referred to, at least among commoners, with male pronouns. Further, "he" is referred to in human terms. Until the guilty IDers and ID supporters get away from that, they've got no shot at getting away from the creationists, or of being taken seriously by anyone who thinks outside of the Big Daddy in the Sky box.
Also, they've still got nothin. The theory of evolution makes no claims of knowing how the universe began--perhaps no theory will ever satisfactorily solve that one (especially when there are millions who won't accept even the basic "life adapts and changes" argument). Similarly, you can believe all you want in an intelligent designer, but until you can prove THAT scientifically, it's not fit to be taught as science in any classroom, though I'm all for a lively debate of the basic issues.
Which brings me to the "don't teach it in high school" argument. Rubbish! The theory of evolution is the explanation of how life adapts and changes--NOT an explanation of the beginning of the Universe!!! The latter is great fodder for scientific and historic debate, as flipper suggests (and as I've practiced with great results in my world history classes). To say that most science teachers aren't qualified to teach it because they "only" have a bachelor's is unbelievably pompous, ivory-encrusted bullshit. Does possessing this piddling little degree prohibit a high school teacher from going to the library and reading books about the issues? Or picking up a newspaper? Or reading scientific and educational journals? Or discussing the issue with others? It's also ridiculous to assume that high school students are incapable of handling this material.
Yes, there are failing teachers and students at the high school level. No, it doesn't automatically clear up in college OR implicate all HS teachers and students. Get thee to a classroom!
Part of our job here at Major McPublisher is to create materials that will help introduce knowledge to ALL students--not just those privileged enough to go to college (and bust through classes in the pursuit of . . . what? Certainly not "knowledge" for many! How bout MONEY?) Flip is right--if we eliminate evolution because kids and teachers are too dumb to grasp these delicate and precious concepts, where do we stop?
Interestingly, I found myself nodding in serious agreement with Jack Thunder.
Lulu, you have to be careful with comments like (paraphrasing cause I can't see the comment in this screen) "we should teach ALL knowledge." You can't have it both ways. All is inclusive of both evolution and alternative theories. I don't mean to argue semantics here. I bring it up because that seems to be a basic, intrinsic part of your argument.
As for the apparent contradiction of evolution and creation, this is a different topic than merely should creationism/ID/evolution be taught in schools. Remember that evolution is merely a theory, one that has its own set of problems. I'm not saying it's not possible, but that I'm ok with the fact that I don't know how it all fits together. I don't pretend to know everything, but there is only a problem here if your perspective on live is driven primarily or uniquely by reason and evidence in the imperical sense. Faith as an active quantity, and the experiences that come result through and from it, are as real as any other conclusions.
--Perk
We shouldn't TEACH ID or creationism as if they are on par with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory, for all its faults, is scientific, and so appropriate for a science classroom. ID and creationism are not scientific, but religious at the core.
Once again, evolutionary theory is different from the explanation of the beginnings of the universe! So far, everyone here seems to agree that life evolves (correct me if I'm wrong). No one can agree as to where that life comes from, and NO ONE KNOWS.
However, I think all of these issues are highly appropriate for classroom discussion and research, though ID and creationism should not be TAUGHT as science. My first big assignment for world history students was to research the evolution vs. creationism debate as if they were school board members and must decide this issue for the community schools. I urged them to research the origins of the debate, the meaning of both terms (ID wasn't a big name back then), and similar historical battles (heliocentrism, for example). I also had them interview teachers, parents, religious leaders, students, you name it. They were to weigh all of this and write a report summarize their findings and recommendation.
Without fail, every class (probably 20) and every student (in Utah and in a tiny Catholic town in Missouri) recommended that evolution be taught in science classrooms, that creationism should NOT be taught in science classrooms, and that the issues surrounding both should be mentioned in science and history classrooms.
Of course you all realize the REAL core issue here--that Lulu is using this whole "discussion" as a front to get her blog counter up!
Okay Dr. Anonymous, how about this response?
God "created" sin in the sense that he allowed humans free will to make their own choices. Not all of those choices are "correct" or "good" and are therefore seen as sinful in the eyes of a Christian.
So, a Christian believer in evolution says that God created the universe and created evolution to be its mechanism for change and adaptation. Free will and the intelligence needed for free will created sin and that is what led to the necessity for Jesus' sacrifice to atone for that sin.
But at what point did humans become sinful? Was austrolopithicus (sp?) sinful? Homo habilus? Did they have free will? (Today, do chimpanzees have free will? Can they be sinful?)
I try to respect other people's beliefs, but you gotta understand--to a nonbeliever, the idea of original sin is incomprehensible. The idea that a newborn baby comes into the world absolutely riddled with sin--it's just ludicrous!
Sorry, that's the way I feel.
I don't think that australopithecus was sinful . . . because I don't think that dogs, cats, or other animals commit sin. They are not intelligent enough for that sort of higher level choice.
So was Neandertal sinful? Maybe? Evidence shows that they had some level of religious ritual in their burials, so they had a concept of something other than the here and now. They might have conceived of a kind of sin that was appropriate for their world view.
Different religions/times/cultures define sin differently. So, does that call all religion into question . . . if it is culturally relative? I don't think so. Rellgion is a way of trying to order and explain the world and the way it operates. While different religions have different explanations of what that entails, there is a basic level of religious truth (I think) that can span different faiths.
(And I am sure that all of this is extremely contradictory and therefore subject to complete dismissal.)
*****
The idea of original sin is something that I can only view in religious terms because it is a matter of faith. If you don't have that same faith, then you should not be expected to understand or accept it--which I understand.
Burb (and Perk):
A couple of things:
Before I begin, I want to say that I wasn't trying get your goats with that question or being sarcastic, so I hope I'm not offending you or any believer who is reading this. But I find it to be one of the bigger conundrums about Christians who accept evolution but nonetheless must believe in Christ's redemptive power. I find these type of questions useful and important, to me anyway, and I think satisfactory answers are needed if believers are to succeeed in bringing over non-believers.
Okay first, I still think there is a problem in saying that sin derives from intelligence and choice. You still have the problem of intermediate stages of evolution where you have hominids that are half as intelligent as homo sapiens, or 3/4s as intelligent. They would be capable of making choices, including bad ones. But you say God "allowed" humans "free will"--so I take it you don't see free will as something that evolves along with intelligence, or is integral to intelligence. At some point God said: "These animals have evolved enough intelligence, I will now give them free will. Then they will sin." So in theory there could be a hominid every bit as intelligent as humans but with no free will?
Further, as I understand Christian doctrine, original sin is more than free will or choosing to do wrong. Human beings are inherently sinful, they cannot help it. They will sin, no matter how hard they try to be good, nor matter how hard they try to follow God. No Christian claims that by being a good Christian they no longer sin. Since sin is intrinsic to human nature, you cannot not avoid it by exercising free will. You just can't.
Now one argument for the reason you can't avoid sin is because we are not omniscient. We can't know all factors necessary to making a choice, so inevitably, we will make wrong choices and thereby commit sin. This however turns your earlier argument on its head. This defense says that you cannot avoid sin because you are not intelligent enough... But that would mean that creatures with even less intelligence (and even less omniscience) would commit even more sin.
Using intelligence and choice as the measuring stick also creates this conundrum: Is a mentally disabled human being with an IQ of 50 or so able to commit sin? Certainly they will make bad choices if totally left on their own. Yet traditionally, there is the view that mentally limited people have an innocence and naivte compared to normal sinning people. In other words, their limited intelligence makes it less likely they will sin. (This is a classic Hollywood trope in stories with Downs syndrome kidds). But if that's true, that would suggest that the more intelligent you become, the more you will sin and the more knowledge you have, the less likely you are to make good choices. Yet that seems absurd, unless sin and a sinning nature are in fact something quite distinct from intelligence and choice. Which then returns us to the original incompatibility with evolution.
Second: You suggest there is an element of religious truth that spans religious faiths and that different cultures respond in different ways. That too seems to me untenable from a Christian viewpoint, when the most basic core belief of the Christian is that Christ's redemptive power is necessary for God's grace. Your comment implies that Muslims can reach God in their own way, as can Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Does that mean only Christians sin? Or that only Christians (or people living in a Christian culture) need Christ to die for their sins.
One of the basic truth claims of Christians is that everyone sins and will be found wanting at judgement, and only Christ's blood can redeem them. Muslims say that men can be righteous and unrighteous and that God puts their life on a balance scale and rewards them appropriately. Hindus suggest people must accumulate a positive credit balance over time (karma) and when enough is accumulated you get to be extinguished and no longer suffer. I don't see how these basic truth claims can reconcile.
Either human beings as a species (not a culture) sin, or we don't. If we do, we as a species need redemption or we don't. We can either do enough good deeds to outweigh our sin, or we can't. I don't think there are different types of human beings, yet a belief that each culture develops its own religion and that they are all true suggests that there are actually different types of human beings with different spiritual qualities. I think we are all one species, and so must anyone who believes in evolution. And so I think that too creates a conundrum for ecumenical viewpoints that support evolution and which also assume all religions have variations of the truth.
Yours in philosophical inquiry and an honest desire to figure out what is and isn't true,
--Dr. Actually
One way to look at this is to consider that there are alternatives to the basic or Catholic concept of original sin. My faith does not believe in original sin per se. We are not born into the world with sin, nor can babies commit sin. The age of accountability, or the age at which people according to our revelations and beliefs, are considered old enough to be responsible for basic choices, is 8 years old. Hence, we baptise at age 8. That Adam fell brought into the world the potentiality of sin, but not necessarily the requirement of it. Although we all do make sinful mistakes, there was one man who did not, and that was through his own faith and free agency.
Further, the atonement of Jesus Christ washes away the need for repentance for those who are not knowledgeable of what sin is or who are incapable of sin. Where there is no law, there is no accountability. People will be judged entirely according to their own realitive sphere of knowledge, understanding, and experience. Only God has the prescience to understand how to do that or to be able to do that.
Thus, babies are not sinful, and most likely someone with an IQ of 50, as you suggest, would not be held accountable for sins in the same sense that I or you would. At the same time, I have made covenants not to do certain things, such as drink alcohol. It would be a severe sin for me to do so, but would not be for any of you because you have not made the same covenants and have not had the experiences that I have that have brought me to the point where I am with these covenants.
I know, I can hear some of you know (not pointing out any names) Woo-hoo, we can party for free! Well, at some point each of us knows a lot about what is basically right and wrong, responsible and irresponsible, and we will be held accountable for that level to which we have attained.
Thus sin is part of our lives, but we each are on a different level of accountability.
--Perk
I would like to really spend more time trying to reconcile very valid, thoughful points that Dr. A is expressing, but I can't devote the time to it right now.
So, if I seem frustrated in my previous comment it is not a reflection on an individual but a realization that I can't deal with it right now and that I can't properly explain my position--if I have one. Clearly I have not spent enough time considering all of these issues, which is frustrating to realize.
So, frustrations are upon me, not thee.
Post a Comment
<< Home