don't get expelled

This friday a documentary film called EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is opening all around the country, including our local cinema. It's about the politics of science, specifically the apparent "cover-up" going on in classrooms and labs across America to suppress the question: if Darwinism explains the evolution of species, how do we account for the existence of cells, those building blocks of life? Where did they come from? Does Darwinian science sufficiently explain this?



Before I go on I must say that I have precious little pure interest in biology and even less in the so-called evolution/intelligent design debate. I took philosophy of science, even at the graduate level, and while I think I get the basic scientific issues at hand I really don't care. My Christian faith is not threatened by science, not one bit. I believe God created the universe ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing, but I don't have a formed opinion on how He did this. One of my former professors used to say that while science explains the how of things, Christian faith explains the why of them. That works for me and so I'm content to sit back and drink a cappuccino while people around me haggle about things like Neanderthal Man and the beaks of a group of Galapagos Islands finch birds.

I'm content, that is, until the conversation comes around to issues of culture and politics connected with the discussion (the philosophy part of the philosophy of science). When I hear that professors in this country might being summarily fired if they even mention to their students the possibility that the universe may have had an intelligent (vs. purely "natural") origin, well, I get riled. What about First Amendment Rights, you know, like free speech? Is a professor denied this right in his or her classroom when it comes to this issue? What's really going on here?

My thinking is this, if our country is nothing else it is welcoming place for the free exchange of ideas. Isn't our free press based on the idea that with the exchange of ideas, with the plurality of voices speaking out on any given issue, the truth is liable to come out? If intelligent design is so whacked out, so unscientific, then the broader public will eventually affirm as much and the controversy will die down. And by "die down" I mean, the issue will be address sufficiently and clearly so that further questions are easily answered--something that seems NOT to be happening these days when people point out the holes in Darwinian theory.

The irony about a controversy like this one is that whenever one side tries to act as if it's sufficiently put to rest--as it seems like might be happening in this case--the controversy tends to escalate rather than die out. The more one side says: These questions are stupid!!! But has not answers, the more the other side starts thinking: Maybe all the hollering is meant to distract us from seeing that Darwin has not clothes on! So I say, let the voices be heard. If intelligent design is so ignorant (pun intended), it won't last. If Darwinism is true, it will.

For those of us who may be thinking: isn't this a moot topic, isn't this an old fight between Fundamentalist Christians and the rest of us? Isn't this a culture-war scuffle created by scared and uninformed gun-toting bitter people who fear change and thus cling to their faith (to paraphrase a recent and infamous Obama quote!)? Well, it might seem like that on the surface, but consider the scientific aspects of the issue, as described by retired UC Berkley professor Philip E. Johnson:

"The argument for intelligent design in biology was soon taken up in books by two highly qualified authors, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and mathematician/philosopher William Dembski, whose book The Design Inference was published after peer review by Cambridge University Press. (More popular-level books by Dembski are available from internet booksellers.) Many individual scientists showed significant interest in these books as well as my own, and expressed their skepticism of the claim that known material mechanisms could account for the origin of the complex specified information required for the intricate functional activities of the living cell, let alone the information needed to coordinate the functions of thousand or millions of cells involved in the life processes of a multi-cellular animal.

To my disappointment, however, influential scientific organizations formed a solid bloc of opposition to the consideration of whether evidence points to the possible involvement of intelligent causes in the history of life. Nevertheless, the subject is sufficiently fascinating, that orthodox scientific bodies have had to take strenuous action to keep it from cropping up in science education, and even in scientific journals."

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN BIOLOGY: THE CURRENT SITUATION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Phillip E. Johnson
Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy)
February 19, 2007

I doubt any of us will change our minds about the biology of this issue. I have an inkling that most people care as little as I do about the science of this controversy. But I hope that some of you are interested in the cultural ramifications of it. If professors and students can't talk freely about the strengths and apparent weaknesses in the Theory of Darwinism, what's next? Expelled for discussing the Universal Law of Gravitation or the Theory of Relativity?

an audience of...whom?

It has been several days since I wrote here. I didn't mean to take a spring break, it just happened! I got a little busy with other things, but mostly I haven't been ultra-motivated to do blog entries. Why? Simply, I don't know if anyone is reading or if I am talking to myself. Self-absorbed? Maybe. Honest? Definitely.

I think if we all stopped to think about it, precious little we do in the course of our days is really altruistic (done for the genuine good of others even at risk to ourselves) or is spiritually centered (done because we love God). Simply put, as highly social beings we like others to see what we're doing (at least the good things!) and to take note. Consider any kid you have spent more than 30 seconds around. What often comes out of their mouths (besides No! and Mine!)? Something like: "Watch me! Watch me! I can do it! Look at me!" Kids like us to watch them and, better yet, praise them for their accomplishments, big or small.

It's not just kids, though. Youth and adults alike want to "get credit" for doing good. Would you study as hard at school if it were pass/fail, or better yet, if there were not grades at all? Would you train as hard if every team got the trophy? How about work as hard at your job if you got the same for sitting around as you did for hustling around for 8 hours? Of course not. We all need motivation to do what we're doing, and that make sense. The question is, what motivates us?

Yesterday I previewed The Presige, the movie that will be showing at Bethlehem this Sunday night at 6 PM. There is a ton to unpack and mull over from this movie--from the interesting details to the big picture themes. One of those themes is motivation. Why the magicians do what they do and what they are willing to risk, sacrifice for the art of illusion that is their vocation and, I dare say, the core of their lives.

My question for us today is: what motivates us to do what we do? Would we be as quick to do chores around the house if our mom didn't notice? Would we be involved in all those clubs and charities if we couldn't put it on our college resumes?

The Bible says that at one point the world became so dark, so gloomy and evil that not only were people doing horrible, awful stuff (like disobeying parents--no joke!), but they cheered on others to do the same (Romans 1). I'd say our culture reflects that picture pretty well today. In the name of fame, of saying: "Watch me! Look at me! I can do it!" all sorts of twisty, harsh and weird stuff happens. Consider a group of high school girls who recently in order to become famous, to get attention, beat another girl unconscious and then posted it youtube. The phrase "fifteeen minutes of fame" which Andy Warhol coined years ago comes to mind: our culture has become so trivialized that eventually everyone will become famous for a brief time, not necessarily for doing valiant deeds but for doing stupid, inane and even evil stuff (the show Jackass comes to mind here).

The question is: what about us? What crowd are we playing to? What are we willing to risk or sacrifice, in order to do what we know is right? Fame? A good reputation? Some other form of glory? Or an internal sense of satisfaction for the good? The answer to this question, I believe, helps determine what we're going to be about. If we know what's motivating us--and it's not first and foremost the praise of others, then it's not so hard to see how wrong it is to beat people up for fun And, it's a lot easier to to do good when no one is watching to praise us for it, too. Because we know that at the end of the day someone is watching-God, the audience of one. He sees everything, every heart, motivation and deed, and He cares more than we want to know about what we're doing and why.