a few thoughts on Kansas, Evolution, and the nature of God
OK, once again, I emerge from my cave to spew forth a few bits of wisdom. Since my last posting, I have faced death, quit my job, and taught a teenager to drive. Surely that entitles me to some measure of, well, something......
I have read with some interest about the various debates around the country regarding evolution vs intelligent design, particularly in the state of Kansas, where the fight is particularly well organized and therefore commanding of more attention in the popular media. The question that bothers me most on this issue is why is it an issue? Surely the dates and places are not significant, (such as the exact date of the creation, or the exact location of the Garden of Eden. What then?
First let me say that I am both a scientist, (in a broad, philosophical sense---more specific claims would surely bring forth certain college professor's waving my academic transcripts, and former co-workers shouting at the tops of their collective lungs), as well as a creationist. I believe that the very scant recitation of the creation in the Book of Genesis is, pretty much, correct, (again, in a broad and philosophical sense). That treatise was written, (or carved into clay tablets) by a man, possibly Moses or one of his contemporaries, (today we call them staffers), recounting the revelation is his or her mind of the creation by an authority that is largely undefined. All things taken in, had this higher authority revealed the creation in terms more familiar to the scientific community, the person, (the revalatee ?), may possibly have attributed the visions to some yogurt or dates that had gone bad, taken two aspirin and let it go at that.
But I digress.
The issues that underly the current debates are these:
First, the nature of God, the creator, the authority that revealed itself in Genesis. One the one hand, (and to the extent that the scientific community will acknowledge this authority), there is a vision of a God whose very will set in motion the events under debate, and allowed them to play out in accordance with the same will that started the physical processes. I think of this as the "hands off" God. On the other (creationist) hand, there is the "hands on" God, who physically constructed the universe, and continues to operate it on a day to day basis. The significance of the differences in these two conceptualizations of God is both simple and enormously complex. It is simple, in that it can be described in a single paragraph in some two-bit blog. It is complex, in that the ramifications of both reach out and touch almost every aspect of our lives. The scientific notion of God relies heavily on ethics and free will, it seems to establish a beginning and end to our lives, but precribes no particular route between the two. The creationist notion of God, however, is a more tightly controlled concept, under which it is possible to be rewarded or punished on a daily basis for behaviors deemed pleasing or offensive. This notion tends to prescribe a definite path between the alpha's and omega's of the human condition.
OK, so what?
The second issue is power. Economic and political. One notion of God relies on the inner soul to find its way, the other, relies on pleasing the higher authority. Nothing wrong with that. but as that authority does not tend to make personal appearances for horse-whippings or pats-on-the-back, it is only human to go with the general concensus of ones peers, and that, is the source of the power. The leaders of these believers are able to exert enormous influence on all manner of issues, from prayer in public places, to tax rates for the various econmic strata. And it is those leaders who are concerned that public education will erode the base of thier influence.
If a person does not believe in a God, or if one believes in the "hands off" notion of God, then that person is not likely to be swayed by the opinions and positions of those who lead. This is true mainly in the theological sense, but it also holds in politics, economics, and numerous other arenas. If one believes in the other notion, (or another, individual notion), that person may be subject to the tides of opinion generated by parties seeking influence in the human realm.
I have read with some interest about the various debates around the country regarding evolution vs intelligent design, particularly in the state of Kansas, where the fight is particularly well organized and therefore commanding of more attention in the popular media. The question that bothers me most on this issue is why is it an issue? Surely the dates and places are not significant, (such as the exact date of the creation, or the exact location of the Garden of Eden. What then?
First let me say that I am both a scientist, (in a broad, philosophical sense---more specific claims would surely bring forth certain college professor's waving my academic transcripts, and former co-workers shouting at the tops of their collective lungs), as well as a creationist. I believe that the very scant recitation of the creation in the Book of Genesis is, pretty much, correct, (again, in a broad and philosophical sense). That treatise was written, (or carved into clay tablets) by a man, possibly Moses or one of his contemporaries, (today we call them staffers), recounting the revelation is his or her mind of the creation by an authority that is largely undefined. All things taken in, had this higher authority revealed the creation in terms more familiar to the scientific community, the person, (the revalatee ?), may possibly have attributed the visions to some yogurt or dates that had gone bad, taken two aspirin and let it go at that.
But I digress.
The issues that underly the current debates are these:
First, the nature of God, the creator, the authority that revealed itself in Genesis. One the one hand, (and to the extent that the scientific community will acknowledge this authority), there is a vision of a God whose very will set in motion the events under debate, and allowed them to play out in accordance with the same will that started the physical processes. I think of this as the "hands off" God. On the other (creationist) hand, there is the "hands on" God, who physically constructed the universe, and continues to operate it on a day to day basis. The significance of the differences in these two conceptualizations of God is both simple and enormously complex. It is simple, in that it can be described in a single paragraph in some two-bit blog. It is complex, in that the ramifications of both reach out and touch almost every aspect of our lives. The scientific notion of God relies heavily on ethics and free will, it seems to establish a beginning and end to our lives, but precribes no particular route between the two. The creationist notion of God, however, is a more tightly controlled concept, under which it is possible to be rewarded or punished on a daily basis for behaviors deemed pleasing or offensive. This notion tends to prescribe a definite path between the alpha's and omega's of the human condition.
OK, so what?
The second issue is power. Economic and political. One notion of God relies on the inner soul to find its way, the other, relies on pleasing the higher authority. Nothing wrong with that. but as that authority does not tend to make personal appearances for horse-whippings or pats-on-the-back, it is only human to go with the general concensus of ones peers, and that, is the source of the power. The leaders of these believers are able to exert enormous influence on all manner of issues, from prayer in public places, to tax rates for the various econmic strata. And it is those leaders who are concerned that public education will erode the base of thier influence.
If a person does not believe in a God, or if one believes in the "hands off" notion of God, then that person is not likely to be swayed by the opinions and positions of those who lead. This is true mainly in the theological sense, but it also holds in politics, economics, and numerous other arenas. If one believes in the other notion, (or another, individual notion), that person may be subject to the tides of opinion generated by parties seeking influence in the human realm.
posted by eccentric recluse at 6:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home