OK, here's the first edit. It still needs to be shorter, less redundant. Will get to it soon.
Have you may have noticed that the Scopes monkey trial is being revisited in Kansas? We can't expect too much from this trial, after all the witnesses for the creationists admit to not being fully familiar with Kansas educational policy on evolution, and members of the hearing board have deemed that appropriate and acceptable because they aren't familiar with the details of the policy either.
Now this is a great example of faith. The witnesses and the board have faith that they know what the policy says (or means to say), and that they are each sufficiently well positioned (by their faith) to pronounce judgment on educational policy. This despite their clear personal biases and the limitations of their knowledge, education, or understanding of scientific theory. Sounds a lot like a Russian show trial, only without the benefit of an outside party to raise hell over the stupidity of it all.
Mind you, I don't expect too much from the land of Toto. Kansas hasn't offered anything of substance to the rest of America. We get some corn and beef from them because Kansas has a lot of farmers. Farmers are, of course, arguably America's largest, and certainly richest, welfare class (lets get some welfare reform going for these guys). Kansas is home to that cloying card company with its schmaltzy products and made-up holidays - but on the whole, most of us would be just as happy if this company went away. And that's about it, so let's look at the other side of things. How many people want to vacation in Kansas? How vital is it to our nation's defense? How critical is Kansas to our economy? Heck, Kansas could sink 2000 feet below the surface of the earth and it would probably take us a week or two to even notice that it was missing. Taking in all that is Kansas, it may be sensible for them to put on Scopes II. After all, this is one sure way to generate excitement & fill up their hotels.
But this article isn't about bashing Kansas (that's just a bonus), rather it's an attempt to discuss the silliness of creationism and look at it's impact on American politics. Creationism....what does this mean. It is the belief that we should take literally the description in the Bible regarding the origins of the universe and all that is in it, particularly life forms.
What's wrong with this?
My first question to you is: Should the whole bible be taken literally? If you answer yes, then what should we do when the bible contradicts itself? You don't think it does? How about "...an eye for an eye..." versus "...turn the other cheek..." Look, it doesn't take a biblical scholar to find the examples of self-contradiction in the bible. It also doesn't take a biblical scholar to find examples of passages in the bible that no one takes literally. So, why must we take literally the description of the origins of life? What's so critical about this?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Whether the description is literal, poetic, or apochrophal doesn’t really matter. Why? Because the origin of the human species shouldn’t impact one’s faith. Is God all-powerful? If so, then he could use the “random chance” of evolution to create people. So from a biblical and faith perspective, there should be nothing scary or heretical about considering or believing in evolution.
Everyone likes to feel special and important. Like the right wing-nuts pushing Scopes II. They no doubt feel like they're doing important work – making sure the rest of us share their faith. Not with standing the fact that this effort of theirs appears to be unconstitutional (legislation of religion), and is anethetical to the basis of the founding of this country, they believe they are doing important work.
At the time that Darwin's theory of Evolution became known to the general public, people largely tended to believe that they were entirely unlike other animals. Many people have advocated ideas such as: animals don't feel pain; or, animals don't have feelings; or, animals are incapable of learning; or, animals are incapable of communicating; or, that animals can't process abstract thoughts. From this reference point, to hear that humans are closely related to and evolved from other animals was distasteful. God & bible didn't really need to be part of the discussion because the very ideas of Darwin were repugnant to many. Not that this would stop the faithful from joining in to condemn the ideas from a theological perspective.
Thou shalt not kill. It couldn't be simpler or more straight forward than that. If you're a biblical literalist, this should be your imperative. It is a commandment from God (unlike the stories of creation). Does capital punishment, a state sponsored activity, undermine the belief in God or the Bible? Maybe, but no one seems to be talking about that. Does the sanctioning of war undermine the belief in God or the Bible? I know plenty of folks who lost their faith in God in the process of serving active duty. But, the literalists don’t seem to be concerned about curtailing our armed forces. Heck, we send the Army off to Iraq for make-believe reasons, in defiance of promises to our people and our allies, and destroyed a country while killing off thousands of our best and brightest. But the literalists don’t complain that this behavior - which violates a commandment of God - interferes with faith or beliefs.
From here, it looks like the biblical literalists choose their battles rather subject themselves to limitations that a truly strict interpretation would offer. So why choose to fight evolution? Well, it already had a strike against it as an unattractive issue – the idea that man evolved from apes. This makes it an issue for dull minds. By this I mean, rigorous facts and thoughts aren't necessary to sway people's thinking about evolution. Common people aren't prepared to put up a good argument in favor of evolution. Rather, they will accept weak arguments and poor logic. Especially if situated amongst a bunch of bobble-heads. After all, no one wants to stand out from the crowd. Tell me that America isn't blessed by God and I may shoot you, but tell me that evolution is bad science and I'll probably say "...a yup."
Haven’t we gone through all of this before? Didn’t we, as a nation, largely get past this anti-evolution thinking? I believe so. But a confluence of forces has put the issue back on the table. Why is this? It’s not simply because simple minds are willing to accept creationism. For some, science serves to undermine, or has the potential to undermine, faith. Personally, I find the curious. This fear that facts will contridict God, and therefor undermine our belief in him, seems a sign of poor faith. Would a perfect God create a world where the facts contridict his teachings and put our faith in him at risk? Isn’t our faith already at sufficient risk because we are imperfect, or sinners?
We know that one's spiritual beliefs are largely dependent upon those of the society in which they grow up and live. With the shrinking of our world through technology (which is simply applied science), there has been more cultural evolution. Christianity in Korea? Islam in America? Judaism in modern Russia? Still, peoples’ spiritual beliefs still seem largely determined by their parents and their community. Who cares about this? I would suggest that faith in God can exist in many contexts apart from the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. Certainly God could be tricking us all, expecting us to accept the teaching of a certain religion or denomination in order to be accepted by him - while at the same time placing many (most?) of us in positions where it was unlikely that we should accept those teachings. But I ask you, what kind of God would that be? Why would God want to set us up to fail? And, if he wouldn't want to do that, then why would so many people never be exposed to his teachings? It doesn't make the least bit of sense that God operates this way. Now, faith can trump sense (Scopes II). But sense must be counted among our God given gifts. As such, it should be employed by those who want to know Him. And, this sensibility says that a literal interpretation of the bible is hard to justify, and even more so when done selectively.
Leaders need to lead, and followers need to follow. Part of the strength of religious leaders is their abilities to get the laity to follow - voluntarily. People need to participate in the church for the church to have power (and look at how church leaders feel the need to insert themselves in politics if you doubt that church leadership is about power). People need to tithe the church for the church to have operating capital (the need to build cathedrals hasn't past - nor has the need for many church leaders to live wealthy lifestyles). Church is not a democracy, but can't operate as a military dictatorship (well not lately). In this way, a church is like a corporation. But, whereas a corporation motivates people with money, a sense of a common bond and a common purpose are critical to leading people to participate in a church. And that common purpose or bond requires us to distinguish those that are part of the church from those who are not.
The existential question leads many to faith. When we can't explain the difference between being and nothingness, we assume that there must be a higher power that has set the stage. I'm not arguing pro or con to the idea of a higher power here, just observing people. We must remember, however, that using a higher-power to solve the riddle of being, is a bit like trying to find the last image in a pair of mirrors facing each other. What created the being of God? And what created the being of that which created the being of God? And so forth, ad nuseum.
The cosmology of this eludes us, so we take the short cut of positing God as being all powerful and all knowing - sort of a logical shortcut out of the riddle. It has not always been so amongst the beliefs and understanding of God by man. In Moses and Monotheism, Freud provided insightful analysis to the transition of human beliefs from polytheism to monotheism, and makes interesting reading regardless of ones personal beliefs. Throughout history, to some small minded people, the advancement of knowledge through science has threatened faith. If we cut to the chase, there have likely been only two concerns:
1) Science might disprove certain representations of religious leaders, weaking their grip on power.
2) Science might solve the mysteries of the universe (and therefor existence) and thus short circuit the basis of faith.
However, whenever science promoted an idea inherently distasteful to common man, the leaders of faith have had a tool by which to defeat it. Whether the Earth circles the Sun, or vice versa, is not likely an important topic for common man. But, clearly common man can see the Sun rise above the horizon in the East and set below it in the West. If his own eyes tell him this much, science must be daft to say otherwise. Of course, the weakness in this is that common man can easily be educated to understand what science is saying, unless someone gets their first to pollute his mind. We have gotten past the issue of the earth revolving around the sun. And in so doing, faith itself has not been displaced. But, there was considerable turmoil getting mankind to this point, and many church leaders acted strongly to deny that the earth traveled around the sun. Now we see the story repeat itself with the issue of creationism.
In the 60's religion reached an ebb tide in America. We had the combination of rapidly growing knowledge and broad dissemination of knowledge via TV and radio. As a people, we had a growing belief in our ability to solve problems. At the same time, a number of cultural issues (corporate-relocation, alternative diversions, increasing sophistication of participants, etc.) weakened traditional churches. Church leadership needed help if it were to maintain is position and power within communities and the country as a whole. As noted elsewhere on the blog, no one anymore asks the question: "Is God dead?" What's changed? Several key factors seem to be involved, we have seen:
- Entreprenurial nature of fundementalism.
- The growth of fundamentalism.
- Increased uncertainty.
- Modified approaches to marketing religion.
I would argue that the second and third points are mutually self-supporting. When all is uncertain, we are ill at ease. When all is certain, we can relax. As we feel more uncertainty about the world around us, it is easier to be seduced with the absolute certainty espoused by a fundamentalist approach to religion (regardless of which religion is involved). During the 60's as our society became more technocratic, where was the uncertainty? We were learning the risks to the environment, and how to promote social policy to protect the environment. We were learning the limits of “What’s good for GM is good for America”, and how to recast our understanding of the role of business in culture. We were learning the difference between politicians' positions and the reality of policy on the ground whether with in the US, or overseas, and beginning to force policy into alignment with our principals and interests. We were not unified, as a nation, in any of these ventures. But we did have broad support in each of these areas.
As the federal government tried to impose anti-segregation policy, particularly in the south (to which Kansas may not be geographically connected, but to which it is spiritually connected), uncertainty rose in many peoples lives. Whites, who felt deeply that African-Americans were inferior and a risk to they and their families, found themselves being forced to integrate. One of the common outcomes was to form private Christian academies for their children's education. These academies were often associated with fundamentalist churches, and served as an effective means to limit educational integration. And as long as their basis was to educate children with Christian values, not to prevent integration, they were a safe haven. The south, which had long been the home to fundamentalism, had one more reason to embrace and support fundamentalist churches.
At the same time, in the North, the solution Whites took to integrated schools was known as White Flight. They moved en mass to the suburbs, leaving the poorer African-American families with their old neighborhoods and schools. Not only were churches not part of their solution, but ties to the old churches were lost and not always replaced by ties to new churches. While both the North and the South resisted integration, religion played different roles in the two areas resulting in stronger religious support in the South, particularly of the fundamentalist type.
So it should be not surprise that in an era of power based on uncertainty and faith, much of the power establishment has southern roots.
The typical fundamentalist preacher was and is no dummy. Theirs' is often an entrepreneurial lifestyle, where upon completing their education they must go out and drum up a congregation to earn their sustenance. That they may have been poorly educated, by most measures, was irrelevant. These individuals knew how to reach people, one on one and in a crowd. It didn't take much for them to identify the issues that their constituents were sensitive to, be it protests against the Vietnam war or the Federal Government's meddling in local affairs (especially racial affairs). They chose their issues well. They also learned the value of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), the old IBM sales mantra. And they constantly sought opportunities to challenge the prevailing wisdom, to increase uncertainty, and to make people more dependent on the church for reassurance.
One of the issues that they took up again was creationism. But, this was an uphill battle in the sense that the common wisdom had pretty much given way to the theory of evolution. As fundamentalists expanded their reach to better and better educated Americans, this became an increasingly tough pill to swallow.
Meanwhile, certain right wing political and business leaders were learning the value of dis-information. By paying friendly "experts" to offer opinions contrary to the accepted common body of knowledge, the opinion of the real experts was devalued. As time went on, these leaders found more and more creative ways (for example creating "independent" think-tanks with attractive and public-minded sounding names) to enhance the credibility of their "experts" leaving the public in a state of confusion. When nothing is clear, people rely on faith. Whether its faith in their God/religion or faith in their "team". Interestingly, there developed overlapping circles of entreprenurial faith leaders and entreprenurial business leaders that both depended on disinformation o grow their leadership status.
It’s amazing to talk with fans of Rush Limbaugh. The extent to which Rush’s stories are made up, the extent to which he lies, are unimaginable to his fans. Further, no matter how many facts are piled up, they tend to respond along the lines of: "Your guy says this, and my guy says that." The implication is that there's no way to reduce the conflicting viewpoints to simple truths. And when offered tools to resolve the facts, the ditto-heads end or redirect the conversation.
In government, especially foreign relations and espionage, there is the concept of the cover story and plausable deniability. In other words, coming up with a lie to obscure what is happening. The experts employed by the right wing-nuts provide plausability deniability to the leadership and pundits of the right. And the pundits provide plausible deniability to the average joe who doesn’t want to think to hard, and is (and wants to remain) comfortable with his/her prejudices (or should I say faith?).
Science is about finding and proving the truths. As such, it is limiting to those who would wield power - in government, business, and religion – by other means. In business, there are many leaders who direct a path which may not be supported by the facts. In my experience, they are much more apt to be upset and to resort to punishing those who point out the facts, than to adapt to the facts. The unwillingness to live with reality is not unique to politicians and religious leaders. But, more often it is the political and religious leaders who are effectively threatened by science, and who move first to undermine it. However, for topics such as industrial pollution, even business leaders are threatened. So, it should not be much of a surprise that today we see all three groups working to undermine science. And with this has come increased public uncertainty.
Basic business marketing skills also began to be conciously understood, and taught, during this era (say from the Korean war onward). How does one make a product desirable? What must it do to the purchasers self-image? How do we convey these messages to the purchaser. Fundamentalist leaders weren't ignoring these trends. Rather, they saw and adopted these tools. Traditional churches might shun marketing as an inappropriate path to spirituality, but for fundamentalists, the ends justified the means. Have a rock band on stage during worship service? Sure! Create interest groups (essentially clubs) to keep people connected with and in the church? Great! Create all sorts of collateral marketing materials including billboards, posters, handbills, books and stories? Why not! How about business networking? If the Rotary and Lions can do it, so can a church. Create bible study groups that bring congregates together and create a network of opportunities for their outside lives. All of this fits into the marketing message that being a Christian would make you a happier and better person. Moreover, there is the constant message that one is saved and therefore better than those who are not. What a great example, it is the most basic expression of us-versus-them team-building imaginable.
So, with these four fundementals:
- Entreprenurial nature of fundementalism.
- The growth of fundamentalism.
- Increased uncertainty.
- Modified approaches to marketing religion.
Fundementalist religion began to align and coalese around a common goal: challenging the authority of science. And at the same time, the tobacco, automotive, and energy production industries were also trying to debase science. Because the leaders of these groups had distinctly different interests, they were well positioned to work together.
While it began simply by pitting the Bible against science, that wasn’t yet a compelling argument for many people. So a new countervailing theory had to be developed, and evolved into what is now called Intelligent Design.
Within science, it is generally conceded that a theory that is developed to justify a preconceived point of view, or one that then goes in search of facts to fit a conclusion, is poor science and unlikely to be true. And, this description neatly fits Intelligent Design. Perhaps more fatally, it is only by creating the false premise that bible literalists have a valid scientific or cosmological perspective, that there is a need to argue against evolution. That is to say, the literalists are selective in their literal translation. They don't have a basis in faith, reason, for selecting the parts of the Bible that they interpret literally. Why pick creation for literal interpretation? Well, why not? There is no particular reason – except that it appeals to core emotions in people, making it a useful argument to build power and mold people’s opinions on a variety of topics.
From a different perspective, it can be argued that God gives us our senses, and reasoning, and experiences so that we can learn more and better know his plan. If evolution was part of that plan, then we are being less than faithful if we reject it. So by building a phony base of pseudo-science, they confuse the public and make it appear that creationism is sound science – masking their true intentions. Make no mistake, the right wing-nuts court fundemental religious leadership for a reason. Here is a leadership which can lead its constituents to act against their own best interests, in return for some favors that the wing-nuts willingly offer up in return for being allowed to corruptly lead this country to enrich themselves. And, as we see in Kansas and other places the wing-nuts and their designated religious leaders are often winning the battle for peoples hearts and minds (not to mention their pocketbooks and votes).
Creationism, be it called "intelligent design" or anything else is bad religion, bad science, bad politics, and a bad basis for policy. Its time to call the fools out on this one.
