Once again I found myself having to defend a very-well-established scientific theory to a bunch of knuckleheads on an Internet forum. Nobody has to defend quantum theory, relativity theory, or the atomic theory to religious nut-cases, because they don't see these as threats to their precious bible. But evolution is different. God said he made all living creatures in six days so that must be the truth. Except that no one has any evidence that God said any such thing.
Evolution is not pseudoscience or imaginary. It is one of the best-supported theories in all of science. It is just as valid as theories about gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Evolution theory is based on the same scientific principles as all the other scientific theories that fundamentalists happily accept. In fact, fundamentalists have no problem using all the life-enhancing products of science, even evolution science. Yet they still reject evolution, even though they don't really know anything substantial about it.
Evolution has been thoroughly tested for more than a century and has withstood the test of time. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is factual. At least 97.5% of biologists worldwide accept evolution as fact. Most of the others are bought and paid for by creationist organizations or Ken Ham. I dare say there are far fewer people who call themselves Christian that believe the bible is the literal word of God. The vast majority of Christians worldwide have no problem accepting evolution as fact. That includes the pope, his cardinals, bishops, and priests. That includes the United Church of Christ. It include Disciples of Christ. It includes the United Methodists. It includes the Episcopalians. It even includes the more moderate Baptists.
Now, I know that some people will come back with the standard reply that these are not "true" Christians. The fact is, conservative fundamentalist Christianity hasn't really been around that long. Going back to the ancient Christian scholars, it was understood by almost all of them that the bible was allegorical, not literal. A literal interpretation of the bible didn't really catch on until the 19th century.
Even a little consideration of what Genesis is saying should tell anyone with half a brain that a literal creation is utter nonsense. It's very disturbing to me that so many Americans (yet very few people anywhere else in the world) believe that this bible nonsense is really true. Its especially disturbing to me because I'm a biology teacher and I have to spend considerable time each year trying my best to un-brainwash my students. It makes me sad for these kids, and not fair to them that their parents fill their heads with superstitious nonsense. It's not at all surprising that America fails so badly when comparing its science education to the rest of the modern world.
If this kind of religious zealotry continues much longer, I fear for America's future. It's fine if someone feels the need to believe in a god, but when a belief in God necessitates the denial of facts, that's when a nation is headed for trouble. It's unfortunate, but true.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Zygotes have Rights Too?
It really pisses me off when a certain faction of society tries to limit the rights of everybody else by trying to force their own limited view of morality onto society as a whole. There are lots of examples but the abortion issue is one of the most contentious. And with few exceptions, it's the right-wing, evangelical Christian crowd that is the fondest of making everyone else toe the line of morality, or at least their morality. But I am very confused as to how they think the whole thing works when a woman terminates a pregnancy, or even if it terminates spontaneously. According to most fundamentalists, life begins at conception. They believe the soul is attached to the body at the moment the sperm attaches to the egg.
But that creates quite a quandary once the aborted fetus gets to heaven. Will heaven be populated by the souls of a bunch of wandering fetuses? Most evangelicals believe that at the end of time, our bodies will be resurrected. But what about fetuses that were aborted early? What about embryos? Embryos come before fetuses. They are smaller than a peanut and about the same shape. After the resurrection will heaven be flooded with peanut-shaped embryos with wings fluttering about like little butterflies? None of them will be old enough to have experienced anything at all in life. There were no memories formed, no bonds with family, most likely no sensations of any kind, and yet according to fundamentalists their souls will be in heaven with the rest of them.
And what about a zygote? A zygote is a fertilized egg before it has had a chance to divide even once. After cell division starts it becomes an embryo. Later, it becomes a fetus. But what if the egg gets fertilized and then it dies? Or what if the morning after pill kills the fertilized egg before it has a chance to divide? Do zygotes have rights, too? Will heaven also be filled with winged zygotes flying around, completely equal with all the executed murderers who got "saved" while on death row?
Those who believe life begins at conception just haven't thought it through. It's a serious subject, otherwise it would be outright comical to imagine what happens to aborted embryos and fetuses in heaven. And it's just as comical to think that people actually believe this crap. Except that they do, and they have a loud voice in society that tries to force everyone into compliance with their delusions. Embryos are not little humans. They are connected to a living, breathing woman who has been granted societal rights. Embryos have no such rights, and for good reason.
The abortion debate is silly. It makes no sense to a rational mind. It would make more sense to have a debate about what the cut-off point is of where an abortion should be allowed, as long as everyone agreed that the abortion itself was the woman's decision. Some people might lobby for the cut-off point to be the moment the baby, after it is born, takes its first breath. That is the position supported by Scripture.(Gen 2:7) Or is it? According to Numbers 3:15-16 a baby isn't really a human until it is one month old. So according to this view, killing your baby before it is a month old should be perfectly fine. Of course, I do not advocate for either one of these biblical views. Some may advocate for the point where the umbilical cord is severed. Some would lobby for the actual birth itself, when the baby's body is completely out of the birth canal. I side with those who claim abortion is fine only prior to the point of viability, when the baby could survive on its own even if premature. That would be right around the six-month mark of pregnancy. It's a decent compromise. But to draw the line at conception makes no sense either from a practical point of view or from a biblical one.
Now, there are those who can point to other verses of the bible that tend to contradict the two I mentioned above. But that just go to show you can't really use the bible to prove a point, because on every single topic you're debating, the bible takes up multiple positions and is basically useless as a tool to prove a point. So taking the bible completely out of the debate, there is no reason whatsoever to oppose the right of a woman to choose an abortion other than just trying to stick one's nose into somebody else's business. And that's really what it's all about for the conservatives. They just can't be happy campers unless they're messing with someone else's personal freedoms.
But that creates quite a quandary once the aborted fetus gets to heaven. Will heaven be populated by the souls of a bunch of wandering fetuses? Most evangelicals believe that at the end of time, our bodies will be resurrected. But what about fetuses that were aborted early? What about embryos? Embryos come before fetuses. They are smaller than a peanut and about the same shape. After the resurrection will heaven be flooded with peanut-shaped embryos with wings fluttering about like little butterflies? None of them will be old enough to have experienced anything at all in life. There were no memories formed, no bonds with family, most likely no sensations of any kind, and yet according to fundamentalists their souls will be in heaven with the rest of them.
And what about a zygote? A zygote is a fertilized egg before it has had a chance to divide even once. After cell division starts it becomes an embryo. Later, it becomes a fetus. But what if the egg gets fertilized and then it dies? Or what if the morning after pill kills the fertilized egg before it has a chance to divide? Do zygotes have rights, too? Will heaven also be filled with winged zygotes flying around, completely equal with all the executed murderers who got "saved" while on death row?
Those who believe life begins at conception just haven't thought it through. It's a serious subject, otherwise it would be outright comical to imagine what happens to aborted embryos and fetuses in heaven. And it's just as comical to think that people actually believe this crap. Except that they do, and they have a loud voice in society that tries to force everyone into compliance with their delusions. Embryos are not little humans. They are connected to a living, breathing woman who has been granted societal rights. Embryos have no such rights, and for good reason.
The abortion debate is silly. It makes no sense to a rational mind. It would make more sense to have a debate about what the cut-off point is of where an abortion should be allowed, as long as everyone agreed that the abortion itself was the woman's decision. Some people might lobby for the cut-off point to be the moment the baby, after it is born, takes its first breath. That is the position supported by Scripture.(Gen 2:7) Or is it? According to Numbers 3:15-16 a baby isn't really a human until it is one month old. So according to this view, killing your baby before it is a month old should be perfectly fine. Of course, I do not advocate for either one of these biblical views. Some may advocate for the point where the umbilical cord is severed. Some would lobby for the actual birth itself, when the baby's body is completely out of the birth canal. I side with those who claim abortion is fine only prior to the point of viability, when the baby could survive on its own even if premature. That would be right around the six-month mark of pregnancy. It's a decent compromise. But to draw the line at conception makes no sense either from a practical point of view or from a biblical one.
Now, there are those who can point to other verses of the bible that tend to contradict the two I mentioned above. But that just go to show you can't really use the bible to prove a point, because on every single topic you're debating, the bible takes up multiple positions and is basically useless as a tool to prove a point. So taking the bible completely out of the debate, there is no reason whatsoever to oppose the right of a woman to choose an abortion other than just trying to stick one's nose into somebody else's business. And that's really what it's all about for the conservatives. They just can't be happy campers unless they're messing with someone else's personal freedoms.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Truth about Truth
I was having good conversation at my weekly CFI Sunday Social when the topic for discussion turned to truth and whether or not it exists outside our human perception. As a left-brained, science-oriented teacher, my position was that of course truth exists. It doesn't matter whether we know what it is or understand even how to arrive at it, but truth certainly does exist. My point was that everything can be boiled down to a series of dichotomies until you get back to the original truth, that we may never actually understand as humans. The two individuals I was debating had a different perspective. Truth has as much to do with our perception of what is real. And it is not always so black and white. There are shades of gray surrounding many issues and sometimes there is no single truth.
But I was unsuccessful at getting them to understand that I was not talking about a spectrum of opinion on one topic or another. I was talking about ultimate truth: How did we get here? Why then instead of another time? What is the answer to the time equation? Why are the laws of the universe the way they are? I'm pretty certain all these questions can be linked to a single, underlying truth that astrophysicists have been searching for, for a long time. This kind of truth exists. Certainly, there are shades of meaning when it comes to smaller ramifications of the truth. Does God exist or doesn't he? That is a dichotomy. God cannot almost exist, or exist in principal. He exists or he doesn't. But within that dichotomy can lie a spectrum of opinion: We can be theists, agnostics theists, agnostic atheists, hard atheists, etc. That says a lot about what we think, but it answers nothing at all about the truth: Does God exist or not? The truth seldom affects what we think about it. And how we believe doesn't affect the truth. Let's also not mistake our search for the truth for the truth itself. Take evolution for example. Either organisms on Earth change over time until they become a different species, or they don't. But let's not confuse whether or not macroevolution and microevolution are two different phenomena with the basic truth that species evolve. We can argue process. We can even argue truth. But none of our opinions and arguments about what is true changes whether or not something actually is true.
While I was in the middle of making that point, I detected that one of the other participants was feeling a little put off or uncomfortable that I was being recalcitrant. To her, it must have seemed as though I was a closed-minded fool. So the fellow across from her at the table jumped in and quickly changed the subject to a conversation about coffee. I was a little offended because it was like I didn't even exist from then on, even when I went along and said something about their new favorite subject, Dunkin' Donuts coffee. So I changed tables and started listening in on a discussion about the NBA. I wasn't at all interested in that so I decided to call it a morning. At least I have a blog that allows me an opportunity to conclude my thoughts, whether anyone takes them seriously or not.
But I was unsuccessful at getting them to understand that I was not talking about a spectrum of opinion on one topic or another. I was talking about ultimate truth: How did we get here? Why then instead of another time? What is the answer to the time equation? Why are the laws of the universe the way they are? I'm pretty certain all these questions can be linked to a single, underlying truth that astrophysicists have been searching for, for a long time. This kind of truth exists. Certainly, there are shades of meaning when it comes to smaller ramifications of the truth. Does God exist or doesn't he? That is a dichotomy. God cannot almost exist, or exist in principal. He exists or he doesn't. But within that dichotomy can lie a spectrum of opinion: We can be theists, agnostics theists, agnostic atheists, hard atheists, etc. That says a lot about what we think, but it answers nothing at all about the truth: Does God exist or not? The truth seldom affects what we think about it. And how we believe doesn't affect the truth. Let's also not mistake our search for the truth for the truth itself. Take evolution for example. Either organisms on Earth change over time until they become a different species, or they don't. But let's not confuse whether or not macroevolution and microevolution are two different phenomena with the basic truth that species evolve. We can argue process. We can even argue truth. But none of our opinions and arguments about what is true changes whether or not something actually is true.
While I was in the middle of making that point, I detected that one of the other participants was feeling a little put off or uncomfortable that I was being recalcitrant. To her, it must have seemed as though I was a closed-minded fool. So the fellow across from her at the table jumped in and quickly changed the subject to a conversation about coffee. I was a little offended because it was like I didn't even exist from then on, even when I went along and said something about their new favorite subject, Dunkin' Donuts coffee. So I changed tables and started listening in on a discussion about the NBA. I wasn't at all interested in that so I decided to call it a morning. At least I have a blog that allows me an opportunity to conclude my thoughts, whether anyone takes them seriously or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)