Matthieu’s Thinklog

As an undying fan of science, from my childhood onwards, it breaks my heart to see how stubbornly “Intelligent Design” (‘Creationism in a cheap tuxedo’) is making its stand in the United States. Surely, after all these years of piling evidence in favour of Charles Darwin’s elegant and century old theory, there should be a massive support, if not a total one,for the theory in our modern world. And yet, the so called remaining “Superpower” (of which I am more and more embarrassed to be part of) seems to be the current bastion of “Intelligent Design”. It will come to no surprise to anyone that 90% of Americans believe in a deity. (how else would you explain that more than 40% of Americans don’t believe in Evolution AT ALL ! and that a lot of the ones left question it !).

It would be all well and good if “Intelligent Design” just kept to its domain (theology ?), but now it is attacking the US’ science classrooms. Evolution is being questioned. Now of course, the theory of Evolution is science. Therefore you would expect it to be checked and re-checked again, new evidence would be added here and there, new observations…in a sense, the theory itself evolves. But to question the theory altogether on the basis of a “theory” that has no sound scientific grounding, that is a serious insult to the concept of science itself. The theory of Evolution is a FACT. We can observe (and by observe I mean, by indirect evidence, not with our eyes) what the theory predicts. DNA clearly shows that all species have one common ancestor (often called ‘LUCA’) that was the first to carry DNA. Fossil records show different species lived at different times (such times that drastically contradict Biblical times) and seem to follow a pattern of emergence and extinction. We can sometimes find the common ancestors of some species (The famous transitional fossil of the Archaeopteryx is proof enough of the link between dinosaurs and birds).  Even in our modern societies we can observe the mutations that participate in evolution through the genetic diseases some people carry or the emergence of ever stronger and vicious bacteria and viruses.  If viruses and bacteria weren’t changing all the time, we would have eradicated the ones that cause morbidity.

The late Stephen Gould once dedicated a whole book called “Rocks of age” to the fact that religion and science were supposedly, as he called it, NOMA (Non-overlapping Magesteria).  This means that they both had their own separate bit of the world to, dare I say, explain. A typical expression of this is to say that science answers the question ‘how ?’ and religion the question ‘why ?’. In other words, religion answers question ‘why am I here ? (what is MY purpose ?)’. Clearly those are arrogant questions whose answers find disillusionment in science, even though that is not the intention of science (although it is true that science often acts as an ‘eye opener’). You’re here because Evolution amounted to you, and no, there is no damn FUCKING purpose to life. People just can’t compose with the absence of meaning of life. At best, I suggest that ‘42′ is the meaning of life, the universe and everything (or Douglas Adams’ way of showing how petty a question this is).  Now that we have found that religion answers nothing, lets come back to our NOMA. Like Richard Dawkins, the ever famous biologist and fervent atheist (writer of ‘The God delusion’ which I am currently reading), I certainly never believed that religion and science were NOMAs. If you just look at all the things that religion and science disagree about and the constant censorship that religion has tried to impose upon science, you cannot believe NOMA for one second. NOMA is obviously a non-confrontational way of attempting to reconcile religion and science (a reconciliation ordained by  scientist, Gould being an agnostic biologist). But both concepts tread on each other’s turf. Science because it can’t help it, religion because it feels threatened (rightly so for its myths are being rebuked). And now, Religion leads the ultimate assault on science. And unfortunately this time, its working well.

So goodbye to NOMA. Religion is awarely and violently stumbling over science territory. There is no reason for science to be apologetic to religion as it clearly wants to replace the more ‘theistically unpleasant bits of science’. In a word, religion wants to control the ‘why’ AND the ‘how’. although of course, Intelligent Design doesn’t give any concrete answer. Simply that GOD made it, with some hideously subjective arguments. How plainly stupid it is to say “This is so complex, it HAD to be designed !” That just clearly shows how impressionable humans are and at the same time, its an easy way to flatter ourselves, the very complicated ones. All of a sudden, a “HAD to be” is as good as the “IS” of science. and might I add that it is such an easy conclusion when you can just look around you to find self-gratification ? Any idiot can look out his window and say “its so complex and looks like a highly intricate design”. But that is so subjective. An alien life form that had a look at our society would possibly be utterly shocked at the sight of a cat, as the cat would be so utterly bizarre from its point of view as the alien life form might be to us (if indeed we have the tact to recognize that it’s even alive !). It’s a question of familiarity really.

There is also a theory including the perfect shape and constitution of a banana, designed for human consumption. It’s grotesque. I leave up to you to find it. But just to show quickly how we are not a manifestation of a designer, here are some imperfections in the human body: Our blind spot in each eye, the fact that guys have nipples, our appendix (that thing that so many people remove anyway). surely the perfect designer would not be so negligent. Furthermore, if all complexity needs a designer to account for it’s harmonious complexity, who is the designer of the most complex of these entities ? God ! who created him ? and who created the one who created him ? clearly, we would get a paradoxical line of creators creating each other. Because, saying that God is outside the Universe is a shit argument (or that he is ‘Holistic’, thus playing on words and dismissing the problem at hand).

Why should I even bother, smart people will read this and nod in agreement while a fundie will skim through it and babble something stupid and in the same breath, say something that clearly indicates he hasn’t read it through.

Most Creationist don’t know what they are talking about when they speak of evolution. Where they see a system that is pure chance and improbability, we see natural selection at hand. where they see irreducible complexity, we see different stages (While they see a whole eye formed by chance, we see the careful evolution of a photosynthetic cell into different types of eyes, with various degrees of complexity and usefulness [half an eye is better than no eye at all !]). but the fact is, totally ignoring the instructions of the secularist founding fathers, the US has become a big sectarian state. And democracy prevails in a wicked twisted way as the people are ultimately asked what they want to be taught (or brainwashed with) as though they carried the scientific knowledge. They stand on the opposite side to science. 90% of religious Americans in the US, but only 8% or the like, among the ‘elite’ scientist of the same country (all of which would never dare support ID for they are scientist 1st !).

People who don’t know science should not be trusted with science. If the people decided, the earth would still be flat and at the centre of the universe. Not because it’s true, but because it’s appealing.  It’s the narcissism of human beings that drags us towards the centre. Science pushes us off our ’superiority’ pedestal. And after all that, scientist are called the ‘arrogant lot’. I beg to differ.

But there is hope…Barack Obama, even though he has his own religious views is profoundly anti-sectarian. Is this were ID starts backing up ? After all, George Bush’s administration can easily be blamed for emphasizing religion and encouraging ID. Maybe. The fight is hardly over…