eThoughts : June 1, 2008: Ben Stein’s Movie

I recently saw Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which was at times an annoying blend of Al Gore’s and Michael Moore’s movie styles.

Though I think the subject of creationism, intelligent design, Darwinism, and evolution is an important subject and should be on the discussion table, I just don’t think the proper variables are in place.

So, here goes my two-cents worth.

There are some things about this discussion that are just plain bogus. One of the biggest problems seems to be nestled in the concept of intelligence. If we look at the state of the world and human influence on that state, well show me evidence of intelligence. One could look at our effect and make a solid claim that there is little intelligence at work. Which brings me to my most fervent objection, the lack of operational definitions, so let’s start there.

Creationism: My understanding is that this concept is based on the idea that out of nothing, something—not to mention quickly. And the great mover is of course God (and yet another problem with operational definitions). Creationist or scientist, how does one avoid the big pothole of something from nothing? Science has gone with energy—it is and has been and forget about beginnings or endings in that regard. Most of what I know about religious thinking is that God is and has been and forget about endings and beginnings in that regard. Hey, agreement. The rest of the problem in either camp is how life developed. The nutty ones in religion seem to deny change: The earth and the heavens were created, including humans and all the flora and fauna and that was it. The nutty ones in science seem to say the change has a nice and predictable order to it, even if science can’t see that order as yet, and can be traced strictly to the Darwinian notion of evolution (which apparently, at least as I understand it, Darwin was not happy about in the end as a complete picture of evolution). The sane religious people accept that creation changes and that humans have an influence in that change. The sane scientists also accept change and believe there is likely more than one way for change to occur besides mutation and natural selection.

Intelligent Design: Initially a tricky way for the insane creationists to get their delusional thinking in the clothes of credibility. For the crazy scientists, they have not gotten past the crazy creationists, seeing religious fundamentalists everywhere trying to propagate craziness upon education. However delusion is dressed, in religious or scientific clothes, it is still delusion. You’re going to tell me that much of religion is not actually politics? You’re going to tell me that much of science is not actually politics? And hey—I’m suspecting that politics should not be the actual compass heading of either.

So, we’ve got a problem Houston. If intelligent design means that God is the intelligent one and the rest of us are at least a couple of bolts short of becoming stable, just how intelligent is God? Or is it the intelligence and beauty of God to let us find our way? If so, then intelligent design means we cannot live on faith or belief in God alone, we’ve got to develop some sense and manifest it. And I suggest that means that we need to shift some of our focus into becoming intelligent ourselves—and change the design that we have manifested—which much of said design is just plain goofy, if not outright horrific at times.

Darwinian Evolution: In a nut shell, random mutations and natural selection is the guiding principle of evolution. It’s a proven issue, but it isn’t the only thing on the table. Both random mutations and natural selection occur—there’s no question, but there is the issue of selective input and that intent can be its own natural selection. In other words random may be, but that doesn’t rule out intention; natural selection may be, but that doesn’t mean human or animal or whatever intention isn’t natural—and certainly not random.

As for the survival of the fittest (idiots that specialize in dehumanization tend to call it survival of the strongest)—great, in some cases. But that notion is crap if generalized. White moths in England are no more or less fit or stronger than black moths. It apparently was soot from industry that changed the landscape, not the strength of the moths (or the intelligence of either moths or humans). That black moths fit in better with a sooty environment is not a basis for creating social Darwinism—weakness and strength can have nothing to do with the basic principles of Darwinian evolution.

Evolution: Change, movement—as in dynamic and not static. The notion that it means increasing complexity can be a bit presumptuous, as though increasing complexity is inherently better as opposed to impossibly complicated. Hey folks, has anyone noticed that mapping genes has shown that humans are hardly more intricate than fruit flies, genetically speaking? Hmmm—does that mean something else is at work here, like proteins? And besides, what triggers these genes/proteins, or whatever? Environment? Ahh, and what if we’re our own environment and or own trigger?

How about Volitional Evolution?: Let’s put intention, volition, and/or will on the discussion table. We get to add a nuance to Darwinian notions, we get to recognize that intelligence, at least from a less than God perspective, doesn’t have to be at work, we get to keep the “God granted us freedom to choose” option part of the design, and we introduce responsibility—nay, stewardship—into the equation. The bottom line? While humans are not the only energy running around casting influence, we can still create much of our own environment, we can still be our own evolutionary trigger, and we can still change how our own biology, psychology, and social structure works. And we can influence others and they us in the process (do not, under any circumstances, interpret this as politics rule—it doesn’t, even if politicians think it does).

I would add to Jefferson’s words to match the times: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (it’s not just men, it’s people and we’re not all created equal, but we all are human), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, when we are busy with all of our attempts at understanding how something came into being, let’s keep in mind that while starts and stops can be an interesting and necessary part of human understanding, how we implement that understanding can be an even bigger part of the human side of creation. Before we take up the cross, perhaps we’d be better off to see if we’re on our way to a crucifixion or a communion. And my guess is that of the two, only communion has to be repeated. A good way to see to that: Let’s keep the operational definitions and the filing straight and watch our agendas in the process.