Article: Religion and Science

This seemed a bit much. Anyway, in truth, I had a guy at work who was a bit of a proponent of ID. He was also an excellent software engineer with a background in C++, so at least in some ways he was fairly intelligent. (I don't know if I will ever code in C++ -- but I do like C#.) At the same time, his interest in science seemed rather lacking. For example, he seemed to have bought into the idea that the second law of thermodynamics somehow disproves evolution. Didn't seem to realize that if this were true, then the very same law would disprove the growth of living organisms -- until I pointed it out.People can be brilliant in some areas without necessarily being all that smart in others.

Cahill, Thomas.How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe.New York: Doubleday, 1995.A popular historian describes how the Irish monks preserved much of Western literature and knowledge during the Dark Ages, a time when Europe was in turmoil.History is oftentimes a great deal more complicated than people would like to admit. At the same time, much of the glory of Ancient Greece was preserved by a fairly well-advanced and open society under a Moslem world which had developed such things as algebra and the telescope. Then this world was attacked by a backward western world in what became known as the Crusades.

Well according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of disorder in a closed system can never diminish. However, the earth is not a closed system -- as it is exposed to the steady stream of free energy (energy capable of doing work) -- from the sun, so for example, if you plant a seed in the ground, it is able to grow into a tree, which is a far more highly ordered system than the seed and the surrounding soil.To put this in slightly different terms, a living system is a dissipative structure which is capable of self-organization (increasing order) over time. However, in the process, it must generate entropy, and dissipate more entropy into the surrounding environment than either it generates or receives from the environment itself -- much like an air conditioner is capable of cooling an apartment, but only at the expense of generating more heat in addition to the original heat -- where both the original heat and generated heat get dissipated into the outdoors. (Which means that air conditioners actually contribute to global warming when doing their local cooling. So much for "act locally, think globally" -- at least in this case.) In the case of life on earth, what is ultimately winding down, paying for the party, if you will, is the sun itself. By while it doesn't mind paying the tab, just setting aside evolution for the moment, life can spread across the globe, forests may grow, and civilizations may rise to heights not even dreamt of in the not so distant past.Anyway, too bad this discussion board hasn't turn into some sort of a dissipative structure -- looks more like in may be experiencing a kind of a heat death, as far as I can see. Well, I should get ready for work. I will check back in once I get there.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-24-2005 09:34 AM

In intellectual discourse, there are a variety of methods of communication, but two of the more dominant methods are dialogue and debate. These two may seem quite similar -- in both dialogue and debate, you will see individuals arguing their cases, and at the same time, finding holes in opposing points of view. But there are significant differences.Debate is essentially competitive. Each side is attempting to show that it holds "the right view," and will often continue to do so at the price of logic and truth -- too much is at stake, especially in terms of the self-esteem and self-images of the participants. If shown to be mistaken, a given participant is likely to begin defending the indefensible, and thus be driven into further illogic, afterwhich, "The least deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." Debate, of course, can be quite enlightening for the audience, but it does not really permit the participants the freedom to change their minds.Dialogue, on the otherhand, is essentially cooperative. While debating the cases for various points of view, the object is not to end where one began, that is, with a point of view which has remained unchanged by its contact with other ideas, but to explore the possibilities, their implications, and to do in persuit of the truth. As long as everyone is interested in the same goal -- the persuit of the truth -- in the final analysis, there are no real sides in a dialogue. If dialogue is successful, then everyone wins. As in economics, there exists a harmony of interests among rational men.However, it is far easier to debate than to engage in genuine dialogue. You don't have to doubt any of your premises. You can get emotional, attempt to smear your "opponent," you don't have to be civil, or to recognize any value in opposing views, you can argue strawmen, misrepresenting your opponent's views, and then debate against arguments which haven't been put forward. Genuine dialogue and genuine communication are far more difficult to sustain. But the difficulty which exists in creating and sustaining a genuine dialogue is matched only by its value and the joy of discovery which it can create.I have seen it in action at St. Johns College. Oftentimes, all we managed to do was debate one-another's opinions, with no genuine communication taking place. But there were other, far rarer occasions when a given work would open up, come alive, and each individual who participated contributed to a kind of chain-reaction, which once started seemed like it would never stop. It was as if all you had to do was turn up the power on a laser until the incoherence of its weak light was replaced by a high-intensity stream of coherent energy. People who ordinarily didn't seem that intelligent were swept up, and seemed capable of the profoundest thoughts. When you left the classroom, long after the class should have let out, it was like you were walking ten feet off the ground. It felt like there wasn't a single question which wasn't yours to answer. Such moments of intellectual ecstasy were so precious that I will cherish them for a lifetime.But a dialogue is not a lecture. It does not simply give people the answers -- it invites questions, it permits them to entertain doubts--and in the process of entertaining doubts, it permits them to seek answers, to look for the connections, and to integrate knowledge for themselves. It encourages the active mind which places nothing above its own judgment except reality itself.AfterwardIt may be the case that in a given dialogue, there is very little to be gained from the discussion itself. It may be the case that people will simply have to agree to disagree. But nevertheless, it is in just such situations that you personally can best hone your communication skills for those times when more can be gained from the exercise of dialogue.

Actually, that was more an expression of a personal feeling at a personal moment. Probably should have been handled via email.But I have been a bit disappointed with the direction of the world for the past few years -- even before 9/11 -- although things seemed to take a real turn for the worse not much after that.I guess it was more an expression of an emotion -- a kind of reaction to a certain incomprehensibility of human affairs. Particularly with respect to unnecessary conflict, although not limited to this.Anyway, it looks like -- one way or another -- we are more than half-way through. I need to turn my attention to work, but I have some hope that we might see something more productive this weekend -- or perhaps even sooner. Looks like civility has returned, albeit Deux Ex Machina.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-24-2005 01:18 PM

Yes -- undoubtedly there are a good number of similarities between different religions -- once you get beneath the surface. In one form or another, they have arrived at the golden rule, for example, although it may be expressed in either a positive or negative form. Each tends to have certain individuals who in some way represent represent or embody the moral ideal. And each, of course, has to deal with certain fundamental issues of human nature, such as the fear of death -- and sometimes at least appear to offer strikingly different answers to the fundmental issues and problems of human existence.For example, nirvana is at least traditionally viewed (from the West) as escape from the cycle of death and rebirth, whereas heaven is the place of eternal life. But then, from what I understand, there are some who might argue that we are misinterpretting the concept of nirvana -- although at this point, I am simply going by memory. I could try and look it up, if someone wanted. But regardless of whether heaven/nirvana is eternal life or the escape from the cycle of death and rebirth, illusion, or pain and suffering, both are goals of sorts, one's proper final destination, in a manner of speaking -- what one should seek -- and it is not of this realm.One interesting parallel which I have run across is between the patient/agent causal analysis of Aristotle (this was one of several ways in which he analyzed causality) and the yin/yang of Taoism. In both systems, there is essentially a passive element and an active element. Likewise, in both philosophies, there is an emphasis the achievement of balance -- which both viewed as being essential to human excellence.Unfortunately, though, I would probably be a bit of a novice when it comes to comparative religion. For my own purposes, I know as much as I have needed to know, but certainly could know more -- and would like to -- if at some point I have the time.

Actually, at one point I had entered the Navy -- it was just after high school -- and I was aiming for their nuclear power program.For some reason, they had a bunch of the nukes all in the same company. Being curious, I had taken a survey of the nukes, in part to see whether there was any correlation between religious belief and intelligence. (Yes, this seems a bit odd to me too, nowadays, but hey! I was young.) I don't believe I found any correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs, but I did find a bit that was interesting. One buddy of mine went by the name of Okamura. (Everybody was going by their last name in boot camp -- military thing.)He had the highest scores of anyone there. And he was Catholic. And Hindu. And Buddhist. Didn't know quite what to make of that, and didn't get around really to asking him too many questions regarding his religious beliefs. But how did he manage to combine all three? I didn't exactly get the kind of answer I expected: he explained that three different members of his family held different religious beliefs, and somehow he had learned his religious beliefs from all three.The fellow with the second highest set of scores was an atheist. Somehow that didn't seem quite as problematic...This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 12:45 AM

One thing I remember is that at least according to some Buddhist teachings, there have been a number of Buddha who have left this realm, achieving true enlightenment, but one gave that up in favor of coming back to help others achieve what he himself had given up. Don't know too much of the details, though. I have always liked the idea, though, of caring that much. Similarly, I like the story of Gethsemane. Quite different stories, with very different sets of emphasis, but there are some parallels.I am also quite fond of St. Augustine's Confessions. The first psychological autobiography. Beautifully written. Not that I necessarily agree with his views, but that seems rather beside the point. One of the books we got the chance to read at St. John's College, a secular school devoted to The Great Books program -- presumably the best that Western Civilization has to offer. By the time I left, they were starting up an Eastern Studies program as an alternate track.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 12:44 AM

I believe you are refering to Annapolis -- my wife actually went to both the Annapolis school and the sister college in Santa Fe -- which we both went to later in the Graduate program. And yes, she has told me a number of times how the St. John's students used to get the Navy's goat -- steal it, actually, just prior to a game. Very much enjoyed the college, particularly a course by a fellow by the name of Barry Goldfarb -- a course on Plato's Republic. That course was almost too much. But he really opened it up as both a work of philosophy and a work of literature, where one cannot really begin to understand the purpose or role of the arguments without understanding the literary elements as well. My wife and I keep telling each other that we will go back and read the book again together. I hope we get around to that. Incidentally, Message 161 was at least in my mind a tribute to St. Johns, and likewise, "Religion and Science" might be viewed as a tribute to Plato's Republic. And when it comes to technical philosophy, I tend to impose a regular structure on it (actually five sections to every chapter, around eight chapters total) as a kind of tribute Homer's "The Odyssey." Three eighty page papers had this structure -- one a critique of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, another a critique of Descartes' Six Meditations on First Philosophy, and another a critical analysis of Early Twentieth Century Empiricism.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 01:58 AM

Well, going to St. Johns in Santa Fe, I didn't really get any exposure to the Academy, obviously -- but prior to graduating from high school, I had thought about an officer's program. Went in as an enlisted guy in the nuclear power program, instead, but that didn't work out. Very high dropout rate at the time. I believe around 80-90%. The military was probably a mistake for me. But you can't change the past, and it is part of what makes you who you are now.I liked St. John's emphasis on dialogue -- but I believe the school could have been improved with a greater emphasis upon writing in addition to discussion.With regard to honesty, I have a story which my wife thinks is pretty much sums me up. Back when I was in first grade but at my grandmother's home with my mom, I figured out right then and there that there was no Santa, no easter bunny, and no tooth fairy, and I went ahead and told my mom, looking for confirmation. She agreed. I actually dimly remember a sense of betrayal, but at the same time, the sense that my parents hadn't in anyway intended to hurt me. Still I couldn't understand why I had been told something which was not the truth.But a day or two later, my mom received a call from a teacher at school. The teacher asked my mom to tell me not to tell other kids that there was no Santa because it was making them upset. But what I had figured was that it was true, and surely they would want to know the truth.Actually, there is something else, though, which I like to think is also telling. When I was at the University of Iowa (after the navy, but before St. Johns), there were three college kids (at least I believe they were in college) who had surrounded a blond college kid on a bicycle. He seemed a whole lot more athletic than me, but outnumbered. I asked what was going on, and they claimed that he had said something racist about them. I did not know whether or not this was true, but I knew that even if it were, if something were to happen to him, there could be a backlash, and at the very least, it would strain relations between the different ethnic groups.So I jumped in and did my Ghandi impersonation. Got knocked down a few times, leather jacket torn in several places, but at one point, the kid saw an opportunity. He rode off as fast as he could, and while they were looking at him take off, I took the opportunity to get in front of an open nearby store. At that point, they left me alone. Part of it, I believe, was that I was worried that a backlash might have ended up personally affecting some of my friends. But I also cared about the community as a whole, and even the four young men of that encounter, even though I didn't know any of them.And although no one story really stands out, I have also studied cults, up close and personal. I have some pretty strong feelings about how they will lock an individual's mind into a single framework, so I actually tried to infiltrate the Unification church. Didn't get very far, though. With most cults, if you show the slightest interest, the adherents will really open up, thinking that they have found someone who finally believes just as they do. I ran into one neo-Nazi who was like that. But not so with the Unification church -- they are far more careful. Would have liked to infiltrate a neo-Nazi organization, but my wife nixed that idea. Would have made a nice article, though. Maybe several.Anyway, it is almost midnight here, and I am in the habit of getting up at five. So I am going to call it a night.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 02:50 AM

Well, humans are story tellers, and a story in much like an old, worn, familiar path. The stories which you tell about yourself are much like paths through the woods back to your home. In one interesting book, it was even suggested that a large part of one's view of oneself consists a kind of narrative through which you define yourself, where you are coming from, where you are going, why you are going there -- and who you are. And one interesting problem is what happens when you lose your way -- when the story no longer fits, the narrative loses its thread, and you no longer know who you are. Will you be able to find another narrative? And what do you do while you are still searching for it?I guess another story which is kind of important to me is one in which nothing particularly important happened. I was in the navy on shore leave, just looking out to the horizon. But what I was seeing were a great many ships gathered from across the globe stretching from nearby out to that horizon. And at that moment, a truth which until that moment had seemed so abstract -- that human civilization depends upon a cognitive division of labor which is able to accomplish something far beyond the intellect of any one individual -- seemed concretely real, like something which I could almost touch. And I realized that the very existence of human civilization itself depends upon this cogntive division of labor.But now lets turn to a different set of stories which are nevertheless quite important to how individuals define themselves. With regard to religions in general, while I realize there are some important differences between them (e.g., between the son of God sent down to die for our sins, and a Buddha-figure who achieves enlightenment on his own, but turns back from Nirvana to bring enlightenment to others), at least from my own perspective -- which involves how life is lived here on earth, the similarities seem far more significant -- for example, both are savior-figures, and much of the ethics taught by both show a good number of correspondences. Each religion addresses fundamental problems of human nature -- and they arive at similar answers, although they may often phrase those answers differently, appealing to different symbols. It would be a great mistake to say that these religions are the same, for among other things, the symbols are also a part of how individuals define themselves, but it would be a far greater mistake to say that they have nothing in common.For the moment, lets turn to a particular string of symbols which I have seen on a variety of occasions in this discussion:2+2=4As I understand it, what this represents is a very special kind of truth, or at least, so it would be viewed throughout much of the history of philosophy. Kant (with whom I have good number of disagreements, including a few closely related to this statement) would have regarded this as synthetic apriori. Other philosophers (during the era of early twentieth century empiricism) would have regarded it as analytic. Both would have regarded it as independent of experience. Is it truly independent of experience? Well, probably not, and I believe that even Kant would have admitted as much. But in any case, this kind of truth is quite different from the truth discovered by means of empirical science. Assuming you know the meaning of the terms, there isn't much that you have to do to know that the proposition which it expresses is true, regardless of what you units which are adding are units of (e.g., dogs, cats, rocks, meters, or seconds).But the knowledge discovered by empirical science is of a different kind. Particularly the abstract, affirmative propositions. Perhaps the first philosopher to truly appreciate the nature of the difference was a fellow by the name of Pierre Duhem in the late nineteenth century, and his insight later became known as "Duhem's Thesis." As he understood it no general empirical proposition can be tested in isolation. Likewise, above a fairly basic level, no empirical theory is capable of being tested in isolation -- for one must often presuppose the truth of propositions arrived at by means of other more well-tested empirical theories in order to test some more advanced, less-tested theory.For example, when testing whether light is bent to the degree predicted by the theory of General Relativity, one must rely upon the empirical theory of optics when designing the apparatus for making this test. Furthermore, if one is making the apparatus, one may very well be applying the results of materials science, which will tell you about the optical properties of the materials from which the apparatus is made. But of course, one can remove some of the uncertainties by testing the apparatus under local conditions, and scientists undoubtedly do. Nevertheless, Pierre Duhem had pointed out an interdependence which exists in empirical science which wasn't fully appreciated in the philosophy of science until the 1950s. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the entire enterprise of early twentieth century empiricism having taken place if this insight had been more fully appreciated at the time.continued in Message 181This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 12:42 PM

Now in what ways does Duhem's Thesis apply to evolutionary science? Well, one good example is with carbon dating. Now the fundamental theory behind carbon dating isn't really that complicated. Radioactive decay takes place in accordance with a law whereby particles (or nuclei) will have a certain constant period of time called a half-life, where however many particles exist at a given time, one half-life from now, only half or those particles will be left. The situation is actually quite analogous to light passing through coffee. There exists a certain distance through coffee where, for however much light existed at one point, only half as much light will be left when it has passed through this distance in coffee -- the rest is absorbed. This is a fairly simple principle, which just about anyone can grasp, although it doesn't seem quite as obvious or necessary as the principle that 2+2=4.However, measuring the age of something by means of radioactive decay (e.g., Carbon 14 dating) is a bit more complicated than this, particularly since there will oftentimes be a good number of isotopes, and I would presume even the chance for various interactions between nuclei giving rise to different nuclei. As such, to fully appreciate the complexities involved, one would nearly have to be a specialist. Nevertheless, as with a great deal of empirical knowledge, we can often check for agreement between different, largely-independent methods of arriving at a given conclusion -- in this case, check for agreement between different methods of dating. And the results demonstrate that Carbon 14 dating, as well as other forms of dating based upon radioactive decay are quite reliable.There are also fossil records, and in truth, they are quite impressive. I have cited links to a number of the websites which have made available impressive displays to anyone with a connection to the internet and who knows how to use a search engine. At the same time, while we have identified quite a fair number of hominid species, it is often difficult to identify the exact relationships which exist among these species. For example, can anyone say that one member of one of these species was a direct ancestor of a member of a different species? No, probably not. And in fact, it seems terribly unlikely that any of the specimens belonging to one species was a direct ancestor of a specimen of another species. Moreover, it seems dubious at least that the population or species to which one specimen belonged contained ancestors belonging to the members of the population or species to which a specimen from a later species belonged -- although I wouldn't want to simply rule this out as something which is entirely beyond the power of science to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of justification. Nevertheless, there are trends and developments. If a given species did not give rise to another even though they appear like they may very well could have, then a closely related species most likely did.Genomic analysis provides us with yet another tool by which to uncover the relatedness of various species. And one of the more interesting developments -- one whose significance may extend well beyond that of merely uncovering the relatedness of animals to that of being a part of the engine which drives evolutionary innovation and much of the speciation which we see -- is being uncovered through just such genomic analysis. What I am thinking of here are primarily the endogenous retroviruses. We have approximately 30,000 of them in our haploid genomes. However, as best we understand, they began as exogenous retroviruses which at various times in the history of life on earth spread out as epidemics, typically infecting and oftentimes nearly wiping out entire populations. Occasionally, they would make their way into the germline, then be passed from generation to generation and lose their ability to spread by exogenous means.To give you a small indication of their possible significance, at one time, it seems that all mammals layed eggs. However, there we epidemics through which retroviruses made their way into the germline, and from there, the were able to create a barrier to the mother's immune system which made possible placental development and live births. Furthermore, this made possible for the mammals who took this route to have more developed, larger brains -- which, according to more recent discoveries, appear to have a chaotic overabundance of neurons created due to the activities of retrotransposons in brain stem cells, where these retrotransposons are themselves relics left behind by retroviruses.But closer to the topic at hand, such endogenous retroviruses make it possible to construct philogenetic relationships between different species, relationships which mirror the trees of familial relationships which we have constructed by other means. For example, using the presence or absence of endogenous retroviruses, we have been able to reconstruct family trees between different species of mammals, and to identify that of all extant land mammals, the whales appear to be most closely related to the hippo. Similarly, we have evidence of living fossils in their the bodies of whales and other cetacea that they once lived on land -- atrophied leg bones buried deep within their flesh. Now can we say that any one of these pieces of evidence proves that the ancestors of whales once walked on land. No, we cannot. In this way, the conclusions of empirical science differs quite significantly from the statements of mathematics. Nevertheless, there are numerous lines of inquiry which all converge on the same conclusion. There is an agreement between them, much like different methods of dating the age of a given specimen. And when different, largely independent lines of inquiry provide justification for the same conclusion, the conclusion receives justification which is greater than the justification provided by any single line of inquiry.continued in Message 182This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 11:44 AM

In this section and the rest of the paper, I will be using the term "Fundamentalist" to simply refer to anyone who takes a fully literal interpretation of the Bible. I realize that this may collapse certain distinctions which are of some significance, particularly in the analysis of the history of various religious movements, but I believe for the purpose of my analysis these distinctions will not be particularly significant. Now in this part I will briefly be looking at the reaction of Fundamentalists to evolutionary theory itself, but then more broadly within the broader context of their beliefs and their reactions to trends within society. At the same time, while some may have difficulty with it, I would like to develop to some extent a kind of sympathetic understanding of at least some of the motives behind these movements -- for it is all too easy to sometimes lose sight of the individual and of the problems and concerns they have in a movement which you oppose.But my primary purpose is to lay out the facts as I see them, the possibility for conflict, and to attempt to show how I believe we can prevent conflict from becoming especially serious. After all, religious conflict has many times spiraled out of control in the past, and given the largely religious nature of the conflict between those under the tent of Intelligent Design and the theory of evolution in particular, and more widely, the Fundamentalist Religious Right and modern society in general, I do not think that it is particularly unreasonable to think that a religious conflict could spiral out of control even here in the United States. Revolts against modernity have become increasingly common throughout the globe throughout the twentieth century continuing into the present, and have often ended quite tragically. Given this, I believe that this trend towards fundamentalism should be of concern to anyone who values human civilization.But before turning to any sort of analysis of what sort of threats may or may not be facing our civilization, I believe we should concern ourselves with the reaction of Fundamentalists to the discoveries of evolutionary theory. To properly understand the opposition of Fundamentalists to evolutionary theory, one should keep in mind the fact that the evidence for evolution has only gradually been uncovered, and that what evidence there existed at earlier times was a great deal less than what exists today.Therefore, when Fundamentalists first started organizing opposition to evolutionary theory and becoming personally invested in their opposition to it, the amount of evidence was a great deal less than what is currently available. As such, the position which they took in the past was a great deal more reasonable (although perhaps still quite unreasonable) than their position is today. There were far fewer specimens, for example, and no knowledge of retroviruses or even of viruses themselves. For example, when archeologists claimed to find species leading from old world monkeys to man, it was fairly easy to argue that all specimens were either apes of one form or another, or humans who were either of different races or perhaps malformed. Moreover, no single piece of evidence will ever prove a general proposition of empirical science, so it is always at least in theory to deny the general propositions of empirical science.Given this, they were able to argue (at least after a fashion) against the discoveries of what is now evolutionary science. Moreover, due to their literalist interpretation of the Bible in its entirely, including the stories of creation, the garden, and the flood, many of them have the view that to concede the truth of evolutionary theory would in some way require them to give up their belief in God, in their morality, and in the other beliefs through which they define themselves, they have had a great deal motivation to do so and to become invested in their opposition to it. Likewise, they have seen the nation's culture move -- often gradually, and at other times quite dramatically (e.g., the hippie culture of the sixties and the opposition to the Vietnam War) -- away from their traditional values.In addition, there have been the theorists who have argued that religion can and should be a thing of the past, that it is not consistent with the discoveries of empirical science and should be discarded, and even the leaders of the New Age Movement who have sought to replace traditional values and traditional religious views with something incorporating some of the stranger discoveries of science (once suitably interpreted) along with goddess worship, white witchcraft, and whatever else one individual or another might wish to include in a "freshly-made" brew of religious beliefs. I personally think it is quite understandable if -- given all of this -- someone with traditional beliefs thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way that the world was changing.Likewise, in the Freedom of Choice movement, the Gay Rights movement, the Right to Die movement, and even the Animal Rights movement, they have seen what they take to be strong evidence which confirms their views that the traditional foundation of morality in our society has been thoroughly eroded. (In mentioning these other movements, I am neither arguing for or against them, at least not within the context of this paper, but simply pointing out how they are interpretted by the good majority of those with Fundamentalist and oftentimes non-Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.) And moreover, it would be understandable if they were to see these often distantly-related things as nevertheless being connected, particularly to a scientific theory which they see as a fundamental denial of the existence of God and his role in the creation of Man -- and of the basis for morality. For Christians who are able to understand the stories of creation, the garden, and the flood allegorically (i.e., as essentially symbolic, written in the language best understood not by the human mind but almost directly by the human soul, communicating fundamental truths regarding the relationships which exist between God, Man, and God's Creation), there is not even the appearance of a threat to their religious beliefs in evolutionary theory, and they can more easily see that it is not to blame for such things.But even among non-Fundamentalist Christians, there will often exist the sense or feeling that there is fundamentally wrong with this world. This feeling is often combined (particularly among Fundamentalists, but to a significant extent among non-Fundamentalists) with the view that we are living in the End of Times, when either this country will choose the path of Righteousness and assume its proper role in the final battle between Good and Evil, between God and the forces of darkness, or will be destroyed.Now I do not believe that the majority of Fundamentalists are thoroughly convinced that these are in fact the End of Times -- some undoubtedly are, but the majority I believe simply wonder whether this may be the case, and to some extent or another believe that it may very well be but are unsure. It would be a mistake to believe that all the Fundamentalists are convinced that these are the End of Times, but likewise it would be a mistake to believe that the view that thesee are the End of Times has no effect upon their actions or the political aspirations of many within their movement.I have spent a significant amount of time focusing on the views and motivations of those within the Fundamentalist movement. One reason for doing this is to simply better understand how it may have seemed reasonable to become a member of the movement. Another was to better understand their concerns and why they are concerned. And yet another is to better understand the nature of what is often their extreme zealotry. But yet another is to understand that the attack upon evolutionary theory can not be understood in isolation, nor can it properly be considered the end of their political aspirations. For many and perhaps even the majority of those under the Intelligent Design umbrella, bringing Intelligent Design into the classrooms is simply the beginning in battle for the soul of this nation, one which in their view must result in the end of the Separation of Church and State, and set this nation on the path of Righteousness.continued in Message 186This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 09:39 AM

I hope you don't mind, but at this point, I really need to take a break. I think that in large part, I have managed to answer the question you posed. But at the same time, I am taking the opportunity to explain myself more fully than I have been able to in the paper and the posts which followed. Honestly, I have been writing pretty much non-stop, trying to balance things and to put them in their proper context, and when needed, expand more fully on topics which at first I had been considering only touch on, because in part, I believe the topics needed fuller treatement, particularly in the context of the kind of response which I would like to give you.Anyway, I will be linking all of the parts once I am done. At some later point, I believe this can be appropriately expanded into a more professional paper.At the same time, if people would like to respond to what has been written so far, or would like to simply converse about other topics, I certainly wouldn't see any kind of problem in that. But my apologies -- I am a little warn out now.

If the Separation of Church and State were to be dismantled, it would no doubt be preceded by a great deal of conflict. Indeed, the simple fact that some are considering the dismantling of such a foundational principle of this republic speaks loudly of great divisions within our culture. That Fundamentalists are attempting to achieve this by democratic means should not be regarded as granting legitimacy to the attempt itself. Four those who doubt this, let them recall that one of the more tragic revolts against modernity (begun in the constitutional democracy of Weimar Germany) was born by similar democratic means. The worst dangers, however, do not lie in their stated or intended goals of today, but in part in the ease with which they would tend to view all conflicts in terms of good versus evil, us vs. them, and the kinds of politicians which this would encourage.No longer encumbered by the Separation of Church and State, and existing in an atmosphere where civility has been all but extinguished, some of the more ambitious politicians would seek the opportunity to wrap themselves not simply in the constitutionally-limited garb of civil authority, but in the divinely-unlimited garb of religious authority. Such a garb could not be assumed immediately, but would be attained by greater demonstrations of religiosity than his fellow politicians. An individual using such means would easily brush away inconvenient facts and figures in a society which had already heavily discounted well-reasoned thought, and would instead appeal to the religious passions of his followers, and when convenient, rather than presenting well thought-out arguments against his opponents arguments, would simply attempt to paint those opponents as people would are opposed to the will of God, something which often may seem fairly inscrutable to rest of mortals — by means of the far-easier task of inciting passion than reason. Since no one would be able to demonstrate that the Will of God does not correspond to the will of an ambitious politician, he would be quite free to equate the two. Such would be the rise of the figure which the Founding Father's most feared in a country founded largely upon democratic principles: the demagogue.Avoiding just such an eventuality should be of importance to any citizen of our republic. When we see Fundamentalists who are themselves concerned for the future and who wish to avoid this sort of conflict, then we should seriously listen to what they have to say. I believe that the proposal of home schooling -- which would be required by state law to meet certain standards -- is just such an indication of concern. Like any good parent, they wish to see their children brought up properly, in accordance with their religious beliefs. And they are willing to give up the political ambition of changing the public schools in a way that would impose their religious beliefs upon the rest of us. As such, this approach represents a renunciation of the political will to transform our country into a nation organized along Fundamentalist principles, not necessarily as matter of principle, but at least with respect to what is seen by many in their movement as the next battle in the war for the soul of our nation.As those who have been following this discussion are well aware, I am strongly inclined to forming coalitions. For a very long time, religion and science have been viewed as opposites. But as I have argued, there is no reason to view them as such once one understands the allegorical nature of the creation stories, the story of the garden, and the story of the flood. Indeed, there is every reason to view them as complementary. And for this reason, I believe that just such a coalition could exist between clergy who understand these stories allegorically and the scientific community. Such a coalition may be largely symbolic, or in the interest of humanity, in time it could very well be expanded to serve greater ends. But, in either case, it would do much to dispel the view that religion and science are opposites, thereby serving to show that religion can remain relevant in the age of modern science, and thus that the faithful have nothing to fear from science. But likewise, I believe that if some Fundamentalists are willing to take a more sensible path in our modern society, this is to be encouraged, particularly when the path they wish to take involves nothing more than the exercise of their rights as citizens of our nation. To do otherwise would be to compromise the foundations of our nation in a way that could very well be as profound as the dismantling of the Separation of Church and State itself.(Beginning of Article: Message 180)This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 03:05 PM