He'd rather be the product of a creationary God

"I have long been at a loss to understand how it is possible to believe the evolutionary theory, riddled with holes and inconsistencies as it is, more that the creationist view. The facts we see in front of us fit the notion of a rapid creationist view far better than a long evolutionary one, and why the evolutionary theory is considered to be "science" but the creationist theory is not eludes me completely. It was partly a serious study of evolution that led me to conclude that I'd rather be the product of a creationary God than an evolutionary accident, and so embrace Christianity. I am so pleased I did, life has become so much less gloomy.
Robert Harper, Battle, England"

The above is from the comments section at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm

I'm happy that Mr Harper's life has become less gloomy, but I suspect that it is not Christianity that has improved his life so much as either belonging to a group or having something to believe in - perhaps even a shifting of responsibility away from himself.

The debate over creationism is an curious one, for just the reasons that Mr Harper points out. His belief in Creation comes down to what he wants to believe, rather than what objectivity suggests. Mr Harper doesn't discuss this, but I suspect that he'd rather there be a Santa Claus than that there not be one. I'm curious to know what he does at Christmas time.

The problem with creationism has nothing to do with Creation: it has to do with the difference between religion and science. Science allows for debate. Religion, at least in this case, does not.

Ben Stein: appropriately Expelled

Scientific American recently reviewed Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The review, and even more so, the comments that follow it, are enlightening. In fairness, though, before I go further, I should note that I have not seen the movie, nor have I read any of Darwin's work. Nevertheless, I think that some comments can be made based on what I see in the review and its replies.

I'll start by defining science and religion as I understand them, as those terms, and their meaning, seem to play a large part in this debate. Both purport to explain the workings of the world around us, and so on that level, they are comparable. The difference, as I see it, is that while religion tells us "this is how things work," science is less absolute, saying only "this is our best understanding of how things work - new information may result in new theories". In other words, science encourages debate into the validity of its theories, with the understanding that debate and challenge will bring it closer to understanding the truth, while religion tells us what truth is, and has no mechanism for evaluating or updating its views. Admittedly, the degree to which science is open to challenge and revision varies - anyone looking to challenge the theory of gravity, for instance, will be hard-pressed to find support - but the theoretical basis of science is the scientific method, which includes challenge and revision as main tenets.

But, on to Ben Stein and Expelled. Stein proposes that educators and scientists who dare mention intelligent design are being shut out of the discussion on the origins of mankind. As part of this argument he compares proponents of evolution to Nazis, and apparently claims that Charles Darwin's theories led to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The difficulty with this argument would be that it confuses inspiration with responsibility. Hitler may have used the theory of evolution as a basis for his own theories, and it may have in fact inspired some of his thinking, but we can't thereofor suggest that people who believe in evolution are akin to Nazis, or that without the theory of evolution, Hitler's Nazism would never have emerged.

Personally, I don't think that Stein truly believes that Charles Darwin is responsible for the crimes of Germany before and during World War II; he's too smart for that. But I do think that he believes that there are people who will believe in that connection, and I agree with him on that, particularly if someone like Ben Stein voices it. In other words, I think Stein is using the Nazis as propaganda in an attempt to connect a phenomenon scorned by much of the country with the theories of evolution. If he can convince people to connect evolution with Nazism, then he can make evolution a very scary thing. This is something like the negative campaigning so often seen in political races, where candidates have little to say about their own qualifications, but a lot to say about their rivals' shortcomings.

I am also reminded of the alar scare during the late 1980s. Lab studies found that alar, a chemical sprayed on apples, caused cancer in lab animals, and eventually public distrust of the chemical caused it to be removed from the market. Whether alar was harmful or not is not my point here (even water is harmful enough in high enough doses), though; my point is that it was a chemical sprayed on apples. What could be a more basic and friendly food than an apple? What could be more healthful? What other food could so easily create a public outcry if it were tampered with and made unsafe? Chemicals more dangerous than alar no doubt were being used in the food industry at the time, but none was as easy a target as alar because alar was sprayed on apples - on the apples that we - and especially our children - eat. By connecting the theory of evolution with Nazism, Stein can elicit a much more vociferous response, in many more people, than if he merely said that the theory was counter to his own beliefs, or was faulty for any number of more plausible, more honest, but less dramatic, reasons.

Teen pregnancy, Jamie Lynn Spears

I gather from the news radio that an actor (actress, if you prefer, but would you call a female doctor a doctress?), Britney Spears' sister, Jamie, is pregnant. This would probably escape the attention of the media and the public if she did not also play the title character in Zoey 101, a TV show on Nickelodeon. Like most people, I have a few thoughts on this.

From the point of view of a medical provider: my job is to look after a patient's health interests. Just as I would discuss the value of an immunization against the measles, and the value of simple hand washing to reduce the spread of disease, I'll be discussing the value of safe sex - what it is, how it work, how successful it is, etc.

I know that there are parents who don't want their children to learn about these subjects until they are quite old, or are married. I think that I understand their concerns. Our society has long repressed sexuality, condemning it and its discussion, so there's a taboo to overcome. To intelligently discuss love and sex (two separate things) necessarily involves facing our own beliefs, which the parent may not be comfortable doing. The discussion also acknowledges that their child is getting older, which by extension means that they, the parent is also getting older. It's not just the poets who connect sex and death.

Maybe if we were less uptight about death, we'd be less uptight about sex.

Morality and religion also are involved. If, as parents, we firmly believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful, then instructing our children how to have sex feels like a betrayal to our beliefs and our children's well-being. But it doesn't have to be. A discussion of safe sex can very easily include a discussion of morals. Frankly, it should. Sex is a biological need, but it is often more than a mere mechanical act; it involves and entangles emotions and human relationships. Kids and teens have limited experience (they haven't lived long enough to accumulate it) and can benefit from a parent's guidance.

As a medical provider, I specifically will not discuss the morals of sex and sexuality. First, it's not my position to do so, but more importantly, moral judgment on my part can only interfere with good medical care.

Happy 5768!

Tonight is the start of the Jewish Year - Rosh Hashana. In our rabbi's sermon tonight, among many other things, he mentioned the significance of this year, which is not what I thought it was.

I had always thought that the year was supposedly created 5768 years ago, but no - at the time that the calendar was created, the earth was known to be far older than five or six thousand years old. Year zero was chosen as the time of the development of writing, because with writing, information could be stored and passed down from one generation to the next.

I think that's pretty cool, and pretty pragmatic. Who wants to date their check January 3, 4,453,326,339?