And yet those that
frame the issue in this simplistic choice may be as limited in their thinking as
those that refuse to expand their understanding by exploring the science of
evolution."Piece of mind"
I was riveted with incredulous curiosity to the debate about the stimulus
bill when two seemingly unrelated events brought it all into context. February
12th was Darwin's birthday. On that day Rachel reminded us that polls still
indicate only about 40% of us are capable of grasping the concept of evolution.
If people are given a choice between God and Darwin most still choose God.
And yet those that
frame the issue in this simplistic choice may be as limited in their thinking as
those that refuse to expand their understanding by exploring the science of
evolution.
In these sort of discussions science is commonly presented as simply another belief system. The beauty, and ultimately the success, of science is that it is not a belief system at all but simply a process. Science is the application of reason to the questions that surround us. It is asking the questions and boldly going where the answers take us. Even Albert Einstein had a hard time with that. He introduced a cosmological constant to artificially alter his equations because he believed that "God does not play dice." Later when more information revealed that his original equations were correct he called it this meddling the biggest blunder of his life.
Today we rely on those equations to watch our favorite television evangelists and Saturday night football on our digital Satellite TV's
Science challenges some of the most primal patterns of human behavior.
Human's have an uncanny propensity to live (and die) by the credo: "My mind
is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." This pattern of thinking has
evolved as a fundamental human trait as is so eloquently presented by Tavris and
Aronson in their book "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)."
History is littered with the skeletons of this clinging to established ideas and
resisting new thought. The wheel was invented and employed in children's toys
long before someone figured out that it could be used on a larger scale to
transport goods and people. It took 300 years for the church to drop its ban on
the Copernican "theory" that the earth rotates around the sun. And yet
that "theory" through much testing and verification has proven to be
correct and is now widely accepted as fact.
The process of science is to develop a reasoned hypothesis and then have it tested independently and repeatedly by the observation of replicated results. This is what gives science its strength. It is not the belief of one man that is chanted over and over again by the throngs that follow him but rather a process that lives beyond the belief of an individual, in the open land of reason and verification. And that is why science is not at odds with the notion of some cosmological force or design that transcends the entire universe. Call this force god if you like, call it love, call it dark energy which according to the latest cosmological calculations makes up some 70% of all the energy of the universe.
And if you are one of those who have rejected science in favor of bible study, address yourself to this simple question if you dare: At what arbitrary point in your thinking do you stop "believing" in science? The beef you are no doubt still eating comes from cows that were bred specifically, through human selection (as opposed to natural selection) of genetic code to produce breeds like Herefords, Texas Longhorns and Aberdeen Angus. How did we get from whatever apple variety Eve offered Adam to the hundred varieties that were grown in the US at the turn of the last century? Through human selection (adapted from the natural selection of evolution) of genetic code we reduced that number back down to the dozen or so that we see in our supermarkets today. Think about the dogs and cats, the chickens and sheep, the turkeys and milk cows. All have been bred by human selection (adapted from the natural selection of evolution) into the form that they are today.
So
when invisible atoms are excited in an electric generator to light your
home, or metal alloys are forged into steel that can withstand the ravages
of fire whether in your car, your wood stove or the
twin towers, or when a deep field picture of the universe exposes billions
of galaxies that each contain billions of stars like our own milky way galaxy,
it is not a single observation made by some recluse and pronounced as
"unwavering faith" across the globe. It is an observation
that has been independently verified and repeated countless times using
equipment that has proven reliable in countless applications over long periods
of time. This scientific process of pier review is so stable that it has no
difficulty presenting its knowledge as theory with the full confidence that if
it is a good theory it will be substantiated by independent observers
everywhere.
In contrast to this there are those that cling to the rigid teachings of a single source of information, compiled almost two thousand years ago, whose only verification of its accuracy is itself. Could it be that the unknown is just too frightening, the expanse of the universe just too vast, the workings of the atom just too mysterious, to offer the comfort they receive from the pat on the head offered by traditional church dogma. Or maybe the process of scientific thought is just beyond their mental capacity and they simply reject what they don't understand.
The latter is certainly the impression I had when I listened to the objections raised by the Republican members of Congress to the stimulus bill. It has been my experience that when people in a position of power and influence don't understand something they decree: "Hold everything. Stop (fill in the blank) Now!" This usually happens without careful consideration of the ideas on the table because engaging in such a discussion would expose their ignorance and make them vulnerable. Whether it is a business that is prevented by its board and management from adapting to changing times or Congress stonewalling an economic recovery package without offering viable alternatives, the pattern is the same.
If the frightened happen to be people in power it can have devastating effects. Bishop Spong wonderfully elaborated on the consequences that come from this pervasive fear of reason and careful thought in his latest newsletter. I subscribe to this weekly mailing to support his work and you can too at http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/
Here it an excerpt, for the record:
| Thursday
February 19, 2009
The Rhetoric of the Stimulus Package It has been fascinating watching our legislators in Washington debating the stimulus bill and seeking to reform the way stimulus monies have been spent thus far. My conclusion is that either memory is short or politics are blind. The Republicans, who controlled the White House for the last eight years and both Houses of Congress for six of the past eight years, and who managed to turn a billion-dollar surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit, suddenly became frightened of "saddling our children with massive debt." Where has all this fiscal responsibility been residing? We listened to the same people who voted for the war in Iraq with its unlimited financial appropriations and with almost no accountability, including many "no bid" contracts let to American oil interests, who now seem to have decided that the stimulus package is a gigantic "giveaway of wasteful spending." People who supported President Bush's irresponsible and failed tax policies, which shifted massive wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest ten percent of the population and thus helped to lead this nation into the deepest economic recession since the Great Depression, now appeared to be advocates of more of the same as their way to get this nation out of the current downturn. Insanity has been correctly defined as continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different result! Yet the failed policies of yesterday were offered with straight faces as the solution to the crisis those same policies created. We listened to the howls of protest from business leaders who have long lived high on the economic hog, accumulating vast wealth and awarding themselves gigantic bonuses through risky and inappropriate lending practices, but who now seemed outraged that their salaries and bonuses should be curtailed or limited. Coming hat in hand to the American taxpayers requesting a bailout with public funds, they apparently expected no change in their executive compensation. They seemed not to recognize that their greed had killed the goose that laid their golden eggs. A man like Ken Lewis, who as CEO of Bank of America has watched his business drop shareholder value by 96%, still argued against placing any limits on executive compensation. "We will lose our best talent," he told us with a straight face. Lewis failed to explain why such outstanding talent had led to such disastrous results. The same could be said for the leaders of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Countrywide Finance, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia Bank, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, WorldCom and countless other icons of American business. Was it outstanding executive talent that led these corporations either to bankruptcy or to being taken over at fire sale prices? Does that performance result from "irreplaceable" employees? Can the executives who have led Citigroup, J. P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, MBIA, Ambac, XL Capital, Ford, General Motors, Nissan, Sonic and others to similar cataclysmic drops in shareholder value be so good that their retention requires exorbitant salaries and bonuses? Would it be so great a loss to their companies if the stated threat that they would be gobbled up by foreign banks or hedge funds actually occurred? The cemeteries of the world are filled with "indispensable people." When the taxpayers of America are bailing out failed businesses run by failed executives, the people of America become the stockholders and members of the various boards of trustees, which gives them the right and the responsibility to set compensation. When these rescued companies recover and repay the taxpayers, then they can set their own compensation, subject only to their new stockholders' best judgment. Bonuses, which were designed to reward extraordinary performances, are hardly appropriate when those performances have led to today's economic crisis. John Shelby Spong |
On a beam of light,
Thomas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hope is filling the hearts of millions around the world
that America is awakening to a new dawn
of compassion, honesty and integrity.
Check out our daily video http://www.fortheloveoflife.net/ideas/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~