Is Rationalism Winning?

It seems like every day we hear about yet another religiously motivated assault on science education via attempts to insert mythology or pseudo-science into biology classes. Despite general success to date in quashing such nonsense, with what appears to be an increasing amount of activity on this front supporters of science may begin to despair of ever really winning this battle.

However, despite appearances to the contrary, there may yet be reason to hope. In the context of a discussion about an encounter with a particular creationist, a commenter at A Somewhat Old, But Capacious Handbag notes that the current shift from creationism to "intelligent design" may well signal a recognition from the opponents of rationalism that they have lost the battle on its traditional metaphysical field. By attempting to don the mantle of science, they are acknowledging that their previous attempts to hijack faith as a tool to force their narrow anti-reason ideology on science education have failed miserably. I can't say it better than the commenter, so I'll just quote:

In the past, the biblical literalist was content to argue from a spiritual ivory tower, throwing out the same old arguments from authority and tradition that you see here, but from a foundation of assumed superiority. Their status as theologians raised them above mere scientists like yourself, in their own eyes and, more significantly, in the eyes of the rest of the world.
That the Soapy Sams of the 21st century have to pass their tribal myths off as scientific theory is an indicator of how well rationalists are doing. Their framing of creationism as science is a tacit admission that they cannot fight this battle on their home turf anymore, because people frequently listen to scientists more than theologians.
All the arguments remain the same tiresome fallacies, and scientists are more than equal to shooting them down; the only difference is you're playing at home now, and as the Dover trial showed, you stand a very good chance.
Chin up! You can't win the war overnight, but I think you might have won a few battles you weren't even aware you were fighting.

Whether he's correct or not certainly remains to be seen, but it may indeed be reason for a tad more optimism.

Long Absence

Wow. What a busy end-and-beginning-of-year period I've had. I've taken on a host of new responsibilities at work as well as the necessity of a fair amount of travel over the last couple of months. Result: no blog entries. Hopefully that's coming to an end and I'll be able to resume the prolific one/two-post-per-week rate I was maintaining previously.

More election fallout

News from Dover, PA that the eight members of the school board who attempted to bring intelligent design creationism into science classrooms all lost their bid for re-election, replaced by individuals who campaigned on pro-science platforms. For the time being anyway, reason has regained some lost ground.

The people have spoken...

...in yesterday's election and Vernon Robinson is out of a job. As some may recall, in January of 2004 Robinson, A Winston-Salem, NC city councilman, illegally erected a Ten Commandments monument in front of City Hall, taking advantage of the fact that the building was closed for the MLK holiday. Citizens were less than thrilled and the monument was removed less than a week later at city expense. Robinson was defeated by political newcomer Mollie Leight, with voters citing the monument debacle as one of the reasons they had lost faith in Robinson, a two-term incumbent. This was the second political defeat for Robinson within the space of a year; he lost a hotly contested primary contest for NC's fifth congressional district to Virginia Foxx in last year's election (Foxx would later win the election for the seat itself).

Don Colxote, the Lord of PFMancha

Although this isn't primarily a Southern issue, I'm going to cross-post it here as it relates to church/state separation.

Writing in the Prison Fellowship newsletter, BreakPoint, Charles Colson (former Nixon administration felon turned born-again Christian) attempts to enlist the aid of the HH Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama in his quest to confound the evils of "scientific materialism" (Fundamentalist code-speak for "evolution"). Unfortunately for him, while the Dalai Lama may indeed be a fellow spiritualist, Colson's attempt to twist his words to align with his own goals falls far short of the mark.

Colson begins by noting that the Dalai Lama, writing in his most recent book The Universe In A Single Atom, rejects the metaphysical stance known as materialism. For Colson, this indicates some degree of consonance with his own, Christian, views. So far as it goes, this is true enough if unsurprising.

However, from this single point of similarity he goes on to make the following simply staggering non sequitur:

If this sounds familiar, it ought to: These are the very arguments that we have made here at “BreakPoint” and that other proponents of intelligent design make. In view of the profound differences between Tibetan Buddhism and Christianity, it simply isn’t credible to dismiss intelligent design as simply “a repackaging of [Christian] creationism.”

The logical implication of this statement is that a rejection of materialism equals an acceptance of ID. Aside from the fact that neo-Darwinism does not depend upon a materialist metaphysic, the fact that many Christians (non-materialists by definition) accept evoluion absolutely falsifies Colson's abortive argument. What's worse for Colson in this instance is that the Buddhist doctrine of "dependent origination" explicitly rules out any first cause and the Buddhist teachings on causality rule out any intelligent direction on the course of the development of life. We are left with the reality that although Buddhists share the Christian denial of materialism, they cannot be supporters of ID.

So what does the Dalai Lama have to say about evolution in his book? Well, nothing specific that I can find, however he does have the following to say about science:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

In this he's certainly different from the main class of creationists, Colson no doubt included.

Buddhism must accept the facts — whether found by science or found by contemplative insights. If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality — even if it is in contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view.

Again, no creationism here, and a very high opinion of science.

As my comprehension of science has grown, it has gradually become evident to me that, insofar as understanding the physical world is concerned, there are many areas of traditional Buddhist thought where our explanations and theories are rudimentary when compared with those of modern science.

Well, it doesn't seem like much of a leap to posit that the Dalai Lama very likely has no problem with evolution, contrary to Colson's attempt to paint him as a fellow traveler.

Clearly Colson is way off the mark in using the Dalai Lama as an example to attempt to demonstrate that ID isn't just a "repackaging of Christian creationism". In reality, of course, ID is just that.

Colson closes his article by portraying the pro-evo crowd as academic bullies, attempting to silence scientific dissent:

It is the close-minded academics who are being dogmatic, foreclosing scientific inquiry. They call even the merest mention of scientific evidence suggesting that life couldn’t have arisen as a result of an unplanned, random process as “religion,” and they throw it out.

There are a few problems with this:

1) The biological theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life arose, but how current forms have arisen from a common ancestor.

2) Evolution isn't random; this is a common creationist error. Mutations are random, but natural selection is anything but.

3) There simply is no credible scientific evidence that calls the neo-Darwinian paradigm into serious question. This "evidence" to which Colson refers is based on religious belief and speculation arising from that belief. Anyone who doubts this has merely to look at the amount of real scientific research being done into ID: none. Contrast that with the vast amounts of PR and political sleight-of-hand being employed and the reality becomes quite clear: ID is nothing but our old friend, creationism, in some spiffy new clothes.

Statement of Purpose

Religion, specifically the Christian religion(s), occupies an important place in the social life of many (perhaps most) residents of the Southern States. So much so that this part of the U.S. has long been known as "the Bible belt". Indeed, there is a perception, not altogether without some merit, that the average Southerner is a Bible-beatin', hellfire-preachin', snake-handlin' fundamentalist (perhaps "snake-handlin'" is a bit over-the-top, but you get the picture).

Increasingly however, the "landscape of faith" is changing and a growing diversity of beliefs is more frequently to be found in the South. This has not necessarily been viewed as a "good thing" by the majoritarian conservative Christian population. Add to this the overall progressive and modernizing trends in the U.S. at large, and we have a great deal of discontent here. And that discontent often reveals itself in attempts by the majority to denigrate or infringe on the rights of the minority.

This is the context out of which this blog springs. It is not our purpose to denigrate or attack religion per se, but rather to support and uphold the wisdom of the Founders of this nation: a secular government functioning by the rule of law and human reason rather than "divine will". To this end we seek to provide reporting and commentary on religion, secularism, and the separation of church and state as it pertains to living in these Southern states. We will not do this by personal attacks on individuals or offensive, hyperbolic rhetoric. We will do this through rational means: dialogue and debate. It is not our intent to offend, but we will not shirk from speaking the truth as we see it. This is our credo and the statement of purpose for this blog.