Rethinking the αlpha and Ωmega

In the interest of full disclosure, my readers should know that I support the McCain/Palin ticket for President and Vice-President of the United States. (Please don’t hold it against me!) And as readers of this blog well know, I’m also strongly opposed to the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in our public high schools, colleges, and universities. (Of course, I’m all for discussing Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom . . . as long as it’s for the purposes of highlighting the necessity for the scientific method, contrasting the testable theories of evolutionary mechanisms and the untestable theories of Creationism/ID, and exposing Creationism/ID as the pseudo-science it is.)

So, how is it that I would support a VP nominee who believes in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design? Easy. Elections are about more than one issue and, in the case of Gov. Palin—and Sen. McCain, for that matter—I’m not too worried that either one is going to pursue a policy of granting Creationism/ID “equal time” in the classroom.

Over the past two presidential election cycles, I’ve greatly appreciated the folk at FactCheck.org and their dedication to separating the “wheat” from the “chaff” in the world of politics. I also appreciate their recent investigation into Gov. Palin’s “Creationist credentials,” which should put my fellow Creationism detractors at ease (bold italics mine):

No Creationism in Schools

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That’s true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: “Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. … It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.” The article was headlined, “Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.” It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

It should also be pointed out that both Sens. McCain and Obama believe that the process of biological evolution resulted in the creation of mankind and don’t believe Creationism/ID should be taught in the classroom as part of any school’s science curriculum:

Sen. Obama: I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry. (“Obama on ID”)

Sen. McCain: I happen to believe in evolution. . . . I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not. (“McCain talks war, religion, immigration: Music Festival crowd peppers former presidential candidate with questions,” Aspen Times, 2 July 2006)

Sen. McCain: Darwin helped explain nature’s laws. He did not speculate, in his published theories at least, on the origin of life. He did not exclude God, for Whom the immensity of time is but a moment, from our presence. The only undeniable challenge the theory of evolution poses to Christian beliefs is its obvious contradiction of the idea that God created the world as it is in less than a week. But our faith is certainly not so weak that it can be shaken to learn that a biblical metaphor is not literal history. Nature doesn’t threaten our faith. On the contrary, when we contemplate its beauty and mysteries we cannot quiet in our heart an insistent impulse of belief that for all its variations and inevitable change, before its creation, in a time before time, God let it be so, and, thus, its many splendors and purposes abide in His purpose. (Character Is Destiny by John McCain, 2005)

A friend of mine recently asked, “Homo sapiens has been present [on this earth] for at least 100,000 years and probably longer . . . . So man, who had the mental and physical characteristics [to be considered made in the ‘image of God’], had to wait 98,000 years to hear the truth and be taught ‘the Way.’ For 98,000 years, he was denied truth and free to live in any manner he desired. The concept of a god watching this go on for so long and then, a mere 2000 years ago, [decide] to enlighten man, just seems odd to me. Why not let his creation get the benefit of this wonderful message sooner and not have to wallow in ignorance? I know you can’t speak for God, but it’s this aspect of theistic [evolution which] I am questioning.”

Good question. And it recalled to mind an article by Dinesh D’Souza that I read recently. Although D’Souza initially ignored this question, posed in similar fashion by atheist Christopher Hitchens during their debate, he revisits the question after considerable thought and research:

Here is the thrust of Hitchens’ point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this? . . . The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born in the 100,000 years before Christ came to earth. “So in a sense,” [Erik] Kreps [of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research] notes, “God’s timing couldn’t have been more perfect. If He’d come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so even though 98 percent of humanity’s timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption.”

D’Souza goes on to discuss some other issues connected with this concept, such as possible reasons behind the apparent explosion of civilization approximately 6,000 years ago. Good stuff. Speculative, but still good.

Some there are who presume so far on their wits that they think themselves capable of measuring the whole nature of things by their intellect, in that they esteem all things true which they see, and false which they see not. Accordingly, in order that man’s mind might be freed from this presumption, and seek the truth humbly, it was necessary that certain things far surpassing his intellect should be proposed to man by God.

It is ironic that, although fundamentalists are implacably opposed to liberalism, their extreme reaction shows the same weakness. They, too, stress the leap of faith and make irrationality almost a principle, dismissing the serious questions of seeking modern men as intellectual smoke-screens or diversions to conceal deeper personal problems. All this masks a desperate intellectual insecurity, barely disguised by the surrounding hedge of taboos to preserve purity. The strident intolerance of much guilt-driven evangelism betrays the same insecurity. In these circles, much that is taught has to be unlearned in the wider school of life, and it is not surprising that universities are littered with dropouts from such groups. Their non-rational, subjective faith is cruelly punctured by varsity-level questions, and many manage to survive only by resorting to a severely schizophrenic faith which they hold to be true religiously but not intellectually, historically, or scientifically.