I've come to believe, after years of exposure to various forms of science in academic settings, that science is just another religion. It's built largely upon assumption, interpretation, and faith; scientists are the clergy, and perhaps Stephen Hawking is the Pope. :) Most people think science is objective and empirical, but when interpretations of fact are influenced by one's own preconceptions -- just as Christians have variously interpreted Scripture, leading to the establishment of about 1,000 sects in North America alone -- it can't be very objective. "Empiricism" is just another word for experience and observation, and we can all experience and observe things that aren't necessarily true. Indeed, I would argue that Truth (with a capital T) and reality are a little different for each of us. Science is just another way to try to explain it, and to answer all the big questions about where we come from, why we're here, and where we're headed.
It's usually at this juncture of my explanations that people begin accusing me of some sort of anti-science philosophy: I'm ignorant, stupid, a Luddite, a fundamentalist, crazy, a four- or five-letter word, and so on, depending on whom you ask. It usually isn't worth my time to respond to such accusations (though it sure can be fun). What they don't understand -- and aren't willing to understand, because it doesn't jibe with their preconceived notions about me (their scientific minds at work) -- is that I'm actually quite interested in science. I'm a huge sci-fi fan, and have really done my homework on the applications of space exploration/travel, physics, the possibilities of nanotechnology, and especially the natural sciences in which human and planetary history are addressed. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable formulating an opinion about all this if I weren't sufficiently educated. I wish I could say the same for my opponents. :)
As far as I know, the four-step scientific method we all learned about in elementary school still stands: observation/description of phenomena, formulation of an explanatory hypothesis, conclusions/predictions drawn from this hypothesis, and tests and experiments to determine the accuracy of predictions and hypotheses. It's not perfect (and I don't propose to have a better method in mind), but it seems to work well most of the time. It's useful in controlled laboratory experiments, but for something like evolution it really can't accomplish much.
Current theories list several hominid species as our possible ancestors: australopithecines (including "Lucy"), Homo habilus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis (not a popular possibility), Homo heidelbergensis, and Cro-Magnon are a few. These are often referred to as "early man." Despite all the research and theories -- which are really quite fascinating and reasonably founded -- there is no evidence to support the concept of human evolution. I don't believe that one species can evolve into an entirely different species. I believe all the plants and animals we've ever heard of (as well as the billions of species that probably haven't been discovered yet) were created "as is," so to speak. Some may be similar to others, and there may be striking resemblances, but, just for example, prehistoric reptiles did not evolve into modern birds. Visual similarities aren't exactly what I'd consider evidence, and DNA is becoming notoriously unreliable in proving such relationships because all lifeforms on earth have many genes in common; we are all made from the same materials and are, in that respect, inter-related. I believe what we're seeing in the fossil record is simply a cycle of extinction and niche-filling: when one species vanishes, another similar species takes the opportunity to increase its population to fill the vacant niche.
In case you're interested, I've compiled a timeline (where you can find more of my arguments) of some of the most important discoveries and events in the history of human evolution theories. In those theories of human evolution that I've had occasion to study at my leisure, I've found that many of them make assumptions -- indeed, they require them -- that simply cannot be proven. For example:
1. Larger brains automatically yield higher intelligence and greater adaptive behavior;
2. The emergence of language arose from a "mutation" in brain development, or a sudden unexplained physiological change (from panting to sweating);
3. Homo sapiens can only have descended from apes, as they're the only creatures in earth's history that resemble us;
4. Radiometric dating and DNA analysis are wholly reliable;
5. All behaviors of our alleged ancestors are observable through fossils;
6. Extinct ape species visually similar to Homo sapiens must therefore be related to Homo sapiens;
7. Genetic testing can prove almost anything;
8. Bipedalism indicates an evolutionary link with Homo sapiens;
9. Human evolution was encouraged by environmental stress;
10. Some extinct hominids were xenophobic;
There is also the assumption that if it isn't in the fossil record, it either didn't exist or must be assumed to have existed, neither of which is exactly empirical or sensible. And let's not forget the huge assumption that there must be, somewhere, a missing link to finally prove the truth of human evolution. Even if such a link were discovered it would necessitate one more assumption -- that we are indeed related to the species in question, though we can't really prove it. Blah blah blah, it goes on and on. I'm sure you get the idea. As you can see, some of these assumptions are quite silly. Visual resemblances (like brain/skull size and facial/body structures) and functional similarities (like bipedalism) are not indicative of human ancestry. Perhaps these are just old species that failed, for one reason or another, to be replaced by other opportunistic species who were somehow better. It's a matter of faith, and I simply don't have faith in such theories. No one, including many top science writers, has been able to convince me of the accuracy of such theories. Their validity, however, is something else altogether. I'm sure that many are quite happy taking such theories for granted, as fact; they do seem logical in a way, after all.
It also doesn't speak very well of the scientific community that they almost entirely ignore and reject Elaine Morgan's Aquatic Ape Theory. This theory is at least as valid as any other, yet the scientific community isn't willing to relinquish their long-held assumptions long enough to even consider something new -- something that may be right, and may put them on the right track. That sounds like a very theological thing to do, doesn't it? It sort of reminds me of Christians' un-Christian rejection of "heathens," Islam's rejection of "infidels," and Judaism's rejection of "gentiles/goyim." :)
For me, the bottom line is this: I'm not painfully defensive about my beliefs, as some proponents of science are. I have enough confidence in my faith to know it cannot be shaken, which is more than I can say for ever-changing science. However, as my own interest in science would suggest, I certainly don't object to its being taught in schools. Our world is founded upon science: almost everyone, including some of the most religious/spiritual people I've ever met, have complete faith in it; our leaders base many of their decisions on it; our lives sometimes depend on it. Of course it's important for children to understand it, if only so they can decide for themselves how it fits into their respective Truths. Likewise, and for the same reasons, I believe Creationism deserves a place in school curricula. I acknowledge that the issue is more complex than a simple yes/no vote, however.
My initial response to the Creationism/Evolution-in-Schools debate is to strongly oppose it. Our public school teachers can barely teach science as it is! (I once observed a middle school science teacher, for example, who repeatedly pronounced "bass" the fish -- from an ecological student magazine -- as "bass" the sound/tone, because she just didn't know any better. It was pretty unnerving.) Furthermore, the motives behind an inclusion of Creationism surely don't have anything to do with an honest pursuit of knowledge or well-rounded curricula. If that were so, those demanding it would want all creation beliefs represented, rather than the one that currently dominates the U.S. and its government. ("Creationism" seems to most rational people an umbrella term that encompasses all beliefs with creation stories. It isn't called "Judeo-Christian Creationism," after all. But I think we all know what the Christian-centric blowhards mean when they say "Creationism." They're certainly arrogant enough to consider their own beliefs the only valid ones, and to think they're somehow above the First Amendment.) I'm all for exposing our kids to various views and beliefs. As I've said many times, I view science as another religion that's often dependent upon scientists' interpretations, assumptions, and faith -- a faith like many others, that can be easily manipulated to support almost any position. Consequently, although I believe science is gradually catching up to Scripture, trying to prove Creationism through science is like trying to justify Islam by citing Buddhist philosophy: it may be possible, but it isn't particularly logical or compelling. Ideally, science would not be the sole religion taught in our schools, but we also cannot continue privileging some -- namely Christianity -- over others. Yet how should we restructure class time for the addition of Creationism? Most schools already stuff kids into 6 or 7 subjects per day, and the respectability of science is precarious already, thanks to inept teachers who probably weren't trained to teach science in the first place. (So much for NCLB!) In short, I couldn't disapprove or approve this curricular and pedagogical change without reviewing detailed lesson plans, but I do think it deserves attention.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
I'm sure most of you already know that capital punishment refers to the government-sanctioned infliction of physical injury and/or death upon people found guilty of certain crimes. You may know it better as corporal punishment, execution, or simply the death penalty. Whatever you call it, and whatever methods are used -- lethal injection, lapidation, beheading, electrocution, gas chamber, and so on -- I oppose it. My reasons are religious, moral, logical, economic, and, I think, circumspective. I really can't understand why anyone would support it, especially those who claim to be Christians; neither can I understand those who don't seem to believe criminals deserve any punishment at all. If you are one of these people and think you have an argument I haven't heard before, feel free to e-mail me. I only suggest that you read my own reasons first:
1. RELIGION
If you've even skimmed through page 1, you're probably already familiar with the basics of my beliefs: it all boils down to Jesus' teachings and example. This is why I don't understand how any self-described Christian can advocate the death penalty. Jesus never condemned anyone. In fact, He labored under the correct assumption that we are all born condemned and therefore in need of compassion and a guaranteed chance at spiritual redemption. John 3:17 says, "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." Jesus' own suffering and death by crucifixion was a sacrifice intended to render our own suffering and sacrifices totally unnecessary. (I admit this makes inevitable earthly suffering more difficult to comprehend, but that's a topic for another time.) Also recall the story of Jesus' intervention at the near-stoning of an adulteress. The Pharisees "tempted" Jesus by citing the old laws from Moses' time, but Jesus responded simply, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). The woman's accusers, knowing they were not sinless, all left, and Jesus spoke briefly to the woman. He dismissed her by saying, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). If the example and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself aren't enough to convince Christians of the death penalty's contemptibility, I don't know what is.
Additionally, I believe everyone -- even the vilest criminals -- deserve some chance at spiritual redemption and forgiveness. Although most capital cases in the U.S. go through a series of appeals, often preserving the condemned criminal for a decade or more, I believe they deserve all the rest of their natural lives. If they never repent, that's their decision. The fact remains that no other mortal being has a right to take the opportunity away from them. For most, it all seems to be a matter of bitter revenge. Yet there are many proclamations from God and Christ throughout the Bible that tell us vengeance belongs to God and His host; no "Christian" can find adequate support for the death penalty in Scripture.
2. MORALITY
The biggest issue here is that of hypocrisy. Lots of things are wrong with American law these days: young girls can have abortions without the knowledge or permission of their parents, but if they want a tattoo they absolutely must have parental consent; in our "Christian" nation we're allowed to have as many spouses as we want, as long as they're consecutive rather than concurrent; and in 37 states we can kill people to punish them for killing, and to demonstrate how wrong killing is. It really is rather absurd.
If we assume killing/murder is wrong -- and I believe it is, certainly -- it is without a doubt immoral for us to kill others, even if the law and our government say it's OK. (If you're one of those people who likes to fall back on cliches, perhaps you'd prefer if I simply wrote, "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Or maybe, "You can't have your cake and eat it too!") It can't be wrong for individuals to execute others, but right for governments and officials to do so. If anything, our leaders should be held to a higher moral and ethical standard than the rest of us...and no, this does not mean they should be religious people. We already know how that works out, given our years of experience with George W. Bush and his crusade against freedom and humanitarianism both at home and abroad.
3. LOGIC AND ECONOMICS
My logical and economic reasons for opposing the death penalty go together rather nicely; economics is part of my logical rationale. It's all really very simple. I'll organize them into a list to make them even simpler. :) Most of the information I use to support my arguments comes from various sources, and is neatly amassed at the Death Penalty Information Center website.
--> The death penalty does not deter or prevent crime. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest it somehow boosts crime rates! We all know that Texas is notorious for its capital cases and executions, yet Texas has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. The prospect of capital punishment clearly doesn't give criminals a moment's pause.
--> In practice, the death penalty is frighteningly arbitrary. Race, geography, gender, and socioeconomic status are often factors that can distort the real issues of a capital case. Officials and decision-makers (including jurors) are sometimes not as objective as they should be, which skews the outcome of trials and sentencing. For example, in Ohio, about 25% of all death row inmates are from the Cincinnati area, yet only 9% of Ohio's capital crimes are committed there. Our legal system isn't always fair and doesn't always work properly, yet we wager people's lives -- and the very concept of justice -- on the chance that it will be fair and it will work "this time." The fact that minorities dominate both state and federal death rows is a disturbing fact that deserves more scrutiny.
--> We can rarely be 100% certain that someone convicted of a capital crime is actually guilty of that crime. Killing them would be a horrible miscarriage of justice. Since 1973, 121 death row inmates have been exonerated; 14 of these were due to advances in forensics, including the use of DNA evidence.
--> Imprisonment is vastly cheaper than capital trials and execution. Capital trials last longer, require more resources, and if guilty verdicts are delivered, cost taxpayers millions of dollars throughout years of appeals. In Tennessee, capital trials are 48% more expensive than when life imprisonment is sought by prosecutors. Florida spends literally millions more each year on DP-related cases -- about $3.2 million per execution -- than it would have to spend if there were no death penalty at all.
--> Some criminals actually want to die, and it just doesn't make sense to give them what they want. Case in point would be Michael Ross from Connecticut. After being in prison for roughly 20 years, he saw execution as a way out.
--> Harsher sentences and prison reform are better alternatives to the death penalty. In prison criminals are currently treated to TV, music, movies, Internet access, pornography, exercise equipment, cigarettes, high-quality food, comfortable heating and air conditioning, free educational opportunities, and are sometimes even allowed to wear non-regulation clothing. They have it much better than many of America's working poor, and are probably a step up from our active military personnel. (This is just one more hypocrisy of American law -- that the dregs of our society, our criminals, live better than law-abiding citizens and soldiers.) I would suggest that in addition to abolishing the death penalty, we do away with all these luxuries, possibly even electric lighting. Imagine the money we'd save! That would mean more funding for education, arts programs, healthcare, recreation, and anything else states may need. Meanwhile, prisoners would just have to make do with bologna sandwiches, doing situps in their cells, stripping down in summer and bundling up in winter, and reading books. (But they'd better be literate, or else they'll have to ask another inmate to teach them to read; there will be no one employed at the prison for that purpose.)
--> Some have suggested that using inmates as "guinea pigs" in experiments would be worthwhile, but I'm not so sure. Some of the rationale behind death penalty support involves dehumanizing criminals; they're called "beasts," "monsters," "brutes," and it's interesting to note that words like "person" or "people" are avoided altogether. I think proponents of the death penalty do this to make it easier to approve of someone's murder. Turning them into experimental subjects is really no different. I think it would be better to reinstitute chain gangs and have prisoners clean up our highways, parks, and waterways, and to perform other menial tasks that no one else seems to willing to do.
And so, in short, the death penalty is a ridiculous concept, particularly when it is advocated by "Christians." There are more practical and more humane alternatives, if only people would make some effort to transcend their primitive bloodlust.
| Page 1 | My General Beliefs and Practices | Links |
