Creation

I recently got the chance to see the 2009 biographical drama, Creation, based on the life of Charles Darwin surrounding the death of his eldest daughter, Annie, and his struggle to write On the Origin of Species. Although it is a partly fictionalized account of Darwin's life it humanizes Darwin who is often demonized by Creationist for his elevation of scientific inquiry over the belief of God's Providence over all of creation. I admit I know very little of Charles Darwin as his books are on the bottom of my booklist (not for any particular reason though). I thoroughly enjoyed the interplay and inquisitiveness of Charles Darwin with his daughter but I connected the most with his struggle to balance his beliefs and scientific research with his love for his family and neighbors who felt threatened by his life's work.

All of nature is a battlefield...

Played by Paul Bettany, Charles Darwin is a man drawn to the beauty of nature. As he traverses gently through the woods with his children, he presents to them the struggle for life which is constantly happening all around them. And like nature, there is a struggle within all of us: a struggle in knowing our own mortality, a struggle to love and be loved, and a struggle to discover meaning within nature's battlefield. This is not a film toting the superiority of science over faith, but one man's struggle for balance between a search for truth unwrapped by the senses and truth felt by the heart. Is this an accurate historical portrayal of Charles Darwin? I'm not sure (it is a film), but I do know it is a human portrayal of a man who suffered from the death of his children, impacted most of all by the death of his eldest daughter, Annie. Is it wrong to question the Will of God when that same God takes your children from you? Is it wrong to to question the church's view on the nature and origin of man when our senses give us contradictory data? In the film, Darwin doesn't fear the questions but the implications which may come from people losing faith in God, the Constant behind the chaos. At the time, the world relied on the belief that everything moved within the power and guidance of God. Darwin who witnessed the balance of life and death in the natural world could not balance the savagery of the cosmos with a compassionate God.



Tell me a story about everything...

Darwin sought not to destroy God, as his friend Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley) would have liked (or as he's portrayed in the film), but to tell the story of everything: our origin, our evolution through history, and what the future may hold for us. He wanted to tell of the beauty and wonders of nature not bring society to its knees. Telling this story nearly killed him since he knew what it would mean for the ones he loved. Coming out to the world with the truth studied by our senses would crush truth accepted by the heart. To Darwin, there is no compassion in the universe which does not come from an outside source, it is all survival. This sense of accepting reality for what it is and the sense of despair which may come accompany it is summed up in his question, "Suppose everyone stopped believing that God had any sort of plan for us?" What then? Who or what do we turn to for strength, where do we go when the chaos presses in from all sides?

You have finally made an accomplice of me...

There is no dramatic twist at the end, Darwin finishes his book which has reshaped how we view the world. It may seem that the core of the film is about religion vs. science but that's too clichéd for my taste. The film is about our story, the human story, and all of its complexities and intricacy that comes with being human. We each have a story that we cling too, but cling too tightly and we ignore the big picture, the human story. As a species aware of its own mortality we fear the unknown, and as we stare into the unknown we struggle with what it all may mean. Life itself may not have any inherent meaning except that which we give it. This line of thinking is too chaotic for some and understandably they may turn to religion for strength as did Emma Darwin, played by Jennifer Connelly, after the death of their eldest daughter. Charles Darwin was not afraid to pull back the curtain of the unknown as he sought to learn the story of everything, yet he feared what may happen if he finished his book. The story may frighten us but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue telling it because we have each other to turn to, to lean on. Embracing our shared fear should inspire us to boldly continue because life continues. Life was here before us and will remain after us evolving into all manners of new life.

I must say that although many people, especially here in the States, may find it uncomfortable watching a movie about Darwin (a biographical drama based on his life) I highly recommend watching it.

How Good Do We Have to Be? Part 1- A Story of Emergence

I've recently dusted off and began reading Harold Kushner's enlightening book, How Good do We Have to Be?, and so far I'm enthralled by it. In this book Rabbi Kushner addresses the issues of guilt and forgiveness before a compassionate, and understanding God.
Everyone knows the story: Adam and Eve, the parents of mankind, made one fatal mistake and we continue to pay the price for it. The story is often interpreted as detailing the origin of our Fall from Paradise and ever since then the divine has been harder and harder to reach. As you read along through the Old Testament, God distances himself further and further away from mankind as we struggle to hold onto that relationship. The writers of the New Testament wrote their books of the One who bridged God and man together again both by his actions and his being, Jesus Christ. As the followers of The Way began to flourish the early Christian community looked back into the scriptures for prophecies of Jesus and introduced a new creative spirituality to the world, Christianity. These are the lens in which the concept of Original Sin and the nature of Man are understood within mainstream Christianity. Kushner introduces the reader to questions which puts our previous interpretation of the Eden story under a microscope, not to tear it apart but because the old interpretation leads to too much guilt and an unreasonable quest for perfection.

"Isn't this a harsh punishment for one small mistake-- pain and death, banishment from Paradise, for breaking one rule? Is God really that strict?...And perhaps the most troubling of all, if the forbidden tree was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, does that imply that Adam and his mate had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate it? If so, how could they have been expected to know that it was wrong to disobey God? And why were they punished if they had no sense of good and evil before they ate it?" -How Good do We Have to Be, Chapter 2.

You may interpret and read the story as a historical retelling of literal events but I believe the questions should still be asked regardless of our beliefs. Atheist point to this story as an example that the God of the Bible is a petty, strict, and all around unloving God who does not deserve worship. Christians point to this story as proof that the gulf between Man and God is our fault and we deserve death for our sinfulness, for making that one fatal mistake. So how do we interpret this in the 21st century without falling into the trap of eisegesis? What does a 21st century listener get from these old tales? Rabbi Kushner reinterprets the Genesis story of not one of guilt, sin, and punishment but a tale describing our journey of evolution out of our animal life,

"It is the story of the first human being graduating, evolving from the relatively uncomplicated world of animal life to the immensely complicated world of being human and knowing that there is more to life than eating and mating, that there are such things as Good and Evil. They enter a world where they will inevitably make many mistakes, not because they are weak or bad but because the choices they confront will be such difficult ones...The story of the Garden of Eden is not a story of the Fall of Man, but of the Emergence of Humankind." [Ch. 2]

I doubt that the writers of Genesis knew about evolution (the sun did revolve around the Earth back then) but were at least aware of our differences between human and animal existence. Our lives are much more complex than theirs with the flexibility to commit acts of Good and Evil. The God of Vengeance no longer speaks to us in the 21st century not because we have outgrown the divine but because the vengeance, which took the form of natural disasters and illness no longer spooks mankind. We have studied the mechanics of the universe, the divine vengeance portrayed in the Bible is no more than mankind's limited understanding of nature in an age when everything was attributed to the gods. The curtain has been pulled back, and the Wizard has been revealed. Mankind understands now that things just happen, and God may not have the power to stop it. But as Rabbi Kushner expresses in his incredible book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, God may not have the power to stop it but he will sit with you through the darkest of storms.

God's decree of work, parenthood, and our sense of morality is exactly what separates us from the animals, what makes us human. Kushner points out that God gave mankind a cautionary warning about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, as if saying "it will hurt to know Evil, but what joy it is to know Good." Is Rabbi Kushner's creative interpretation worth retelling? Does it speak to you, and if so what is it saying? How would history have turned out if we began with an interpretation of emergence instead of an interpretation of guilt, or was this interpretation only possible with the emergence of the enlightenment and our knowledge of the cosmos?

The second chapter ends with a beautiful retelling of Genesis as to how the story might have ended if Adam and Eve chose to remain in Paradise (i.e. living an animal life).

HOW THE STORY MIGHT HAVE ENDED

So the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and a delight to the eye, and the serpent said to her, “Eat of it, for when you eat of it, you will be as wise as God.” But the woman said, “No, God has commanded us not to eat of it, and I will not disobey God.”
And God called to the man and the woman and said to them, “Because you have hearkened to My word and not disobeyed My command, I shall reward you greatly.” To the man, He said, “You will never have to work again. Spend all your days in idle contentment, with food growing all around you.” To the woman, He said, “You will bear children without pain and you will raise them without pain. They will need nothing from you. Children will not cry when their parents die, and parents will not cry when their children die.” To both of them he said, “For the rest of your lives, you will have full bellies and contented smiles. You will never cry and you will never laugh. You will never long for something you don’t have, and you will never receive something you always wanted.” And the man and the woman grew old together in the garden, eating daily from the Tree of Life and having many children. And the grass grew high around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil until it disappeared from view, for there was no one to tend it.

---

Part 1: A Story of Emergence
Part 2: Guilt and Shame
Part 3: The Cycle of Guilt
Part 4: The Wholeness We Seek
Part 5: Is There Enough Love for Everyone
Part 6: Final Thoughts

Say Hello to Auntie Ida

Say hello to Auntie Ida. Don't stare at her tail, it makes her uncomfortable. Remember she's part of the family so let's treat her with some respect. If it wasn't for that team of amateur fossil hunters who found her in the Messel Pit in Frankfurt, Germany in 1983 your Auntie Ida wouldn't be here. So be grateful and go and give your Auntie Ida a big hug and kiss and tell her that you love her.

---

I bet Darwinian's, Atheists, and other believers in evolution are celebrating today after Tuesday's proclamation of Ida being the missing link to our evolutionary history. Isn't it great to dig up old relatives and display them for all the world to see? Of course it would be embarrassing if she wasn't related to us and we found out she was somebody else's aunt, Sylvester Stallone's maybe?

Click here and here for the news stories on Ida and click here for her official website. She also has a book coming out, and a TV documentary? She must have a great promotional team to be treated as a celebrity after being stuck in a crater for 47 million years. Of course all this hoopla could be a bit premature and over the top but let's say that she IS the missing link. Although it may not be ironclad proof that we did evolve from monkeys (she is actually the missing link that higher apes, including us, have descended from) what would the implications be if it were a strong piece of evidence for the theory of Evolution? Does that mean that the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc.) are right in saying that the search for truth lies in scientific study of the world around us and not in religion and faith? (I'm assuming that's their view since I have yet to read anything on their view on religion.) Are God and religion pointless now that we have science to lead us into truth? Science be praised.

I'm sure the Creationist people will swarm all over this and say that the scientists are using this as a publicity stunt to push their agenda or that they're severely mistaken on Ida's relation to us. The Creationists may be right but either way this has no affect on my spirituality and my beliefs of the Divine. Whether we were created intact in Eden or evolved after billions of years Evolution does not affect my yearning for the Divine or for understanding and brotherhood. Is my yearning for the Divine just a chemical reaction in the brain and I'm just delusional? Maybe, but if my delusions cause me to love my brother then it is a delusion I wish to live with till the day I die. Could I be just as happy as an Atheist? Possibly, but it seems awfully lonely and disconnected from the rest of the universe. With a Creator God you have that reassurance that our Creator loves us, and with a Pantheistic God we have that reassurance, love, and connectedness to all of reality. Can I overcome this fear of disconnection and have a fulfilling life as an Atheist? Yes, but I feel that I would better understand my fellow man if I didn't disregard God altogether. God is still an important part of the human psyche and to disregard it completely is a terrible mistake. Am I afraid that Evolution is right and I have it all wrong? No, because it's not about being right or wrong it is about connectedness, relationships, love, and understanding your brother even if that brother is a fossilized ancestor.

Religion in 20XX: Part 1- The Evolving Universe

Within the last month I've become intrigued by the vast amount of sci-fi books that mention religion. Outside of the Dune series I had no idea that sci-fi writers would even acknowledge religion let alone interweave them into the plot. Sci-fi, as a genre, has enormous potential and room to grow. It can take us to worlds we can only dream of and envision possible futures for humanity here on Earth. We must always keep in mind that even though the future is not set in stone we must learn to guide our race towards peace so that we can live to see it unfold.

---

My first Robert Sawyer book was his 1999 novel, Flashforward, where the consciousness of every single person on the planet jumped 23 years into the future and had a brief glimpse of their own future. It's a thought provoking book that has introduced me to new theories and ideas on Free Will, the nature of the universe, and human identity. I recently read Calculating God and although it reads more like a debate between an Atheist and a Theist than a novel, I was still intrigued by introduction of various new ideas which I'll spend my free time pondering. Calculating God follows Tom Jericho, a Canadian paleontologist, as he works alongside the first alien visitors who claims that God has been actively involved in the evolutionary process by causing five simultaneous cataclysms on three different planets.

I had asked in a previous post if we made contact with aliens what, if any, religious beliefs would they hold? One of the novel's major themes deal with the evolution of sentient life on each of the planets. Two alien species from two different planets come to visit Earth in search for evidence of a Creator, the Forhilnors and the Wreeds. During our simultaneous evolution both Forhilnors and Humans evolved with the ability to count and master mathematics. The Wreeds, on the other hand, struggle with mathematics because their bodies evolved differently and never had any need for math. The Wreeds have a single black 360 degree strip at the top of their torso which acts as their eye that allows them to have a panoramic view; basically, they can see in all directions at the same time. They are physiologically unable to concentrate on any one object but "they can predict without explaining-their logic is intuitive, not deductive". Although lacking mathematical skills their intuition allows them to "know" how to build and plan beautifully structured cities on their home world. This intuition also allows them to determine and solve moral and ethical problems that we struggle with in the 21st century. Take the moral issue of abortion for example. The Wreeds would say that if a race has methods of contraception then abortion should not be an issue, if one does not desire to have a baby the logical solution would be to use contraception. In case of incest or rape the Wreeds would consider these as exceptional cases occurrences and "general principals should not be based on exceptional cases."

The Forhilnor's know, not believe, there is a Designer that designed the parameters, properties, and laws that govern the universe. They came to this conclusion by studying the universe itself. They believe in a First Cause God that created the universe (or at least this universe) and they are searching for proof that God had been meddling with the evolutionary process.

The Wreeds, because of their intuitive minds, seem to be more mystic than scientists. They intuitively know that there is a God and they spend a good portion of their time trying to communicate (not pray) with God through a method of meditation. They believe there is nothing more important than a lifelong pursuit to communicate with God.

The three species, although differently intelligent, have evolved to become the sentient species on their respective planets, and even though they disagree on certain matters of genetics, origins of life, and God they understand that each of them think differently because of their environment and origin. What does this tell us about those who think and believe differently than ourselves? Would you strive to understand them or just brush them off as ignorant, backward, or even lost? This is where the critical moment of inter-faith dialogue comes into the forefront. To share your belief, your piece of a God-Sized puzzle, with others is a beautiful process, connecting with your fellow man, binding ourselves to one another as we journey through our short existence in this reality. But, looking down on others while holding beliefs of religious superiority ("Your beliefs are backward and ignorant, mine are better.") taints the hopeful spirit of your message and drains the validity of your words. It is better to understand your brother's belief in the context of their environment and origin than to humility them into accepting your beliefs by considering them inferior. This is true of ANY AND EVERY message be it from an Atheist, Sikh, Christian, or Pagan. If they see a glimmer of truth in your message it is up to them whether they consider it to be truth regardless if you do.

If man is to progress, to adapt, to evolve in the 21st century then we must overcome our tribal nature. This doesn't mean that we must discard our differences, but strive to remove the violence, anger, mistrust, and misconceptions that can arise because of our differences. We must learn to live within our smaller tribes while always remembering that we are part of a larger universal tribe.

Evilution

Right now I'm in the middle of watching the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted by Ben Stein that came out earlier this year. I've watched the first hour and my impression so far is that it seems a bit one sided. Until they mentioned Hitler.

My first reaction was, "Are you serious?"

First I have to mention that I am not a film critic and I know as much about science as the average 24 year old college student.

Mitochondria: The power house of the cell.

Anyways, the first half of the film talks about how Intelligent Design is pretty much laughed at by real scientist and if, as a scientist or teacher, you mention Intelligent Design not only could you lose your career but you could also be blacklisted. Harsh. So then the film continues as to how real scientists that promote evolution go on the attack on Intelligent Design because they have some ulterior motive to sneak God back into schools.

"Okay, that's kind of pushing it but moving on..."

And then out of the blue David Berlinski, a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement, raises the claim that Darwinism influenced the Nazis.

And that's when I had to stop watching (i'll finish it in a moment) and start blogging. At first the film sounded a bit one-sided, then it moved to a hint of propaganda, and then it took a swan dive into a festering pool of conspiracy theories.

---

My personal views on Intelligent Design? I see no reason why Intelligent Design can't at least be given a chapter alongside all the other scientific theories in a high school science book. I see nothing devious by just mentioning that some people believe that a Designer out there may have had a hand in designing this incredibly complex Universe we call home. I also believe that if there is a significant amount of evidence that supports a certain theory then I see no reason why that theory can't be taught. I believe evolution can work hand in hand with a First Cause God. So yes I have no problem with Evolution. Evolution DOES NOT lead to the Holocaust. Here's an example as to what the film is implying.

---

Darwin-->Theory of Evolution--->God does not exist-->Religions are fairy tales with moral teachings--->No need to be moral--> Heil Hitler!

Talk about a serious case of Six degrees of Adolf Hitler.

---

Now, Ben Stein does say that Darwinism does not equate with Nazism. But he then goes on to say "If Darwinism could inspire such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalize similar initiatives today?"

Darwin--> Theory of Evolution--->God does not exist-->Religions are fairy tales with moral teachings--->No need for moral--> Heil Hitler!-->Abortion, euthanasia, etc.

There's a whole list of controversies you can read up on about this film, but there was one particular highlight that I did enjoy. They showed a short clip from this 3d animation made for Harvard's Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

The Inner Life of the Cell