Not-So Intelligent Design

Tertullian- "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem."

This past week I read a news article saying that archeologists have discovered the oldest human remains in Israel: 400,000 years old. Much speculation surrounds the discovery and could drastically alter theories of human origin. Also this past week, I read a statistic that approximately 40% of Americans believed in some version of Intelligent Design (AKA- "Creationism"). Normally when I speak to religious fundamentalists about evolution, the most popular response that I receive is " I don't believe that we came from monkeys." It is at this point that I abandon the conversation because in most cases the individual's understanding is so misguided I do not wish to take the time having to reinvent the wheel to bring the discussion up to par. To make matters clear, primates are our cousins who share a common ancestor with modern man; we did not come from them as many like to argue.

I would like to approach this topic from a theological perspective since that is the language and discipline I am most familiar. The basis for ID is a strict, literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. To put it simply, there are people who believe that the ancient Hebrews and other Ancient Near Eastern groups processed and defined both history and science in a modern matrix. The Bible is not only a theological document, but can also be used in science text books. Put this way, the whole proposition seems almost laughable. To use the Bible as a polemical weapon to battle against the "evil" designs of science is to forfeit religious and spiritual credibility as a Christian. The most ancient forms of Christian faith, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, do not even endorse such a view. What fundamentalists must understand is that both religion and science seek truth, but do so in different ways. Where science becomes incompatible with religious beliefs, then those beliefs must be changed or modified to remain relevant.

Theologically speaking, evolution is completely compatible with the Christian religion. God the Father is both Creator and Love. The whole concept behind love is freedom- being willing to accept something or someone as is. I believe that evolution more adequately represents the character and economy of God. Since love implies freedom, then would it not be more plausible that God ALLOWS the universe and the rest of creation to "create" itself and pursue paths to life as it sees fit? Could God have given the universe the freedom to create itself? Science has shown how both the universe and carbon-based life have literally taken billions of years to shape itself. From Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding to Darwin's proposal that life evolved from lesser life forms, we are given a unique perspective of where humanity stands in the great scheme of things. Humans are related to and made up of the same materials as the rest of the creation around us. Evolution can serve to enrich that kinship between the environment and ourselves.

The Ownership of God

For many millions of people, the holiday season conjures up images and speculation about God and humanity's role in the grand scheme of things. Many churches around the world hold services commemorating the birth of Jesus and those involved. What becomes increasingly obvious to me is that there are some denominations claiming to represent the Christian God that simply do not. Instead, they detach and ignore the sacraments and portray an aberration of God that is foreign in Christian history. I went home for the holidays to visit my parents. The First Baptist Church there was holding the "Lord's Supper" on Christmas Eve night. No doubt, people earnestly believed that their worship was appropriate and theologically sound. However, their approach and lack of reverence was something alien to the rich history of Christianity and the Early Church. To view Communion as an empty symbol merely observed because it was a commandment given by Jesus is to severely undermine any attempt to serve as the Eucharistic community intended by God. If this is their understanding, then they do not worship the God of Christianity. This is merely one example of a church/denomination falsely representing the Christian God. I do not mean to suggest that people who attend, for example, this Baptist church are not Christian, but instead they are theologically and spiritually impoverished and anemic. This assessment is not based upon lack of piety or dedication, but a purposeful detachment and suspicion of the Sacraments given to the Church by God.

I realize that for many my statements come across as arrogant and divisive, but they are not so when viewed against the backdrop of Christian history and worship. Christians who restrict their view of God solely on the Bible are those who are least able to produce a tenable and intelligent account of Christianity. I often times try to engage and kindle conversation with my relatives about their options and views on God. What I have found is that most of them are ignorant of the Ecumenical creeds like Nicea and Chalcedon. They cannot list the parameters and descriptions of the person of Jesus or the attributes and relations of the members of the Trinity. Instead, many Protestants are only able to reference the Bible in their defense of the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity. What they fail to realize is that the Bible leaves more questions than answers and proof-texting a verse here and there is simply insufficient. For example, it is clear in his writings that Paul assumed that Jesus became the Son of God only after the Resurrection and that in other places, like Luke, Jesus is "adopted" by the Father (i.e. Jesus' baptism). There are so many conflicting views in the Bible that it was left to the Church Fathers, bishops, theologians, etc to determine the proper boundaries of Christian belief. To be ignorant of this fact is to be ignorant of what it means to be a Christian. The reason that the Church has creeds was that the Bible, as important as it is, simply wasn't enough to stand alone.

The holidays are meant to be a time of coming together and sharing. However, holidays are also meant to be a time of reflection and spiritual renewal. Let the full force and appreciation of the holiday season be realized by a return to the ancient faith and worship.

Wall Street and Main Street

As Republicans prepare to take control of the House and seat their members in the Senate, much criticism is still launched at Obama over the "bailout" of Wall Street. A strict dichotomy is being drawn between Wall Street and "main street." However, such a distinction represents a distortion of of the issues surrounding the credit crisis the world finds itself. The argument goes something like this: The banks and mortgage lenders got us into this mess by making imprudent loans which resulted in the vast numbers of foreclosures and other financial defaults experienced in the financial sectors." I am not defending Wall Street for their irresponsible purchasing of "toxic" mortgages or causing such loose regulations in the lending sector. But, Wall Street does not deserve all of the blame here. If one can recall, the US government is in part to blame for the burst of the housing bubble. It was Alan Greenspan who is largely responsible for keeping the return of US Treasury bonds at 1%. This may not seem like a big deal, but what it did was ensure that global investors were going to look to other places that yielded a higher return. With mortgages returning on average 8% and above, many viewed the housing sector as a much more attractive investment.

While Wall Street struggled to keep up with the demand of shareholders desiring a stake in the housing market, loans were issued with no proof of income or job assurance. While Wall Street is culpable, so are those who took out loans that could not be paid back. If Wall Street is irresponsible, then those individuals who took out these loans are even more so. Whether they realize it or not, they are the ones who entered into a contract and agreed to the terms of repayment. Many will complain and lay blame on the financial sector (and much of it is deserved) but to absolve themselves of responsibility in this quagmire is equally disgusting. In large part, capitalism is based upon greed and competition. When you agree to enter into its arena, don't complain if you get hurt because in all likelihood, you had a part to play in it as well. We are a nation that has a strong sense of entitlement, but if you are not too big to fail you really have no argument.

Obama: Compromiser or Victim

Political strategists are still debating the recent "compromise" President Obama has entered in to with Republicans, agreeing to grant a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans. Obama has been excoriated by by many who say that he has unnecessarily capitulated to Republicans, breaking his campaign promises and, in the process, further damaging his credibility with his own party. Bernie Sanders from Vermont and others have stated that Obama should have taken this issue to the people. Then, there is the position that Obama should have stood firm and even risk unemployment and middle class tax cuts lapsing forcing the opposition party to acquiesce. The truth of the matter is that none of these options are viable. Obama has suffered from splits and indecisiveness from within his own Democratic party making him susceptible to Republican filibusters. On many key issues, the Democratic agenda has been thwarted and upended by the minority. What traditionally was meant to be used only in extremely sensitive pieces of proposed legislation, the filibuster has been implemented on both the most mundane and popular issues. Again, this is symptomatic of our failed political system. I, like much of the nation, had high hopes for the Obama administration, but the fact remains that if you put good people in a bad system, the system always wins.

Instead of attention to far-reaching implications of our various fiscal and economic policies, it seems that no politician can see past his/her next election. It appears that our politicians are so myopic that they can only see 2, 4, or 6 years at a time. While political points are won and conceded, the nation suffers. Our current form of democratic government simply does not work. Nations like ours are destined to learn everything the hard way and at great expense. If those that have died for our freedom and for our democracy could see the state that it is in now, I believe they would demand immediate resurrection so they may die for a nobler cause. How much longer do we believe that countries like China will continue to purchase our debt at the low interest rate that it is currently? How much longer before the United States has to crawl before the IMF and the EU asking for a lifeline? Are we to be the next Ireland or Greece? US fiscal and economic inaction are more a threat to national security than any terrorist base or any documents that have been released in the past months. In essence, the very configuration of our democracy is perhaps the biggest threat to our country and the world.

In ancient Rome, a dictator could be temporarily appointed in times of serious national calamity, mostly in times of war. This individual had the power to do what was necessary to quell danger and stabilize the nation. The most notable strength of this option is that it eliminated the "red tape." I suggest that the United States have a modified version of this. Our president is already in charge of the armed forces and can deploy them as he sees fit to neutralize and respond to a potential national threat. Why not give the office an extension of power to deal with a economic crisis of this magnitude? Perhaps our nation will have to become insolvent before it finally extracts the cancerous growths from its democratic body.

What the "Wiki"!!

Over the past few weeks, there has been much debate and speculation on the significance surrounding Wikileaks. I have heard that this organization is endangering not only our national security, but potentially putting lives at risk. It has been suggested that those directly responsible for the leaking of this "sensitive" material be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and even, according to Mike Huckabee, executed. Who is really to blame here? Should the United States really place the blame solely on the shoulders of Assange? Is it Pfc. Bradley Manning who violated protocol in copying and disseminating these classified documents? While it may be easy to assign blame it is far more difficult to ascertain the true significance of this leak. Despite the fear-mongering, I would like to argue that these documents are truly helpful in aiding us in evaluating our government and better understanding the political climate we find ourselves. I think that these documents and cables cause more national embarrassment than a high-risk security threat. How many deaths have been reported due to the actions of Wikileakes? How many countries have openly disavowed further cooperative ties with the US over this issue? Has anyone declared war?

Everyday, we entrust diplomats and other government officials to represent not only our best interests, but those of the rest of the world. We count on these federal employees to be the face of the nation to others. Do we not have a right to know how the business that effects our standing in the world is really conducted? Do we not have a right to know what actions and methods our officials are engaged? The argument has been postulated that some business and discussions need to take place in secrecy and that in order for solutions to be found, it is essential that leaders be afforded strict confidence on certain matters. However true this may be, it is equally true that "classification" of materials happens at an alarming rate. ANYTHING is subject to classification these days. Any official who wants to be spared embarrassment or scrutiny can "classify" what they see fit. Many hear the term "classified" and immediately think that national security is involved. What they do not understand is how the process really works and the frequency of use. What is also implicit in the government's reaction to Wikileaks is its low view of its citizens. How dare the American people actually know the truth about what is going on!! What a tragedy that the American people are given information they can use to hold us more accountable!! Many in government talk about transparency and reaching out to the American public, EXCEPT when there is information that can embarrass them and only when it suites the political climate.

Another aspect of this case is how the American government is increasingly adopting and advocating censorship of information. No doubt the government has put pressure on Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard to stem the tide of support that Wikileakes receives. Speculation on labeling Wikileakes a terrorist organization have even surfaced. Interesting how anything we don't like we call "terrorist." For many years, the US has been severely critical of China's censoring of information of the Web citing that all have right to information made available via the Internet. Now, our own government seeks to shut down a site that it resents! How is that for hypocrisy? If we are truly serious about advocating and protecting freedoms that constitute our democracy, we should stand by those freedoms even when it is not convenient. Otherwise, we jeopardize what so many have fought and died for. Thank you Mr. Assange.