T-Rex and God

Tissue recovered from a Tyrannosaurus rex is huge news. It is amazing what science has been and is doing, isn't it?

Now, wait for it to become "controversial," because of the creationists out there who believe something along the lines that dinosaurs were planted by Satan to fool us or God himself to test our faith; that the dinosaurs are some sort of global conspiracy created by God-hating liberals; or that the dinosaurs were alive and kicking 6,000 years ago, because these things--and other crackpot theories--fit into the literal words in the Old Testament. It will then expand into a discussion of evolution vs. creationism and such things as, if evolution is true, how come there aren't any apes born to humans? (to this I offer Robin Williams, who has to be the hairiest man alive)

As what usually happens, the creationists will discount the science involved in paleontology and evolution. They'll say things like, mathematics is the only exact science, and what about the second law of thermodynamics which says, in a nutshell, that the universe tends toward disorder and decay and not toward order and growth (or evolution)? If these things fail to persuade, then they will resort to, God is infallible, the Bible is the literal word of God, therefore every word of the Bible is the indisputable truth because God is infallible. And how do you argue with someone who believes that? They've thrown down the gauntlet and said, there is nothing to argue, you blasphemous non-believer!

One point I like to make is that, if you're arguing for faith completely over science, don't use a scientific principle (like the second law of thermodynamics) to make your case. I mean, you can cherry pick the scientific principles you want to believe in, but, if you're arguing for faith, how can you not say that those principles might somehow have the taint of the devil to them as well? I mean, I know people who are all about the space program--lots of physics, lots of science there--but who think evolution/dinosaurs are completely totally wrong. Somehow, shooting satellites and space shuttles into orbit, as well as humongous telescopes that can view galaxies far away, is okay, but the minute you mention carbon dating, science becomes evil liberal hooey.

Another I like to make is that maybe the Bible isn't literal but rather is metaphorical. Yeah, I know, blasphemy, but, in order for it to be effective and have lasting importance, it had to be something that could be understood. If thousands of years ago, someone would have written the earth was formed 5 billion years ago, people would've been baffled. What was there 5 billion of--much less 5 million of--that had been counted at that point? Grains of sand? Who would have understood the concept? If you throw in the planets, the galaxies, stars, evolution, etc., it would've been even more baffling. No one would've understood it, and the larger points of the Bible would've been lost, and the Bible itself would've been relegated to obscurity. [side note: I acknowledge that the Bible has a lot of nasty bits in it about the treatment of women and such that I don't agree with but won't discuss here]

Also, I think that, as a metaphorical document, the Bible has much more relevance and power than if it were literal. Literally, a document thousands of years old has no use for us in our modern society; however, metaphorically, we can examine it and see where it has use in our lives. The biggest metaphor I see in the Bible is the concept of being "born again." When Christ says that his followers "die" from the lives they've and are "born again" as a follower of Christ, it's all a metaphor, symbolism. When you are baptised, you're being "cleansed" and emerging as someone new in Christ. Again, metaphor, because there are no literal physical bodily transformations that are happening here. I discount none of it; I do see the metaphor as much more powerful than the literal (much in the way that I see the great works of fiction having more truth and power in them than any true story).

This, in turn, takes me back to an infallible God. Someone reading this (for example, a fundamentalist Christian conservative) might say, so, you don't believe the Bible is correct and the literal word of God, so therefore you think God is fallible. Um, no. I would say that we are fallible. We have this Bible, this word of God, but we don't understand how to read it, and we're small-minded enough to believe that what he's telling us is what it literally says. I say this: God is bigger than the Bible. He's infinite, the universe is infinite, and there has to be more to things than just what is printed on a several inch thick stack of papers. He [I use "He" for simplicity, not for suggesting God's male] gave us brains to discover where we are, where we were, where we can go.

And, lastly, I don't think that God wants faith to restrict us, to be close-minded to new discoveries. That, to me, sounds like the work of a desperate man trying to hold onto the waning power he has, not an infinite all-knowing God. Sure, you can believe that dinosaur bones are a trick of the devil, but can't you go even further and say that perhaps the Bible itself is the trick of the devil? Wouldn't that be the most deceitful trick of all--to use what is purportedly the word of God to undermine us? You could say that George W. Bush, Christian that he apparently is, was sent to us by God, but you could also say that he is an agent of the devil. Wouldn't that be another great act of deceit--to use someone claiming to be a Christian to deceive Christ's followers? Ludicrous, perhaps, but, if you were being tricked by a master, how would you know?

I think the thing I'm getting at in this long--laborious for you I'm sure--post is that perhaps dinosaurs, evolution, and the Bible can all exist together, that maybe all these things are true even though that seems paradoxical. T. Rex blood and tissue? That's pretty cool, God.

Points lost

I lost some other points I was discussing (damn you, Blogger!), but here are some other things I've been thinking re: Schiavo. Living wills and the right to die are being discussed much with this case, but there are some other things that I think are being missed here.

--The damage that eating disorders can do. Ms. Schiavo is in the condition she's in from complications resulting from an eating disorder. Eating disorders don't get much press anyway. What's considered physically beautiful in a woman--particularly, what the ultra-thin celebrities, heroin chic fashion models, and airbrushed magazine photos reflect--and shown repeatedly to young women everywhere is a cause of such eating disorders. Such discussion might cut into the huge profits reaped by perpetrating this unrealistic image 24/7.

--Stem cell research. It got a lot of press when Christopher Reeve passed. Could stem cells help someone in a persistent vegetative state? I don't know the answer. Is anyone discussing this?

These are two substantive issues that we could be talking about in regards to this. We could also talk about the hypocrisy and shamelessness of Republicans, but that applies to just about any issue.

Err on the side of life

This "err on the side of life" nonsense concerning the Schiavo case coming from right-wing politicians and particularly Bush makes me ill. Why, oh, why couldn't we have erred on the side of life before launching a disastrous war in Iraq that has killed 1700 soldiers (US and others) along with 100,000 civilians. No, despite concerns and objections from a good deal of the world, we had to get in there because of the tons of WMD's, the nuclear mushroom cloud that was 45 minutes away, Saddam was a very bad man, etc. If we would have waited--erred on the side of life--maybe considered the points of view of our allies, worked to an agreement to either not start a war or have broader support, even come up with a reasonable plan for what we were actually going to do, we could've maybe saved lots of live (not to mention our respect).

Bush has never erred on the side of life. This war, coupled with his death penalty killing spree as Texas governor (I think he's the governor with the most executions ever), makes him a person who has sat over a lot of dead bodies while in office. We used to call people like this sociopathic murderers, but now we call them President and people we want to have beers with. Unbelievable.

Pro-life philosophy

I'm not going to say much about the Schiavo case specifically here. I find it interesting, though, that the pro-life side seems to be on the side of keeping her alive in a vegetative state.

I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of people who identify themselves as pro-life also identify themselves as Christians. As such, they believe that, after death, there awaits a heaven, a place that is with God and Christ, as long as, in this life, you've consciously made the decision to accept Christ as your savior (unless you're unable in your life to make that conscious decision--say, if you're an infant, you automatically get there). To me, it would seem that these pro-lifers, being Christians, would be in favor of letting her die because a better place awaits her and there's nothing left for her in this world other than being in an ongoing vegetative state. It would be merciful to allow her to go there now instead of her existing in some sort of life/death limbo until she dies (which, for me, always raises many questions like, if there is an afterlife, where is the soul if the body is alive but the brain isn't?).

It would seem to me that, in cases like this, atheists would be more for keeping her alive then allowing her to die because they don't believe in an afterlife. There's nothing beyond this life, so hang on to it as long as possible. In Ms. Schiavo's case, the consensus seems to be she has no chance of ever recovering, but as long as you're alive, there's still some chance no matter how remote, no? And, if you're an atheist, you might cling to this chance, because in death there is nothing.

The pro-life philosophy, to me, isn't much of one as it's practiced commonly in this country. Sure, they may be against abortions, but do they care about the quality of life and love experienced by newborns and their parents, and are they willing to give of themselves (their time, resources, and tax dollars) to provide adequate support systems for them? Are they against the death penalty? Are they against wars which kill thousands of innocents? We know what the answers are here (in general--some pro-lifers are genuinely against all killings, but they are in the minority). The pro-lifers aren't for life; they're against abortion, and apparently, against allowing someone in a vegetative state to die. I could have more respect for their position if it were truly about defending all life (and let's not forget the Bill Hicks joke that, if they were truly pro-life, they should be blocking the entrances to cemetaries instead of abortion clinics).