Speaking of Cement

In the debate over Darwinian Evolution vs. “Intelligent Design,” one thing that strikes me is that, in spite of the fact that supporters of ID claim their theory does not state that the “Intelligent Designer” is “God,” every time supporters of ID make their bid for teaching it in schools, they use the argument that refusing to teach ID is “part of the plan to eliminate God from our schools.”

For instance, I found an op-ed piece from August 9, 2005 on U. S. A. Today.com, by Utah State Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who is referred to as being “active on the evolution-education issue.” The piece contains his statement, “I believe those fighting against the teaching of intelligent design in schools have an ulterior motive to eliminate references to God from the entire public forum.” I thought ID had already eliminated such references in its bid to insert itself into public school curricula by calling itself a “scientific,” theory, one that does not define the name or the nature of the so-called “Designer.”

So, is Intelligent Design just another name for Creationism, which at least is honest enough to come right out and make the claim that life was created by “God?” If ID is supposed to be a “scientific,” (not relying on supernatural explanations) theory, then how is not teaching it trying to do anything whatsoever to “God?”

Also, he states that, “If you talk against Darwinian evolution in the classroom, you immediately incur the rage of those who don’t want God discussed in any way, shape or form.” This seems to assume those to be the only two options, but there is a difference between talking against evolution and advocating for belief in a god. One could take a stance against Darwinian evolution without thereby needing to resort to a god. The fact that Buttars, and the whole lot of the ID cohort, can’t seem to find any other explanation can be attributed to no more than a lack of imagination.

At least Eric Von Daniken was creative enough to find ancient spacemen in our lineage. If one feels compelled to stick with something more human-like, then how about back to the old goddess religions, which make more sense, since females are traditionally and intuitively recognized as the creators of life? The Earth Mother or Spider Woman could be alternatives, as could any of the traditional Greek or Roman gods, and I’m sure those with more imagination could devise any number of explanations for the origin and development of life on this swirling, round (yes folks, it is) blue planet.

So, it seems that those who challenge evolution only incur the rage of those who “don’t want God discussed in any way, shape or form,” because they don’t want to discuss god “in any way, shape or form.” They only want to discuss god in their way, their shape, their form, as the only other possible explanation in the absence of Darwin.

Buttars goes on to say that, “in this tremendous effort to support Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, in all these “mountains of information,” there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man… There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.”

I don’t know where this man got his “education,” but he is woefully lacking in knowledge. He clearly either has not studied the fossil record, or he doesn’t have the ability to understand the similarities between the fossils of pre-human creatures and ourselves, although a reasonably bright child could be expected to recognize the connections. His statement, “The trouble with the “missing link” is that it is still missing!” is indicative of the woeful state of this man’s scientific understanding. We do not expect to find that one fossil that is exactly halfway between apes and men, but we have enough transitional fossils and other evidence to put ourselves together with them on a family tree.

Sometime back, I made an attempt to construct my own family lineage on my father’s side. In this attempt, I found names and places that connected me to people long gone. But I also found many gaps, many places where I was uncertain which name belonged in that space between great-great grandfather and great-grandfather. However, I found other evidence, a place and date of birth, a marriage to someone who is known, so those missing links did not invalidate my connection to my ancestors. I may not have a name or a picture, but I know they existed because I know who their father was and I know who their daughter was. I am comfortable inferring their existence, and my descent from them.

Buttars thinks, “It takes an enormous leap of faith … to conclude that man evolved from ape without any empirical fossil evidence.” Despite his claim to the contrary, science does not rely on “faith,” but on evidence. And beyond the plentiful fossil evidence there are also other kinds of evidence. There is the evidence found in behaviors that are similar between apes and humans. There is the evidence found in DNA, which is remarkably similar between apes and humans; in fact, genetically we are closer to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee is to gorillas. There is the evidence in cultural achievements such as the ability to use tools, once thought of as the mark of humanity. There is the evidence of patterns of migration, not just what fossils are found, but where they are found, and using these we can trace the emergence of man in, and the migration of man out of Africa. We don’t find man in other parts of the world until after we became human in Africa. Only if you can ignore all these kinds of evidence, just pretend they don’t exist, then you are left with the statement, “there is no evidence.”

My mom and I were once discussing why I believe in evolution and why she believed in the bible version of creation. And she asked a good question, “Well, then how do you explain all those fossils?” Well, yeah, how do you explain them? Because you can’t just wish them away.

The last quote from Buttars is, “That said, could it be that the reason they can’t find the missing link is that human evolution didn’t happen at all?” I read a statement like that and I just have to wonder if maybe he isn’t right…

One of the leading proponents of ID is William Dembski. The way he explains the fundamental (pun intended) claim of ID is that “there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” He uses Mount Rushmore as an example: “What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence.”

But the bible claims that god created not just life, but everything, including the earth itself. I guess there should logically be a difference between what we’d expect to find in an object designed by humans and an object designed by a god, but since Dembski seems to be using the same criteria for both, we’ll stick with his analogy, (although actually, he really didn’t specify the exact nature of the characteristic features or patterns that proves design of Mt. Rushmore).

Mt. Rushmore is obviously designed because it bears a mark of human design, it looks like us writ large, but only when juxtaposed next to other mountains that have not been so carved. If every mountain had the same types of shapes we would not be able to look at any one of them and find anything that would distinguish it from all others so that we could say, “That looks like it was designed by humans.”

The same should be true of god’s designs; using the same criteria, we should not be able to detect such god-designed objects because supposedly he created everything and so everything should look “designed.” The problem that occurs when everything looks designed is how would we distinguish something that wasn’t? What would we look for that would set apart those things that were designed from those that were not?

If god created (designed) everything, then how can Dembski pick out any one feature from all others and distinguish design in that one feature? Shouldn’t every feature show evidence of design? If god created everything, how could Dembski look at any mountain or rock or canyon and ever see anything that could be due to “merely wind and erosion?” And if anything can possibly be caused, or changed, by merely wind and erosion, that is, by natural forces, then where does he draw the line between what can be caused or changed by natural forces and what must be caused or changed by something else?

If something created by god shows evidence of such creation, then every single thing should bear such evidence, with no exceptions. That being the case, using Mt. Rushmore as an example wouldn’t be useful because it is a feature that shows human intervention in contrast to everything else around it. With god’s creations there shouldn’t be anything that would distinguish one feature from any other in that respect. But one must be able to draw such a line if there are supposedly distinguishing characteristics of those things that were intelligently designed. Confusing.

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything here. I’ve been painting. My son, Mike, bought a condo, his first home of his own, and my mom and I have spent a lot of days there while he’s been at work. We’ve been sanding, washing, priming and painting every wall (and a couple of the ceilings) in the whole place. I realized it’s a lot bigger than it looks. Exhausting. In the middle of this project, the monsoon season hit and we find out there are leaks… leaks in the rooms we just painted! He’s on the lower floor, so I wouldn’t have thought this would be a problem, but HAH! that’ll show me. Apparently the roof caused some of the leaks and the old, worn wax toilet seal in one of the condos above caused one in the kitchen. Dammit!

So while Mike has been dealing with the HOA, the maintenance crew, the owner of upstairs, et. al., I took a break and went over to my daughter’s to help her paint her bedroom. What is it with my kids and paint? Kathy is doing an Egyptian style bedroom. This is quite a transition from the floral wallpaper of the past. Wallpaper is a bitch to get off. We used a steamer, though, so we did eventually remove the last of it. In the process, since it was hovering around 115 degrees in Phoenix, we created a nice little sauna for ourselves, a distinctly bad idea in summer in Phoenix. After surgically removing the last shards of paper from the walls, we had to apply one coat of primer, one coat of base and three different glazes. Took four days to complete the job. I must say, it looks very cool.

In between paint jobs, I’ve kept busy writing letters to assorted editors:

Echo Magazine
June 17, 2005

Editor- A letter to the editor published in the June 2 issue reminded us that the proposed action of the Arizona legislature to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The writer asks, “Do the proponents of this bill read the state or federal Constitutions?”

I submit that, unfortunately, they apparently actually did read those documents, and they found, to their horror, that what they’d been taught in school is true! Those documents really do guarantee equal rights to everyone!

Needless to say, they sprang into action. They realized they must work quickly before some “activist judge” somewhere decides to read the same documents and interpret them to mean that “equal rights” really means equal for everyone.

What they’re trying to do, before that happens, is to change the Constitution of the United States, as well as state Constitutions so that discrimination would no longer be “unconstitutional.” The right to discriminate would be written into our Constitution(s).

Speak out now! Don’t let the voices of bigotry be the only ones heard.

June 17, 2005
Editor
Arizona Republic

A writer seems worried that “determined activists” are trying to “redefine marriage.” Let me clarify: “Determined activists” are using the courts to try to claim the legal rights promised by the Constitution, equal protection under the law and the right to due process. They know that our Constitution clearly promises this; that’s why they are in such a panic to get it changed real quick, before some “activist judge” decides to read that document and interpret “equal” to mean equal for everybody.

Those whose goal is to deny others the rights they enjoy cannot support doing so by logic, so they make vague references to some sort of “threat” to the family, to society, to our collective morality. They never come out and say exactly what the “threat” is, only that if we don’t rescind the rights of some Americans, marriage will be “redefined.” They do understand one important thing; the power to define is the road to ultimate power.

The problem with that argument is that marriage has been “redefined” from state to state and throughout history. If they read their own Bibles more carefully, they might find that many of the men in there had multiple wives. One of the same sections that supposedly warn against homosexuality also makes it fine to turn your virgin daughters over to potential rapists. They pick and choose the few verses that seem to support their position and they conveniently ignore those that would require them to sacrifice goats in their kitchen. They point to church doctrine to support writing gay people out of our collective social contract, but ignore their own rules on issues of birth control, divorce, in-vitro fertilization, remarriage… They don’t want to “redefine” marriage, but they do want to “redefine” our rights as Americans.

July 9, 2005

Editor, Echo Magazine

They Know Not What They Do

Reported in Buddy Early’s column, Len Munsil’s comment about Governor Janet Napolitano was that she “is trying to walk a fine line – declaring her opposition to same sex marriage, while promoting (gay equality) in any other way she can think of.”

That’s a very telling statement, isn’t it? The party line for CAP and the holier-than-thou church groups seems to be that they don’t hate gay people, they’re not trying to hurt anyone, they are only trying to “protect marriage.” They always say this with that ‘sweet,’ strained half smile, the raised eyebrows, the wide eyes, the tilted head and the expression of concern one uses when trying to explain to a child why he simply must eat his broccoli “because it is good for you.”

At a protest downtown, one apparently sincere young woman from CAP came over to explain this to us. I must note here that she was unaware that 1,049 federal laws are attached to marriage; when I told her that, she did show the beginnings of understanding the inconsistency between not wanting to hurt gay people and denying them marriage. I know it made her stop and think.

I wonder if most of them really don’t get how being denied marriage hurts gay people legally. And I wonder if they really listen to the statements of their leaders. Because if it is true that all they want is to “protect marriage” from what they see as a threat, then shouldn’t they be doing exactly what Munsil derides Napolitano for doing (opposing marriage while working for equality in every other way)?

I don’t know what the rest of the rabid CAPpers really want, but the statement by Munsil makes it very clear that his goal, at least, goes far beyond keeping gay couples from being able to marry, they want to deny gay citizens all rights, all protections, all benefits, except the right to pay their taxes, follow the laws, be content with second-class citizenship, sit down and shut up. If the rest of them are more like that young woman, maybe we need to focus on educating them about the legal harm they’re doing.

July 9, 2005

The Arizona Republic

Editor-

A few months ago, PBS planned to air an episode of the children’s show “Postcards From Buster,” depicting a New England family that makes maple sugar. A lot of folks, including the Secretary of Education, went so nuts over this that the episode was shelved. Why? The family consisted of a lesbian couple and their children. The whole thing was just moronic. They weren’t planning to air a live sex act on TV; they planned to show kids how to make maple sugar.

Now someone writes complaining about The Republic featuring a couple who enjoy movies. Again the claim is that showing such people will harm children. I think the problem is not that they’re afraid kids shown depictions of lesbian couples will be exposed to some kind of lecherous pornography, but that they won’t. They’re afraid the kids will see a couple of women who love their kids, who run a home, who make maple sugar, who like movies. They’re afraid it might be hard to justify their own homophobia if they’re confronted with portrayals showing gay people in anything but a horrible light. Squeeze your eyes shut real tight, stick your fingers in your ears and say “La, la, la” real loud so you won’t see or hear the sight and sound of a normal family.

August 2, 2005

Re: Embrace religious freedom or lose it

Editor-

The statement, “Freedom of religion, not from religion” translates as, “You may choose any belief system you want, as long as it involves belief in an approved supernatural being: if you do not hold such belief yourself, we have the right to impose on you laws that will subject you to our beliefs.”

Marriage itself may not be a “dogma of religious fanatics,” but the conviction that they have the right to demand withholding from same sex couples the legal benefits attached to marriage is based only on religious dogma. There is no valid secular argument for doing so.

Is marriage a religious institution or a legal one? When it suits their purpose, marriage is some sort of holy institution, but then they make up reasons why there should be legal benefits attached to it. We all pay taxes that provide some of those benefits, so if religious groups get to write our marriage laws, then the legal benefits should be abolished because no group of people should be able to write laws granting themselves special rights and locking others out.

Along with my painting and letter-writing campaign, after a month-long break, the Marriage Equality Task Force began meeting again. I also took my mom to a Town Hall meeting sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, where they showed a promo for an upcoming documentary film, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” It’s going to be very good; go see it when it comes out, preferably the first weekend (they explained that this is the determining factor for how enthusiastically it will be distributed). A few nights ago, Mike, mom and I went to a candlelight vigil in downtown Phoenix for a young gay man named Amancio Corrales, a female impersonator who was murdered and left in the river in Yuma a few months ago (no suspects yet).

Then there was to be a debate on radio talk show KTAR. Len Munsil of the Center for Arizona Policy and Glen Stanton of Focus on the Family were debating CAP’s “Protect Marriage” amendment with Steve May of HRC and David Ragan of No Longer Silent/Clergy For Justice (one of the ministers who has joined in our rallies and demonstrations). Someone from the Task Force asked me to try to get through and phone in a question about how CAP could morally justify a heterosexual monopoly on marriage. So I sat down and wrote and rewrote the question, trying to make as many points as I could in the few seconds I knew I’d have. When I got through, I asked the following:

“Thank you for taking my call. I’m the mother of a gay son who has been with his partner for 12 ½ years now and my question for Mr. Munsil and Mr. Stanton is this:

Many who argue against marriage equality make it sound like marriage is just a religious issue, but there are about 1,049 federal laws in which marriage is a factor, many concern issues like Social Security, Housing, Food Stamps, Veterans’ Benefits, Taxation. Given how many legal benefits and civil rights are obtainable only through marriage, how can you morally justify a heterosexual monopoly on that institution and therefore on those legal benefits for which we all (including my son and his partner) pay taxes?”

Steve was listening out in the car since I had the volume turned down. A couple of minutes later, he came back in and said, “Boy, you’re a troublemaker, aren’t you?” (I try to be).

I will be better about writing more faithfully, at least for a while, since the painting is about finished.