There Is No Tomorrow
There is no tomorrow
by Bill Moyers
Published January 30, 2005
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad, but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn’t know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true — one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.
That’s right — the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the twelve volumes of the “Left Behind” series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it, and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its “biblical lands,” legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.
As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
I’m not making this up. Like Monbiot, I’ve read the literature. I’ve reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That’s why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It’s why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels “which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man.” A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed — an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 — just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer — “The Road to Environmental Apocalypse.” Read it, and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be is regarded, but actually welcomed — even hastened — as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
As Grist makes clear, we’re not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election — 231 legislators in total and more since the election — are backed by the religious right.
Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: “The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land.” He seemed to be relishing the thought.
And why not? There’s a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, “to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?”
Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, “America’s Providential History.” You’ll find there these words: “The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie … that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece.” However, “[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God’s earth … while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people.”
No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, “Onward Christian Soldiers.” He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.
It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don’t know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: “What do you think of the market?” “I’m optimistic,” he answered. “Then why do you look so worried?” And he answered: “Because I am not sure my optimism is justified.”
I’m not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It’s not that I don’t want to believe that — it’s just that I read the news and connect the dots.
I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:
* That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.
* That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles, and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.
* That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
* That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.
* That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million — $2 million of it from the administration’s friends at the American Chemistry Council — to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children’s clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.
I read all this in the news.
I read the news just last night and learned that the administration’s friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is “a myth, sea levels are not rising” [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are “an embarrassment.”
I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.
I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer — pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, “Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.” And then I am stopped short by the thought: “That’s not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world.”
And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don’t care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?
What has happened to our moral imagination?
On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: “How do you see the world?” And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: “I see it feelingly.’”
I see it feelingly.
The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free — not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma — the science of the heart … the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.
Believe me, it does.
~ Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series “NOW with Bill Moyers” on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet, where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers’ remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. (c) Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
47 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
Damn! That was so true I cried. God Bless your open eyes. Thank You.
Goatness
Comment by BeachGoat — 2/15/2005 @ 5:31 pm
Interesting. I would classify myself as an evangelical Christian and I believe the rapture will occur, but I have some problems with some of your assertions…
I believe that God expects me to be a good steward of any resource that he provides me, be that money or some natural resource like oil or wood. There’s more than enough available for all, but that doesn’t mean that it should be wasted.
I don’t have a huge fear of tomorrow because scripture tells us that this is folly.
I don’t believe in evolution. It has never been observed in a lab and frankly, evolution takes more faith than a Christians faith in Gods creation.
Although I’m not convinced that the rapture will occur before the tribulation, I do believe it will occur because it’s in the bible. (There are three beliefs; pre tribulation rapture, mid tribulation rapture and post tribulation rapture).
Look at those fundamental Christians that you are maligning in your article. You make it sound like we’re all out burning oil in drums in our back yards and cutting down trees to make toothpicks. That’s not an accurate image. I would think that the vast majority try to be good stewards. But I will say that I’m not alarmed by issues raised by environmental groups because I think they’ve got it all wrong. Their science is not accurate and they have their own political ax to grind. Remember how in the 1970’s, the population explosion was going to be the end of man kind…. Well? It hasn’t been.
Christians aren’t the enemy, Satan and those who help him (even unknowingly) are the enemy.
Comment by Chuck — 2/15/2005 @ 9:37 pm
Thank you for your comments. Sorry bout chopping off the first half of the article first time through.
Ah, that’s because evolution takes millions upon millions of years. A quick and sudden change would be a revolution, by definition, not an evolution. But there is more than enough evidence to support it. As for faith to believe in it? If you view that way, more power to you. To me, evolution is a God given fact. But that’s a different story, for a different time.
I’m a God fearing Christian (Luthern to be exact, and we always have been a little crazy), but the Bible is just stories to me. It teaches you how to live. I cite John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”. That has always been a fudemental belief of Lutherns, that mere belief in Jesus and what he stands for is enough to gain you salvation. I also view God as a forgiving God, one that wouldn’t send anyone to Hell unless the deserve. I don’t believe he’d simply leave most the Earth to suffer. Seems kinda barbaric.
Well, I’m not sure if the author (Bill Moyers) intended to single out just Christians as wasteful people, or if he simply used them as one example of those he sees. The paper intent is to open people’s eyes to what is happening to our enviroment, the one I’ll have to live another 80 years (God willing) in, the one that my children and grandchildren will have to live through. I don’t want to leave them a pile of shit that they’ll curse us for. That’d be a sin worth of Hell. We live in a lustful society. We demand more and more and offer less and less to make up for it. Thats what needs to change. Even if the rapture does come soon, everyone could atleast say we tried to leave behind a good legacy.
Comment by Mofo — 2/15/2005 @ 9:51 pm
If you believe that the bible is just a collection of stories, then you should question your Christianity. Christ believed the bible and quoted it often. If you don’t believe the bible, then the only logical conclustion is that you believe Christ was insane. You can’t have it both ways.
Regarding evolution, think about an organ as complex as an eye. Simple genetic mutations can’t account for something so complex, even over millions of years. The human eye is so complex, evolution simply can’t account for its development. An eye didn’t just POP into existance in some multi-celled organism millions of years ago. The ability to detect light takes millions of cells, a brain capable of interpreting what it sees, a connection between the light gathering organ and the brain, bla bla bla. Like my 3 year old son, you can keep drilling down and asking, “why”, finding more detail.
Anyway, I appreciate your rebuttal.
Until a few years ago, I was a Christian who believed in evolution and something just didn’t click. To believe in Evolution, you must believe that the book of Genesis is just myth (even though Christ believed it was fact). It’s hard to reconcile the two conflicting beliefs.
When I did some bible studies about the book of Genesis, I became convined that Genesis is literal.. and everything else fell into place. The earth was made in 6 days, Adam and Eve, with their free wills, choose to disobey God and today we still suffer the consequences.
(By the way, did you know that Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible? Read Job 40 and 41)
Have a great night Mofo.
Comment by Chuck — 2/15/2005 @ 10:03 pm
Poo. Darned /blockquote cite=”"!
[No Problem at All]
Comment by Chuck — 2/15/2005 @ 10:05 pm
They are stories. They’re factual (as proven by history and, ironically, science) and based on real events and people. But their flaw is that they were written by man, and we all know man isn’t perfect. Jesus believed in him, but then again, he was the Son of God, so he had a little inside knowledge on all of us. I don’t want both sides of it. I want the side I believe in, and that’d be that Jesus came to teach us, and that he did, through, in part, the bible. But remember, that for thousands of years, the Bible has been used to control people and more people have died in Jesus’ name than in anything else.
Here is my personal beliefs on the matter: Evolution and Big Bang, both of which I believe in almost fully, are way too complex to happen on their own. It’d be odds you wouldn’t want to bet against. Which leads me to what I think, that some higher force out there began and oversaw the process, and played a hand in life.
Ah, well, to each his own I guess. To quote Voltaie (who hated religion), “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”. Then “God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”.
Sounds just like them. I’ll remember that for when that point gets brought up again.
No problem. Always up for a good discussion, and glad to have the vistors. But damn I need to make the reply box bigger. :D
Comment by Mofo — 2/15/2005 @ 10:25 pm
People who believe in religion literally are weak-minded fools who are ruining the earth and society for the rest of us. I hate the turn this country has taken but I’m not sure exactly how to fight it. The right is unified and the left is scattered and on the defensive.
Religion, christian fundamentalism seems to me like the dark side of the force. Remember, Luke asks Yoda, “Is the dark side more powerful?” and Yoda responds, “Not more powerful… easier, more seductive”
That’s how I view this… fundamentalism, be it christian or islamic or what have you… it preys on children and the uneducated and gets them when they don’t have the proper defenses to challenge and move past it… it traps them and self-perpetuates. It’s easy and seductive… just forget about all your worries and the problems of the woprld because the bible predicted all of this and none of it is going to matter in the end anyway cause we’re all going to heaven while the infidels fry.
That leaves the rest of us not very religious, or buddhist, or athiest, or agnostic or whatever you wanna call us… us heathens… to deal with our worries for the future and live like each day really matters and face death in the eye even if we don’t believe in an afterlife and wonder why it seems like so many people don’t give a fuck about what’s really right or wrong or what’s going to happen to the world when the rapture never occurs.
Were he alive today, I wonder which SUV Jesus would drive… and would he fill it with 87 or 93 octane?
Comment by scatyricon — 2/15/2005 @ 11:36 pm
Organized religion is destroying the world. Whoever doesn’t believe in evolution is a moron.. I hope you burn in that hell you believe in.
Comment by fatty — 2/16/2005 @ 6:45 am
It is not a coincidence that the founding fathers of our country counseled a separation of church and state, while allowing a freedom to worship without fear. They knew that the mixing of the ideological with the practical, common sense, “will of the people”, was counter productive. There is no law prohibiting a group of like minded individuals from voting along ideological lines, but it should be illegal for a President to cite, or intimate, that any decision has divine acquiescense. While it is not reasonable for the electorate to expect a President to be atheistic in his opinions or demeanor, it should still be entitled to the respect that pronouncements are not, divinely inspired. A question that has plagued me for a long time, “Where is the courage in life, when you believe that all you do will be “handled” in the end by a divine entity?” I posit that it requires more courage to face reality daily and to make the tough decisions required to foster the continuation of our species. Did God intend for us to be a finite experiment? Why allow procreation? Were we not given the ability to solve the problems we face? I am religious, and was raised as a christian. The God I believe in is not a vengeful God.
Comment by daisyraven — 2/16/2005 @ 8:28 am
It all comes down to one question. Explain to me the evolution of man’s innate nature towards morality and goodness, man’s ability to clearly justify right from wrong. Where is the evolutionary basis upon which man has inherited these fundamental values, rules of survival do not follow these paths. Explain this to me and I will remove God from my vocabulary!
Comment by John — 2/16/2005 @ 10:38 am
The funny thing about the battle between religion and science, is the fact that religion is based on one thing, a faith, a faith that your life is worth more than the world would lead you to believe, and this faith must be steadfast and never changing, there is no room for compromise…
Yet science is constantly changing, evolving if you will, constantly checking and re-checking, building upon knowledge from the beginnning of time, nothing is considered given unless thouroughly proven,
and theories are no more than educated guesses, the most possible solution to a problem.
Evolution has been proven, genetics has been proven, we know how things work, we are now bordering on gods ourselves. If the religious looked up from thier one book, and took a peek at what the millions of scientists (not bound by religion or race) are discovering, you might see this world in a whole new light, as the beatiful yet fragile being that it is.
Comment by morbo — 2/16/2005 @ 1:00 pm
I would like to respond to this statement from Chuck — 2/15/2005 @ 9:37 pm:
“I don’t believe in evolution. It has never been observed in a lab and frankly, evolution takes more faith than a Christians faith in Gods creation.”
You are dead wrong.
In fact, evolution HAS been observed and is well documented in many labs.
Don’t believe me? Go talk to any doctor at any hospital - ask them why some bacteria are no longer responding antibiotics. The answer: some bacteria have EVOLVED to become resistant to antibiotics. Specific genes within the bacterial genome of the resistant strain(s) have been identified, sequenced, compared to the native strain and scientifically demonstrated to confer antibiotic resistivity. Futher, because bacteria replicate on the scale of 20 min, this whole process can be (and has been) replicated, observed, and measured in the lab in real time.
If you want to discuss Creationism, then you need to acknowledge it for what it is: a religious belief taken on FAITH. It is NOT a scientific theory. Reading the bible does NOT constitute a scientific observation. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution ARE scientific theories - they represent hypotheses that are supported by observations (the very definition of a theory). If they were absolute - they would be Scientific Laws (like the law of gravity). If there were no observations to support them, they would just be hypotheses (or, guesses).
Truly - the collusion of theology and idealogy that is currently pervading our government has created a world beyond the Looking Glass that is dominated by the Thought Police. A government where unquestioning loyalty is rewarded while those who dare to live in the real world are persecuted.
I have to admit, there are times when it would be nice to be a part of the radical religious right…how blissful - to be free from the shackels of reason, logic, fact, and reality.
Comment by Matt — 2/16/2005 @ 4:06 pm
Thanks for taking the time to read my post Matt.
In your post, you countered my argument that the process of evolution has never been observed with the following statement…
I’ve heard this argument before and I have a different explaination:
The bacteria that is not responding to antibiotics has been present the whole time. The very sterile environment of hospitals has been very effective at eradicating other strains of bacteria that responds to antibiotic treatment and has thus changed the ecosystem in which these two bacteria reside. The resistent strain was held in check and its population was kept low by the stronger strain which monopolized resources.
These “super bugs” have been found in the bodies of frozen corpses that died in the 1800’s during arctic expeditions.
No new bugs are being created - we’re just killing off their competition and allowing them to thrive.
Evolution can’t happen because it would involve ADDing useful information to a genome. Mutations DO occur daily, but they result in the LOSS of information, not the addition of information. Mutations result in less healthy subjects, disease, birth defects, etc, (and it’s all brought about by sin, but I won’t go there :)
Evolution counters the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Systems in order tend to fall into disorder. Entropy.
Finally, I think that a process known as Survival of the Fitest (which occurs everywhere, daily), is often confused for evolution.
Oh, and …
… be nice. I’m an educated and reasonable person.
When you think “Evangelical Christian”, don’t picture in your mind the Benny Hinns or cooky nuts on TV. They give Christians a bad name. For the most part, you should picture Educated, Family Oriented, Prayerful and thoughtful people. TV gives us an image problem sometimes :)
You should come to my Church, you’d see how great the people are.
Comment by Chuck — 2/16/2005 @ 4:22 pm
Urg, Missed the Blockquote again!
[Third time the charm?]
Comment by Chuck — 2/16/2005 @ 4:23 pm
What about staff? There have been documented cases of watching a strain of Staff (a bacteria) evolve and resist the medications.
Ah, but Survival of the Fittest is a part of evolution. Those that evolve to fit the surroundings survive, and the ones that don’t die. Still Survival of the Fittest.
Learning. Man has learned what he needs. Whether he learned this from experience, or from what is said and taught in the Bible doesn’t matter. Man’s greatest ability is that to learn.
Comment by Mofo — 2/16/2005 @ 5:16 pm
Chuck-
Your argument for multiple populations being present is not mathematically possible. Think about the exponential function. If one population has an advantage (which you argue it does because it is able to “monopolize resources”), then it would out-reproduce the second population and eliminate it. In the case of bacteria where population doubling times are on the order of 20 minutes, this would happen incredibly fast.
No one said anything about creating new bugs. The organism is still the same organism - it has just developed a new trait that allows it to survive in an otherwise inhospitable environment.
The comment about the 2nd Law of Thermo is garbage. I’ve read several articles by various apologists regarding the 2nd Law - and, to be honest, they don’t know their ####### from their elbow in this regard. The sound bite that the religious right has latched onto here is that Entropy is always increasing. The part they leave out is the caveat about “For systems that are free from external influence…”
By the very definition, an organism competing for resources or subject to life threatening conditions (i.e. bacteria/antibiotic) is subject to an external influence.
Thanks for the invite on the church services, but I think I’ll pass…
Comment by Matt — 2/16/2005 @ 5:40 pm
This is just my opinion but this article was mostly about how dangerously the current higher ups in the evangelical faith run their belief system. They seem to base their belief on one thing and one thing alone… the acquisition of money to get their way. All this sinning to get what they want seems a little too selfish and I do not believe it is God’s will personally. They are tempting god, ignoring the teachings of Jesus, and defying the 7 deadly sins in order to, essentially, kick-start the apocalypse. It seems the evangelicals do not believe that God is THE almighty and that God doesn’t have the power to start the apocalypse on his own. To me this has always sounded like they believe that God is warring with other Gods. (Funny fact is that all evangelicals I have met had no understanding that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths all reference the former as the base of their religion and therefore have the same God, but not the same teachings.) They seem to believe that, as Christians, we must race to the apocalypse in order to show other religions that we are right. They need proof to justify their faith… that is what makes their faith weak. Why else would they rewrite the bible to make the “New American Standard” Bible anyways? Was the Bible not meshing with their plans to make money? Respect God and don’t act like your sins are EVER justified without taking the ENTIRE Bible into context. I can’t stand how most people treat their religion now… it is like they believe hurting less fortunate people is important to God. What happened to Jesus’ love?
Comment by Nick — 2/16/2005 @ 9:18 pm
Matt says…
Good point Matt.
Now quick, use your external influence to change your DNA!
Comment by Chuck — 2/16/2005 @ 9:32 pm
We’re all doomed…
We’re all doomed… “Millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is (to be) welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse.” Bugger….
Trackback by linksblog — 2/23/2005 @ 9:18 am
“Evolution counters the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Systems in order tend to fall into disorder. Entropy.”
Chuck, I don’t know if I can persuade you that Evolution is a true theory (like germ theory or gravity), but I hope to persuade you that Evolution is does not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) tends to a maximum. For example, if I have a closed flask half full of water and half full of ink, it will slowly mix. And it won’t unmix. Similarly, if draw letters on pollen grains, and line them up to spell out a bible verse in a little box, little puffs of air will the words turn into gibberish. Now Creationists say “Aha, Evolution is just like this! It’d be impossible for dna segments to spontaneously order!”
They’re wrong. If our world was that little box, or little flask, they’d be right.
But we’ve got the sun in the box with us, It’s a _large_ closed system. We can soak up energy from the sun, and then use that energy to sort the pollen grains back into words. As we use that energy, we radiate it off into space, turn food into shit, etc. We’ve increased the order of the pollen grains, but the disorder of total system (The sun, us, the pollen grains, space) has increased. Eventually, the sun will go cold. Space will get hot. We won’t be able to soak up the energy to order the pollen grains again, because we’ll be just as hot and bright as the sun is (not very). That’s called the heat death of the universe, when entropy has finally gone to its maximum.
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Comment by small potatos — 2/24/2005 @ 4:47 am
hey chuck,
i used to think evolution was difficult to see in process. how could i believe in a process that seemed logical, but whose proof seemed to end 2 thousand years ago? truth is, i was just ill-informed. i saw the proof of evolution on pbs. a spider researcher had pinned down the split of a single species of spider into 2 seperate species. while the process was ongoing, the proof was undeniable. within not so many years the ability of these 2 groups of spiders to interbreed will disappear and 2 species will have spawned from one. evolution in the flesh. a similiar split has also been documented in fruit flies in the desert of the american southwest. i know this from talking to a biology phd candidate friend of mine.
it’s easy to say that belief in evolution requires faith, but that faith is incumbant on too much laziness to acutally look into the facts. there is more scientific evidence of evolution than i can possibly bare to digest in my lifetime.
a friend of mine once explained to me that it’s fun to chant slogans. she was talking in a negative tone about anti-war protesters during the run-up to the iraq war. i realize now that she was right on another level. political discourse has been lowered to the point of simple to understand jaunty slogans. ‘evolution is an unproven theory.’ ‘he’s a flip-flopper’. etc. is what you believe a function of surveying the facts or selecting which rhyme most fits your mood?
-keep an open mind
-t
Comment by theo — 2/24/2005 @ 4:55 am
Re Chuck’s assertion that evolution has never been proved in a laboratory, can he show ANY proof that his God exists? The only thing he can fall back on is his faith. What is faith? It is what is taught to you as a child by the people who wish to control young minds. Wake up and smell the flowers, you have been hoodwinked.
Comment by Fourbrick — 2/24/2005 @ 7:37 am
Ah, poor Chuck - another deluded soul who, knowing nothing of actul science, resorts to parroting the quotes of his likeminded faithful flock. It’s a sad day when one has the chance to actually learn about any given subject (go to a library; do a search on the internet; talk to someone who has actual expertise in a given area of knowloedge) yet choses to ignore this in favor of “joys” of mental mastorbation with likeminded - and just as ignornat - cronies.
Still, let’’s take the time to dispel a few of the fallacies thus far rasied.
1) Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It has been observed, both in nature and under lab conditions. (ergo it is fact). The concept of evolution (which is simply a change in allele frequency over time) is also the best explanation of what both internal and external forces do to the genome of all creatures (ergo it is theory).
2) There is no such thing as “micro” and “macro” evolution. Evolution is simply a change in allele frequency over time. In layman’s terms, this means any change in the genetic code - duplication, deletion, addition, inversion, or transposition - due to any cause (be it replication error, environmental factors, even viral integration) is evolution. And since these changes occur, on average, about 12-20 times in every cell of every living creature, we are all evoving constantly. Mutation = change in allele frequency. Evolution = change in allege frequency. Thus evolution simply is mutation that is carried over in gametic cells - in other words, gentic change is genetic change. It happens every day to all of us. However, we only tend to see significant changes when said changes occur in our reproductive material (i.e. gametes).
3) The “blind watchmaker” analogy - and all its ilk - are bunk. Watches don’t occur in nature; they are designed. Biological and biochemical systems, on the other hand, are naturally occurring and are *never* irreducibly complex. They may seem so, in retrospect, but that is only due to human conceit. Moreover, even if a biochemical system does require a specific number of distinct interactions to reach a desired product today, it is the (current) end result of millions upon millions of replications, mutations, and specializations.
As for the “complexity of the eye” arguement, not only is the arguement itself completely wrong (creatures that never had eyes, as well as those that have lost their eyes over time - such as certain cave fish - have all the genetic data for ocular components. Indeed, quite often these same gene products end up being used somewhere else in the creature’s structure. Another arguement: what good is “half an eye”? Simply put, ‘half an eye’ (no matter how rudimentary) provides more sensory data then no eye at all. Many creatures have vestigial or incomplete eyes, such as snakes, fish, insects and crustaceans. In all cases, they function to some degree, and are advantageous enough to continue to be at least perpetuated, if not improved over time (which they may in fact be).
4) The twin myths that “no new genetic data can be created” and that “there are no beneficial mutations”. Regarding the first, genetic data has the potential to be created via either replicative mechanism error (ie. duplication, inversion, and transposition), or via genetic integration (i.e. viral DNA, plasmid DNA). Indeed, even deletion mutations can create new and functional genes., and have done so on more then one occasion. Thus the creation of new genetic data happens, and does so on a regular basis. As for the second myth, most mutations are actually neutral - they have no visible effect whatsoever. Others are harmful. However, just as many are actually helpful. For example, the CCR5 truncation mutation provides AIDS resistance in people that carry one copy of the gene per cell, and near-immunity to those who carry two copies. Negative effects: none. Other mutations have both positive and negative aspects. For example, the sickle cell anemia mutation causes an increased chance of blood clots, but also provides significantly increased resistance to malaria. There are many more examples, of course, but these two are the first to jump to mind.
Finally, I strongly suggest that the…how should I put it…relgiously inclined but scientifically-uneducated either do some research prior to commenting (using resources such as talkorigins.org), or keep their mouths shut. Otherwise, their actions will only serve to restate the obvious - that like as not, religions fundamentalists don’t have a clue about subjects they purport to understand.
Comment by Darwin — 2/24/2005 @ 7:46 am
don’t mean to be an ass, but is it possible to edit the line breaks on here so the text is readable?
Comment by indi — 2/24/2005 @ 9:36 am
Chuck,
You said,
Actually, evolution is easily observed in the laboratory, for instance when bacteria evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic. You made your statement and is completely based off of feelings. “frankly, evolution takes more faith..”
Comment by Robby — 2/24/2005 @ 9:42 am
John,
You said..
Explain to me how you know for a fact that animals are unable to justify from right or wrong?
The word, “god” isn’t the problem. It’s your concept of it. :-p
Comment by Robby — 2/24/2005 @ 9:48 am
[…] ll Moyers: Theocrats and ideologues in charge of US government. Via MetaFilter: Bill Moyers: Theocrats and ideologu […]
Pingback by /dev/random » Blog Archive » Bill Moyers: Theocrats and ideologues in charge of US government. — 2/24/2005 @ 9:50 am
Matt wrote:
>I don’t believe in evolution. It has never been observed in a lab and frankly, evolution takes more faith than a Christians faith in Gods creation.
God has never been observed in a laboratory but you still believe in him.
You believe in God because you want to, and you disbelieve in science
because you want to. What you want and what’s true have nothing to do
with each other. Open your eyes and see what’s true, even if you don’t
like it and don’t want to believe it.
Comment by uzik — 2/24/2005 @ 9:57 am
Religion was created with good intentions to basically control/keep the masses from rebelling for the most part. What is an uncontrolled ever growing massive mob of people good for if they cannot be harnessed in some way shape or form? Personally I’m scared when someone to holy is at the wheel.., they are much more likely in a tense situation to simply let go of the steering wheel and panic vs. taking destiny into their own hands.
I much prefer the company of realists.
Comment by Cal — 2/24/2005 @ 10:56 am
[…] to Ride in the 2005 Tour de France fascism is being mainstreamed? Bill Moyers: Theocrats and ideologues in charge of US government.Moyers: For the first time i […]
Pingback by » Blog Archive » fascism is being mainstreamed? — 2/24/2005 @ 12:10 pm
I think the whole point here is being skewed from the original article (though most of these are fairly interesting rebuttals) …
1. The original article says so so much. Religious aspects aside, it is EVERYONE’s responsiblity to care for the place they live. Whether or not you believe the earth was created in days or millenia is no real predictor of the apocalypse, so counting on Armageddon to end our worries of the future is just plain ignorant.
2. For those of you who haven’t read it, Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons offers a very interesting perspective on all of this. Many people relate some kind of stigma to him because of his work with the DaVinci Code; however, this book is far superior. Basically Brown posits that Religion and Science are two different approaches or languages to deciphering God, however he may be defined.
3. John - I think your biggest lesson in all of this is that Religion and Morality are not peas in a pod. Of course, the religion you believe in is bound to shape your social and cultural norms, which results in your own behavior. My point is this: When you make a decision to not do something because of fear of hell, does that really make it moral? It sounds like an act of self-interest to me (or what you might call a survival instinct). And no one is asking you to remove God from your vocaublary, anyway; just to see him in a different light.
For more on this, check out: http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-moralityandreligion.shtml
(And as an aside, though I am a slightly left wing moderate, I know multitudes of moral and ethical people who were rightly angry in this past election because somehow their “liberal” points of view were equated with immorality…talk about an unethical political platform! And anyway, you think U.S. democrats are liberal? You should check out the Europeans because many of them think our democrats are conservative!)
4. As for the evolution thing: Theo has the best argument here. There is literally just as much evidence to support evolution as there is the fact that the earth is round. Food for thought…
5. And finally, Cal makes another interesting point. It is true that early Christianity was used as a method of control and as it has developed over the years, it’s had many adaptations to suit a white male agenda. That is not to say, though, that all elements of spirituality and religious beliefs were created with that in mind. In fact it is quite the opposite. Explanations of the past and hope for the future are just as essential, if not moreso, to any society as a belief in God. For another interesting topic of debate if these become tiring, try this: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/patriotism.htm
Comment by Megsajane — 2/24/2005 @ 1:05 pm
How will all you true believers pay us back for the civilizations and natural resources you have despoiled when your rapture doesn’t come?
Do you feel no compassion? What you call “love” looks like hate and murderous fear to me.
For 2000 years you have justified your slaughters and tortures with the claim that the end is nigh. The end never comes, but the immediate self-aggrandisement you get from your hatred of others allows you to deny history and continue your obsession with destruction.
You are the ones who should look in your hearts.
Comment by Bill — 2/24/2005 @ 1:19 pm
Fixed the line breaks. New style (and new WP version) messed it up.
Thanks for the comments people.
Comment by Mofo — 2/24/2005 @ 6:34 pm
[…] Spam Software To Stop AIDS?
There Is No Tomorrow
“One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer […]
Pingback by My Big White Hairy Ass » Blog Archive » There Is No Tomorrow — 2/24/2005 @ 6:53 pm
Matt,
When a bacteria becomes resistant to a chemical, it’s not evolution, it’s adaption. The bacteria’s DNA is the same…no new information has been added. Had the bacteria evolved….it would be a cat…When a finch’s beak changes, it’s still a finch…DNA is exactly the same. When the finch changes into a giraffe….then that’s evolution. No one has ever observed this happening. For the Scientific theory to be proven true..it must be repeatable, and must be observed. Has not happened.
Comment by jwood — 2/24/2005 @ 7:36 pm
Uhhh… adapting is building a house to protect yourself from the elements. Having a different beak is evolution. A germ changing to be resistant to chemicals is evolution. Get your words straight.
Comment by Mofo — 2/24/2005 @ 10:06 pm
To Chuck, who said:
“The bacteria that is not responding to antibiotics has been present the whole time. The very sterile environment of hospitals has been very effective at eradicating other strains of bacteria that responds to antibiotic treatment and has thus changed the ecosystem in which these two bacteria reside. The resistent strain was held in check and its population was kept low by the stronger strain which monopolized resources.
These “super bugs” have been found in the bodies of frozen corpses that died in the 1800’s during arctic expeditions.
No new bugs are being created - we’re just killing off their competition and allowing them to thrive.”
That is evolution. The antibiotic resistant bacteria survive and reproduce. The others die off.
Comment by Kate — 2/24/2005 @ 10:34 pm
When I read a thread like this and find that so many people in the 21st century believe in a god that has never existed and that I discounted by the time I was 14 years old or so, I feel nothing but despair and despondency and I truly fear for the future generations and what they are going to inherit.
God help us all,………………………………. if only.
Comment by Robert Worrill — 2/25/2005 @ 12:14 am
Any god who gives two cares for his/her “stewards” and whether they trash or care for their specific one out of a jillion orbs of rock and water whizzing thru his/her cosmos and whether they worship him/her or not smacks of a god indulging petty vanity. Hence, an imperfect god. No, if there is a god, s/he created us to see how we’d take care of ourselves, each other and our environment. What would s/he care if we’d care about him/her? What a waste of his/her good work. You think s/he needs us to know him/her? The greatest acknowledgement would be for us to ignore god and focus on making the best possible life in the best possible environment for ourselves. THAT would show any god we really are deserving of divine grace. Maybe that’s the eternal joke we don’t get–as long as we wallow in hypocrisy and actions/inactions in his/her good name, we collectively suffer in our declining environment instead until we burn out our little temporary corner of space and all the life living on it?
Comment by weftywabbit — 2/25/2005 @ 11:36 pm
Chuck, where’d you go? Good shit, people. The thing I can’t quit thinking about is the poor children of these fundamentalists. They have no chance to disbelieve the bible.
Comment by muddy — 2/26/2005 @ 8:23 am
>If you believe that the bible is just a collection of stories, then you should >question your Christianity. Christ believed the bible and quoted it often.
Misquoted it, you mean.
(It’s true: read the Gospels, and see how much of the Old Testament quotes are partially, majorly, or entirely wrong; ex: the whole ‘virgin’ thing.)
Comment by Maru — 2/26/2005 @ 8:07 pm
This conversation has degenerated from its true intent and purpose. The fact is, the author took something that a nutjob once said… and he made this connection: since a Christian doesn’t care about the environment, and there are millions of Christians - then there must be millions of people who don’t care about the environment! For someone who claims to base his arguments on science, he doesn’t seem to have the grasp of basic logic.
The moral of the story is that “stereotypes are bad.” We learn this in grade school now - Thank God.
Comment by Brian — 3/1/2005 @ 4:19 pm
Suck it.
Comment by Baby Jesus — 3/3/2005 @ 3:09 pm
If all you can have to believe in is this life and what the world has to offer, it is a sad and short existence.
On the other hand, if in fact the real truth is that God and the afterlife are real, that’s what’s hard to face for most non-believers.
It’s alot easir to belive in whats here and now, and worry about it, and focus on it.
It’s much more difficult to have this faith you speak of.
As God say, “seek Me and you will find Me”
You will not find somone you aren’t looking for.
Bottom line, life , now is better with God and faith than without.
If not, then it’s all about who can leave the biggest pile behind.
Comment by God Is Real — 3/7/2005 @ 3:19 am
[…] Changes » The Problems with Kids Today Besides the fact that the Christian Right is going to ruin the enviroment, the future is screwed because of who the […]
Pingback by Drunk and Disorderly » Blog Archive » The Problems with Kids Today — 3/20/2005 @ 12:45 am
GodisReal: that’s the main reason for religions.
Its sad and scary to think of dying. Wait, if we believe this we wont REALLY die? Oh horray! Wait, reason and logic says there’s so reason to believe it? HEATHENS! you’re the ones who will die!
Comment by Quixotecoytoe — 4/3/2005 @ 5:45 pm
Quixotecoytoe, spoken like a true Christian, thanks for nothing.
Comment by Robert Worrill — 9/11/2005 @ 4:52 am