Do We Humanists “Worship” Darwin?

Remember, “If you ask the wrong questions, you never have to worry about the answers.”  This is one of those unanswerable questions because there are so many definitions of “worship” that there is no definition for “worship”.  The Old Testament Jews had many prophets (Major and Minor Prophets) but they didn’t “worship” any of them.  The New Testament tells of John the Baptist as a prophet, but he was not worshipped.  Jesus was worshipped as being both a man and a god even though he never wrote anything.  However the Muslims treat Jesus as a prophet and not to be worshipped.  Muslims claim to worship only Allah, yet they worship the words of Mohammad and Mohammad is raised to a level where no “graven images” are allowed of him – just like the Old Testament has a commandment against “graven images” of their worshipped god.  The Buddhists tend to almost worship the words of Buddha and some Buddhists do worship the Dali Lama.  And Hindus worship many gods.

Rather than ask if we Humanists “worship” Darwin, perhaps we would do better to ask ourselves, “Do we place undue emphasis on Darwin?”  There is no question that Darwin was a ground-breaker and a leader in changing the paradigm from contemplating things of an intellectual or religious model to basing beliefs on observation and predictability.  And it is evident, more so in the United States than other countries, that many people still would rather base their beliefs on supernatural models rather than on the scientific model.

Although Darwin was very instrumental in promoting the scientific model, he wasn’t the only one.  There were other ground-breakers who came before him and after him.  Spinoza was a ground-breaker in basing things on observation.  With the new observatory at his time, the academic community started basing their study and beliefs of the structure of the universe on observations through telescopes rather than using intellectual models of the universe.  The same with Galileo and Copernicus.  And these men, some would say, were responsible for the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment which got Western society out of the grasp of the Catholic Church as the sole source of Truth.  A good example of such a ground-breaker in the 20^th Century would be John Dewey.  He did a great deal of ground-breaking in the realms of philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, sociology, and education by observing the dialectical process in all these areas. 

And today, there are many scientists who are breaking ground in the workings of the mind through observations of functional MRIs (fMRIs) so that instead of dealing with intellectual models of the mind like Freud, Jung, James, etc. had to do, scientists are now basing their models on observations.  Scientists like Pink, Pinker, Gardner and many others are coming out with new deductions of the workings of the mind from observations at a dizzying rate today. 

So although Darwin should be exalted as a special person, I’m not sure that he should be exalted above these other ground-breakers.  I personally don’t feel that we should even define evolution only by what Darwin has said.  There have been so many new ways to observe through carbon dating, DNA, genomes, fMRIs that I’m sure that if Darwin had been able to study and use these tools, he would be using different terms and phrases for his observations.  We need to allow Darwin the opportunity to grow and “evolve” his own theory of evolution.  We should quote Darwin when he says something that is a neat way to say it, but we should not quote him as an authority.  Not today.  To allow his words to become cast in stone as if from a mountain does him great disservice. 

And we should never allow the Extreme Right to use the term “Darwinism”.  There is no such thing as Darwinism.  Whenever the extremists use the phrase “Darwinism vs Creationism” they are framing the discussion in an unfair way.  The issue is “Science vs Creationism”.  There is Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. but there is no such thing as Darwinism.  Darwinism is not a religion, Darwin is not a person who is worshipped, and Darwin’s words are not to be quoted as an ultimate authority. 

I, personally, am a little uncomfortable with proclamations of “Darwin Day”.  I would feel more comfortable with “Science Day” and I would be for holding that on Feb 12 in honor of Darwin’s contribution, among many, to the science model of obtaining knowledge.  The Science Model is so much more than Darwin, and even more than Evolution.  The Science Model also includes observing the universe, observing the microscopic world including atoms and sub-atomic elements.  It includes observing the body, observing the development of life in the womb, observing the mind, and even observing the climate changes around the world.  All of these, and more, are allowing us to build our knowledge based on observations rather than theoretical or religious models.  And to me, all of these ground-breakers should be exalted and revered. 

David Kimball

A Humanist’s View of the Debate of Ham on Nye

 This week, there was a debate of Biblical proportions.  Actually the debate wasn't as grandiose as the controversy surrounding the question, “Should Bill Nye participate in a debate with Ken Ham?”  (Also known as the “Ham on Nye” debate.)  Since the debate has already happened, that question is moot. 

It is no secret that the Fundamentalists, religious as well as political, have a skill of framing issues to their advantage.  I think most of them would even admit to it and then smirk in a self-congratulatory way.  Just as pollsters can shape a “survey” by the language of the questions, extremists shape a discussion by framing the tag line.  In this case, the tag line became “Darwinism vs Creationism”.  The problem here is that the issue doesn’t involve “Darwinism”.  I’m not even sure as there is such a thing as “Darwinism”.  There is Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc.  But these are all religions.  There is no religion called “Darwinism”. 

There is a saying that “If you ask the wrong questions, you never have to worry about the answers.”  And that is true in this case.  If you frame the questions and the issue in terms of Darwinism vs Creationism, the extremists don’t have to worry.  Actually instead of “Darwinism”, it would be more accurate to pit “Science vs Creationism”.  There have been so many scientific methods of discovery since Darwin that cannot be put into “Darwinism”.  We should not be quoting Darwin to try to push the point.  With carbon dating, DNA, Genomes, fMRIs, etc. Darwin himself would be talking a different language today.  We should not put him in a box and insist that everything he said back then is just as true as today.  We should not be saying that Darwin wouldn’t have evolved his idea of evolution over this time of great discoveries.

But the issue is still wrong even if it becomes “Science vs Creationism”.  This is because Science deals with knowledge based on what is True and Not True.  Creationism deals with the story of Creation and so deals with Truth – of which there may be many.  So the issue becomes “Should (or Could) Creationism be presented as Science as if it were True?”  This is proper framing.

As Humanist, there is no problem with teaching Creationism as a myth, or as ancient literature.  Just as there is no problem with teaching the story of Pandora’s Box and extracting some Truth from that story.  But we wouldn’t even consider teaching the Roman, or Greek, or Norse, or Hindu myths as Science.  And so another important question, properly framed is “What is the difference between the Creation myth and the myth of Pandora’s Box?” 

This is framing the issue that puts the responsibility onto the Fundamental extremists rather than the Scientists. 

It’s interesting to note the difference between the acceptance of evolution in the US versus other countries.  In Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden, acceptance of evolution topped 80%.  Only about 40% accept it in the US.  In this study, the only country lower than the US was Turkey.  Fifteen countries were ahead of the US.  The reason is because of the impact of the extreme Fundamentalists in our society. 

Even after the Supreme Court has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be taught as Science, there have been creeps of Creationism into the school curriculum.  Louisiana has a law, the Louisiana Science Education Act, (a misnomer if there ever was one) which allows teachers to bring in unregulated supplemental material to “critique” evolution.  Zack Kopplin, in The Guardian, quotes Senator Ben Nevers, who sponsored the bill, “scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory.”  (Notice the framing of “Darwin’s theory” rather than “Science”.)  Copycat bills have snuck into other States such as Tennessee.  Already, in four States in this year, 2014, there have been bills that promote creationism or attack evolution – Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Dakota.  And of course Texas is doing a re-writing of history and science to present the extremists’ side.

As Humanists, we need to be aware of these creeps (double entendre intended) and make sure that this does not happen in our State or School District.  According to the same Guardian report, 13% of schools across the country have biology teachers who are not teaching evolution but are teaching creationism instead.  And perhaps worse, another 60% are avoiding both to avoid problems. 

I’m sure that this debate didn’t change anyone’s mind on the issue.  Debates seldom do.  And this was a debate, not a dialogue.   They were not trying to learn from each other (or have others learn).  So neither Ham nor Nye “won” the debate.”  However, according to a Christianity Today poll, 92% of the Christianity Today respondents felt that Bill Nye “won”. If nothing else, Nye has lit a torch to shine a light and show the believers in Science how great the problem of non-critical thinking is in our present society and especially in our schools.

I would like to ask this question:  As someone who does not have any kids in my local school, who should I call to find out what is being taught in my local school?  How should I phrase my questions?  Is there transparency in our school systems which will allow an outsider to peer in to see what is being taught?  Comments would be appreciated.

David Kimball

Humanitarian NGOs are Grassroots Organizations

First, a definition of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from the NGO.org site:  “A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level. Task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of service and humanitarian functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies and encourage political participation through provision of information. Some are organized around specific issues, such as human rights, environment or health. They provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements. Their relationship with offices and agencies of the United Nations system differs depending on their goals, their venue and the mandate of a particular institution.”

Here in the US, we seldom use the term NGO unless we are referring to the work of international NGOs in foreign countries.  We typically use the term non-profits but there is a difference.  NGOs, in their Mission or Charter are specifically designed to improve and better society.  So while a symphony would be considered a non-profit, it would not be an NGO. 

Many people recognize many of the large NGOs such as Amnesty Internation, Girl Scouts/Girl Clubs, International Red Cross/Red Crescent, etc.  Oxfam is one of the world’s largest NGOs providing relief aid especially in times of disasters such as earthquakes and floods.  Their American center is here in Boston.  NGOs may also consist of organizations that do not deal with people in society directly but may be think tanks or Foundations providing resources to active NGOs.

But even the large NGOs started out as small, grassroots organizations on a local basis.  Often the NGOs start out filling a need in society that they find lacking in government actions.  Because they are non-governmental, they can often perform services in foreign countries where government graft or corruption or ineptitude would not be able to provide it.  However, often NGOs will work in cooperation with governments and will often try to obtain government assistance in order to increase their effectiveness. 

NGOs are responsible for the tremendous progress in the UN’s Millennium Development Goals from the year 2000 to 2015.  Many of these eight goals have already been met, and those which are not met have seen a great deal of progress.  There are over 25,000 NGOs and many of them are aligned with these eight goals of eradicating poverty and the problems associated with the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).  For example, the number of people existing in extreme poverty – less than $1.25 a day – has been more than cut in half since 1990.

I would like to relate a story about one of the greatest successes in our lifetime and the role of one NGO starting at the grassroots level:  The Polio Plus program.  Back in 1985, Rotary International (RI), an NGO with districts and clubs in almost every country, decided to eradicate polio throughout the world.  Rotary started out as a small group of business professionals meeting together.)  Because they had clubs in every country, each club was responsible for administering the oral vaccines in their area.  Almost every club would have one or more health professionals who would oversee the local programs.  These programs were all local so that it was NOT a matter of “The West Knows Best” with medical troops storming in from the US or other industrialized countries.  Each was a grass roots program in their local area.

In a short amount of time, this program began to spread and became very successful.  So successful that the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) noticed it.  WHO asked Rotary to collaborate and expand the program to include not only polio, but oral vaccines for another five major childhood diseases:  measles, tuberculosis, diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus.  At this time, the name of the program became the Polio Plus program.  Soon the program also included other partnerships which worked together to provide new equipment for storing and transporting vaccines, laboratories and health clinics were formed to deal not only with the administration of these vaccines but also to track other health problems, etc.  This became then the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. 

This program has become so successful that polio is now considered 99% fully eradicated with only four countries reporting cases of polio.  This all began with the idea from one grassroots organization, Rotary, and then the collaborative and cooperative efforts of the WHO and many other grassroots partners, as well as many cooperating governments.  This program was also instrumental to attaining the MDG Goal number 6:  Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. 

Although NGOs are not governmental, that does not mean they are always anti-government.  They are often able to work with the governments in identifying and addressing specific local needs and assisting the cooperating governments in the administration of these “make society better” programs. 

As Humanists, we should pay attention to these humanitarian success stories and even their failures so that we can learn lessons as to how one can think globally but act locally for the most effective spreading of our Humanistic values. 

As a note, I should add that often anti-theists object to NGOs because many of them may be religiously based.  That may be true, but then they are considered religious organizations are not NGOs as true NGOs are only for the betterment of society and not the conversions of the people in a society.  Many of the NGOs who are religiously based, like the Quakers, Catholics, etc. are involved only in helping society.  It is much like it is here in the States with our Baptist hospitals, or Catholic hospitals, or YMCAs, or Jewish Community Centers or even Muslim Community Center (like the one that caused such a stir near the Twin Towers site in NYC).  These are for the betterment of society and not to propagate a particular belief.  (However, one does need to be aware that sometimes the religious influence is prevalent and should be brought out in the open as a matter of transparency. ) 

Any political movement, or economic movement, or social movement trying to right the wrongs in our present society must take into effect the workings of the civil sector as well as the government sector (and also the business sector) or it is shortchanging itself.  The power and effectiveness of these 25,000 grassroots organizations are a force to be reckoned with when trying to change society and/or to administer humanitarian aid. 

David Kimball

Modern Day Shamans

Many of us have an image of shamans as people, usually in a pre-literate society, who would have an apparent resource pool of knowledge and/or wisdom to be shared with the rest of the immediate tribe, culture, or society.  These might be the Native American medicine men, or the shamans of Northern Europe before the periods of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.  They might be called on to know the use of certain medicinal herbs and vegetation, or they might be considered the bridge between the regular society and the supernatural world that was not known to the ordinary members of their society.  And most of us feel that today, with the knowledge explosion that we have experienced, that the shamans have gone the way of the Dodo bird.  But that may not necessarily be the case.

In a previous blog, I mentioned a contemporary model of the mind as being really two minds – the rational mind (prefrontal lobes) and the non-rational mind.  The non-rational mind being a poor name because, just like the word “athism”, it says what it does not include rather than what is included or believed.  (The non-rational mind is not the same as an irrational mind which is a malfunction or a lack of development of the prefrontal lobes.)  The non-rational mind is sometimes referred to as the intuitive mind, or the creative mind, or the emotional state mind, or the emotional-reaction mind.  Each of these is included in the non-rational mind, but is limiting when used singularly considering the multiple functions that are really included.  (I will use the term “intuitive mind”.)

The language of the rational mind is science, math, logic, etc. and is designed to reveal that which is True or Not True which leads to Knowledge.  The language of the intuitive mind is story or metaphor, and is designed to reveal Truth.  There may be several Truths in an issue and some of these Truths may actually be opposite of other Truths as opposed to Aristotelian logic.  And this leads to Wisdom. 

Stories are great ways to communicate Wisdom, but the problem comes when someone tries to pass off a story as science rather than as a story.  There is an appeal to present something as science because that indicates that it is true for everyone (except for those who deliberately refuse to accept that which is True).  A shaman in olden times would present his stories of medicine, science, and religion in such a way that it was to be accepted as True, and never questioned or examined or investigated. 

Today we still have people who try to pass off stories as if they were science and should not be questioned.  Many scientists and people who feel they are Rationalists will pass off what would be best called stories as if they were science.  Science is good at defining “What” and “When” because these questions are answered by observation and make something “scientific” by being predictable.  However to answer the questions of “How” or “Why”, we usually have to turn to stories as these are not based on observable phenomenon. 

For instance, science can identify the opposable thumbs on people and can even identify the other primates which do and do not have an opposable thumb.  However science cannot define “How” or “Why” these opposable thumbs came about.  We do not know if they came by a gradual shift away from the fingers over time and perhaps are still shifting or if they just developed originally in their current position.  And a scientist might say that the reason is “so that we could grasp a branch more securely when we were aboreals” and living in trees.  These explanations are not based on observations and should be considered stories rather than science.  It is best to say that these explanations are “As if …” rather than that these explanations are True (i.e. scientific). 

And many religions today, especially the Fundamentalists, are guilty of taking the round stories and trying to force them into the square holes of science.  The classic example is the story of creationism.  As a story trying to explain some Truth such as “Why” there is evil in the world, this story might have some benefit.  But when this obvious story is presented as science, or as True, there is a problem.  I can hear the myth of Pandora and appreciate the story describing the existence of all the Troubles and Problems in the world and the one ray of Hope that is there to conquer and overcome all these Troubles and Problems.  But I’m not going to say that it is a scientific fact and present it as science.

Some scientists and some Fundamentalists are like the shamans of old.  They present their stories but in such a way that they are not to be questioned or evaluated or investigated through the rigors of science.  Although scientists may have a depth of knowledge that we do not, we still can have the Wisdom to discern when we are being told scientific evidence, and when we are being told a story.  And since each of us, as Humanists, are responsible for our own Truths, and for our own exercising of critical analysis, we have a responsibility to discern the difference between stories and science. 

David Kimball