Why Bill O’Reilly Should be a Secularist

There’s footage all over the news of some poor guy getting hit by a car and left lying mortally wounded in the middle of the street.  The driver of the car that hit him kept going, and dozens of people walking by didn’t stop to help the hurt man or even check if he was alive.  It’s a disturbing video that begs many questions, but don’t worry:  Bill O’Reilly has the answers. 

Yes, apparently we live in an “increasingly secular society,” so we’ve all forgotten the biblical story of the Good Samaritan.  Secularism is causing us to forget what true morality means.  O’Reilly had two guests on his show to discuss this point of his: a Catholic priest and a theologian.  What, no humanist for this “fair and balanced” analysis?

Okay, so if O’Reilly’s correct, there should be simple evidence to be had.  Europe, for example, is much more secularized than America.  Some European countries (such as Sweden) boast as many as thirty or forty percent of their citizens as atheists.  American generally has less than ten percent.  So, if secularism causes immorality (or at least subtracts from the typical views of Judeo-Christian philosophy), shouldn’t these European countries be spiraling into social disorder, high crime rates, and high prison populations?  Shouldn’t we find a dramatic breakdown of moral responsibility in places where as many as a third of the citizens are atheists?

Let’s return to reality:  America is by far the most religious country in the modern world.  It beats everyone else by a mile.  The Europeans consider us all Bible-thumping kooks; they can’t understand how our politicians get away with mentioning God in public.  And yet, America also has by far the largest crime rates and rate of incarceration in the modern world.  Those countries in Europe are practically utopias compared to America in this regard.  And religion is no guarantee of morality.  Louisiana has the highest church attendance of any state, for example, and also has one of the highest crime and murder rates.  Other states with high church attendance are never in the lower brackets for crime rates.

If I thought like O’Reilly and didn’t understand causation, I might look at statistics like that and proclaim, “Religion causes immorality and high crime rates!”  That’s the equivalent of what he’s saying about secularism.  An even better analogy might be a nutty atheist out there saying that “Reading the Bible inevitably leads to witch-burning!”

Hey, guess what, O’Reilly?  No one disputes that there are good moral lessons in the Bible.  But to act as if it’s the exclusive source of morality is absurd.  Moral laws concerning crimes, altruism, and community existed thousands of years before Moses and his tablets came along, and they exist today in societies of isolated people who have never heard of Christianity.  Secularism provides plenty of reasons to be a moral person who helps out others.  Secularism brought us science.  Secularism brought us the Constitution and the first amendment.  Secularism brought us the civil rights movement.  Secularism is not selfish – selfish people are selfish.

As to those people who couldn’t be bothered to help a dying man lying in the street, maybe O’Reilly could stop blaming abstracts like “a secular society” and place the fault where it really lies:  on the people themselves.  What ever happened to personal responsibility, O’Reilly?  Moral responsibility?  Are you saying that people are too stupid and selfish to help someone on their own initiative, that they must look to a mythology to know what’s moral, that they need divine aid to be decent human beings?  It sure sounds like that, and it sure sounds demeaning and condescending.

Don’t Forgive or Forget III

In 1997 when I was eighteen, I committed a robbery and accidentally killed someone.  Because he died in the commission of another felony, I was charged with first-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-three years (of which I’ll serve about nineteen).  I refuse to forgive myself for this.  I refuse to state that I deserve a second chance.  I refuse to claim that it would not be just to keep me in prison longer.  i doubt my opinion will change.

When I say things like this, people have assumed that I’m depressed, bitter, self-righteous, angry, nihilistic, or even suicidal.  It’s understandable, I suppose.  But they’re making a mistake in thinking that my position on this is a symptom of something.  It’s not.  It’s simply a position.  I’ve come to these conclusions because I don’t know what “forgiveness” is supposed to mean.  I could be wrong, but I see it as a way of “toning down” what I did, of reaching for some sort of moral life raft.  Yes, I can live with what I did.  Yes, I think that my life still has value.  But I won’t ever be as good or moral a person as everyone out there who didn’t commit murder.  That’s just a fact.  Saying the words, “I forgive myself” won’t change reality.

My punishment was left up to a single person, within the guidelines of sentencing laws.  But surely there are plenty of people out there who think I deserve worse, or maybe even some who think I deserve less.  Maybe I even have an opinion about how much time someone in my position should serve.  Who’s right?  Certainly not me.  A convicted felon can’t choose his own punishment.  Therefore, I can’t rightfully say that I should be released and get a second chance.  I will accept what has been handed out to me as a just ruling, but how can I claim that I deserve to be released on a particular day?  What if I’d been sentenced to one more year, or three, or five?  If I had been sentenced to thirty-three years instead of twenty-three, would I’ve had the right to say, “I don’t deserve this much time?”  I don’t think so.

Because many people see this attitude as “bitter” or “negative” doesn’t make it so.  What some people call a negative attitude, I call dealing with reality.  The reality is that a day should never pass that I don’t regret what I did.  I don’t want to “get past it,” or “put it behind me.”  I don’t ever want to decrease its effect on me.

I’m perfectly capable of trying to live a productive life without “forgiving” myself.  I’m proud of how far I’ve come.  I can’t even recognize the kid I once was.  I’ll never be as selfish and thoughtless as he was.  I’ll never victimize a human being again – not because it’s against the rules, but because I understand why it’s wrong.  I’ve learned about responsibility and morality.  I’m an individual rather than a follower.  I don’t have a drug habit, a gang affiliation, or an intolerant belief.  I give ten percent of my monthly income to a charity.  I’ve earned a few thousand hours of on-the-job training.  I’m trying to figure out a way to afford taking college courses to get a four-year degree, and regardless, my attempt to educate myself is ongoing.

I’m uncomfortable saying these kinds of things, but not because of modesty.  As I said, I’m proud of how far I’ve come, and I have a continuous goal to make more progress.  But I don’t ever want to be seen as someone who is “okay” with what he did, someone who thinks he can follow a proscribed algorithm and make everything right.  There’s no algorithm for that.  Becoming a better person won’t fix anything but myself.

My Views

I never thought that posting a blog to say a few positive, nonpartisan things about Kirsten Powers would result in such an insight into how people think.  It’s amazing.  I was accused of being both a far-right conservative nut and a far-left America-hating liberal - by two people who read the exact same post!

Th point, however, is taht I never said one word applauding Kirsten Powers for her viewpoints; I don’t even agree with some of them.  So to make assumptions about my own views simply because I complimented her rationality – or because I watch Fox News – is unreasonable.  Do people even listen to what others say anymore, or do they just look for ways to validate their own preconceived notions?  Do they realize that not everyone falls into a neat little black-and-white category of either left or right?

I consider myself to be outside those categories.  First of all, I’m a fiscal conservative – more conservative than our current president, if I may say so (considering the glut of spending and pork currently plaguing Washington).  I don’t mind being called a greedy capitalist.  To call Atlas Shrugged my favorite book of all time is a vast understatement.  I think a social welfare state is repulsive.  I believe in the power of the free market, I want a tiny government, I want a flat tax and free trade, I want school vouchers, and I’m proud of the rich who are making themselves richer.  I don’t want nationalized health care.  I also think Americans have a right to own guns.

I’m a conservative on national defense.  I am utterly unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do.  I think that everyone in the world who is free or would be free is at war with fundamentalist Islam.  We’re fighting scumbags who moralize the murder of babies, riot and kill people when someone prints a cartoon about their prophet, and cheer in the streets when three thousand innocent civilians are murdered.  We battle injustice while they try to legitimize it.

I’m a patriot.  I think America is the greatest country on earth – not for any sentimental reason, but because of the facts:  America is the nation that offers the most freedom and opportunity, the nation that helps the most people worldwide, the nation that defeated Nazism and totalitarianism and freed tens of millions of people.

Other than that, I’m socially liberal.  I think it’s simply immoral to turn people into criminals and throw them in jail for “crimes” like prostitution, personal drug use, polygamy, and gambling.  I think anyone who’s against gay marriage should mind their own business.  I’m pro-choice.  I think kids should be educated about sex rather than taught to ignore it.

I’m a secularist who thinks that creationsim being disguised as science in public schools is a travesty of rational thought.  But I also think the hyper-secularists who want to remove all signs of religion from the public square are being foolish.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  We’d all do well to remember both clauses of that statement.

I don’t care about political parties or social movements.  I can spend as much time criticizing a Democrat as I can a Republican.  I see absolutely no reason to follow any dogma or listen to any authority figure – at least without examining them first and deciding for myself whether they’re worthwhile.  The only “side” I take is the side of reason.  I think we should be ruled by reason, not rules.

Prisoners and Cognitive Dissonance

I just read an excellent book by a couple of social psychologists, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.  It’s called: Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).  The subtitle is:  Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.

The authors talk about “cognitive dissonance,” which for the purpose of this article is basically the conflict a person feels when they do something bad.  They think something along the lines of, “I’m a decent, intelligent person; how could I have done something like this?”  Rather than admit they made a mistake – especially if it’s a grievous mistake that would cause them embarrassment, shame, and guilt – they find ways to reduce the dissonance by justifying the act.

For instance, if someone cheats on their tax return, they might say: “Well, everyone does it, so I’d be a fool not to.  Plus, the IRS screws us anyway, so we need to take a little bit when we can.”  Or if someone cheats on their spouse or betrays a coworker, they might say: “Well, they deserved it for being such a bastard.  I’m not a bad person.  They’re the bad person because I would never do something like this to a good person, would I?”  It’s a natural response, a coping mechanism that people have to avoid harmful feelings of inadequacy.  After all, most people find it difficult to admit that they’ve done something really stupid and/or cruel.

So rather than take responsibility, they give excuses and invent justifications.  Instead of admitting they broke the rules by running a red light, they just give an excuse like, “I was in a hurry.”  Instead of admitting that they did something awful like have sex with one of their underage students, they blame it on a frigid spouse and depression.  For making anti-Semitic remarks, they say the alcohol did it.  For drunk driving, they blame personal problems in their life.  The news was recently chock full of people reducing their dissonance about the hateful, ludicrous things Reverend Jeremiah Wright has said – they say that it’s okay because “he also says many wonderful things about love and faith in Jesus.”

Here in prison, we have quite creative methods of reducing our dissonance.  It’s rare for a prisoner to state that he is here because he broke the law, committed a felony, or victimized someone.  Instead, they say, “It’s not my fault.  He started it.  I have an addiction.  I can’t get a regular job.  I can’t finish school.  I just caught up.  I had to help out my buddy.  This life is all I know.  I have an anger problem.”

It’s rarest of all for prisoners to admit that they deserve a harsh prison sentence.  Even when they take responsibility, they usually say something like: “Okay, I broke the law, but my lawyer still screwed me.  The judge was unfair.  I don’t deserve this much time.  I don’t deserve to live without having a steak and a beer every once in a while.  The prison rules are too strict.  Maybe I’m a criminal, but I still don’t deserve this.  Even robbers like me deserve freshly-squeezed orange juice every morning.”  They’re reducing dissonance, justifying their felonies as “not that bad in the larger scheme of things.”  Prisoners avoid the notion that they may deserve a lengthy, difficult, and Spartan prison term at all costs.  Indeed, nearly every single one thinks they deserve better prison conditions and a shorter sentence.

I’ve been ranting about the need for prisoners to take personal responsibility for their actions for a while, so this book hit home for me.  It really causes you to examine the way you use justifications and excuses in your life.  I think every prisoner could benefit from reading it.  I wonder if a social psychologist has ever applied dissonance theory to prison inmates?  I think it would be an interesting case study.

Why Creationists are Delusional About the Fossil Record

No one seems to have let the creationists in on this, but the fossil record is loaded with transitional species.  Here are a few that creationists either don’t know about or choose to ignore.

1. For the evolution of human beings, we have many examples, beginning with the oldest known hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus.  There are the many Australopithecines such as anamensis, afarensis (Lucy’s species), africanus, and ghari.  There is the Homo genus: rudolfensis, habilis, ergaster, and erectus.  All of these species – at least from the standpoint of intelligence, walking upright, tool-use, and language and culture - are more advanced than modern apes and less advanced than humans.
2. Archaeopteryx is a prime example.  It had feathered wings like a bird, but it also had teeth and a tail like a reptile.  No modern bird has teeth.  This is clearly transitional between a reptile-like creature and a bird.
3. Tiktaalik is another beautiful portrait of evolution.  It was discovered just a few years ago in Canada.  It’s a 375-million-year-old fish that has the precursor structures for shoulders, elbows, and even fingers.  This is clearly a transition from fish to land animals.
4. We have a good description of the evolution of even-toed land mammals into whales, with clear transitional fossil species such as Ambulocetus natans.
5. Pikaia is a Cambrian transitional species between invertebrates and vertebrates, and there are older protovertebrates in the Lower Cambrian, as well.
6. Acanthostega, an amphibian-like creature with full gills, is a transitional species between fish and amphibians that is often described as a “fish with legs.”
7. We have a great many fossil transitions between reptiles and mammals such as the therapsids, they cyndonts, and the ictidosaurs.
8. We have an excellent picture of the evolution of the elephant, from little Paleomastodon 34 million years ago, to Gamphotherium, Primelephas, the extinct Mammuthus, to the twenty-two distinct species over the last six million years, to the modern Elephas maximus (the Indian elephant) and Loxodonta africana (the African elephant).

Of course, the creationists always say the same thing:  These are separate species, not transitional.  Perhaps they should be asked how they know this.  Perhaps they should be asked what standard of evidence they utilize for determining if a fossil is transitional or not.  Perhaps they should be asked how many such examples have to be shown before they’re willing to admit even the possibility.  Perhaps they should be asked that if the above examples are not transitional, what exactly a transitional species would look like.

There are many gaps in the fossil record, especially between closely-related species.  One reason is that times frames shorter much than ten million years are difficult to view in the geological record; there isn’t “room.”  Another reason is that fossilization is simply a rare event.  But a plenitude of transitions between large groups of animals is present.  The supposed rarity of transitional species in the fossil record is a myth.  Don’t ever let a creationist try to tell you otherwise.

Why We Should Stop Whining About the Oil Companies

It was inevitable.  Some of the rich oil executives testified before Congress, and immediately the smirking, self-righteous, moralizing looters appeared all over the airwaves: “Those rich bastards are fleecing us.  They’re greedy pigs trying to fill their bank accounts.  They don’t care about anything but money.  They’re making obscene profits while we suffer.”

Most unbelievable was this one: “They’re making too much money.”

No, most unbelievable is the fact that there are many Americans out there who wouldn’t understand my shock and disgust at such a statement.  “What are you saying?” they’d ask.  “They are making too much money.”

What does that even mean?  How do you make too much money?  Who is going to dictate how much is too much?  Who’s going to decide that it’s wrong to make more than a certain dollar amount in a year?  If you’re making money, you’re earning it, and the phrase “earning too much” is an oxymoron.

Big Oil makes about ten cents of profit for every dollar they sell.  That’s not bad, but it’s by no means excessive, even by the sniveling standards of those who are jealous of other peoples’ success.  Big Oil makes so much money not because their profit margins are huge, but because their sales are huge.  Software companies like Microsoft make something like forty cents profit for every dollar.  How about turning your attention to them now?

Of course, we don’t need software like we need oil.  People have to drive to work.  But people also need to eat, and no one’s complaining about the high food prices.  No one’s forcing you to consume like you do.  There are choices you can make.  Fuel-efficient cards are cheap and, well, efficient.  If Americans started conserving a little bit every day, the oil companies would be forced to drop their prices.  If Americans started buying diesel vehicles, prices would also go down.  Christ, car-pooling is a better solution than asking the government to step in.  But rather than making choices about how to handle this issue, they want the government to come and burp them and make all the bad things go away – the same government who has done exactly zero to give us energy independence.  What makes you think they can do any better with regulation?

Has America stooped to putting a limit on success?  Try as hard as you want, run a profitable business, but as soon as you start to get too rich and too successful, watch out.  The mewling little babies whose only accomplishment in life is to legislate away the success of others to fill their pockets are coming for you.  You produce, they take.  You work for yourself, and they tell you that it’s immoral.  You enjoy the money you’ve earned, and they tell you that it’s your “social duty” to give it to others so they can enjoy it instead.

And then there’s Bill O’Reilly’s plan:  Any time an oil company decides to raise its prices, it must submit a written reason why to Congress.  Hey O’Reilly, suppose the reason is: “Because I want to make more profit.”  What then?  Will Big Oil have to provide a “good” reason to Congress for raising their prices?  Will they be disallowed from raising their prices without government permission?  Where do we cross the line into nationalizing the oil industry?

Here’s a simple solution:  Let’s make pricing a collaborative effort between the people who own the company and the people who want to buy the product.  Yeah, how about we pass legislation that oil companies can only charge what their customers decide they can reasonably afford?  How about every customer just goes into a store, picks out what they want, and leaves on the counter whatever amount they think is a fair price?  Doesn’t that sound wonderful?  Doesn’t that sound fair?  It won’t even be communism – we can just call it the “honor system.”

Islamic Radicalism Taught to Prisoners?

In his book America Alone, Mark Steyn speaks of prison imams teaching convicts a radical form of Islam.  Well, as an American prisoner, I’m here to set Mr. Styen straight:  There are no radical imams in this particular prison, or in any prison in this state of which I’m aware.  However, he might be interested to know that he has vastly underestimated the problem.

The imams aren’t necessary:  There are still Muslim prisoners who speak of going to the Middle East when they’re released and joining terrorist camps.  Of course most of this isn’t to be taken very seriously, but the problem is more inclusive.  The America-hating and irrationality is much more common among non-Muslim prisoners.  I know self-professed Christianprisoners who love Barack Obama’s plan of cozying up to terrorist supporters like Iran and Syria, who say that America deserved 9/11 (those secretaries and filing clerks got what they deserved, damn them), and who otherwise sympathize with Islamic terror.

Perhaps it would be better if there was a radical imam here in this prison; that would make this type of attitude more understandable.  To me, it’s a whole new kind of bad when this viewpoint is actualized simply by watching the BBC and listening to Rosie O’Donnell.

Mr. Steyn also makes the point that Islam is more appealing to prisoners because: “…a wimp church like the Congregational crowd doesn’t have much appeal to the average jailbird.”  This is most definitely true – many prisoners see Christians as pansies who turn the other cheek, and the Christian chapel services as havens for child molesters (whom most prisoners despise).  This doesn’t mean there’s an inclination to embrace a radical form of Islam as a replacement, but it does give some of them another reason to have antipathy towards “white Christian” America.

Since I quite often take the “controversial” position of defending America, I hear it all.  Guys in here have told me quite seriously that George Bush and John McCain are the real terrorists.  Standard America-hating fare, I suppose, but what’s hilarious is that these same people who are making moral judgements about Bush and McCain also tell me that Muslim extremists blowing up innocent people is okay because it’s “the only way they have of fighting a powerful nation like America.”

In other words, they’re incapable of creating anything of value themselves.  Countries like Iran and Syria produce little more than starving multitudes, subjugated women, and intolerant ideology, then use the money of hard-working Westerners who purchase their oil to prop their “economies” and fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah.  I have an idea:  Rather than resort to civilian murder to hurt a powerful nation, how about you become a powerful nation yourself?  Oops – the Islamic fascists haven’t yet accepted the fact that their religious ideology is the very thing that keeps them from rising above the level of parasites of Western markets and technology.

How about this:  If you’re moralizing the murder of babies to defeat your foe, then by comparison your foe doesn’t seem quite so bad anymore, does he?

It’s amazing.  The “military” tactics of these terrorists consist of nothing more than slaughtering civilians, exploiting the West’s tolerance and opportunity, and destroying themselves for the reward of popping seventy-two cherries.  For this, they’re called brave heroes.  In contrast, America is called evil and cowardly for using its unparalleled military might to wage the softest, most humane, politically-correct war we possibly can against a global movement bent on destroying our entire way of life.  Go figure.

Prison Story III

I’ve been loved up for eleven years now, all of them in the same prison, if you don’t count a few months in County and Receiving.  This prison is divided into eight units (not including the units in the Hole).  I was in one unit for four years, and I’ve been in my current unit for the last seven.  To the contrary of what many people think, this is rather unusual.  Prisoners are moved around in transit more than is commonly realized.  This is done when a guy’s custody level changes, for disciplinary reasons, for “racial balance,” and even conflicts of interest.  Staying in one place as long as I have is rare; I know only a handful of others like me who’ve been here the hole time. 

Add that to the fact that I don’t meet anyone new very often, and many people come and go within the space of just a few months.  As a result, my environment is one in which ninety-five percent of the people around me are strangers.  In six months, most of them will be gone, replaced by other strangers.

So last week, I was surprised to meet an old cellie who’d been shipped out back in 2001.  After leaving, he went to a couple of different institutions, was released, lived out there on the outside for a few years, and now is back for a little while.

Seven years is a long time – even I hadn’t realized how long it’s been since I’d talked to this guy.  He could hardly believe that I was still here, in the same unit, just a few cells down from the cell where the two of us had lived seven years ago.  We caught up a bit, and a few days later, he told me that he’d spoken to someone on the phone about his position in prison.  He’d made some remark about me, something like, “Well, I can’t really complain.  It could be a lot worse – I just got back and met my old cellie from 2001, and he’s been here in the same place the entire time.”

I’ve never really looked at it like that.  I’m a creature of habit, so I like the fact that every day is the same.  It makes the time in here go by a little quicker.  I have a job that I enjoy, a nice routine, things to keep me busy, etc., so I don’t really want to be shipped off anywhere as long as things are going well (as well as can be expected, being locked up).

All I could think was that my old cellie had it worse than I did.  After all, he’d been released after doing several years, then had gotten in trouble and returned.  When I get released, the worst thing imaginable would be for me to get sent back here.  In fact, I don’t ever want to get in the slightest bit of trouble in this place if I can help it, because when you do, you may lose good time, which delays your release date.  I can’t imagine spending even one more dayin here than necessary, especially for some ridiculous disciplinary reason.  Some guys in here will literally spend weeks or even months longer in this place than they have to because they get in trouble for things like not wearing their ID, stealing food from the kitchen, yelling at an officer, wrestling around with their buddy, or something similar.  It’s mind-boggling.

This isn’t an indictment of my old cellie (who’s a decent guy), but to me, I think a more appropriate statement would be: “It could be worse.  I could finally get released after doing years in prison – and then come back.”

Gay Marriage is Legal in California

Starting June, gay couples can get married in California.  Of course, the opponents of gay marriage are already out in force.  Their point is perfectly rational.  If gay marriage is legitimized, it will completely undermine heterosexual marriages and families, right?  Just imagine the horror of two gay married men moving in next door to a traditional family.  The husband who thought he was straight might see them kiss, get aroused, then decide to try it for himself.  The teenage sons are so impressionable, I’m sure they’ll be transformed into homosexuals in no time flat.  Within a generation, all the young men in America will be gay!  And all the women will want to become lesbians because they saw a celebrity like Ellen Degeneres get married to her girlfriend!

Okay, maybe I’m being ridiculous, but surely it’s at least harmful to the kids, right?  After all, it’s sucha sensitive issue.  Think how hard parents will have to work to explain the incredibly outrageous idea of love between two adults.  They might even have to find the words to express delicate notions such as, “They’re happy and they’re not hurting anyone,” and “Why should it be any of our business what they’re doing?”  Hell, they might even have to sit down and have a conversation with their kids about … civil rights and tolerance!  No good traditional parent should have to go through an ordeal like that.

Absurdities are more humorous when they’re close to the truth.  I’m so sick of hearing people in this country whine about how gay marriage is harming families.  Honestly, how exactly does allowing gay people to get married affect your family?  How could it possibly?  Why does it even matter, unless you force it to matter because of something objectively meaningless like tradition?

The opponents of gay marriage talk about how it should be up to the “the people” to decide.  Let them vote on it.  Why?  What makes you think you can legislate how others get to live their lives?  I don’t care how many such people vote.  I wouldn’t care if ninety-nine percent of the people in this country opposed gay marriage – just as I wouldn’t care if ninety-nine percent opposed women’s inheritance rights.  It’s awfully presumptive of them to think they can vote to alter someone else’s life just because they don’t agree with it.

I often hear things like, “If you’re for gay marriage, you should respect those who are against it and not call them bigots because they have a legitimate argument.”  Well, I’m not calling anyone a bigot, but I have no respect for that particular position.  I have only contempt for any position that seeks to control the lives and happiness of others.  I understand their point – I just think it’s foolish and pathetic.

I think it’s great that gay marriage was legalized in California, and I think it’s hilarious that opponents of gay marriage are on TV worried about Americans traveling to the state in droves to get married, then going back to their home state and pressing for the right there.  I don’t really care about whether marriage is a “right” guaranteed to all Americans, or what the courts decide, or what loopholes people slip through.  The question for me is not whether we should “allow” gay people to get married – this perpetrates the disgusting notion that they need someone’s permission.  The question for me is why anyone should even care.

Why Ann Coulter Thinks Evolution is False III

“Evolutionists can’t explain the Cambrian Explosion.”

This is another claim from Ann Coulter’s best-selling book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.  It includes a criticism of some warped version of Darwinism that Ms. Coulter appears to have gleaned from watching the movie Waterworld (in which Kevin Costner’s character had evolved gills and webbed feet).  I can only hope that her readers understand that the application of her otherwise impressive acumen does not extend to the theory of evolution.

In this, however, Ms. Coulter finally makes an honest point.  She infers from it the wrong conclusion, but the point is valid.  About 570 million years ago, there is a place in the fossil record where something like forty different phyla (major groups of animals based body plan) seem to arrive suddenly.  Before this time, there were only a couple of major phyla.  Then, boom – an amazing diversity seemingly overnight.

Of course, the “overnight” is in geological terms, which in this case means ten to fifteen million years.  To be sure, that is still a relatively short period of time to explain all the various body types that appeared, but let’s keep the record straight.  When Ms. Coulter and her peers state that the animals of the Cambrian era appeared “suddenly as if placed there by a designer,” remember that their goal is to take any unanswered question in science and use it to validate their creation story.

No, scientists haven’t been able to explain the relative abruptness of the Cambrian Explosion.  So what?  No one has yet explained how quantum theory can encapsulate gravitation, or why most of the matter in the universe is “dark.”  Should this invalidate all the evidence for quantum theory, gravitation, and modern cosmology?  I hate to break this to creationists like Ms. Coulter, but here it is: Scientists don’t have all the answers.  Indeed, they’ve never made any such claim.  Their only claim is that they try.

Conversely, it is the creationists who seem to suffer from a lack of humility.  They have the answer to everything – if you can call it an answer.  “God did it” is their solution to everything that hasn’t been explained yet.  They used to say it when a volcano erupted or when people got sick; now they search for “irreducible” complexity in parts of cells that somehow keep getting less and less complex.

Perhaps the notion of increasing oxygen levels in Cambrian times spurring rapid evolution has a ring of truth.  Perhaps there was no real “explosion,” and the answer is simple that most of the Precambrian ancestors didn’t fossilize.  This probably has some validity since many had soft bodies that usually don’t fossilize well.  Try this, Ms. Coulter:  There are whole groups of Cambrian creatures that are totally absent from the fossil record after the so-called explosion – does that mean we should stop looking for them and say God whisked them all out of existence?  Who gets to decide which questions are deserving of more study, and which should be abandoned for the notion that “God did it?”  Should we assume that a magic spell is the answer for every difficult question about the natural world, or only the ones that directly challenge the biblical creation myth?

This type of Dark-Ages thinking thwarts discovery and human progress.  Imagine of Crick and Watson, for example, had scratched their heads and said, “Well, I just can’t see how this double-helix thing could work.  It’s never going to be solved.  Since we can’t understand it, there must not be a natural explanation.  Let’s just say an intelligent designer is required and scrap the whole project.”  Unexplained does not mean inexplicable, Ms. Coulter.

Science makes provisional claims and allows for constant testing and revision.  It is an ongoing process that answers more questions as we progress – but we only progress because we continue to try rather than towel and attribute every tough question to God waving His magic wand.