Pedro's Patronage


As Linda and I were driving across the Mohave Desert we were listening to some Fresh Air podcasts on the iPod. One was about a NASA scientist who wasn't allowed to talk to the press by some young evangelical who was put in charge of the venerable agency's Public Relations Department. The political hack wrote an email explaining to the scientist that it isn't fair to present evolution as more than a theory, giving short shrift to intelligent design, or the deity done it, theory of solving the cosmic mystery.

There were a couple of other programs. One was about the civil war, and how it changed the concept of how we die. There was the concept of "the good death," which included dying with your family, and going to heaven. Heaven itself was changing, and becoming more accessible, more like home. And on the battlefields of the civil war, corpses were being thrown into pits and buried, sometimes with men still alive among the tangle of mutilated bodies.

Sometimes when I listen to debate about evolution, it sounds like the people who are being asked about the subject think that a "theory" is like a guess, or something that rests on speculation. That might be true in general usage but in science, a "theory' is an observation based on a body of factual evidence. In that regard, chemistry is a theory as well. But we don't have journalists reporting on how many people believe in the theory of chemistry, and a debate as to whether we might just as well have a theory of magical causality opposing it.

Once I was listening to a public radio program where there was a discussion of evolution, and some guy called in and began to present "proof" that scientists have as their ultimate goal the demonstration of a logical explanation for everything, and that they deliberately exclude the idea of a divine intelligence. And once more, the scientists had to point out that this is absolutely true, as science rests on logical explanations and the divine intelligence aspect is for theologians and philosophers.

"We aren't saying what you believe isn't valid theology; we're saying it isn't science."

There seems to be the same kind of tactics going on with evolution that were used by the tobacco companies to defend cigarette smoking and the oil companies to delay action on global warming. You can always find some scientist who will promote your point of view. By presenting the false impression that there is a controversy, with good evidence on both sides, the issue is clouded and bogged down in confusion. The debate is manufactured.

This idea of there being a controversy between the theory of evolution and a belief in some divine creator is manufactured. Who knows what people believe, or if they've ever examined it? If they say they believe in a divine originator, what does that mean? It means something different to each person, because it doesn't match anything in shared reality, like archeological and geological and chemical evidence. Do Indian scientists have to debate Vishnu's navel?

In fact, Indian scientists actively promote the idea of intelligent design.

What people believe is up to them, and should not be mixed up with making the trains run on time or the administration of NASA and FEMA.

Besides, the way things evolve in reality is always a mystery. I am an example of somebody who did everything backwards and wrong under conventional standards, but now have a constant stream of unconventional rewards. It's as if I am relentlessly pursued by Michael Anthony on assignment from John Beresford Tipton.

"A word with you, sir?"

"Leave me alone! I don't know you."

"If I could just have a moment ..."

This is much more stressful than you might imagine. Like Job's shadow, I sit among the ashes of my bad deeds and ill considered choices, surrounded by beautiful grandchildren and upgraded hotel rooms. I raise my eyes to heaven and ask, "What the hell is this, then?"

But the only explanation I get is something silly, like, "You voted for Pedro."

Posted: Mon - January 21, 2008 at 11:32 AM