Is there any thing whereof it may be said,
See, this is new?
(Ecclesiastes 1:10)
"Philosopher, since you're from Buffalo,"
Said the Astronomer, "I'd bet some dough
That you're a humanist. 1 You think that man
Should be our main concern and humans can
Do well without religion. I've read Kurtz, 2
That Buffalo philosopher who flirts
With hellfire, say the fundamentalists, 3
As leader of the country's humanists.
Am I correct about it?""Yes and no,"
The Philosopher said. "Yes, I'm from Buffalo,
Where all good humanists go when they die.
But I am not a humanist, for my
Opinion of us humans is too low.
So I won't be caught dead in Buffalo.
But that won't be the first good thing I've missed;
I'm just a plain old-fashioned pessimist.""Then I guess you believe in Murphy's Law
And nature being 'red in tooth and claw,'" 4
The Bible Scholar said."Well, yes and no,"
Said the Philosopher. "On Murphy--""Whoa!
Hold on a minute," the Astronomer
Cut in. "It wasn't my intention, sir,
To get us off the track. Let's move along.
(This goes to show, if something can go wrong,
It will--that's Murphy's Law.) The subject's still
Creation/evolution. If you will,
Now shed some light upon it. Help us see
The issues vis-a-vis philosophy."
The Philosopher's Tale
A Weltanschauung--there's a word for you!
It's German, and it translates as "world view,"
Although the English term is not as rich
In meaning as the German word is, which
Is why some folks prefer to use the latter. 5
But let's go with "world view," it doesn't matter,
And certainly it sounds less high falutin'.
(I don't want you to think my horn I'm tootin'
With words like Weltanschauung.) A world view
Is a philosophy of life. Now you
Remember, boys and girls, I said that I
Am just a plain old pessimist. That's my
World view, I guess, in just a word or phrase,
Though I could ramble on for several days
On how I look at life. But how did I
Become a pessimist? Is Darwin why?
If I accept his theory, does it follow
That all is Murphy's Law? That's hard to swallow.
For shouldn't I be mean, aggressive, out
To get what's mine, let others do without,
"Survival of the fittest"? Why am I
An easy-going, laid-back kind of guy
(One who expects, and usually gets, the worst)
If I believe in evolution? First,
Then, it appears that the creationists
Are wrong about us evolutionists,
As I, for one, don't fit into the mold.
We act like animals--that's what we're told
By the "creation science" folks at ICR: 6
Creation, evolution, those two are
The only comprehensive world views (so
They say), and we must choose, we have to go
With biblically revealed creationism
Or "evolutionary humanism";
Believing in creation leads one to
"Responsible behavior," 7 makes one do
Nice, thoughtful things, they say; to believe
In evolution generally will leave
One with an animal-like attitude,
It prompts aggression, fights, all sorts of crude
Behavior. Everyday experience
Shows they are wrong, though. Look at the events
In Darwin's life: yes, even Darwin--that
Bete noire of the creationists--lived at
A moral level quite exemplary,
As kind a soul as there could ever be 8
(Though creationists, I'm sure, thinks Darwin's soul
Has been consigned to hell for Darwin's role
In "Satan's lie"--the ICR, you see,
Thinks evolution's a conspiracy
Of Satan: 9 Darwin was the conduit
For this great lie, the devil made him do it.) 10
Experience shows that morality
Need not be propped up by theology;
The lives of countless men and women show
This to be true. Behavior, as we know,
Is influenced by our genes as well as by
Environment; 11 that fact of life is why
Psychologists agree determinism
To some degree exists. 12 It's a truism
That all events have causes, and that's all
Determinism says in what we call
Its "soft" form: 13 it does not deny free will
Completely; where there's no constraint, we still
Can choose to do a thing or not, although
Our choice must have its causes. I could go
Much deeper into this, but I choose not
To (something caused by the short time I've got,
I'm under some constraint). 14 My point is,
They grossly oversimplify with this
Idea that we behave based on our view
Of origins. Our closest kin, it's true,
Are chimps: 15 that doesn't mean we have to ape
Them.Still the ICR says no escape,
We either have to be creationists
Or throw our lot in with the humanists,
And that is that. So let's look at this thing
Called humanism, 16 which these people bring
Up constantly so they can tear it down
As something representing all they frown
Upon. 17 A saying of Protagoras,
"Man is the measure of all things," gives us
The philosophic gist; 18 we also can
Quote Terence, who once wrote, "I am a man,
And nothing human's alien to me." 19
For humanism's a philosophy
That sees man and his welfare as of chief
Concern. Some humanists have no belief
In God, some do; they all accept the fact
That man evolved, and that we should extract
All that we can from reason; they agree
That we should not depend on deity
To solve our problems, that it's up to man
To help himself, not sit and hope he can
Enjoy some better life beyond the grave.
They think that we should morally behave,
Have liberty, provide good education,
Think critically, and maintain separation
Of church and state. Now what is wrong with that?
I'm not a humanist, as I said at
The start, but not because I don't agree
With what they stand for. It just seems to me
They wear rose-colored glasses; they assay
Man's nature in too positive a way--
He'll let them down. Why do I hold this view?
It's in my genes and I'm influenced too
By my environment. What can I say?
I think that man will blow himself away.So much for humanists. Another "ism"
Is more the bugbear now, it's "naturalism"
In science, as it's seen, that is, by those
Neocreationists ("neo-creos")
Behind what's called "intelligent design."
They play with words, as falsely they'd define
The naturalistic methodology
Of scientists as a philosophy
That nature's all there is. 20 Thus naturalism
To them's a dirtier word than humanism.Now let us turn to God--not for divine
Assistance, but to see if from design
In nature we can know that he exists.
This argument of the creationists
Is centuries old (and Britain's David Hume,
We'll see, refuted it.) We must assume,
Wrote William Paley (best remembered for
His version of this philosophic lore),
If we should find a watch upon the ground,
That someone must have made what we have found,
That for a purpose it was put together,
Contrived by some contriver who knew whether
This way or that worked better. A design
Needs a designer, any watch is sign
Of a watchmaker. And, said Paley, just
As a contriver, a watchmaker, must
Have made the watch, we look about and know
That the contrivances of nature, so
Superior to man's, must, too, derive
From a Designer. Wow! Who could contrive
A better case than that? But Hume, you see,
Cleaned Paley's clock, for the analogy
This argument is based upon is weak. 21
When of manmade contrivances we speak,
We have experience to fall back on,
Hume argued: from experience it's known
Man has contrived such things before. But we
Have no experience, said Hume, to see
The cosmos as a whole that way: "Have worlds
Been formed before your eyes?" No, boys and girls,
There isn't any real analogy,
We find there is no similarity
Between contriving, say, a book of verse
And the construction of a universe,
For we have not experienced the birth
Of worlds. And when we get right down to Earth
And look at life, design seems even less
An argument for God. Life's quite a mess.
Its forms, as the Biologist made clear,
Seem less the products of an engineer
Than of a tinkerer. 22 If species were
Designed, one wonders how it could occur
That ninety-nine percent have gone extinct:
It would appear that God, to be succinct,
Just didn't care or is incompetent.
Creationists, of course, believe God sent
Floodwaters to destroy all life, 23 so what
Look like extinctions over time are not,
God scored with one big kill. What that must say
About God's character should bring dismay
To anyone who has a moral sense.
But I won't deal with mythical events,
I'll let the Scholar handle that.And so
Intelligent design's out, we can't know
That God exists from what may look to be
Designed. 24 Where life's concerned, that which we see
Is not design but natural selection.
There is no inner drive toward perfection
Or progress seen in nature (a concept
Called orthogenesis); 25 we can't accept
That notion given the appalling rate
That species go extinct. Though some would state
That man is nature's great achievement, that
To which all else has led, I marvel at
The notion. Bertrand Russell I will quote
In that regard (recalling what he wrote
In essence): "If I had omnipotence
And millions of years for experiments,
And for my efforts mankind was the most
I could produce, I don't think I would boast
Too much about it." 26 (We're the highest genus,
But there is still a lot of reptile in us.)
Some theologians have resorted to
A kind of pantheism--that's the view
That God's the universe. They'd have God be
Evolving too (process theology
Is what they label this), he is a part
Of the whole mess--er, process--from the start
To finish, so that things influenced by God
Influence him as well. That seems an odd
Way of accepting evolution, but
They seek, you see, to stay out of the rut
That every theologian struggles through,
Which is the question: "Why, if it is true
That God is good, does he let evil be?"
According to process theology,
God's in the same boat we are, as it were;
Evolving, he's a "fellow sufferer." 27
The problems with process theology
Start with the purpose (teleology)
In natural selection: there is none
That we can see! For all is blindly done: 28
Mutate, adapt; species extinction is
The usual result. Where's God in this?
Does he mutate? Might he wind up extinct?
How sad! for this God surely is distinct
From that One thought transcendent and all-knowing.
Does this God even know which way he's going?Well, what about deism? We could say
That a Creator put things into play
With the Big Bang, and then let natural law
Take over, though it's "red in tooth and claw."
What need? With talk of vacuum fluctuations
From "nothing," 29 of eternal oscillations,
Such a Creator, so it seems to me,
Has nothing to create, no need to be.
The quantum vacuum isn't "nothing," true,
But it leaves God without a lot to do. 30
"Why is there something," we can ask, "instead
Of nothing?" The creationists have said,
"Because God made it." But that leads us to
Another question: "Who made God?" As you
Can see, that leads us to an infinite
Regression. So the long and short of it
Is that God is unknowable, except
For that which the religious may accept
As revelation.So let's go back now
To actions and world view--I'll close with how
They do and don't relate. Morality,
As I've said, doesn't need theology.
Can it be based on evolution? Yes
And no. Nature itself is valueless:
We cannot base our values on what is
By saying that what is is good, for this
Assumes that what is ought to be. 31 It's not
That evolution ought to be, it's what
Just is. It's red in tooth and claw (and I
Won't use that phrase again), and that is why
Some say that evolution shouldn't be,
That evolution's bad--and I agree
Some of its products we could do without,
Like parasites already talked about. 32
But evolution is. To say it's good,
That it brings progress and our ethics should
Therefore be based upon it, is to take
The same approach that led to that mistake
Called "Social Darwinism." Darwin's not
To blame for that, his theory wasn't what
Was preached by Herbert Spencer ("progress" through
"Survival of the fittest." Spencer's view
Gained popularity in England and
America, as it went hand in hand
With things like laissez-faire capitalism,
Racial prejudice, imperialism,
And anti-welfarism.) 33 Darwin in
Later editions of the Origin
Used Spencer's coined phrase, "survival of
The fittest," true; but Darwin had no love
For Spencer's social thought, he used the phrase
For natural selection, not in ways
Meant to apply it to society.
No, Darwin knew that nature cannot be
A moral guide to man, not in the way
That Spencer saw it. Darwin, though, could say
That when all beings are not thought to be
Special creations, when we rather see
Them as the lineal descendants of
Some prehistoric life forms, then above
All else that we might say about them, they
Seem "to become ennobled." 34 That's the way
He saw his fellow beings; he could call
It "a truly wonderful fact" that all
Life forms are kin. He wrote of "Life's Great Tree,"35
Forever branching, beautiful, and he
Said, "There is grandeur in this view of life." 36
And I agree. All beings, born to strife,
Share kinship by descent; this knowledge should
Encourage us not only to be good
To other human beings but to all
Our fellow creatures. In that sense I call
Life's evolution a good basis for
Morality. 37 With that, I yield the floor.
Epilogue to the Philosopher's Tale
"Design, sir, isn't dead," the Physicist
Remarked, "for there's been added a new twist
To the old argument. It's been ex-Humed,
You might say, although people once assumed
It was forever buried.""You refer,
I would assume," said the Philosopher,
"To the anthropic principle." 38"Indeed
I do, sir," said the Physicist. "We need
To look at that. It says the universe
Is how it is, for better or for worse,
Because of the observer. Think of this:
The cosmos is so finely tuned, one miss,
One constant just a little different, and
Life here could not exist. To understand,
Here's an example: there's a carbon base
To life, there's carbon almost everyplace
(Combined with other elements, of course)
In plants and animals. But change the force
Called nuclear, and that one that we call
Electromagnetism, slightly--all
We'd need is just a little change in strength--
And carbon never could have formed at length
Inside of stars. 39 See, everything just fits;
The cosmos is so finely tuned that it's
As if it knew that we were coming (to
Quote Freeman Dyson). 40 Don't you think it's true
That this implies design?""Well, yes and no,"
Said the Philosopher. "Yes, I could go
For a Designer if this were the one
And only universe. The odds could run
Too high against a single cosmos that
Just happened to have all we need, all at
The proper strength. Could that be accidental?
But what if ours is just an incidental
Cosmos, one of many worlds? The odds
Get better then, no need for God or gods
If we're just one more branch or variation
Based on the many-worlds interpretation
Of quantum theory. Out of countless worlds,
There's bound to be one full of boys and girls.
So here we are.""And I would not have missed
It," said the Paleoanthropologist,
"For any other world.""Now hold it," I
Said, "one world at a time! You've lost me. Why
Does quantum theory say there's more than one?""That's simply one interpretation, son,"
The Physicist replied. "The idea's that
Worlds branch or split at every juncture at
Which we observe; each possible event,
Each outcome, every way things might have went,
Thus happens. So if things don't turn out right
In this world, in one right next door they might." 41"Hey, that's okay! I like this quantum stuff,"
I said."Well I've had just about enough,"
Said the Cosmologist. "We can't perceive
Some other worlds, and I do not believe
That random doings less than microscopic
Affect a world of things as macroscopic
As you and I." 42"Then there's one universe,"
I asked, "one finely tuned and so, what's worse,
Designed?""I didn't claim that. Check your notes,"
Said the Philosopher, "and watch your quotes."I said, "Then what--"
But the Astronomer
Then cut us off: "I think we can infer
That Heisenberg was right: uncertainty
Reigns in the quantum world. 43 I don't think we
Can settle matters here. Enough's been said.
Now, Physicist, you're next, please go ahead."