Intermissions, Part 1

The first movie I remember was Bambi. In feeted jammies we waited in line for the Drive-In. Winged Fords and Chevys slung through the gate and parked, hooked up and let out kids to a playground in front of the screen.

There was almost a sense of community where you got the intimacy of your own car, food, drink and a movie or three. A slight party atmosphere prevailed and the usual inflated snack shack prices.

Warm summer nights in California. We kids did not have an inkling of the new avenues for sex that the drive-in brought. We were just little examples of the potential, and often the actuality, running around banging into cars which had their own internal bangings and laughing.

Years later It was just nice to hit a double feature in your car. Alone. Sometimes, as a young male I could actually see a movie that featured some sense of sex, because, well my dad's idea of sex education was "well son, have you ever touched yourself?"

"Sure dad," I said at age 12, "I combed my hair yesterday."

"Well I am glad we had this talk."

It wasn't till a year or so later that I figured out what he may have been talking about.
___________
next ...drive-in church...sheesh

Intermissions, Part 2

Okay, nobody has a car like this anymore, but then there are almost no Drive-ins anymore either.

I guess there are in Canada. My friend Mitzee actually posed this as a question to help me simply write. They still have Drive-ins in Canada.

Sometimes I really wished I lived in Canada. They have their own problems, but they do not do what we routinely do...and they are the world's richest resource for comedians.

______________________

What is so fun about Drive-ins?

Well, you get your own space, and get some anonymity. And that is exactly what a preacher figured out in the 70s.

That preacher's name? You'll know it right away, I think.

Robert Schuller, and he built that Drive-in church into something as large as any movie studio.

I'm not kidding...take a look!
_______________________

next..oh just look...

Intelligent Design Part 1

TK incinerating one of Mac's ideas. Kinda pretty.
______________

Two days ago there were a minimum of 17,000 posts on the Internet about "Intelligent Design" (ID) and no small controversy after some recent statements by George Bush Jr.

Two days I ago I was up at the Mac-Family cabin as a guest with a host of others, including a pack of at least 35 children, a fire-breather, an 8 foot tall woman, a dog that looks like a medium-sized multi-colored bear, a head of a Russian seminary, and an engineer who likes to write books about gay football players.

Mac's father (FM) was perturbed because a long article in the S.F. Chronicle never took the time to define what ID was.

Bad journalism to be sure.

One thing you have to say about this group is that they charge in where angels fear to tread. They eat well, drink plenty and then weigh in on any taboo topic they can find. If they get bored they get on stilts or spit fire.

Religion, politics, relationships...what-have-you...there is nowhere they will not go. But I noted also a deep undercurrent of respect that seems to allow for a wide array of views. In a very real sense I would say they are a living example of the "depth pluralism" I have written about elsewhere.

Anyway, it is not that bad ideas or theories are not decimated. It's just usually done in good humor. The above picture, in fact, is an actual picture of TMK incinerating one of Mac's ideas to the "oohs and ahhs" to some of the 37 children.

So FM had started it off in the morning by grumbling about the S.F. Chronicle article. Mac wanted no part of it because he knew nothing at all about the concept (or so he thought). In almost "Larry David" form though FM just could not quite let it go. It came up here and there throughout the day.

At one point I looked over at Mac and said, "He's not gonna let it go."

"I know," he said, "I like that about him, but I'm not jumping in. Better JK or TDK. Besides I'm at the part in the Bond book where he murders Drax at Bridge. Talk about ID! Er, can you pass the brie?"

The day was filled with all the beauty of the place. I watched the way that Mac swam with his sister, her kids and his own daughter. It didn't seem accidental or random at all, nor the beauty of the brown trout and the crayfish below my outstretched feet as I sat on the quiet dock watching with two eyes which are miracles all on their own.

A poem started in my head, then I thought of Pascal and all the design he saw, but also the false overlays of human experience...the "diversions".

Was this a diversion? Mac's daughter wanted him to watch her jump from the platform. When she emerged her face was laughing and aglow. He laughed.

Diversion?

Not buying it.

Later they played Scrabble and I thought of Walker Percy's views on language and semiotics. A "triadic view" that makes Scrabble and other things possible (like this article).

As usual, DM won at Scrabble. Her ID is to never stay at the table. As others sit and play she busies herself joyfully with grandkids, small chores, whatever...anything to detach from the game in almost Zen-like fashion until she comes to her turn very fresh.

It's definite ID.

Mac's a professional writer with an amazing vocabulary. I asked him later. He says he has never even come close to beating her at Scrabble.
__________________________

After dinner!

Intelligent Design Part 2

When I got back to San Francsico I picked up my mail. There it was again. On the cover of Time magazine: Evolution Wars. But I want to take this slow for a variety of reasons, so I am going to go back to a narrative version and then finish more as a journalist.
________________________

One thing was clear after that dinner, they were gonna talk about it. Mac saw that so clearly that he immediately left to take a nap.

But he later confessed to me he was still ruminating about it, although he said he was sure that just thinking about it would cause trouble for him down the way...perhaps something not escapable by either fire of stilt-walking.

He complained that he had many doubts about the theory of evolution as he did the cacophony of creation myths and theories. He confessed he thought there was severe category mixing going on...oh and it was all far too politically charged.

The latter I understood because while I am utterly appalled and daily dismayed by George Bush's actions and words, I couldn't yet find a way to tag him on this one.

And I wanted to...real bad.

But what real harm could come from students being exposed to a whole pluralistic view of the Earth? It could lead to open debate and actually make them engage their brains. Of course, a scientific view would prevail because it is, er, science.

Later TMK would make the serious point of deliniating science from theology and that science is about observation and demonstrating through replication.

But who was there to observe first life, or first consciousness? Can we replicate the core issues involved here?

Because science can only guess at what may have happened 1.5 billion years ago, doesn't that leave open the door for discussion given that Darwinism is a theory and only 150 years old at that?

And why are the scientists so rabidly afraid of such discussion? We will return to this later because as sketchy as some Creationists are, some Evolutionists are just as doctrinaire and that makes little sense in a random universe of pure chance.

That and ID apparently does NOT require you be theistic or a Creationist. That surprised me a great deal until I remembered that I once wrote that Atheists should be employed at the Vatican. But that is another story altogether.
_________________

After a glorious dinner of gourmet pizza by MM, caesar salad and three very nice Bordeaux's (er, for the whole table) the campfire was lighted, dishes done (Mac had somehow dodged dish duty because of some nasty deep-fried fingers from the night before), and the kids settled in for the night.

We sat around the campfire when I saw FM settle back and say "I just don't get it! What is up with this 'Intelligent design' nonsense?"

I watched Mac closely. His eyes rolled back in his head, then he took a sip of wine (or was it a gulp?), smiled and was silent.

Possessing no commitment to any view can be terribly helpful. One can always try out one small lifeboat and see how it feels, but skip over a few if it starts taking on water. It's an enviable position.

I was just an observer, a guest, so I kept my yapper shut.

I did however, an hour later, decide to do this blog and open it up your reflective thought and arguments. While this group of passionate people were able to argue for their views and actually listen, my gut told me that was not gonna be the norm around America and we have...sigh...one more thing to divide us (two wars, class struggle, a culture war and a huge political divide are apparentlty not enough).

I chalked up their ability to hang with each other in deep disagreement to two things. They seem to really love and respect each other, and they are...all of them...Democrats.

Which is an irony all in itself..but I am commenting too much. Let's get back Loretta!
______________________

They sat around the campfire at the conversation grew. JK had already given some good background information to FM. Mac had finished his Bond book where the evil Drax had used his own ID to try and destroy London, but instead had been demised by his own foul plan.

Others weighed in as they could, most notably RML, DM, HK and HM

"What do you think Mac?" I asked at one point. "I don't think they have enough Bond books around here" he said.

"You are truly the shallowest man I know," I said. "But nice party."

But then his sister, MM came around and joined the discussion. A passionate young woman, she directly engaged TMK in discussion and off to the races they went.

It's hard to describe wht happened for the next three hours, but it was kinda like watching the Olympics where there are many events all going on at once, some very similar, others not. So at the end all I can give you are some highlights and then I shall invite the others who were there to add their own highlights because, well it was late, I was not taking notes, and there was a lot of beer involved.
______________________

Highlights! next...

Intelligent Design Part 3 was lost

Yes. part three was lost utterly in a Blog downtime.

So in it's place a poem by Mac
________________________--

Gregory Bateson Died
From Intelligent Design

The scramble and political fray
Agendas on the Earth pounding
Temporary wells of darkness
We all hollow out here
And there.

Bateson called and left a message
We do not take his calls
So caught in our own webs
We cannot see his beauty.
We see the exampled child
In a schoolchair in Texas,
Not the sea horse or the
Soft-shelled crab or
The ribbed back of the armadillo.

No.

We invite and like chance
And that alone like some
Death-invited lottery
Lest we have to deal
With You.

I woke up this morning
And before I could argue
You placed your thumbprint on
My reddened pinky finger
As it oozed from some
Quick yellow fire.
You cooed in my ear
A song of love
Then quickly
Retreated.

Gone. Alone.
I hate it when you do that.

Gregory Bateson is your ace
But you turn away from his cards
And decide, on a whim
For some other game
Leaving us to our current hand
Now lost
Just ink on papered cards
I heard the droplet
Hit the bottom of
A cold hard bucket
As those cards were fanned open

You have already moved on.

Okay, okay
Just give me a moment
To catch my breath

I still think Bateson
Is the ace.
But You do not care.
Nice tell.

Here is my ace…
You are weird.
Deeply so.
And Gregory Bateson’s hand
Is much better than mine.

Intelligent Design 4

The current Time magazine cover.
______________________________

One thing I did notice and that was how politicized the whole issue immediately became.

Some see introducing ID into schools as just a cover for teaching Creationism and God in those schools. That is probably on someone's agenda docket, but it not necessary as I understand it. A God-less universe could still exhibit ID, just not one from a personal God.

Which is why scientists like Bateson are so important. They simply describing what IS. The problem is most people would find reading Bateson taxing. They want it simpler...so it's easier to just make it a quick political issue.

I myself really do not care about the God agenda. My reasons for believing in God come from experience not whether we have common ancestors who were apes. You cannot "prove" God, nor is there any reason to do so.

But I am interested, scientifically, in the complexities of eco-systems, systems theory, and the deeply complex and inter-related-ness of the universe at large. I am also intersted in how and through what lenses we use to explore these relationships, yes, and their inherent design.

Let the theologians and philosophers argue over the source of that design, but don't ignore the plain fact that such intricate design exists all around you. That is just ignorant.
_____________________________

Here is a good place to go and see some mindful and respectful debate. I learned a lot here and was very impressed by arguments from both "sides".

I may do one more in this series on the "eye", but probably not as I'm rapidly becoming bored with the whole thing.

Intelligence, Eyes and Epilogue

Okay okay...one last volley.

A key element for me, as stated is simple observation of incredible order. My own body knows how to repair itself with systems I have no conscious knowledge of; I interact with other living systems all of which have incredible complexity and beauty. Maybe this is why it is so much easier to see God in nature than it is on a paved city street.

I read once that the human eye made Darwin "shudder". And I think I know why. But here is a quote:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. [Darwin, 1872]

The point is fairly simple...no benefit could be gained by the slow mutated development of what several millions years later might begin to register some input (not the word) on the first live optic nerve.

Once the doggone things exists, in some form, sure, then natural selection would have something to work with.

But you don't just "blammo" have a fully function eye tied into a cerebral cortex.

The same goes for many other organs in the human or animal body that needed each other all at once to function independently at all.

It's pretty common sense, though I have recently heard some pretty great arguments from Evolutionists, which I will share here.

And I once again remind you dear readers that I really do not give a Galapagos Finch's ass about either camp or politics. I just wanna explore what is right in front of us.

Their politics be damned. Look at what is, not what others want us to see.

______________________

First, Darwin's quote above is one isolated quote and not in it's overall context (I suspect). Later he may have had more information, or we may have more today. If so, please post it here respectfully and we'd all like to hear it.

All I am suggesting is it is easier sometimes to attack the man rather supply new science.

I don't wanna be guilty of that. So I am gonna print the above with an asterisk and ask for responses.
_______________________

Time magazine rightly points out in a sidebar that the issue of the "eye" brings both sides into sharp focus. Personally, I did not know the editorial board there had any sense of irony, but apparently they do.

They work of of Michael Behe's work, and I have read him before (he is one who weighed in at the link in the last article...we will return to that).

In the Time article, he asks the simple question, "where did the first eye come from? How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ that needs all its parts-pinhole, lens, light-sensitive surface-in order to work?"

To this we might also add, protective coverings, an aperture, saline from formed ducts to wash the eye, etc...

For those of you interested, I'd like to see a timeline explaining the coming together of such a marvelous apparatus...and then that it was across special lines and therefore independent?

The response in Time magazine is ascribed to no one, but is a general overview of evolutionary thought where a random mutation might have produced a patch of light-sensitive cells that helped a primitive creature tell day from night. From there they extrapolate.

A similar argument is used, and I think quite effectively in a rebuttal to Behe's assertions about needing "all the pieces" by Dr. Kenneth Miller who simply suggests that the various pieces of the puzzle can exist for other purposes before being combined.

I think it a good argument myself.

You can read it here.

But Miller intriguing answer aside, what follows at the end of Time magazine's synopsis is pretty crucial.

"The fact that there is no fossil evidence of the interim steps cannot be taken as proof that a designer-intelligent or otherwise-deliberately skipped them."

This statement not only utterly misses the scientific evaluation, it borders on a religious statement itself.

Science is about observation and evaluation based upon that. Philosophy and theology may play and dance about meaning and motive.

But in this we have the reverse.

The fact that there is no fossil evidence...NONE...ZIPPO...NADA for any intermediary stages of the formation of ANY eye that has ever existed (not to mention the task of species to species evolution) is where this folks turn an ironic blind eye.

That fact that there is no fossil record leaves us solely with conjecture and the begging question "where are the artifacts?" That's a scientific question.

The statement that the absence of any scientific data cannot be used to infer a designer exists is purely religious in nature.

We do not need one people. Take the holes in your fossil record and deal. And note that especially when you push your glasses up on your nose, because no one has yet been able to explain your beautiful eyes, why you dream what you dream, or the organic mystery of simply being alive.

Intelligence, Irony and Social Darwinism

"Don't make me come in there!"
___________________________
It is yet another irony that those who would use ID beyond its own scope (no pun intended) and would fight to disprove Darwinism, or at least undermine it, are at the same time model Social Darwinists themselves.

But before we continue we must delineate between Darwin's theories about physical evolution and those who then worked off those theories and applied them sociologically.

Thus the following quote:

It seems clear that Darwin felt that 'social instincts' such as 'sympathy' and 'moral sentiments' evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that "at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." (Descent of Man, ch. 6). Thus Darwin did believe that social phenomena were shaped by natural selection, although exactly how evolutionary pressure on individuals led to collective benefits is something that Darwin never clearly explicated. At the same time, Darwin did not hold the political views that many of those inspired by him would eventually affect.

(Wikipedia..hehe)

So let's be fair. Darwin had a rather optimistic view given the biological severity of natural selection.

Be that as it may "survival of the fittest" has become the modus operandi of those in power, and particularly our own government and its policies.

My own guess, and it is only that, is that Darwin would have hoped we had evolved, socially, to the point where "morality" and "sympathy" would lead to peace and not the bloodiest century on record.

It seems it backfired for him and even the current administration (like the American Puritans and others before them) are willing to ride any modified philosophy that will gain them superiority and power...even if it is modified Darwinism.

Go figure.

Now go read The Beatitudes of Jesus and weep...(Matthew the fifth chapter).