Edward R. Murrow exposed the plight of migrant workers in Harvest of Shame.

People across the nation have loosened their belts after consuming heaping portions of sumptuous Thanksgiving Day feasts.

Dunreith, Aidan and I went to Jon’s home in South Shore, where he prepared the turkey and all the trimmings, including stuffing, brussel sprouts, sweet potatoes, and acorn squash. Dunreith chipped in with a couple of pumpkin pies and Aidan made his trademark cranberry sauce.

Mom, Jon’s girlfriend Lynette, and his friend/roommate German Cabrera joined us for a warm and festive occasion.

For many others, of course, Thanksgiving is not a cause for celebration.

I vividly remember going to Plymouth Rock in the early 90s on Thanksgiving Day to observe what Wampanaog Indians called a National Day of Mourning.

Beyond that, much of the food that made our bountiful feast was picked by migrant workers.

The plight of migrant workers is not a new one.

Legendary broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow tackled the subject in Harvest of Shame, an hour-long documentary produced by Fred W. Friendly that aired the day after Thanksgiving nearly half a century ago in 1960.

Dunreith and I watched the video today, and it hit hard.

The opening scene, in black and white footage, had Murrow’s deep voice intoning over images of black workers being recruited to work in the fields of Florida.

He said:

This scene is not taking place in the Congo. It has nothing to do with Johannesburg or Cape Town. It is not Nyasaland or Nigeria. This is Florida. These are citizens of the United States, 1960. This is a shape-up for migrant workers. The hawkers are chanting the going piece rate at the various fields. This is the way the humans who harvest the food for the best-fed people in the world get hired. One farmer looked at this and said, “We used to own our slaves; now we just rent them.”

Murrow traced the workers’ experiences as they moved north from Florida with the crops, ending in New Jersey in November.

Plenty of heart-rending footage of nine-year-old children tending to their younger, runny-nosed siblings while their parents work in the field mingle with interviews of the parents saying they would like more than anything to leave the work they are doing, but do not have any means or hope of doing so.

Murrow shows black, white and Latino workers essentially undergoing the same oppression.  The film also features interviews with several callous owners, one of whom talks about workers having “a bit of the gypsy” in them and living blissful existences, and with a farming official who essentially says that it’s better for a lot of people to receive poor pay a few days a years than nothing at all.

Secretary of Labor James Mitchell calls the workers “the excluded Americans,” but  seems surprisingly helpless to do anything to improve their situations.   Murrow, who is smoking in nearly every scene in which he appears, notes toward the end of the film that more than 150 legislative initiatives had been attempted, but just one had succeeded.

The film ends where it began, in Florida, with workers returning back after their journeys north to the latest chapter in a book of grinding poverty.  Murrow quotes a pastor who urges people to think not just about charity, but about justice, before uttering the film’s final words:

“The migrants have no lobby. Only an enlightened, aroused and perhaps angered public opinion can do anything about the migrants. The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck.”

The late David Halberstam wrote extensively about Murrow’s career, his seminal reporting during World War II, his pivotal work on Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the Harvest of Shame in The Powers That Be.  In typical fashion, Halberstam also writes unflinchingly how Murrow fell out at CBS with network head William Paley and the shabby treatment Paley doled out as a result.

Latino workers appears mostly in the Murrow documentary as competitors with the black and white workers, but my brother Jon has photographed the experience of Latino day laborers for the past decade.  His remarkable web site shows these workers’ journeys across the border, their efforts to provide for their families, their interactions with the criminal justice system, and their home lives.

Friend Kari Lydersen has written about the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ struggle for better wages and working conditions and Guatemalan-born worker centers’ organizer Jose Oliva in Out of the Sea and Into the Fire.

Watching Murrow’s film, looking at Jon’s web site or reading Halberstam’s or Kari’s books can remind those of us who live in privilege and comfort that they do not come without a price, and to consider taking action accordingly.

Irreducible Complexity

Evidentialist Apologetics can be seen as a subset of classical apologetics mainly focusing on all the evidence supporting the Christian faith and its rationality.  Evidentialists can be looked at in three main overlapping categories:  those advocating A. Teleological Argument  B. The Intelligent Design Movement (which borrows from the Teleological Argument)  C.  Those promoting the reliability and historicity of the Bible, Jesus, miracles, and the resurrection.

Teleological

William Paley (1743-1805) was the first to popularize the Teleological Argument by reworking some of Aquinas’ fivefold argument.  The argument is essentially that there is too much order, specialization, and fine-tuning in our world and the Universe for it to have been a product of mere chance.  Therefore, an intelligent and wise being must have created all of these things.  This being is God.  The problem with Paley is that he employed the analogy of God as a watchmaker who set the laws that governed the timepiece in motion.  Paley’s argumentation was critical for a young Darwin in seminary.  The impersonal (nearly deistic) picture painted by Paley, led others (Darwin) to look for naturalistic laws that could in turn replace God.

John Polkinghorne (1930-) has written extensively on the fine-tuning of the universe and has been an advocate of ongoing dialogue between science and religion (see also Michael Polanyi).

Intelligent Design Movement

The intelligent design movement is a movement of scientists, thinkers, and philosophers who are challenging scientific materialism (aka Naturalism or Neo-Darwinianism).  The aim of the movement is to get a seat at the table on the discussion of origins of life.  Many of their arguments are really quite sound science and present very damning (and in my view fatal) critiques of Darwinian macro-evolution.  Michael Behe (1952-) in his book Darwin’s Black Box argues that on the microbiological level many different things have the characteristic of irreducible complexity.  He employs the analogy of a mousetrap which has five pieces to it:  platfrom, spring, hammer, hold-down bar, and catch(cheese).  If you take away any one piece of the mousetrap then you have something that is functionally worthless, and therefore unable to catch any mice.  The mousetrap is irreducibly complex and is in its most simple state with its five components and therefore it has no functional precursor.  Behe then goes on to describe several things that have this characteristic of irreducible complexity, namely, the eye, flageullum, cilia, e. coli, adaptive immune system, and blood coagulation.

Other noteworthy scholars are William Dembski (1960-), Nancy Pearcey (1952-), Michael Denton (1943-), and Phillip Johnson (1940-), many of whom are involved with the Discovery Institute.

Reliability and Historicity of Bible, Jesus, Miracles, and Resurrection

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) spent his entire life defending the historicity of the Bible against the tsunami of doubt cast by higher and lower Bible criticism.  His New Testament Documents:  Are They Reliable is an absolute classic and a fairly easy read.  Josh McDowell (1939-) has written on the historicity of the person of Jesus in his popular book More Than a Carpenter.   In a similar vein Lee Strobel (1952-) has written on the historicity and Biblicity of Jesus.  N.T. Wright (1948-) has written probably the best defense of the resurrection of Jesus in his terrific volume The Resurrection of the Son of God.  C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) has written many important apologetic works what lands him here is his defense of miracles.

Up next is a look at presuppositional apologetics.

David Letterman and Stephanie Birkitt--just friends. Really (Courtesy: HuffPo)

To answer the question, yes. Check this out.

It was one of those nights I went over to the Peacock Network to watch Michael Moore on Conan. In doing so, I sure missed a big one.

Late-night host David Letterman acknowledged on Thursday’s show that he had sexual relationships with female employees and that someone tried to extort $2 million from him over the affairs. CBS says an employee has been charged with attempted grand larceny in the case.

Letterman told his story during a taping of his show, mixing in jokes to an audience that seemed confused about what it was. He called it a “bizarre experience” that left him feeling disturbed and menaced.

In a release from the show’s production company, Letterman said he referred the matter to the Manhattan district attorney’s office. An investigation ended in an arrest Thursday after Letterman issued a phony $2 million check to keep the matter silent.

Apparently Letterman’s liaisons with women staffers have been going on since his show began on CBS in 1993. They may have indeed ended when former “Late Show” writer Regina Lasko became his wife in March, after producing Letterman’s son, Harry, who is the pride of his life.

The target of the blackmail wasn’t just Letterman; it was his former jumpoff girlfriend who had just broken up with the perp. As usual, TMZ is on the case:

Stephanie Birkitt has been identified as one of the women involved in the David Letterman extortion plot.

Birkitt, Letterman’s former assistant who has made several appearances on the “Late Show,” lived with alleged blackmailer Robert “Joe” Halderman, who allegedly “was in possession of Birkitt’s diary, correspondence and photos — which he says incriminated Letterman,” according to TMZ.

Sources tell TMZ that Letterman and Birkitt had a sexual relationship that ended before 2003, when his son Harry was born.

Sources tell RadarOnline.com that “Birkitt and Letterman slept together for a period of time before he married his girlfriend Regina and had their son Harry” and that Birkitt is reportedly “mortified Halderman is using her fling with Letterman to blackmail her boss.”

Apparently Halderman’s exorbitant child payments played a role in his decision to blackmail Letterman.

It’s always an unequal relationship when you have sex with the boss, though. The thing I’m wondering is, were the other women injured or compromised by Letterman? And if a woman–however gently–refused him, did he make her life miserable in order to get rid of her?

Natalie Holder-Winfield, an employment attorney who blogs on HuffPo, had this to say:

I can tell you which department at CBS will probably be working this weekend–the legal department. I will bet that this morning the Viacom/CBS legal department is running around feverishly trying to create some semblance of damage control. Do they have a situation of quid pro quo sexual harassment on their hands where staffers felt that if they did for Mr. Letterman, Mr. Letterman would do for them? Even worse, was there a culture where any producer, executive or any person with some clout pressured staffers to feel that the only way to get ahead–or keep their jobs–was to sleep their way to the top? Or, were the affairs consensual? If CBS is smart, they will conduct a full-scale investigation where everyone will be asked about what happened. Oh, the folks at CBS have some explaining to do.

And if any of those relationships were not consenting, or that women were pestered to give it up to Letterman or any of the other male senior people involved in that “family,” in order to get ahead, it’s going to look infinitely worse. Letterman had better pray that this bomb doesn’t go off in his face, but no sexual harassment suits have ever been filed against him.

It could be that other women in his office who didn’t get ahead as fast as some others could also file suits.

Letterman’s relationships seem to have been pretty liquid after he divorced his first wife in 1977. Merrill Markoe, now 61, Letterman’s first head writer on Late Night, and who won five Emmys for creating such gems as “Stupid Pet Tricks,” was his girlfriend until 1988 (Lasko came into the picture around 1986), says Wikipedia. Markoe has several books and lots of articles to her credit; she sometimes acts and is still in broadcasting, although Late Night so far remains her zenith. Markoe did criticize Letterman’s sexism, and his seeming inability to credit her contributions in a couple of articles after she broke up with him and left the show. But twenty years ago isn’t now.

(In hindsight, one truly has to wonder whether there was any hair-pulling between Lasko and Markoe before Markoe left Letterman. They were writers working at the same time and for the same man. It has to be asked.)

Letterman, 62, is a bit of a lech on the show with some of his women guests, but he’s more like Groucho Marx was in You Bet Your Life, without the snappy between-the-lines dirty jokes. Sometimes it rankled me, but lately, the lechery has been more along the lines of Oh boy, I wish I wish I wish, but I’m married now.

We don’t even know how many of these women were involved. They’ve been as quiet as kept. They’ve moved on to other relationships, marriages, and possibly even better jobs, roles or careers. Somehow he feels that responsibility to protect their lives. Now he does?

“But that’s a decision for them to make — if they want to come public and talk about the relationship. If I want to go public and talk about the relationships. But what you don’t want is a guy saying,” and Letterman imitates the man with a whiny tone of voice “‘I know you had sex with women so I would like $2 million or I will make trouble for you.’”

Well, there is now the glib Holly Hester who outted herself as one of Letterman’s ex-interns and former lovers to get her fifteen minutes on Saturday. An NYU alumna, Hester told TMZ.com that “I was madly in love with him at the time. I would have married him. He was hilarious.”

Extortion. Blackmail. Jealousy. Employees of The Tiffany Network using Mafia tactics. William Paley must be spinning in his grave.

Holder-Winfield concludes:

During these moments of apologies and admissions, these men somehow attempt to get the public to forget the arrogance that brought them to point that they had to apologize. It is arrogant to cheat on your wife and think that you are above getting caught. It is arrogance that drives a man to flirt with and eventually have sex with his employee. And yes, it is arrogance that makes a man ignore the embarrassment that his children will endure due to his sexual indiscretions.

Stephanie Birkitt said that Letterman was the best boss she ever had in several interviews: “Aside from being incredibly funny and personable he is generous, kind, and is great fun to play catch with. I really couldn’t ask for a more fun work environment. Dave is truly the greatest boss I could ever have.” A 1997 graduate of Wake Forest University, Birkitt, 34, worked as a page for CBS News, 48 Hours, and The Late Show, eventually becoming an associate producer on the news side. However, acknowledging her limitations, she decided to take a job as Letterman’s girl Friday. She assists with his American Foundation for Charities and Grooming, and his Indy car racing team, Rahal Letterman Racing. She’s also graduated to occasional appearances on the show as characters “Vickie,” “Smitty,” “Kitty,” “Monty,” “Gunter,” and “Dutch.” She may have completed law school in addition to her job with The Late Show.

For Birkitt, at least, it may have been consenting. Except for the fact of Halderman’s stealing her diary and photographs for his extortion plot, the long-ago affair would have never surfaced. Who knows what will happen to her now? If she’s summarily let go, it will look as though she is being punished for having treasured remembrances in her possession that made David Letterman look bad. At the very least, she should simply be allowed to do her job until she decides to move on, and not appear as one of his characters on the show. Then again, is there life and a career for her after this scandal?

Why do male celebrities like Letterman, as Olympia Dukakis said in Moonstruck, sh*t where they eat? Possibly for comfortable sex, to feel in control with a new face that he doesn’t know, to work off stress, to feel young, to combat insecurity, to feel good, and because he wants to feel bad. And even because he likes a particular woman; Birkitt seemed to fit a kind of woman to which he was already drawn. It was all about him, really. It was a narcissistic pursuit. I don’t like that–though he was in a long-term (23 years) relationship during all this time–he felt that he could still do his thing. That kind of men’s misbehavior never looks good, unless you’re a publicist for Hepburn and Tracy.

If anything, I feel sorry for two people other than Stephanie Birkitt: Regina and his mother, Dorothy Letterman Mengering. Regina, because she may be wondering how long the creeping was going on, especially while she was pregnant, and whether it has truly concluded; mom, because he should know better by this time. Little Harry is young enough to be shielded from some of these shenanigans, but eventually, he’s going to know about his father’s shortcomings. Letterman may be sleeping alone for a while with the rolling pin will be very much in evidence at home. But don’t look for Regina Letterman to go Elizabeth Edwards regarding her husband. Even he is reluctant to talk about her, even on his show. They’re very, very private people.

So how should people see Letterman after this? Well, he certainly isn’t a politician. But his longevity on CBS is dependent on his popularity. (His renegotiated contract has him leaving in 2012.) I will give him credit that unlike a lot of politicians, he came clean with his “constituency” in order to have no sword above his head. And because he let it all hang out, his popularity will soar. I’m sure he’s going to make the same kinds of self-deprecating, but rooted-in-reality jokes he’s done when he’s made big gaffes. He will apologize, and mean it, and then he will move on to the next big gaffe.

Legendary executive Mike Dann will be our special guest on the next edition of TV CONFIDENTIAL, premiering Monday, July 27 at 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Shokus Internet Radio, with a rebroadcast Tuesday, July 28, 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org.

Mike Dann may not have created prime time network television, but he knew how to make it work, first as an assistant at NBC in the early 1950s, then as head of programming for CBS from 1958 through 1970. Implementing strategies that he learned at NBC under the tutelage of the great Sylvester “Pat” Weaver, Mike Dann’s keen eye for programming and counterprogramming helped keep CBS at the top of the ratings for 14 consecutive years (a record that has never been broken). And while his job, first and foremost, was to pay attention to the numbers, he never lost sight of the desire to present quality programming that benefitted “the Tiffany Network.” That wasn’t always easy to do, especially when dealing with the likes of the “Smiling Cobra,” Jim Aubrey—Mike’s boss for five years, and a man whose penchant for backstabbing would have made J.R. Ewing proud.

Mike Dann’s memoirs, As I Saw It: The Inside Story of the Golden Age of Television, is a colorful look at the first 25 years of network television, from the birth of the first full network schedule through the creation of such staples as The Today Show and The Tonight Show, to the rise and fall of such prime time giants as Tom and Dick Smothers. It’s also chock full of great anecdotes about working with such legends as Mary Martin, Lucille Ball, Danny Kaye and Judy Garland, as well as broadcast pioneers David Sarnoff, William Paley and Pat Weaver. Mike Dann will be joining us beginning at 10:05pm ET, 7:05pm PT.

If you want to be part of our conversation, if you have questions for Mike Dann or grew up watching The Defenders, The Twilight Zone, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Jackie Gleason Hour, The Smothers Comedy Hour and other CBS shows from the 1960s, we invite you to join us for our live broadcast this Monday, July 27, at 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Shokus Internet Radio. Phone number is (888) 746-5875 (or 888 SHOKUS-5). If you have questions or comments you’d like to send in advance, our email address is talk@tvconfidential.net.

NOTE. If you should miss the live broadcast, you can catch an encore presentation Tuesday, July 28 at 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org, as well every night at 10pm ET, 7pm ET on Shokus Internet Radio through August 9. The July 27 show will be then be archived at www.tvconfidential.net beginning August 10.

Ed Robertson
Co-Host, TV CONFIDENTIAL
Mon-Sun 10pm ET, 7pm PT
Shokus Internet Radio
Every other Tuesday at 10pm ET, 7pm PT
Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org
www.tvconfidential.net
blog.tvconfidential.net
Also available as a podcast via iTunes and FeedBurner

Would a VC fund this watch?

In the 17^th century, British theologian William Paley espoused the Analogy of the Watch as proof for the existence of God. He argued that if a man were to find a watch in a meadow that, even if he had never seen a watch before, he would know with 100% certainty that the watch had been constructed by a guiding hand. The interdependent intricacies of the watch were proof alone of the watchmaker.

I argue the same is true for entrepreneurialism: if a VC were to find a dense business plan with many interdependent intricacies, he would know with 100% certainty that it was unfundable.

Having funded a complex business plan, I’m not saying that it is impossible. But the more complex the business model, the harder you must work at minimizing or eliminating altogether any nonessential risk. As to how, it depends on the business plan and the relative risk in question. Look at every component of your plan—distribution, roadmap, brand, IP, pricing, customer acquisition, burn to breakeven, defensibility—and pick your complex differentiating silver bullets. Simplify the rest.

—–

Below is a full list of Entrepreneurial Reluctance/e-Publishing Reticence lessons from my Top 10s blog post.

Entrepreneurial Reluctance

1. The Catalyst(s)
2. Good $ vs. Bad $
3. Risk Reduction
4. The Network Effect
5. Been There, Done That: The Serial Entrepreneur
6. The New New Thing
7. Emergence & Maslow
8. The Analogy of the Watch (moving parts)
9. A Clean Cap Table
10. Perseverance or Blinders

e-Publishing Reticence

1. False Deadlines
2. Readers & Editrs
3. Genre Opportunities
4. Target Marketing
5. Self-Promotion
6. Creating you Literary Brand
7. The Indie-zation of Literature
8. The Placenta Effect
9. Amazon Ranking
10. The Book Tour

Here Gracie Allen appears with CBS founder William Paley (left) and motion picture producer Sam Goldwyn of MGM Studios.

La publicación del Origen de las especies en 1859 puso patas arriba la Inglaterra victoriana. El choque entre el nuevo evolucionismo (realmente para nada nuevo) y las posiciones académicamente aceptadas (la teología natural de William Paley o el creacionismo del carismático Georges Cuvier, avaladas por el fijismo del gran naturalista sueco Carl Linneo) se hizo oír, y, rápidamente, a Darwin le llovieron ataques por todos lados.  El opositor más fuerte en este primer momento fue el obispo anglicano de Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, quien no tardó en declarar que el darwinismo era incompatible con la fe cristiana (exactamente como yo lo veo). Darwin, enfermo y retirado a su casa en Downe (dejó las apariciones públicas a su bulldog Huxley), no hizo caso a la mayoría de las críticas (sobre todo de las que le llegaban desde ámbitos estrictamente religiosos) afirmando que él mismo era capaz de hacérselas a su teoría mucho mejor. Sin embargo, hubo tres objeciones que le preocuparon especialmente:

1. La función de los tipos intermedios: Aunque fuera factible  que la selección natural fuera la causa de las adaptaciones  consumadas, no alcanzaba a explicar las fases iniciales de su desarrollo. La utilidad biológica del ojo es evidente pero, en sus comienzos, ¿cómo surgió un órgano de tales características? Esta objeción vino por parte del zoólogo George Jackson Mivart (1827-1900) y Darwin la tuvo muy en cuenta. Parece que sólo podemos explicar la complejidad resultante en un ojo si la evolución ha seguido un camino, una causa final hacia él. Ya que el ojo ha tenido que pasar por etapas sin ninguna utilidad, ha tenido que desarrollarse en función de su utilidad futura.

Darwin respondía: un órgano puede ser tan útil en las primeras fases de su desarrollo como en las últimas, aunque no necesariamente de la misma manera. Por ejemplo, es probable que las plumas primitivas  sirvieran como aislantes del calor y más adelante fueran desarrollando su ventaja aerodinámica. Para Darwin, suponer que las plumas surgieron para concretar la remota posibilidad de vuelo era una tontería mística.

2. La ausencia de tipos intermedios: el registro fósil era muy escaso para los tipos intermedios entre una especie y otra. Darwin confiaba en que la paleontología acabaría por descubrir fósiles de estos tipos intermedios con los que justificar la gradualidad de la evolución. Sin embargo, esto no ocurrió así y la presencia de estos fósiles es hoy en día anecdótica.

No obstante, esto sólo constituye una objeción a que, quizá, la evolución no es tan gradual como Darwin sugería. En la actualidad existen datos contundentes que explican que las especies permanecieron estables durante grandes periodos y, “de pronto”, fueron sustituidas por otras. Por ello este tema sigue siendo polémico a día de hoy.

3. La falta de tiempo: En el siglo XVII, el Obispo James Ussher sirviéndose de un estudio bíblico, había datado la creación de la Tierra en el 4.004 a.C. Sin embargo, conforme avanzaba la geología se evidenciaba  que la Tierra era muchísimo más antigua. La evolución de las especies, tal como la planteaba Darwin, necesitaba mucho tiempo y las extensas épocas de la geología parecían ir dándole la razón. Sin embargo, en 1866 el  prestigioso físico William Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907) dató la edad de la Tierra entre los cien y los cuatrocientos millones de años (manifestando su preferencia por la cifra más baja). La hipótesis de Lord Kelvin consistía en pensar que la tierra había sido un cuerpo incandescente que progresivamente había ido enfriándose. Mediante cálculos matemáticos estimó la tasa de calor que la Tierra desprendía y el calor remanente, sirviéndole estos datos para realizar su estimación temporal. Cien millones de años era un espacio de tiempo insuficiente para que la evolución diera lugar a la actual diversidad de especies, por lo que está objeción preocupaba amargamente a Darwin. Sin embargo, hoy sabemos que la estimación de Kelvin era errónea debido a que no tenía en cuenta la radiactividad (descubierta más tarde) que es una fuente de calor adicional para el planeta. La edad de la Tierra ronda los 4.500 millones de años, tiempo suficiente para la evolución darwiniana.

4. Los mecanismos de herencia: en 1867, el ingeniero escocés Fleeming Jenkin (1833-1885) sostuvo que una variación favorable en un individuo se diluiría en muy pocas generaciones en los sucesivos cruces del individuo aventajado con los individuos “normales” de su especie. Jenkin pensaba que los factores hereditarios se podían dividir hasta el infinito, lo cual implicaba que cada nueva variación se distribuía en cantidades cada vez más pequeñas.

Paradójicamente, esta objeción se podría haber refutado enseguida si la comunidad científica hubiese tomado en cuenta las publicaciones de un monje llamado Gregor Mendel escritas un año antes de las afirmaciones de Jenkin. Para Mendel, los factores genéticos se comportan como si fueran partículas indivisibles que no se pierden con el repetido cruzamiento. Desgraciadamente, esto no se hizo lo suficientemente público hasta 1900, cuando Mendel llevaba dieciséis años muerto y Darwin dieciocho.

I apologize for the delay in getting to Part 2 of our look at the argument from design.

As mentioned in Part 1, many agree with David Hume that arguments from design based on analogies (e.g., a watch and an eye) are suspect since the two things compared are often also disanalogous in many ways.  On the other hand, William Paley’s form of the argument can be construed as an argument to the best explanation: In light of the apparent design we see in nature, design – rather than chance and/or necessity – appears to be the better explanation.

Del Ratzsch presents the argument formally as follows:

(5) Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are design-like (exhibit a cognition-resonating, intention-shaped character R)
(6) Design-like properties (R) are not producible by (unguided) natural means—i.e., any phenomenon exhibiting such Rs must be a product of intentional design.

Therefore

(7) Some things in nature (or nature itself, the cosmos) are products of intentional design. And of course, the capacity for intentional design requires agency of some type.

Most contemporary proponents of the design argument follow this inference-to-the-best-explanation approach.  For example, recent developments in cosmology have led to arguments from design based on the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life.  Robin Collins, for instance, points out:

1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 10⁶⁰, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. (As John Jefferson Davis points out, an accuracy of one part in 10⁶⁰ can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)

…

3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 10⁴⁰, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.

Biochemist Michael Behe and others have argued that certain features of biological life are so complex and intricately constructed that it is impossible that they could have been formed in steps over time, as Darwinian evolution requires.  His famous example is the bacterial flagellum, which he describes as “irreducibly complex” in this sense.

A related argument is Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism.  Given that naturalistic evolution is true, our brains have evolved to maximize our ability to survive rather than apprehend truth.  Thus we have no reason, on naturalism, to trust the deliverances of our own rationality.  On the other hand, if our cognitive equipment has been designed by God, we do have reason to have confidence in it.  Some naturalists, such as Patricia Churchland, seem to essentially agree with Plantinga’s claim:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

William Paley, Wikipedia

Since we touched briefly on the ontological and cosmological arguments earlier in the week, it’s a good time to cover another of the traditional arguments for God’s existence, the teleological argument.

The name derives from the Greek word telos, meaning goal or purpose.  The argument contends that as we observe certain features of ourselves, the world, and the universe, we have the strong intuition that these features were designed to achieve some special purpose or goal.  Many thinkers have asserted that these instances of design point to an incredibly powerful and intelligent designer – God.

Scripture seems to validate this intuition in passages like Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-21.

Famously, the design argument was the fifth of Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways of rationally discerning God’s existence.

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Article 3, Question 2).

Historically, the teleological/design argument has taken two main forms.  The first is an argument from analogy that attempts to compare man-made objects (e.g., tools, machines) to objects in nature (e.g., an eye), and concludes that, since like effects have like causes, the design in nature (like design by man) reflects the work of a purposeful designer.

David Hume notably claimed that the analogy between man-made objects and features of nature was too dissimilar to succeed.

If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II).

A second form of the argument was championed by William Paley (sometimes mistakenly described as an analogical argument as well).  Paley sought instead to discern reliable indicators of intelligent design such as fitness to accomplish a purpose and specific arrangement of parts necessary to bring about the purpose.  Paley used the example of a watch, which performed the function of keeping time and exhibited a specific and essential arrangement of parts to accomplish this.  He wrote:

Every indicator of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation (Natural Theology: Or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature [Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1867], 13.)

Critics of this form of the argument have claimed that an intelligent designer is not the only or even most probable explanation for apparent design in nature.  Such critics frequently cite Darwinian evolution and natural selection as natural processes that can readily account for what appear to be cases of design in the natural world.

Stay tuned for Part Two, where we’ll look at more recent developments in the design argument.

Religion may be a evolutionary opiate.There is a theory (hypothesis) that the tendency to have magical beliefs may be an evolutionary niche that played a role in our evolutionary survival. Magical thinking gives people hope in an otherwise apathetic cruel world. It may have helped early human endure and cope with harsh survival hardships and statistically cruel adversities. What believers really seek to find through religion is a sense security, order, purpose. It is the hope that there is an answer to the “why” of their existence (sometimes a miserable one). They want to feel special enough for a deity to concern him/herself with their obviously insignificant lives; Insignificant from the overwhelmingly large perspective of the universe. A person’s life may affect other people, his immediate environment, in very rare occasions mankind and our planet. But outside this picoscopic blue oasis the significance of their lives is nonexistent. The universe carries on unaware of our existence.

The believer’s desire is understandable, even skeptics wonder about these things. Shit! On some level we all seek some kind of validation to our existence. Subconsciously, I delude myself with the idea that I am special. However, I’m just another very curious self-aware human; One of many of our species; not exactly the same as the rest, but not very different. These false ideas help me emotionally tussle with failure, adverse circumstances. I delude myself with the prospect of an incredibly bright successful future to motivate myself, knowing full well many of my fantasies will not come true. I could fall ill and die. I could fall victim to some life altering event. A jagged frozen blue turd can fall off and airplane and land on my throat or I could just fail miserably. There is no destiny, no guarantees. The universe has no bias towards or against me. The only guarantee is that someday I will die.

It is normal for individuals to feel like they are destined to someday enjoy glory, wealth, happiness, success, peace, pleasure, a sense of fulfillment etc. These are delusions in contrast to statistical reality. Most people don’t become wealthy, glorious, and successful. Many die young, poor, under miserable conditions; work their entire lives earning meager livings with little satisfaction. Most don’t become what they dreamed they would grow up to be. Many achieve their goals, but the satisfaction is short lived or not as pleasurable as envisioned. Many, who were on the road to glory and success, living dream lives, die before their prime. But if we were to be so blatantly honest, realistic and pessimistic with ourselves I suppose we would all be overdosing on Percocet and Valium. There is plenty to be depressed about. A little Intentional self deception helps us deal with what would otherwise be overwhelming.

A very common example of this conjuration we play with ourselves occurs when a loved one passes away. To try and cope people sometimes say things like “He gone to a better place now”, “we will see her again when Jesus comes”, “I know I’ll see him in heaven” or “She is in heaven smiling down on us”. Yet our emotions defraud us and contradict our statements. We cry and grieve like we will never see them again. Deep down we are well aware death is an end and the likelihood of ever enjoying that person’s company again is nil. This is the reason why many religions, if not all, concern themselves with an afterlife. They help believers cope with the prospect of their own mortality.

So I wonder if religion is an expression of a somewhat necessary “brain generated delusion” that evolution has provided the human species. None the less, this particular expression of an otherwise useful evolutionary niche, is past its prime in many ways, and is retarding humanities progress.

Into the watchmaker’s watch each will fall
and survive if they oil the cogs.
The free are the ones who sprint for the teeth
and challenge the timekeeper’s log.

Inspired by Paul Squires – “The Rehabilitation of Karl Marx”. Special mention also to William Paley.

Thanks Paul. As always, your writing is ensuring that I keep ticking.

Balancing a belief in God with a scientific mind is hard. Genesis 1 says that the Earth was created in 7 days. Some religious scholars put the creation of the Earth, and by proxy. the universe at around 6 000 years ago. Scientists, however, put this at more like 10 bn years ago. So how do I balance this, and still keep my faith?

7 days

As a Christian I have been taught that the Bible is God’s Word – it is our direct line to Heaven. Consequently, whenever we need guidance we are advised to pray, read and then pray again. This I understand and accept, but how should I interpret the words that I read?

Given that I speak neither Greek nor Hebrew, the words contained within my Bible are one removed from the original text. And as with all translations, the English words chosen to replace those of the original language have already changed the meaning, albeit very slightly, of the original text.

So with regards Genesis 1 are we talking 7 periods of 24 hours or 7 epocs?

Intelligent design

I first heard of The God Theory at the Planetarium in Montreal. At first I didn’t agree with it, and I am still not sure – I like the idea of “aliens,” and I still can’t reconcile myself with the idea that, in an infinite  universe, we are the only ones here. It seems incredibly arrogant.

However, having said that. this piece of video almost perfectly explains my own beliefs.

In his Watchmaker Analogy, William Paley suggests that if you were to find a watch in the field you would automatically know that it had been made and then placed in the field. It had not naturally appeared there. The Teleological Argument suggests that the proof of God’s existence is in the complex balance within which life on Earth is possible.

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
3. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

As much as I believe in evolution, I cannot believe that it all happened purely by chance. The delicate balance which is needed for life to exist, in my mind, points directly to some designer. I don’t think that it was all created, merely nutured.

Parents give their children the building blocks necessary to succeed in life, but they can’t live our lives for us . It is their job to supply us with what we need and then nudge us in the right direction whenever it might look like we might be lost. In the same way I believe that God gave the Earth the building blocks needed for live to thrive, and then has played the Parent role ever since.

Uno de los argumentos más poderosos en contra de la teoría del diseño inteligente es que, a pesar de lo increíblemente sofisticados que son los seres vivos, en muchos de ellos se ven tremendas “chapuzas” que cualquier ingeniero mínimamente coherente hubiera podido subsanar con facilidad. Como Dios es infinitamente sabio, no entendemos cómo al guiar la evolución cometiera errores de diseño.

Jesús Mosterín nos pone el ejemplo del ojo humano, caso que utilizó antes William Paley para demostrar las virtudes de diseño del creador, como muestra, precisamente, de “chapuza” de diseño. Pero… ¿no es el ojo humano una maravilla de la evolución? Sí, pero no es, ni de lejos, el mejor diseño posible. ¿Por qué?

Los vasos sanguíneos que se encargan de nutrir el ojo están delante de la retina y no detrás como sería lógico. La luz tiene que atravesarlos para llegar a los fotorreceptores del ojo… ¿No sería mejor que estuvieran detrás y no interfirieran el paso de la luz? Igualmente pasa con el nervio óptico, que está delante, de tal forma que, aparte de interferir el paso de la luz, necesita abrir un agujero para salir del ojo, provocando el famoso punto ciego. ¿No sería fácil que la red de nervios  estuviera detrás de la retina? Si fuera así, ambos ojos no tendrían que trabajar conjuntamente para que no percibamos una “mancha invisible” (punto ciego) en nuestra percepción de la imagen. En este sentido, el ojo de ciertas razas de calamares muy evolucionados, lo tiene solucionado (es curioso como un ser que nos parece tan poco evolucionado como un calamar tiene ojos con lente al igual que los mamíferos).

El clásico juego para encontrar el punto ciego consiste en cerrar el ojo izquierdo y, con el derecho, mirar la “x”. Después acerque o aleje la cabeza hasta que el punto de la derecha desaparezca. Entonces habrá detectado el punto ciego de su ojo derecho.

Así, Francisco J. Ayala afirma que hablar de la teoría del diseño inteligente es blasfemar, es llamar a Dios chapucero. Stephen Jay-Gould viene a afirmar algo parecido en el primer capítulo de su obra El pulgar del panda. Más chapuzas de la creación pueden leerse en el capítulo 14 del libro de Mosterín Ciencia viva. Reflexiones sobre la aventura intelectual de nuestro tiempo.

CBS Blackrock Building in New York City

The following photographs are from the LIFE Magazine photography archive.   Here is  a look back at some of the people and places that made CBS such a stylish and illustrious network.

Busy scene in CBS newsroom on election night - November 1952

TV entertainer, Jackie Gleason, sitting at coffee table, signing new contract with CBS while manager and executives watch - 1956

Actors John Ericson (L) and Ralph Bellamy (R) rehearsing scene for Playhouse 90 "Heritage of Anger" at CBS TV City - 1956

Composer Frank Loesser, CBS TV producer Edward R. Murrow, Samuel Goldwyn (L-R) & unident. others in Goldwyn's office during CBS crew's visit to set of filming of motion picture "Hans Christian Andersen" - 1952

CBS News correspondent Daniel Schorr working at press table (pipe in mouth) w. unident. others during Watergate hearings - June 1973

CBS President Frank Stanton sitting at his desk - 1948

Designer William Golden with his new "eye design" logo for CBS which was influence by "Shaker Design"

CBS White House correspondent Robert Pierpoint - 1965

Dr. George Gallup appearing on CBS-Television series called "America Speaks." - 1948

CBS Pres. Fred Friendly - 1967

Actor Bob Crosby working on a TV commercial at CBS TV City - 1956

Overall exterior view of new CBS Television City complex, consisting of offices and station studios - 1952

Pres. of CBS Frank Stanton - 1966

Chairman of CBS William Paley - 1966

Men working in the control room of CBS TV City - 1956

Pres. of CBS Frank Stanton - 1966

CBS newsman Walter Cronkite filing a report - 1956

Mr. Frank Sinatra during recording session at CBS - 1947

I wasn’t planning to tackle the new season of AMC’s Mad Men, the retro-sixties pastiche that was the only really good new show to debut last year, until all the episodes had been broadcast.  But my correspondents have been abuzz with word that this week’s segment named-checked the finest television drama of the actual sixties, Reginald Rose’s The Defenders, in a major way.  I had to take a peek.

Last season Mad Men referenced The Twilight Zone, in a scene where aspiring writer Paul Kinsey (Michael Gladis) cites Rod Serling as an inspiration.  It was a terrific way to humanize a character (because, don’t we all dig Rod Serling?) whose pipe-smoking pomposity was off-putting, even before he scuttled his rapport with the new secretary by making a clumsy pass at her.  So it’s not surprising that, as Mad Men jumps ahead eighteen months (from 1960 to 1962) to continue its narrative, its creator, Matthew Weiner, and his writing staff would choose to acknowledge The Defenders as a way of updating the show’s cultural touchstones.

The Mad Men storyline wraps an entire subplot around The Defenders.  Mad Men’s Sterling Cooper Agency becomes involved in the search for a replacement sponsor for the Defenders episode of April 28, 1962, which was so inflammatory that the show’s regular sponsors withdrew their advertisements.  Hotshot ad exec Don Draper (Jon Hamm) pitches the Defenders opportunity to one of the agency’s clients, a lipstick company called Belle Jolie, on the grounds that they can buy ad time for “pennies on the dollar.”  Plus, the episode is about abortion, a topic of interest to Belle Jolie’s target audience of young women.  But the client declines, arguing that the show is “not wholesome.”

The title of the Defenders episode in question, “The Benefactor,” is the same as the title of the Mad Men episode.  Mad Men excerpts two clips from the original “The Benefactor.”  In the first, the district attorney (Kermit Murdock, a wonderful, rotund character actor with a trademark droopy lip) cross-examines the young woman (Collin Wilcox) who was on the operating table at the time her doctor was arrested.  The second scene depicts a confrontation between a teenager (soap star Kathleen Widdoes) and her father (Will Hare), who’s so ashamed by the news that his daughter has had an abortion that he slaps her.  Lawrence Preston (E. G. Marshall), the attorney at the center of the series, scolds the man for his lack of compassion.

Kathleen Widdoes, E. G. Marshall, and Will Hare

“The Benefactor,” which was written by future Academy Award winner Peter Stone, employed a self-consciously didactic strategy toward the abortion issue.  In the narrative, the doctor arrested for performing the operations (which were, of course, illegal until the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade verdict in 1973) encourages his attorney, Lawrence Preston, to put the law on trial.  Preston expresses doubts about using the courts as a “public forum,” as this defense stategy will increase his client’s chances of being convicted (which is in fact what happens).  “The Benefactor” turns its courtroom scenes into a referendum on a hotbed issue, using the testimony of the witnesses in the fictitious case as a means of presenting real statistics and ethical arguments to the audience.  Both sides are heard, but “The Benefactor” clearly advocates for the legalization of abortion.  The argument that a fetus is “not a human being” is articulated passionately, and twice the point is made that if the law is to restrict abortions, it must provide humane alternatives.  (More humane, the script suggests, than foster care and homes for unwed mothers.)

“The Benefactor” received a great deal of press attention in the spring of 1962 when, as related on Mad Men, the three rotating sponsors of The Defenders – Lever Brothers, Kimberly Clark, and Brown & Williamson Tobacco – declined to have anything to do with the episode.  In January of that year, CBS president Frank Stanton had testified before the FCC that “The Benefactor” – already notorious even before it was broadcast – was “a very fine, realistic and honest dramatization,” but the advertisers were unmoved.  It was “in conflict with their corporate policies,” according to the New York Times. 

“The Benefactor” was the nineteenth episode produced during The Defenders’ first season, but the thirtieth to be broadcast.  During the weeks while the completed show sat on the shelf, conversations approximating those depicted in Mad Men took place.  Eventually the Speidel Corporation, which made watch bands, bought up the whole hour’s advertising.  Just how much of a discount, if any, Speidel received is unknown. 

But the worst of the storm was yet to come.  Hoping to cushion the blow, CBS screened “The Benefactor” for its local affiliates via closed circuit television on April 18.  This move may have prevented a widespread backlash, but ten of the 180 network stations declined to run the episode.  The residents of Boston, Providence, Buffalo, New Orleans, Omaha, Milwaukee, and various smaller cities never saw “The Benefactor.”  Nor did anyone in Canada, after the CBC rejected the segment.  A number of stations delayed the broadcast until after the evening news, as did the BBC when “The Benefactor” crossed the Atlantic in July.  All of these events received ongoing coverage by major newspapers, including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Robert F. Simon played the abortionist in “The Benefactor”

Throughout all this, The Defenders enjoyed staunch support from CBS.  It was an unusual display of backbone in an industry dependent on the fickle support of the masses.  Bob Markell, then the associate producer of The Defenders, remembered that the hero of the hour was CBS chairman William Paley.  “It would have gone on with or without sponsors,” Markell told me, because Paley believed in the show.  Michael Dann, the CBS executive who had developed the Defenders pilot and fought to get it on the air over the objections of network president Jim Aubrey, also felt that the sponsor defections were irrelevant.  Dann felt that “The Benefactor” won the day because it was serious-minded and well-made, like all of the programs supplied by executive producer Herbert Brodkin’s company.  Had it been exploitative or inept, the episode might have done irreparable damage to The Defenders.

The historical record supports Dann’s assessment.  Published surveys of viewer responses reveal that there was no “Benefactor” backlash.  Two weeks after the broadcast, Reginald Rose told the New York Times that the mail received (over a thousand letters, compared to 150-200 following most episodes) ran eleven to one in favor of the abortion show.  The Los Angeles Times published the first ten letters it received about “The Benefactor,” eight of which were positive, and Television Age reported that 93.8% of the 1,000 New Yorkers it surveyed approved of “The Benefactor.”  The episode pleased critics, as well, earning a rave from Cecil Smith in the Los Angeles Times and a lengthy, if more ambivalent, notice from the New York Times‘ Jack Gould.  Gould nevertheless called “The Benefactor” a “remarkable demonstration of the use of theatre as an instrument of protest.”

Michael Dann – incidentally a fan of Mad Men who believes it’s the “most important show on cable right now” – remembered “The Benefactor” as an essential “turning point” for The Defenders.  The positive outcome of that controversy translated into a mandate for Reginald Rose and the series’ other writers to address the issues of the day in a frank and opinionated manner.  Many of the first season segments were timid, or had lapsed into silly melodrama or Perry Mason-style courtroom theatrics.  “The Benefactor” gave The Defenders the courage of its convictions, the mojo to confront a divisive topic literally almost every week: capital punishment, the blacklist, atheism, faith and religion, medical malpractice, birth control, nuclear proliferation, child abuse, euthanasia, the draft, recreational drug use. 

*

One reason I was pleased to be able to write about “The Benefactor” is that it gave me an excuse to renew my acquaintance with Collin Wilcox, one of my favorite television actresses of the early sixties.  Wilcox is probably best known as the angry young woman who accuses Tom Robinson (Brock Peters) of rape in To Kill a Mockingbird (which was filmed before but released after “The Benefactor” was made and telecast).  TV fans will remember her as the plain girl who doesn’t want to look like everybody else in The Twilight Zone episode “Number Twelve Looks Just Like You,” and as Pat Buttram’s sultry child bride in The Alfred Hitchcock Hour’s creepy “The Jar.”  Today, Wilcox and her husband operate a small black box theatre in her home town in western North Carolina, where she will star in Love Letters opposite Rex Reed this October.

Collin Wilcox in The Defenders‘ “The Benefactor”

In “The Benefactor,” Wilcox plays a woman who undergoes an abortion after being raped.  Though compelled to testify against her doctor, she is grateful to him, and unwavering in her conviction that she should have been allowed to terminate her pregnancy legally.  In our conversation this week, Wilcox revealed that she drew from her own life in shaping her performance.

“I really related to it, because I had an abortion when I was eighteen,” Wilcox told me.  “At that time it was damn near impossible to find someone who would perform one.”  Wilcox flew with her mother to Peoria, Illinois – “the airport was full of standees of famous movie stars, and I remember thinking they had probably all been there for the same reason I was” – where the operation was done in far from ideal circumstances.  Her doctor was “still wearing a hat with fishing hooks on it” when he arrived.  Wilcox experienced complications after the procedure, and nearly died.  Although she had not been raped, as the young woman in “The Benefactor” had been, Wilcox shared her character’s view that her abortion was the right decision.

Wilcox, a member of the Actors Studio, had studied with the legendary acting teacher Lee Strasberg during the late fifties.  Strasberg’s technique emphasized the actor’s use of his or her own past experiences and sensations to create a character.  With that in mind, it’s hard to imagine a more daunting exercise in the “Method” than the one Wilcox underwent for “The Benefactor.”

*

If The Twilight Zone remains familiar today to almost everyone, The Defenders was probably a big “say what?” to Mad Men fans, a sixties totem as exotic as ashtrays in the office and martinis for lunch.  As far as I’ve been able to determine, the last time The Defenders was shown on American television was on an obscure and now defunct cable channel, circa 1980.  It’s hard to think of another series made after 1960, even one in black and white, that ran for as long as The Defenders (four seasons, 132 episodes) and yet hasn’t been syndicated in nearly thirty years.  And that’s not even taking into account the show’s acclaim and enormous historical relevance.  Mad Men enthusiasts seem to be expressing some curiosity about The Defenders in their columns and blogs.  Is it naive to hope that a few seconds’ exposure on Mad Men might lead to a renaissance for The Defenders, on cable or home video?  Probably.  But here’s hoping.

Update (August 19): I’ve chatted with Defenders producer Bob Markell again, after he saw Mad Men’s “The Benefactor” over the weekend.  Markell felt that the “concept was admirable,” but expressed dismay about some factual inaccuracies regarding the television industry of the early sixties, most of them in the scene depicting the initial phone conversation between Harry Crane (Rich Sommer) and the junior CBS executive.  These are indeed worth exploring further.

The CBS exec in Mad Men offers a rather confusing explanation as to how “The Benefactor” got made.  He tells Crane that the abortion script was somehow substituted for an episode on cannibalism that the network would not allow to be made.  I’m guessing this is a modified version of an instance of horse-trading that’s been widely reported in the literature on early television.  In 1963, when CBS balked at Reginald Rose’s pitch for a Defenders episode about racial prejudice (not the show’s first brush with that inflammatory topic), Rose offered to produce a segment on blacklisting instead.  Rose felt that CBS would back down and allow him to proceed with the race story, but to his surprise the network agreed to the switch and the Emmy-winning 1963 “Blacklist” episode was the result. 

However, implausible as it may sound, there was a Defenders episode about cannibalism.  Written by David W. Rintels and entitled “A Taste of Ashes,” it dealt with the prosecution for murder of two sailors who had killed and eaten another seaman while adrift at sea.  The segment was produced in late 1963 (the assassination of President Kennedy occurred during the filming) but not broadcast until the following season, on November 12, 1964.  Because of the sensational subject matter, CBS shelved the episode for nearly a year before executive producer Herbert Brodkin bullied it onto the air.  ”A Taste of Ashes” attracted only a fraction of the attention that “The Benefactor” had, even though the earlier segment had enjoyed the public support of the network.  Mad Men is generally pretty scrupulous in its historical accuracy – “The Benefactor” takes place in late March or early April of 1962, while the preceding episode, “Flight 1,” deals with a real plane crash that occurred on March 1 of that year – but the reference to the cannibalism story violates this chronology.

Another line that rings false is the CBS exec’s comment that “the director eats up all this time refusing to do” the cannibalism script.  In fact, not even the most acclaimed episodic television directors enjoyed that much clout in the sixties.  On almost any of the show of that period (and probably now, as well) a director would have been immediately fired and replaced had he flatly refused to shoot script pages.  Markell averred strongly that this would have been the case on The Defenders, even though the series had its share of temperamental directors. 

(One thing the Mad Men script gets right is the CBS exec’s comment that “The Benefactor” will be “going on the air, sponsor or no.”  Last week, I quoted Markell to the effect that this was the network’s position in 1962.  What I didn’t bother to include, because it was somewhat redundant, is that CBS vice president Frank Stanton made a similar comment in his January 1962 testimony before the FCC.  I’d wager that his remark, which was quoted in the news coverage of the “Benefactor” controversy, were the source of this bit of dialogue.)

The most troublesome of the CBS executive’s lines in Mad Men is his joke, “I miss the blacklist.”  It’s highly unlikely that anyone at CBS would have uttered this remark in 1962 – not only because the blacklist was a taboo subject, even in private conversations, but because CBS was still enforcing it in 1962.  The network continued to veto certain blacklisted artists sought for The Defenders at least until the series’ final (1964-1965) season; in fact, my research suggests that CBS, oblivious to irony, may have rejected the producers’ original choices to star in and direct the “Blacklist” episode.

Of course, these are minor points, and creative license is essential to good drama.  I still think it’s very cool that The Defenders, one of my pet TV history causes, has been interwoven so creatively into one of its few worthwhile modern counterparts.  But, upon further reflection, I do wish that Matthew Weiner and his co-writer, Rick Cleveland, had thought better of that glib line about the blacklist. 

Markell made one final, crucial point about the storyline of Mad Men’s “The Benefactor” in our conversation, and he’s absolutely right about it, too.  The Madison Avenue agencies were so ubiquitous in the production of live television that it’s unlikely a large, established agency like Sterling Cooper wouldn’t have had a thriving television department long before 1962.  It also seems strange that so trivial as to function as a consolation prize for the likes of Harry Crane.  But, hey, now that Harry does have his new toy, perhaps that opens the door for a more meaningful storyline about the blacklist.  Sadly, there’s still plenty of time within Mad Men’s chronology in which it would still be relevant. 

Many thanks to Collin Wilcox, Bob Markell, and Michael Dann for taking time to answer my questions; to Jonathan Ward for research; and to Bob Lamm for bringing Mad Men’s Defenders homage to my attention. 

Mustafa Ajlan ABUDAK

Bu makalemizden sonra önemli bazı çeviri makaleleri vereceğiz. Özelikle kozmolojik tasarım delilleri ve tasarım çıkarımını nesnel olarak nasıl yapılabileceğine dair bazı önemli yazılar arka arkaya yayınlanacak. Bu sebeple bu makalenin daha önceki makalelerin genel bir özeti olmasına çalıştım. Darwinizm ile alakalı itirazlarımızın temelde nelere dayandığı ve tasarım çıkarımının yapılırken nelerin dikkate alındığı hakkında kısa ve öz bilgilendirmeler olmasına gayret ettim. Umarım takip edecek olan makalelerin anlaşılmasında bir kolaylık ve Akıllı Tasarım düşüncesi hakkında daha bilgilendirici bir metin sunmayı başarabilmişimdir.

Akıllı tasarım tarihte resmi olarak diyebileceğimiz ilk çıkışını ünlü İngiliz doğa bilimci ve teolog William Paley‘in kitaplarıyla yapmıştır.Darwin’ide öğrenciliği sırasında derinden etkileyen bu yapıtların özetini vermemiz gerekirse Paley şöyle demektedir;

” Bir çalılıktan karşıya geçerken, ayağımı bir taşa doğru attığımı farz edelim. Bana, nasıl olup ta o taşın oraya geldiği ya da orada bulunduğu sorulsaydı, bildiğim her şeyin dışında, muhtemelen bir şekilde önceden beri orada olduğunu söylerdim…

Ancak, yerde bir saat bulduğumu farz etseydik bu durumda o saatin nasıl olup ta orada olduğunu sorgular ve neticede daha önceki cevabımı veremezdim. Aksine, saatin parçalarının birbirleriyle olan uyumu ve bir sistemi oluşturacak şekilde bir araya gelmiş olmaları bize belli bir zamanda, belli bir yerde ve belli bir amaç için bir ya da birden fazla sanatkârın saati tasarlayıp yapmış olduklarını düşündürürdü.”

Akıllı Tasarım belki de en genel açıklamasıyla evrende gördüğümüz her şeyin ve elbette yeryüzündeki canlılığın kökeninin en iyi şekilde, bilinçli ya da Türkçemize geçen tanımıyla akıllı bir tasarlayıcının varlığı ile açıklanabileceğini savunmaktadır.

Bu söylemin gücü tamda bilimsel çıkarımın kendisinden kaynaklanır. Bilim ilk olarak gözlemlenebilir ve test edilebilir bilginin eldeki çıkarımlarla karşılaştırılmasıyla bir sonuca varabilir. Genelde vardığı sonuçlarda nihai olamaz çünkü bilimin eldeki teknoloji ile bilebilme kapasitesi sınırlıdır. Peki, Darwin oldukça itinalı bir gözlemle seçilimin evrimdeki rolünü belirginleştirmişken niçin hala teorisi bu kadar itiraz görmekte ve eleştirilmektedir?
Saygıdeğer bir evrim biyoloğu  olan  Graham Bell şöyle demektedir;

‘’Bir ampul zihinde önceden kavramsal olarak oluşturularak ve tasarlanarak üretilmiştir. Buradan yola çıkarak insanoğlunun tasarladığı ve işlettiği herhangi bir cihazdan çok daha karmaşık yapılara sahip böceklerin ve papatyaların bu tip bir yol ile meydana gelmiş olduklarını düşünmek oldukça rasyonel bir çıkarım olacaktır.” 1

Görüldüğü gibi burada doğrudan dini bir gönderim yoktur. Sadece gözlemden yola çıkarak analojilerle canlı dünyasındaki tasarımları kendi dünyamızdaki tasarımlarla karşılaştırarak onların kökenini anlamaya ve anlamlandırmaya çalışmaktayız. Öyleyse analojilerle çıkarımlar yapmak ne derece sağlıklı ya da doğru sorumuz akla gelmektedir. Çünkü benzerliklerden yola çıkarak varılan benzer sonuçlar, bizlere verileri anlamakta ne denli yardımcı olabilir diye düşünebiliriz. Daha önceki yazılarımızda değindiğimiz gibi bilim dünyası bu analojileri Akıllı Tasarım hareketinin ivme kazandığı 90‘lı yılların başından itibaren giderek artan bir şekilde kullanmaktadır. Bir başka değişle kullanmak zorundadır. Çünkü elde edilen veriler, bunların tıpkı bizlerin tasarlayıp kullandığımız makinelerin küçük birer canlı kopyası olduğunu ortaya çıkarmaktadır.

Biz benzetimler yoluyla doğadaki tasarımları taklit ederek “makineler” oluşturuyorsak, hatta bu doğadaki tasarımları anlamak ve açıklamak için kendi yaptığımız makineleri referans alıp, analojiler kurmak zorunda kalıyorsak, acaba canlıların bir tasarım sonucu oluştuğunu düşünmek bir halüsinasyon mudur? Yoksa aklın kategorik olarak en basit şekilde yani Ockhamlı’nın usturasını kullanarak elde edeceği bir sonuç çıkarımı mıdır ?

Kısaca, bu ustura herhangi bir şeyi açıklamak üzere öne sürülen birden fazla açıklama söz konusu olduğunda, açıklanmak durumunda olanı, en az sayıda açıklayıcı ilke ve kabulle açıklayan ve olabildiğince çok şeyi açıklamayı başaranın seçilmesi içerir; en basit açıklama, gerçekliği olduğu şekliyle tarif eden en muhtemel açıklama olma durumundadır. G.Bell’in yaptığını da bundan başka bir şey değildir.

Bilim dünyasının en geniş veritabanlarından biri olan PubMed veritabanında 1965′lerden 2005‘lere değin bu konuda yapılan bir araştırmayı, Mike Gene‘nin The Design Matrix kitabının 89-99 sayfalar arasındaki Makinelere Hoş geldiniz adlı bölümde göstermektedir. M.Gene veritabanı içersinde “moleküler makineler” tanımın bu yıllar arasında yapılan tüm akademik çalışmalarda ne kadar kullanıldığını araştırmış. 1965 yılından 85 yılına değin bu konuda nerdeyse bir kullanım, gönderme yada bilimsel araştırma yok olduğunu görmüş. 86-90 yılları arası hafif kıpırdanmalar olmuş 40 küsur makalede bu terim kullanılmış. 1991′den itibaren ise roket fırlatılmış. 91 yılında 100 üzerinde makale bu konuya değinmiş daha sonra 96-2000 arası 200 üzerinde makale konuyla daha da çok ilgilenmiş. 2001-2005 arası ise roket hızını alamamış 613 hit almış moleküler makineler bilimsel literatür içersinde. Moleküler makineler lafzının bugüne değin kayıtlı bilimsel araştırmalar içersinde aldığı hitin %90′nı 1991-2005 yılları arası ulaşılmış.

Akıllı yaşam ve doğanın birbirilerinden habersiz aynı çözümleri ürettiği görülmektedir. Biri bunu oldukça kesin bir yönlendirilmişlikle gerçekleştirebilirken, bugünkü bilimin hakim paradigması materyalist Darwinciliğe göre doğa bunu doğal seçilim ve mutasyonla gerçekleştirmektedir. Kısaca burada Dawkins’in tanımıyla kör bir saatçiden bir Tissot yapmasını ve bunu taksonominin her safhasında milyonlarca kere kusursuzca gerçekleştirdiği düşünenlerle, üstün bir akla sahip bir saat yapımcısı olduğunu düşünenler arasında bir mücadeleden bahsediyoruz.

Peki, Darwin’de kendi teorisini hangi temel yolla oluşturmuştu? İtinalı ve detaylandırılmış gözlem…

Madem Darwinizm salt gözlemlenen şeyler de gerçeğin kökeni hakkında bizler için bir yoldan bahsediyor. Bu yollun bizlere ne denli kesin bilimsel verileri sağlayabilir olduğu üzerine bir düşünmeliyiz. Acaba sadece gözleme dayanıp ne denli kesin kanıtlar elde edebiliriz ?

20.yy bilim felsefecileri arasında mümtaz bir yeri olan Carl Gustav Peter Hemper konu ile ilgili bizlere olağanüstü bir mantık örgüsü sunmaktadır.

Carl Hemper’a göre “Bütün kuzgunlar siyahtır!”

Bu önermeyi iki şekilde ispatlayabiliriz:

a) Çok sayıda kuzgun görüp, hepsinin de siyah olduğunu tespit ederek,

b) Siyah olmayan şeylerin, aynı zamanda kuzgun da olmadığını görerek.

Bilinen şu ki çok sayıda siyah kuzgun ve yine çok sayıda siyah olmayan, aynı zamanda kuzgun da olmayan cisim vardır. Siyah olmayan tüm cisimler incelenmeden bu fikre varamayız. Kırmızı cisimler için bu uygulama yapılmamışsa “bazı kuzgunlar kırmızı yâda beyaz ” da olabilir. Bu sebeplerden Hempel paradoksu, “Tümevarım”ın itibarını sarsmıştır. “

Kuş gözlemcisi örneğini ele alalım. Örnekte kişi tüm ömrünü kuzgunları gözlemlemekle geçirebilir. Gördüğü her kuzgun siyahtır, milyonlarcasını görmüş olabilir. Öyleyse, gözlemlerine dayanarak, bütün kuzgunların siyah olduğunu bir mantıksal önerme olarak ortaya koyabilir mi? Hayır, yapabileceği tek şey gördüğü tüm kuzgunların siyah olduğunu söylemektir. Gerçekte, göreceği bir sonraki kuzgunun siyah olacağı tahmini doğru çıkabilecektir ama henüz bunu kanıtlamış değildir ve deneyleri geleceği gösteremediği için hiçbir kesinlik temeli yoktur. ‘‘Ampirik” gözlemlerden kaynaklanan ‘‘ bütün kuzgunlar siyahtır ” saptaması nesnel bir doğrudan çok, kuşları gözleyenin gördüklerine dayanan öznel bir görüştür. Gözlemci, gerçekte tümevarım yöntemini kullanmıştır. Gözlemsel olarak öyle gideceğini hissediyor ya da sanıyor. Ancak kuzgunları sonsuza dek gözlemlemeyi sürdürebilseydi, her an kıyıda köşede bir beyaz kuzgun olabileceği için, tüm kuzgunların siyah olduğunu söyleyemeyecektir.

Demek ki, ne kadar hassas olursa olsun gözlemle elde edilen veriler bizlere kesin tartışılmaz gerçekliğe götüremez. Bunu bilim adına talepte edilmesi saçmadır. Fakat bu yolla kesin bir gerçekliğe ulaşmak ve çıkarımda bulunmak bilimsel değil kişisel bir seçimdir. Bu, Bacon tarafından açıklanan bilimsel, ampirik yöntemin bir örneğidir. Gerçekte, mantık terimleriyle belirtecek olursak, mantıksal yapıya tümevarımın mantıkdışı ve öznel bir süreci sokulmadığı sürece ampirik yöntemin olgusal önermeler (gerçeğe ilişkin sözler) getirmesi mümkün değildir. Ne kadar gözlem yapılırsa yapılsın, bir ampirik önermenin doğruluğu kanıtlanamaz. Kendisi doğrulanamayınca da, buna dayanan çözümler ‘‘bilim” in nesnel gerçekliğinden uzakta sisli bir mantığın içinde yürüyor demektir. Bugünde tasarım olgusunu dışlayan bir Darwinizmin yürüdüğü patika bundan farklı değildir.

Kimimiz gözlemlerimizle tasarım çıkarımına varabilirken, kimimiz gözlemlenen tasarım çıkarımının bir aldanış, bir tür sanrı olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Bu görüşlerimizi desteklemek içinde eldeki verilerin bizlere ne söylediğini ve bunlardan ne anladığımızı açıklıyoruz. Nasıl oluyor da aynı kaynağa bakıp bu denli farklı sonuçlara varabiliyoruz ? Tüm bu mücadeleler aslında kendimizi ikna etmek için mi veriliyor yoksa başkalarını ikna etmek bu denli çekici bir uğraş mı? Bilim bizleri herhangi bir sonuca ulaştırırken kendisi bu sonuçlarla yetiniyor mu bizler gibi ? Bilimin bu evreni varoluşu akla anlaşılabilir kılmasına muhtacız. Peki niçin evren akıl tarafından anlaşılabilecek bir yapıda varlık bulmuş? Bilim nasıl oluyorda bu denli evreni akıllarımıza anlaşılabilir halde ortaya çıkarabiliyor ? Yoksa bizim akıllarımız mu  acaba evreni anlamak  ve keşfetmek için tasarlanmış ? Yeryüzü nasıl oluyorda hem bilinçe ev sahipliği yapıyor hemde bilimsel keşif için tüm galaksideki en uygun koşulları bize sağlıyor? Yaşam için gerekli tüm koşullar aynı zamanda nasıl oluyorda bilimin keşfetmesi içinde optimum sonuçlar üretebiliyor? Tüm bunlar kozmik casinoda sürekli kazanan öncül amaçsız kör bir  tesadüf ile mi mümkün ?  Yoksa hangi numaranın ne kadar sürede geleceğini hesaplayabilen ve ona göre seçim yapabilen bir aklın yönlendirmesiyle mi daha olası ?

Akıl potansiyel olarak madde içinde materyalistlerin söyleminin iddiası gibi yoksa daha sonradan maddenin bilinen herhangi bir etkileşimle, olmayan şeyi çıkarması imkânsız değil midir? Çünkü potansiyelin gerçekleşmesiyle biz, geriye dönük nedensellik ilkesini gerçekleştirip bu potansiyelin canlı mekanik kanıtlarını oluşturuyoruz. Potansiyel olarak içeriğinde var olamayacak bir durum, daha sonradan rastlantının tüm olasılık gücünü kullanarak, maddeden aklı meydana getirmiş olabilir mi?

Darwin yine gözlem yolunu kullanarak tasarım çıkarımına alternatif ve teleolojik olarak ta zıt bir olası açıklama getirmiştir. Teorisi bir temel teşkil etmekle beraber oldukça eksiktir. Gözlemlenebilenden yola çıkarak bir olası tahminler dizgesi oluşturmaktadır. Maalesef  bilim dünyasındaki son yüzyılda  bu tahmini dizgenin kanıtlanmaya çalışılmasıyla geçmiştir.

Darwin en başından beridir teorisinin eksikliğinin kendiside farkındadır. Çünkü teorisi seçilimi açıklamakta ne denli başarılıysa, türler arası çeşitliliği açıklamakta o denli başarısızdır.Darwin kitabında gözlerden ve tavuşkuşundan bahsederken yaşadığı rahatsızlığın nedeni  budur. Tasarım çıkarımın kertilerek oluşan birikimli bir karmaşık sistem fikrine karşı ne kadar kuvvetli olduğunun farkındaydı.Her karmaşık sistem karmaşıklığı artıkça değişkenliklere karşı daha kırılgan olur. Ortamdaki değişikliklerin faydalı sonuçlara dönüşmesi rastlantısal olarak bir o kadar azalır.Karmaşık sistemler belirli bir stabiliteye muhtaçtır.Kritik değerler sağlanmazsa işlev gerçekleşemez. Örneğin gözde traduscinin gibi bir maddenin işlevi olmazsa göremeyiz. Peki Traduscin nasıl ve hangi Darwinci mekanizmayla oluşmuştur ? O bile ayrı bir Darwin sorunsalıdır. Çevremizdeki apaçık tasarımı göremeyenlerin göze bakması bile yeterlidir. Göz kendi içine dönerse orda tasarımı görebilir.

Darwin teorisini küçük birikimlerin doğrusal bir süreçle işlev oluşturmasına dayandırıyordu.Bu birikimlerin hepsininde stabil bir şekilde türe avantaj sağlaması,diğerlerinden onu sürekli bir şekilde üstün tutması ona avantaj sağlaması gerekliydi.Fakat bu bile tek başına canlılığın evrimini açıklmak için  yeterli olamazdı. Lamarck’ın sezip Darwinin görmezden gelmek zorunda olduğuda buydu. Bu Darwinin ikilemidir ve bu ikilem Darwin teorisinin yumuşak karnıdır. Bugün skolastizmin modern versiyonu şeklinde Darwinizme sahip çıkan çevreler hala bu problemi aşmış gözükmemektedir. Çünkü Darwin İngiliz çiftçilerinin gerçekleştirdiği yapay seleksiyonu doğaya uygulamaktan ve bunun için mekanizmalar sunmaktan öteye gidememiştir. Bilginin son derece sınırlı olduğu bir ortamda, doğal seçilimin uzun ve birikimli bir süreçte çevremizde gördüğümüz tüm değişikliğin mimarı olduğunun iddiası, yüzeysel gerçekliğe sırtını dayayarak o zamanlar için kabul edilebilir görülmektedir. Fakat bugün elimizdeki teknolojiyi aşan yapıların, hayat ağaçının en temel ve basit olarak nitelendirilen formalarında gözlemleniyor olması ve bunların sahip olduğu üstün nano teknolojilerini model alarak yapılan yeni keşifler, bizlere sanki oldukça farklı birşeyleri anlatmaya çalışmaktadır. En basit sanılanın karmaşıklığı karşısında materyalizm kavramsal bir kısır döngü yaşamaktadır. Akıllı Tasarım işte bunu bir bakıma anlamlandırma çabasıdır. Bilim bizlerin ne düşündüğüyle neye inandığıyla ilgili olmamalıdır. Sadece kapasitemiz el verdiğince kanıtların ve açıklamaların bizleri nereye götürebileceği hakkında bizlere  yardımcı olabilir. Düşünceler üzerine sistematik prangalar koymak  ne bilime nede bilim insanı kimliğine yakışacak söylemler asla olamaz. Bilimden kendi kişisel düşüncelerimiz hakkında kesin bir cevap beklemek ve ya bir sağlamasını yapmasını arzu etmek bilim adına bilime Demokles’in kılıcını sallamaktır.

Akıllı Tasarım söylemine karşı hazımsızlık sergileyenlerin yapabildikleri Akıllı Tasarımı yeni yaratılışçılık olarak damgalamak ve tasarım çıkarımına neden olabilecek tüm verileri de ‘dini inanışın’ sonucu ortaya çıkmış hezeyanlar şeklinde göstermeye çalışmaktır. Açıkça söylenmese de verilerin bizleri nereye götüreceği , hangi sonuca ulaştırdığı önemli değildir. Materyalist zihniyetin sağlamasını yapmayan naturalistik olmayan bir açıklama asla ‘’gerçek bilim” olamaz. Bu anlayış ortaçağda görülen Kilise dogmalarının modern versiyonudur. İkisinin de kaynağı hurafelerden oluşan inançtır. Buna sarılan insanların bilimi aydınlık yüzünü temsil ettiğini düşünmek, bilimi ciddiye almamak ve onu siyasi bir propaganda malzemesine indirgemekten öte bir anlam taşıyamaz. Akıllı Tasarım tarafı olarak bir doğrunun ya da sonuç çıkarımının salt savunulması değil, elde edilen verilerin ışığında ne gibi akli çıkarımlar yapabileceğimizi sorguluyoruz. Bu çıkarımların kesinlikle gerçeği temsil ettiğini iddia etmiyor, sadece aktardığımız şekilde olma olasılığının diğer olası açıklamalara göre daha olası olduğunu savunuyoruz . Eldeki veriler bunu desteklediği müddetçe sizlerle paylaşmaya devam edeceğiz.

[1] Bell G (1997) Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. New York: Chapman & Hall.

This was originally an email response to a fellow atheist who wanted to know my take on Christian arguments to be able to argue more competently.

Well, if you’re an atheist then you must naturally find some falsehood in the Christian claim for the existence of their God. You can argue it philosophically or through science. It’s really easy to find fallacies and contradictions in their belief on your own, there are so many.

First off you have to know that it is the duty of the person making a claim to prove it, not the person in disbelief. So logically the first argument is there is no evidence of their God.

They make scientific claims that God is the creator of everything in the universe and argue in particular earth’s creation. Since referring to the bible as evidence would be a circular argument, they either use the philosophical argument called “the watch maker argument”, whose author is William Paley or the psudoscientific of “intelligent design”. The” watch maker” is the origin of “intelligent design”, a very old argument put to rest long ago disguised as science. He compares the complexity of a watch to that of the universe and thus since a watch has an intelligent maker (humans) so must the universe. Paley’s argument was thoroughly put to rest by another philosopher named David Hume, 40 years before Paley even wrote it. Paley’s biggest mistake is in the comparison of the two. If comparing two objects, the strength of your argument relies on how similar the two items are, thus this argument is considered very weak. You can obviously notice how disparate the two are. Secondly, he fails to realize that one can obtain similar results from different causes. For example, you can die from a viral infection or in a car crash. Very different causes same result. So there is an obvious error in presuming the universe and a watch have similar causes. This argument is seen in many versions; many replace the watch with paintings of the Mona Lisa or a Coke-Cola can. They will say things like “it’s obvious something intelligent created this”. However the fundamental errors are the same. This is a very brief summary; you should go more into depth.

Since we live in the age of science and information, the biblical account of creation can be put to shame. Of course, the theory of evolution is the most opposed to by Christians because it is the most threatening to their entire dogma. Not just because it proves the bible is an unreliable source of information and not the word of an all knowing God, but because it supports the idea that we are here without the aid or over sight of a deity. No need for a God to explain our origins. It also takes away from the anthropocentric view of Christian religion. We are not the reason why the universe exists and it does not exist for us. Humans are not any more special in origin than any other animal. We were not created in God’s image and frankly there is no heavenly purpose to life other than the one you give yourself, not to mention how impersonal God would be if despite the evidence he existed. It also obliterates their dogma; with out original sin what need for Jesus is there?

Genetic and geographic evidence both support evolution and rebut creation. Different animals fossils are specific to different layers of earth. Each layer of earth is equivalent to a specific time period in earth’s history. Humans are found in the upper most layers indicating that they arrived later in earth’s history. If the biblical account of creation were to be true, all animals should be found in all the different layers since they were all created relatively simultaneously. Which is why the biblical creation myth does not prove true and is why human remains are not found alongside a dinosaurs’. Genetically we are almost identical to chimpanzees and bonobos. We share 98-99% similar DNA with them, implying we shared a common ancestor. This does not mean we came from monkeys, it means we are evolutionarily related. Just like you and you cousins share a common relative. There is a plethora of evidence sustaining evolution and refuting creation, check them out. Don’t be scared by “intelligent arguments”, like “there is no instance where genetic information is added to DNA sequence in any natural process”, “there aren’t any transitional fossils “or “evolution has never been witnessed”. These are false, check out www.EvoWiki.com for reference. Most of the time, Christians are ill informed or repeat lies and misconceptions of evolution. Know your shit if you don’t want to look stupid and leave Christians with the illusion that truth has triumphed. Remember that the fallacy they live by is: if you can’t explain or answer a question, they are right by default. Which is a warped assumption since the burden of proof is on the person making the claim; it’s not your burden to prove God doesn’t exist. There are stock piles of science that refutes biblical claims.

Thirdly most common argument is that of morality. Where does morality come from? What is moral? Again if you can’t answer they assume they are right by default. These philosophical questions were addressed by Plato in his classic work “Euthyphro” (www.wikipedia.com ), where Socrates is famously quoted as asking “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In Greek, piety meant more than just religious devotion; it was more along the lines of justice and morality. The second part of the question is called the “God command theory”, implying that an action is deemed moral or virtuous merely because God says so. In which case, any action can be moral regardless if it is unjust and causes undeserved pain and suffering. There is no clear way of defining what is moral if this is the argument made, there is no reference to judge actions by, one is even unable to judge if God is all-good or evil. This way of thinking has been adopted my Islamic terrorist who defend their actions as righteous because God approves it in the Koran. The first half of Socrates question implies that God approves of morality because of its intrinsic virtue, meaning that morality exists independent of God’s judgment. This allows us to define morality by use of reason. If this is true, what need for God is there?

A general rule of thumb for knowing what moral is “The Golden Rule”, “do onto others as one would have others do onto you”. Of course Christians would claim that this is biblical and thus commanded by God. But the Idea transcends religion. In essence this has its origin in empathy, In other words, placing oneself in another person’s place. This is not original to Christianity; in fact it’s not even original to the human species. Primates such as chimps, gorillas and bonobos have been observed as showing this trait. There is an account in Frans de Waal’s book “Our inner ape”, where a bonobo rescues a bird that had flown into the wall of his enclosure. The bird was in shock and could not fly. The bonobo gently picks the bird up and climbs to the top of a tree and releases the bird. The bird falls but the bonobo continued to look after the bird, protecting it from a younger curious bonobo until the bird regained its motor skills and flew away.

Another account in his book is that of an 8 Year old gorilla coming to the aid of a 3 year old boy who has fallen into her enclosure and was injured. The gorilla runs to the boys rescue, cradles him in her arms and begins to pat his back; later giving the boy up to Zoo attendants. The truth is empathy is a trait we have inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. We are predisposed to empathetic behavior, but our environment, circumstance, and culture influences are behavior. Also empathy is not an absolute we are also able to be apathetic and cruel. Morality is much more complex of a subject and the Golden rule is much too general to encompass all our social scenarios. This is where philosophy and reason play their part is solving the moral conundrums that plague our world. In all honesty morality is a highly debated subject by philosophers. There are debates such as Utilitarianism versus individual rights. However the ground work has been accomplished through reason not divine intervention.

Last but not least is a classic argument specific to the monotheist Judeo-Christian religions. Their belief is that of God who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. There is an obvious discrepancy in this absolutist view of God. We live in a world full of evil, which is defined as undeserved pain and suffering inflicted by other humans as well as natural disasters like famine and volcanoes. If God is all-good then how can he allow evil to exist. Either he is not all good or he is not powerful enough to stop it. It is either one or the other but he logically cannot be both. This concepts brings about questions like “if God is all-powerful could he make a mountain he could not move”, if he can’t make one he is not all powerful and if he can’t move it he is not all powerful. Similar questions can be asked about his “all-knowing” mind.

The truth is Christians rarely come up with original arguments. They repeat the same old mistakes they made in the past. Unlike science that is always expanding its knowledge of our universe, this religion is stagnant and encapsulated in the same old rhetoric and presumptions. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself shaking your head, rolling your eyes and yawning in a debate. I call their faith a delusion because they maintain their belief despite of overwhelming evidence and rational ineptitudes of their dogma. They lack the ability to be objective and self-reflective. Reality is relative to what they want it to be and not what it actually is. Some compartmentalize their faith, as I once did; the laws of logical reasoning expire at the gates of their faith.