Dumping Grounds

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

While I have been unable to find the original declaration (press release, or whatever it is that they do when the Vatican sends down on a message from upon high) the press accounts I have found seem to imply that the Vatican comes down squarely against Intelligent Design, instead espousing the figurative language of Genesis, and the so-called Clockwork hypothesis (which, incidentally, is the one I supported in my article).

Maybe I should have run for Pope. I don’t think I am conservative enough to run for President.

Unless you have been under a rock, you have heard of the trial that opened in Harrisburg, Pa. this week, concerning school curriculums and whether or not intelligent design has any place in the biology classes of the Dover school district. Currently, the district recommends an alternate textbook that presents the ideas surrounding intelligent design. 11 parents, backed by the ACLU, are suing the Dover School district for presenting â??religious conceptsâ? during class, thereby violating the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state.

Dover became the first district in the entire nation to require its teachers to question the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and present intelligent design as an alternative. Teachers were required to state that â??The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence, intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.â? Teachers were not required to point out that not only is there no evidence that backs intelligent design, but that the idea itself is inherently untestable.

Pennsylvania is not the only place that the debate has been front and center. The Kansas Board of Education is considering changes that would â??encourageâ? the teaching of intelligent design in all Kansas schools. In Washington, the President sparked a firestorm of reaction when he seemed to endorse the teaching of intelligent design in schools, while refusing to state his own beliefs on the matter. However, while Bush was Governor of Texas, he supported the teaching of both the theory of evolution and creationism in Texas schools.

What is Intelligent Design?

So what is all the uproar about? What exactly is the idea of intelligent design? Very simply, it is the idea that the world, and all the living beings in it, is too complex to have arisen through the mechanisms espoused by Darwin, namely mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Therefore, life, while millions of years old, has been created and guided by an unseen hand, an unspecified intelligence. The specific nature of this intelligence is unknowable, but the theory is most often espoused by those who believe that the guiding force is the Christian God. The phrase â??intelligent designâ? was first used in this context in 1989 in the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People and was further popularized by Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. The concept itself has been around for centuries, and was presented in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica in the 13th century.

The modern idea of intelligent design is built around three principal concepts: irreducible complexity, specified complexity and that of a fine-tuned universe. Each of these concepts boils down to the basic tenet that it is so terribly unlikely that we exist, that some outside influence must have caused it to happen.

Irreducible complexity was introduced in 1996 by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box. He defines it as

â??…a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.â?

In effect, he proposes the idea that if there are multiple elements of a complex system that work together (and require each other to operate) that have no use by themselves, there is no mechanism that will cause that entire system to evolve. Among other examples, he cites the immune system as a set of parts which provide no advantage individually, but together give a tremendous benefit. Evolution, he says, cannot provide support for the intermediate pieces, and therefore provides no mechanism for the development of complex systems.

The problem with this argument is that many systems cited in his book as examples of irreducible complexity have been shown, through scientific method, to be reducible after all. As a matter of fact, all three of the biological examples that Behe used in his book, the immune system, blood clotting, and the flagellum, have been shown to be reducible. Beyond that, Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin have shown that evolution can produce irreducibly complex mechanisms that satisfy Behe’s decription of irreducable complexity. In their research they have concluded that biological mechanisms develop â??redundant complexityâ? and that Behe greatly overestimated the importance of irreducable complexity because his biological models were far too simple.

Personally, I don’t find it difficult to imagine that a complex system such as an eyeball could be the result of millions of generations of imperfect genetic reproduction (in effect, mistakes) because of natural selection. Those â??mistakesâ? that do not hinder the performance of the organism, and when several â??mistakesâ? align to provide an advantage, those organisms will become more successful, and prolific. Somehow I think that Behe simply underestimates how long life has been on Earth, and how long natural selection has had to operate. No one ever said that evolution was an efficient process.

Specified Complexity is the idea that if something is both specified and complex, it must have arisen through the influence of some intelligent cause. Did that make any sense to you? It didn’t to me, either. The example that the creator, William Dembski, cites, is as follows:

â??A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.â? (Intelligent Design, p. 47)

The problem is that he simply defines anything as terribly unlikely to be CSI (complex specified information). Although he cites an awful lot of mathematics, many scholars argue that his reasoning is fatally flawed. For instance: It is terribly unlikely that I will ever win the lottery. However, it is downright probable that someone will win the lottery. To put this in evolutionary terms… it is terribly unlikely that humans would have evolved. But it is certainly more likely that something would have evolved. Much like the lottery, although any given outcome is extremely improbable, the fact that there are winning numbers happens all the time.

Personally, I do not find the argument of specified complexity compelling in any way whatsoever. It seems to miss the point, at least to me.

The concept of a fine tuned universe is closely related to that of specified complexity, in that it concerns ideas that proponents regard as incredibly unlikely. The idea is that the universe was not likely to have had all the features necessary for life to arise. There has not been much mainstream discussion of this idea, and it clearly the weakest of the three major tenets of intelligent design.

Criticism of this idea is widespread and compelling. Again I cite the lottery example: possibly it is unlikely for a universe to have arisen that allows us, but it is not unlikely that a universe would arise that allows someone. But, even this turns out not to be true, as Stephen Hawking and James Hartle have shown that from the conditions immediately following the Big Bang, there are a number of types of universes that could have formed. The type of universe that we live in will be formed over 90% of the time, however. So maybe the universe that we live in is not a long shot at all. I’m terribly biased, but I am going to believe the calculations of the preeminent physicist of our time before I believe many of the â??scientificâ? conclusions cited above.

If one is going to be a proponent of intelligent design, one has to have some idea as to what the intelligent force behind the creation of life is. As I cited earlier, this idea is commonly put forth by conservative Christians. Of course, there are other ideas: aliens (proposed by the Raelian movement, and some UFO conspiracy buffs), or through panspermia (an idea first proposed around 430 BCE, by Anaxagoras, and later used to explain why all the aliens look alike in Star Trek). Of course, neither of these alternate ideas propose an intelligence capable of creating the fine-tuned universe, nor do they answer the question of â??who made the aliens?â?

I have found it curious that the conservative Christians who back teaching intelligent design in the schools are the same people (usually) who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and also who absolutely believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Intelligent design is completely incompatible with first and last of these ideas, and is on dubious ground with the idea of omnipotence.

If you are going to back intelligent design, the very first thing you have to do is admit that the creation story in Genesis is not true. Not only is it not literal, it is flat out wrong. Intelligent design absolutely admits that life forms evolve, just that it is the hand of God, and not natural selection, that provides the impetus for change. This is not how Genesis reads. Not even if you try to take Genesis as figurative can you get any idea of evolving life forms from the first chapters of the Bible.

The strange thing is, though, intelligent design seems to imply that the guiding force is not quite sure what they are doing. Species go extinct, it took several tries to make modern man from a prehistoric chimpanzee, and you must admit that something designed the platypus on purpose. (Yeah, that was a little humor… is anyone still reading this far? Trust me, the best stuff is coming up.)

Personally, I have long felt that the idea of an omniscient God didn’t make sense to me… if God knows everything, then he not only knows how to create the universe, but he also knows how every event in the past 14 billion years (and in the next 14 billion) was going to turn out beforehand.

If that is the case, then why did He bother? What is the point if you know exactly how it is going to turn out? A phrase I like to use is: I give God more credit than that. He doesn’t know how things are going to turn out, we’re not predestined. He’s not omniscient. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The only possible interpretation of intelligent design (and I really hate to put it under the same umbrella) that I find compelling (and as a matter of fact, I probably regard as more likely than any other possibility) is the so called Clockmaker hypothesis. The idea is that the universe itself, and all the laws of physics that case it to work, were created by God (very possibly in the Big Bang itself) and then He stepped back to see what would happen. Life arose on Earth (and possibly other places) because of the way the universe was created, but not through the specific action of God. I have no problem with this idea, although I regard it as completely an article of faith, and schools should only concern themselves with the universe as it was created, and not the idea of who or how it was created.

One other idea that unquestionably deserves recognition here is the idea of â??Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM).â? FSM is the creation of Bobby Henderson, who wrote a letter in June 2005 to the Kansas Board of Education in â??supportâ? of intelligent design being taught in the schools.

Mr. Henderson asks that Kansas also require the teaching of â??otherâ? theories of intelligent design, including FSM, as practiced by â??Pastafarians.â? The tenets of his â??religionâ? are as follows:

• The universe was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• All evidence pointing to evolutionary mechanisms operating in the world was placed there by the Flying Spaghetti monster.
• No amount of science can disprove the Flying Spaghetti monster, as he continues to guide the universe (and alter test results) with â??His Noodly Appendage.â?
• All instruction as to the FSM theory of intelligent design must be done while wearing full pirate regalia, as â??He becomes angry if we don’t.â?
• Global warming is caused by the decline in the number of pirates worldwide.
• There is documentation of the creation of the universe. Specifically, there is a written account (drawing) showing the FSM, a tree covered mountain, and a midgit [sic].

While many people find the FSM movement simply hilarious, it is very important to remember… there is exactly the same amount (and type) of evidence supporting FSM-ism as there is intelligent design guided by the Christian God.

My point being that is is a matter of faith, not science, and as such, does not belong in a school curriculum.

faith - n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no material evidence for FSM, just as there is no material evidence for intelligent design. The guiding force is unknowable, invisible, and undetectable. It is, therefore, a matter of faith.

For those few of you still reading (this is the first blog entry I have ever written that I outlined beforehand, and consequently, I am fairly certain it is my longest entry ever) you may be wondering why I care? First of all, I have no children, so I’m not concerned about what they might be exposed to in the schools. Second of all, as I have already discussed, I am a Christian, and have no problem with the idea of a Creator. (Just to be clear, though, I have huge problems with the idea that the Creator then became a guiding force in the day to day operation of the universe.)

I care because I feel that this public debate is indicative of a larger issue in our society. An issue that has subtlely creeped into our daily lives, into our government, and into our schools. An issue that, believe it or not, at the very forefront of the possible adoption of a constitution in Iraq.

The idea that America is creeping ever closer to a fundamentalist government, of exactly the type we would like to prevent in Iraq. Can you imagine a non-Christian getting elected President? I can’t. Do you think that even 15 years ago the idea of an American President endorsing the idea of teaching fundamentalist Christian ideas instead of Darwin in science class would have been met with such… apathy? I don’t. Current public opinion is swinging toward support for tighter integration of Christian faith and our government.

Even as a Christian, this terrifies me.

Please explain to me how a fundamentalist Muslim government is bad, and a fundamentalist Christian government is good.

• Fundamentalist Muslim law is bad, because it opresses women and denies them basic rights. (Fundamentalist Christian government oppresses homosexuals and denies them basic rights, but that’s ok.)
• Fundamentalist Muslim governments fund terrorism, which kills thousands of Americans (Fundamentalist Christian governments fund invasions, which kill hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis)
• Fundamentalist Muslim governments oppress minority denominations, and kill them if they continue to insist upon representation (The minorities counter attack, further escalating hostilities) (Oh, wait… Christian governments do the same thing)

I’ll be fair. It’s been 120 years since Mormons and mainstream Protestant Christians have killed each other in cold blood. But it did happen. How is that different that the Shiite and Sunni muslims killing each other in Iraq?

I am sure that some of you reading this think that I am over-reacting, but the first amendment reads, in part:

â??Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ?

and I feel that the endorsement of faith-based ideas in the schools is certainly the first step to the establishment of an official religion. Maybe not a huge step, but it is a step nonetheless. Once any piece of the Bill of Rights is breached, all of the others are on shaky ground.

Parents who feel strongly that they want their children to receive religious instruction in their school have a perfectly viable option: private school. Or home schooling. Those that cannot afford private school have every moment outside school from the time their children wake up until they go to bed at night for spiritual instruction. That is what being a parent is all about. Be involved. Don’t ever forget that the most influential person, the most important teacher, in your child’s life, is you.

If you bothered to read this far, post a comment. Moreso than anything I have written in a long time, this topic warrants a debate. I’m interested in what you think. Liz, I know you are busy, so you are exempted

Let me apologize for this entry right up front… it rambles. It roams. Depending on your viewpoint, it may or may not ever come to a point. I just had several ideas occur to me, only somewhat related, and they all ended up here.

---

I have always been a tremendous fan of Orson Scott Card. His most famous character I take my Yahoo! handle from, I have read virtually everything he has ever written, and with only rare exceptions, I have enjoyed it all.

Some of you know that I was a little disappointed in the Alvin Maker series, especially the later entries, as it became more and more obvious to me that it was not a completely original story, but instead a retelling of some portions of the Book of Mormon, and â??The Crystal Cityâ? that Alvin is destined to build is actually a reference to the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.

As this dawned on me, I felt betrayed, as Card has always been quite up front about which of his stories were science fiction (Ender’s Game, Speaker for the Dead), which were fantasy (Enchantment, Wyrms) and which were religious retellings of already exiting stories (Sarah, Rebekah, and his forthcoming Women of Mormon series). Card always has a spiritual aspect to his stories, even if it is extremely subtle, and not central to the story at hand (Ender is the son of a Mormon father, after religion is declared illegal, the protagonist in Enchantment is a devout Jew). He’s never seemed to me to have a hidden agenda, though, and for some reason, it annoyed me that the tales of Alvin Maker turned out to be religious allegory, and I didn’t realize that fact until I was 5 books into the series.

Or maybe I was just upset that I didn’t get it from the start.

On my most recent (today, as a matter of fact) trip to Tampa, I decided to take the Book of Mormon as my reading material. Although I have read sections of the BoM, and I have read the Pearl of Great Price, I had never attempted a cover to cover reading of the BoM itself.

So as I awoke from my quick nap following takeoff (what is it about takeoffs that put me to sleep?) I cracked it open and began to read.

Imagine my surprise, as I turned the pages of the First Book of Nephi… I was reading Card’s book, Memory of Earth. It was more than similar, it was blatant. It’s exactly the same story, with the same characters (some of whose names are not even changed), acting in the same ways. I’m not sure why, but I don’t feel as betrayed this time. I guess mainly because I knew Card wanted to tell the stories of his religion to an audience that does not know them well (can you name even one book from the Book of Mormon?). So finding out that he did it in more than one series is not as upsetting. It bothered me less also because I recognized the similarity almost immediately, so when I did figure it out, I didn’t feel dumb.

So the difference was in me, not in Card. Maybe I grew up, maybe I just knew what to expect now. There is far more Mormon imagery in Card’s literature than I ever imagined.

And on the other hand, if you want to read the Book of Mormon (at least the beginning of it), in an expanded form with a few extra plot points, and a more modern writing style, read Memory of Earth.

Here’s a quick reader’s guide… (references to MoE are first, BoM second)

• the Oversoul = God
• Nefai = Nephi
• Basilica = Jerusalem

The general plot of both stories is as follows: the controlling entity (God, the Oversoul) has a crisis, and presents the main character’s (Nephi, Nafai) father a vision in a pillar of fire, and warns him to leave the city (Basilica, Jerusalem) which is soon to be destroyed. The main character is a faithful son, and goes willingly, but his older brother is violent and murmurs against his father. They set up camp outside the city in a valley by a river which the father names for the older son. The younger son is sent back into the town to obtain an artifact that contains valuable family information. The younger son uses all of his father abandoned wealth within the city to obtain the artifact (since they are leaving, what use is the wealth?) and is beaten by the older son upon his return, who still harbors hope that he will inherit, and get to return to his life in the city. While on this mission, the younger son (the main character) kills the keeper of the artifact by cutting off his head with a sword, and then dons his clothes as a disguise to escape the city. This is done at the direct behest of the controlling entity.

At this point I stopped reading to start this entry. I don’t know how long the direct correlation continues, but I’ll let you know. The above plot is exactly the plot of both books. I don’t think I am imagining this.

NOTE: Apparently, if I had ever bothered to read the user reviews on Amazon.com, this link between Memory of Earth and First Book of Nephai is well known. I don’t really see how it could not be, given HOW similar the two works are. Memory of Earth is the first of a series, I have no idea how long the correlation continues… but I know basically where the Book of Mormon is headed, with Nephi’s family reaching the North American continent. The third book in the Memory series has Nafai’s family leaving their planet (Harmony) for another (Earth). So, the correlation could conceivably continue for a long time.

Given that I don’t think Card has ever won one of his many awards for one of his religious retellings (which would be a bit odd, winning an award for a non-original story) I don’t really think I have a problem with it.

And to be honest, that wasn’t what I was planning this entry to be about in the first place. I feel like Arlo Guthrie (â??Which brings us back to Alice… remember Alice? This is a song about Alice.â? — about 7 minutes into the song Alice’s Restaurant)

Before making my realization about Memory of Earth, my intention was for this entry to be about faith. Different people have very different visions of faith, a friend of mine has been known to say that â??faith is not an act of volitionâ? and Soren Kierkagaard felt that faith which needed to be backed any sort off empirical evidence was flawed faith. In effect, it didn’t count.

Kierkagaard’s example of perfect faith is Abraham. For those of you who are not familiar with the story (Abraham did lots of things, this is just one small aspect of his story, which can be found with varying levels of detail, in Genesis, The Pearl of Great Price, and several Suras of the Qua’ran). Abraham was a devout man who had been very blessed, but did have the misfortune to have wed a woman who was barren, and therefore did not have any sons (with his wife, he did have one with a concubine, but that is a matter for another day). This was a matter of some distress for Abraham, and finally, very late in life (and I mean REALLY late in life) God blessed Abraham and his wife Sarah, with a son, Isaac.

Cutting to the climax of the story, God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, as a test of his faithfulness. Although he does not understand why, Abraham prepares to kill his beloved son, until he is stopped at the last minute by an angel, who tells him that he has proven himself a true and loyal servant of the Lord, and he does not have to kill Isaac to prove himself.

Kierkagaard cites this as an example of perfect faith. No reasonable man would do such a thing without explanation, and yet Abraham is prepared to.

This is a faith far beyond what most of us have, and I don’t mind confessing, beyond what I possess. I enjoy reading of physical evidence of the events in the Bible. The fact that there is archeological evidence of a flood in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley strengthens my faith, rather than weakens it. The fact that there are actual records of the life of Jesus, actual evidence of the destruction of the original temple in Jerusalem… those things help me along my path.

Which actually gets me to the main point that I intended to get to in the first place in this entry…

I would not make a good Mormon.

There is no archeological evidence whatsoever that the people detailed in the Book of Mormon ever existed. The epic battles that were fought in (probably) Central and Southern North America have never been found. And get this… The Church of Latter Day Saints admits that they do not ever expect to find any such evidence.

To them, it’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of faith. Evidence would do very little to enhance the belief of a devout Mormon who already believes in these events with all their heart.

I myself would have a difficult time with some of the more esoteric (historical, rather than spiritual) beliefs without some evidence. Yes, I am fully aware of the irony. I happen to subscribe to a religion that claims that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and who rose from the dead following his execution. And yet I seem to have a bit of a problem with the fact that the lost tribe of Israelites might have made it to the American continent. (sigh) No, I cannot explain it. Nor am I going to try.

---

Side Note: Isn’t it odd how certain messages crop up in your life just when you need them? In the middle of writing this entry, I was watching an episode of Firefly (fantastic show, by the way) which contained the following exchange (Just the tiniest bit of background… Shepherd book is a preacher, River is a profoundly gifted, and equally disturbed, young girl):

[Shepherd Book prepares a meal as he absentmindedly addresses River.]
Book: What are we up to, sweetheart?
River: Fixing your Bible.
Book: River, you don’t… fix the Bible.
River: It’s broken. It doesn’t make sense.
Book: It’s not about… making sense. It’s about believing in something. And letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It’s about faith. You don’t fix faith, River. It fixes you.

---

That is an excellent summation of what I was trying to say. Faith is not about making sense. Not all the time.

Or, to say the same thing in a considerably darker, more cynical way…

â??Faith means not wanting to know what is true.â?
— Frederich Nietzche

Kierkagaard would have made a good Mormon. Nietzche not so much.

Oh, c’mon, admit it. You thought I had forgotten about this whole religion set of entries, didn’t you?

I was reading the â??Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israelâ? (yeah, just a little light reading for the evening, eh?) by Ronald Hendel. This wasn’t random, I took classes from Dr. Hendel while I was SMU, and the book was the expansion/revision of his PhD thesis. He compares different story traditions (both Biblical and not) and sees how there are similar themes, regardless of culture. Interesting book, probably very hard to locate. If you are actually interested, ask me nicely and I might loan you my copy. Virtually this entire entry is based upon Dr. Hendel’s work. If it’s insightful and thought provoking, it’s probably his. If it’s wrong, I probably added it.

The stories of Jacob and Moses are so similar in structure that it is difficult to see it as coincidence. Either they were both based on an earlier oral or written (but as of yet, unfound) tradition, or they both were told to fit the pattern that an ancient Israelite heroic story â??shouldâ? be. (or, if both stories are literally true and historically accurate, it can be said that God lacked creativity)

Please don’t take my feeble attempts at humor as some sort of heinous blasphemy. I don’t mean it that way, and you shouldn’t take it that way.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, or who maybe don’t see how the stories of Jacob (Patriarch of the Twelve Tribes of Israel) and Moses (Leader of the Exodus from Egypt) are so similar. Consider this:

• They both have a special birth story (this is almost completely consistent for every figure of any importance in the Bible)
• They both have an illicit act in their youth
• They both run from their homeland as a result of the fear of persecution as a result of that act
• They both get a promise from Yahweh at a sacred place
• They both have an incident at a well with their future wife
• They both get married and have children
• They both return to the land of their birth (at the command of Yahweh)
• They both have a dangerous encounter with Yahweh
• They both have a meeting with their brother upon their arrival home

It is remarkable, isn’t it? I’m not implying that the ancient Israelites were cheating by not coming up with an original story. It’s no more cheating than the fact that almost all chick-flicks follow a formula, or the fact that about 9 John Grisham books in a row were virtually identical. We expect it. We have story patterns that we are comfortable with. It’s safe to assume that the Israelites were the same. We also read stories from other cultures, and incorporate them into our own stories (Greek mythos, for instance, are routinely made into movies, and inspired the human religion in Battlestar Galactica). Why are we so averse to the idea that the ancient Hebrews might not have done the same?

Especially when there is a significant amount of evidence that they did exactly that. See my previous entry for a discussion on the similarity between the Old Testament Noah and Utnapishtim of the Gilgamesh epic. But we’re not talking about Noah today, are we? We’re talking about Moses and Jacob. Consider this:

My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch.
She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape.
the river carried me along; to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me.
Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up.
Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son.
Aqqi, the water drawer, set me to his garden work.
During my garden work, Ishtar loved me, so that
For 55 years, I ruled as King.
- translation from B. Lewis, The Sargon Legend, pg 24-25

Sargon was a legendary figure that was extremely popular in ancient Mesopotamia. Referring to him have been found throughout the Middle East, and have been dated as early as 2,000 years B.C.E. (Before Christ… literally, Before Common Era). Lewis, in his book listed above, on page 109, states that â??With the possible exception of Gilgamesh, Sargon of Akkad dominated the literary tradition of Mesopotamia as no other historical figure before or after.â? The Hebrews who first told the stories of Moses, and the later Hebrews who first wrote the story down, were almost certainly aware of the stories of Sargon. It’s reasonable to assume that they wanted THIER heroes to have just as remarkable of a birth story as the stories they had read of heroes in other cultures.

We do the same thing in our culture. Does anyone believe that George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree, and when confronted, declared, â??I cannot tell a lieâ? ?

I don’t. I think that is a story used to illustrate a point about the father of our country. What if a special birth story is used in ancient Israelite literature to foreshadow â??this character is destined for great thingsâ? ? It certainly does not make the story less valid. It just provides â??signpostsâ? that make the story easier to follow, much as a musical soundtrack does today in movies.

I don’t think that this is blasphemous at all, although I am sure some of you do. But I think it is reasonable to believe that some things are just â??human nature.â? One of those things is to make up stories about our heroes. Does the fact that George Washington didn’t cut down a cherry tree make him any less real? Does it in any way denigrate what he stood for? Does it make his accomplishments less impressive?

We do the same with some more modern heroes, as well. Did Babe Ruth â??call his shotâ? before he hit a home run? Some people think he did, and some people don’t. I think that is one of the sad things about the â??video intensiveâ? society we live in. It removes some of the mystery from our heroes. It’s difficult to tell fantastic stories about Nolan Ryan’s strikeouts, when we have a video record of all 5,714 of them.

Don’t worry, although I am a posting maniac tonight, this entry will not be nearly as long as my last on religion.

I received quite a bit of feedback (although for some odd reason, nobody wanted to start a discussion in comments, it was all via e-mail, phone, or in person) both positive and negative, but the positive outnumbered the negative by a wide margin.

Here is a quick listing of some of the questions I received, and some quick answers.

• Do you believe that people like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus really existed?

For the most part, yes, I do. i think that historical and archeological evidence supports the fact that they did. They are listed in the question in the order in which I am sure they existed.

I think there was a real person in which the character Noah was based, and I think that there is a good bit of evidence for a catastrophic flood at one time in the ancient Middle East. The flood story is presented in the mythos of many, many ancient cultures. The story in Genesis is not the oldest version of the flood story, either. I believe that honor belongs to the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. The person who survived the great flood in that story is named Utnapishtim, and there are a GREAT number of similarities to the Noah story. For instance:

Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make all living beings go up into the boat.
- Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI

Sound familiar? How about this?

Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make it an ark with compartments, and cover it inside and out with pitch… Put an entrance to the ark in its side, make it with bottom, second and third decks.
— Genesis 6:14, 16, Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures

Contrast that with:

I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).

Utanapishtim continues four lines later:

[I poured] three times 3,600 (units of) pitch …into it
- Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI

The similarity in structure and vocabulary is striking. I’ll go into more detail later on Noah, but let’s just say that I believe that Noah was based upon a real person. He might not have been named Noah. He might not have been named Utanapishtim, either.

The evidence for Abraham (Ibrahim in most Islamic contexts) is circumstantial, but still somewhat convincing. This has already gotten longer than I intended, but suffice it to say I will return to this subject in my next entry.

In my opinion, the evidence for Moses is even stronger, and it is very difficult to find an individual of any faith that does not acknowledge that Jesus existed. He most certainly did (although, the name Jesus is anglicized). Most, but not all people know that he is a major player in the Koran, as well as the Bible. In general, he is recognized as a prophet and is held in generally high regard by Muslims. Again, a subject for more discussion later.

• How can you say that it is more likely that the Book of Mormon or the Koran were inspired by God, and the Bible isn’t?

Go look again. That’s not what I said. The original Hebrew scriptures may very well have been divinely inspired. I said that the Bible, taken as a whole (and certainly not the English version that we read) is not the literal word of God. The only scripture that I am aware of that any of us may have read the original is the Book of Mormon, as it is the only one originally written in English. Translations are never exact, and when we’re talking about attributing words to a deity, I think that exact is the only standard that works. Call me a stickler.

(Yes, by that standard, the Koran I have read is no more official [as I do not read a single word of arabic], and the fact that the Church of Latter Day Saints has made edits to the Book of Mormon [their own website admits minor changes] makes it suspect too.)

More later.

I’m about to start a series of blog entries that some of you may not be interested in, others of you may be offended, and still more of you may be shocked that I would write such a thing.

It’s one of those taboo subjects that is virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, because of the variety of opinions, and the deeply held nature of those opinions.

It’s religion. Not only Christianity, not only the Methodist denomination (of which I happen to be a member), but also a variety of religions that are common throughout the world today.

I know exactly how often I will post these entries. I will post each one the moment it is done. Unlike the majority of posts I make as I think them, directly in ecto, I will be composing these offline, complete with footnotes, references and generally a lot of thought as to what I am writing.

The genesis (no pun intended) of these entries was my realization post 9/11 of how little I knew of Islam. I used to have a close friend that I worked with who was Buddhist, and I learned a lot from him about the view of life from the perspective of a Buddhist. I thought that this newfound knowledge was enriching, and helped me think about what it was that I believed. I even incorporated certain concepts from Buddhism into my own philosophy. When Islam was thrust into the forefront of the American consciousness, I decided to take upon myself (as I do not know any practicing Muslims) to learn what I could about the message of Islam. While undertaking this self education, it dawned on me that my favorite author is a Mormon, and I knew even less about the Latter Day Saints than I did Islam. So I started to read their literature as well.

I learned something. I learned that there is not nearly as much difference in the world’s major religions (certainly the â??big threeâ? that all trace their roots to Abraham) as many would have you believe. I learned that many of the stories that children are taught in Sunday School (or your chosen religion’s equivalent) are the same, whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Mormon (and yes, please, I understand that Mormons are Christian, no offense intended to the Mormons, but I think that they have enough beliefs unique from the others in the list that they warrant their own entry). Children in a variety of faiths learn about Noah and the Ark, they learn about Joseph and his coat of many colors, and they learn about Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.

What we have in common tremendously outweighs our differences, despite hateful rhetoric, and despite the hundreds of websites pertaining to subjects such as “Why the Bible is wrong”, “Why the Koran is wrong” and “Is the LDS Church a cult?”

I don’t expect to definitively answer any of those questions, and I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind about anything. If I manage to make one person think a little bit about what they believe, and maybe become better informed about whatever it is that they believe then this will have been worthwhile. It’s already been worthwhile for me, and honestly, this website does not exist for anyone other than me. I love that people read it, I love that people tell me that they enjoy it (although I wish some of that silent majority would comment once in a while )

I’ll stick them all in their own new category (Religion) so if anyone really is not interested in what I have to say, it will be easily avoided. No offense taken. I hope you continue to read my other entries. I don’t intend this to become the overriding topic of this blog, and I don’t believe that it will be an exhaustive treatment of the subject as well. The topics I have chosen so far are: creation, Abraham (Isaac and Ishmael), Noah (and the Flood), Moses (and the Exodus), and Jesus. I may add, delete, or change the order of subjects as I see fit.

With that exceptionally long-winded introduction out of the way, I mind as well get to explaining why some of the entries that I make may offend, so you can make up your mind as to whether or not you ever want to read anything I have to write again. So here it is…

The Christian Bible (certainly the one we read) is not the literal word of God. All conservative Christians, Protestant and Catholic, can just stop reading now and direct the hate mail to matt@dumpinggrounds.com. I can assure you that all flames will be promptly routed to my trash can.

There are a number of reasons that I feel this way, and I don’t personally feel that this point is debateable, nor particularly controversial.

• The Bible was written over a number of centuries, and had hundreds of authors, and even more editors. Many scholars believe that Genesis alone had three authors. Of the hundreds of priests, rabbis, translators, scribes and scholars that had a part in the production of the modern Bible… not even one spoke English. Not even one.
• If one were to assume that the Christian Bible was the literal word of God, how would you choose which Bible was the official one? The most common answer, the King James translation (and I am using the word translation in the very loosest sense of the word), is quite possibly one of the worst translations ever. There are very few things that I know for sure about God, but the fact that he did not dictate the Bible in such a way that someday it would translate perfectly into English iambic pentameter is one thing I am pretty sure of.
• Having been written over hundreds of years, by hundreds of people, and almost certainly based originally on an oral tradition, the Bible does contain contradictions. I have no problem with the belief that these contradictions are the result of human nature, and not mistakes made by God.

This, in my mind, in no way invalidates the message, or lessens the impact of the Bible as a piece of scripture. The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the messages of the Psalms or the teachings of Jesus have no less meaning becasue of my assumption. For this reason I will discuss difference in the accounts between different books, but I am not going to fall into a discussion of minor semantical inconsistencies within a single book. To me, it just does not matter.

It is fair to point out that both the Koran and Mormon scripture can make a far better claim to being the literal word of God. Both of those books were written by a single person. Muhammad, the prophet of the Koran, is said to have been completely illiterate, and drew the letters as he was inspired directly by God. The text of the Koran, which officially cannot be translated becasue the words of God were in Arabic, has traditionally never been changed from the original text written by Muhammad (in reality, small changes were made, and later removed.) Needless to say, I am dealing with unoffical translations of the Koran, as I do not read Arabic. Mistakes in interpretation due to bad translation are my own.

The Book of Mormon was recorded to metal plates by Mormon, and then presented (and translated) by Mormon’s son Moroni (once a human, but by then a resurrected, “glorified being”¹) directly to Joseph Smith who wrote the messages in English. There are not alternate versions of the Book of Mormon, although small editorial changes have been made over the years. The Book of Mormon is another Testament, any Mormon references in my discussions of Old Testament topics come from The Pearl of Great Price, another piece of Mormon scripture which (in part) contains books written by Moses and Abraham (which, like The Book of Mormon, were revealed to Jospeh Smith).

Any piece of scripture of any length (and for those who have not read them, I assure you, these three are long, although the Bible is by far the longest) is going to have passages that can be taken out of context to present just about any message that a biased editor might want to make them say. I will say that over all, all three books contain a message of love, and spell out the way to eternal salvation. In particular, I found the Koran to be a tolerant, mature, and very coherent volume. I only single out the Koran becasue of the amazing amount of bad press that it received due to the actions of a fanatical, insane minority. I will try very hard not to present passages out of context, in a way that changes the intended meaning of the author.

I am going to spend a good amount of time researching these entires, and trying to find actual references for opinions that I form while reading. These entries will take time, and I would not expect to have a new one every week or so. I can pretty much guarantee you, that isn’t going to happen. I’ll write as the mood moves me, and I’ll post when they are done.

Well, this is undoubtedly the longest introduction to anything I have ever written, so I guess it’s time to sign off. As always, I would appreciate any comments, positive or negative, that you may have.

References: * www.mormon.org and www.lds.org * Text of the Koran * I didn’t use an online Bible. I will list the exact translation when I quote from the Bible.

¹ No disrespect intended by the quotes. Moroni is commonly called an Angel, but the Latter Day Saints website (you can’t get any more official than that, can you?) uses the term “glorified being.”