Evolution debunked: Still no sign of those half-monkey men

Here's one I missed from last week: Apparently Glenn Beck took to the airwaves of his radio show and used the fact he's never seen a "half-monkey, half-person" as a basis to question the theory of evolution. Now, this item at The Atlantic Wire, and the comments underneath it, cover all the points I would have wanted to make here: 1) Our closest genetic relatives are apes, not monkeys (yes, there's a significant difference); 2) There actually WAS an extended effort to promote the fact that the world is round; and 3) Beck's probably never seen God, before, either, yet has no problem accepting the idea that He's up there; 4) How does this guy have such unfettered access to the broadcast spectrum?

If anything, people like Beck and his zealous ilk (on both the left and right) are solid evidence of devolution: Of rational discourse, American education, scientific AND religious literacy, and a well-informed society.

The secret brain of God

Dan Brown's novel "The DaVinci Code" exploded in the mid-2000s, smack in the middle of the culture wars that motivated me to start this blog. But the first outing of Brown's protagonist Robert Langdon in "Angels and Demons" was set in the heart of the science vs. religion debate.

The novel centered around the centuries' old spat between the Illuminati (in Brown's version, founded by the enlightened scientific minds of the Rennaissance) and the stodgy Catholic church of the era. It was an entertaining read (always one to be chronological, I read it when "DaVinci" was big, but didn't love it so much to really want to read the sequel) -- as were the films.

It's the easy comparison to make given this story about two John Hopkins researchers who believe Michaelangelo painted a subtle, hidden image of the human brain in one of his images of God as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. (Indeed, the original post at Time's Newsfeed starts with: "Calm down, Dan Brown — it isn’t fodder enough for a new book. But a new study alleges Michelangelo painted a subtle message into his famous fresco.") In fact, the article cites evidence of other such hidden images in the master's work for the church.

Why? From the "Telgraph" article that Time linked to:

By merging an image of God with a human brain, Michelangelo may have been seeking a covert outlet to show off his anatomical knowledge at a time when picking apart cadavers was frowned on by the Roman Catholic Church.

Alternatively, he may have been alluding to the wisdom of the Almighty or – more dangerously - hinting at his growing belief that ordinary Christians had the wit and intelligence to directly commune with God, rather than pray to Him indirectly through the Church.

That was an idea that would have been seen as heresy, particularly as the fresco is situated directly above the chapel altar.

Very mysterious. Here's the comparison image from the "Telegraph." Follow the link above for more photos of the Sistine Chapel panel in question.

Well ... I guess I see it. Maybe. Let me squint ...

This is a fascinating story. To be fair, though, the skeptical part of me can't help but think about the reification principle of Gestault Theory, that basically says our brains perceive shapes and images even when no such image has been drawn.

It's interesting to reflect on how some of the "science and faith" themes from 500 years ago still resonate today.

Now reading: 'Religious Literacy'

Aliens haven't invaded since my last post, so we've got that going for us.

Speaking of unknown religions, several weeks ago I bought a book that's been on my want-list since it first came out: Stephen Prothero's "Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - and Doesn't." I was quite pleased to find it in the bargain section of the store, too, priced at a whopping $5.98. (My cover is red, though, not purple).

I've finally gotten around to reading it. I'm not very far in, and I don't know if I agree with EVERYTHING Prothero argues (for example, that the most important elements of religious literacy in America are doctrinal and narrative - I happen to think ritual is just as clutch. But hey, HE'S the chair of the religion department at Boston University, not me), but it's hard not to nod in agreement when you read:

Religious illiteracy makes it difficult for Americans to make sense of a world in which people kill and make peace in the name of Christ or Allah. How are we to understand protests against the Vietnam War, which compelled Catholic priesets to burn draft records in Maryland and Buddhist monks to set fire to themselves in Vietnam, without knowing something about Catholic just war theory and the Buddhist principles of no-self and compassion? How are we to understand international conflicts in the Middle East and Sri Lanka without reckoning with the role of Jerusalem in the sacred geography of the Abrahmic faiths and with the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism in Southeast Asia? Closer to home, how are we to understand faith-based electioneering if the "reds" on the Religious Right and the "blues" on the Secular Left continue to stereotype one another as distinct species? Is it possible to weigh the merits of Supreme Court rulings on religious liberty if we are unaware of the legacies of anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, anti-Mormonism, and anti-fundamentalism in American life?

 Click here for more on the book at the Barnes and Noble website.

Hawking: Beware the aliens

In keeping with the theme of Sunday's post: The renowned Stephen Hawking warns humans that aliens could be bad news.

The parallel he draws: The arrival of Europeans to North and South America, " ... which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans."

Superior technology and foreign diseases could all contribute to mankind's decimation in such a scenario; of course, it could go the other way, too (these themes are nothing new in discussions of alien invasions: H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds" hinged on it, and it sure saved Tom Cruise's butt in the 2005 film).

For the purposes of this blog, what interests me is alien cultures and, more specifically, any sense of supernatural or spiritual practices/institutions.

That could be an exciting TV show: Anthropologists in Space!

Another possible parallel to the arrival of Europeans: proselytizing. Imagine a scenario where erstwhile space aliens try and convert large swaths of the human populace to their religion.

Actually, I find the theme ripe for speculation; religion and space travel are a theme I intend to develop in this blog.

CLICK HERE for the article about Hawking's warning.

20 years of inspired awe courtesy of Hubble

If there's anything that stirs both scientific curiousity and spiritual wonder in me, it's photos taken of deep space.

The Hubble Space Telescope turned 20 yesterday. Here's the press release from the orbiting camera's official Web site, http://www.hubblesite.org/ (lots of great galleries on the site, too, which is where the photo at left came from).

CLICK HERE for some "Classic Hubble Hits" courtesy of MSNBC, including some sweet shots of colliding galaxies.

Weighing in on "Does God have a future?"

This is a new beginning, in some ways. I started this blog over a year ago and let it fall by the wayside two months later. I pulled down most of the posts I managed to publish here (believe me, it wasn't many), but the very first, my mission statement, remains. Fourteen months later it still says exactly what I want it to say (though I corrected a few typos).

Plus, the significance of the date really speaks to the purpose behind this endeavor.

I encourage you to check out my mission statement right here.

What inspired me to jump back in was an airing of Nightline a few weeks ago, pitting famed spiritiual guru Deepak Chopra against famed skeptic Michael Shermer. Part of the show's "Face Off" series, the program pitted the two (plus their chosen deputy) in a debate titled "Does God have a future?" How could I not watch that?

Here's the first segment of the program Nightline aired (I haven't been able to rustle up a video of the full televised version, but that's OK. Additional links below):



Here's the written version of the story.

Here are links to full segments of the debate (you'll have to scroll down to the correct group).

Since it's been a few weeks since I've viewed this, and because I want to watch the video segments in full, I won't make specific comments. The theme, though, is exactly what this blog is about, so I'll share a few general points (opinions) knocking persistently in my skull during that time:

Science is about the details; Religion is about the sum of the details.

Science is concerned with specific answers, while religion seeks answers to our broadest questions.

A question to illustrate those opinions popped into my head as I typed: "Why do humans exist?" The scientific answer might being with: "Humans exist because of evolutionary forces that shaped organisms into certain forms according to the dictates of environmental and biological conditions ... " The religious answer might be ... Well, I would refer you to the religious tradition of your choosing.

I don't think either Science or Religion will ever satisfactorily answer the questions the other poses, because those questions are coming from different places within us ("us" being humans - individuals, societies, mankind at large).

Does God have a future? Yes, He/She/It does. As long as humanity exists and is asking the broad questions, religion will exist, too, in some form or another. As long as religion exists, there will always be a God, real or fictitious.