Crossing the moat into Dover

Posted on June 27th, 2009 in Culture, Politics, Religion, Science by Robert Miller

A biological scientist in America has always felt a little uneasy about the surrounding culture  in which he or she lives and in the past two decades or so, this sense of  being ill-at-ease with the outside culture of America has only become more intense. The rising crescendo of religion has a lot to do with it. One has only to drive a few miles outside of the metropolitan area in which  I live to see an abundance of anti-abortion billboards and other religious symbolism, speaking to a different culture, but an ever present reminder that the cultural wars are alive and well in Minnesota.

A large sector of the research biologists in this country work in universities and feel comfortably isolated from the outside world, by the friendly surrounds provided by students and colleagues who share a common set of interests and commitments, though not necessarily a common political and social identity. But, it’s good enough for government work. Most research university campuses have a decidedly blue color to their political slant, if for no other reason than their support is very dependent on the Federal government. For the students, the coloration is often not quite so clear, though it seems to be shifting towards the blue end of the visible spectrum.  Expanding knowledge is a serious commitment for the research university  and has been hugely beneficial to American industry, public health and social progress. But the university environment is in many ways an odd place, something like an ancient castle, surrounded by a virtual moat to protect those within, well separated from those that are hostile to its purpose and mission. Sometimes I wonder if we don’t feel a little like the Irish monks must have felt in the medieval monasteries when they were the sole scribes of knowledge and scholarship, isolated from a more hostile and ignorant world, with their monasteries often perched on islands for their protection and life-long sanctuary.  While it is not always apparent, the attitude inside the castle of today is that of a serious learning environment on a crash program and a deep thirst for new knowledge,  with the campus insulated by the  virtual moat which protects the interior from the most culturally destructive forces in the country.

The crazies in America, on the outside of the moat looking in, include the religious fundamentalists, the born-again Christians, the right wing fringe groups, the skinheads, survivalists, neonazis and other white nationalists to name just a few.  Individuals from any of these groups may cross the moat and enter the castle, but thus far, the larger movements supported by these groups have not penetrated with sufficient force to change the mission, not nearly as much as they would like. But the university inside is not self-sufficient. Our research can only proceed with Federal support and already, in the case of stem cells or particle physics, these outside forces have helped to diminish the image of America as home to  the greatest centers  for science in the history of Homo sapiens. That image is fading rapidly, perhaps even gone for those living outside of America.

Share This     Print This Post Print This Post

Are you a closet atheist?

Posted on March 31st, 2008 in Culture, Religion by Robert Miller

I am what Richard Dawkins would call a closet atheist. That means I am an admitted atheist, but I don’t go around bragging about it. In fact, if possible, I avoid talking about the subject at all cost. I spent too much time in my youth going over and over this issue and I am a little weary of it: in the age of absolutism, it seems hard to change any minds or have meaningful discussions on this issue. The Socratic method of dialog died and with it went my interest in duscussing this almost pointless issue. But, there is a biological and an important cultural point of view to all this. In Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion,” he emphasizes how Darwin’s principle of natural selection offers a completely rational way of accounting for the seemingly most complex biological specializations we have identified. Some of these biological complexities, such as the rotor motor of bacteria or the vertebrate eye have been used in modern times by the “intelligent designers,” to infer the existence of God, as the master planner and designer. To me, the intelligent designers are the shills of religious dogma, reflecting the truly desperate religious fanatics who can’t live with science because they find it is encroaching on their religiosity: I certainly hope that’s true. But the science phobia of today is not doing America any great service. Dawkins’ point is that one could in fact, historically justify the concept of intelligent design right up until 1859, when Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species” was first published wherein he introduced the concept of natural selection as the means by which all biological complexities could arise and thereby be explained by evolution. Darwin in fact used the eye as an example of something that seemed to be of some intelligent design, but, on closer examination, one could find examples of progressive evolutionary steps along the phylogenetic tree from the simple, pinhole camera eye of Nautilus to the most sophisticated eye of raptors and primates. Dawkins’ excellent book on this topic, “The God Delusion,” sold 1.5 million copies in its first year of print. He is a fluid and flamboyant writer who infuses his writing style with the high enthusiasm he has for science and evolution and the popular issues of religion and atheism. Richard Dawkins is currently a professor at Oxford University where he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. He is certainly our most famous and widely read atheist and a prominent secular humanist.

Share This     Print This Post Print This Post

Jesus Camp and Ted Haggard

Posted on January 20th, 2008 in Culture, Entertainment, Film, Religion by Robert Miller

In the documentary film “Jesus Camp” by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, one sees an alarming side of radical Christian fundamentalism. Children, at very young ages (below 13 and preferably between 7 and 9), are taken to evangelical summer camps (the documentary shows a camp in North Dakota) where they are exposed to an intense form of indoctrination to ward off society’s evil secular influence and produce young people better prepared to live a life committed to Christ and the word of God, as given to us from the Bible, but strictly interpreted by the evangelicals: it is a Christian madrassa. “ “Extreme liberals who look at this should be quaking in their boots,” declares Pastor Becky Fischer with jovial satisfaction in the riveting documentary.” I would say any Democrat or any other Christian would be concerned about the kind of indoctrination you see in these camps, aimed at producing “God’s Army” for the future takeover of America. It is alarming if for no other reason than the fact that they idolize G.W. Bush as a president who is out to fulfill their destiny to make the United States a nation living under the evangelical banner. A super life-sized cardboard image of GW is presented, prayed to and thanked for bringing their quest into a form of political reality. Special inspirational sessions are given on the pure evil of abortion and the children get introduced to other true evils of the world, which is just about everything else not emphasized in the camp. It is an inoculation program to protect the Jesus Camp children from falling victim to the devil that is trying to consume the world.

Share This     Print This Post Print This Post