Today, US District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the imposition of "Intelligent Design" in biology classrooms in Dover Pennsylvania was unconstitional. He also stated that several members of the school board which had done the imposing had "repeately lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs." It speaks well of the people of Dover that back in November they voted out that schoolboard (all except one member who was not up for reelection). "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," Judge Jones wrote in his 139-page opinion.
There are other fronts in this battle between legitimate science and fundamentalist religion in Georgia and Kansas, but I will leave that for the moment because what I really want to write about is why I have chosen sides and what it is that upsets me about the attempt by fudnamentalist Christians to subvert our school systems.
To begin with, "evolution" and the "big bang" and other such things are indeed theories. And theories are always open to change as new discoveries are made and new data is collected. That is the way science works. These theories are models of how things are in real life (as opposed to some fantasy la la land of the kind you find written up in ancient tribal myths and legends - including Hebrew and Arab myths and legends). These models are ways of best accounting for all the facts as we know them. We know how the various elements that make up this world work, and how long it takes for certain radioactive elements to decay, and thus can do things like carbon dating. This alone tells us the world is very very old. And extrapolating from what is known about the stars and their activities as far as we can measure them - we know that the universe is at least 16 billion years old or something like that (I haven't checked these figures since I was in grad school). Now if someone thinks these models are inadequate, they are going to have to do their homework and come up with a different model that can account for all the facts, but simply asserting one's favorite tribal myths on the grounds of blind belief or wishful thinking will not cut it. And trying to sneak such beliefs into a class room to the detriment of science does no credit to such beliefs and instead just undermines our educational system.
Now I have a great fondness for myths, legends, folklore, and such. My recent book Lotus World: An Illustrated Guide to the Gohonzon (privately published by the San Jose Nichiren Buddhist Temple) is a recounting of such lore from India, China, and Japan as connected with the practice of Nichiren Buddhism. I do not find any of it literally true (well a bit of it was actual history but not much) but I do find it very meaningful. At times I read to my daughter from the myths of the Vikings and the Greeks, Hindus, and sometimes even children's versions of Bible stories because they are charming, exciting, fantastic, and also meaningful. But I make sure that she knows that these are not literal events anymore than the Harry Potter movies or the Chronicles of Narnia. I would be very upset if someone came into my daughters classroom when she was supposed to be learning science and tried to teach her their myths and blind beliefs under the guise of science, reason, and logic. I do not want my daughter's education compromised by blind belief and religious fanaticism and distorted views of science.
Now when it comes to Intelligent Design, I have no problem with it as a philosophy or system of speculative metaphysics. I am even sympathetic to the idea that life is not an accident but that there is some selfless and compassionate all-encompassing intelligence at work. Some forms of Buddhism call this the One Mind or the Dharmakaya (though these are not human being writ large nor creator deities in any commonly understood sense). The point being that life originates from causes and conditions - but is there some originating cause or universal condition that gives rise to the system of causes and conditions? I think this is a legitimate question. However, it is a metaphysical question and not a scientific one - because it is not a model that accounts for facts and things that can be observed but rather a proposition about why there are facts and observable phenomena in the first place. Since such a proposition goes beyond facts, it can not be either verified or disproved by facts. So Intelligent Design is basically a metaphysical proposition that one can either believe or not. But it is not science and should not be mistaken for science.
Buddhism does teach that when it comes to phenomena, nothing arises due to a single cause. Everything that we experience arises from a multitude of causes and conditions. This is something that we can verify for ourselves by just reflecting on our real life. So in the actual network of causes and conditions that make up real life as we actually experience it, not any of it can be traced back to a single cause or creator, though scientists have been searching for something called the "unifed field theory" they have not yet found it. But was there ever a time when there were no causes and conditions? When there was nothing at all? Was there a time when causes and coditions initially got started? There may or may not be such an originating moment. There may or may not be something that got things started or that keeps them going in such a way. But the Buddha dismissed all such questions as not tending to edification. In other words, the Buddha saw such metaphysical speculations as a distraction from real life and real life issues - from the need to understand suffering, to abandon the causes of suffering, to realize the cessation of suffering, and to follow the Middle Way that leads to the cessation of suffering. For the Buddha, getting lost in the thickets and briars of metaphysics when one has not dealt with the key existential issues of our own life and death is to be like a man hit with a poisoned arrow who insists on knowing who shot him, and with what kind of arrow, and what kind of feather is the arrow made of, and so on before having the arrow pulled out and the wound cleaned. The Buddha taught that such a man would die before his questions were ever answered. So the point is that we must not waste time with metaphysics or with unprovable propositions, but rather with dealing with the real issue of our life. Truly religious people, according to the Buddha, would not waste time on such things as intelligent design but rather will look to the true nature of their own life here and now in order to awaken to a more selfless and compassionate way of living.
Arguing for or against intelligent design is largely a waste of time from a Buddhist point of view. But one thing that is not a waste of time is knowing not to confuse fact and scientific theory with speculative metaphysics and belief systems. To confuse facts and beliefs is to give in to delusion and prejudice. To discern that which we can actually come to know through direct observation and valid inference that takes account of facts as we know them from assertions based on tradition or wishful thinking is to be able to have a mind that is rooted in reality and able to see through delusion to the way things really are. Intelligent design may or may not be true, but regardless it is not science because it goes beyond facts, instead of simply accounting for them.
Buddhism also may or may not be true, and also does not belong in a science classroom. But like science, Buddhism warns against the distraction of metaphysics (though granted it takes some metaphysical assertions for granted but its essential truths do not rest on their validity), and like science Buddhism encourages seeing into the true nature of things just as they are, and not just as we would like them to be.
One last thought: Buddhism itself is not as cold and impersonal as some people, including myself at times, make it out to be. While there is no single tribal deity that Buddhist are obliged to worship, there are models of love and compassion of cosmic proportions. And in fact these models of love and compassion, the buddhas and bodhisattvas, are in fact unified in the Dharmakaya Buddha. Dharmakaya Buddha is the true nature of reality. Dharmakaya Buddha is not a person but is not impersonal either. Without Dharmakaya Buddha, things would not be as they are - all causes and conditions are the phenomenal face of the ineffable. Without Dharmakaya Buddha there would be no phenomenal expressions of love and compassion by the buddhas and bodhisattvas and other saints and benevolent forces. All the virtues and merits that we can conceive of are expressions of Dharmakaya Buddha, and Dharmakaya Buddha is our own true nature. We project all these virtues and merits on our tribal deities and saviors, but they can be found most intimately within ourselves, because the Dharmakaya Buddha is nowhwere and everywhere and so closer to us than we can possibly imagine. Perhaps this bit about Dharmakaya Buddha is where Buddhism does verge into metaphysics - for the concept of an ineffable reality that expresses selfless compassion in, through, and as all things certainly goes beyond brute facts and mundane experience as much as intelligent design. But Buddhism does not assert that one must assert it, rather, one must awaken to it for oneself.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Well congratulations on your victory, Michael - and doesn't Nichiren say that Buddhism is concerned with victory and defeat?
I am a longtime member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
www.au.org
I am also very pleased that "Intelligent Design" is being knocked back by the courts. Honestly, if the Christian fundamentlists continue trying to use our science classrooms as stealth Sunday schools, we are going ot have a very hard time holding our own in the scientific fields in the 21st century. If you want to be reincarnated as a scientist (which honestly, I wouldn't mind), then aim your karma at China or Europe.
The Americans United website also has interesting information regarding the Supreme Court nominees (for those who take these issues seriously.
On a more Nichirenish note, church/state issues are one major reason why I cannot consider Daisaku Ikeda to be my "mentor in life" (as my Nichiren Buddhist organization pretty much requires of its American leaders).I am incredibly uncomfortable standing for church/state separation here at home and being dominated by a Japanese religious organization which wields the level of political clout that the Gakkai does in Japan. I remember a couple of months ago watching one of the videos of President Ikeda which are required viewing at our monthly kosen-rufu gongyos. He remarked on how "amazed" all of Japan had been at a "glorious victory of Soka". On further investigation, the glorious victory had been in a referendum on nationalizing the Japanese postal system. Nope. I just can't justify that. If I don't tolerate it in the Christian fundamentalists, I can't tolerate it coming from Japan either.
Anyway, thanks again for another cool blog, Michael. Hope that you and your family have a very happy holiday and a wonderful, prosperous new year. Best, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at December 20, 2005 12:54 PM"Well congratulations on your victory, Michael - and doesn't Nichiren say that Buddhism is concerned with victory and defeat?"
Nichiren may have said that somewhere, but most likely he was thinking of that verse in the Dhammapada that teaches that victory over 10,000 warriors is not to be compared with victory over the self.
Truly, Buddha Dharma is not about victory over others but over our own delusion and selfishness.
But I am not enlightened yet, so for me a provisional victory over fundamentalists is a cause for rejoicing. Hopefully I can find a way to transmute such a defilement into enlightenment for all sentient beings.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Score one for the Bill of Rights.
Rev. Greg
P.S. Ryuei, did you get my e-mail?
Posted by: Rev. Greg at December 20, 2005 07:18 PMRyuei:
Score one for judicial reason. Terrific blog. I've been following this subject very closely since the fundamentalists have been pushing this agenda - which is really a thinly veild guise for creationis, in the public schools. Since prayer and teaching the Bible in public schools is banned, this avenue is one of the only avenues left for this right wing movement that really wants theocratic governence as the end result.
The cry by the fundamentalists is that God has been banned from the government and schools by liberal atheists. But isn't the homne and church the place to teach such things to begin with?
Your analysis of intelligent design and the Buddhist perspective is something that should be expanded and made into a book. I am an armchair astronomer, subscribing to Discover, Scientific America, as well as an avid reader of all the latest books on physics and astronomy.
One of my pet peeves is the "theory" of the Big Bang which is often discussed as if irrefutable scientific fact. After thirty years of keeping up on this stuff, I have learned a few things. First, scientific theories evolve and are frequently replaced by new theories. When the steady-state theory of the universe (a universe that has always existed, repeating cycles of creation and destruction) was virtually replaced by the big bang, because of the discovery of diffuse background radition, I doubted that the solution was so simple. I find the big bang suspiciously close to the legends of Biblical creation. Low and behold, two old time astronomers asserted that they had evidence that the universe (or what we observe as the universe) repeats cycles of bangs in 100 billion year intervals. This new theory is quite similar to the kalpa system postulated in Buddhism.
My opinion is to keep science as the focal point in the classroom and keep religious and metaphysical speculation at home or in church where it belongs. If they must teach this subject, it should be bundled with creation myths from the other religions, including Hinduism and taught in a mythology class using the interpretations of someone like Joseph Campbell and others of his calibre.
I plan on discussing this subject in some detail on my radio program aftet the first of the year. Please consider expanding on this subject for whatever media outlets you have at your disposal. People really need to hear your reasonable, Buddhist viewpoint on this subject as the majority of the American public (CNN poll) think that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom. If that happens one day, it will an educational travesity. China and India must be laughing at our stupidity. It's not that those two countries don't have their own deep flaws, but when it comes to math, science, and pure academics, they're leaving us in the dust.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at December 21, 2005 09:58 AMIīm glad to see that Byrd of LA is rather sceptic of having Ikeda as his "mentor in life". Personally my mentor in life is my hamsters I had when I was a child. All right they actually looked like Ikeda but they were, in terms of instincts, far more innocent and less phony. Hamsters do quite well in captivity. What do the world leaders know about one such as you, dear hamster? Iīm not going to write my opinion of SGI or Ikeda because then McCormick might suggest that I get a life, so Iīll keep my opinion to myself. By the way, I donīt mean to be rude, arrogant or competitive but I must admit I find Gregīs blog slightly more interesting than McCormicks. No offense. I just donīt get the subjects McCormick is writing about. Maybe they are a bit too "American", I donīt know. I just donīt get them.
Happy New Years.
Posted by: Peter Ulrik Röder at December 30, 2005 03:20 PMMy opinion is to keep science as the focal point in the classroom and keep religious and metaphysical speculation at home or in church where it belongs.
`````````````````````````````
Hi Charles,
Probably one could say this of the social services schools provide needy children. One might also question why schools teach & promote values like gender equity or respect for the environment.
I think I was raised with good values. I got those at home and at church. I was also well fed and clothed. I also started K with basic learning skills. I was also taught practical stuff; about sanitation, mechanics, wood working, gardening and conservation at home. I can not imagine being sent off to school with out that preparation. And really, less than 10% of my education was at school.
I guess some parents are sending kids to school without any of that. In addition, many parents felt that schools became hostile places that undermined the values they wanted instilled in their children.
I don't really care if they teach Intelligent Design, whatever that is. If kids are getting a sound spiritual education at home, what is the harm in being exposed to Right Wing Xian gobbly-gook? They get plenty of leftist gobbly-gook at School.
I would like to see them teach real math & science. Also, some language skills. And some common sense discipline instead of moronic swings from utter permissiveness to zero tolerance. And the recent trends away from that came not only from the Right.
metta
r
I can't believe you call yourself a reverend! Who are you trying to impress with your robes and your beads? The Daishonin warned us against people like you, saying:
"The Buddha stated that, in the latter age, monks and nuns with the hearts of dogs would be as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. By this he meant that the priests and nnuns of that day woould be attached to fame and fortune. Because they wear robes and surplices, they look like priests and nuns. But in their hearts they wield a sword of distorted views."
And again when he says,
"The Parinirvana Sutra states: "Those who enter the monastic order, don clerical garments, and make a show of studying my teachings will exist in ages to come. Being lazy and remiss, they will slander the correct and equal sutras. You should be aware that all these people are followers of the non-Buddhist doctrines of today."
Ultimately, your guys entire website is founded upon your own defeat in faith and your refusal to admit it. The sad thing is that, clinging so desperately to your own ego, you're willing to drag others down with you. For what, an ego stroke?
In this way, you are like Devadatta. The ingratitude reeks. After everything you gained and learned from the Gakkai, you turn traitor and in your sycophantic, kniving way, lobby for Ikeda Sensei's defeat. We will never lose, especially not to a bunch of con-artists like you guys.
Didn't you ever learn that Buddhism is about the heart? It's not about proving that you're right. But, I guess if you learned that, you'd have never left. After stealing the Daimoku, misappropriating the teachings and distorting the Gohonzon, who do you think you're fooling? With your band of complainers, you've no where to go. You should repent now! There's no point in threatening you with hell; you're already there. Fraught With Peril...yes, you are!
Posted by: Brandon Zatt at January 2, 2006 08:12 AMBrandon -
Thanks for the reminder why I felt it necessary to leave SGI-USA. I can see that they are still not teaching Right Speech, but don't they teach that words are causes? I wouldn't wish the effects of your words (as causes) back on you, but you have done so yourself.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at January 5, 2006 02:19 PM