Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The Decline of the Species
Guest Blogger Gustav Niebuhr is an associate professor at Syracuse University and an On Faith panelist.
A week has passed since the 84th anniversary of the Scopes Trial's end, yet the old battleground of evolution versus biblical creation has seemed strangely quiet. Where are the Darwin-admiring regiments to mount the battlements to proclaim that the British scientist destroyed the credibility of all religions? And where are their equally impassioned opponents to call down their wrath on the purveyors of "scientism?"
Maybe most Americans have other things to be concerned about -- the recession, for instance. And perhaps most, as I suspect, have never really gotten terribly involved in this raucous, zero-sum argument.
But amidst the prevailing quiet, one is tempted to wonder whether the two sides might actually find some common ground, if only for a season. And that would be over whether we might just be seeing evidence emerge that human beings are regressing -- de-evolving, if you will.
Rest assured, I'm not talking about all human beings -- not by a long shot -- but rather those in certain positions of the public trust, whose ability to make the news (and hold onto it) seems to offer material for a troubling new text. We might call that book, "The Decline of the Species," and that species would be our own.
As New York resident, I've found a thick chapter in the N.Y. state Senate's very recent deadlock, a truly embarrassing partisan division so acrimonious that two evenly-divided sides refused either to cooperate or even recognize each other to get anything done. Add to that the spectacle of governors abruptly resigning, claiming they can better fight "for the people" while out of office, and also governors refusing to resign after being caught not simply out of office but out of contact with state officials while on distinctly private business.
Alarming? Yes. And more so in a nation that proudly proclaims itself "under God," when one considers all this has occurred in the same season that the Tennessee legislature passed a law making it possible for armed tea-totalers to visit bars. Yes, roughly around the Scopes Trial anniversary -- which, lest we forget, took place in Tennessee -- the Volunteer State's solons passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars -- provided, that is, that they do not drink.
Like a lot of people, I suspect, I have labored under the impression that bars existed for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. And yet some politicians seem to have identified taverns as having another function, as attractive venues for heat-packing residents to go for an overpriced Sprite or perhaps just to sit.
Now, let's be clear: I am resolutely un-opposed to abstinence from alcohol. The good people with Alcoholics Anonymous make an entirely convincing case that, for many, not drinking saves lives, keeps families intact and provides all manner of social good. I have no problem considering Bill W. a hero.
But it's the idea that a state legislature would take time to give official sanction to individuals going armed into a bar for the purpose of not drinking that seems, well, a bit odd.
Didn't we see what could happen once before when someone decided to combine non-drinking and saloons with weapons of local destruction? To be sure, it was a century ago, but who can forget Carrie Nation, an ardent Prohibitionist who made herself nationally famous by bursting into various watering holes, hatchet in hand, and, after praying aloud and singing hymns, smashing bottles and furniture in a frenzy that won headlines for her and her helpers from coast to coast? Nation stood nearly 6 feet tall and wasn't known for her sense of humor. People got out of her way.
If this law stands, one might imagine some gimlet-eyed deacon, in a button-down shirt and creased slacks, balefully addressing the working guy two stools down, fresh from the swing shift, as the man lifts a Jack Daniels to his lips: "Sir, I think you've had enough." And to the inquiry, "Says who?" the deacon may well just answer, "Smith & Wesson."
God help us all.
Gustav Niebuhr
| July 27, 2009; 12:25 PM ET | Category: Today's Topic Save & Share:
Previous: Time to Refresh and Reboot | Next: Protestant Work Ethic in China
Posted by: WmarkW | July 27, 2009 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GUSTAV NIEBUHR
Isn't it sad when some of the people that are "speaking" for God are the very ones that know the least about God.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: ThomasBaum | July 28, 2009 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Isn't it sad when some of the people that are 'speaking' for God are the very ones that know the least about God."
Mr. Baum,
I think it's sad when someone is so lacking in humility that he believes he can quantify what others know about God.
You are smug, Mr. Baum, and that is the antithesis of compassion and decency.
Posted by: kjohnson3 | July 28, 2009 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
kjohnson3
You wrote, "I think it's sad when someone is so lacking in humility that he believes he can quantify what others know about God.
You are smug, Mr. Baum, and that is the antithesis of compassion and decency."
I have met God and God is a Being of Pure Love, Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being.
When others speak of God as being vindictive, revengeful and petty especially when they happen to know God's Name but apparently nothing else about God, yes, I will speak out for the simple reason God chose me to speak.
It isn't "humble" or "not humble", just like it says in the bible, "Remember I (God) have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me".
There is so much "garbage" written in the Name of God that I, for one, can see why some people that happen to have a shred of decency would not want to have anything to do with such a creature.
You say it is the "antithesis of compassion and decency", have you read some of the "garbage" being spewed out?
By the way, God's Plan which will come to Fruition is for ALL of humanity to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth with the dawning of the seventh day, of course the night of the sixth day will precede it.
Also, even tho I use the male pronoun, God is not a He, a She or an It even tho God-Incarnate was a Male.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: ThomasBaum | July 28, 2009 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
WmarkW:
"There is a serious de-evolution going on with regard to differential birth rates around the world. Advanced societies that give women the right to make their own reproductive choices (Western Europe, the Anglo-diaspora, and Japan) are shrinking while chauvinistic societies like Latin America, the Middle East and Africa are growing."
That's not 'de-evolution,' really, though it does well to point out that people who don't know what evolution is also seem to have an agenda of reproducing as much as possible.
"Evolution is not and never was a moral process, and feminism gives every appearance of being reproductively unfavorable."
Overbreeding, certainly, might be something that could be classed as an 'evolutionary *strategy,*' (if you can call that a strategy...)
It's one, however, which has a certain history of *spectacularly failing to work out* when it comes down to a culture surviving.
Posted by: Paganplace | July 28, 2009 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thomasbaum, you said
"By the way, God's Plan which will come to Fruition is for ALL of humanity to be with Him in His Kingdom"
Are you implying that every single human being will live etrenally with God regardless of choices and the kind og life lived?
If that is the case (I do not believe that it is)then there is no point in setting or abiding with standards. Don't you think?
Posted by: mgarfieldt | July 28, 2009 8:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
" Advanced societies that give women the right to make their own reproductive choices (Western Europe, the Anglo-diaspora, and Japan) are shrinking while chauvinistic societies like Latin America, the Middle East and Africa are growing"
posted by wmarkw.
Wmarkw, another thing to note, those societies are failing in many ways despite their high birthrate. They are poorer, sicker, more violent, less educated, have appalling infant and childhood mortaltiy rates, higher crime rates and higher rates of virtually all societal problems, up to and including civil war and failed states, than the developed world.
In the developed world, we go for quality over quanity. In other worlds, have only one or two children, and provide for and educate them well. The traditional way was to have as many children as possible to be sure one or two would survive and prosper. That tradition developed because people had so little control of their enviroment that they had no choice.
The choices you worry about are why our societies are more stable, more prosperous, and better places to live all around. We are no longer totally at the mercy of the whims of fate. Our medicine, (including birth control) our technology, (including that developed by women) and our prosperity (helped by the work of women) have been a sterling success story.
Is there rooom for improvement, you betya. Would I rather live in the third world? No way. I don't think it's happenstance that the worst places to live restrict women the most. Tie up over half of your human capital, and you are running the race on one leg.
Do you see them simply over-running us? I don't. Look at China. As their societies evolve, they will start to look more and more like us in terms of indepencence and opportunity. And yes, many people living there won't like it, at first. Many here did not, some still don't. I'm old enough to remember how upset people here were about birth control, and greater economic opportunities for women. Most of us got over it. Most of them will, too.
Posted by: gimpi | July 29, 2009 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mgarfieldt
You wrote, "Are you implying that every single human being will live etrenally with God regardless of choices and the kind og life lived?
If that is the case (I do not believe that it is)then there is no point in setting or abiding with standards. Don't you think?"
First off, I am not implying, I am stating.
Second, I have stated very clearly that we are responsible for our use of our free will.
I have also said that hell and spiritual death are both real. I have also stated that if one were to wake up in hell, so to speak, one would find that they have no one but themself to blame and that they built it themself.
Hell is not a separation from God but is going to God and instead of the "Fire" of God's Love caressing you, so to speak, it burns you, spiritual death is separation from God.
Jesus won the "keys" to hell and spiritual death and will use them in due time, God's Time.
Following Jesus is not a "free ticket" to the "good place", so to speak, but is accepting His Invitation to "Come follow Me" and be an active participant in the salvation and sanctification of the entire human race.
As I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.
God has had His Plan since before Creation and God's Plan will come to Fruition.
God becoming One of us is just part of God's Plan and God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: ThomasBaum | July 29, 2009 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
There is a serious de-evolution going on with regard to differential birth rates around the world. Advanced societies that give women the right to make their own reproductive choices (Western Europe, the Anglo-diaspora, and Japan) are shrinking while chauvinistic societies like Latin America, the Middle East and Africa are growing.
Evolution is not and never was a moral process, and feminism gives every appearance of being reproductively unfavorable.