Evolution and Creationism…
Published 9.27.2005 by ~mattg
I avoid commenting on social and political issues for two reasons:
- That’s not the purpose of this blog
- A blog really isn’t a forum for debate as much as it is a soapbox
Having said that, the recent evolution v. creationism (I’m sorry, “Intelligent Design”) debate going on across the country (but being brought to a head in my home state) has stirred a bit of concern in me. First and foremost, Pennsylvania’s schools are in dire need of a major overhaul, so concentrating on one thing is absolutely ridiculous. But it’s going on across the country, being labeled the “Scopes 2″ trial.
The problem with that label is that the Scopes trial fought to bring the teaching of evolution, a widely regarded scientific theory, into the science classroom. What’s wrong with that? Teach science in science class, go for it! This trial is essentially trying to bring teach a secular version of creationism into the science classroom. Religion (in any form) has no real place in a science classroom.
There is a pretty substantial body of work that suggests evolution is a pretty common occurance in nature, and to say that humans have not evolved in their time here on earth is preposterous. Some have taken it a step further, proposing that we evolved from apes or some ape-like creature. Maybe we did, maybe we didn’t, the scientific jury is still out on that one.
Science is a process (observe, hypothesis, experiment, analyze, and finally theorize). Religion is a belief. Religion has its place, but its place is not in the science classroom. There are no experiments to confirm or deny the presence of some supernatural being that controls the path of life. Scientists who deny the presence of a supernatural being are as foolish as those who try to prove it. For a while, the two have coexisted in the minds of the American people. But as the country shifts to a decidedly more conservative stance, science is tossed out the door.
Unless of course it’s the science of refining oil into gasoline… The government may placate to the religious, but big business pays the bills.
Filed under Random Thoughts
I share your shame. In my philosophy of science seminar, the professor keeps us all updated on articles, books, goings-ons with this so-called debate. Yesterday’s class made mention of the Dover case. I try to make myself feel better by noting that while this debauchery is from Pennsylvania, it is technically from the uncivilized part of the state known as Pennsyltucky. Yes, I know that I’m an elitist, liberal snob.
Now, since you’ve brought it up and I’m sans blog for an indefinite amount of time, I simply can’t keep myself from commenting. Make what you will of my blabbering.
While you note many of the common concerns of the typical American—and I applaud your succinct and genuine treatment of the issues—there is much more at stake than what you let on and what the news media suggests. What follows is a crash course in the history of ideas of the last 150 to 2600 years of western civilization
I jest… sort of.
You make a distinction between religion and science, which is just fine. But you leave out an important aspect of science: it is a process, yes, but of a particular sort: it is a method of fixing belief. We do science because we want to know the truth about reality. We want our beliefs to jive with how the world really is. I like to think that this is a reasonable position everyone can agree upon; but you’d be surprised how easily people disagree on this very point. But anyway…
Darwin showed scientifically that God does not have the role He was believed to have for 2600 years or so. The role, simply put, is that of giving meaning, value, purpose, foundation to the world—for He designed it after all. God made sense of everything, especially as the best source of explanation for why things happened, from why things fall to the ground when dropped, to why seemingly-good people suffer. This role has been slowly diminished since the beginning of modern science with the likes of Galileo and Newton. This diminishing was tolerable because science was doing all sorts of wonderful stuff in the hardest of sciences, physics and chemistry. As long as science stayed out of the stuff that really matters—politics, morality, religion—then it’s not only tolerable, but encouraged. Just look at all the cool shit it lets us do!
Darwin took the next step with the scientific method. He applied it to biology, to life. He showed that all this design that God apparently did could be done by nature given enough time and enough resources. Since then, science has confirmed that not only can nature do this in lieu of God, but that it has, without the supernatural. In taking science to the investigation of life itself, Darwin opened the floodgates to changing the worldview in politics, morality, and religion.
This change in perspective scares the living hell out of people. God as a supernatural being with his all-powerful hand in everything all of the time is no longer a sound position to hold. The scientists you mention above who believe in God believe in a very different God than the “scientists” who support “Intelligent” Design. The fact of the matter is that Darwinism makes us, human beings, more responsible than we were with a God above. No longer can we respectably expect God to take care of us in times of crisis. He will not shed light upon the conscience of the select so that they may lead us to a City on the Hill. All of us are responsible for our collective fate. We must take reasonable, scientifically-informed and scientifically-sound action. Our faith is not belief without evidence; our faith is that reason will continue to make good, that our evidence is enough with and from which to act.
So what’s left of religion then? Well, science is a relatively clear entity. It is a process using a variety of self-correcting methods that investigates our world through controlled, replicable experiments, the resulting theories of which are falsifiable. Every scientist (generally) agrees with such a conception of the scientific method. Is such a description of religion possible? I think not. And that’s precisely the problem. There is no distinct, theoretical consensus on what religion properly is—at least not to the degree of consensus of what science properly is.
Some religions are better than others. And by this I don’t meant that Christianity is preferable to Islam or Hinduism to Buddhism or whatever. The difference is whether the believers or practioners are dogmatic or scientific in their view of the world. Dogma should be feared. Being scientific should be encouraged. Only in liberal forms of religion can religion be a force for good. The religion promoted by the current administration is dogmatic. I argue that dogma should be feared because it feeds on fear itself. Simply look at the approach to issues the administration takes. It’s no different than a fire and brimstone approach to morality.
As for the ID/creationist attack on Darwinism, your description is too kind. By the claims of the Dover school board, that evolution is just a theory, then they also need to qualify the whole of science which is no better supported than Darwinism. So let’s have the vice principals read to the physics classes that the theory of gravity is just a theory and that Aristotle’s explanation should also be considered as science (Aristotle thought that the reason things fell to the earth was because things naturally love one another. Love is attraction. So the larger thing will attract the smaller thing by virtue of its greater size. Hence everything falls to the earth because there is nothing larger than the earth. But this is not falsifiable, is it?) Geology classes will be told that the theory that the earth is a sphere, orbiting the sun, is just a theory and that the geo-centric flat-earth theory deserves equal consideration as good science.
Science fixes belief. It alone can fix belief that is as true as presently possible. Without Darwinism, nothing in the medical or biological fields makes sense. To suggest that there was an intelligent designer (God or not) is not only a pathetic attempt to bring in a perverted version of religion into the classroom, it is an attempt to ruin the lives of many, many Americans, and others around the globe—all for the sake of dogmatic, patriarchal authority, the antithesis of a truly democratic spirit.
Now, I must stop, for I have to work on my thesis now—believe it or not, today’s chapter is on Darwinism’s influence on, well, everything. Go figure.
I think there is a confusion of terms among the general public (and yes, even you Tibor) that leads to these types of debates. Check out this page, which details the differences between scientific laws, theories, and hypothesis.
Laws (such as the law of gravity) define simple actions. Theories (such as the theory of evolution) define complex structures and actions. Theories are NOT defined by one person or group, as is the case with Intelligent Design. Theories are first simple hypothesis suggested by an individual or group. Multiple, detached scientific experiments are need to prove a hypothesis and make it a theory.
There are two parts to evolution: does it happen and how does it happen (or existence and mechanism). Evolution’s existence is FACT. We can show it happens today, and evidence of past occurrences is overwhelming. The mechanism for evolution, or how it actually happened, is still be researched in the scientific community, and there are SEVERAL theories as to this mechanism. (All this is paraphrased from this article)
So, what should we be teaching in science classrooms? Well, we should be teaching that evolution exists and occurs all the time. Science students should also get, at least in the broad strokes, some of the theories as to the mechanism of evolution.
What students should not get in the science classroom is that evolution does NOT exists. This contradicts extensive research and archeological data that suggests otherwise. As far as theories goes, I would say that any theory generally accepted by the scientific community could be discussed in the classroom.
Science isn’t trying to say that God doesn’t exist, science is saying that organisms, for one reason or another, continuously change. Why? Perhaps as a response to environmental changes, perhaps on the whim of some higher power… No one knows. But the change does happen, and that change must be taught.
Oy…
You’re opening a can of worms here that I was hoping to avoid. You’re quite right to point out that there is a vast amount of confusion over what science is, does, says, concludes. Here’s my disclaimer, then: everything I say, defend, argue comes from a perspective that I do not defend in espousing the gibberish that I do. I can’t go out on a limb if there’s no trunk holding up that branch.
However, sometimes it is worth the effort to question whether that trunk is one worth standing upon, whether it’s dying, decaying, dead—or even really there. In bringing up the difference between laws, theories, hypotheses, facts, you ask about the tree trunk on which I stand.
I won’t be coy: that first link declaring the differences between laws, theories, hypotheses is off the mark. There are no laws. The use of the term is a result of a lot of cultural history and bias. Two elements are worth noting. First is the God factor. According to lore, God created the universe which was designed upon a specific order. This order and design is understood by the laws of nature. Within these laws are the laws of man, that is, the rules by which man should live such that life is good. The first time we see this sort of thinking is with the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers who looked for the first principles of things. Thales was the first one to offer up a candidate: water. The mathematical aspects of these so-called laws is fortified with the Pythagoreans; its association with Being is the work of Parmenides; the hope of understanding the sensible world through such formal laws is the dirty work of Plato. Aristotle corrects a couple of his category mistakes and we have the beginnings of science.
By the time of the Enlightenment, moral/political laws are distinct from natural laws. One is man-made, the other is just the way it is. The great hope of Enlightenment science is that we can figure out one mathematical explanation, a law, that explains everything. Today we still get this talk of a theory of everything coming out of theoretical physics. However, such a hope is awfully reductionistic. Do you really think that your son’s first words can be necessarily predicted by a mathematical formula?
A law in the typical sense of the word explains everything everywhere whenever. This presumes the world will always be the same at all times. So we have so-called laws like those of thermodynamics. The second of which says everything goes to shit, i.e. entropy. If we are to take this seriously as a law, how are we possible? How is what we’re doing (communicating over hundreds of miles via a virtual world supported by machines) possible? The second law says that everything will slow down, become more uniform, more simple, less complex.
Yet look all around! The world is not getting uniform, but more diverse, more complex. Laws are supposed to be true all the time, yet our very lives contradict this—how is this possible?!
Well, it’s possible because the premises from which we started in talking about laws are simply false. The methods of modern science, in their ability to acquire evidence and analysis that leads to more inquiry, are what is remarkable about the Enlightenment; not the terminology or conclusions they made. Newton was incomplete. By the time of Einstein scientists were freaking out because Newton was falling apart all around them. Einstein offered a solution to those anomalies that arose only because Newton gave a framework with which to investigate the world. Today we have new problems thanks to Einstein.
We have this situation because of theories. Theories give a framework within which to investigate the world. Let’s return to the second ‘law’ of thermodynamics. It states that in a closed system everything will inevitably sort itself out uniformally, as energy and matter are equivalent it is statistically likely that all energy will become matter faster than matter will return to energy, therfore everything will be matter without any energy, which is nothing more than the motion of matter. In other words, everything stops moving. According to the second law of thermodynamics, you can’t take a scrambled egg and turn it back into a whole, raw egg. But we can. We have the technology
I call this technology chicken. Scramble some eggs. Feed it to a living chicken. Soon thereafter that scrambled egg will become a whole, raw egg once more. How is this possible?!
We have two theories describing the world, evolutionary theory and the so-called second law of thermodynamics. They seem to contradict one another. Evolution explains the increasing complexity and diversity of the universe, while the second law demands that it be the other way around. But this is where we get stuck: evolution works in an open system; the second law in a closed. So how lawful is the second law, then, if it doesn’t seem to really explain our world?
OK, so maybe I’m getting too carried away with the etymology of the word. Let’s take just what the website you cited has to say. Apparently, laws explain simple actions while theories explain complex ones. If I were to return to the example above (evolutionary theory vs laws of thermodynamics), these definitions would suggest that physics is simpler than biology. Perhaps… but in what sense? The world physicists investigate is a far stranger world than what biologists deal with. So we need to qualify what is meant by simple as opposed to complex, especially in regard to actions.
Fortunately, the website gives us such an example with which to deal. A law is like a slingshot. A theory is like a car. A slingshot has few parts. A car has many. A slingshot really does just one thing. A car has to do a lot of things to do one thing. Apparently there is some profound difference between these two artifacts that make the difference between law and theory more than a matter of degree. I don’t see it.
Here’s why: a slingshot doesn’t have one moving part as the website claims. It has an infinite number of moving parts. The rubber band is made up of molecules made up of atoms made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons, all of which are made up of quarks, gluons, and other stuff, all of which is apparently made up of ’strings’ which I’d venture are also made up of stuff about which we don’t have the means to investigate yet. So lots of stuff has to move to make the rubber band move, just like lots of stuff in the car’s engine has to move to make the wheels on the car go round and round.
The difference is a matter of degree. How far away from the tree trunk do we wish to stand? We can always make the arbitrary distinctions between laws and theories just as we do between slingshots and cars; but functionally they behave the same way.
In any case, if I’ve done anything, I’ve probably confused the issue instead of clarifying it. If that is indeed the case, then take heed. The difference between a law and a theory has only to do with our culture, our bias. There is no scientific and philosophical differences between the two. They differ in name only.
In response to the article on the two-parts of evolution, I think it hits precisely the issue at hand. The ID people don’t dispute the fact that evolution happens; they dispute the mechanism. Here it would be prudent to make distinctions between evolution, Darwinism, Lamarckism, neo-Darwinism, creationsim and Intelligent Design. The latter two are simply not science.
As for your point regarding what should be taught in the science classroom, I think you’ll find Daniel Dennett’s recent op-ed piece in the New York Times of some interest. As an aside, the NYTimes has been orienting all of its stories and articles concerning the evolution debate here.
I also feel obligated to mention that even though I agree by and large with the second website you cite, concerning the difference between fact and theory/mechanism, keep in mind that when it comes to scientific literature, date of publication is a big deal. While most of the scientists cited are heavy-hitting Gods within evolutionary theory, most of their writings are from at least 25 years or so ago. Much work, much change, much advance is made during such a period of time. While evidence and theories may change every two to three years, the more philosophical aspects of scientific methodology change more slowly; but they do change. A quarter-century may not be enough time to make a big deal out of the changes, but a century certainly is. So consider yourself warned.
Finally, I must respond to your last paragraph. Science may not be trying to say anything about God one way or another. As far as I know there haven’t been nor can there be scientific investigations into God because God isn’t an easily defined concept. What science can do and has done is limiting the role of God in the natural world—that is to say, the entire world. Before Darwin, it was thought that all animals were created as described in the Bible, that humankind showed up on the scene on the sixth day, etc. Darwin shattered that conception of our origins. He showed that a mindless, purposeless algorithm can do all the design work once attributed to God, given enough time and enough resources. If nature can do and does do on its own what God was thought to have done, God has been limited, if he exists.
You ask why does evolution occur? You say that nobody knows why and then offer two competing explanations. But are these two the same sort of explanation? It depends on what you mean by a whim of a higher power. Couldn’t the higher power use environmental changes to cause organisms to evolve? How then would we explain how the higher power did that? Science can explain everything (given enough time and enough resources). If there is a God or Intelligent Designer responsible for all of this, then He/it must interact with the natural, physical world. This interaction must, then, be observable. If it is observable, then we can know about this Designer or this God. And that is simply not a conception of God that most religious folk (at least the ones challenging Darwinian evolution) want to hold on to. Science may not be able to disprove the existence of God, but it certainly can set the limits of such an existence.
The first article was meant, really, to give a view into the mindset of some. I don’t necessarily agree with it, as I think that everything should be a theory. Laws, when broken, are more trouble than they are worth. Theories are constantly evolving, changing their frame of reference, but continuing to be true.
I recently watched a show on the Science channel about the 11th dimension and parallel universes. The show stated that, for a time, theorist had ideas about 10 “strings” that make up all matter, but there were several variances of these strings. It was only when someone introduced the idea of an 11th “string” that the different equations of the 10 string theories were simply subsets of a larger, 11 string theory.
What does this have to do with evolution? Well, the “10 string” scientists all had differing ideas, but were sure they were correct and the others had to be wrong. However, they were all correct, but their frame of reference was constricted.
Similarly, the frame of reference for science has grown tremendously since Plato and Aristotle. What was once limited to the observations of the naked eye has now expanded to electron microscopes, hubble telescopes, and computer aided simulation. When these frames of reference change, laws can be broken. Time could have been considered a law until Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity.
Back to the main issue of my post, I think it’s important for students to learn science in the science classroom. That is, they learn the process, guided by theories of scientists past an present. You note the different theories on the mechanisms of evolution. As I said, those generally accepted as theories by the scientific community (Darwinism, etc) should be discussed.
Creationism and ID don’t prove anything. They aren’t theories. They really aren’t even hypothesis, as a good hypothesis can be tested. They are simply faith-based explanations to something that science has yet to understand.
I’m not saying you can’t teach students about these ideas. But they belong in a social studies or religious class, not in a science class.
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is the fact that Pope John Paul II accepted evolution (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Overview) stating that god put the spirit in man. We may not be talking about the Catholic system at all however PJP2 was and is even after death, an influential religious leader like the Dalai Lama or Bishop Desmond Tutu. His influence reached far beyond the Catholic church, and this is plainly evident by those thousands of non-Catholic believers who attended his funeral or mourned his passing. Should a handful of crabby parents be able to supercede over someone so influential?
I agree with Matt - I believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught in school, and I believe it should be taught in a responsible manner, which means as a theory, not as absolute truth - reading of a a statement, though, is preposterous. State it once “This is a theory.” and then let it rest - do they believe children so stupid that they may forget between science classes?
I disagree with Matt in that I do not believe religion should be taught in school at all, not in Social Studies and there should not even be a religion class. Religion is a personal experience. It’s importance and significance is known only to the one who believes. Without picking on any particular religion, let’s assume we have religion A and religion B. Child One learns Religion A at church and from his parents but is forced to learn Religion B in school. Child Two learns Religion B at home and church and religion B in school. Child One is always being teased and ostracized by Child Two because of his alternative doctrine forcing Child One to either accept Religion B or be ridiculed continuously through his schoolastic years, possibly tainting his view on his own religion. Catholicism aside (for obvious reasons), religion should be taught in it’s own environment, away from standardized education - simply put, the reason is because there is no such thing as standardized religion.
But what do I know - I am Canadian
-=[V]=-
Religion should be taught at public schools.
It should be taught appropriately. It should be put in its place. Religion is part of our cultural history and cannot be ignored. How does one understand the significance of Dante, for instance, if one knows nothing about Christianity? How are we to be tolerant of other cultures if we know nothing of Islam or Hinduism or Judaism?
Ignorance breeds hate.
It is my so very humbled opinion that every high school senior should take a year-long, intensive social studies course on world religions. This course should be taught just as we teach all other literature: as fiction. There is to be no value judgments made on which religion is better. The only purpose of such a course is to inform the student of the wide variety of belief systems known to the world. The final part of the course, then, should focus on why science is the only way to establish truth, why appeals to religious authority are ultimately foolish when it comes to public policy.
Especially as Americans, we have an enormous responsibility to know as much as we can about religion. The current debates over the separation of church and state has its origin in the theological debates of the New England Puritans. As the remaining super-power, we have incredible influence over the rest of the world, which has a variety of religious beliefs. The consequences of cultural ignorance cannot have a much better example than the horror that is Iraq today.
The different religious traditions are fascinating to study. One doesn’t have to believe in them to learn or to know about them. We continue to read the mythology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the Norse too. But do we still believe that the gods live on Olympus or that Thor brings about lightning? Of course not.
The problem that I see is that religious folk of a certain persuasion happen to have a more power than they rightfully deserve. With this power they want to bring religion into the public sphere. The secular person sees that their motives are not genuine; that is, the religious want to evangelize, indoctrinate, homogenize. The intellectually, culturally, politically, and ethically responsible citizen, however, sees that censorship of any sort is dangerous, that the best way to go is with an entirely open society. Such a society should treat religion as a human artifact of a less developed age. All the while, we keep in mind that religious experience—which is a real phenomena, that can be explained naturalistically—is not the same thing as religion or religious institutions.
Ah! There’s the rub! Yes, I agree with you completely T - if religion is taught it should be taught with a world scope and not centralized to one faction or system. However, what Scope seems to want to do is place an emphasis on Christianity - even there, we have dozens of slants on the same subject. If religion is to be taught in the manner that Scope has defined or wishes it to be defined, I maintain that it should not be taught. If, however, religion includes Krishna, Allah, Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, Zoroaster, etc then it should be taught.
Not to start another debate, but I would offer two further comments on your comments. First, anyone in North America would have to be extremely isolated or not very intelligent to not grasp Dante without a religion course. We are rather inundated with Christianity, and it would be extremely difficult to not pick up enough to understand and enjoy Dante. Second you say “the remaining super power” and “influence over the rest of the world”. I would remind you that China is a super power and that Christianity is not the most common religion in the world, that distinction goes to Buddhism with a vast majority.
-=[V]=-
Three things:
1. Up until this semester, I would have easily agreed with you that “anyone in North America would have to be extremely isolated or not very intelligent to not grasp Dante without a religion course.” However, I started TAing an ancient philosophy course. We started the semester with Homer’s Odyssey. When I graded the papers, I was shocked to see how awful they were. Not only are the students stupid—as an educator I don’t use this term lightly—but their work is thoroughly inundated with a particular reading of Christianity that is very much not the case for the Homeric world. Religion needs to be taught as religion, not as truth or “our” truth as opposed to “their” truth. It needs to be taught as a failed attempt at the truth. Now as sweet of you as it is to group Americans with Canadians under North Americans, don’t insult your good people like that
You guys really are smart(er) up there!
2. The United States is still the remaining super power. China is well on its way to replacing the US as the sole super power. Although China is bankrolling much of the US’s expenses, its military is still not strong enough—or, perhaps, to be more careful, its military is not clearly stronger than the US yet. I make this distinction for one good, and quite possibly naîvely optimistic, reason. IF for some incredible reason, the US gets its act together, it may be able to salvage enough of its former power such that China doesn’t totally overcome it as the super power. I know, it’s a long shot, but it’s still plausible enough. The current course of the world is well on its way, but its momentum isn’t so strong that nothing can change its course.
3. Christianity is a vastly different beast than Buddhism. While you’re correct to note that there are more Buddhists than Christians, the Christians are far more powerful. Furthermore, to treat Buddhism as a religion in the same sense as Christianity is a religion may be missing the point of Buddhism. When the East opened up to the West about 200 years ago, there were numerous difficulties in translation because the distinct concepts of religion, philosophy, science, etc. didn’t exist in the East at the time. Regardless, Buddhism doesn’t pose the threat that Christianity (of a particular, though powerful, sort) does. The main reason for this difference is that Buddhism accepts and works with science, its method, its process, and its conclusions. Christianity (of the sort running rampant in the US) totally rejects such a worldview (for a frightening example, see this article from the Chronicle). Simply put: Buddhism is open-minded; Christianity is dangerously closed minded.
By and large, V, I think we’re on the same page. And yes, of course, your qualifications about religion are right on the mark. I don’t know what I’d do if schools actually took the approach I’m suggesting—I’d probably fall into a shock-induced coma. Also, much gratitude for calling me out on my (unintended) assumptions! I need to be kept on my toes!
1. As you a Teachers Assistant, I will concede to your better judgment on the matter. I am merely a geek expressing my opinion, and the only courses I have ever managed or taught were to do with Operating Systems, BASIC, Assembler and how to turn your computer on. I really would have thought that todays youth would at least have enough know enough to read Inferno, but as you mentioned, Homeric prose baffled students? Wasn’t there a ring of Hell for them specifically? I hear a siren… Regarding your note on Canadian vs. American education, that’s very kind of you to say - however, truth be known, most of us go to school up here and then go down there to get real paying jobs
2. My argument there was less to do with who was ‘the’ super power and more to do with the fact that China and the US are both super powers, and I don’t believe one is superior to the other. I say this because the US government is (reasonably) responsible in letting its people and the world know its intentions - conspiracy theories and hidden agendas aside, the world generally knows what the US is up to. China, on the other hand, answers to no one. We don’t know what their money is spent on; we don’t know what the size of their military might is; we don’t know what they are up to. It is because of this that I believe that calling China the second chair in respect to being a super power is not exactly accurate. Recall the Roman’s too thought themselves top dog…
3. I agree - I meant in numbers only. I should have been more clear. Christianity has in the past and will in the future demonstrate that it is ruthless and is more powerful; not only is it evident in situations like the Chronicle link you pointed out, but also in the weekly ‘inquisitions’ from those who would take me from my dinner with the doorbell, nameless here so as to not ignite further controversy but there are two distinct groups I can think of. Buddhists on the other hand, are taught selflessness. Additionally they respect other peoples religious beliefs and therefore conquest is not considered. I guess it is the difference between: “No Pain, No Gain” and “No Pain”.
We do seem to be on the level with exception to our definition of super powers. While it would be a wonderful and joyous thing to see, if religion were taught as we prescribe; including all religion, taught as a culturally important course without the usual rhetoric, I would take the fastest jet I could find to the most remote area in the world - simply because with that much acceptance, you know there would be some sort of big trouble around the corner!
-=[V]=-
While your distinctions on how to qualify a power as a superpower are quite good, I think there are (at least) two issues we’re both circling around.
1. The notion of superpowers is left-over from the Cold War. This categorization of the world simply doesn’t fit the realities of today. For instance, the superpowers of the cold war were defined not only by their might but by their ideological opposition. While China does do things differently than the US, the only way they can compete with the West in general is by accepting free-market capitalism. The democratic element is the wild-card here. I’m not sure which will prove to be most prosperous in the end. Another example of the difficulties of the limits of our language is that a far greater threat than China is trans-national terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. It’s easy to declare war on another country, particularly due to its geographical location. Quite another thing to declare war on a network that has satellites all around the world. Part of the Bush administration’s failures in the so-called war on terror is its foolish attempt to turn Iraq into a terrorist battleground. But I digress…
2. The Soviet Union wanted to destroy our way of life. We wanted to destroy their way of life. I’m not so sure that hostility exists between China and the West. Sure, there are differences, but I think there is far more openness involved nowadays. That said, talk of superpowers may not even be appropriate anymore. Of course, if Bush keeps screwing things up, it may end up that there’s more than enough hostility to go around.
And Matt, sorry for ranting and raving on your blog without your active participation! I certainly appreciate the opportunity, but if you do find my blathering to be too much… well, you know what to do… not that you need reminding
That’s what this blog is for. It’s nice to have some consistent readership. Perhaps if I write more I’ll grow my readership somewhat.
Oh my! Vast readership—with all sorts of people reading the drivel that are my comments?!
Certain doom for me! :-p
The term “Superpower” is probably obsolete as you suggest. World Leaders and World Powers, though, tend to make me think of things such as G8, and (with no offense intended to my friend Roddie, or others who live in Mexico) - Mexico just doesn’t seem, to me, to fit. Canada either for that matter. Perhaps I am placing too much emphasis on the former term as well as transferring the old meaning onto the new terms. An important thing that you touched on there, though, is the Chinese acceptance of the Capitalist process. This is possibly the most important reasons I believe that they are “one of” the superpowers (if such existed in the modern world). While the borders of China are opening up, information pertaining to the political process in China is not. If, one day, China met with a large disagreement with the US and they closed the borders to trade with the US and to it’s people, the blow would be devastating. Could the US recover such a blow? Probably, but it would literally take decades. It would make the 30’s look like a bump in the graph. You may say it would hurt their economy as well, of course, since North America is the largest purchaser in the Chinese market. We do not know what they do with their money, as I mentioned, because they answer to no one. Should they be stockpiling it and are amassing great amounts of ‘economic solutions’ for the known coming lean years, could cause a superpower as never before seen, possibly an iron blanket for the globe to replace the former curtain. They could turn capitalism against itself and quite literally win the world. Of course, that’s all speculation, and I do have a fairly active imagination, but this is one reason I believe them an equal super power (were they to exist in the modern world
).
2. US Government has repeatedly said over the decades that it will eradicate communism and oppression from the world. China is a communist country using capitalism for profit. They are relatively oppressive (just ask HHDL!). While on friendly terms, how long can it last with the two completely counter ideals? While I wish the world no ill will, I would like to know who will make the first move, if there ever was a first move to be made.
Vast Readership? YEESH! I better start proofreading better before posting then (e.g.: ‘As you a Teachers Assistant…’ - MAN! I sound like Sylvester Stallone! YO! )
Matt - Yes, as T said - Thanks for the venue - I know a blog isn’t a debate, and I probably should have kept my big Canuck yap shut especially since you started the article with “A blog is not meant to be a debate “. Then again that is counter to my personal logic, otherwise I wouldn’t have needed your theme for my blog {:>. When your site was down a day or so ago I thought you had blocked my IP and I wondered how I would be able to procure the next version of Neuron
-=[V]=-
I said consistent, not vast…
You may have consistent readership now, but if this consistent readership were to grow as you did suggest, it could very well become vast. And why shouldn’t it? After all, Matt’s a decent person, a good man, and thorough.