Humanism) a Born Humanist

8/14/2019 Humanism) a Born Humanist

1/28The Open Society, Volume 79, Number , Autumn 2006

The

Open SocietyJournal of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists

Volume 79, Number 1, Autumn 2006

Creation and

Evolution

A Humanist

Creed

A Born Humanist

Serving New Zealands non-religious community since 1927


2/282 The Open Society, Volume 79, Number , Autumn 2006

The Open Society, Autumn 2006, Volume 79, Number 1Established 1927

Editorial 1Bill Cooke

A Born Humanist 2George Pirie

Southern Lights 5Russell Dear

Creationism vs. Evolution 6Simon Gemmill

The Vicar, Darwinism and Intelligent Design 12Warwick Don

Sixth World Atheist Conference 13

Marx and Philosophy 14Adam Buick

Living like a Humanist 16Bill Cooke

A Humanist Creed 16Georgie Pirie

Adams Rib 17Anne Ferguson

Read any good novels recently? 18Bill Cooke

Thoughts and Comments 20Bill Cooke

Books 22

Book Notice 23

Letters 24

Editor in Chief

Dr Bill Cooke

Managing Editor

David Ross

Illustration

Cornelius Stone

Editorial Board

Dr John BhrDr Ray BradleyWarwick DonDr Jack Vowles

Address

Rationalist House64 Symonds StreetAuckland 1001New Zealand(09) 373 [email protected]

Published quarterly by the NZ

Association of Rationalistsand Humanists (Inc). Printedby Keyprint Printing Ltd,Auckland.

ISSN 1175-8619

The opinions expressed bycontributors are not necessar-ily shared by the NZARH, the

editors, members of theEditorial Board or the Printers.

Other publications are wel-come to reprint from this

journal, provided that acknowl-edgement is made and a copyof the publication containing

the reprinted item is sent toNZARH at the address above.

Principal objects of the NZARH:

To advocate a rational, humane and secular view of life withoutreference to supernatural agencies and which is compatible withthe scientific method.

To promote a tolerant, responsible and open society.

To encourage open-minded enquiry into matters relevant tohuman co-existence and well-being.



Imagine the scene: a God-earing man,prostrate with ever on the dank ooro a prison, being looked ater by histhree cellmates. The man is in prisonor his belies. The cell door is open

or a while, a concession granted by theguards to permit some breeze to fnd thesick, God-earing man. A guard shuesdown the long row o cells, scrawling anumber in chalk on each cell door, as hislist tells him to. These fgures indicatethe number o people in the cell who areto be taken out and executed, or theyare all prisoners o a brutal regime inthe middle o a renzy o arrests andexecutions. The guard comes up alongthe open door, which opens out into

the corridor, dutiully scrawls 4 andshues on to the next door.

The time soon comes or the God-earing mans cell door to be shut oncemore, and or him to be incarceratedor the last time. That night the nextguard detail makes its way along thecells taking out the required numbero people rom each cell. The cell dooro the God-earing man is now closedand so the 4 scrawled on it aces theinmates and not the guard detail. Seeingno number, the guards move on to thenext cell. The lives o the God-earingman, and those o his three companionshave been spared. They hear the screamsand groans o the others, who have notbeen so ortunate.

Beore the authorities realised theirmistake, the regime had toppled, andthe dictator was sucked into the same

spiral o brutal executions that he hadinitiated against the innocent. The God-earing man is released. He recoversrom his ever, leaves the country, and

continues his career o deending hisidea o God. In act, he went on to writea work which was critical o atheism,one which is remembered to this day.The God-earing man is in no doubts

about what has happened. AlmightyProvidence intervened and saved him.A miracle had occurred.

So how can rationalists explain thissequence o events? These eventsactually happened: they were theexperience o a amous historical person. This is not something lostin the mists o history. For once, thealleged miracle took place withinrecorded history; 1794 to be exact.

A sequence o events took place thatwas so unlikely that talking o it as amiracle is at least understandable. Asthe aithul like to say, what are thechances o such an unlikely sequenceo events actually happening?

But o course, the problem comeswhen we reveal who this God-earingman was. Many readers will alreadyhave twigged that I am reerring toThomas Paine. Few people have beenso reviled by Christians, in his own dayand since his death. And yet this man,who Theodore Roosevelt denounced asa dirty little atheist, believed he hadbeen saved by a miracle. But presumablymost Christians would deny this. So weare let with the unsettling question: domiracles only occur when they happento people we agree with?

The reason Thomas Paine has been

vilifed or centuries is that he wrote Age o Reason. This courageous polemic sought to make a sharpdistinction between uncritical belie

in the Bible and a belie in God. Byshowing all the alsehoods, errors,immoralities and absurdities o theBible, Paine made it obvious that thiswas not a source we could turn to in

order to understand God. And Painewas clear in his understanding o God.The only idea that man can afx tothe name o God, he wrote, is that oa frst cause, the cause o all things.(Age o Reason, p 22)

In Age o Reason Paine also turnedthe notion o infdelity on its head.Traditionally an infdel was someonewho questioned or did not ascribe tothe commonly-held belies. But Paine

reworked the notion o infdelity ina brilliant way: Infdelity does notconsist in believing or in disbelieving;it consists in proessing to believe whathe does not believe. ( Age o Reason, p 2) Infdelity now became infdelityto ones own standards o truth, ratherthan to a socially enorced dogma. InPaines view the real infdels are thevery conormists who persecute andcondemn while knowing in their heartthe dogmas they proess to championare not true.

Two hundred years on, many peopleare still a long way rom dissociatingnotions o God rom belie in the Bible.For humanists this is not a problem,as we have dispensed with them both.But or millions o people around theworld, this remains an important stepstill needing to be taken. The day theysucceed will truly be a day o miracles.

Miracle Man

Bill Cooke

Editorial



What is sin? I asked Sone,headmaster o Ardvreck.I was eight, and had just returned rommy frst church service. As a new boy Isat in the ront pew just by the pulpit,so Id got the ull orce o the Scottishpreachers message about sin. But I didnot understand most o it, or he had

ranted on about matters that were abovemy head, such as chastity, ornicationand adultery. Sone answered that sinwas disobeying the word o God asrevealed in the Bible. The worst sin wasnot to believe in Him. The everlastingpenalty or that was the souls burningin the fres o Hell.Sone was ever so pious. He read thelesson at morning service in church. Heconducted the schools chapel services

on Wednesday, Saturday and Sundayevenings; he taught scripture once aweek. Starting on the Old Testamentat Genesis 1, Chapter 1, I learnt theGenesis myths o Gods creating theworld, its plants and animals, the sunand the stars. I learnt about the all oman in the Garden o Eden and Godspunishment - Noahs Flood.

I didnt believe a word o it, any morethan the airy tales Granny used to readus. However, Sone must have assumedId taken it all in, as he believed Genesisliterally as the Word o God, andassumed all his pupils would ollowsuit. I realised it would be useless toask him how Noah could have caughtanimals rom America or Australia andtaken them into the Ark, or how such asmall crew could have tended so manydiverse animals.

In the school library there was a serieso Wonder Books, including one onthe world and another on its animals.That was my ount o knowledge o

the real world, and I was intrigued by pictures o bison, kangaroos, polarbears and penguins; by the skeletons ohuge extinct beasts like dinosaurs andwoolly mammoths.

When it came to reading the NewTestament I did not know the meaningo virgin, so I had to ask Sone again.

His reply inerred that I was too youngto understand it, and should leave suchquestions till I was older. I also treatedthe nativity, miracles and resurrectionas airy tales, but dared not admit itto Sone, let alone my doubts aboutthe existence o God, hell or heaven. Italked to my ather about it instead, awise Dad who never talked down to hisour sons and two daughters.

It was clear that Dad looked on Genesis

and much else in the Bible as mythical,rather than actual, and that satisfedme or many years. By choosing tobelieve what he told me, and preerringthe Wonder Books to the Bible, I hadunwittingly become a humanist.

My younger brother Roger and I wereexcited enough by the train journeyto Crie rom our home in Kent,with Lindsays help. But our greatestsurprise was at bedtime beore lightsout in our dormitory. A bell announcedQuiet Time, the sign or us to pray,something wed never done beore. Sowe mimed those who knew the ropes,and kneeled down beside our beds, withour hands in ront o our noses. I couldsee through my fngers and hear severalo the boys saying their prayers out loudGod bless Mummy; God bless Daddyand so on, then asking God to orgivethem, or make them good boys.

In spite o years o indoctrination and peer pressure I never understood thisprayer aair, in the dorms, in church or

in chapel. To me it just seemed nonsensethen, and nonsense it remains, as wasthe Grace beore meals; For what weare about to receive, may the Lord makeus truly thankul. Thank the Father, notthe armer!

Ater fve years o this regime I couldrecite the whole o the book o Morning

Prayer, or what thats worth. But Idid enjoy one aspect o religion atArdvreck, the voluntary hymn singingin Sones living room. Mrs Englishaccompanied us on her grand piano, but not as well as my Mum. Perhapsthe main attraction was the wood fre inwinter, with hot buttered toast and tea.So religion escaped me at Ardvreck,except that I have to admit perjury whenI joined the Boy Scouts that involved a

promise to do my duty to God.Having been Head Boy or my last termat Ardvreck, the adjustment to being amere new boy again was traumatic orthe frst ew days at Stowe, the publicschool I attended or the next fve years.The religious side at Stowe broughtno surprises, except that we had amagnifcent new chapel, with a superbpipe organ and organists. The CantataStoica contained many semi-sacredsongs that were a pleasant change romthe dreary hymns A & M.Dr Huggins, musical director, auditionedthe new boys, and separated us into goodsingers, so-so singers, and growlers. Asa good singer and able to read music,I joined the Choral Society, who satin the middle o the chapel. Serviceswere held on Wednesday, Saturdayand Sunday evenings as well as the

main one on Sunday mornings. I alsoattended chapel on Monday evening,when the choral society practiced, andwe listened to organ voluntaries.

A Born HumanistGeorge Pirie



Grace was said in Latin beore lunchand dinner, and prayers preceded lightsout, as at Ardvreck. The school hadthree masters ordained C o E, whostuck to theBook o Common Prayer Iknew so well. I did not know the deptho religious afliation o my schoolriends, and we never discussed religion

as such, except with a reethinkingteacher, T H White.In my school certifcate year my ormmaster, Rev Earle, was due to leaveater 15 years, so the whole orm waspersuaded to take the catechism and beconfrmed at the end o term. Thus itwas that the Bishop o Ripon confrmedme, although I had expresseddoubts to Pop Earle, whocountered that I would regret

it later i I ailed to takethe opportunity then. Aterconfrmation I never tookcommunion, as I consideredthe drinking o blood and theeating o esh to be barbaric,even i only symbolic.When I became a house preect,the headmaster had me practisereading the lesson, beingcareul to say a ew words at

a time to avoid the echoesdrowning the next phrase. Ipassed with ying colours, andhe commended me.

And that was the end o myormal religious educationthat had not only ailed toconvert me, but had put meo religion or the rest omy lie. Being an engineer,and interested in science Ireinorced my views o thearchaic biblical myths bylearning the natural causes o creationand the evolution o species.Between leaving Stowe and going upto university, I spent a beautiul threemonths in Germany, at Bonn am Rhein,where I learnt to speak German. It was1937, Hitlers heyday. I saw and heardhim mesmerise the crowd, ranting on

about Aryanism. It was the most awe-inspiring and rightening experience inmy lie. One could eel the eedbackrom the crowd. It made me realise how

a dedicated orator could manipulate agullible and willing crowd.

We trekked to a hunting lodge at anisolated village, passing a tiny waysideshrine with an embroidered altar clothSchmerzhate Mutter Bitte Fur Uns, andclay fgurines o the local saints. It made

me realise how these simple country olkwere wedded to their religion.At Cambridge University my Stoicroommate proved to be an atheist, likeme, and so was the undergraduate nextdoor. We didnt attend the Clare Collegechapel although it was just oppositethe dining hall and at the oot o our

staircase in my second year. VisitingClare many years later, the chapelwas closed, so I had to wait ten moreyears beore looking in. What a dismalcontrast it was to the magnifcent KingsCollege Chapel next door.Gliding was my sport. Ater less thana year I came thirteenth out o 30

competitors in the National GlidingCompetitions. But at Easter 1939 I crashedan H17 suering multiple ractures to mylegs and skull. Matron asked i I would

see the local vicar although she knew Iwas irreligious. When he came to visitme I was struck dumb at his proposal toconsecrate my bedside table so I couldtake communion!My heart was racing, but luckily my 25year old brother Donald arrived while I

was wondering how to reuse the vicarsoer. Don saw some ies stuck in histweed hat and turned the subject to y-fshing. The vicar let. Matron took mypulse. No more vicars she said.

World War Two started. One o myriends joined the ambulance serviceat once, although we were supposed to

fnish our engineering degree.He was sent to Poland, andreturned as a conscientious

objector, like all goodQuakers. I admired his stand.He prayed; I didnt.My younger brother Rogersship Royal Oak was sunk, teno the 13 o the midshipmenbeing lost. My roommates wereaghast at my not bothering tosee i his name was on the listo survivors. I knew it would be, and ound it in the Stop

Press News. He was a lightsleeper, so I guessed the frsttorpedo would wake him up. Itdid, and that saved his lie.

A German submarine fredat Dons HMS Spearfshour minutes ater war wasdeclared. That time it missed, but Spearfsh was badlydamaged during a later attack.Ater a reft she was sent onher last patrol that startedsuccessully, but ended in her

being sunk, according to the Germanclaim. Dad was on his monthly visit tothe actory where I worked, and joinedus at the local pub. The tenor sang GoodBye, and the tears were streaming downDads cheeks.The ollowing month my boss asked thetenor not to sing Goodbye, but Dad

had already requested it. That was asclose to a uneral service as we got. Norite o passage. No good.

George Pirie



When I joined the RNVR in a chair-borne capacity, I attended one church parade during my training, beinglabelled C o E what else?Ater the war I became a trainee at aPaper Mill, whose manager had beena trainee at the parent mill where I

was born. He was courting Molliesstepmother, and I ollowed by courtingMollie, her stepdaughter. On the frstSunday o our honeymoon I learntshe was a staunch Christian, and shelearnt I wasnt! That hasnt preventedus rom being together or the next 57years, although both o us might have been even happier i wed shared thesame religion.I hadnt even heard o humanism till

wed witnessed a daughter at a aithhealing service during which the sickell back, and had to be caught. I waswarned by an Anglican priest not tostand between them and the window,or the devils being cast out wouldknock me down! He had let a book bymy bedside that was utter rubbish tome, about a man who claimed that Godhad saved him rom the horrendouscrash o two jumbo jets colliding andcatching fre.

I was so horrifed by this experiencethat I rang the writer o a letter to the

Herald. She introduced me to Ray Carr,who lived nearby. And that was how Icame to be a member o the Aucklandbranch o the Humanist Society o NewZealand. Till then I hadnt heard ohumanism, only rationalism, and thatrather vaguely.

The main stumbling block with theAuckland branch was in not having aheadquarters where we could meet. Sowe made do with some pretty dingyrooms compared with the Rationalistswho had a fne building, i somewhatEdwardian. From Ray and his colleaguesI heard about their breaking away romthe Rationalist Association, who had become dogmatic and anti-church,with little interest in the more positiveaspects o humanism.

The new society HSNZ had no capitaland little income to support its veryexistence, yet started with great

enthusiasm, drawing large crowds totheir meetings with amous speakers. Bythe time I joined, other social diversionsmade inroads into all such aairs. TheLyric Choir flled the Town Hall beoreI joined it, but TV killed it too, so mydays as a chorister ended, and I gave mywell-worn copy o the Handels Messiah

to another choir.

The Auckland Branch made twoimprovements that helped it along beore its originators died o. Itinstituted meetings at members houses,and it started to hold Solstice Parties inmid-winter. In that way we broadenedour outlook, and got to know each othermuch better.

Civil celebrants started to conduct

marriages as well as unerals andNaming Ceremonies. Ray asked me totake the load o his shoulders when hewas overseas. I started by naming theyounger son o a amily whose previouschildren had been named by him. I hadno idea what orm to ollow, till I hada brainwave. The parents had vowedto love and support each other throughthick and thin, so all they had to do wasto reafrm their vows so as to includethe new child! This ormula proved a

great success.Marian Barnes was a great help to mein perorming unerals, and I ended upwith about 400 during my career. It wasa very rewarding procedure socially, butnot fnancially. I was also responsibleor writing the monthly Newsletteror several years, as well as beingchairman o the Auckland branch. Myeorts to hand them over ailed and weound increasing difculty in fndingcommittee members and speakers, likemost voluntary societies. We had triedseveral meeting places too, eventuallybeing invited to use Rationalist House.In collusion with Bill Cooke, theAuckland Branch decided to wind upand join the reormed Rationalists.Many o our stalwarts had died or let,so the merger lost the social advantageso the Auckland Branch in return or

a permanent home and organisation.The aims o the new Association werein keeping with humanism, and the NZARH had a number o younger

members rom the University Atheiststhat augured well or the uture.Reverting to my eight year-oldexperience, we Pirie boys enjoyed theun and education or lie that go withcrewing and maintaining a sailingyacht, and the housework involved.

We never prayed or better weather,but learnt how to cope with our ate.We gained our sea legs; we learntthe ropes. But most importantly, weabsorbed the invaluable lessons ocooperation, courtesy and loyalty. Forsailors rely on each other or their livesas well as their amusement.I believe aiths suer rom a basic awas they have driven so many adherentsto torture, kill or die in deence o the

religion they chose. Furthermore thereare so many brands that I believe theycan only ourish by the indoctrinationo gullible minds. As I never had aspiritual experience I cant understandspirituality, or duality. I believe that themind or soul surviving death is wishulthinking, as are the supernatural man-made concepts o gods or saviours,devils or angels, heaven or hell.I believe that provisional truth is only to

be ound through reason and scientifcenquiry. That is why I have been ahumanist since birth.

George Pirie is a Lie Member o theNZARH, and served as president rom1997 to 1998.



This story is not true, nor are thecharacters real. Barry and Ross, though,are based on people Ive met and theconversation is similar to ones Iveheard or in which Ive taken part. You

will hear more rom Barry and Ross.

Barry and Ross are the best o mates.Although they argue incessantly its just a game. It seems to be a male bonding ploy, one they particularlyindulge in at the pub when theyreenjoying a cool beer ater a hot gameo squash. I think they eel its whatreal men do. For example, when itcomes to beer Barry likes DB whileRoss preers Speights. They never tire

o arguing about the relative merits othe two beers. Their wives, who canttell one beer rom another, think its ahuge joke.

When it comes to watching sport, Barrypreers rugby while Ross is more inclinedtowards soccer. Barrys comment thatonly pootahs play soccer is likely torile Ross and elicit the response well,everyone knows Ruggerheads are brain-dead. Dont get me wrong, the guysare not completely unsophisticated,Barry manages a hardware store whileRoss owns a small car repair business,its just that disagreement is part o theethos o their relationship.

On occasions Barry and Ross discussmore signifcant matters like the current political situation or internationalevents. They even occasionallydiscuss religion, although they have

their dierences there too. RecentlyRoss was describing some letters tothe editor hed come across in the localnewspaper on the evolution debate.

You notice, he said to Barry, now thatthe expression Creation Theory has comeinto disrepute, that the weirdos havedecided to give it another name. They callit Intelligent Design now. Theyre trying

to hustle the old philosophy under theguise o a new title. Beats me how theycan think none o us can see through it.Whats bloody intelligent about itanyway, I want to know? rejoinedBarry, interrupting Ross beore hecould say more. I mean, take my back.Ive had trouble with it or years likeheaps other people I know. Its alwayscausing me grie. Incidentally its whyyou beat me at squash today, I couldntbend or the low shots. Anyway, i the

design had been more intelligent theproblem o back pain would have beensolved beore it began. Intelligentdoesnt mean perect, I suppose, addedRoss quietly, realising that Barry wasgetting into his stride.Youre not wrong about that, Barrycontinued, and what about womensinner bits?Ross quickly queried, Inner bits?Yeah, you know, the reproductiveorgans and things. I mean, they dontwork too well do they? All that troublewomen have with their monthlies andthe hassles o having a baby when itcomes.... Barry paused.Yes, I suppose youre right, otheranimals do seem to fnd havingospring a lot easier than ushumans. Ross replied.Barry fnished up with, What asystem. I reckon I could design abetter one.

The men sat silently or a bit, sippingtheir beer. Happy to relax andconsider wider issues ater their bouto exercise.

Finally, Ross spoke again, As I said,maybe God is intelligent enough, justnot perect. Maybe he...Barry quickly interrupted, Or she, orit. Who says God has to be a bloke?

Yeah, Ross continued, Maybe he orshe or it is not perect, just reasonablyintelligent and...Barry interrupted again, Like meand you.Yeah. And this universe is just Godsfrst attempt at creating one. Ross paused or a ew seconds. Maybetheres even a second attempt...and athird, and a ourth, and a fth...Barry took up the idea, Maybe thereslots o parallel universes, with each

one a bit better designed than the one beore. Warming to his subject headded, A whole line o millions andmillions o parallel universes all leadingtowards a perect one. He stoppedand asked, Do you think you and Iare sitting enjoying a beer in all theseuniverses, Ross?Yeah, why not? Ross replied.Bet were both drinking DB,then. Barry quipped.No chance, Ross replied,Itll be Speights.

Southern LightsRussell Dear

Introducing Barry and Ross



Creationism vs. EvolutionSimon Gemmill

A Dialogue

Shaun, a 28 year-old man, goes back

in time twelve years and meets his 16

year-old sel. The two temporal partso this man are rather dierent: the

sixteen year-old is a creationist, and

a Christian undamentalist; the 28

year-old man has searched or more

answers; spent a lot o time studying

and researching the subject, and

ound evolution to be true ater all.

Soon enough, they get into a heated

debate over their diering opinions.

For a distinction between Shauns

temporal parts, and to identiy them

according to their views, we shall callthe young Shaun, CreaShaun, and the

older Shaun, EvoluShaun.

EVOLUSHAUN: Whats true -creationism or evolution? Only abouta third o Americans believe thatCharles Darwins theory o evolutionis a scientifc theory that has been wellsupported by the evidence, while justas many say that it is just one o manytheories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say theydont know enough to say. Forty-fvepercent o Americans also believe thatGod created human beings pretty muchin their present orm about 10,000years ago. A third o Americans are biblical literalists who believe thatthe Bible is the actual word o Godand is to be taken literally, word orword. (Newport, 19 November 2004)More New Zealanders believe in

evolution, but there is still a signifcantcommunity o believers here whobelieve the Bible to be literally true,and accordingly, evolution alse. Only

10% o New Zealanders believe everyword o the Bible is literally true

(Laugesen, 31 July 2005). As you arein the latter group, defne your beliesabout the origins o lie on Earth.

CREASHAUN: Creationism is notsimply the belie the universe has aCreator, but a belie that the world wascreated by God 6,000 (some say 10,000)years ago, as verifed by the Bible; mandid not evolve rom apes, and eyessimply could not have evolved. It isprimarily based on the truthulness and

accuracy o the book o Genesis and itsaccount o creation. Science confrmsthese belies, with the researchers basedin Caliornia constantly fnding prooo the Bibles validity. How can youbelieve in evolution now? Its just airytales or grown-ups.

EVOLUSHAUN: You creationists donot even speciy which creation storyyou believe; there are two dierentaccounts o creation in Genesis -chapter one and two. I ail to see howboth could be true.

Your rejection o evolution is basedon the ear that it leaves no roomor God. However, many scientistsare able to reconcile their aith withscience; seeing no need to rely onpoor science to deend their belies.I Christianity (or any religion) istrue, true science will bring us closer

to proving it. The only thing religionshave to ear rom science is provingthem alse; this could well be thecreationists ear.

Whether we believe in a Creator ornot, i science has proven evolution, we

should accept that act; i we believein God, we should give him or her duecredit or the wonders o evolution.Creationists should reject their alse belies and try and ft their God intotheir science, rather than water downtheir science out o ear theyll losetheir God. Many scientists are religious,implying that science is not the threat toaith that creationists claim it is.

CREASHAUN: Evolutionary biologists,

astronomers and physicists have been brainwashed by Darwinian dogma. Ourevidence or the Bibles actuality isstronger than the evidence or evolution.Have you heard o the proo that man anddinosaur walked the Earth together? Itsin the book o Job, and theres a dinosaurootprint with a human one inside it.

EVOLUSHAUN: There are manyreasons creationism is at best a dodgyscience, at worst, not science at all.For example, in 1993 those creationscientists were teaching you thatman had walked with the dinosaurs.This claim was proven wrong in the80s: the ootprint evidence waschallenged when an undergraduatestudent suggested that the smallootprint was actually that o asmaller dinosaur, not a human. Uponexamination, that turned out to bethe case. So i creationists willingly

present evidence - even ater it has been discarded by the rest o thescientiic community - as being valid,their science is ar less than honest.



These people would probably bearguing or a lat Earth, i they had been alive 500 years ago. The basic premise o proving the Bible righttends to twist logic in ways it doesnt

want to go. Creationism rejects outo hand some scientiic data thathas strong evidence, such as the big bang, the old age o the Earth, andevolution. With no evidence to supportcreationism, we will then examinehow we really got here: evolution.

CREASHAUN: Why trust science inthe frst place? I it challenges the Wordo God, it must be erroneous.

EVOLUSHAUN: Because scienceis our most dependable source oknowledge about ourselves, our world,and our universe. There is no bettersystem o inormation gathering knownto mankind. Chet Raymo writes:

I anyone doubts that scientifcknowledge is reliable, I will take theDNA o the Red Knot, adjust the ourletter code, and send the bird wingingon a new course. (Molecular biologists

perorm similar eats every day.) Ianyone doubts that our telescopesreliably reveal the galaxies in theiraugust places, let them ollow the journeys o the Voyager spacecratsout beyond the arthest planets ontrajectories precisely calculated inadvance. The reliability o scientifcknowledge is confrmed every day,all around us, in the accoutrementso technological civilisation. (Raymo1998, p 135)

In other words, people who questionsciences validity, and who also usetechnology developed as a resulto scientifc understanding, such astelevision, cars, aeroplanes, etc, are being dualistic. While enjoying thecomorts and conveniences broughtabout by science, many are unpreparedto accept the implications o otherscientifc discoveries. People are happy

to use cellphones and cars, but arenot prepared to accept the impact oscientifc knowledge and thinking intotheir daily lives.

The evidence or evolution iscompelling, as a matter o act. SinceCharles Darwin and Alred RusselWallace put the theory orward, theevidence has mounted up. It could have

been discredited, but it has not. Somemodifcations have been made, as is thenature o science, however, the theory oevolution has stood strong or the past200 years. The only weakness lies not inthe amount o supporting evidence, butpeoples lack o awareness or acceptanceo scientifc discoveries.

Evolution is a historical science,confrmed by the historical evidence,primarily the ossil record [as well

as DNA] Evolution is happeningall around us, day by day - mostdramatically and dangerously inthe case o pathogenic bacteriaevolving resistance to antibiotics.For example, the bacterial agento malaria has evolved resistanceto many o the drugs that ormerlyheld that disease in check. This iscompounded by the evolution oDDT resistance by the mosquitothat carries the malaria pathogen

during part o its lie cycle. Atera period during which malariaworldwide was on the decline, thedisease is now making a roaringcomeback as the worlds biggestkiller o children. Creationists whodeny evolution not only contributenothing to the resolution o themalaria problem but also underminethe scientifc education that willhelp the next generation solve theproblem. (Raymo 1998, p 154)

Science is reliable, and holds theanswers to our questions and problems.It is not antithetical to religion,although the theory o evolution doespose problems or undamentalists. Notall scientists are atheists. Ultimately,the God question is not inuenced byscience, which means the creationistclaim that evolution was invented to getrid o God cannot be justifed.

Science is a dynamic social activity,made up o millions o men andwomen o all religious aiths,

races, nationalities, and political persuasions. It is preposterous tosuggest, as do creationists, thatthis vast and diverse assemblageo scientists, many o them

devoutly religious, is guided by blind commitment to Darwiniandogma the evolution o lie overhundreds o millions o years hasvirtually 100 percent support othe organised scientifc community,whereas biblical creationism hasessentially zero support. To suggestthat creationism should get equal billing in our public schools notonly is unconstitutional (violatingseparation o Church and State)

but is simply silly. One might aswell give equal billing to those who believe the Earth is at. (Raymo1998, p 156)

There is ar more valid, scientifc datain support o evolution than there iso creationism thats why the ormergets taught in schools and not the latter;because, although there is no absolutetruth, just as scientists have made light- bulbs and also rockets and satellites

that can go into space, so also theyagree in general terms about how theworld came into being, based on theevidence they have seen. Theories arereplaced and changed over time, as newevidence arises, and, as time goes by,paradigms are overturned. New theoriesare embraced.

CREASHAUN: But what about thetheory o creationism? Its perectly airto argue that there must be a creator,even engineers agree with this act, itsonly scientists that are dumb enoughnot to see the case or it. I it werent ortheir dogmatic holding onto Darwinism,they could accept creationism as ascientifc theory. In act, the recentwork on Intelligent Design theory hasphrased the argument or a designer inscientifc terms, acceptable even to themost ardent sceptic.

EVOLUSHAUN: However, creationism- more recently repackaged as IntelligentDesign, is not a scientifc theory tobegin with; it cannot be tested, let alone



accepted. The argument that there may- or must - be a designer has somegood points, philosophically, but is asquantifable as the theory that there mustbe a tooth airy (ater all, the tooth hasgone and money has been let in its place,what more evidence could we ask or?).A scientifc theory with evidence is airly

reliable, i not extremely reliable, enoughso that we can count on our knowledgeenough to send rockets deep into space,whereas you cannot say your belie in adesigner is reliable, much less your beliein biblical events that contradict science!Just one example o many - Genesis saysEarth existed beore the Sun, that is aro the mark. A theory subject to changeis ar more reliable than an unscientifctheory, or an item o religious dogma.

CREASHAUN: All the uncertainty andchanging theories in science is too much.My God is unchanging, the Bibles truthis enduring, and your science changeswith the wind. Some knowledge! Howcan you be so certain then, i you knowall your theories are always changing?

EVOLUSHAUN: I can see you dislikethis uncertainty; this lack o absoluteknowledge. But lets live with it. We haveno better means o fnding things out than

the scientifc method; aith comes waydown the line when it comes to alternativeways o knowing. Dont tell me the Bibleis unchanging - interpretations haveadapted to the values and knowledge othe times. It used to say the worldwas at and that we should haveslaves, and now it doesnt.Why is that? Interpretationschange to keep it relevantand worthy o ollowing.Considering this, i you valueit so much: why can you notaccept an interpretation oGenesis that allows or evolution?Call it an allegory, poetry, whatever youlike. It doesnt have to be alse, just orevolution to be true.

Darwin himsel was not out todiscredit the Bible; he resisted theidea o evolution, aware othe political, social and religious

implications o his new idea. Butthe evidence o nature orced themutability o species upon him.(Raymo 1998, p 139)

CREASHAUN: But no-one has shownany examples o evolution occurring.Animals stay the same, they do not turninto other species.

EVOLUSHAUN: Scientists Peter andRosemary Grant spent 20 years inthe Galapagos Islands. They watched

populations evolve in times o stressand o plenty. Ongoing evolution [is]observed by scientists in other places:guppies in the Caribbean, soapberrybugs in the American South, sticklebackfsh in ponds o the Canadian West, and,o course, bacteria worldwide. (Raymo1998 pp 154-155) Evolution happens; ithas been observed.

CREASHAUN: What about themissing links? Scientists cannot fnd

any because there neverwas any evolution thattook place, and thereare no ossils toshow the missinglinks betweenspecies.

EVOLUSHAUN: Thegaps which creationists reer to arenot gaps at all. No-one fnds a speciesand says, Oh, this is a gap species.All species we have ound have beennamed and classifed. Leaving names

aside, and just looking at the physicalcontinuity, it is easy to see specieswhich are related, and have evolvedrom others. Furthermore:

There are thousands o missinglink ossils, and every year moreare ound. Examples are the stages between reptiles and mammals,between reptiles and birds, betweenland mammals and whales, betweenhorses and their progenitors, andbetween humans and their extinct

apelike ancestors. The so calledossil gaps are partly due to therarity o conditions or ossilisationand to the relatively rapid series omutations (Gardner 2002, p 18)

So your saying that there are missinglinks indicates your misunderstandingo evolution, and perhaps even that youhave not looked into it yoursel. In act,Martin Gardner, author o Did Adamand Eve Have Navels? is another person

who believes in God and evolution. Heexplains the evidence or inter-

species evolution thus:

There are animals alive today thatbeautiully illustrate every stage in thecontinuum. There are rogs that glidewith big webs between their toes,tree-snakes with attened bodies that

catch the air, lizards with aps alongtheir bodies; and several dierentkinds o mammals that glide withmembranes stretched between their



limbs, showing us the kind o way batsmust have got their start. Contrary tothe creationist literature, not only areanimals with hal a wing common,so are animals with a quarter o awing, three quarters o a wing, andso on. The idea o a ying continuum becomes even more persuasive

when we remember that very smallanimals tend to oat gently in air,whatever their shape. The reasonthis is persuasive is that there is anininitesimallyg r a d e dcontinuumrom smallto large.( G a r d n e r 2002, p 19)

CREASHAUN: This continuummay or may not imply evolution.I personally believe God createdeach species as it is. Lets move onto my avourite objection to your

crazy evolution story: how could theeye have evolved by chance? It hasirreducible complexity. It is uselessi you simpliy or change it. It has

to be perect to be any good. Did notDarwin himsel write:

To suppose that the eye, withall its inimitable contrivancesor adjusting the ocus todierent distances, or admittingdierent amounts o light, and

or correction o spherical andchromatic aberration, could havebeen ormed by natural selection,seems, I reely coness, absurdin the highest possible degree.

(Dawkins 1997, p 127)

I concur with Darwinon this. It is impossible, beyond any stretch othe imagination that the

human eye could just evolve

by chance.

EVOLUSHAUN: Your sayingthat assumes two awed

things: 1) That the eyehas to work perectly in

order to be o any use.And 2) That it must

evolve quickly.Presumably youare still thinkingwithin the 6,000

year ramework,not to mentionyou areignoring thatthere are 40or so dierenttypes oeye, many othem ar romperect, acrossthe dierentspecies onEarth.

There are manykinds o eye.

Once again, thereis a continuum, a

gradation between thecomplexities o eyes in dierentspecies.... arguments, detailed byDarwin himsel, give ... plausibleconjectures about how eyes could

slowly evolve independently,in many dierent species, romlight sensitive spots on the skin.(Gardner 2002, p 19)

Furthermore, you ailed to fnish yourquotation o Darwin. Right ater thewords you quoted in avour o your caseor the necessary design o the eye,Darwin went on to write:

When it was frst said that the Sun

stood still and the world turnedround, the common sense o mankinddeclared the doctrine alse; but theold saying o Vox populi, vox Dei,as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tellsme, that i numerous gradations roman imperect and simple eye to one perect and complex, each gradebeing useul to its possessor, can beshown to exist, as is certainly thecase; i urther, the eye ever slightly

varies, and the variations be inherited,as is likewise certainly the case; andi such variations should ever beuseul to any animal under changingconditions o lie, then the difculty obelieving that a perect and complexeye could be ormed by naturalselection, though insuperable by ourimagination, cannot be consideredreal. (Dawkins 197, p 179)

As I mentioned beore, you creationists

insist that the eye has to be perect to be any good, and deny that it couldevolve randomly. Yet the scallopseyespots serve it well. The Euglena hasan eyespot, which helps it fnd the light.It may be a crude eye, but it is crucialto the organisms survival. The varietyo eyes, and the varying quality - yetabsolute useulness or survival - innature is overwhelming.

Raymo writes that Virtually everyimage-orming method devised by human technology has beenanticipated by nature: lenses, mirrors, pinhole cameras, and fbre-optic bundles. Eyes o one sort or anotherhave independently evolved at leastorty times during the history o lie.(Raymo 1998 pp 149, 150)

The evolution o the eye has beenmodelled on a computer. The experiment

revealed much about how eyes couldhave evolved. Dan Nilsson and SusannePelger modelled the evolution o theeye computationally:



They started with something akinto an eyespot they allowedthe eyespot to deorm itsel atrandom, with the requirementthat any change be only 1 percent bigger or smaller than what went beore. They also provided orrandom changes in reractiveindex o the transparent layerThe image quality at each stepwas calculated using elementaryoptics. The two researchers madeassumptions about heritabilityand intensity o natural selection based on research with livingspecies in the feld, choosing themost conservative numbers in eachcase. They then set the computerprogram running and observed theresults an eye socket, a curved

retina, and a lens appeared on thescreen o the computer. Using themost conservative assumptionsabout how changes are propagatedthrough ospring, the researchersound that the time taken to evolvea vertebrate eye rom a at patch o light-sensitive skin was400,000 generations. Thats hala million years or so or typicalsmall animals, a mere blink o theeye in geological time.

(Raymo 1998, pp 151, 152)

Considering the geologically ancientEarth, being 4.5 billion years old, ratherthan a puny 6,000, such things andgreater could develop over such a vastperiod o time.

CREASHAUN: The world is not thatold. The Bible is literally true, thusthe world is 6,000 years old, allowingno time or this evolution to have

happened. There are many books thatshow creationism to be true; whereasyour scientists have claimed the Earthis so old just to allow time or evolutionto occur.

EVOLUSHAUN: Many books thatclaim creationism is true seem lesscredible i you check up their claimsin scientifc publications. Many otheir theories have been discredited- such as the man walking with

dinosaurs claim; their quotes are otenonly partial, as with Darwins wordsabout whether an eye could evolve

independently. No creation scienceresearch has been peer-reviewed ormade it into a scientifc journal; notdue to discrimination, rather, due to alack o credibility.

The age o the Earth has been establishedat around 4.55 billion years old. Scientistshave not merely chosen the age orevolution to have time, as you claim; it isbased on sound dating methods.

The oldest rocks which have beenound so ar (on the Earth) date to about3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by severalradiometric dating methods). Some othese rocks are sedimentary, and includeminerals which are themselves as old as4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks o thisage are relatively rare, however rocks

that are at least 3.5 billion years in agehave been ound on North America,Greenland, Australia, Arica, and Asia.

While these values do not computean age or the Earth, they do establisha lower limit (the Earth must beat least as old as any ormationon it). This lower limit is at leastconcordant with the independentlyderived fgure o 4.55 billion yearsor the Earths actual age. (Stassen,

22 April 1997)

Regarding your disbelie in the age othe Earth, reer to what I said beoreabout science being reliable. Your bottom line is the Bible, not science.And at that, its your interpretation oit that gets you into trouble. Maybe itis a true book - however, i so, you arenot reading it correctly. Its okay, the atEarthers did the same.

CREASHAUN: I still believe ully in theBible, and do not appreciate scientistseorts do discredit it. I I were to rejectGenesis, I would surely have to rejectthe gospel too. Evolution is a story toget us away rom believing in God. Ido not believe we came rom apes, Godgave us a special place o authority onthe Earth, to rule over it.

EVOLUSHAUN: Although yourewrong, youre not alone. Evolution has

not convinced everyone, in spite o theavailability o evidence; thus it is worthdelving into the possible reasons why

this is. Muller attributed the ailureo Darwins revolution to penetrateat two opposite ends o a spectrum -creationisms continuing hold over mucho American pop culture, and limitedunderstanding o natural selectionamong well-educated people contentwith the actuality o evolution. (Gould1997, p 29) As I said, the evidence ishere, you just need to look. Your earo fnding something that will unravelyour belies, I suspect, is what stopsyou rom even reading about evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould writes:

We might continue to espouse biblical literalism and insist thatthe earth is but a ew thousandyears old, with humans created

by God just a ew days ater theinception o planetary time. Butsuch mythology is not an optionor thinking people, who mustrespect the basic actuality o bothtimes immensity and evolutionsveracity. (Gould 1997, p 19)

In trying to explain why many scientistshave told the story o evolution interms o progress - a progression thatleads up to humans being some kind o

pinnacle or goal o evolution - Gould puts it down to human arrogance;surely the same attitude that led us to believe that God made the Universeor the human race.

Freud was right in identiyingsuppression o human arroganceas the common achievemento great scientifc revolutions.Darwins revolution - theacceptance o evolution with all

major implications, the second blow in Freuds own series - hasnever been completed Darwinsrevolution will be completed whenwe smash the pedestal o arroganceand own the plain implications oevolution or lies nonpredictablenondirectionality - and when wetake Darwinian topology seriously,recognising that Homo sapiens isa tiny twig, born just yesterday on anenormously arborescent tree o lie

that would never produce the sameset o branches i regrown rom seed... (Gould 1997, p 29)



Gould has a good point about humanarrogance. Even while people havecome to terms with evolution, we havepreerred to tell the story with a humantwist; there have been analogies oladders, among other things, to showthe steps o evolutionary progress.While arrogance has even made somescientists put a spin on evolutionarytheory to suit our rail egos, somehave not even been able to accept thisscientifc theory, simply because theyeel that lie is meaningless unless Godcreated each one o us or a reason(but not the animals, who cares aboutthem?...) Scientifc people are able tobelieve in God: since Gods existenceis not a alsifable belie - it cannotbe proven true or alse - while it maybe true or alse, science will never be

able to say. Science is not a direct pathto atheism (as creationists ear), but itis, as Gould writes, the path to ullyunderstanding who and what we are,where weve come rom, and our placein the scheme o things. Our place inthe universe required us to eat humblepie, and perhaps you creationists earthe most. With decent God earinChristian olk in the USA going onSaaris in Arica to hunt endangeredspecies, it is clear that undamentalism

does not lead to a regard or nature.And thats just ironic. I you believe inGod, you should respect his creationsand creatures. The snag is that youthink he made it all or you. I wastaught that the original sin was pride;i so, it is sin that keeps you romaccepting your modest status.

I am convinced, rom all Ive read andheard that creationists (now calledthe Intelligent Design Proponents, to

make them sound more authentic),that creationisms goal is to reassure people that they have a purpose orliving. They are araid o sciencetaking God away, so they grasp atstraws to retain their belies. Ironically,since Gods existence cannot ever be disproven, they should just keepbelieving i it makes them happy - butstop making ridiculous claims andcalling them science. I trust sciencemore than the Bible: it may never haveall the answers, but that is not a awo science; it is part o the beauty o it.Chet Raymo remarks that, Scientistslook at the overwhelming success oevolutionary science and assume thatthe gaps will be flled as our knowledgebecomes more complete. Creationistspoint gleeully to the gaps: See, they

shout, evolution is a shambles. Theyassume that because we dont knoweverything, we know nothing. (Raymo1998, p 156) Scientifc knowledge isincomplete, yet it is the most reliableinormation we have. There are alwaysmore answers to look or. Thats whatmakes lie interesting: satisying ourcuriosity. I you could only see theamazing world as it really is, withits incredibly long and ascinatinghistory, your sense o awe and wonder

would grow, perhaps causing you toappreciate your Creator even more. Idont think you are gaining anything byrejecting evolution; its intellectuallydishonest, and that cannot lead you toGod or Truth.

Simon Gemmill lives in Christchurch,where he works as a primary schoolteacher. His previous article or TheOpen Society was a survey o currentthinking on the Big Bang.

Bibliography

Dawkins, Richard, Climbing MountImprobable. London: Penguin Books,1997.Gardner, Martin, Did Adam and

Eve Have Navels? DebunkingPseudoscience. New York: Nortonand Company, 2002.

Gould, Stephen Jay, Lies Grandeur.The Spread o Excellence rom

Plato to Darwin. Auckland: RandomHouse, 1997.

Laugesen, R. (31 July 2005). The GreatMorality Debate.

h t t p : / / w w w . s t u . c o . n z / s t u /0,2106,3362753a1861,00.html

Newport, F. (19 November 2004)

Third o Americans Say Evidence Has

Supported Darwins Evolution Theory.http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

Raymo, Chet, Skeptics and TrueBelievers. The Exhilarating Connection

Between Science and Religion. London:Vintage, 1998.

Stassen, C. (22 April 1997). The Age othe Earth.http://www.talkorigins.org/aqs/aq-age-o-earth.html



In November 2005, the ChristchurchPress published a pro-intelligent designarticle by a Christchurch cleric, VicarRon Hay. In response, I submitted abrie opinion piece, but it was rejectedon the grounds that the paper had been

deluged with letters and opinion piecesabout intelligent design and that theyhad run all they wanted to or the timebeing. Their prerogative, o course, butthe decision not to publish any counter tothe good Vicars article was regrettable,given its blatant misconceptions.

In early January, I re-submitted theopinion piece, hoping that the recent judgement against intelligent designas science in the Dover (Pennsylvania)

court case, and the current promotionin this country o intelligent designcreationism as an alternative toevolution in science education, mightinduce a positive response. Ater all, theintelligent design movement continuesto be topical, both here and abroad.I am thereore grateul to Bill Cookeand The Open Society or enabling thecritique to see the light o day.

The article (Darwinism: A FaithSystem) by Vicar Ron Hay (Nov 23)contains several misconceptions. Let meclear up one rom the start intelligentdesign theory is not science. Its coreidea is that o a divine designer, aconcept that harks back to Paley andthe Argument rom Design. The natureo such an entity is beyond the purviewo science. Thereore, it is not a debateabout science at all. Intelligent designcreationism poses no legitimate threat

to Darwinism whatsoever.

And it is not a clash o two aithsystems. Darwinism is not a aith

system (it is a set o scientifc propositions), whereas intelligentdesign does ft this description,given the primacy accorded to atranscendent agent. Words like aithand belie really do not belong in a

scientifc context. Their inclusion onlyengenders conused thinking. Scientifcpropositions are held or accepted (notbelieved in) on the strength o theempirical evidence or them, and are provisional (they are always open tomodifcation or rejection).

A contention being vigorously promoted by intelligent design proponents isthat many scientists (particularlyevolutionists) are deliberately rejecting

the supernatural because they believeit has played no role in nature. Thereality o the situation is very dierent.Darwinism is not a materialistic philosophy, as Mr Hay maintains.Science is conducted on the basis o anecessary methodological materialism(not to be conated with philosophicalmaterialism), because the supernaturalrealm, even i it exists, lies beyond itsscope. In practice, science is pursuedwithout appeal to the supernatural.And it has been extremely successul inthis approach. To condemn Darwinismor not showing any openness to thetranscendent is to misunderstand thevery nature o science.

I am araid your contributor has been paying ar too much attention toerroneous arguments against evolution.He states that the ossil record, arrom supporting Darwins tree o lie,

in act points in the opposite directionwith the Cambrian explosion showingthe sudden emergence o diverselie orms. However, the Cambrian

The Vicar, Darwinism,and Intelligent Design

Warwick Don

explosion is not really the suddenor instantaneous event the namesuggests many millions o yearswere still involved. The preservation oapparently new organisms during thisperiod may well coincide with the frst

appearance o easily ossilized hard parts (shells and bones). In any case,there are numerous ossils older than theCambrian, and many organisms haveappeared since, including the majorityo vertebrates. Incidentally, the tree olie is now depicted as a bush, withliving species, including our own, asterminal twigs.. And the Argumentrom Irreducible Complexity, with itsultimate appeal to a designer (naturalselection could not possibly have

produced such complexity!), can haveno place in science.

Finally, to contend that what is sadlylacking in the Darwinian perspectiveis any sense o awe and wonder beorethe natural world reeks o arrogance.Richard Dawkins, or one, wouldvehemently disagree with the Vicarsview. And the fnal sentence o Darwinsmost amous work certainly does notbear it out. Ater all, the sentence beginswith: There is grandeur in this view olie and concludes with: rom sosimple a beginning endless orms most beautiul and most wonderul havebeen, and are being, evolved.

Warwick Don is an HonoraryAssociate o the NZARH. He is one oNew Zealands most distinguished andindeatigable deenders o evolutionaryscience rom the various aith-based

critics. He lives in Dunedin.



Dr. Narendra Naik, Convener,FIRA;

Pro. Sunanda Shet, Coimbatore; Dr Innaiah, Convener, FARA,

Hyderabad; Mrs Vidya, Ex-MP;

Mr Kalanand Mani, ExecutiveDirector, Peaceul Society, Goa,

Mr Shari Gora; Mrs Hemalata Lavanam and Mr

Lavanam, Atheist Centre; Mrs Mythri, Editor, Nasthika Margam;

and others rom America, Europe,Asia and Australia will participate.

Please plan rom now on to participatein this important international event

and extend your valuable cooperationand support to make the World AtheistConerence a great success.

Registration ee: US $ 150 (includingsimple accommodation and ood atAtheist Centre). A good number ohotels are also available.

Registration o Non-ParticipatingDelegates to show solidarity with thecause: Those who cannot attend theConerence personally can become Non-Participating Delegate bycontributing US $ 75 and Conerencematerial and Souvenir will be sent tothem. Kindly contribute donationsor the success o the Conerence.Atheist Centre is dependent on publicdonations and support. Please sendyour check/Bank drat in the nameo: ATHEIST CENTRE, payable atVijayawada, India.

Vijayawada city with a populationo one million, in the state o AndhraPradesh, is an important railway

junction in South India. It also has anairport. Nearest International airportsare Hyderabad and Chennai. Pleasecheck: www.vijayawada.comAtheist Centre was ounded by Gora

(1902-1975) and Mrs. Saraswathi Gora(b. 1912) in 1940 and since then it hasbeen in the oreront o secular socialwork and social change and promotesatheism as a positive way o lie. TheGovernment o India released a postagestamp o Gora in 2002 recognising himas an outstanding social reormer andan atheist. Atheist Centre publishes

Atheist, an English language monthly,since 1969.

The Sixth World Atheist Conerencescheduled to be held at Atheist Centre,Vijayawada, on January 5-7, 2007(Friday, Saturday & Sunday). It willbe yet another milestone in the onwardmarch o atheism, humanism and

rationalism. Atheists, reethinkers,humanists, rationalists and social changeworkers rom dierent continents willbe participating in the Conerence. Theearlier World Atheist Conerences wereheld in 1972, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1996and 2005.

The distinguished participants include: Mrs Saraswathi Gora, Co-ounder,

Atheist Centre;

Dr PM Bhargava, Vice-Chairman, National Knowledge Commission,Govt. o India and Founder Director,Center or Cellular & MolecularBiology (CCMB), Hyderabad;

Dr Veeramani, President, DravidarKazhagam (India);

Mr Roy Brown, President, IHEU,(Switzerland);

Mr Levi Fragell, Former President,IHEU, (Norway);

Dr Volker Mueller, President,Freethinker Association, (Germany);

Dr Bill Cooke Editor, Open Society,(New Zealand),

Mr Pekka Elo, Editor, Humanisti,(Finland);

Mr Premanand, Indian COICOP,leader, Miracle Exposure Campaign;

Mr Jim Herrick, Humanist, (U.K.); Dr Selnes Kjartan (Norwegian

Humanist); Mr. Babu Gogineni, Executive

Director, IHEU; Pro. Dhaneswar Sahoo, Mr Ramchandra CST Voltaire, Dr Umesh Patri (Orissa);

Sixth World Atheist ConferenceJanuary 5, 6 & 7, 2007

At Atheist Centre

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India

Theme: The Necessity of Atheism



In July 2005 BBC Radio 4 announcedthe result o its poll o listeners to fndthe greatest philosopher o our time.And the winner was Karl Marx, as thefrst past the post with 28 percent o the34,000 or so votes cast, way ahead o thesecond, the eighteenth-century scepticand agnostic, David Hume, with 13percent, and the early twentieth centurylogical positivist, Ludwig Wittgenstein,with seven percent.

There must be some sort o signifcanceto Marx being selected by some 9,500 people. It would be nice to thinkthat it was a vote or Marxs aim o asociety without private property in themeans o production, without money,the wages system or the state. Morelikely it represented a recognition o hiscontribution to the analysis o historyand capitalism.

What did Marx have to say about philosophy? In act, was he really aphilosopher? He was certainly a doctoro philosophy in the literal sense,having obtained his doctorate thetrade unionists who associated with himin the 1860s in the First Internationalknew him as Dr Marx or a thesison two ancient Greek philosophers,Democritus and Epicurus. And in hisearly and mid twenties he thought andwrote extensively about philosophical problems, but then he reached theconclusion that abstract philosophisingabout God, the nature o Man andthe meaning o lie, which nearly all philosophers had speculated about tillthen, was a pretty useless exercise andhe abandoned it, at the age o 27, neverto return to it. This was in act more orless the same conclusion as reached bythe two runners-up in the BBC poll,Hume and Wittgenstein.

What such philosophy was replaced by, or Marx, was the empirical, iescientifc, study and analysis o history

and society, what has become knownas the materialist conception o history.Strictly speaking, this is not really aphilosophy but a theory and methodologyo a particular science. Engels has hadto take some stick or introducing theterm scientifc socialism but it is anaccurate description o the outcome oMarxs (and his own) encounter withthe German philosophy o his day.

Marx had come to socialism via German philosophy. Like many other radical-minded Germans in the 1840s he had been a Young Hegelian, the namegiven to those who interpreted Hegels philosophy in a radical way to justiythe establishment o a democratic andsecular state in Germany. Hegel himsel(who had died in 1831) was no radicaldemocrat, even though he had initiallywelcomed the French Revolution. Quitethe opposite. By the 1820s he was a

conservative deender o the PrussianState, almost its State philosopher.And he believed that Christianity wastrue, with all that implies in terms othe existence o a god with a plan orhumanity and which intervenes inhuman aairs.

What appealed to German radicals inHegels philosophy was the concept oalienation (o something rom its nature,or essence) and the view that (until theend o history) all human institutionswere transitory and developed throughintellectual criticism bringing out andthen transcending the contradictions inthe idea behind them. For Hegel this wasall in a religious context (alienation wasthe alienation o Man rom God and theend o history was the reconciliation oMan with God). The Young Hegelianscompletely rejected this and werehighly critical o religion; in act they

made a specialty o this, presenting asecularised version o Hegels system inwhich alienation was still the alienationo Man (with a capital M) but rom

Mans true nature, and the end o historywas the reconciliation o Man with thisnature, or human emancipation as theycalled it.

Most o them identifed this with theestablishment o a democratic republic.So did Marx, to begin with, but hecame to the conclusion that politicaldemocracy, though desirable as a steporward or Germany, did not amount to

ull emancipation, but only to a partialpolitical emancipation; humanemancipation could only be achieved by a society without private property,money or the state. Looking or anagent to achieve this, Marx identifedthe proletariat but conceived o in very philosophical terms as a social groupthat was the object o no particularinjustice but o injustice in general,the complete loss o humanity and thuscan only recover itsel by a complete

redemption o humanity. As he wroteat the end o his article Introductionto A Contribution to the Critique oHegels Philosophy o Right publishedin February 1844: The head o thisemancipation [o Man] is philosophy, itsheart is the proletariat. This is the samearticle in which occurs perhaps his mostwell-known saying religion is the opiumo the people, ie an illusory escape romreal suering. This was in act aimed athis ellow Young Hegelians who seemedto imagine that religion could be madeto disappear merely by criticising isirrationality. Marxs analysis o religionand o what was required to make itdisappear went deeper:

The abolition o religion as theillusory happiness o the people is thedemand or their real happiness. Thedemand to give up the illusions abouttheir condition is a demand to give up

a condition that requires illusion. Thecriticism o religion is thereore thegerm o the criticism o the valley otears whose halo o religion.

Marx and PhilosophyAdam Buick



And:

The criticism o religion ends withthe doctrine that man is the highest being or man, that is, with thecategorical imperative to overthrowall circumstances in which man ishumiliated, enslaved, abandonedand despised. (translated by DavidMcLellan in Karl Marx: Early Texts)

This is still a philosophical approach andit makes Marx, at this time, a humanist philosopher. Some fnd this enough,and eminently commendable (and Marxmay even have got some votes in theBBC poll on this basis), and o coursebeing a socialist has to rest in the end onwanting to overthrow all circumstancesin which man is humiliated, enslaved,

abandoned and despised.

Marx himsel, however, was notsatisfed to let the case or socialism reston a mere philosophical theory that itprovided the only social basis on whichthe essence o Man could be ully andfnally realised. Ater continuing toinitial with the previous philosophicalposition, he ended by rejecting the viewthat humans had any abstract essencerom which they were alienated. As

he put it in some notes jotted in 1845:The human essence is no abstractioninherent in each single individual. In itsreality it is the ensemble o the socialrelations. (Theses on Feuerbach)

This led him away rom philosophicalspeculations about human essence,what it was and how to realise it, to thestudy o the dierent ensembles osocial relations within which humanshad lived and to see history not as the

development o any idea but as thedevelopment rom one ensemble osocial relations to another in line withthe development o the material orceso production. This gave socialisma much frmer basis than a simplecategorical imperative to overthrowall circumstances in which man ishumiliated, enslaved, abandoned anddespised. It made it the next stagewhich was both being prepared bythe development o the current state(capitalism) and the solution to the problems caused by capitalismsinherent internal contradictions. It kept

the agent o its establishment as the classo wage workers, no longer consideredas a class embodying all the sueringso humanity, but as the class whosematerial interest would lead it to opposeand eventually abolish capitalism.

Marx still retained some o thelanguage and concepts o his YoungHegelian past, but he gave them a new,materialist content. Thus, or instance,the alienation o the proletariat wasno longer alienation rom their humanessence but alienation rom the productso their own labour which came todominate them in the orm o capitalas personifed by a capitalist class andthe emancipation o Man became theemancipation o all humans through theabolition o classes and class rule by the

world-wide working class pursuing itsmaterial interest; and he still reerredto end o capitalism as the close othe pre-history o human society.The imperative to change the world tooremained, but addressed to the workingclass rather than to philosophers. Ashe put it in 1845 in his parting shot atGerman philosophy: The philosophershave only interpreted the world, invarious ways; the point is to change it.(Theses on Feuerbach)

This article was originally printed in theEnglish journal, the Socialist Standard,September 2005 issue. We thank theSocialist Standard or permission toreprint this article.



For centuries thinkers have musedon what makes up the good lie.Many people have succumbed to thetemptation to simply list dos anddonts, thinking that the good lie ismade up o obedience to lists. But its

not that easy. To start with, the good lieis not the same as the moral lie. Manypeople have led moral lives, accordingto the conventional moralities o theday and yet been desperately unhappy.The good lie involves being moral, butis not subsumed or defned by it.

One o the best conceptions o whatconstitutes the good lie is rom theBuddha. In the Anguttara-nikaya, theourth o a collection o dialogues (this

one with the banker Anathapindika), theBuddha outlined our characteristics othe good lie:

well-being relating to resources, orsufcient means, honestly acquired

economic well-being, happinessresulting rom enjoyment o lawully-acquired wealth

happiness consequent upon beingree rom debt

happiness o being ree rom blame.

For the Stoic thinker Epictetus (c. 55-135CE), the good lie had three main eatures:

the ability to master ones desires perorming ones duty to the best o

ones ability being able to think clearly about

onesel, ones loved ones, and thewider community

Epictetus had been brought up a

slave but was released by a kindlymaster, who recognised his talents.His idea o perorming ones duty tothe best o ones ability has much incommon with the notion o dharma orNietzsches idea o amor ati, or loveo necessity. And the third eaturehas lots in common with the idea otaking a cosmic perspective, which weoutlined in the Spring 2005 issue.

Living Like a HumanistBill Cooke

The Good Life

I believe the universe to be too old andtoo large or the human mind to fndout or certain how it came to be.

I believe that science and reason are best able to provide us with reliableknowledge about the universe, beingopen to disproo and willing to change

in the light o new discoveries.I believe evolution by natural causeshas shaped us and the other orms

A Humanist Creed

George Pirie

o lie with which we share theworlds habitat.

I believe that ethics and moralsare personal responsibilities,subject to development alongsidenew knowledge.

I believe that our development o toolsand weapons has outpaced our abilityto control them or the sake o amityand the uture.

I believe that death is fnal, butour achievements and our inuenceon others survive us, as do our genes.

Editor in Chief: we would like tohear rom you i you have a humanistcreed to share with us.



As always happens when someinternational celebrity visits theseshores, they are interviewed extensivelyor radio, TV and the print media. Onewould have to be very uninterestedin current aairs to ail to notice the

celebrity in question was in our midst.Robert Fisks visit to New Zealand orthe Arts Festival was no exception.When he was being interviewed onradio I heard him say that, unlike theMiddle East, the West had lost itsaith.. He went on to say that the Westnow puts its aith in Human Rightsand Secularism, with which he was inagreement, and so say all o us.When one considers that 90%

o Americans and 75% o NewZealanders claim to have a religious belie, including the small, ivery vocal, band o Christianundamentalists, one has to questionRobert Fisks contention that theWest has lost its aith. I once knewsomeone who was a member othe Skeptics and was a teacher o physics but, a seeming paradox, wasan active church member. I havecolleagues at the Citizens AdviceBureau, sensible, educated, rational people who, nevertheless, are activechurch members. How can it be thatotherwise sensible, educated memberso western society still take all theGod nonsense seriously? I the lightsin the house suddenly go out, do theyall on their knees and pray that thereshould be light? No, they umble ora torch and go and have a look at theuse box. Alternatively, look out the

window to see whether all the lightsin the neighbourhood are all o too.I so, out come the candles and theresa patient wait or the power company

to get on the case. How is it possibleor ancient superstitions to link armsso closely with modern technology?The answer, I think, is inant brainwashing. Three-year-olds

want to please. Fact. Ask any childpsychologist i you dont know romyour own observation. They are alsovery trusting. The Trusting Threes.I three-year-olds are told the worldis round, they will believe it. I theyare told that milk comes rom cows,they will believe it. I they are toldthat babies grow in their mummiestummies, they will believe it. Tellthem there is a God who, thoughyou cant see him, is everywhere,

they will believe it. Tell our TrustingThrees oten enough that this Godis watching them all the time, will be cross i they dont behave, be pleased i they do, reinorce thismessage or the next decade or so,and the hard wiring is in place. I,during their childhood, their parents behaviour towards them mirrors thismessage, i it is delivered in a benignand caring climate, no amount osubsequent rational argument willeradicate the eeling that there is aGod. Describing this God as someonealways looking ater you and intowhose arms you will go when youdie is, or lonely, unloved, unulilledadults, a very seductive concept.Add to this the social cohesion o areligious congregation rom whichone is unlikely to be blackballed andthe person is hooked or lie.

Superstitious explanation or thematerial world, handed down oreons rom generation to generation,carrying frmly embedded belies, was

where mankind was at until a handulo people started to have doubts.Within the Christian Church, i theydared to express such doubts, theywere burned at the stake an eectiveway to encourager les autres.

Believers are unable to rationalisetheir belies, they just eel it but theeducated ones try to rationalise them- because believing in things that dontexist is what silly, uneducated peopledo! It wasnt until the last couple ohundred years that scientifc knowledgeencouraged doubters to speak out withcourage and, really, only within ourlietime has a liberalisation o attitudetowards non-believers developed

hence Robert Fisks contention thatthe West has lost its aith.The problem here is a defnition oEast and West. The last centurywith its rapid movement o peoplesaround the world has rendered anyclear defnition impossible. PerhapsEnlightenment - The Enlightenmento European tradition - and Darknesswould be better. History tells us that persecution never changes heartsand minds. I we want the orceso Darkness to be overcome by theorces o Enlightenment then sweetreason ought to be the more eectiveweapon. But that sweet reason must bebased on act not on myth.

Adams RibAnne Ferguson

For Hes a Jolly Good Fellow



Read any good novelsrecently?Bill Cooke

One good thing about a Christmasbreak is that you can catch up on thenovels you wanted to read through theyear but didnt have time to get round

to. And most o them are good enoughto share, hence this article. It strikesme that fction is enjoying a surge oquality at the moment. What ollowsis an entirely unscientifc survey osome novels Ive read recently, in noparticular order.

Ive just fnished reading Blindsight,Maurice Gees latest novel. There aremany eatures o this novel that readerso Gees earlier books will recognise:

a childhood in Loomis, murky originsin Whakatane, and lie now spent inWellington. Close-knit amilies suusedwith gritty closeness serving as coveror loneliness, missed opportunitiesand wasted potential. But its not thecloying despair o existentialists,its more reminiscent o the warmmelancholy John Steinbeck was sogood at. Not light holiday reading byany means, but neither is Blindsightcold or grim. What Maurice Gee doesis tell us about love and commitmentwith an awareness o how porous theseeelings are. He also writes this novelin the frst person, through the eyes othe principal emale character. Itsalways been tricky or men to writethrough a womans eyes. I think hesucceeds, though others might not beas convinced. Maurice Gees novelsare a standing objection to the ot-repeated jibe that humanism is unable

to appreciate the tragic dimension olie. I enjoyed Blindsighta great deal,though will be keen or a dierent sorto novel to ollow that.

A dierent sort o book isArchangel,by Robert Harris, as good an actionthriller as you could reasonablyexpect. It is, in act, so much more

than an action-thriller. To begin with,its well-researched, and the tale oStalins last days accords closelywith non-iction accounts.Archangelgives an authentic account o Russiaas it is now. The sense o corruptionand wild-west style lawlessness, withsmall admixtures o promise or theew or the lucky, rings true. Harris hasalso writtenEnigma, a novel about theenigma code that played a decisive part in changing the ortunes o the

Second World War. More recently,hes written Pompeii, a ictionalizedaccount o living in Pompeii at thetime the town was destroyed in 79CE in a volcanic eruption.

Ater hearing that John Banvillewon the Booker Prize or 2005 orhis book The Sea, I was motivatedto try some o his works. Ratherthan simply read The Sea, I visitedmy local secondhand bookshop, andthere was The Untouchable waitingor me. The Untouchable appeared in1997 and is the very thinly disguisedstory o the lie o Anthony Blunt,the so-called ourth man in theBritish spy network. Ater Philby,Burgess and Maclean, there wasBlunt, a key establishment igure the Keeper o the Queens Picturesno less. The Untouchable tells thestory o the lie o a surprisingly

apolitical, though patriotic, traitor.On the strength oThe Untouchable,it is clear that John Banville is worthreading more o.

Another writer not araid to tackle the big themes is Simon Mawer. Peoplewho enjoy credible science in theirfction need to read Mendels Dwar.

The reader gets some insights intothe lie o Gregor Mendel, discoverero genetics, and o the genetic strainin evolutionary thought. Intertwinedthrough all this is a sad tale o a lovethat could never happen, and about thecruel acts o sexual selection. Mawerhas also written The Gospel o Judas,which poses the question o what aormer priest does when a scroll turns upthat threatens to discredit Christianityshistorical claims. Opinions about

what happens will dier according toones religious belies. Not as good anovel as Mendels Dwar, but a goodstory nonetheless.

Rather in the tradition o Iris Murdochis James Woods 2003 novel The Book

Against God. Wood had made a nameor himsel as a reviewer who took no prisoners, so there was a great dealo expectation about this, his frstnovel. To many peoples surprise, anddoubtless disappointment, the novelhas generally been held a success. Itsthe story o Thomas Bunting, a rathershitless man, supposedly studying ora PhD, but more intent on writing thedefnitive book disproving the existenceo God. The novel is actually aboutthe breakdown o his marriage and theawkward relations between Buntingand his ather, a minister o religion.Its a sad book, and nobody really wins

in the end. Unlike the main characteris Blindsight, there are ew redeemingeatures in the main characters to makeup or their obvious ailings.



I black humour is your thing, itsdifcult to go past Max Barrys

Jennier Government. In the traditionoBrave New Worldor1984, JennierGovernment tells the story o anightmare world o the near uture.Here is a world where unetteredglobalisation and privatisation have

triumphed, and our surnames becomethat o the corporation we work or.The villain o this book is John Nike.But dont be put o by the theme;this is a witty, even unny book. MaxBarry is a young Australian writer, andNew Zealand gets a role in the book.Not an altogether attering role, but arole nonetheless.

And among all these excellent novels,were there any duds? Yes, one. The Da

Vinci Code by Dan Brown is the mostoverrated, poorly-written, ormulaicdrivel I have read in a long time. Thereare too many set-piece nail-bitingscenes where some awul danger isaverted in the nick o time. In onescene, the police dutiully turn up onlyseconds ater the hero has oiled themachinations o the villain and saved thegirl, all in a suitably exotic setting. Andthe dissolute American scholar-hero isbecoming a tiresome staple o novels. It

worked inArchangel but didnt in The

Da Vinci Code. Browns book also hada lame ending. One gets the eeling hewas writing or the subsequent flm thanor his readers. Hes made a poulticeout o it, and good luck to him. But itsdepressing that such a bad novel shoulddo so well when there are so manyincomparably superior books around.

Changing tack slightly, who would Ineed to have with me or the proverbialexile on a desert island? Well, i myinternment was going to be a longone, I would need to take stacks onovels rom these ten writers, listed inalphabetical order:

Margaret Atwood, one needs to beeeling strong to tackle an Atwood,but The Handmaids Tale and Oryx

and Crake, in particular, reward theeort.

Arnold Bennett, or his lightnesso touch, and or his humanity.

Riceyman Steps on its own qualifeshim as a genius.

George Eliot, or the grace andbeauty o her writing.Middlemarchand Silas Marner are timelessclassics.

Maurice Gee, is, as ar as Imconcerned, the novelist o New

Zealand. Hard to pick avourites, but

The Big Season, Plumb, and GoingWestare probably the ones or me.

Thomas Mann, who could plumbthe psychological depths withGerman proundity, without toomuch o the Teutonic heaviness. The

Magic Mountain stands out here. Rohinton Mistry, in particularA

Fine Balance, one o those books oneregards as a signifcant experience inones lie.

Iris Murdoch, complex, multi-layered novels. Quite againstthe normal trend o opinion, myavourite is a later work,Message tothe Planet.

Mary Renault, or historical fctiono unsurpassed quality.

John Steinbeck, The Grapes oWrath was an important book or

me, but so were The Wayward Busand The Winter o Our Discontent.

H G Wells, and not just his sciencefction; some o his characters areincredibly unny, and he was boldand experimental.

What are yours? Send in your top tennovelists the people youd need tohave stacks o or your exile on a desertisland.

Bill Cooke is Editor in Chie o TheOpen Society.



Thoughts and Comments

March for Free Expression

At the end o March a group oprogressive and humanist organisationsheld a rally in Traalgar Square inLondon to protest the intimidation

o ree expression by militantMuslims in the wake o the uroreover the Muhammad cartoons aair.Participating organisations includedthe Rationalist International, NationalSecular Society, British HumanistAssociation, Rationalist Associationand the Libertarian Alliance. About sixhundred people heard speakers suchas Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrathuman rights spokesman, deendreedom o expression as a oundation

stone o the open society.

One speaker, Maryam Namazie,declared that Oensive or not, sacredor not religion and superstition Islam, Christianity, Hinduism,Judaism, Scientology and so on must be open to all orms o criticismand ridicule. I that sounds too much,just try and think what the alternativewould be like.

Open Society articles aroundthe world

Articles in the Open Society continueto be taken up by organisations aroundthe world. The series by Dr Sheikh onwomen and Islam has been taken upby the Humanist Society o Ottawa inCanada and placed on their listserve.And a music student in Brightonhas taken up some aspects o Simon

Gemmills article relating his odysseyrom undamentalism to humanism.

Meanwhile the editorial on AlbertEinstein which appeared in the Spring2005 issue has been reprinted inHuman

Interest, the journal o the San FranciscoHumanists, and my article outlining thecore principles o Planetary Humanism

has been reprinted in Fig Leaves, the journal o the Free Inquiry Group inCincinnati, Ohio as well as by theonline version o the Indian magazineThe Modern Rationalist.

Promise and danger in Palestine

By and large the election o Hamas asgovernment o the Palestine Authority isa good thing. Fatah had been in ofce orour decades and had become arrogant

and corrupt with power. By its ownreckoning, about seven hundred milliondollars has been misused or stolen, afgure which could easily rise into the billions. The rejection o Fatah was aplea or the humanist values o opennessand transparency in government as muchas the election o Hamas was a vote orsectarianism and terrorism. The irony,o course, is that this election, where aMuslim people has its say against anentrenched and undemocratic leadership,is precisely what George W Bush andTony Blair have been calling or.

But against this is the questiono whether Hamas understandsdemocracy. Their ofcial policy isstill that Israel has no right to exist andthat violence against it is legitimate.However, the realities o international politics may soon intervene. ThePalestinian Authority is very deeply

beholden to European and Americanmoney in order to stay aoat. The EUand US withdrawal o assistance to thePA government may well be a sharp

lesson in the realities o politics.

And in the middle o all this, it isclearly a serious setback or MiddleEast peace that Mahmoud Abbas gotcaught up in the ousting o Fatah.

Abbas has notso arbeen implicatedin the corruption and had been a voiceo reason during his term in ofce. Hewill be sorely missed.

Terrorists gaining the upperhand in Iraq

Iraq is slowly collapsing into, i not civilwar, then certainly a prolonged periodo heightened tension and violence.So ar the Shia majority has remained

generally calm in the ace o terroristprovocations. But the destruction o theAskariya shrine in Samarra with theloss o the more than 1300 dead hasclearly ratcheted up sectarian tension by a ew points. Just as serious, theescalating violence is helping hardenattitudes among Shia politicians asthey manoeuvre to orm a governmentin the wake o their election victory.No government has been able to ormsince the December elections, withthe interim prim

Humanism) a Born Humanist

Documents

Transcript of Humanism) a Born Humanist