From Ape to Woman, by the Grace of God

Today's New York Times published an Op-Ed article, by Sam Brownback, a Republican Senator from Kansas who is running for President. Now. There are a lot of things that I tend to disagree with when it comes to the average views of Republican Senators from Kansas. Choice comes to mind immediately. Wars in Iraq is another one. Most questions of foreign policy. Affirmative action in higher education -- I bet we don't see eye-to-eye on that, either. But the first thing I think of when I think of Republicans (Senators or not) from Kansas, is probably evolution.

As a small child, I was indoctrinated with repeat showings of the film version of the play Inherit the Wind. For those of you who did not spend your childhood tucked in with classic courtroom drama cinema, the movie is an adaptation of a play, which is in turn a dramatization of the 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial. John Scopes was a high school science teach prosecuted for teaching from a textbook that referred to evolution, in violation of the Butler Act of 1925, a Tennessee law expressly forbidding curriculum that references that scientific theory:

"... that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

As far as I can tell, not much has changed. The teaching of evolution, eve as theory, continues to be assaulted. In the meantime, the U.S. continues to slip behind in the teaching of science in schools. And people wonder why jobs are moving overseas.

Everything I learn about science strengthens my faith, and it offends me that the teaching of science could ever be perceived as a threat to Christianity. Seeing the size of a blue whale, looking at the crusted shadows on the moon, seeing the tiniest living creatures through a microscope. My reaction to that is sheer amazement and the incredible world God made for us.. made for us to learn about and explore, and discuss.

Having said that, I was impressed by Sen. Brownback's articulation of his position on evolution. I was jolted to find our own views are not that different. Who's to say what causes genetic mutations that give rise to the development of new species? I have no problem crediting God with the spark that first caused a bunch of molecules to turn into "life" on this planet.

While our views on the subject still don't quite match up, I have to say he's caught me off guard with the whole "not all people who believe the world was created by God believe it happened in six 24-hour days" thing. And I have to admit, I really did think of creationists as people who interpret the Bible literally. Apparently I was doing some narrow-minded stereotyping of my own, and his perspective really showed me that.

"What I Believe About Evolution" by Sen. Sam Brownback

In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality. Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose. While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

New York Times, May 31, 2007

Aquariums are fantastic places, and the Seattle Aquarium is no exception.

























It was pretty quiet when we were there, and sometimes when you're standing in a room surrounded by tanks, you can hear the soft whirr of the machinery of the tanks and a gentle swish of the water, it feels a lot like being in an empty church.

Heavenly Bed

Vancouver/Seattle trip was great. Slow half-marathon time but I'm learning to deal with that. This was my first time to Canada. It's probably not fair to judge an entire country by one city, but then again, I was judging it before I left, too. As far as I can tell, it's like the Lite version of America.

But the main reason we were there was for JFJ's 26.2 mile triumph! He set a PR at Vancouver with a fabulous 3:54 finish. The nice thing about the two of us running different events is that there is clearly one person who is hurting and one person who is helping. So after my race I was able to go back to the hotel, shower, pack a bag of post-race essentials, get the rental car, drive to the finish area, park, and still be there to cheer him on at the last half-mile. He was really a broken man after the race and after we got back to the hotel we put him in the shower and then I ordered room service while he got cleaned up. I wrapped him in one of the fluffy robes and then the food arrived. We ate it just like you see here, lying in bed and eating off the tray. He looked like this for about 20 seconds and then he fell into a dead sleep. We were both really happy that we had all the food and the fluffy towels, and we appreciated it because we came very close to having to share the bathroom with strangers.

You can see from this photo how important it is to stay somewhere nice when you are in town for an endurance event. JFJ had originally suggested we stay at "the Y." Now, don't be confused and think that I mean "the W," the swank urban hipster hotel chain. No, the letter stands for "YWCA" which I actually thought was a halfway house, but apparently is (also?) a budget hotel. With shared bathrooms. Uh huh. Needless to say, I balked and booked us a room at the Westin, home of the Heavenly Bed, double-head showers, room service, and of course fluffy robes. So I guess that's what I like about this photo. It shows me being right, and I'm not even in it.

Bay to Breakers Highlights

Before the race, we saw a group of faux "anti-running" protesters advocating walking:

Unfortunately, JFJ gave the camera to a woman with Parkinsons so the photo of all of us isn't great:
I think I'd just call this photo God Bless America: "The Mane Attraction" boy band, complete with boom box belting out cheesy pop tunes:

The lovely "ladies" of Hooters, along with Paris Hilton in her jail outfit:

Needless to say, I couldn't get through the weekend without shaming myself at least once. The night before the Bay to Breakers we stayed at a hotel near SFO, so we could take the free airport shuttle and then BART into the city. We had a Ya Ya dinner in the Mission and I drank several gallons of sangria before we took BART back to SFO. We were waiting for the hotel shuttle to pick us up (I don't know what time it was, but we must have been on one of the last BART trains) and we were near International Arrivals. Remember at the beginning and the end of the movie Love Actually where there are real scenes of joyous reunions at London Heathrow? Well, a plane had just landed from Somewhere Far Away and there were some joyuos reunions involving very old people, small children, and much embracing. And people, I lost my shit at San Francisco Airport. I just started bawling. I don't know if it was the alcohol or the stress of trying to get everything organized for the race and getting around but I was absolutely sobbing. And drunk, which is always really classy. Drunk chick crying at TOTAL STRANGERS in airport. As Paris Hilton would say, "That's hot." But I got up the next morning at 6am and we completed the Bay to Breakers in hula skirts and feather boas so who are you to judge me?

I know I haven't posted in a while...

... but I've been very busy. And here's why:

In the waiting line.

You're not going to believe this, but the federal government has done something smart and efficient. There's an extremely useful function on the TSA site that allows you to check the average wait time for the security line at U.S. airports. It also tells you the maximum wait time so if you're a worry wart like me you won't worry about cutting it too close. It even specifies which line, so if there's one that's generally faster you'll know before you get there.

Speaking of airports, I'll be leaving bright and early tomorrow for Seattle where I get to spend a few days getting the tour of JFJ's Seattle, seeing law school gal pal Mel and kickin' it old skool style with The Notorious D.R.J.U. All that in 48 hours, after which we'll be heading up to Vancouver for the Vancouver Marathon. The doc says I'm only up for 13.1 so no full marathon for me. I hate being one of the crowd that peels out halfway but with my knee still hurting, I think I'll be glad to be done.