From a military Retired Affairs Office newsletter:
Have You Heard?
An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Paso, Texas leading an old tired mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat. He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other. The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, have you ever danced?" The old man looked up at the gunslinger and
said, "No, I never did dance... never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna' dance now," and started shooting at the old man's feet. The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. Everybody was laughing, fit to be tied. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon. The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air.
The crowd stopped laughing immediately. The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was almost deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin barrels.. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said, "Son, have you ever kissed a mule's ass?" The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir..... but I've always wanted to." There are two lessons for us all here:
1. Don't waste ammunition.
2. Don't mess with old people.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Truth Shall set you free, stay away from Fox!
Here is one result of the poll that found that Fox News is deceptive (climateprogress.org):
THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:
A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.
This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”
Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:
Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”
WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)
– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)
– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)
– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)
– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)
– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)
– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)
– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)
– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)
As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that. The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:
Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”
The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.
In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found—after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers—that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7
In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8
Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.
=========================================================================
The above is copyright 2010 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress.
THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:
A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.
This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”
Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:
Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”
WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)
– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)
– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)
– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)
– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)
– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)
– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)
– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)
– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)
As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that. The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:
Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”
The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.
In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found—after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers—that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7
In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8
Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.
=========================================================================
The above is copyright 2010 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The God of Hope - and Evolution
The God of Hope - and Evolution
Every so often one of our local pastors feels impelled to write or speak out again the evil called “Evolution.” Recently, a local Baptist preacher wrote a “sermonette” for the local bi-weekly paper. He titled his sermonette, “Folly of Evolution.” I thought about writing an opposing sermonette, but decided against it, since that would accomplish little or nothing, But when I am confronted with items of this sort, I tend to think things out by writing about them. Here is, for what little it is worth, my response.
My colleague wrote that he accepted the fact of evolution, but, he said, people misunderstand it. He, of course, bases his ideas on the Book of Genesis, which has been given pride of place by long-ago Jewish scholars. My colleague writes that what we call “creation” was actually God’s “recreation” of a prior creation. The immediate problem which arises, of course, is that this implies, very strongly, that God didn’t get it right before. There have been, science tells us, five major extinction events. If my friend is correct, then God messed up multiple times. It’s as if he said, “Well, screwed that one up. I’ll try again with some different critters.” Eventually, of course, we turned out to be the next critter. But, and this is a big “but,” given what we’ve done to the planet, how can we make any claim to being the final “good” thing?
My poor literalist friends are, it seems, getting themselves trapped in a maze of their own creation for in their desire to condemn evolutionary science they create erroneous science and support this with an inadequate theology. There is, of course, an alternate explanation. I am indebted to The Reverend Canon Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, whose book “The God of Hope and the End of the World,” has given me many hours of challenging and delightful reading in this area. I have, frankly, stolen part of his title for this little “sermonette.” The other author I must acknowledge is Dr. John F. Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, whose book “God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution” is an exceptionally well written treatise on modern natural process theology (my term for it).
Dr. Polkinghorne is a former particle physicist (and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for his work in reconciling science and religion) and is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Great Britain’s premier scientific organization). The book I am using was printed in 2002, at which time Polkinghorne was “Canon Theologian to Liverpool.”
Polkinghorne cites St. Paul, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)” Polkinghorne, however, focuses on hope. He quotes Jügen Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionary and transforming the present.” (note: eschatology is the study of end things) But it is all too easy to misunderstand hope. Polkinghorne quotes Janet Soskice that “even in churches today there is a tendency to represent hope as if it were a psychological mood. ‘Lack of faith and charity can be treated by prayer, but lack of hope is treated with antidepressants.’”
Understanding the real significance of hope involves differentiating two very different components of eschatology; futurist eschatology, which focuses on the final end and transformation of this reality into the new reality of God’s realm; and realized eschatology, which focuses upon the transformations of life that take place in present history. Hope is deeply involved in both components. Polkinghorne points out that “For the Christian, hope arises out of endurance in the face of adversity, based on trust in the love of God (Romans 5:3-5).” He goes on to note that hope is, at its essence, moral in its character, “for it is a good future for which we may dare to hope.”
If we have this hope then we should be prepared to work for it. The ultimate result of this lies in the hands of God, but this must not deter us from letting ourselves be changed; letting ourselves become new creation. Hence a realized eschatology involves change, involves all of God’s creation, involves evolving in ways we do not and cannot control or direct. My pastoral colleague cited an unknown source who explained evolution as a process of sea worm deciding to go on land, land worm deciding to walk, and ape deciding to become human. This is, of course, a non-scientific statement and would never been uttered by an individual with even a modest scientific education. I often hear my fundamentalist friends say that “All biology teachers teach that man descended from an ape.” I must admit I’ve never heard this. I collect older science textbooks and my collection goes all the way back to Darwin. None ever said that.
From a theological standpoint, the statement is simply nonsense, for even theologians recognize that the ability to decide questions lies with humans. As a prayer in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer has it, “You have blessed us with reason, memory, and skill.” That is our blessing or curse, depending upon how you look at things. But the point is that we, alone among the animals, can think and reason, and decide. Everything else is driven by more primitive processes.
Before Darwin, Natural Theology sought to seek God in nature, an effort that failed for a number of reasons. Today, natural theology is making a comeback, often among scientists, but increasingly among theologians. John Haught’s book explores this in some depth (it is a “popular” book, not one written with professional theologians as an audience). Haught writes, “Even though much of the revival of natural theology is now the work of scientists… it is an important instance of contemporary engagement of religious thought with the natural setting of evolution.” Modern natural theology is very process oriented. He also writes, “… all the moments of an evolving world are harvested into the divine experience…. Here all the suffering, struggle, loss, and triumph in evolution are finally endowed with eternal meaning.” One interesting proposal from process theologians is that “The ‘point’ of the universe [may have] something to do with the production of a beauty that is God’s experience never fades but grows increasingly wider and deeper and abides everlastingly.”
In this scheme, Darwinism is but a recent episode in a larger cosmic story. Darwin, however, has played a role in the development of the modern theological notions of creation, eschatology, revelation, divine love, divine power, and redemption.
Creation, to take just one of these notions, is “central to the faith of millions,” notes Haught. He goes on to indicate that “Taditionally Christian theology spoke of three dimensions of God’s creative activity: original creation (creatio originalis), ongoing creation (creatio continua), and new creation or fulfillment of creation (creatio nova).” Prior to the modern era only the first of these was stressed. But with the advent of modern critical analysis and modern science, the second and third areas have taken on greater emphasis. With this modern thought, Haught notes, “… the fact of evolution now allows theology to realize more palpably than ever that creation is not just an ‘original’ but also an ongoing and constantly new reality. This ongoing and ever changing reality is part of the realized eschatology previously mentioned.
Bringing the two streams of thought together, we can see that hope is inextricably intertwined with the process of creation, the continuing evolution of all of creation. It is in this hope that we can perceive that all that is, both seen and unseen, are moving. In Haught’s words, “And so the horizon of human expectations [can] begin to shift toward a future that includes the universe and the entire sweep of its evolution. This moving is a seeking for the future, it is the hope for that future. To paraphrase St. Paul, “… the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…. (Romans 8-22).” It groans as it seeks fulfillment and, after Darwin we can “speak more assuredly than ever about the inseparability of cosmic and human destiny.
Evolution is not something to fear. In fact, it appears to be the means by which God has, and is, calling creation forward into new creation. That the future will bring us closer to God, to that end-thing we cannot yet see, is an article of faith, expressed in our hope, trusting in God’s love.
Feast day of John of the Cross
Every so often one of our local pastors feels impelled to write or speak out again the evil called “Evolution.” Recently, a local Baptist preacher wrote a “sermonette” for the local bi-weekly paper. He titled his sermonette, “Folly of Evolution.” I thought about writing an opposing sermonette, but decided against it, since that would accomplish little or nothing, But when I am confronted with items of this sort, I tend to think things out by writing about them. Here is, for what little it is worth, my response.
My colleague wrote that he accepted the fact of evolution, but, he said, people misunderstand it. He, of course, bases his ideas on the Book of Genesis, which has been given pride of place by long-ago Jewish scholars. My colleague writes that what we call “creation” was actually God’s “recreation” of a prior creation. The immediate problem which arises, of course, is that this implies, very strongly, that God didn’t get it right before. There have been, science tells us, five major extinction events. If my friend is correct, then God messed up multiple times. It’s as if he said, “Well, screwed that one up. I’ll try again with some different critters.” Eventually, of course, we turned out to be the next critter. But, and this is a big “but,” given what we’ve done to the planet, how can we make any claim to being the final “good” thing?
My poor literalist friends are, it seems, getting themselves trapped in a maze of their own creation for in their desire to condemn evolutionary science they create erroneous science and support this with an inadequate theology. There is, of course, an alternate explanation. I am indebted to The Reverend Canon Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, whose book “The God of Hope and the End of the World,” has given me many hours of challenging and delightful reading in this area. I have, frankly, stolen part of his title for this little “sermonette.” The other author I must acknowledge is Dr. John F. Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, whose book “God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution” is an exceptionally well written treatise on modern natural process theology (my term for it).
Dr. Polkinghorne is a former particle physicist (and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for his work in reconciling science and religion) and is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Great Britain’s premier scientific organization). The book I am using was printed in 2002, at which time Polkinghorne was “Canon Theologian to Liverpool.”
Polkinghorne cites St. Paul, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)” Polkinghorne, however, focuses on hope. He quotes Jügen Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionary and transforming the present.” (note: eschatology is the study of end things) But it is all too easy to misunderstand hope. Polkinghorne quotes Janet Soskice that “even in churches today there is a tendency to represent hope as if it were a psychological mood. ‘Lack of faith and charity can be treated by prayer, but lack of hope is treated with antidepressants.’”
Understanding the real significance of hope involves differentiating two very different components of eschatology; futurist eschatology, which focuses on the final end and transformation of this reality into the new reality of God’s realm; and realized eschatology, which focuses upon the transformations of life that take place in present history. Hope is deeply involved in both components. Polkinghorne points out that “For the Christian, hope arises out of endurance in the face of adversity, based on trust in the love of God (Romans 5:3-5).” He goes on to note that hope is, at its essence, moral in its character, “for it is a good future for which we may dare to hope.”
If we have this hope then we should be prepared to work for it. The ultimate result of this lies in the hands of God, but this must not deter us from letting ourselves be changed; letting ourselves become new creation. Hence a realized eschatology involves change, involves all of God’s creation, involves evolving in ways we do not and cannot control or direct. My pastoral colleague cited an unknown source who explained evolution as a process of sea worm deciding to go on land, land worm deciding to walk, and ape deciding to become human. This is, of course, a non-scientific statement and would never been uttered by an individual with even a modest scientific education. I often hear my fundamentalist friends say that “All biology teachers teach that man descended from an ape.” I must admit I’ve never heard this. I collect older science textbooks and my collection goes all the way back to Darwin. None ever said that.
From a theological standpoint, the statement is simply nonsense, for even theologians recognize that the ability to decide questions lies with humans. As a prayer in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer has it, “You have blessed us with reason, memory, and skill.” That is our blessing or curse, depending upon how you look at things. But the point is that we, alone among the animals, can think and reason, and decide. Everything else is driven by more primitive processes.
Before Darwin, Natural Theology sought to seek God in nature, an effort that failed for a number of reasons. Today, natural theology is making a comeback, often among scientists, but increasingly among theologians. John Haught’s book explores this in some depth (it is a “popular” book, not one written with professional theologians as an audience). Haught writes, “Even though much of the revival of natural theology is now the work of scientists… it is an important instance of contemporary engagement of religious thought with the natural setting of evolution.” Modern natural theology is very process oriented. He also writes, “… all the moments of an evolving world are harvested into the divine experience…. Here all the suffering, struggle, loss, and triumph in evolution are finally endowed with eternal meaning.” One interesting proposal from process theologians is that “The ‘point’ of the universe [may have] something to do with the production of a beauty that is God’s experience never fades but grows increasingly wider and deeper and abides everlastingly.”
In this scheme, Darwinism is but a recent episode in a larger cosmic story. Darwin, however, has played a role in the development of the modern theological notions of creation, eschatology, revelation, divine love, divine power, and redemption.
Creation, to take just one of these notions, is “central to the faith of millions,” notes Haught. He goes on to indicate that “Taditionally Christian theology spoke of three dimensions of God’s creative activity: original creation (creatio originalis), ongoing creation (creatio continua), and new creation or fulfillment of creation (creatio nova).” Prior to the modern era only the first of these was stressed. But with the advent of modern critical analysis and modern science, the second and third areas have taken on greater emphasis. With this modern thought, Haught notes, “… the fact of evolution now allows theology to realize more palpably than ever that creation is not just an ‘original’ but also an ongoing and constantly new reality. This ongoing and ever changing reality is part of the realized eschatology previously mentioned.
Bringing the two streams of thought together, we can see that hope is inextricably intertwined with the process of creation, the continuing evolution of all of creation. It is in this hope that we can perceive that all that is, both seen and unseen, are moving. In Haught’s words, “And so the horizon of human expectations [can] begin to shift toward a future that includes the universe and the entire sweep of its evolution. This moving is a seeking for the future, it is the hope for that future. To paraphrase St. Paul, “… the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…. (Romans 8-22).” It groans as it seeks fulfillment and, after Darwin we can “speak more assuredly than ever about the inseparability of cosmic and human destiny.
Evolution is not something to fear. In fact, it appears to be the means by which God has, and is, calling creation forward into new creation. That the future will bring us closer to God, to that end-thing we cannot yet see, is an article of faith, expressed in our hope, trusting in God’s love.
Feast day of John of the Cross
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)