Monday 18 February 2008

Unbelievable

During my class on gender today we watched an aging video entitled Sex: Unknown, a highly provocative presentation on the supposed gender "abnormalities" of newborn infants, and the "normalizing" surgery that unquestionably succeeds these odd occasions. The centre-point of the piece focused on the progress of one such individual; Bruce (later, Brenda, later, David). His parents were pioneers in this gender normalizing technique, not out of premeditated choice, but because Bruce's genitalia had been all-but obliterated during a religious circumcision that went terribly wrong. I'd like to think of this incident as extremely uncommon, but lest we should forget that over 60% of newborn males are routinely circumcised in America every year to date. Whether this represents superstition triumphing over science is unclear, but we can assume that accidents will, and do, happen. The reason I bring this to your attention is because it calls into question one of the highly recognized arguments against the belief in intelligent design. For someone to believe that god created man in his own image and yet remain willing to take a sharp object to the genitals of a newborn child?! Some design then. This is a point raised masterfully by Christopher Hitchens when he debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach on the issue of god's existence. Boteach enthused that circumcisions help reduce the risk of AIDS infection (which they do not - even if they did, this is a choice for adults rather than children - related article), and he preached about the brilliance, and certain holiness, of the human eye. Had Hicthens been any less of a gentleman he may have delicately pointed to those sparkling lenses that Boteach wore on his nasal (ironically a product of modern science and intelligence). Some design, eh? However, what worried me most about today's non-eventful proceedings was the report I read in this morning's campus newspaper. I quote: "Christian student ministries around campus are joining together in nonstop prayer for the next 38 days", hoping "to unify Christ over Arizona". What utter absurdity. I have already scheduled a trip at four o'clock in the morning of the thirtieth day to check whether the simple-minded imbecile isn't catching forty winks. And yet, although they wish to "unify Christ over Arizona, specifically the campus and students", they are happily inviting members of other religions to join them in prayer; fantastic seeing as most religions tend not to believe in the divinity of Christ. Perhaps they have begun to acknowledge their failing numbers, because, although religion is still very much a dominant force in many areas of the world, Western numbers seem to be dwindling at last. Quite literally: unbelievable.

4 comments:

James Poulter said...

I've just posted a paper I wrote last semester for one of my courses - are evolutionary theory and intelligent design compatible?

I think you would enjoy it if you could find the time to read what is admittedly quite a hefty post with some necessary pre-reading.

I note whilst looking at it now one of the Ads Google has brought up - "Evolution is a Lie - free short video shatters evolutionary theory". Maybe an example of the eye, the wing, or maybe the flagellum motor in a bacterium? Either way, I had better abide by google's rules and not waste my time clicking on my own ads.

Robert Iddiols said...

I'll definitely be reading it, don't worry.

To date, my second most hit post is the one entitled "The Law of Evolution" - scrapping the theory, in place of a more definitive set of values. I haven't found much about it so far but I have a feeling that the only thing holding it back at the moment is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Either way, they're based on the same premise. Hopefully, it's only a matter of time.

If you haven't already, watch the Schmuley/Hitchens debate.

James Poulter said...

Watched the debate tonight, thoroughly enjoyable. Very much a preacher vs a scientist. Wild flailing arms and emotive language to evoke empathy for his cause whilst avoiding the facts and avoiding accountability.

Hitchens: clear and to the point, matter-of-fact and thorough in his avoidance of evasive - or evading - answers!

Thanks for bringing it to light.

James Poulter said...

I watched D'Souza (I think that was how you spelt it) and Hitchens. Obviously I feel that Hitchens comes out on top, but I can again see why people would feel differently.

I don't know if you are a proponent of free will Robert, but I am certainly not and it does certainly add a lot of weight to my arguments. Yes, it means I would have to argue a possibly even harder point across - that we do not have free will - but if one would accept those arguments, it makes arguments like D'Souza's pencil dropping comments absolutely ridiculous. And for the record, D'Souza had absolutely no choice to pick up the pencil, let alone to stand there preaching about whether he can drop it or not.

I think if religion did not draw on the anthropocentric nature in us all it would be a lot easier for the masses to dismiss. Even I find myself being drawn in imagining some of the idyllic statements he makes.

We just need to learn that, no, we are not special.