Buddha and Tigress by Claudia Ziebis
There is a Buddhist parable that goes something like this: the Buddha is walking through the mountains and he meets a tigress. Being an observant and intelligent man, he notices that the tigress is thin and starving, and also that she is a mother nursing cubs. He realizes she would like to eat him, so he takes his knife and slits his wrist offering her his blood to drink.
A “word-picture” like this can be interpreted on many levels. Contemplated from many angles. I’m not a Buddhist, and, unlike my experience with this one, I usually forget these sort of pictures soon after I hear or read them. Most of the Buddhist parables I’ve heard are inscrutable to me – Asian culture is simply not my culture and there are nuances there that I cannot grasp. So when I read or am told that there is no conflict between Buddhism and the scientific method of acquiring knowledge or between Taoism and science, I pretty much have to take Buddhists and Taoists at their word.
And that word seems to be proving quite accurate these days as it’s backed by evidence: like the $600 million dollar investment in life-science projects the Singaporean government made a couple of years ago luring top notch biologists and biochemists from all over the world. Or the development of one of the world’s largest collections of stem cell lines by Korea’s Seoul National University. An article in Business Week magazine last month described the advances in bioscience in Asia as “astonishing.” …”Astonishing”…
The same day I read that Business Week article, I read a headline in the Raleigh News Observer that said “Time for Textbooks to Question Evolution?” … “Astonishing.” Just “astonishing.”
Whenever I read about the efforts of some Americans to have intelligent design theory taught in public schools, I think about Buddha and the tigress. And I think about my friend who’s a first-generation Chinese-American. Her life story sort-of tracks my own in many ways: the major difference being that the ocean her family straddles is a lot wider than the one mine does.
Jane and I tend to get into these long meandering discussions which can wind up in some pretty interesting places … especially after a bottle of German or Chinese wine. And one of those discussions centered on the differences between how German society treats dogs versus how Chinese society does.
I have to tell you, mainland China is not the place to go if you’re a dog-lover. Asia is not known for its humane treatment of animals. So why is there this apparent disconnect between Buddhist teaching and Asian practice? After all, Buddhism is arguably the most influential religious philosophy in that hemisphere. Well, after turning this issue around for a while, we came up with the obvious answer that religion is not culture -- not in the West and not in the East. So the disconnect lies in the interplay among the traditions that form Asian civilization.
While most Asians would interpret the Buddha and the tigress as conveying the idea that the difference between animals and humans is insignificant and compassion is a virtue no matter who receives it; compassion for animals is, well, just not up there in the practicality department of daily mainland Chinese life. Competition for resources, strong identification with the human family, struggle for survival traditions, all conflict with that particular message. It’s part of the religion, but not part of the culture.
Just as there are aspects of Asian culture which put a break on the impulse of compassion toward animals, there may also be aspects of Asian culture which will put a break on those astonishing advances in bioscience that Business Week reported… I just want to point out this morning that religion isn’t one of the brakes.
Recently there was a very public debate in a small rural town in Pennsylvania about the teaching of “intelligent design” theory in middle school science classes. Because of some friends in that state, my email in-box was clogged with blow-by-blow updates on this one little battle in the US “culture war.” And in that pile of stuff there was one essay – an opinion piece – which I’ll read this morning.
Teach "Intelligent" Design? Absolutely!
by Nevyn O'Kane
[QUOTE] The state standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and to eventually take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent [sic] Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.[UNQUOTE]
For anyone following the attacks on evolution occurring in U.S. public schools, these words should be nothing new. They exist in one form or another on stickers, in spoken disclaimers or in lesson planners with which teachers must comply. A recent article by Joseph Maldonado entitled "Dover science faculty uneasy," published in the The York Daily Record, speaks of this last consequence of the statement and the angst of the distressed educators. At first, it truly appeared that they were between a rock and a hard place: forced to teach "intelligent" design (ID) alongside evolution while finding no science whatsoever in ID's theories. Also, in the words of one teacher:
The Supreme Court has said it's unconstitutional to teach creation in the classroom, so we either risk violating a school board directive or risk breaking the law. What are we to do?
I spent some time trying to answer this very question. I felt for these people; forced to present, in their own classrooms, an empirically vacuous theory they viewed as laughable. Mandated to subject the blank slate of young minds to the religious graffiti of backdoor creationism, what were they to do?
I came up with an idea.
Teach it.
Am I mad you may ask? No, in this respect I am quite sane, and this is my plan. As there are no instructions on how to teach "intelligent" design, (the first clue as to the academic poverty of a premise) educators have free reign over the content of the curriculum. What better to teach, in a science class, than the science of "intelligent" design? What better way is there to expose the fraud of ID than to begin by enlightening our children to its factual emptiness? What educator would not relish this opportunity to inform?
First off could be the disclaimer itself. Left alone, it may undermine science, yet to prevent this, the teacher could say:
In your books you have a sticker. This sticker says that Darwin's Theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. This is true. We will be spending a lot of time studying the evidence of this, as there is very, very much evidence to cover. There are also gaps in the theory for which there is, as yet, no evidence. This evidence, in addition to the wealth of established evidence, is being found and tested regularly as it is discovered. This is what makes for a successful theory.
Your sticker also mentions "intelligent" design. It says, "This is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view." We don't know if this is true or not, because Darwin didn't talk about the origin of life; he talked about evolution. Darwin's theory of natural selection describes how species mutated from one form to another, eventually bringing about the human species. We will spend much of our class time discussing the abundance of scientific evidence that supports this.
A list of similar unscientific theories could be addressed with each lesson as well. When the globe is introduced, flat-Earth theory can be discussed as a defeated alternative. Gravitational theory can be tested against "magnetic bone theory" or some such tripe, and seismology can be set against the "Earth on the back of a turtle" theory. In fact, historical alternatives to any given scientific postulate can be mentioned as an exercise in critical thinking. When ID is finally discussed, students will have the thinking skills to award it the fine company of geocentricism, phrenology, and alchemy. In other words, it will be right where it belongs; far away from science. I believe this is factual and fair enough. Further, it seems it would clarify the disclaimers that so many people are up in arms about.
Yet what of teaching "intelligent" design?
Perhaps the following could best summarize the ID hypothesis:
"Intelligent" design is not a scientific theory as described in your disclaimer. "Intelligent" design assumes that biological life is so complex someone or something must have designed it. Two possibilities are that either a great and powerful being(s) or ultra-intelligent aliens are responsible for the irreducibly-complex nature of life on Earth. Since we know we're here in this classroom, it's fairly reasonable to imagine that there could be other life forms from other planets in other classrooms who "designed" life on Earth. This is not, however, a scientific theory as it cannot be "well-tested." This theory is no more likely than star-traveling super-kangaroos that created life on Earth as an experiment in marsupial design. We will now turn to the scientific evidence for "intelligent" design by a great and powerful being(s).
There is none.
We will now return to our investigation of Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.
Before I had this idea, I read through the virtual reams of debate on the topic. ID was argued down time and again. Scientists and parents cringed at its potential infiltration of our schools. Yet teachers should have no fear of this unscientific speculation. The absurdity of it takes all of a few minutes to demonstrate. In the example above, no falsehood was told to any child in the science classroom and no school board can claim there was. In fact, a service has been rendered to the child that will help them confront "intelligent" design and other illogical claims in the future.
Yet is this a double-edged sword? One might say, "To even have the sticker is too much" and "What of the teacher who treats ID as fact?" To the first I wholeheartedly agree, however it can, and must, be used to the advantage of science. By using it against the purposes of its creators, it is conceivable that it will no longer be favored, thus ridding scholarship of this crude liability. The unscrupulous teachers are of concern as well, but should not all teachers of children be monitored for truth in education in all aspects? No educator who teaches 10 + 2 = 16 would be tolerated. No teacher could give lessons on the circumference of triangles, spell cat with a "k," or explain George Washington as our seventh president. Such an instructor would be removed and reeducated before being allowed further access to fresh minds. So should an educator who calls evidence for ID "scientific."
To ensure this, I posit there should be a standardized test for "intelligent" design in the places where it is taught. Such questions could include:
- Is there any scientific evidence for ID?
- Can ID be tested?
- Is ID a scientific theory?
- Does ID convey any more information than Snarkle Popplegoose?
Obviously the questions can vary. If the above is unacceptable, I trust there is a wealth of scientists who would be happy to submit their own lesson-planner suggestions to peer review. After all, this is the method by which current knowledge has gained access to our science classrooms. There is no reason ID should gain any special privilege, especially since special privilege is central to the ID proponent's argument for access. It is welcome to compete with all manner of hypotheses on the stern field of academia.
So to all the horrified educators I say embrace this opportunity! Treat this assault on reason and logic head-on. Tenaciously fight its insertion, of course, but do not admit defeat when it is thrust upon you. The battle between logic and superstition will have losses while prudence is debated in our courts, but what better way to turn a temporary loss into a permanent victory than to teach intellectual truth? The scientific method will not be defeated by pseudoscience. Do not leave your trusted posts to be filled by less-capable educators. All reputable science knows that "intelligent" design is nonsense, yet those of the public that do not know are crying out for your wisdom!
I put forward that it is because these theories are ignored that so many buy into their deception in later life. Reference recent polls that show how many adults believe ID is valid among other metaphysical beliefs about human life. Further, these patches of academic scarcity make themselves known by their own decree. ID proponents claim there is no religious purpose behind their hypothesis, so no claim towards religious bigotry can be made without undermining their position. Even if, against all logic, ID is indeed not judged as a violation of state and church separation, it is a violation of the rules of science. Educators can stand up to this threat with bravery, insight and boldness. "Intelligent" design is no threat to science; it is its own unintelligent worst enemy.
Let me go back to that Buddha meets the tigress story and point out another angle to it. I’ve heard Christians on television talk about how they don’t want to think of themselves as animals. They seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that apes and man had a common ancestor and that all life evolved slowly from the molecular level.
For some reason that I can’t fathom, that scientific theory seems to scare them. I have the impression that there’s real fear there. And to quell that fear they’ll go to great lengths under the motto “if we just say it isn’t so -- it won’t be.”
So why doesn’t evolution scare my friend? Why doesn’t it scare me? My friend is the product of a blend of Western and Eastern Civilization. But I’m not. I’m exclusively a product of Western Civilization. Period.
And in all honesty, -- I find comfort not discomfort in the idea that I’m related to my dog, cats, apes, tigers, fish and even the lowly little worm. I’m connected to all animal life on this planet. That feels good as well as makes sense. I am physically, demonstrably, irrefutably part of life on this planet… That is just soooooo cool! And best of all… I can see evidence of that; I can think about it logically.
Europeans have no hesitation teaching evolution in their schools. I’ve read of some isolated pockets of intelligent design adherents in societies like Britian, Australia and New Zealand… but not in Europe. Why?
Here’s a guess. Just a guess. Think about it and state your case if you think I’m all washed up. Religion is not culture. It’s part of culture. It may even be a big part of culture. But it’s not the whole thing. It never was; it never will be. And culture is a more accurate determinate of the tools people use to understand the world around them than religion is.
Northern Europeans learn their ethnic history from an early age… not just a couple of centuries of national history. Religion is something cultural and historical. It’s put in a cultural and historical context not just in schools but in the physical world that you can see and touch and stumble over. And that puts a different spin on it. It makes it easier to step back and look at it as something that is a part, not the whole.
What is Western Civilization? Did any of you take Humanities 101 in college? Or seen something about Western Civ on PBS?
Here’s what I was taught my freshman year of college… but I got the gist of it at the family dinner table long before the lecture hall. Western Civilization rests on three pillars, take away any one of these three pillars and you would not have the Western world as we know it. Here they are in chronological order: Germanic Duty, Greco/Roman Reason, and Mid-eastern Theism.
European culture is a cloth woven of strands from three older streams of culture -- from the people of northern Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Mideast. There’s still friction among these three strands; they don’t blend easily; there are conflicting ideas within these contributions. But it’s a beautiful, durable, strong cloth that has made so much possible.
Did you ever wonder where the idea came from of a 9 to 5 job? How did this idea start? The idea that you should give someone else a certain set amount of time… “manhours”… and work not for yourself, not for your immediate family, but for someone else -- for the ultimate good of the group – then return to working for yourself or your family? Dividing your time into labor for others and labor for yourself? Well… according to my college lecturer… you can thank those northern Germanic tribes for that one. Germanic Duty. Quite a concept. Everyone is like a slave for a set amount of time – that’s the way the Romans described it when they first encountered those barbarians of the northern forests.
Ever wonder “what exactly is this thing called logic?” Where did the scientific method come from? How do we know what we know? What is “education?” Well thank the Greeks and Romans for formalizing and systematizing human reasoning – Logic. If fish swim in the sea, and a mackerel is a fish, then a mackerel swims in the sea. Basic logic. Formal reason. The means of recording and expanding knowledge of the world around us. The forerunner of the scientific method. The foundation of “education.” The bricks that let us build knowledge and pass it on, each generation building on the knowledge of the generation before it, not having to start from scratch. Where would we be without it? Well… we’d be back in the Dark Ages – literally, since the scientific method had to be developed before the lightbulb.
And finally, Mid-eastern Theism. Ever wonder why churches are at the center of every European village? Ever wrestle with what makes a community? Who’s in and who’s out? How to treat a stranger? The contribution of Mid-eastern Theism: the community. Feed the hungry; care for the sick; shelter the homeless even if they are not your blood relatives. Even if there are no family ties, no clan ties, no personal allegiances to honor. Our structure of community comes from Mid-eastern Theism.
Now… can you imagine the world you live in without any one of those three pillars?
Christianity is part of European culture. It is part of Western Civilization. But it’s not the only thing. Not by a long shot. It does not define a European. Religion is a part, but not the whole.
OK, so where does this leave us in relation to intelligent design theory? It seems to be the latest version of a very old process of weaving Mid-eastern Theism together with Greco/Roman Reason. The two clash like some colors in cloth clash; the strands rub together and fray in places at times… they have done so for centuries. If they didn’t, Thomas Aquinas would have never written the mental contortion known as his “Proofs of God.” And the Europeans weaving this cloth would not have produced a cloth so durable.
So the end result is a Western, European, Civilization that, as a whole, continues to use Greco/Roman Reason to figure out the world and Mid-eastern Theism to define community. But individuals and individuals groups within that civilization obviously still struggle to blend the strands together. The way I look at it, this latest attempt by “Intelligent Design Theorists” to redefine the idea that the word “science” conveys and redefine what the scientific method does is evidence of that struggle.
But I’ll repeat again that I find comfort as well as knowledge in the scientific theory of evolution. The idea that I’m physically part of life on earth is a very comforting thought. I “belong.” It’s also a useful tool to understand the world around me and to make decisions with.
That’s the basic difference between this thing called intelligent design theory and a real scientific theory – intelligent design is not a tool. It cannot help me understand the world around me, explain how my hand grasps a pen or why men have nipples, people get hemorrhoids, varicose veins, and backaches. It cannot predict anything; it cannot be used. It cannot be applied. It cannot build on knowledge. It cannot make the leap from speculation to science.
The scientific method was born of Greco/Roman Reason; intelligent design is rooted in Mid-eastern Theism.
My first real science teacher, in middle school, taught me the difference between a regular old “theory” and a scientific theory. Theories start out as hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been successfully used to predict observations over and over and over again it slowly becomes a theory. To begin the process of determining whether a hypothesis is correct, you ask yourself three simple and related questions: how would I prove this wrong, how would I prove this right, and what can I predict with this?
What does intelligent design theory predict? Can you say “if intelligent design theory is correct then if I dig down to X layer of earth I should find a skeleton of an animal that has Y characteristics?” Or can you say “if intelligent design theory is correct then if I breed X number of generations of fruit flies under Y conditions then I should see Z characteristics in their offspring?”
NO. You can’t. If any organisms were plunked down on earth created whole, looking just as they do today – then you can’t make those predictions. You also can’t say new organisms won’t magically appear on earth tomorrow. There are no observations you could conceivably make to prove intelligent design right or wrong or predict anything. It’s not a scientific theory according to that 5th Grade understanding of what science is and is not.
I can understand how the tiger evolved; I can understand how I evolved. I can think about it logically. And I can make decisions based on that understanding. For Jane, evolution and religion converge to give her a deep feeling of connection to the wider world around her – for me, science alone does the job quite nicely.
Buddha is walking through the mountains and he meets a tigress. The tigress is thin and starving, and she is a mother nursing cubs. She is hungry, so he takes his knife, slits his wrist and offers her his blood to drink.
Thank you for listening.