He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

- Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter 5 (emphasis added)

It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I am entirely fascinated by the sciences, and by evolutionary theory in particular. This is not the first time which I have written on it (also here, here, and here). Evolution represents the intersection of several of my interests: science, theology, and, to a lesser degree, politics (mostly when the first two can’t agree).

The quote above, from Darwin himself, captures the heart of the matter. God created the world in a marvelous and wonderful way; to deny his work is to refuse to see the glory of God in creation. My sister-in-law put it another way after seeing this article:

It’s funny, isn’t it, how some Christians want to think stuff like this diminishes us or God… I think it just makes him seem even more awesome.

The subject, and others related to it, seem worthy of my further consideration. So, in order to give the Smidgin a bit more purpose and direction in its digital life, I am going to try a thematic approach for the blog. Posts will center around issues of science (evolution, climate change, or things I just generally find interesting), with the majority tending to be links to other content with a short commentary.

Whether or not this is a permanent change remains to be seen. I hope the new system is still of interest to my small but faithful collection of readers. If any wander off to peruse other parts of the Internet, I will not be offended; I understand that not everyone is as captivated by the sciences as I.

With that, let us begin.

Worldviews

Worldviews are like numeral systems: it is far too common to become trapped in them.  We are all used to counting numbers. It’s easy: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  But we forget that we are counting in a particular system, the decimal system.

A quick review, for those who have gone rusty on the idea of numeral systems.  We have ten symbols in our counting system: 0 through 9.  When we reach the number ten we run out of symbols and roll over to another place, resulting in 10.  The 1 symbol is now in the tens place and therefore represents ten ones.

So far, so good.  What we forget is that we don’t need to count in decimal.  We can count in any system we like.  Let’s count in binary, where we only have two symbols: 0 and 1.  We start with 0, then go to 1, then go to 10.  Whoa!  Now the 1 symbol is in the same place it was before, but it represents one one instead of ten ones.  Thus 10 now means two.  If we count all the way to ten in binary we get 1010.

Or we can count in hexadecimal, which has 16 symbols: 0-9 and a-f.  Counting up to the number nine is the same as in decimal, but when we get to ten instead of going to 10 we go to a.  Then b is eleven, c is twelve, d is thirteen, e is fourteen, and f is fifteen.  When we get to sixteen we roll over to 10.  Now the 1 symbol represents sixteen ones.

OK, you get the point, but what does it have to do with worldviews?  Well, like numeral systems, we tend to get stuck in worldviews.  When you think about counting, you probably think about counting in the decimal system.  But those are actually two different things: counting, and counting in a specific system.  You could just as easily count in binary or hexadecimal or any other system.

That’s not to say that a worldview is bad.  A numeral system isn’t bad either; the decimal system helps us understand counting and interpret and filter the numbers in the world around us.  But we should remember that the decimal system is just one way of looking at counting.  Similarly, a worldview is just one way of looking at the world around us.  Other people may have other worldviews, and that doesn’t make them either right or wrong.

When it comes to politics, at least in America, we have two worldviews: Conservative and Liberal.  We should remember that both worldviews want to do the same thing: improve America, just like all numeral systems want to count.  Just because we don’t count like someone else counts, doesn’t mean they don’t count too.

Values

The Republicans like to talk a lot about “values” during election.  We have “traditional values” and “family values” and “American values” and we’re told to “vote our values.”  Sometimes, though, I think that the Republicans have forgotten exactly what the definition of what a value is.  It seems like “values” has come to mean only a subset of values, usually comprising a conservative social agenda.

But if a value is something that I value, then the spectrum of my “values” is suddenly much broader.  I value many things.  Like conservatives I value life and family.  But I also value liberty and change.  I value education, honor, freedom, respect, calm, and many, many other things.

When people support Obama, they are supporting their values.  They see in Obama many of the things that they value: leadership, intelligence, inspiration, steadfastness, and more.  The Republican party holds no monopoly on values.

Change

Likewise, the Democrats like to talk a lot about change, especially during this election.  They talk about bringing change to Washington without letting it change us and about changing America’s course.  It’s worth remembering, however, that change never lasts.

Now before you denounce me as a cynic, let me explain: change is like a revolution.  Once the revolutionaries are in power they are no longer revolutionaries.  They may have forced their revolution, and brought about their change, but now they are the status quo.*  It’s no longer change, it is now “what is.”

Change is a good thing in this election, and it is something that we need.  But the Democrats should remember that once they bring about change they will need to govern too, and it is often a lot less popular to govern than it is to change things.

* This is not my observation.  I remember reading it in an academic publication, but I can’t remember who the author was now.