Society

Most people know today as Abraham Lincoln's birthday. What you might not know is that the man who saved the Union shares his birthday (to the year) with the man who proposed natural selection as the driving force for evolution. February 12th is "Darwin Day," promoted by some as an "international celebration of science and humanity," mainly in reaction against those that favor creationism/intelligent design.

As a former biologist, there is no doubt in my mind that the diversity of life on earth today came about by evolution. The common genetic origins that we share with all living organisms is seen not just in evolutionary theory but also genetics, developmental biology, molecular and cellular biology... In short, all of biology points to this unifying explanation. Even so, I would not normally be holding up Charles Darwin's birthday as something particularly important to note. So why am I doing it now?

Yesterday, February 11th, the Florida Department of Education held its final public hearing on new state-wide science standards that would supercede any policies at the local levels. The proposed standards, which have been favorably received by teachers and scientists, would make the teaching of evolution a required part of Florida's science education for the first time. This little fact drew people from all over the state to testify both in favor and against the proposed state standards. The controversy was so great that it eclipsed discussion on any other aspect of the proposed standards.

While I appreciate their sincerity, the arguments presented against the teaching of evolution show a fundamental lack of understanding of science and highlight the desperate need for improved science education. People argued that the word "theory" means it's unproven, ignoring the fact that science doesn't use the term that way. Few people go around disputing the theory of gravity, for example.

Nor do proponents of teaching intelligent design in science classrooms understand that while "God did it" is a valid theory, it is not a valid scientific theory. The assumption seems to be that "science teaches the truth and since I believe that creationism is true, science should teach it." In reality, science describes the natural world and thus has no room for supernatural explanations. Science is not saying that there is no God; it makes no statement about God whatsoever.

One seemingly open-minded suggestion was that kids should be exposed to "all theories of creation," and then free to decide which one they like best. That is great on a personal level. Every one of us is free to decide what we will and will not believe. However, we are not free to decide what is science and what is not science. Science is determined by an objective set of standards, not by subjective feeling nor popular vote.

Most shocking of all in this debate was the revelation that twelve county school districts in Florida have passed resolutions against the teaching of evolution in schools. Yes, twelve. First, I had no idea, after the Scopes (Monkey) Trial, that it was still possible to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. (What exactly does this mean? - will teachers be arrested or fired for teaching science?) Second, I would have thought that something like this would have received more attention than it has. A school board here and there is a blip; twelve school boards in one state is a movement. Yet so far, I've only been able to find scant mention of it in local Florida newspapers.

The Florida State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the new science standards on Feb 19th. On this Darwin Day, let us pray that it votes to uphold education for future generations.

The Super Bowl is today. In case it's possible that you don't know who's playing, it's the undefeated New England Patriots versus wild-card team, the New York Giants. Almost every time there is a major sporting event my brother and I get into a polite argument. It's the same argument every time. My brother roots for the team with the better record, on the assumption that if they have the better record they must be the better team and thus deserve to win. I otoh almost always root for the underdog.

My brother does not understand this. "Don't you want the better team to win? Are you gonna hold their superiority against them?" I've thought about this a lot now. Certainly some of it is just emotional. I feel sorry for the underdog team. I feel empathy for them. But then again, I feel sorrow for the team with the better record when they lose; how much more disappointing it must be when you were expecting to win.  Is it that I only like losers? because suffering is redemptive?

But there is something more than just the emotional reaction. My brother assumes the team with the better record has a better record because they're better. I assume that the team with the better record has a better record because they're lucky. By that I don't just mean that plays have gone their way. I do understand that sometimes teams will have a greater number of superior players. But that to me is luck too.  It's "luck" to have a wealthier owner.  Or, if it isn't luck that causes one team to be able to afford a better roster, it's still not something inherent.  

Deep down, I do not believe that any team is superior to any other team.  Deep down, I think they're all the same (unless it's my home team in which case they're not the same).  So if one team has a disproportionate number of wins, I am rooting to even things out.  And I'm rooting for the story, the story that no matter how the odds may be stacked against you - the other side may have better resources, more people backing them - if you perform well, then you can do well.  That is what I want to believe.  

And that's what makes sports so wonderful and relevant.  Just as in the rest of life, in the end, it doesn't matter how much talent you have or what your previous record was. In any given game, even the Super Bowl, it all comes down to who can deliver when it matters.  Even an under-dog can win.

When I lived in Los Angeles, I got used to living in a town where people buzzed about movie stars.  Traffic gridlock was a given on Oscar night.  When I lived in New York, it was the theater.  Now that I live in DC, I'm getting used to living in a town where people buzz about politicians.  It's common place to see limos drive by accompanied by the secret service.

But today was remarkable even by DC standards.  Not only was the State of the Union Address tonight, with its accompanying heightened security on the streets near the Capitol,  but today, political rock star Barack Obama was in town, being endorsed by JFK's only surviving brother and his only surviving child.  People were ecstatic.  They stood in line for hours just to get a chance to see him.

Even the media coverage of Bush's State of the Union Address was overshadowed by the event earlier in the day. Who cares about what a lame duck president has to say when there is a rock star in the house?  And Bush did not do anything to make himself more interesting, delivering an address with nothing visionary, or even remotely  provocative other than the fact that he's obstinately sticking by his hawkish/corporate strategies. So why not talk instead about Barack inheriting the mantel of JFK? Of fulfilling the promise that Bobby's death left unfulfilled.

It is a stark contrast between the president who has preyed on our fears to satisfy the greed of his friends, and the candidate for president who sounds like the answer to our prayers.  For years now, I've been saying that we need another Kennedy, another person who will call us to our better natures, and that is exactly what Obama is doing.  

But I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with the messianic fervor surrounding him.  As if he is our savior.  What is going to happen when people realize there is hard work to be done, by us?  And I'm even more pained by the Clinton-bashing coming from many Obama supporters.  If we hate the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality of Bush, why is it ok now to do the same?  The more fanatical his followers become, the more I'm pushing back.  Which is sad because I really do think his is the message we most need, but we may destroy that message in the process.

What an interesting night.  

The pundits are scrambling to make sense of the Dem primaries thus far - first presenting Clinton's nomination as a foregone conclusion, then announcing her candidacy dead when Obama won Iowa by a landslide, now utterly confused as New Hampshire voters rejected their prognostications.  The pundits are, after all, simply trying to tell a story about the American public that makes sense, just like the rest of us, only they get paid to do it and aren't any better at it, it seems.

I for one am glad that Clinton won tonight, not because I favor her over Obama, but because it would have been quite sad if the pundits were right, if her candidacy were indeed already over so early into the process.

But while all this is going on, what really captured my imagination and heart tonight was McCain's victory speech. He didn't deliver it as well as he could have but it was beautifully crafted.  (And maybe the fumbling added to his charm.)  I am wondering whether he wrote it and if not, who did. It was a bit more rah, rah, go USA! for my tastes but that's understandable for for an ex-POW. 

Overall, you really get the impression that he loves this country and everything he does, whether it's popular or not, is because he believes it's right for his country. In listening to him talk, I realized that even tho I disagree with him on most issues, I still respect him more than I do some Dems. Heck, even the issues on which I disagree with him the most seem to make me respect him more.  For example, I was against the immigration bill that he supported.  But he bucked the GOP, and is paying the price.  (I was against it for different reasons than the GOP.)  And then there is the war... Whether I agree with him or not, I trust that he's telling us what he believes, rather than just what we want to hear.  And I believe he loves this country as much as I do.