The God of the ever-closing Gaps

For the first time in the history of Murwillumbah politics, we have a candidate for the Christian Democratic Party (CDP) running for a local seat. His name is Gavin Lawrie, a name familiar with locals, as he was a former Tweed Shire Councillor until he was sacked along with the rest of the council for corruption. This followed an excellent story on Four Corners, exposing the faction of council of which Lawrie was part as being in the pocket of developers.

The Tweed Sun (unfortunately, there is no on-line publication of this free weekly paper) on Thursday, 26 October, Gavin Lawrie, as the endorsed CDP candidate for the NSW electorate of Tweed, outlined his platform. It contained the usual extreme right-wing policies that have become expected of the Religious Reich, but there was one point in there that I'd never heard from them before.

He proposed that the teaching of evolution in public schools be banned.

Banned no less!

I had heard the Religious Reich advocate equal time for Creationism (or intelligent design, as they now refer to it) and evolution in science classes, but this was the first I'd heard of banning the entire concept of evolution from schools.

I wrote to Mr. Lawrie, and to the central office of the CDP, asking if banning teaching of evolution was really their policy, and if so, what punishment they would propose for people that continued to teach evolution. Mr. Lawrie has not responded, but the Phil Lamb, CDP's State Director replied thus-

Hi David, Great to hear from you.

Gavin is standing in his own right. From the broader CDP perspective, CDP has a policy which would see teaching of Creation, and indeed broader Intelligent Design, included alongside the evolution theory, but not seek to ban teaching evolution. Hope this helps clarify CDP's Upper house position.

Phil Lamb

State Director

This was a confusing response. Mr. Lawrie is "in his own right", yet, endorsed by the CDP as running for their party; the very party that is trying to distance themselves from his comments. I will write back for clarification, and if there's anything interesting, will share it here.

Still, the CDP position of teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID) within science curricula is disturbing - even if they aren't planning on "banning" evolution.

I've discussed "ID" with some of it's advocates, and read a few things on the issue, and it strikes me as a classic example of the "God of the Gaps" phenomenon.

When an advocate for ID is asked for evidence that ID is a plausible scientific theory, they do not provide any. What they point to, instead, are the things that are as yet unexplained by evolutionary biology. "Gaps" in the theory which advocates of evolution are the first to admit to, as this statement from the Australian Academy of Science shows-

"All scientific ideas are theories, imperfect and subject to test. That the theory of evolution is imperfect, and still the subject of study and modification, affirms that the theory is part of science. Many attempts to modify and expand the theory have been successful, showing (since Darwin's day) the gene-basis of inheritance, the basis of gene-reproduction in the double helix structure of DNA, the 'genetic drift' basis of the origin of breeds, and so on. Many challenges to the fundamentals of the theory have failed empirical test. The theory has attracted enormous empirical testing and remains one of the most powerful of scientific ideas."

However, ID advocates use this admission of imperfection as proof that life is too complex for humans to understand, and therefore, created and designed by God. This statement, from Professor Michael Behe (Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA), reflects this -

"The theory of evolution is widely accepted amongst the scientific community but it turns out that there really are huge holes in the theory and we're trying to probe those holes and see what they imply."

What it implies, says Behe, is that God did it - "I am happy to think the designer is God."

Even Behe has to admit that, amongst scientists, he is virtually alone - "There are not that many people who are actively involved in it. Probably, oh maybe a handful you know, five to ten, something like that."

Still, this didn't stop Dr. Brendon Nelson from trying to tell us that our kids should be forced to learn such rubbish, and a number of Christian Fundamentalist schools have commenced teaching it within their science curriculum.

Still, I can't help but feel the fundamentalists paint themselves into a corner. The more they cling to the gaps in the science as proof for their belief-systems, the more tenuous those belief systems become. Science, over time, tends to close gaps.

We no longer believe that the Earth was created at the centre of the Universe, with God and his angels pushing the sun, moon and stars around it. We understand that thunder isn't because God is angry, and that the sun is not God riding through the sky on a chariot.

So as time goes on, science will find further explanations for matters we currently do not understand. Anyone advocating a "God of the Gaps" belief will be forced to watch their God shrinking with every scientific advance.

Not only is this poor science, but poor theology as well. Religion will only survive if it integrates scientific information into it's quest to understand it's God's. As a result, I look forward to the end of biblical literalism and fundamentalist dogma. Otherwise, it will shrink faster then the gaps in science.

Getting it on in Jonestown!

Here at The Murwillumbah Institute, our library budget doesn't stretch to cover brand new hardbacks. If it did, I would have read Jonestown by now. I'll have to wait until it's available at Mur-bah's library, or I find a second-hand paperback years from now. Whichever comes first.

I just can't ignore all the publicity, and I can't help think Chris Masters, the author, is laughing his head off right now, even if he's asleep, about the fantastic publicity this book has generated.

Obviously, I haven't read the book. However, I'm a self-important tosser who doesn't need to read a book to tell the world about it. If Andrew Bolt can, after reading an extract in the Sydney Morning Herald, arrive at the conclusion-

"So slime him, boys. Slime him again and again and again, until you yourselves are so covered in that stinking stuff that we can't make out a single human feature on your faces",

then why should worry if I'm ignorant and ill-informed? Again and again and again?

In short, what Chris Masters has managed to do, in his unauthorised biography of Alan Jones, is lead the right-wing muck-raking press club to come out and advocate for gay rights! Well, if you consider staying in the closet a right...

I can't remember the last time I've seen the right-wing press so bitter and twisted! They don't like it that, in their own words, Masters has "outed" Alan Jones, one of Australia's foremost conservative attack dogs. But this is just plain ridiculous. We all know Jones is gay. John Laws, a fellow-traveller in right-wing attack-dog circles, has been calling him a "pillow-biter" for years. So any concept of Jones being "outed" is obvious dishonesty.

The problem is that Masters and Marr (who selected the extract for the Herald that has lit this dynamite) have shattered the fragile fantasy-land that the followers of Jones have built around their guru. In this fantasy-land, people who don't vote for the Liberal Party are disciples of Pol Pott, George W. Bush is the smartest American to have ever lived, and Alan Jones has no sexuality.

What's obvious from this well-coordinated tirade from all quarters of the right-wing press gallery is that there's a role for gay people amongst them, as long they can pretend they're not gay. So long as you've coached a rugby team, don't say a word about equality for gay folk, and use your position to discriminate against minorities, there's a place for "pillow-biters" amongst conservatives.

Now Jones is no ordinary conservative. Masters makes a great case showing that Jones is up there with Packer and Murdoch as one of the most influential conservatives in the country. Now, his followers can no longer pretend to ignore the obvious. While these folk are never honest enough to state their opinions up-front, their sub-text is obvious - gay people should stay in the closet. That's what their seething about, and they aren't hiding it well at all.

Here's some recent comments from those who are trying to paint themselves as the gay rights' movement's best friend:

Andrew Bolt: gay marriage will lead to polygamy and hooliganism.

Piers Ackerman: in the 80s homosexuals with HIV were responsible for the deaths of 600 people by insisting the Red Cross accept their blood.

John Heard: the Pope is right to condemn gay sex, gay culture, gay priests and gay marriage.

Miranda Devine: children suffer without a father and a mother

Unfortunately, one of Australia's funniest comedians, Gerard Henderson of The Sydney Institute, my Arch-nemesis, has made a complete idiot of himself over the Jonestown issue. He accused Mike Carlton of virtual paedophilia because he married a younger woman. A woman who is thirty years old. He compares that to a teacher in a boarding school writing love letters to his pupils, favouring some other others, and obsessing with the ones he liked.

See, any idiot can set up an "institute".

Finally, I understand the significance of the title of the book.

For those young people out there who may never have heard the term "Jonestown" before, it was originally the site in Guyana, South America, of a bizarre religious cult. Jim Jones, the guru of "The People's Temple", ordered nearly a thousand of his followers to commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-aid. They obeyed, and all died in what is still the most shocking example of cult behaviour the world has seen.

I thought it was a little rough comparing Alan Jones to Jim Jones. But after seeing the weird reactionaries to his cause, what would Alan's followers do if he ordered them to drink the Kool-aid?

Hi! Welcome to the Murwillumbah Institute!

I've thought about starting a blog before a couple of times. I haven't, because I've always concluded that I'm not very bright, and haven't got anything interesting to say. I've thought, surely, with all that information out there, with all those web pages just lying around, waiting to reveal information to whoever happens to stumble across them, what the hell could In possibly add?

So, after a few years of reading other people's contributions to the collective material consciousness that is the world wide web, I've learned at least one thing.

I've learned that my fear of not being intelligent enough, of not being relevant or interesting, hasn't stopped a stack of other wankers with net access on this rock of six billion from preaching to us from cyberspace with uninformed and over-opinionated garbage.

I learned that just because I see the world from a small town in a relatively insignificant part of the planet, and may well have nothing to contribute to the development of a better world for all, I can still belt out claptrap with self-righteous fervor and write with an authority I don't deserve.

So, I set about thinking up an important-sounding name for my think-tank. I noticed that people with the ability to think like tanks liked to use the word "Institute", and when they have little of substance to offer, they name it after a city.

I thought something like "The Sydney Institute" would be a brilliant name. Unfortunately, a very clever satirist by the name of Gerard Henderson beat me to it. He satirizes a campaign against comedy by pretending to be an idiot who doesn't get jokes, and follows through by muck-raking comedians (Comedic Gold: "If Leunig’s siblings really want an invite to Leunig’s home this Christmas, perhaps they should sign-on with al-Qaeda" - I can never be that good at satire).

So, I had to think of something else. I don't live too far from Brisbane, but again, "The Brisbane Institute" has also been taken. This Institute isn't nearly as funny as Henderson's, with it's moderately left-leaning cantor. They like to do boring stuff like use facts, and write about how we might develop a better society. They use some big words here and there. I guess I need to read a bit more of their work before saying much more.

Having enjoyed a trip to Adelaide once, though not enough to ever bother going back, I was inspired to name my new think-tank "The Adelaide Institute". Who would have thought that in Australia's most liberal-minded city, a group of thick-head neo-nazi's would have thought to form an "Institute" before me? But, needless to say, if you shaved your head last night while reciting the Mein Kampf and listening to some boof-head deny the holocaust, then Adelaide has an institute for you. More appropriately however, they have a number of institutions for you.

So people of Adelaide beware - while you're all smoking pot at your swingers parties open to all races, some Ku Klux Klan wannabe's are using your fine city's name in vain.

So, I gave up searching for a another, more exotic locale. I see the world from a small town in Northern New South Wales, and I'm going to tell you all what it looks like from here!

My interests are many and varied, even if my knowledge is limited, and I'll be making it up as I go along.

Welcome!