My Fall into Knowledge

Reg
Saner
My
Fall
into
Knowledge
and in apparentlycauseless moments,I'm awareofbeing- though
DAILY,
everso briefly-alive in a place called "theworld."Whereuponthe oddness in simultaneouslyfeelinghyperordinary
yetcosmic throwsme intointerrogativemode.
Recently,duringjust such a moment,and because I'm incorrigiblyreligious,I foundmyselfwondering,"Throughouthistory,
just how manycreeds
have therebeen? And the god population- how manydeities,now or ever?"
An accurate inventorywould of course be impossible. Not only do eternal
truthscome and go,some gods takeearlyretirement.
Moreover,ancienttribes,
whetherof prehistoricGreece or North Americas Hopi mesas, occasionally
adoptedsupernatural
beingsfromneighboringpeoples intotheirown cultures.
Thatecumenical outlook,plus the polytheismfactor,means no census could
be as simpleas one religion,one god. Impossibleseemed the rightword.
Then,as ifwitha lifeofitsown,thequestionkeptwidening:"How many
are
in servicethroughoutthisgalaxy-richuniverse?"And sudgods
currently
denlyit dawned on me thatI'd just inventeda new fieldof study:astrotheolin case some life-harboring,
extraterrestrial
ogy.We alreadyhave astrobiology,
should
be
discovered.
Sooner
or
where
there's
life
therewill be
later,
planet
divinities,a naturaloffshoot.
However,naturalis as naturaldoes. All ittakesis a planetwhose thinking
species,upon lookingaroundat thevariouslifeforms,concludes,insteadofthe
"
usual "Someone has done this,"that Somethinghas done this."The ultimate
principleof causation on thatplanet would be considerednaturalinstead of
supernatural.
My logic feltrocksolid,buthairsplitters
mayquibble. In anycase, future
will
the
astrotheologians surelypursue
quasi-infinitepossibilitiesof thisnew
[9]
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
field.Perhapstheywill even conjecturea religiouswar on certainplanets,with
devoteesofSomeone-ismrighteouslydeployingfireand swordto destroyforeverthe infidelSomething-ists.
Apropos of the Big Questions, doesn't everychild eventuallyask, "Mommy,
wheredid I come from?"Thesedays,however,withlow-riderjeans,some mothersdressingtheirten-year-old
daughterslikeFrenchtarts,boy-girldialoguesof
singleentendre,and teenscopulatingas ifhumanswerean endangeredspecies,
no parentcould invokethe storkand keep a straightface.Is thereone mother
leftwho tellsherchild,"Why,sweetiepie,we foundyou undera cabbage leaf"?
Wayback in thepsychedelicsixties,myfriendJoAnn said nothingofthe
kind. For her five-year-old,
Chris,she wentinto physiologicdetail. She didn't
"certain
to
refer
body parts."She named names. His eyeswidened.
vaguely
just
She implicatedhis father.Said thatshe and he had been in cahoots on it. The
boy was stunned,revolted,aghast. These were people he had respected.The
verypeople who kept tellinghim to behave himself.Then, rememberinghe
had a youngersister,he criedout in dismay,"You don t mean you did it twice?"
Ifevertherewerea "fallintoknowledge"its thatone. It changesthechild
by puttinghim furtherinto the real than he had dreamed or wantedto be a
strangenew contextof animality.Small wonder thatmanychildren,perhaps
most,prefernot to thinkof theirparentsas sex mates.
There are plentyof thingswe adults don t like to ponder. For example,
thesize ofall we belongto and thepitifulbrevityofour visit.Post-Darwin,our
biological statusis anotheraspect some among us would rathernot dwell on.
Like littleChris,surprisingnumbersof adultsvehementlydenytheirdouble
natureas fur-bearingcritterswithvestigialclaws on hands and feet- animals
who talk and think,yetwho, like our mammalian kin,also copulate and give
suck. In a nutshell,some people simplycant stand the factsoflife.Thats why
theythrowhissyfitsat the mentionof evolution.
A memorylapse explains why a fewyearsago I accepted an invitation
to debate an anti-Darwinian.My friendJaneBock, a biologist,had been the
initialrecipientof thatinvitation.She and otherbiologistsoftenreceivesuch
challengesbut routinelyignorethemas a waste of time.Then,looking at me,
Janesmischievousstreakkicked in. "How about you?" she said, knowingof
myintenseadmirationforDarwin. "Do you wantto takethemon?" Never in
myadultlifehad I encountereda creationist.Now herewas an opportunityto
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
11
practicemy favoriteoccupation: going forthto see formyself.I said, "Okay,
I'll do it."Why?Well,foolsdo rushin.
Alas,myeagernessto tradeveritieswitha proponentofbiblicalinerrancy
beforethebreedwentextinctled me to forgetI had been a creationistforyears
and years,and would be again,thoughin a verydifferent
way.
Atpreciselywhatage I allowed myselfto be gatheredto thebosom ofcreationism I can t recall,yetit musthave occurredby the time I was fiveand in first
grade.My memoryofjust how it happened remainsclear as the image of tall
SisterMary Daniel in her greatblack wimpleand Dominican habit of anklelengthwhitelinen,as she testedus firstgraderswiththeveryfirstquestion in
theBaltimoreCatechism,"Who made us?"
On cue, we chirrupedlike a classroomof sparrows,"God made us."
To saySisterdid theaskingand we thebelievingwould,however,be quite
false.Beliefimpliesthe possibilityof disbelief,a thingliterallyunthinkableat
thatage. Children may be finickyeaters,yetwhen it comes to religionthey
down whatevers set beforethem. If your parentsfollowJainism,you follow
them.Besides,anythingSisterMary Daniel said was true.
Itwasn'tso muchthatshe woreholyclothescoveringall butherfaceand
hands,northatall themothersincludingminespoke to heras to a VerySpecial
Person.It wasn'teven because she alwaysseemed so clean and gave offsuch a
nice soapy fragrance.What SisterMary Daniel said was truebecause she was
and kind to everyone of us children.
tall,patient,soft-spoken,
Was she pretty?I don'tremember- just thatshe was beautiful.
Surprisingas it should have been forme to learn I'd been made by a God, it
neverenteredmy noddle to ask why.That just seemed to be what God did.
He made things.Unlikethe grown-upkind of creationist,I didn'tat the least
mentionof Darwin grindmy teethand spit.I was proud of my spitting,but
hadn'tyetheardofevolution,so therewas no need forrighteoussaliva.All the
same,as we childrengrewolderwe did learnthata hellishfateawaitedthatsoul
guiltyofwillfullydoubtingthingstheBaltimoreCatechismsaid wereeternally
true,and itspages clearlygave top billingto the Creator.
Me disagreewiththe catechism?Only hereticsdid that.Even ifI didn't
quite knowwhata hereticwas, I did know itwas thebaddest thingyou could
ever become. Maybe the word'ssound caused me to picturea hairyman in
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
red-eyedman who stood glaringat me and without
grubbyclothes- a swarthy,
a
was
unspeakablywicked.
lifting finger
A despondentlass in an old play says,"We know whatwe are,but know
not what we may be." Well,the skinnylittleblue-eyedkid I once was is now
double-damnedheretic- thoughnot particularlyhairy.
himselfa full-grown,
I
Ithappened theday awoke to thesinglefactofliferenderingour human situation inexhaustiblyfascinating:no one knows what this world is, much less
has the answerto "Why?"Sadly enough, thatlimitationhas alwaysimpelled
membersof our species to claim knowledgetheydont have, and I claim to
be one of theirvictims.Hence, my activistinterestin those old reliables,the
supersize,cosmic questions.
Historicallyspeaking,therehave been many mysteryreligions think
Orpheus,thinkIsis- but onlyone mystery:the answerto "Why?"
ifeverthere
For myshowdownwithBinfordPyle,a hard-corefundamentalist
was one, I turnedup on scheduleat theBethanyChurchreadyforaction.1True,
I had no debate experienceand onlythevaguestidea of the creationistmind.
So what?Biological factwas firmlyon myside,wasn'tit?Not thatI'm a biologist.Far fromit. fm merelyan ink-stainedwretchpuzzled by the millionsof
adultswho seem to believe the factsof lifeare ungodly.
In addition to my respectforDarwins achievement,therewas a moral
dimension in my agreeingto a debate. The people hoping to foistcreationism offonto biology courses in our public schools have employedblatantly
immoraltactics,and have done so while claimingto be championsof morality.Theirhypocrisydeserveda comeuppance. Even more germane,theydaily
enact our species'peculiarabilityto believetheunbelievable,a traitI've always
foundfascinating.
On enteringthechurch'slargevestibuleI founddozens ofearlierarrivals
studyingcreationistdisplays,and a wide screenoverheadflashinga projected
was unexpectsequence of anti-Darwinianpower points.Theirtechno-effect
edly hip. "Hm-m,"I thought,"and me with only a few handwrittennotes."
The church'sBaptistcongregation,drawnfromone of Denver'sworking-class
suburbs,would surelybe impressedbytheelectroniclook ofcutting-edgeinfo.
AlreadyI felta bit daunted.
andplacehavebeenchanged.
ofbothperson
i. Names
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
13
As each slide brightened,thendissolvedintothe nextone, I hadn'ttime
to read more than a few.Yet visuallysnappyas theywere,theyparaded the
same old junk science and untruthsthat,nonetheless,have founda home in
the heartsof countlessdevoteeswho take the biblical descriptionof creation
literally.
Whydo we believethe unbelievable?Agreed,the answeris obvious: we
do because we wantto,but sayingso addressesonlythewhy,not thehow. It's
thehow thatintriguesme.
No soonerhad I leftthevestibulesdisplaysand enteredthechurchproper,
whereadult murmuringmingledwithadolescentchatter,than I became dismayed by the sightof so manyyoung faces,includingquite a few children.
I'd assumed the entireaudience would be grown-ups.To undercutparental
midwesternupbringing,
authoritywas thelastthingI, withmystraight-arrow
wantedto do. Thatreluctanceled me to scrapthemain argumentofmyopening remarks:a critiqueof the fundamentalist
dogma on the Bible'sinerrancy,
plus commentson theblood lustoftheGod itsOld Testamentdescribes.Inteldecisionto back offwas indefensible.
I didn't
lectually,
myspur-of-the-moment
care. Children'srespectfortheirparents'judgmentseemed more important,
so I chose to extemporize.
On a brightly
lit,carpetedplatform,BinfordPyleand I sat opposite,each
of us behind a small table coveredwithred cloth.Though Pyle was a man of
largegirth,he carriedhis weightwell,was soberlyattiredin a dark blue suit,
and made quite a good appearance,while the open laptop beforehim continued thecutting-edgeimplications.These he furtherenhanced by settingit on
the podium each timehis turncame to speak or rebut.My fewhandwritten
notesseemed so slightby comparisonI ditchedthemand decided to wing it.
FromtheInternetI had learnedofPyle'sspeakingengagementsand videos; learnedtoo of his conceivingand leading,withothers,somethingcalled
ScripturalTours in science museums,so as to correcttheunbiblicalinformation infestingsuch places; learned as well of his connection to the Farview
Academy,whichtrainsyoungfundamentalists.
Between us at the podium, in marked contrastto Mr. Pyle, stood our
a man in hislatetwenties,one Jeremy
moderator,
Higgins.Whatwithhis abundant beard,flowingbrownhair,and bulkyfigure,his teddy-bearaspect made
his role as the church'syouthdirectorseem natural.Into the microphonehe
explainedhow thedebatewould proceed. Each ofus would give a ten-minute
thefirstforeight
openingargument.Thesewould be followedbytworebuttals,
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
minutes,thesecond forfiveminutes.Each ofus would thenmake a five-minute
closingargument,afterwhichwe d respond to questions fromthe audience.
JustbeforePyle and I had mountedthe platformwe stood momentarily
faceto facelong enough forme to ask ifhe took the creationstoryin Genesis
literally.His replywas edgy,as iflong since wearyof thatissue. "The Creator,"
he said, "made the world in six days of twentyfourhours."
I
"What
took him so long?"
overcame
me.
asked,
Temptation
He didn't answer that one, so afteran ominous pause I tried again.
orliteral?"
"Well. . . how can youtellwhethera givenbiblicalpassageis figurative
In the same dismissivetone he said, "You can tellby the context,"which
on the one hand is trueenough,but on the othersounds like dealers choice.
I was about to press the point when the moderator asked us to take our
places.
To avoid being typecastas one of those universityprofessorsfond of
vest
destroying
youngsouls withtheirgodlessideas,I had worna cowboy-style
woven withIndian designs.Furthermore,I topped it offwitha black,broadbrimmedStetsonand choke strap,such as bad guysalwayswore in the dime
movies of myboyhood Saturdayafternoons.
During Mr. Higgins' preliminariesI doffedthe Stetson,but when my
turncame to speak, I put it back on and, in a banteringmanner,began with
somethinglikethefollowing:"Lestanybodybe confused,myhatshould clarify
thesituation.Creationistsherecan relax.ThoughMr.Pyleisn'twearinga white
hat,we knowtheman in theblack hat alwaysloses. To furthersimplifythings,
I advise those who are satisfiedwith theirbeliefsnot to credita word I say."
Then,afterpointingout the impossibilityof a debate betweenfaithand fact,I
sketchedmypositionwithoutraisingmyvoice. Especiallybeforean audience
of working-classBaptists,soft-spokenwas the onlyway to go.
Creationistscan neverlose, owing to the well-knownfactthatscripture
cannot err,which is proven by its being divinelyinspired,which is in turn
provenby the factthatpeople who lived eons ago have said so. With thatas
creationism- includingitsclone,intelligentdesign- has
bedrock,everything
to saypasses betweentwinpillars:thefalsehoodinscribedon one pillarreads,
"WithouttheBible and Christtherecan be no morality";thewhopperchiseled
intothatotherpillarsays,"Evolutionis atheistic."BinfordPylebludgeonedus
with those twin fallaciesand implied the atheisticbent of evolutionby saying,"Evolutionclaims natureis all thereis." It of course does no such thing.
Like all science it merelyrestrictsitselfto observablephenomena and testable
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
15
evidence. Oddly,large numbersof laypersonsinterpretthose limitsas proof
thatscience has it in forreligion.
Sayingthatmoralityis impossiblewithoutthe Bible and Christrequires
not onlyperfectignoranceof the ancientworld,but also creationismsfoundationaldenial ofour species prehistory.
Owing to thesurvivalvalue ofcooperativebehaviorwithinspecies,moralitysimplyevolved- likeeverything
else.
Even our deitiesare betterbehaved now than theyused to be.
"Evolved?"boggled Pyle,who insistedthatthe moral truthof the Bible
4
was eternaland unchanging."Such a remarkmade me wonder,"Has he read
it?"Withoutsuch a moral absolute,he continued,"Therewould be no reason
whyI shouldn'twrap an airplanearound myselfand flyinto a building."
Directinga balefulglareat the audience, he angrilyadded, "Ifyou'rean
evolutionistand youre upset about 9/11,get over it."Considering our presumablydecent congregationof believers,I forborequoting on thattopic of
malevolencetheinsightbyStevenWeinberg,a Nobel laureatein physics:"With
or withoutreligion,good people can behave well and bad people can do evil;
but forgood people to do evil- thattakesreligion."2
Though persons of goodwill can and oftendo strenuouslydisagree on
an issue, Pyles righteousindignationon all topics Darwinian seemed to be
tingedwithsome darkeranimus. I wonderedwhathis lifehad been beforeits
born-againphase.
"All men,"he said, "are flawedand must be restrained."The worse we
are,thebetterforPyles exhortingour fallennaturesto riseup fromthemuck.
Whatgood is a cureifthere'sno disease? Unsurprisingly,
he insisted
therefore,
no mirecould be blackerthan thatin the Darwinian morass. Later,however,
he surprisedme by backingofflong enough to say,"Evolutiondoesn't make
people wicked,people are wicked."
Would we humans, unless compelled by a divine Sky Cop to behave
ourselves,lapse into bestiality?Oh, yes! In fact,this alleged degeneracyof
humankindspostlapsarianstateseemed oddly dear to the mans heart,and
notjust because he was sellingthe cure.
Its truethe Pauline Epistlesare pervaded by insistentreferencesto our
sinfulfleshand Satans activismamong us. Afterall, Christianity's
main claim
is that our fallenspecies desperatelyneeded a Redeemer. But Pauls better
2.Thequotation
isfrom
"ADesigner
Universe"
inWeinberg's
andItsCultural
Facing
Up:Science
Adversaries
MA:Harvard
Press,
2001),
231.
(Cambridge,
University
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
l6
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
angel also frequentlymoved him to exhorthis hearerson the value of their
communalbond, and oflove. Could creationistsgloomyview ofour nature,I
continuedto wonder,be rootedin themselvesas well as the Bible?At timesin
our debate- as ifhis hearers'salvationwere imperiled- Pyles nostrilsflared
and his eyes gloweredwarninglyat the audience.
Whetherhe did so frompersonal truculenceor religiouszeal I couldn't
know,but I had no doubt what my fatewould be if he or any cult of likeminded zealotshad thepowerto inflictrackand stakeon misbelievers.I easily
imaginedthemtorchingJoanof Arc to improveher character.
thinkerand scientistwhose native
Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth-century
France had been bloodied by religiouswars,commentedon such righteousness gone wrong:"Men neverdo evil so fullyand so happilyas when theydo
itforconsciences sake."Or so fullyand happilyas when theyspreaduntruths.
Thanks to BinfordPyle,I now know that"racismis promotedby evolution,"
thatmoralitycomes froma creationistworldviewwhereas"evolutionis inherand it "thriveson death."I learned,too, that
entlyselfish,it is self-centered,"
"genocide becomes a natural out-flowingof the evolutionarymodel when
appliedto humanrelations."Oh, all mannerofDarwinian-induceddegeneracy
fueledPyles rancor.He spoke ofevolutionas ifitweren'tbased on science but
an amoral conspiracyso dangerousthatsome creationistscall it "devilution,"
a sataniccultroamingtheworldon clovenhooves and seekingthedestruction
of souls.
is bound to
Most vividlyofall,I rememberhis claimthatan "evolutionist"
condone Hitlers grislyeugenicexperiments,an assertionas illogicalas saying
Pasteurwould favorgermwarfare.I also recallhow myeyeswidened and my
mouthgaped when he read a quote fromDer Führerby way of implyingthat
the authorof Mein Kampfspoke forDarwinians! What's more,he twice followed formercongressmanTom DeLay s lead in linkingthebloody murdersat
Columbine High School to theteachingofevolution:"Evolutionkillspeople,"
declaredBinfordPyle."Ifyou dont believeme,just look at Columbine!" Then
he added, "Those two studentslearnedtheirlessonswell . . . and applied those
3
lessons appropriately."
Given the time constraintson rebuttals,I couldn't begin to point out
more than a fewabsurditiesin Mr. Pyles streamof grievances.Certainlythe
theonea bornpsytheColumbine
for
thetworesponsible
andDylan
Klebold,
slaughter,
3.EricHarris
Twelve,
Columbine
2009),
SeeDaveCullen,
(NewYork:
passim.
theother
depressed.
seriously
chopath,
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
I7
mostdramaticamongthemwas his chargethatHitlers evolutionistworldview
led to the Holocaust.
It seems Darwin's"survivalof the fittest"
was the culprit.It had authorizedblitzkriegand mass murder.4Such an inexhaustiblyfallaciousstatement
betrayedgross ignoranceof evolutionaryfitness,thekey concept in On the
OriginofSpecies.Darwin did not say,as BinfordPyle explicitlyclaimed,that
survivaldepends on strengthand cunning.Rather,evolutionaryfitnessstems
froman organismsabilityto adapt biologicallyto changingenvironmental
conditions.Mightydinosaursmayperishand tinymammalsthrive.
The charge that Hitlerian evil was merelyDarwinism in action has
become a favoritewhopper among those on the religiousright.In August
2006, the Rev. D. JamesKennedy- dubbed by bloggerPam Spaulding "the
TalibangelisttitanofFlorida-basedCoral RidgeMinistries"- offeredtv viewersa sixty-minute
documentaryon Darwin'sDeadly Legacy.Ithypedthe(false)
between
Nazi
analogy
eugenicsand Darwins theoryofnaturalselection,thus
sharingPyles stunningmisconceptionof the theoryhe so decried.5Furthermore,selectivebreedingwas an ancientpractice,so Nazi eugenicsdidn'tneed
Darwin to inspireit.In pointoffact,WorldWar II revealedtheNazi unfitness
to survive,inasmuchas Nazism reduced Germanyto rubbleand ashes. Nazi
unfitness,
however,wasn'tthekind Darwin was talkingabout.
As ifto producea crescendoeffect,
Mr. Pylebegan tottingup theseparate
counts
attributable
to
Hitler,Stalin,and Chairman Mao, with a bonus
body
estimateoflivesunborn,owingto MargaretSanger'spromotionof birthcontrol."That'sover 190 millionpeople,"he said, "who have been purposelysacrificedon the altarof evolution!"
I flashedon a headline,Darwin Kills 190 Million, and reeled.Butthat
wasn'tthenadir.Eitherhis misunderstanding
or his willfulmisrepresentation
of the evolutionhe so deplored gave birthto thispièce de résistance
: "Ifyour
brainevolves,"he asked theaudience,"how can you trustyourown thinking?"
"Atleast,"I thoughtbut didn'tsay,"itwould be headed in therightdirection."
"survival
ofthefittest"
with
Herbert
4.Thecatchphrase
a contemporary
ofDaroriginated
Spencer,
win-who
then
borrowed
itill-advisedly,
toArthur
a scientist
andAnglican
Peacocke,
according
priest.
on5August
1listened
toanaddress
later,
5.Ayear
ina nationally
2007,
televised
byD.James
Kennedy
hour
which
herecited
thesamemendacities
Ministries,
voiced
sponsored
bytheCoralRidge
during
ofDarwin
andevolution.
byBinford
Pyleinhiscalumny
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
l8
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
Our debate had become a carnivalattraction.I was stilltotteringover
evolutionsSlaughterof the Innocentswhen Mr. Pyle informedthe audience
thatso long as I embraced evolutionI was destined foreternaltorment.He
said it grievedhim thatI was, thoughI didn'thear griefin his tone.
our robustmoderator,Mr. Higgins,signaled
Justthen,and mercifully,
an end to the frayand the beginningof a briefQ&A period. Withoutexception,thequeries addressedspecificallyto me raisedpointsI had alreadydwelt
on in some detail. It was as ifeverythingI had said was so peculiar it needed
repeating.
A samplinggivenhere in myparaphrasewill indicatetheirdrift:"How
can an evolutionistbe moral?";"How can intricatelifeformscome fromchaos
withoutGods help?"; "Is evolutiona religion?";"Why cant a person believe
in God and naturalselection?";"Should evolution and creationismboth be
taughtin schools?";"Whatabout thosefossils?";"Wheredid theuniversecome
from?";"Ifyou don t believe in anything,whathappens when you die?"
Hadnt I predictedthe man in the black hat always loses? Our not-sogreat debate had at least broughtme face to face with what I've called our
peculiar giftforbelievingthe unbelievable.
My stunned wonder at the echolocation of bats can triggera sort of freefallastonishment,withmymind plummetingback throughthe evolutionary
epochs needed to developan ultrasoundsystemso exquisitelyand finelytuned.
Lyingall about and within us, natures smallest details abound with times
ingenuities.Every strawberryformy breakfastgranóla has bedecked itself
withminusculetime capsules disguised as seeds. Thats cunning indeed, but
times geniusas encapsulatedby each human cell staggersthe mind. Our cells
are more impressivethanwe are.
Thanksto Darwin our imaginationcan wanderbillionsofyearswithina
dropletofblood. Or,in ponderingravenplumage withitsbarbules,barbicels,
and bookletsso cunninglycontrivedfroman originalsquiggleofkeratin- can
be raptby the depthof timein a feather.
the extentof gone time,because literallyunimaginable,
Unfortunately,
remains thereforeunreal for all too many,especially the anti-Darwinians.
Surelyits the immeasurablespans of evolutionarytimetheycannot conceive
of, nor can theyconceive how, to cite a seminal phrase by the eighteenthcenturygentlemangeologist JamesHutton, "littlecauses, long continued"
could have wroughtin all lifeformsand land formssuch enormous effects.
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
I9
"Long continued"in thecase ofEarthlifecomes to some 3.5billionyears.
Those who don t believe the human eye could have evolved are incredulous
partlybecause theyhave no clear conceptof the words millionand billion.
Suppose yourdoctorshouldlook up fromherclipboardto say,"Im afraid
thetestresultsare not good."Naturallyyou'llwonder,"How long have I got?"
Answeringyourthoughtshe breaksthenews,"You have,I'm sorryto say,only
a millionseconds to live."Time enough to driveto yourfavoritecoffeehouse
fora lastlatte?Yes,and to spare.Almosttwelvefulldays.Now imagine,having
misreadherown writing,she correctsherself."Did I say million? Sorryabout
that!I meant to say billion. Give or take a few,you've got a billion seconds
beforethe end."
How manymoredayswould thatgiveyou?Plenty.In fact,justoverthirtytwoyears.Despite all thebandyingoflargenumbersin themedia,people cant
grasphow "long continued"a span of 3.5 billionyearsreallyis.
Yearsago a GrandCanyonrangertoldme theaveragevisitationtimetherewas
a merefourhours.I suggestedthattheparkservicepost signsat turnoutsalong
the rim:kindly allow the dust of your arrival to settle before you
depart. Such hurry-upvisitsprovethatthe views fromthe South Rim serve
mainlyas photo ops allowingtouriststo say,"Been there,done that."Besides,
afterhearingabout the place foryears,a persons firstlook may not live up:
"Grand?Kind of,I guess."Given all the blather,everyoneexpectsmore.
Yetnowherebetterexemplifies
thedifference
betweensceneryand nature
thantheGrand Canyon.Fromtherimits a scenic postcard.And traffic.
However,bydescendingeven a skimpyeighthundredfeetor so, you crossa threshold into thattremendousrealm we call nature.Sceneryis what you'reapart
from,natureswhat you re a part of. Thus the canyon is reallyall about you,
and thedeeperthetruer,offering
an experiencethatcan feellikeidentitytheft.
Forvisitorswantingmorethansnapshots,therefore,
sort
signageofa different
be
those
who
descend
may
never
climb
out.
might posted:
That is, any receptiveself,descending,wont be the selfthat ascends.
Being contextualizedby millions of years made stone will work changes in
such a person. For some, thatalterationis considerable.Lifelongin my case.
Day afterincomparableday spent inhalinggeological time graduallyled me
to see everything
and furtheracceleratedmyfallintoknowledge.
differently
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
Way back in 1794,a geo-theologiannamed RichardKirwan firedoffa critical
blastat JamesHutton'sTheoryoftheEarthforclaimingEarthto be unimaginablyold. Like our present-daycreationists,Kirwantook Genesis literally;thus
he argued thatHutton'stheorynot only contradictsscripture,it threatensall
religionand morality and he added thatit hurlshumankindinto deeps of
geologicaltime"fromwhich human reason recoils."
Hutton,called by an admirer"the man who inventedtime,"was a deist
who certainlybelieved in a Creatorbut ruefullypredictedthatEarthstrueage
would produce cultureshock:
butafter
Itisnotanypartoftheprocessthatwillbe disputed;
allowing
all theparts,thewholewillbe denied;and forwhat?-onlybecause
oftimewhichtheablution
wearenotdisposedtoallowthatquantity
ofso muchwastedmountainmightrequire.6
Time'squantity?Even today,to use Kirwan'sword,we "recoil."
Arrivingat theGrandCanyon fromChicago,Japan,Hungary,Savannah,
we do justthat.Gazing
England,Switzerland,Kansas City,France,or wherever,
own
into itsdepthswe feelourselvesmissingfromour
planet.
"When I was a child,"wroteSt.Paul, "I spoke likea child,I thoughtlikea child,
I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childishways."
So true.As a child I was the handiworkof a god. Was even made in that
deity'simage,and along witheverybodyelse was the be-all and end-all of
creation.How much more importantcan you get?Yetno sooner had I grown
up than my statusplummetedto thatof just anothernano-speck adriftin a
wildernessofstars- because ofmyfall.When Adam and Eve fell,at least God
and his fiery-sword-wielding
angels hung around ever after.
But notforwillfulones like me. Thus I had to watchwhile nine flavorsof
bouquet ofblessedsaints,theworld-mothering
angels,theentirefloral-scented
Madonna, and heavens trio of deities slowlymelted froma suitablypastelvoid. So much forSky City.Unlike
colored cloud to the black of interstellar
one mistakenlydisillusionedyoung Englishman,however,I didn'treel from
ale shop to ale shop claimingDarwin'sOn theOriginofSpecieshad destroyed
vol.i
inHistory,
Geikie's
inSirArchibald
Hutton's
Landscape
6.Ascitedfrom
Theory
oftheEarth
and
Macmillan Co.,1905),
137.
(NewYork:
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
21
mylife.Still,when the centerofyourworld drops out . . . well,thatdoes take
some adjusting.
Afterthe Almightyevaporated on me, I must admit that- human ills
than
aside- natureand the universeitselfbegan to seem farmore interesting
Without
a
the
worlds
orisome All-Everything
supernatural.
presidingdeity,
fascinating.
ginand raisonďétre,ifany,became- and remains- inexhaustibly
the
finite
reach
of
human
as
the
unknowable
so
thought
Nothing challenges
depthand breadthof all we belong to. Even myneutrino-sizeunimportance
withinitacquiredthefreakygrandeurofbeingthatradicallydwarfed.In short,
ifyou love livinga mysteryas I do, alive is the place to be.
On thedown side,however,myfallentailedmorethantheloss ofCloud
Nine. It caused the unimaginablescale of cosmic immensityto shrinkme to
a geometricalpoint having location but no magnitude- quite a comedown
fromonce being watchedover by angels,by all the saints in heaven, and by
a three-personGod. Still,forgoingmy postmortemflightto Paradise wasn't
nearlyso hard to handle as was facingup to a human world in which those
who endure unspeakable pain, squalor, or crushinginjusticecan expect no
otherworldlyredress,ever.Triggeredby the terriblehelplessnesswe feel in
the presenceof greatsuffering,
the impulse to beg divine interventionforles
miserablesexplainswhyour polytheistancestorsfeltyou can neverhave too
manygods. One foreveryoccasion seems littleenough.
My psychothèrapistfriendCharles Proudfittells me there'ssuch a thingas
existentialdepression.And how not?The cataclysmicrandomnessof sidereal
collisions,black holes, starhatcheries,and supernovaexplosionsgoing on all
thetimein thesoul-numbingvastitudessurroundingus can shade anyhuman
"Whats thepointofwriting?As faras
enterprisewiththegray-scaleoffutility.
thatgoes,whydo anything?"Which is whyanylifeworthlivingmustcontain
somethingof greatvalue thatwe know isn'tthere.
Meanwhile,swimmingin cosmicallydeep waterswithouta lifepreserver
adds more than a touch of adventureto any existence- providedwe understandthat'swherewe are and whatwe are doing. Given thecombined mass of
inanimatematterin theuniverse,our merelybeingaliveand aware,and neither
on firenor in a black hole, means each of us is, as the astrophysicists
put it,in
"a highlyimprobablestate."I love thatwording.It feelsso much more elegant
than"abnormal."In fact,itfeelslikea promotion.Yetthereremains,in relation
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22
THE GEORGIA REVIEW
to "the world,"an inevitable"Why is thereone?" That insuppressiblypesky
"Why?"is how,aftermyfallintoknowledge,I came to discoverastrotheology.
- were
What's more, if- howeverbriefly
among the vanishinglysmall
percentof matterthathas consciousness,we may as well pay attention.But
consciousness is no lifejacket either,and stayingafloatin watersunfathomably deep isn'tforthe faintof heart.As to the point of it all, must therebe
one? Besides, arent "thepoint of it all" and "meaningful"reallysynonymsfor
"payday"?As ifdoingyourbest,lifelong,both to understandwherewe are and
whatwe are weren'tplentymeaningfulenough.
Admittedly,thereare sad afternoonswhen nothingworks and reality
feelstoo true to be good. As anodyne forwatchingmy loftiestthoughtsget
downsized to the heightof a dust mite,I sometimeswelcome even the desperatecomfortof Pascal. He felthimselfpitifullyfiniteand daunted by existthe microscopicallysmall and the
ing betweenwhathe called "twoinfinities,"
astronomicallylarge.Yet he reasoned thus: "Though the universecrush him,
man is noblerthantheforcesthatkillhim. He understandshis mortalnature,
whereasthe universeknows nothingof it."
but quite a cut above thumbsuckingor Linus
Hardlya hip-hip-hooray,
blanket.The era is long past when our species can fattenself-esteembybelieving its own publicity,yeta modest, astrophysicalexcuse forchest thumping
does remain available. Owing to the subtle intricaciesof the phenomenon
called life,the lowliestlivingcritteramong us, even a gnat,is more complex
than the sun thatbegot it.
Factorhuman intelligenceintothe comparison,and the assertiongrows
all the truer.Each thoughtfulperson who possesses so much as a vague sense
of our location between Pascals infinitiesis a more considerablespeck than
all the mindlesslyblazing matterin the universe.
If, however,we put our consciousness to no betteruse than getting
throughthe day,we'veignoredthe chance of a lifetime,unmindfulthatbeing
hereand alive is theone strangestthingthatcan everhappen. Consideringthe
innumerablegalaxies overheadand underfooteverylivingmoment,our very
ennui is weird.Actually,our mayflylongevitymakes boredom a left-handed
mercy,enablingthe illusionwe live a long time.Surrealism?Thatwas just an
artmovement,whereas,rightlyseen,each ofus is a walking,talkingsurrealist.
Because the ultimatetruthof our cosmic contextremainsunknown,we can
nevertrulybe who we are nor wherewe are.
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REG SANER
23
My own favoritemomentsforlettingthatsurrealityhappen come while
facingsunrises.Justwatchingthesuns bubble ascend putsme,body and soul,
in a cosmos. However,thedualityin everything
means thatthemostgorgeous
betweenthe suns longevityand mine,
of dawns doesn'tlessen the difference
Thatsame dualitysuppliesmyawarenessthatour
just lightensitwonderfully.
fusion
at heartwithan opposite realization:I owe it
has
nuclear
daystar
only
everything-includingmysadness at knowingit,too, is mortal.
Occasionallyat sunrise,to geteven betterperspectiveon myself,I swap
stance
on the mesa slope near myhouse forone on the sun. Afloaton the
my
surfaceof its photosphereI look back toward Earths pinprickof shine, not
quite swallowedup bytheblacknessofspace, and wish otherscould sharethe
view.
Not onlythat.I once brieflybelievedthatifon some miraculousday we
humansfullyfacedand accepted our actual situation,we d takebettercare of
our planetand each other.I know.Its stillmyfavoritefantasythatwon t happen,but,as thesong says,"I can dream,can'tI?" So, whilestandingon thesun
and lookingtowardEarth,I occasionallyimagine,despitehumanity'scheckered past and presentflaws,thatmywishfulfigmentmayone day be realized.
Therewell be, all ofus, companionablyridingour planetstinybrightness,
and
out
into
the
of
gazingsilently
question questions.
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.228 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions