Confessions of a Closet Darwinist

I’m a no big fan of science. My unscientific state of mind can be traced back all the way from high school. I must say I hated all science subjects, and biology was on top of the ranking. I was a lazy student alright and I’m not exactly proud about it. If you are interested to know why I cursed biology to the bones, it is this: I just can’t fathom the fact how biology could help me land a job in the near future when all we did in class is to cut open an innocent frog and memorize its body parts to pass the exam. In all fairness, my esteemed biology teacher Mrs.B. (and may she rest in peace) cannot be faulted why I was never a diligent student in her class. I was destined to be that way. Or to put it in a scientific perspective, I guess it was all part of my own evolution as a thinking person.

I regret never to have religiously studied the rudiments of biology in high school. It could have been a lot easier to understand what I have been reading and digesting all these years. As I dabbled with philosophy, studied esoteric ideas of great men who left a significant mark in the annals of history, strangely it was in the arena of science, biology in particular, that I came to know my newest hero. His name is Charles Darwin, the influential English naturalist who wrote this gigantic book, The Origin of Species.

Beyond the notion of frog-hunting, it was in my high school biology class when I first heard the name Charles Darwin. Back then, I pictured him merely as one of those typical textbook scientists famous for some weird scientific ideas and discoveries of his day. When I first heard my biology class teacher explaining in general how evolution by natural selection works, I was surprisingly in awe of its beauty and elegance. Just imagine how simple life forms could develop over long periods of time into increasingly complex creatures that we see today and you’ll get the entire picture. Maybe Darwin was right after all, at least scientifically. Evolution by natural selection seemed to be the most plausible natural process to explain why there are vast array of plants and animals on our planet. Given sufficient time with life-permitting conditions in our environment, who knows what the natural outcome might be, right? Anything seems possible. Nothing is static. Everything is susceptible to change. When we observe things around us that appear to be purposeless, or when we bellowed at the freaks of nature featured in the Discovery Chanel, the theory of evolution seem to fit perfectly in the grand scheme of the natural world.

Initially, my unscientific mind was willing to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. Not until, Darwin went further and introduced the idea that you and me share a common ancestor with apes. I was appalled by his claim. I felt disgusted to know that I’m just another animal species roaming this part of the jungle. Wandering around, preying on others. I know then that as a teenager I exhibited some kind of animalistic tendencies, especially towards the opposite sex. Touché! But who would have thought that science has a different view. A view that would make this supposed impish behaviour perfectly natural and normal. True enough, my ignorance in the realm of science made me wonder if Darwin could have been insane or something when he introduced this ludicrous idea that human beings came from the same common ancestor as the apes. If at all he was sane I said to myself, Darwin was simply guessing or playing hunches on this one. After all, the theory of evolution by natural selection is just a theory. And just like any other scientific theory floating around, the theory of evolution can never be accepted as a fact unless backed up by provable and well-reasoned explanation.

Growing up as a nominal Christian

I was raised in an Evangelical household, one where you had to be in articulo mortis to skip Sunday service or family devotions. Obviously, I learned to read at a very young age because our shelves were stacked with Christian literature, mostly bible story books for kids. The “Creation Week” in the Book of Genesis had to be one of my favorite bible stories. I was certain that I understood the Bible correctly: God created all living creatures, including human beings, in their present form during the six-day period known as “Creation Week.” The Bible did not say that these creatures, like the animal species have evolved over long periods of time, from less advanced life forms to complex ones. God created dogs as dogs, cats as cats no more no less! I could not imagine, not even in my wildest dreams that human beings are not special creations from a supernatural being whom we call God. The Darwinist view that human beings could have merely descended from the same common ancestor as the apes is simply preposterous. We are special creations. Human beings are created with a purpose. Despite my rudimentary knowledge on biology, I concluded that science limps as it walks on the issue of origin. No one, not even Charles Darwin and his ilk, could ever explain how it all began in the first place.

At the back of my mind however, something bothered me tremendously with what Charles Darwin is saying. My sudden three-hundred-sixty degree turnaround could hardly be considered intellectually-based or anything. I guess even if someone could present me with rock-solid evidence to support evolution, still I would suspend my judgment at that time. I would remain adamant and will refuse to accept it as a fact. I would go even further and label it as the work of the devil. I was fearful of Darwin’s theory because of its simple yet striking implication on the meaning of life. Although not a boxing enthusiast, I can tell that Darwin had just delivered a one-knockout punch, the heaviest blow unleashed against what I perceived to be an untouchable opponent. Looking back, my dismissive attitude was perhaps a smokescreen designed to conceal whatever reservations and doubts I had concerning one of the central dogmas of my faith─ the biblical story of creation. Ultimately my puerile mentality has something to do with the kind of intellectual laziness that most Christians are endowed: I know the Bible is true because it’s the Bible!

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a theologian to grasp why the theory of natural selection would be so controversial. From the time Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 to this day, the debate continues. The once already volatile relationship between science and religion became more intense and defined with the theory of origin of species out in public. If new creatures are created by natural process, what is left for God, the creator of the universe? If evolution is true, then the biblical account in Genesis that human beings have descended from Adam and Eve is false.

So where do I stand between these two seemingly opposing views? My mind tells me to follow the trail of evidence wherever it may lead. In my years of personal study, research and discourses with people of different stripes, I come to the conclusion that evolution is fairly acceptable. Evolution is not a myth invented by some lunatic scientist who simply wants to take God out of the picture. Evolution is more than just a “theory” it is a fact, a scientific fact. When science uses the word “theory,” it means “explanation.” Creationists, perhaps overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit, are of the notion that “theory” is synonymous with, “I’m not quite sure about it, that’s why I call it a theory.” Perhaps a simple illustration would suffice to repair this misconception. If evolution is false because it is just a theory then almost all great scientific discoveries would be false either. A cell would not exist because scientists allude to a “theory” called the Cell Theory to explain the subtleties of living cells. How about the Atomic Theory, a theory that teaches us the behaviour of atoms, does it mean that atoms do not exist? Likewise, the Theory of Evolution provides the blueprint for evolution and explains how its process and mechanism work.

Evolution and the Creation story

What is evolution anyway? Let me begin by saying that Charles Darwin did not invent evolution, he merely noticed it. In simplest terms, evolution is defined as the gradual accumulation of functional adaptations. In order for evolution to work successfully, three essentials are needed (1) time (2) genetic variety among offspring and (3) a mechanism for preserving only beneficial variation. Thus, from a simple life form, an organism can develop into a complex creature. Evolution basically posits that organisms change through time. Then it proceeds through the branching of common descent. Given enough time, changes within a species can accumulate into large changes that create new species or an increasing number of new species. The primary mechanism of evolution is of course Natural Selection. If natural selection is the process from which organisms are indebted for survival or extinction, what place then for a Designer? We must understand that natural selection is not a force but a description of a process. It shows us how the process works. There is no intelligent force behind the “selection” of organisms, there are no conscious choices involved in the process. In order to survive and reproduce in a given environment, one must have the right qualities (adaptations) superior than those of other species in the animal kingdom. Mammals like us are not here by chance. Neither are we here by random selection. We are what we are because we are naturally selected to live and experience life to the fullest.

It is my view that the evolutionary theory and the biblical story of creation are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true at the same time. One must stand out as fact and the other as a myth. They cannot be harmonized. Either you accept the literal truth of the “Creation Week” or distort the text of Genesis to accommodate scientific truths. Religious-minded individuals, whether they are Muslims or Christians, would bend high and low just to defend the truthfulness of the “holy book.” Because the Bible (or the Qur’an for that matter) is deemed to be the word of God, any doubts as to its veracity is unacceptable. The holy book, as they say, will forever be true to its word. Again, I could hear the fallacious dictum “I know the Bible is true because it’s the Bible” stinging my ears. The premise is quite simple: the creation story, one of the central dogmas of the Christian faith, is to be taken literally therefore, the theory evolution is a myth. What then is the staid response of the” righteous” in the face of rock-solid scientific evidence against a sacred dogma of faith? Obviously, they resort to all kinds of interpretations, patching loopholes one from the other. Rattled by an obnoxious idea that would offend their religious sensibilities, some would choose to accept every word of the Bible as literally true. The religious-literalists believe that since God created all life forms during a brief period known as the “Creation Week,” dinosaurs, gorillas and human beings walked the earth hand in hand together. As any avid student of science would know, this interpretation directly contradicts scientific evidence like the fossil records found in the geologic column. However despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution, fundamentalists are determined to undermine science by making it appear than no conflict exists between the two domains. But believe me, a stark conflict does exist. If evolution says that we’re all descended from a common ancestor as apes, would someone in his right mind say that it sounded like Adam and Eve? If God created us in His own image would you then conclude that God looks like an ape? Or perhaps He is an omnipotent ape? If you happen to be a religious-minded mammal, why not pick up a basic science textbook from your dusty shelves. Try flipping the pages and compare it with the wordings of the Book of Genesis. I’m sure you would be surprised with what you’re about to discover.

Dabbling with Intelligent Design

In the spirit of fairness, let us not single out one interpretation. It would be unfair to discredit the Book of Genesis by selective observation; the good book after all deserves a fair treatment in the marketplace of ideas. How about if we shun from the literal reading of the creation story, what would be the alternative? Perhaps because the evolutionary theory is widely accepted in the science community as fact, religious-minded individuals tend to be more liberal these days. In the Christian community as well as in the academic circles, a group of respected Evangelical intellectuals emerge as the vanguards of modern Christian thinking. This group is popularly known as the Intelligent Design Movement (ID for brevity). ID advocates believe that not every word of the Bible is literally true. Ergo, while the miracles of Jesus Christ in the New Testament are to be interpreted literally, the Book of Genesis should be understood in its metaphorical sense. So in a way if the literalists distort science to reconcile with Genesis, ID on the other hand distorts Genesis to make it harmonize with modern science. To some extent, ID accepts evolution to be true in so far as variations within plants and animals are concerned. Or when a strain of bacteria acquires immunity from antibiotic or rats acquire immunity to a particular type of poison, ID theorist concede that evolution is a fact. But as we know Darwin did not stop there. He goes hundred miles further by claiming that life began millions of years ago with simple cell creatures. And through mutation and natural selection, these simple cell organisms developed into complex creatures we see around today, including us. While ID advocates undeniably agree that micro-scale evolution has factual and scientific underpinnings, they disagree on one significant detail that could possibly account for life’s complexity. Quite similar to the argument raised by theologian William Paley more than centuries ago, ID intellectuals believe that some adaptations are too complex that could not have come about gradually through natural selection (e.g. the cellular evolution).

The gist of ID’s theory is that the vast majority of adaptations could have come about by Darwinian natural selection and only a small minority appears to be intelligently designed. In his book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin made a daring admission,” If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down.” Microbiologist Michael Behe, one of the leading progenitors of ID, took the challenge and published the critically-acclaimed book Darwin’s Black Box. In response to Darwin’s challenge, Behe offered recent biochemical discoveries that would show that Darwin was partially wrong with his theory. A case in point is the Cell. A cell, according to ID theorists, appears to be “irreducibly complex” in its structure which could not have been the result of Darwinian natural selection. I’m not a scientist but here’s how Behe’s argument works. Let us suppose that a cell has four parts and removal of any one of them will cause the cell to die. Now since all parts is indispensable to the operation of the cell no one of them could have come about in gradual stages until the other four were in place. Thus, the cell could not have evolved at all because the appearance of that cell requires that all four parts to be gradually evolving before the cell could work. From there, ID theorists felt that they have just debunked Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, after all the efforts to come up with a plausible scientific explanation on Nature’s complexity, ID intellectuals bolted out from the scientific world and preferred to take the supernatural route. Since there are no available scientific explanation to account for these “irreducible complex” adaptations, ID theorists assume that an Intelligent Designer might be the answer. Could the Intelligent Designer be the God of the Bible? Because ID presumably operates in the arena of science with a tinge of theology, ID intellectuals are careful enough not to mention the word “God” in any of their books. They insist with all their might that ID is science-based rather than pseudo-scientific.

It could have been an astounding scientific discovery had Behe offered a scientific alternative for Darwinism. Instead ID took a big leap from science all the way to theology, from natural to the supernatural. At this point, Intelligent Design has voluntarily unmasked itself, and exposed what their movement is really all about. Some religious fundamentalist labelled them as a “cult” for butchering settled religious doctrines, secular scientists mocked at them for their pseudo-scientific theories.

I think that the rise of ID movement in the academic circles has something to do with the recurring criticisms against the Church. (Here I'm referring to organized religions founded on a monotheistic belief-system.) From the time of Galileo to the publication of Darwin’s book on evolution until today, the Church has been accused of intolerance towards science. (Dan Brown’s best-selling novel Angels and Demons sheds light on the perceived "traditional" war between science and religion.) The ID movement in recent years has published scholarly materials in an attempt to merge religious dogmas and scientific truths. I myself have been a vociferous reader of Intelligent Design literature, books authored by scientists M. Behe and W. Dembski. I enjoyed their books a lot because of the intellectual satisfaction I get. Clearly, these ID intellectual giants illuminated my mind on the intersection of science and religion. ID restored my faith that not all religious-minded mammals are dumb. Still I wish Christians should spend more time reading books of the same calibre and throw away all their non-sense praise-the-lord antics in the garbage bin. But despite the smokescreen and euphemisms hidden in the façade of ID, It is my view that the fulcrum from which ID arguments stand is more akin to theology rather than pure modern science. This is problematic because as they go along with their brand of science, ID proponents end up perverting the Book of Genesis and possibly the Bible itself.

Reconciling belief in God and Darwinian Evolution

I accept evolution as much as I believe in God. I subscribe to Darwinism as much as I believe in “Creationism.” If science has proven that human beings descended from a common ancestor as apes then so be it. If science has proven that living organisms are but a product of natural selection sans intervention of the supernatural, then by all means, bring it on! But let me point out one important observation: the theory of evolution does not belie the existence of a Creator. Neither does it say that evolution can explain life’s origin. Whether evolution is true or not, it does not in any way affect my belief that there is a Creator somewhere looking at the universe.

I do not agree that if someone accepts evolution he then becomes an atheist. Evolution does not necessarily imply atheism or the belief that there is no God. At the very least, Darwinian evolution will force someone to step back, take off his mythological blinders and look at the scientific evidence more carefully. But religion has its way of discrediting Darwinian evolution. Of course, if evolution claims that life began in the primordial soup of life then human beings are nothing but the “outcome of mindless collocation of atoms.” Consequently, defenders of the faith are quick to point out that with Darwinism as a dogma, morality is jettisoned because human beings are devoid of any transcendent cause from which to ground their objective moral law. In other words, and let me be frank about this, acceptance of Darwinism if taken to its logical conclusion causes a person to be immoral. Let me put it in a logical way: Evolution implies that there is no God, (which I do not agree) therefore belief in the theory of evolution leads to atheism. Without a belief in God there can be no morality therefore human beings will be reduced into visceral animals. To the uninitiated, religious-minded individuals in particular, if acceptance of evolution leads to immorality why bother looking at the technical details of science? Why waste your time trying to understand about Cambrian explosion, the fossils records, and all the intricacies that science has to offer? It’s enough that Christian apologists have persuasively linked Darwinian evolution with the towering monsters of the 20th century namely Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Indeed, if evolution is synonymous with moral degeneration who would want to subscribe to such a view of human destruction? But this is a misunderstanding. The evolutionary theory is not a dogma, not even a worldview that seeks to explain the “why” questions. It is my humble view that Darwinian evolution as a scientific explanation has little to say on the issue of origin much less on morality and meaning. In fact, even Charles Darwin in his time was not quite sure what to say on the issue of origin all he could offer was a brave speculation, a scientific guess how life came to be in this planet. So let us not burden ourselves by putting up the historical ramifications of Social Darwinism to disprove evolution. The fears and apprehensions echoed in the pulpit of these hallowed churches have nothing to do whether evolution is true or not. Like in the courts of law, the scientific evidence for evolution must be weighed on its own merits. If you think that acceptance of a scientific view will challenge your faith in God then think again. I mean does it really bother you what process He used to create life? If He so decides to let nature take its course would you abandon your faith just because science offers a natural explanation of the process? C’mon! Think again.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, science in a way cemented my faith in God. Evolution by natural selection does not disprove or diminish God’s awesome powers. In fact the reverse is true. Darwinian evolution as a scientific view of the natural world illuminates the grandeur of God’s works as the great architect of the entire universe. Let us not shy away from science simply because of its age-old association with atheism. Believers must embrace science for what it is and what it’s capable of in the same way “legit” theologians embrace their theology warts and all. (Most pastors of Evangelical churches these days are not exactly theologians in the truest sense of the word. Most of them are self-proclaimed preachers whose only pedigree is guts!) In the best-selling book The Language of God, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a Christian scientist and head of the Human Genome Project explicated on the relationship of faith and science: Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul, and the mind must find away to embrace both realms.

We all fear what we do not understand. Most people know little about evolution. Some refuse to talk about it because of its moral implication. Others somehow do not think that evolution would likely affect their lives. Whatever their motives are, let me say that the greatest threat against faith is not science but IGNORANCE. Case closed. Closet opened. Whalah! I am a Darwinist!


References from my personal library:

Atheist Universe by David Mills
Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

Why Evil and Suffering Matter

“If there is no God, why is there so much good? If there is a God, why is there so much evil?” Augustine

In early 2004, my father was diagnosed of lung cancer. Being the optimist that he was and a lover of life, he fought hard to survive. After a series of tedious chemotherapy and other high-prized medication, still, there was no showing of positive signs to recovery. His doctor, who often assured us of his greater chances of survival, now seemed hopeless when my father had not responded to his medication the way he expected. We were stunned to see our father’s deteriorating condition. We can feel the pangs of his ordeal. But knowing that he had always been a robust fighter, he never complained nor blamed anyone for his condition. We on the other hand, the watchers, are the impatient ones. We can’t seem to understand what was happening. No amount of medical explanation could ease our worries. But my father, with Bible on hand, kept on assuring us that God would rescue us from this unfortunate event. “I will be healed,” he said more than couple of times. And all of us just can’t hold back our emotions. We were teary-eyed in the hospital room, all trying our best to conceal our weaknesses. I believe it was his Christian faith that led him all throughout his suffering. The longer we stayed in the hospital, the stronger his faith grew. Reality however bits really hard. His insurmountable faith was not solely enough to keep him alive. If only we had millions to sustain his medication, I guess my father would have never stopped fighting. But at some point, we need to decide as a family. Until finally, perhaps seeing the hopelessness of the medication with coffers almost empty, he simply uttered, “I just want to go home.” As painful and frustrating as it was, we had no choice but to grant his wish. And so off we go. And soon, off he went.

My father lasted only a month after we left Manila. While the sun was about to rise for the rest of us, it was already setting down for him. I can still remember that dawn when my aunt called me only to break the saddest news of all: Papang is gone! Those exact words still haunt me up to this day. The news of my father’s demise loosened all emotions kept inside. Afterall, it was I who was with him in every inch of his ordeal. And his strength made me feel strong too. Not until that day. My chest was on the brink of explosion. Tears were endlessly flowing as if wanting to wash away the grief that owned my every limb. The pain was unbearable if not excruciating. Papang was no longer here to comfort his little Pey. I felt lost like a little child. But I am a child no more and Papang would not want to see me this way. It was indeed difficult to clear my thoughts then but I tried hard enough to hang on desperately and rationalize everything as part of reality. On board the airplane heading home, questions lingered on my mind. “Why did something like this has to happen?” And I began to question the purpose of pain and suffering in this world, “C’mon God, my father served the ministry whole heartedly yet you took him away from us, what in the name of reason is that?” It was by far the unhappiest flight of my life. For the duration of that flight all I ever did was to control my tears and emotions. Yet tears just kept on flowing incessantly and there was no way I could have stop it. Only Papang could stop it. As the in-flight attendants were busy with their chores smiling at every passenger while serving refreshments, there I was languishing with the thought that my father was gone─ gone forever!

Years later as I witness a friend so devastated with the tragic death of his mother, killed in a car accident, an officemate whose child is stricken with an incurable disease, a mendicant afflicted with leprosy, I can’t help but sympathize with their predicament. I’m sure as human beings they too asked the same age-old existential question: If there is a loving God then why is there so much suffering in the world?

Before going into the heart of the matter, let me just dabble a bit with the philosophical aspect of the problem of evil and suffering in general and try to decimate whatever intellectual reservations you might have concerning this existential issue. For purposes of clarity however I shall be using moral and natural evil interchangeably. In any case, let me remind the reader that even in philosophical realm of argumentation God is not expendable.

The Intellectual Problem of Evil

What is evil in the first place? Evil in simple terms is a departure of what is “ought” to be. For evil to exists, goodness too must exist. Evil therefore is not something that has an existence on its own rather it is a corruption of that which already exists. To illustrate, tooth decay can only exist if the tooth exists. As Christian philosopher Norman Geisler notes, “Evil is like a wound in an arm or moth-holes in a garment. “But I must hasten to note that to say evil has no existence of its own is not the same as saying that evil is an illusion or unreal. Evil is the corruption of something good, that is to say “it is not an actual entity but a real corruption in an actual entity.” Thus, it stands to reason that evil is real and suffering is a conspicuous form of evil.

The problem of evil and suffering arises because God claims to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good yet evil exists. Let us focus on the two divine attributes namely, God being all-powerful and all-good. At first blush, common sense can easily point out the logical contradiction of these claims. How can God be all-good when there is so much evil and suffering in the world? Consequently, if He is held to be all-powerful then certainly to defeat evil is effortless yet the opposite seems to be true, evil never cease to exist. To reconcile the three concepts is almost logically unsound because either you have to deny any of the three concepts exists or modify the concepts altogether to achieve consistency. How then should we respond to such overwhelming evidence of suffering and evil while at the same time keeping God in the picture? Famous skeptic David Hume raised the possibility that the Biblical God does not exist in this scathing manner: Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing whence then is evil? The perceived logical contradiction of the divine attributes with the existence of evil stems from an erroneous appreciation of concepts. What does it mean when we say God is all-powerful? I think it is here where the questioner attempts to explain everything away just to make his point. By all-powerful, most skeptics think that God can do everything and anything. But “omnipotence,” at least from the theistic sense, is not to be understood as “omnivolitional,” meaning God can will anything. If that be the case then God can will himself into extinction. God can will himself to make mistakes. So if we are trying to achieve coherence, then we must avoid contradiction to make the assertion logically valid and truthful. Thus, “omnipotence” does not mean that God can do everything. It only means God can do anything that which is possible. Anything that which is meaningful. He can’t make squares circles because the analogy poses mutual exclusivity. As Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, “God can do everything that is meaningful, everything that is possible, and everything that makes sense at all. God cannot make himself cease to exist. He cannot make good evil.” To say that God is all-powerful, and that includes the power to make mistakes, is to create a self-contradiction. If we seek coherence on the divine attributes of God, I think the problem is not with God's nature or character but the validity of the question itself.

Viewed in this context, it would make a fool out of God to bestow free will upon human beings with no possibility of moral evil. Imagine a world without pain and suffering and we will end up like robots for we would not have the capacity to make choices and freely love. But is it correct to say that God is the creator of evil? To say that evil is a product of creation is to say that evil can exists on its own. “No, he (God) created the possibility of evil: people actualized that potentiality,” said Kreeft in the best-selling book The Case for Faith. “The source of evil is not God’s power but mankind’s freedom. Even an all-powerful God could not have created a world in which people had genuine freedom and yet there was no potentiality of sin, because freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning. It’s a self-contradiction, a meaningless nothing, to have a world where there’s real choice while at the same time no possibility of choosing evil.” As one noted Biblical scholar put it, “Evil is inherent in the risky gift of free will.” Therefore, the claim that God is all-powerful is in fact logically consistent with the existence of evil.

David Hume’s emotion-laden critique of God is a valid one for it touches the heart and soul of human existence. His tirade on the divine attributes of God represents our own hidden presuppositions on the mystery of evil and suffering vis a vis the existence of a loving God. The terrorist attack in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 or the occurrence of the Nazi holocaust seems to validate Hume’s thesis. Where was God when Hitler committed genocide or when Stalin murdered his own people all for the sake of power? If indeed there is a God, and he is what he claims to be, these atrocities would have not happened. But let us pause and analyze the core of this existential question. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Here for the sake of argument Hume impliedly accepted God to be all-powerful and has shifted his critique on God’s character to demonstrate contradiction. If He is all-powerful then certainly He cannot be called all-good for refusing to prevent evil. Thus, since laws of logic dictate that contradictions cannot be true at the same time, it is therefore logical to conclude that God does not exist. How then should we debunk this type of philosophical word games? Does the abundance of evil and suffering really disprove the existence of an all-loving God? Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias has a unique method, sort of a philosophical judo in dealing with this problem: The existence of God cannot be disproved by introducing the reality of evil and wickedness. Those categories only exist if an absolute moral law exists. And an absolute moral law exists only if God exists. Implicit in the equation of Hume’s critique on God is the smuggled assumption of an absolute moral framework from which he ought to judge God as malevolent if he refuses to wield his power to defeat evil. What was he really saying when he categorized God as malevolent if he is able but not willing to defeat evil? Is he saying that such behavior ‘ought’ not to be good of a God who claims to be all-good? In any of these assertions, Hume has just invoked a moral law in raising the question, a moral law which declares: It would be immoral of God, with all the powers at His disposal, not to prevent evil and suffering in this world. Hume’s critique of God had in fact unearthed his own assumption of an absolute moral law that squarely contradicted his conclusion─ that there is no God. In other words, the abundance of evil and suffering does actually prove the existence of God rather than disproving it. Let me illustrate further on this point. Again I will borrow Dr. Ravi Zacharias’ succinct argument:

When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good. When you say there is such a thing as good you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be a standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil. When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver—the source of the moral law.

The fact of the matter is it is impossible to judge evil from good unless there is an infinite reference point that is supremely good. And it is here that God is indispensable for He alone can exhaust the definition of absolutely good. “If God does not exist,” writes Fyodor Dostoevsky, “everything is permitted.” To categorize Hitler’s actions as evil one must reconsider his assumptions implicit in the statement he is making. If one is to claim that Hitler’s actions as evil can someone also disagree and say that the holocaust is perfectly right? I’m sure someone can but can he validly justify his assumptions that a moral law should be viewed as a matter of taste or personal preference? The answer is no. To call God as ‘malevolent’ for allowing evil things to happen, the questioner must in the first place, show how he has arrived at an absolute moral law from which he anchored his moral critique on God. If he has none then he will end up shooting his own feet by raising the question in the moral context. There’s no other way of doing it and the questioner is trapped with his own assumptions. Man cannot be the measure of everything. Any philosophy that has built its moral structure with the assumption that a transcendent being is expendable finds itself groping in the dark. History is replete with lessons that our judgment on what is right and wrong cannot be trusted. The horrible crimes committed by Hitler and his peers founded on a godless philosophy should alert us that man could never be the measure of an objective moral law. In sum, we could never escape reality that without God as an infinite reference point, there are no moral absolutes from which to distinguish right and wrong. Otherwise “one is like a person on a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass.”

Is there a purpose in allowing evil and suffering? “All is for the best in the best of all possible words,” so said Voltaire in his magnum opus Candide, a satire on misplaced optimism. But is there really an ultimate purpose behind every suffering and evil from the Christian purview? I sincerely believe there is. Albeit our world may not be the best of all possible worlds but it is the best way to the best possible world. Most of us think that because there is so much evil and pain in this world God is not dealing with it at all. At best, God is not finished yet. If He claims to be an all-powerful God then nothing, absolutely nothing is impossible. If He single-handedly created the universe, defeating evil is piece of cake. Popularly stated: If God is all-good, he will defeat evil. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil. Evil is not yet defeated. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil.

The Emotional Problem of Evil

Now that we have confronted the logical problem of evil vis a vis a loving God, let us now deal with the emotional problem of evil. Let us now look at my own existential journey so far and how I responded to it.

In the Christian worldview the problem of evil, pain and suffering is not really a problem. In fact, it is a manifestation of God's awesome character that can be summarized in a single word: love. God created the universe with a pupose. We are not here by accident or by chance chemical reactions as scientist, the so-called "brights" would like us to believe. Thus, evil and suffering must be viewed in the context of God's purposes that give meaning and significance in our lives. Sometimes things appear to be pointless and meaningless. When something bad happens that is beyond human comprehension, we don't seek refuge from philosophical or scientific theories, instead we turn to God for comfort. Then ask him why these horrible things had to happen. What is the ultimate meaning of life. What is the significance of suffering. All of these questions are deeply rooted in our nature as human beings, sort of a reflex, because we are designed to feel and question our existence one time or another.

If God does exist, how can he be called all-good while allowing my father, his faithful servant, to suffer and die? I’m sure someone out there has asked the same question and it never gets old. We could always tell similar stories of personal pain and sorrow. No one could escape this dreadful feeling of losing a loved one. The sad part in life is each and every one of us will have his fair share of pain and suffering. But the hardest part to accept in all of human existence is the fact that we will all die. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. We must understand that from the standpoint of God all is not lost here. Yes it’s true that once a loved one dies the thought of never seeing him again, at least in our lifetime, is the most painful stage of the ordeal. And for sure as we struggle to understand the meaning of a ‘lost’ life God takes his share of the burden and constantly feels our pain. But we must note that God is the author of life and the power to restore it is inherent in His divine authorship. While we may conclude that a life is lost in death, God has a different way of looking at it by restoring life to the one who has ‘lost’ it. “The life that is ‘lost’ is not lost when it is in the hands of the one who made it and sustains it.” I’m sure by now my father is more than happy to know that a life with God in heaven is so much greater than the life lived in flesh.

Few years back, as I witness a close friend so devastated with the tragic death of his mother, killed in a car accident all I could mutter was, “Everything must have a purpose.” I know it was a lame explanation for what had happened but it has to be right? Surely I thought, if death is meaningless then life is meaningless too and vice versa. Be that as it may but how can we, those who are left behind to grief, find meaning in the face of suffering, say death of a loved one? When my father died, the one who suffered the most was his lifelong partner for many years─ my mother. His death made my mom plunge into the depths of depression. Moving forward without him became a day by day struggle. As her children we tried our best to comfort and remind her that all is not lost when Papang died and that we are still here to take care of her, to love her. Of course we knew how unsuccessful we are in comforting her for we could never replace the warmth of his embrace. My father indeed was a tough act to follow.

On my part,I suddenly lost interest in my law studies. My grades went down and my performance in class was gravely affected. Back then, he used to brag that his youngest son was in law school and all that he really wanted after retirement was to see my name in the rolls. Of course, he witnessed how my eldest brother took his oath as a lawyer at the PICC, but my case was a special one. I guess probably because I’m the prodigal bunso in the family. Unfortunately,the big ‘C’ took him away while I was still at the inception of my law studies. It took years before I was able to pull my act altogether.

So where was God amidst the raging storm that struck us? I believe He stood right in the middle. For those who bears the bereavement and must survive the loss of a loved one, God offers utmost comfort and healing. It is here that we Christians can find the ultimate purpose behind our sufferings. In Cries of the Heart, Dr. Ravi Zacharias made this wonderful reminder:

Across history the greatest testimonies of the all-encompassing grace of God have been demonstrated, not as psychological ploys, but because of the real presence of God in the life of one who lives with that pain. God not only gives inner healing and sustenance but the promise that those who have been separated will meet again. Relationships that are made in God never die.

I always cling to that promise that someday, somewhere in heaven our family will be whole again. And believe me, God never fails to fulfill his promises and that makes our relationship with Him so fascinating and real.

Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said that, "Men and Women can endure any amount of suffering as long as they know the why of their existence." Ironically, I have to agree for there is some profound biblical truth in his pronouncement. Belief in God and the commitment to follow Christ makes us resilient amidst overwhelming pain and suffering. Our endurance comes not from the "primieval soup" of life but from the character of God as exemplified in the holy book. The wonder of God's character by allowing His sinless son to be crucified speak of one very important aspect of the problem of evil and suffering; that He can take even the worst of evil and turn it to good ends.

As I revisit the life of my beloved father, I realized what a wonderful life he had lived. Unlike other people, his joy of living does not come from mundane sources like material things or academic pedigree. His, came from God. Happiness to him came handily by serving the Lord through the ministry. While sophisticated philosophers struggled for centuries with existential issues on how to achieve happiness, my father had made it all appear too simple for him. In his epitaph these words are inscribed which best explains his simple yet profound biblical philosophy in life, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

References:
■Zacharias, Ravi K. 2008. The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheist. Zondervan
■Steele, David R. 2008. Atheism Explained. Open Court Publishing Co.
■Strobel, Lee 2000. The Case for Faith. Zondervan
■Rhodes, Ron. 2003 “Tough Question about Evil” in Who Made God (Geisler, Norman and Zacharias, Ravi K. as General Editors) Zondervan

VICTORY STAINED WITH DISHONOR

PROLOGUE

“When a great tree falls,” so said one great American jurist, “we are surprised to see how meager the landscape seems without it.” So are we, denizens of Isabela City with the senseless death of my dear friend, Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo.

Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo was an underrated and often misunderstood political pundit of my hometown. Well spoken, witty and with a razor sharp intellect, Boy Gonz, as friends would call him, could have been the right man to go against the gargantuan tide of abuse and corruption in Isabela City.

Boy was very articulate with his views on local politics. In all our conversations, he consistently displayed his political idealism as he expounds his critique on the whales and minnows occupying top-echelon positions in local government. You may hate his guts, scorn at his peculiar ways, be offended with his candor but at the end of the day you will realize, idealism does not, after all solely belong to the young. And Boy Gonzalo, was exactly that. A man tested by time, his heart was full of idealism that even a million young trapos could not match. Actually, I often tease him that with his age (he was in his 50s), I find it really strange that he still believes in cherished ideals such as meritocracy, idealism and morality as standards for good governance. By now, I quipped, he should be thinking along the lines of trapo politics to get elected as city councilor or whatever. But before I could pound him some more, Boy made a hand gesture signaling me to stop and said, “Pey, I may be a nobody but I would like to leave a legacy for my children before I die.”

Call him a perennial loser in the arena of politics and he would gladly concede. Boy’s fetish to join the political arena could hardly be considered a personal ambition. For the both of us, winning an election is just a bonus. It's the impact that we are making on the voters that counts. But for all his bravado, Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo is a man of faith, a man of substance and strong conviction that decency in public office is not a far fetched dream.

Below is an article that he was working on, an unfinished diary of his political journey in Barangay politics. “Victory Stained with Dishonor” captures in pristine details how politics in my hometown is being conducted at the grassroots of the political spectrum. Here Boy Gonzalo was at his best. Like a resilient fighter, his consistent failures did not deter him from pushing his deep-seated advocacies. He treats every failure as his badge of honor.

I’m reproducing this write-up to serve as a living testament on the extent of corruption in our political system even at the lowest level. But more than anything else of course, I would like to illuminate through this piece the kind of public servant Boy Gonzalo was. Albeit relatively an obscure and undervalued political figure of Isabela City, to this writer Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo stands tallest in the pantheon of principled Basilenos to have walked this earth. Actually right now, I am torn into thinking that with the way things went, our hometown doesn’t deserve a man like him.

I’m forever grateful to have met him, conversed with him and to have drunk tons of coffee with him…And oh, the countless books we have devoured be it on Christian apologetics or Philippine politics. Farewell Brod. As promised, I will not falter from keeping the flame burning!

Below is the reproduction of Boy’s unfinished article...

A friend texted me this message quoting Rizal “to fall with the head high and serene brow is not to fall, it is to triumph. The sad thing is to fall with the stain of dishonor.” Further, he elaborated this statement by a political advocacy that seems to be out of the ordinary: the notion of victory is not to equate winning the elections but to shake the system. Winning if at all, is just a bonus. And here is the stronger statement that became both me and my friend’s advocacy in politics: Run not to win but to educate the electorate. He pushed me to run in the barangay elections. I thought of this quite seriously and found this idea a profound novelty in politics.

Run I did…and lost in the elections with serene brow and head held up high perhaps humbled with the fall but triumphant in my (and my friend’s) advocacy to agitatingly shake the tide of evil practices in politics. Now it’s my friend’s turn to go for it in 2013. But that would be another story.

How did I shake the political system? It wasn’t exactly shaking the system but courageously unnerving voters who sell their votes and denouncing political adversaries who were blatantly practicing the usual heinous practice of vote-buying during the campaign.

I ran alone as councilman of my barangay. Not exactly the best of ideas to drum up support or teamwork from fellow candidates within a party system. But more than that, I also prepared my own package of realizable programs for my barangay. I knew I had the necessary credentials to get elected being a former consultant of an ex-mayor, a co-proponent in successfully pushing for the cityhood of my town and a former lecturer of righteous governance in the barangay level. Running alone was my way to escape the company of traditional politicians (trapo candidates swamped even in the barangay level). I knew they were also my target of my so-called shakening. Since barangay elections were free from any political parties, I could just insert myself with any groups holding campaign rallies.

In one rally that I got invited, I detonated a fiery speech mincing no words condemning rampant vote-buying and criticizing incumbents who were only getting their honorarium as barangay officials but were constant absentees in barangay sessions. “Are these the kind of leaders we elected? Bato-bato sa langit, ang tamaan, bukol. There are no vote buyers if there are no vote sellers I screamed.” I was telling the hard truth but then I also realize truth was a very unlikely product to be salable to people. I was paddling against the wave of “normal” campaigning by stirring and shaking the electorate’s ears. My speech also unnerved other candidates that suddenly I had political enemies.

Besides campaigning as honest as I can, I went out of my way to lecture SK candidates about keeping the campaign within legal bounds and never resort to vote-buying. I thought this was a good strategy also of courting the votes of parents while educating these young candidates. If elected, I also volunteered that I was going to be a working partner and guidepost to whoever was the winning SK chairman in the barangay council.

Anyway, why did I lose? I made it very clear to the constituents of my barangay that I was a candidate who would not give, pay, and buy votes to win. The program of giving and helping would come after the elections, not during the campaign.

When the results of the elections came in, barangay folks began whispering that those who mostly won were the ones who gave rice, money, sardines and other food stuffs. A winning candidate for barangay kagawad was overhead that she spent close to P100,000 for vote buying purposes. Another candidate disposed off 35 sacks of NFA rice packed in 2 kilos for every voter using a religious practice of sadaca as a vote buying tool. The familiar corrupt perverted idea “kung wala kang pera, wag ka ng tumakbo” basically means “kung wala kang perang pambili ng boto, wag ka ng tumakbo” which nefarious candidates would never admit in public. Take note of the word “nefarious” to distinguish from some other honest candidates who ran for public office.

The day before Election Day is considered as a non-campaign day. However, many candidates resorted to “kamang” which literally means to crawl. Scrupulous candidates were “crawling” at night from house to house giving away rice and money. A neighbor confided me the next morning that two candidates came knocking to his house at midnight to give rice. A candidate was seen with a short sidearm tugged in his hips. There goes the gun ban blatantly violated.

Another sinister strategy that has become rampantly unchecked is flying voters. Many of my known voters came to me complaining that someone already voted in their stead. A certain stooge of a candidate would offer bribe money to a voter. To ensure the voter would really vote for the stooge’s candidate, the voter would pretend he is illiterate and that an assistor of the stooge would “assist” the voter to fill up the ballot. Thereafter, the voter gets paid the bribe money by the stooge.

NB: Pictures courtesy of LOVE ISABELA at http://www.facebook.com/loveisabela

FEATURED ARTICLE: PRIVACY AND THE BAN ON CONTRACEPTIVES

The author, Atty.Ernani Diaz Bonoan, is an alumnus of Silliman University. He is currently a practicing lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro City.

In my previous article I posit the view that reproductive freedom is a protected right under the right to liberty of the due process clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution). Equally relevant on the issue of reproductive freedom is the right to privacy of each individual whether married or single. This is so because right to privacy is rooted on the concept of liberty as well. In the words of a learned jurist: “Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.” Privacy, moreover, covers reproductive freedom “for if privacy is to mean anything it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” (Eisenstadt vs. Baird [405 US 438]).

One of the cherished rights protected by our Constitution is the right to privacy or the right to be let alone. While not explicitly mentioned in our Constitution, its existence is recognized in our jurisdiction. In the Philippine judicial landscape, this right was articulated in the leading case of Morfe vs. Mutuc (G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968). Following the trodden path of its American counterpart, our own Supreme Court acknowledged that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that create a zone of privacy. The Court, citing the seminal case of Griswold vs. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 [1965]), quoted with approval the following disquisition of Justice Douglas thus:

"Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."'

After referring to various American Supreme Court decisions, Justice Douglas continued: "These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition is a legitimate one."

The Griswold case invalidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an unconstitutional invasion of the right of privacy of married persons; rightfully it stressed "a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." It has wider implication though. The constitutional right to privacy has come into its own. So it is likewise in our jurisdiction. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
Indeed, the Court acknowledged that the “right to be left alone” is “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Consequently, the existence of this right to privacy was reaffirmed as fundamental right in Ople vs. Torres (G.R. No. 127685, June 23, 1998). Again, following Griswold vs. Connecticut (supra), Justice Reynato Puno writing for the Court declared that “if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution.”

Significantly, our adaption of Griswold, the first case in which the constitutional right to privacy was explicitly recognized, involved a constitutional challenge on a law banning access to contraceptives. The factual milieu reveals that Connecticut passed a law which bans the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing contraception.” The law likewise criminalizes the act of any person “who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another” in the commission of the foregoing offense. The avowed purpose of the statute according to Connecticut’s counsel Thomas Clark is to reduce the chances of immorality and to act as a deterrent to sexual intercourse outside marriage. Estelle Griswold together with Dr. C. Led Buxton opened a birth control clinic and started to distribute and advise married couples on the proper use of contraceptives. Three days after opening their clinic Griswold and Buxton were arrested. When the case was finally elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court the law was struck down as unconstitutional as it amounts to unwarranted intrusion upon the zone of privacy of married couples. This zone of privacy, according to Justice Douglas, is created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees” including the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, all of which “have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” The Court noted that the law denying couples access to contraceptives “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife x x x a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.” For the Court, the existence of the so called zone of privacy protected “notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship”. Consequently, the Court rhetorically asked:

“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”

In view of this, there is no question that an absolute ban on the use of contraceptives would be an infringement of the privacy rights of married couples. A law criminalizing the use of contraceptives is too broad and sweeping in its scope that it unnecessarily infringes on marital privacy.

It is quiet significant that the decision in Griswold revolves around the privacy right of married couples. There is nothing explicit therein which extend to unmarried individuals the right to use contraceptives. However in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird [405 US 438] the same right granted to married couples was extended to unmarried individuals. The ruling in Eisenstadt was groundbreaking in the sense that it established the right of unmarried people to possess contraceptives on the same basis as married couples. By implication, the decision acknowledged the right of unmarried couples to engage in non-procreative sexual congress. In its logical sense, Eisenstadt impliedly concludes that all sex between consenting adults is constitutionally protected. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan declared that to deprive unmarried individuals access to contraceptives while allowing the same for married couples would violate the equal protection clause. Anent the issue of privacy, Brennan succinctly wrote:

If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with separate intellectual and emotional make up. If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

In fine, it is crystal clear that under the various provisions of the Bill of Rights, the choice to use contraceptives rest on married couples. The State cannot, in an attempt to uphold its own moral viewpoint, deprive married couples of their constitutional right to choose and decide for themselves the issue parenthood. Further, single and unmarried adults, may invoke their right to liberty and privacy to consummate their bonds in intimate sexual conduct even for non-procreative purpose. As long as these are done consensually, their sexual behavior does not contravene fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution (Concerned Employee v. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564, November 23, 2004). For in the words of the High Court in the case of City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. (G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005): x x x be it stressed that their consensual sexual behavior does not contravene any fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution. Adults have a right to choose to forge such relationships with others in the confines of their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right to make this choice. Their right to liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, as long as they do not run afoul of the law. Liberty should be the rule and restraint the exception.

Ed. Note: The author would like to acknowledge the treatises on Philippine Political Law [2002 Edition] and Constitutional Law [2003 Edition] of Justice Isagani A. Cruz in the discussion of police power and the supremacy of the Constitution in the first part of this article published in Goldstar Daily (Mindanao) dated June 23, 2011.