M F Hussain and religious fundamentalists

Now that M F Husain has been ousted from India the Hindutva fundamentalists must be happy. Added to the so called insult to the Hindutva ethos by the paintings, Mr. Husain is from a Muslim background too. And VHP/Bajrang Dal/RSS have not fond of Muslims. I don't think these Hindutva groups will go all out to destroy the paintings and the person had it been some Sharma, and not Husain.

Muslims have a very valid reason to feel sad, and all India should indeed be sad. After all Mr. Husain was a good artist, and losing him was like losing the Sachin Tendulkar of painting. On the other hand making a person's life miserable is not only found among Hindutva members. Muslims have also made certain lives miserable. Taslima Nasrin and Salman Rushdie are names that immediatley surfaced whenever we hear of such story. If Muslims can make lives miserable for Nasrin and Rushdie why can't Hindutva members make lives miserable for Husain? Instead of justifying Hindutva members, I guess, it's wiser to condemn both the parties. But this is a lesson for the Muslims. I think Muslims should protest against their fellow Mullahs whenever a fatwa is issued on any writer/painter for hurting their religious sentiments.

But this also opens up another tricky question. Should Christians protest when poster of Jesus with cigarette in one hand and a bottle of alcohol on the other hand is displayed? I think here it is important to ask whether the poster was made for artistic value or to provoke the Christians. If it is for the latter reason I think it's abusing freedom of expression. As a Christian I won't ask book like Da Vinci Code to be banned though it has anti-Christian elements. I would rather write articles/books critiquing the idea of the book. Nor would I endorse any Christian group issuing a threat to the writer, even if such threat was there.

Iit's important that we don't destroy an object or person for writing against a person we admire or worship. I think Shiv Senas were wrong to protest the way they did against Laing's writing on Shivaji. I also think Muslim fundamentalists were wrong in issuing fatwa to Rushdie or Nasrin for writing things unpleasant to them. I think Hindutva members behave like anti-national elements when they destroyed paintings of M F Husain.

Creationism vs Intelligent Design vs Biologos

With respect to creation-evolution discussion Christians take various stand. All Christians believe that God is the creator and sustainer. There is, however, difference of opinion on how God has brought about his creation and how God sustains/conserves the world. It is little unfortunate that some Christians believe that their position is the only true Christian position and others have compromised.

Creationism is that branch which includes belief that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago. They would interpret Genesis text of the Bible in a very literalistic sense. They deny that God would have used evolutionary process to create the world. They claim that this understanding is derived both from the Bible as well as Science. Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Henry Morris, Carl Wieland, John MacArthur et al are some names who belong to this camp. This group is also popularly called Young Earth Creationist.

Intelligent Design is that branch which argues that certain features of the organism and universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. They do not commit themselves to the idea that this designer could be god. They argue that certain organism like bacterial flaggelum cannot come about by Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection. William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer et all key proponent of the school.

Biologos is that school that believes life, bio, comes through the word, logos. ( The word was with God and the word was God). They are committed to the idea that God is the creator and that all features of the universe is designed by God. The design of the world/organism could have come about through Darwinian mechanism mutation and natural selection. Whether it is through such mechanism or not, let Science settle it is their argument. They do understand the Genesis text in literalistic sense following the traditional interpretative principle of Origen/Augustin et al. Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Denis Alexander et would belong to this camp.

I disagree with the Creationist interpretation of the Genesis text. I also find it so hard to believe that the earth is just some 6,000 years old only. But then Creationist will argue that the Bible says so and Science does not provide evidences that the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Formation of petroleum, stars, mountains etc do not provide sufficient evidences for old earth, according to the group.

Intelligent Design folks split creation into two tier: those which can be explained only by inferring a designer and those that need not infer to a designer. So that God leaves mark only in certain organism and features of the universe. Those that can be explained through natural mechanism do not bear fingerprint of God. Of course, this designer could be an alien too. This need not be God.

To me the position which does justice to the Bible as well as to Science is Biologos. They believe that “the heavens declare the glory of the living God”. Not one part of the creation is there which is not created by God. Evolution seems to be right, but leave it to Science to determine whether it’s true or not. What we are concerned is that God is the creator. This is very much in echoing what Billy Graham, John Stott et all have said.

Why I am not in favour of Intelligent Design

When I read Phillip Johnson’s REASON IN THE BALANCE it occurs to me that he is arguing against too much of naturalistic elements in American public life. By ‘naturalistic’ he meant atheistic elements. Since Johnson is a leader of ID movement one may fairly infer that ID folks are workinga to expel atheistic/naturalistic elements using Science. Though such conclusion may differ with ID motive that’s the way I have heard many people say, and their perception is not different from mine.

I understand ID’s argument to be based on the premise that Darwinian mechanism viz random mutation and natural selection, are not sufficient to give rise to certain component of the universe or of living organism, and such complex component is best explained to have caused by an intelligent designer. All Christians agree that the universe is designed. All Christians also agree that all living organisms are designed. The question “how?”.

I don’t think Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection pose any threat to Christian thought. For me the choice is not random mutation and natural selection or intelligent designer. I see it quite perfect to say the intelligent designer would have used random mutation and natural selection to cause the universe or living organism.

Another problem I see with ID is that though it does not claim to have religious tone it is perceived that way by most people that I know of, at least here in India. I don’t think most ID proponents can honestly say that there is no underlying religious current. After all wasn't it designed primarily to counter atheistic elements? If Christians in the West like Dembski, Behe, Johnson et al can bring in religious tone ie Christian tone, into Science what would be the state of Science if Hindus bring in Vedic tone into Scientific enterprise in India? University Grant Commission, India, is planning to introduce Astrology into universities and colleges in India soon. I am against such move by UGC. Just because definition of Science is vague and parameters for a scientific theory to be valid is not neatly set, one should not bring in Astrology or even ID into Science. I can understand study of Astrology /ID under Religion or History etc, but it does not merit entry into Science Department. This does not at all mean that Religion/History is inferior to Science. It’s just that each discipline should remain within its own domain.