Op-ed against Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis (AiG), a creationist organization, is doing great harm, not only in the way it devalues science education, but also in the way that counteracts its primary aim—to spread the Gospel. They claim to be “an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about).

First of all, their dedication to apologetics makes them irrelevant in a culture that has questions of a deeper existential nature. When people are taught apologetics, they are taught only to answer questions—not to ask them. However, if a person is taught merely to accept answers without first understanding the question, how effective are those answers going to be? Not many people enjoy talking to people who can spout off textbook answers to any problem imaginable—it shuts down discussion and often does not deal with the real issue—but that is what Christians are taught to do. The organization even has a magazine called Answers, which implies that they do indeed have all of the answers to any problem in the universe. But really, how many questions in life have simple, pat answers? Yes, Christianity may make a claim about answers, but as a faith, it is essentially an uncertainty. That does not mean that it is wrong to accept it or to live by it, but that element of uncertainty must be accepted.

Secondly, what are those answers that the organization proposes to give? They propose that by taking every word of the Bible literally, you can know everything that you would ever need to know about life. Again, does this make sense? Not many churches today mandate that women keep their heads covered (1 Corinthians 11). Why? Because it is important to take into account the historical and cultural context of the passage. Why should Genesis be any different? Many Biblical scholars view the beginning of Genesis as poetry because it contains some of the characteristics that are typical of Hebrew poetry, such as parallelism and repetition. There are also two accounts of Creation—the Priestly account and the non-Priestly account, which focus on different aspects of Creation. If Genesis were literal history, why would these two accounts both need to be included?
The AiG website states, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith). Yes, scientists, like everyone else, are fallible people, and yes, science is built upon assumptions, as is every area of life. Why should this be a problem? How would it be possible to live if certain non-provable things were not assumed? Science does not claim absolute truth. If it did, then Ham’s critiques would be valid, but it does not. It recognizes that its truth is tentative and that it is subject to further investigation. But that does not mean that it is wrong to accept the conclusions that science has drawn tentatively. Furthermore, why should all evidence be disregarded if it appears to contradict one particular reading of Scripture? There is nothing that should be blindly accepted without thought or question because blind loyalties tend to encourage a sense of “otherness,” which involves cutting off those who are outside the group. If Christianity’s goal is to spread hope and love, then constructing an “other” who is to be attacked or ignored is counteractive to that purpose.

Furthermore, why must something be literal in order to be true? Is it not possible for art and literature to express truth about human nature and about how the world works? There are many books of poetry in the Bible, and those are still considered by AiG to be the inerrant word of God, but they do not express truth literally. If Genesis is read as the Israelites’ view of human nature, of the origin of evil, and of the nature of God, then it is a very beautiful narrative. But if it is read as a history/science textbook, what is its value? How many people turn to history and science textbooks when trying to find meaning in life?

Ken Ham claims that if Genesis is not interpreted literally, then the entire rest of the Bible is false. Why? Because “Paul says in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus came to solve the problem that started in the Garden of Eden. If Genesis 1–3 is not literal history, then Jesus died for a mythological problem and is therefore a mythological Savior offering us a mythological hope. The glorious gospel of Christ is at stake in this battle” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/02/21/adam-and-orthodoxy). What is this mythological problem? It seems to be the problem of evil, the problem of sin, the problem of death, and the problem of separation from God. Are any of those problems dependent on a certain reading of a certain text? Isn’t it pretty clear that those are very real problems for everyone? And if they are not mythological problems, then why would a non-literal reading of Genesis invalidate Christ’s message?

By making ridiculous claims that Christianity can only be understood in one particular way, a way that one specific group of modern evangelicals has proposed, AiG is doing more harm to Christianity than good. They have ostracized people who desire to think critically about faith and people who agree that science is a legitimate way to pursue truth, albeit tentative. If there is any truth at all to Christ’s message, is it right to discourage those people from seeking truth in religion? Why must Christianity involve blind belief with no sense of honest questioning, doubt or self-critique?

The Science Research Foundation- Op-Ed Piece

As members of the Science Research Foundation, we are dedicated to many things but particularly, we hold science and truth dear to our hearts; they are the two things that are often forgotten in today’s society. Through research and education, the Science Research Foundation strives to teach its values to others and help them understand their context within the contemporary world. Through this endeavor, the Science Research Foundation helps people find out where they fit in the world.

One of the reasons that the Science Research Foundation has been so successful is that it was founded by a president who has represented it with a firm voice and faithful heart. To understand the history and values of the Science Research Foundation, one must know about this founder and president, Adnan Oktar, who is more commonly known by his pen name, Harun Yahya. Oktar is a prominent leader within Islamic society—particularly in Turkey—and he is a well-known author of over 250 books which have been translated into 57 languages. He writes about the true beauty of Islam and proves that its truths are evident in every part of our lives. Oktar founded the Science Research Foundation in 1990 as an extension of his activism at Mimar Sinan University where he reached out to other students who were interested in Islam just as much as he was. His very strong faith was a vehicle for him to seek answers that rang true with his belief in the Koran and explained the world. The Science Research Foundation was formed because Oktar yearned for “an improved and enlightened Turkey” and he has certainly started Turkey and many other countries on their way to enlightenment by providing such a solid foundation for the organization.

To give you a better understanding of the nature of our research, I will quote our second bullet point in our statement of beliefs.

“The scientific works of the Science Research Foundation concentrate particularly on the origin of the universe, living things and mankind. The SRF emphasizes that 19th century positivism, rejecting religious beliefs and basing science on atheism, is flawed, and defends instead the "intelligent design" view of the origin of living things and mankind, a stance which has its roots in contemporary scientific findings.”

Here, it is easy to see that we have a solid foundation for all of our research; Islam. Our president’s expertise and involvement as a dedicated Muslim has served us well in developing an organization in which we can hold our religious beliefs and personal values and scientific truth at once. Too many scientists today believe that science and Islam are separate entities but we understand the truth; in reality, Islam and science are one, just as Islam is one with everything that exists. The Koran tells us that Allah, “the Possessor of infinite power,” created the world and everything in it so it is only logical that we would conduct research in order to support these truths. It has become clear from the research we have done thus far that this is the case. In addition to proving that every living thing was given life by a Creator, our research has shows us more beauty than we ever could have imagined. We, as members of the Science Research Foundation, believe these to be truths of the world and “assume the responsibility of explaining these [truths] to the society.”

The Science Research Foundation has been very active in furthering its cause. We consistently communicate with the citizens of Turkey, holding conferences to educate citizens about our research. Through these, we bring scientists from all over the world who will demonstrate to our conference attendees that there are scientists who believe that human beings did not evolve from apes as Charles Darwin says. The scientists who we bring in, some from such notable organizations in the United States of America as the Institute for Creation Research, are striving to bring truth and science education to the rest of the world. As is mentioned in our statement of belief, “the SRF has organized 1500 scientific conferences in different cities in Turkey. It has also held 3 international conferences and many scientific exhibitions on the same subject in various regions of Turkey. All these services were provided free of charge” This outreach is part of what makes the Science Research Foundation so welcoming and accessible to all. We strive to educate anyone who will take the time to listen.

The Science Research Foundation is making a difference in today’s world for Muslims and other religious groups alike. Disproving Darwinism and evolution are just the first step in creating a world in which truth, beauty, and science coincide. The Science Research Foundation has helped prove that the world was created not by evolution, but by a Creator. As our statement of beliefs tells, “that Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and the earth, and of all that is between them.”

Creationism in Islam

A misconception that I have found is that the creationism/evolution debate only occurs in relation to Christianity. Or, if it isn't misconceived then it just isn't talked about nearly as much. About two months ago an article came out about a British Imam, Usama Hasan, who had to retract his statements which were made in 2008 about how evolution can easily be accepted into the fundamental teachings of the Islamic faith. After receiving numerous death threats and being dismissed from his position as vice-chairman and Imam at the Masjid al-Twahid Mosque in London, his father stated, "I seek Allah's forgiveness for my mistakes and apologise for any offence caused" on his son's behalf.

Dr. Hasan is a lecturer at Middlesex University in London, and the article he published which started this mess was just an opinion piece in The Guardian. One of the main propositions that Hasan makes in this piece goes as follows:

"Another objection that is sometimes posed is the following: doesn't evolution denigrate and insult all humans, but especially the prophets of God, by insisting that we all originate from apes? I reply that the theory doesn't insult anyone, but does remind us of the humble origins of our created form. This is nothing new or blasphemous, since numerous Qur'anic verses remind us that we are all created from "dust" via sexual discharges: "despised drops of water". Those verses clearly do not insult the prophets. Meanwhile, our spiritual form remains the most exalted, since it is from the spirit of God breathed into Adam: we exist for the most noble purpose of knowing and loving God, freely and after having been given a choice."

For these kinds of statements Dr. Hasan was dismissed as blasphemous, and he says that one man came up to him after a lecture and said, "you are an apostate and should be killed..." It is apparent, and has been stated by Hasan himself, that these kinds of remarks were only given by fanatics and fundamentalists, just as some Christians are known to receive threats after speaking in favor of Darwin and evolution.

Just as I was earlier interested in learning that there are currently problems in universities involving the creationism/evolution debate, I was also interested to learn about the creationism debate in the Muslim community. After I was presented with the article, I of course saw no reason why there wouldn't be a debate within a religion besides Christianity, I simply hadn't dedicated time to think about a particular religion in which this was the case.

I don't know how this affects the Christian creationism/evolution debate, particularly since many extremist Christians believe that Muslims are the root of all evil. How would they react to the knowledge that Islamic extremists are defending the same creationist beliefs that extreme Christians are defending? This is very interesting to me, especially since the similarities between any verision of fundamentalism in any religion seem to have many parallels.

Op/Ed on the American Science Affiliation

With a tagline that describes itself as “A Network of Christians in Science”, the American Science Affiliation (ASA) captured my attention for all the reasons I had been looking for this entire semester. I found in my search for an organization to present in class that the marriage of Christianity and science was not so easy to come by. This was frustrating to a girl raised in the Catholic faith whom understands that the Catholic Church accepts evolution as a more respected interpretation of creation than creationism. I wanted to defeat the notion that those people who believed in God had an uneducated or indoctrinated view of creationism that was based entirely off of Genesis. I wanted to prove it to myself, too. It had become an accepted idea in our class that the two were, in fact, compatible. The proof that I needed to help me was an organization that upheld the beliefs in God while also pursuing explorations in science. When I stumbled upon the ASA, I was pleased that I had found a haven for the synthesis of two beautiful paths to the truth and the people who believe in it.

The American Scientific Affiliation describes itself as an open forum meant to provide a place for discussion of these issues through a Christian perspective. Those who are allowed to contribute must hold at least a bachelor’s degree in some science and also sign a statement of faith. Science is interpreted loosely as all anthropology, archeology, economics, engineering, history, mathematics, medicine, political science, psychology, and sociology are all accepted. They also have a student affiliation, where any student studying science is allowed to participate. Their statement of faith has four pillars:

“1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.

2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.

3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.

4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.”

This statement does not specify whether members must be extreme or liberal in their beliefs, but instead, allows a general believer, like me, to research and synthesize. Because I appreciate my scientific views that accept evolution and my childhood colored by religion and a creationist upbringing, I found this website a great relief. In researching it, I hope to find more interesting information that drives positivity in this debate.

Their member base has reached 1,500 which is still a small number for the amount of people that I would think are interested in reconciling both their beliefs in science and religion. Not all of the topics focus on evolution versus creation. That topic peaked a number of years ago, but remains a prominent topic in much of the discussion. They fuel discussion through the resources available on their website and their two publications, Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith and God and Nature, in order that their members may “investigate any area relating Christian faith and science.” ASA encourages personal interaction between members for it develops community support, which they deem necessary, as well.

One of the key aspects of the American Science Affiliation is the phrase “Christianity does not call us to turn off our brains”, which is the theme of the forum that they run. They state that “Christianity does not condone our neglect of the planet that sustains us. It calls us to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind (Luke 10:27). If our minds remain narrow and impoverished, our love will be weak. If we are sincere about serving God and loving our neighbor, we must not act in a way that is ignorant or naïve.” This is a stark contrast to the Evangelical Christians of my last post who seem to blindly accept what has been taught. These Christians are searching for truth, and trying to do so in a way that God would appreciate. Their thirst for knowledge is a powerful way of disproving the notion that all people who believe in God must believe in creationism making them ignorant puppets of a religious authority.

In the ASA’s quest to bring science and religion together, without asking for one to be dominant over the other, they have created an organization that appeals to my search for the truth. It is a beautiful thing to find a middle-ground on not only the evolution and creation controversy, but on so many issues, and the American Science Affiliation has done it.

"Evolution is Stupid and You are Stupid if You Believe in It"

In 2006, a documentary was released that followed the daily happenings in multiple Evangelical Christian households and congregations. I rented it to watch with my friends and I have never felt as disturbed by religion before. I was embarrassed to admit that I was from Missouri, where the film is shot. Evangelicals are the most extreme sect of Christianity and known for their radical beliefs and indoctrination of believers. You may recognize one of their most influential preachers, Billy Graham. In a lot of our class discussion, we focused on God-fearers taking the blame for taking creationism as truth. As I reminded Danielle in her post, not all religions are centered around one God. That is prominently Christianity, Judaism and Islam. And not all religions whose deity is a single being that dismiss evolution as blasphemy. Evangelical Christianity fuels the battle for creationism as the acknowledged way of human creation. This clip of Jesus Camp illuminates this.

I felt it was important to distinguish that this is much more conservative than other paths of Christianity, frustratingly so to someone who was raised a Christian and feels that Evangelicals scare bystanders away from the more broad sense of their faith. As the child, Levi, states, he would be more comfortable going to a school that teaches that “evolution is stupid and you are stupid if you believe it.” A reason why this sect fights so hard to creationism in the classroom. And a reason why this sect dominates the homeschooling population. Obviously this can only frustrate our class because it is an ignorant way of dealing with the issue presented to them. After accepting that the evolution and creation controversy was made worse by language, I found that I respected the creationist writers from class more than evolution writers, only based on writing, because of the subtlety versus the forcefulness. This documentary makes me feel that the general population of creationists is hostile towards those who believe in evolution, and that only the few spokespeople are able to find a tactful way to present their ideas.

Before writing this post, I found myself wanting to find more creationism in the media and remembered a South Park episode I had seen with a back-story motivated by this debate. In this episode from Season 10, Go God Go, one of the teachers is made to teach evolution despite his creationist beliefs. He at first makes the theory look disgusting, calling the children the decent of a retardedfishfrogsquirrelmonkey and makes the claim that evolution is just a “theory” and a bunch of “bullcrap”. When the teacher is replaced by an expert on evolution, he mocks all the replacement’s beliefs and gets way out of hand. Most of this happens in the first few minutes and it is so worth watching. While South Park’s politically-fueled cartoons are my favorite, I thought this was particularly relevant and accurate at depicting a similar scene to that of Jesus Camp, a real-life scene of creationists refusing to even respect the beliefs of the other side.

This all ends around 7 minutes, when the comic of the cartoon becomes the most important pull of the episode. But I thought it showed how forward creationists are with pushing their beliefs upon children, like the Dover trial. It was similar in the way of the Catholic family who would rather pull their curious daughter out of a class on evolution before letting her learn. Or in the way of the teacher for evolution being mocked by the teacher who believes in creationism. This semester has shed more light on the ignorant ways that creationists find to deal with a lot of their beliefs that I had defended before. It is quite tragic.

Op-Ed Piece: The Importance of The Leakey Foundation

“To increase scientific knowledge, education, and public understanding of human origins, evolution, behavior, and survival.” This is the mission of the Leakey Foundation, founded as a result of the research and teachings of Dr. Louis S. B. Leakey. In a nation where human evolution is constantly facing rejection and dismissal by a large group of creationist opposition, the goals of the Leakey Foundation grow increasingly important. In order to maintain the integrity of science education, particularly on the higher education level, and to continue the revolutionary findings and research that young scientists have to offer, our foundation is dedicated to providing the means for scientists in need of financial assistance. We believe that a student and scientist of human origins and evolution that has few finances, has just as much to offer the science community as someone with plenty of finances. We would like to promote the careers of young scientists, as this is the only way to continue discovery as the study of human evolution itself evolves. For these reasons we have granted over $600,000 annually towards the continued research of human origins, spanning many disciplines including paleoanthropology, primatology, geology, genetics, and morphology.

It is because of the insistence of Louis Leakey himself that such researchers as Jane Goodall attained doctorate degrees. In 1962, the Leakey Foundation sent Goodall to Cambridge University to receive her Ph.D. in Ethology. Without these means given to her for her education and the extensive support of Louis Leakey, Jane may not have been able to adequately contribute some of her amazing research and findings on chimpanzees to the general public. These kinds of grants are given frequently, many to underprivileged young students in developing countries. To date, over 150 Africans have completed their graduate research in human ancestry as a result of the Leakey Foundation grants and scholarships.

In addition to providing grants and scholarships, the Leakey Foundation is also dedicated to bringing the promotion of human evolution and discussion of science careers into local schools. Through the Leakey Learning Expeditions, nearly a thousand students across the country each year get to visit with scientists under the umbrella of evolutionary research, and are hopefully inspired to pursue scientific careers and interests. Most importantly, these “expeditions” occur at no cost to the school. The Leakey Foundation believes that it is extremely important to reach out to young people who may not be given the resources or support of their schools and communities to be interested in science careers. Especially since human evolution is such a touchy subject in high schools and just in educational settings in general, the Leakey Foundation is willing to be a third party resource for kids curious about careers in scientific disciplines.

Another important cause that the Leakey Foundation strives to support is the bringing of scientific research and discussion into the general public. In order to do this the foundation hosts the Annual Speakers Series on Human Origins in major cities around the country. This year, six lectures and symposiums were given by very reputable scientists in order to enhance the interest of the general population, to demonstrate the value of current research, and to show that the discoveries made are not exclusive, and that we want people to know what our scientists discover. These lectures, generally held at various museums, are very accessible, costing either under $20 or free with museum admission. In addition, the Leakey Foundation publishes the periodical AnthroQuest, which features foundation research and news, and is available to whomever desires it.

All of these admirable efforts of the Leakey Foundation; the providing of grants and scholarships to underprivileged or aspiring researchers, the bringing of scholarly science and evolution into schools, and the availability of research for the general public, are what make the Leakey Foundation an extremely valuable and important institution. Without our foundation, many students and researchers might lose hope, feeling that they just don’t have the means to pursue their passions and contribute valuable research. Without our foundation, many students may only be presented with one side of the story, with creationist viewpoints creeping into their curriculum and with science careers presented as being not as valuable as other pursuits. Without our foundation, interested people of all ages may not have the opportunity to hear from current scientists from the field, who otherwise may have sparked their interest and even inspired them to participate in research of their own. All of these activities and unique pursuits of the Leakey Foundation foster the increase of scientific knowledge, education, and public understanding of human origins, evolution, behavior, and survival, which is one of the most important causes that the scientific community and supporters of science education and literacy must concern themselves with in the current and future world.

Making the World a Better Place – The Zygon Center for Religion and Science

The controversy over religion and science persists as one of today’s world issues. The Zygon Center for Religion and Science recognizes that religion and science are two forces that drive today’s society. The word “zygon”, meaning “yoke”, was chosen by one of our founders, Ralph Wendell Burhoe who is the founder of the Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. He believed that in order to address the issues of religion and science, they must be yoked together. Thanks to Burhoe’s help with the Journal and Philip Hefner’s idea to create a center that relates religious and scientific ideas, the Zygon Center for Religion and Science was born.

The goal of the ZCRS is to bring religious and scientific scholars together to do research that focuses on issues in the human society. This collaboration of scholars is made possible by the Center’s convenient home at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. At the LSTC, we are able to gather information from the school’s library and use professors as resources. Being at the school also allows us to have direct contact with students. We have created a hospitable and open environment for students to study, and we encourage students to get involved in the research we are doing.

In order to facilitate student learning, we offer three academic courses each year: the Epic of Creation, the Future of Creation, and the Advanced Seminar in Religion and Science. In an effort to share our research, The Epic of Creation lectures are open to the public. These lectures combine to present the knowledge of science and religion surrounding the evolution of the universe. Scholars in science outline the scientific story of evolution including the beginning of the world and the emergence of human life. Scholars in religion outline interpretations of the Bible. Scholars in theology outline how science and religion provide meaning in life. Not only do we present information regarding science and religion, we show you how you can use this information to search for deeper meanings in life.

Similar to The Epic of Creation, the course titled The Future of Creation is focused on informing the public on science and religion. Although The Future of Creation is a graduate level seminary course, it is also free and open to the public. This course’s goal is to inform society on ways they can make our world a better one. Scientific scholars teach participants about environmental threats.  Religious and theology scholars show people how they can respond to these environmental threats and take care of creation. Finally, the course’s ultimate intention is for participants to take action on what they learned and strive to improve the environment in which they live.

The third course we offer, The Advanced Seminar in Religion and Science, focuses on teaching participants how the collaboration of science and religion works and how each builds on the other. The main goal of this course is for participants to acquire insight into the way science and religion collaborate to drive morality. This course is intended to be used for scholarly research and is therefore only offered to faculty, students, and professionals.

Not only do we offer courses and lectures, but we have also created a student society. The Hyde Park Religion and Science Society creates a way for students in Hyde Park to speak their minds when it comes to the issues of religion and science. Members of the society meet twice a month and have the privilege to speak with scholars in science and religion. They are also have opportunities to travel the world and go to conferences regarding science and religion. The ultimate goal of the society is to educate students on the issues of religion and science so they will one day be able to teach younger generations.

All three of our courses, as well as the student society, share a similar goal: to inform people on science and religion and to show how the understanding of the collaboration of the two can make the world a better place. We don’t focus on solving the controversy of religion and science, but instead we strive to educate people on these two topics. The Zygon Center provides the public a place to expand their knowledge of religion and science and answer their questions. One of our main goals is to keep the conversation going. People across the world are discussing science and religion, but in order to talk about these topics, one must be educated on them. We don’t stop at teaching religion and science though. We dig deeper and demonstrate how one can use their knowledge of these issues to gain understanding of the origins of the universe, the environment, morality, and ultimately how to make the world a more beautiful place to live.

On behalf of the Zygon Center for Religion and Science, I would like to thank everyone who has donated their time or money to the efforts of relating religion and science. This is an important issue that we are very passionate about. We encourage everyone to get educated in order to understand this magnificent world we live in.

Op/Ed: The National Center for Science Education

At a time when science education in America seems to be under siege, the National Center for Science Education continues to defend the integrity of science education nationwide. The NCSE is committed to providing materials and services that promote unbiased, straightforward, and accurate science education in American schools. We are committed to defending the theory of evolution in the face of attacks and challenges from creationist groups, and have taken many practical steps to do so.

For 30 years now, NCSE has proudly defended its values and belief in the importance of holding our educational system to high standards of teaching factual scientific material. We do much more than just make recommendations or simply observe from a distance. Always at the service of those who request our assistance in defending evolution, we gladly provide informational materials, pamphlets, and even make our speakers available for a range of events and conferences related to advancing public scientific discourse.

Our speakers, particularly our Executive Director Dr. Eugenie Scott, increase the visibility of our organization by being active both through events and public appearances as well as publishing materials on scientific topics. Our most prominent publication, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, addresses current concerns and developments in the teaching of science and evolution. Other useful resources include our Reviews of Creationist Books, Voices for Evolution, along with a host of smaller publications including pamphlets and informational materials about general or specifically requested topics.

NCSE prefers not to get entangled in expensive and time-consuming lawsuits. In order to prevent this from happening, we attempt to resolve challenges to evolution locally by offering expert testimony and recommendations to school board hearings. In fact, 22 local NCSE chapters in 18 different states help decentralize our operations and address local community concerns in a more straightforward manner and personalized approach.  In communities where conflicts arise, we aim to promote consensus and understanding among conflicting parties by providing accurate and convincing evidence in favor of science education. Because we are much stronger when we work together, we believe the best way to support evolution is through the collective effort of educators, scientists, parents, and clergy.

If and when a lawsuit does become inevitable, our organization will usually get involved on behalf of the evolution litigants in a case. Our legal advisory panel is a useful resource for parties involved in evolution/creationism lawsuits. We also frequently file amicus curiae briefs to voice our support for the evolution side of a lawsuit.

In order to conduct analyses and evaluate broad attitudes toward evolution and science, the NCSE conducts a number of polls and surveys on a few subjects of interest. These include attitudes toward science, religion, and evolution, which can also be categorized and broken down according to specific respondent categories. The results of our findings are used to assess the general outlook on these subjects, establish patterns and trends, and determine a reasonable course of action based on real data and attitudes.

NCSE’s work is not monolithic—we cooperate with a wide range of other organizations with similar interests in mind. In this way, we transcend boundaries and expand our horizons through networking, consultations, information sharing, speakers, and coordinated action. At the request of any party or organization, we will work in conjunction with them to provide the best means of addressing their needs.

One of our greatest strengths as a scientific organization is our lack of affiliation with any religious belief. We are not atheists—we simply do not espouse any particular religious tradition. Instead, we welcome any and all likeminded individuals supportive of our mission and cause of preserving the integrity of science education in America, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The NCSE awards its annual Friend of Darwin honor to acknowledge and praise the efforts of individuals and organizations devoted to increasing awareness and understanding of scientific and evolutionary thinking. The recipients include scientists, authors, educators, or organizations that have made major contributions to the understanding of evolution and the defense of science in the classroom, the courtroom, or the public arena.

Even if you do not require the NCSE’s assistance in a substantial case, our website can serve as a great informational and educational tool for the average person who is curious about the evolution/creationism controversy. We offer answers to some of the most pressing and brought up questions in the debate, as well as links to several publications and information on obtaining further literature. The concerned student or parent can also turn to our website for hints and warning signs that creationist rhetoric is being introduced into the classroom, as well as tips on forming a course of action.

As you can see, the NCSE operates on a variety of different levels to ensure that creationism and false science does not undermine the quality of education that our students receive, and to increase general understanding of scientific topics. Our members include a variety of distinguished individuals from the fields of science and education, but we welcome both contributions and membership from anyone who believes in maintaining the integrity of science education.

The Heart: The Most Efficient Machine on Earth

http://www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/37803/THE_HEART:_THE_MOST_EFFICIENT_MACHINE_ON_EARTH

This is a REALLY interesting video. This is from the organization that I researched, the Science Research Foundation. The president, Haruna Yahya made this video and a TON of others to show that Allah created everything and that evolution is wrong. From 4:50 on, he illustrates an analogy between the human heart and a water pump. The arguments he makes are easily falsifiable and often not relevant but the video is really flipping cool. It's all in the presentation. If I didn't have a basic understanding of evolution or if I was looking for a reason to believe in Allah and hate Darwin, this video would do the trick. It is really easy to make an analogy, pair it with a video and a soothing voice and BAM. It makes sense. That is why the best history teachers, in my opinion, are like story tellers; it makes the information stick. I sometimes take issue with analogies because of this. Like Kelly and the Lemon Test, I feel like they can be twisted to for situations of you want them to.

Regardless, this is worth watching.

Op-ed Piece on Creation Research Society

Looking for Answers

Have you ever wondered why the information you were taught in Sunday school does not match what you learned in science class and in general society? Does it seem like you are losing your faith because your rational mind cannot reconcile modern science like the Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory with your faith? If you answered yes(,) then you have taken the first step out of the darkness caused by anti-Creationist propaganda. The Creation Research Society can help you find the peace for which you are searching between science and your faith. We are a not-for-profit organization of religious scientists and lay people who believe that God created the world and that the Bible is a direct and complete account of the formation of the world and the origin of humans. Our mission is to provide evidence and stimulate a dialogue about Creationism through the use of modern day technology.

The Creation Research Society is an organization steeped in half a century of tradition. We were formed in 1963 by ten like-minded scientists who saw the scientific community was greatly lacking in respectable journals that were unbiased towards evidence that did not support Evolution Theory. Their first objective was to publish research supporting Creationism and make it public knowledge. We have been publishing the Creation Research Society Quarterly since July of 1964. Through private funding and grants, we also support modern research that is developing and scientifically testing Creation Theory. In addition, we schedule lectures for Creation scientists and provide qualified scientific speakers for groups and churches interested in learning more about Creationism science in the modern world.

The Creation Research Society does not engage in any political lobbying for Creationism-friendly legislation. The articles in our journal are not pseudo-science meant to get bills passed, like our Evolution Theory counterparts claim, nor do we fudge results to make our data fit Creation Theory. We publish a respectable peer-reviewed journal that only accepts articles from dedicated and educated scientists. Those who publish in the Creation Research Society Quarterly have earned post-graduate degrees and are respected individuals in their fields. Our journal is a place where scientists can publish the evidence they have found supporting Creation Theory. As leaders in a diverse range of disciplines, we see it as our duty to spread the word about the scientifically supported evidence in favor of Creationism that the government does not allow to be taught in public schools. As an organization we are completely autonomous and are not affiliated with any other organization, religious group or church body. We have removed ourselves from the politics of the matter and simply provide the facts for those who are searching for answers; people just like you.

Does this sound like it is a cause you can get behind? If so, Creation Research Society memberships are available online. Different levels of membership are available depending upon your educational background and religious beliefs. Voting membership requires a postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science. However, for those interested in learning more about origin, but without an advanced science degree, we offer non-voting status membership. Full-time students enrolled in high school, college, or graduate programs are also offered membership at a reduced rate. With regular annual dues set at only $35 for those living in the United States, it is extremely easy to stay abreast with modern Creation science.

Because we are an organization founded on several basic beliefs, in addition to paying dues, all members must sign a statement of belief in the organization’s four core beliefs. These beliefs are straight forward but firm. First; the Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. Secondly, all basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. Thirdly, the great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. Finally, we are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. All levels of membership require a simple pledge which indicates you share the same beliefs on which we base our lives and research.

We currently have 1,700 members that are spread across the globe doing what good scientists do; searching for the truth. We are not hindered by the narrow-mindedness of Evolution Theory, because through God, anything is possible. Our organization has served as a light in the darkness for many faithful believers who were ready to abandon their beliefs because the world considered them old fashioned and outdated. Join our growing numbers. Learn about Creationism. Its story does not end when we close the Bible on Genesis but is present in all aspects of our lives; from everyday plant life to meteorites from outer space. Come see what the Creation Research Society has to offer at our website: CreationResearch.org. Come read what we have discovered. You will be amazed. God speaks to us through science only if we are open to his message.

It All Traces Back to Kids

          While discussing the court case, Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and watching the documentary about it, I continued reverting back to one thought: it all traces back to kids. A lot of people are taken to church the very first Sunday after they are born. There is no way to explain to these children what religion is and ask them if they want to go to church. They have no choice. So they continue going to church and attending Sunday school. They continue taking in the word of God without questioning anything because they are young and that is what they have always done. Personally, I didn’t start second guessing what I was learning in church until I started taking confirmation classes in sixth grade. Up until confirmation classes, Sunday school was all about forgiveness and joy and Jesus loving everyone. Then you walk into confirmation and the teachers tell you things you can and can’t do, and you learn about the “evils” of homosexuality, sin, and evolution. Maybe it was because my parents never pushed religion on me and had talks with me about homosexuality, but when those topics were brought up in my Sunday school classes I knew something was wrong. I didn’t agree with the things I was being taught, and I wasn’t going to sit there and say I believed in things that I didn’t. I was lucky enough to have parents that let me make my own decisions. Even though I wasn’t sure exactly what I did believe in, I knew I couldn’t continue being a Lutheran. Ever since then I have been taking in information about religion and science and I am still learning things about my belief system and myself.           

            Some people are raised in a strict religious atmosphere and are never exposed to anything else. They didn’t have a choice in the beginning and they might not have ever gotten a choice depending on how strict their parents were or how strong their faith was. There is nothing wrong with having a strong faith, what I have a problem with is the fact that these kids usually aren’t allowed to learn anything about things like evolution. So when they get to science class and the teacher brings up natural selection or evolution, they automatically go into defensive mode and refuse to learn about it, instead of opening their minds to something new and at least thinking about it. This isn’t completely their fault though, they were raised to believe that evolution is wrong and learning about it is wrong, so naturally they aren’t going to accept it being taught in school.

            Evolution is often referred to as the theory of evolution. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, a theory is defined as “the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.” Evolution is a big idea formed from many scientific facts. It explains processes in nature that didn’t just occur millions of years ago, but are still occurring now. There is no reason it shouldn’t be taught in high school science classes. Even if it does go against certain people’s religions, there is no reason why they can’t learn about it. Religion should be taught in church and evolution should be taught in schools. They are totally different and are taught differently and serve different purposes. I understand that religious parents argue that they don’t want their kids learning about evolution at all, but just because they are learning about evolution, doesn’t mean they have to accept it. I think they should be taught evolution in order to be able to make an educated decision for themselves about what they believe or accept. It is ignorant to go through life never learning about evolution. 

Noah's Arc vs. The Dinosaurs

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1vrwMu/cartoonist.name/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bizzaro-1.jpg

I just stumbled across this cartoon and thought it was pretty funny!

Motivated reasoning, rationalization, and what it all means for science...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Since we started this new blog, I've found several articles that had potential to be posted here. In fact, there were so many great ones, I thought I'd actually have a hard time choosing! Part of why there is so much going on might be because of the political changes and increased legislative action against evolution, with the prominent lawsuits and local school board controversies. But in the end, I decided on an article that was less centered on any specific event and more on the psychology of how people receive and interpret factual evidence. The article is a little lengthy, but it's a fascinating read and I highly recommend reading the whole thing, if you can. It makes some great points throughout, even if it only mentions creationism briefly.

I kind of geeked out about this article and basically read the whole thing in one breath, but it really is relevant to the theme of our class because it addresses the endless and maddening question of why some people blatantly deny logically and scientifically presented data such as evolution or climate change. The biases these people have built their entire lives are going to be a tough—usually impossible—shell to crack. Okay, we already know that: people are loath to toss out their sacredly held lifelong beliefs in favor of a wholly contradictory theory on the same subject, regardless of the amount of scientific evidence behind it. Various research studies cited in the article actually showed that being given evidence to the contrary of their beliefs only changed the minds of a very small number of subjects.

Of course people judge the validity of evidence based on prior established beliefs. Everyone rationalizes—devout believers as much as atheists; liberals as well as conservatives; the list could go on and on. And it doesn’t come down to just matters of science or faith; we rationalize across the board, with the more deeply contentious issues being those that reflect strongly held beliefs. You may be easily convinced to go for chocolate over vanilla, but then have a scientist talk your ears off with proven facts, but refuse to accept them.
Science has fallen prey to an impervious mindset that calls into question the very legitimacy of the discipline. The article acknowledges the potential fallibility of individual scientists, but argues that the express purpose of the scientific method is to counter these kinds of personal biases: "Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail."

This pattern extends well outside science alone. Mooney brings up various political and societal examples of rationalization and motivated reasoning, showing that this effect is universally observed. This is where it gets interesting—the actual capacity to rationalize and apply an impulsive and emotional, rather than reasoned and deliberative, response to contradictory information is considered to be an evolutionary defense mechanism. The article explains it in more detail, but it has to do with responding quickly to threats, not only those which cause physical harm (the original evolutionary purpose), but also those that attack the integrity of our cherished ideas. This means that, in an ironic and fascinating turn of events, the tendency to deny evolution actually sprung up from an evolutionary trait (my mind really was temporarily blown by this).

One of the most resonant takeaway messages from this whole concept has to do with using this knowledge of how humans respond to new data to tailor specific ways of communicating to different groups. The media can have a harmful role in reinforcing the views of already narrow target groups, but manipulating the way information is presented to certain groups can go a long way in increasing understanding and promoting critical thinking. Mooney recommends to “set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue." In my mind, this line of thinking immediately invoked the Clergy Letter Project and the idea that religious leaders must take the lead in educating their congregations with small steps. A familiar and local voice knows how to shape the argument, and certainly has more authority in their community than the words of the most eminent scientist with an arsenal of irrefutable facts.

Religious Intolerance

It seems to me that there are multiple ways of privatizing religion. On the one hand, I completely agree with Kennedy that “what made America so special was its revolutionary assertion of freedom of religion. No nation on Earth had ever framed in law that faith should be of no interest to government officials.” Separation of church and state is a huge part of what the United States stands for, and it is of utmost importance that candidates should be judged based on their political decisions, not based on their religion. I completely agree that there should be no religious “test” for office and that religion should remain privatized in the sense that it should be separate from politics.

However, it seems that religion may be too privatized in the sense that most Americans are religiously illiterate and religion has become, in many cases, a sort of taboo topic that is not frequently discussed. Why is this a problem? Because it is clear to see that religious intolerance is a huge issue. We talked in class about how Bryan Fischer argues that the First Amendment rights apply only to Christians and not to Muslims. How do you even get to such a claim as “but [building mosques] is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States” (Fischer)? You do not have to know much about Islam to know that it is not a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. Islam began way before the United States was even country. Why do people believe this? A lot of that has to do with fear and hatred, but I think that ignorance is the more fundamental problem. If people were more aware of what Muslims believed, they would never fall for such a statement.

So, it seems that religious intolerance would be less of an issue if people were more educated about what people of different religions believe. It is much more difficult to demonize Muslims if you are friends with them or if you know something about what their beliefs actually entail. But how is this religious education to be achieved? I never learned anything about other religions (besides Christianity and Hinduism) until I took a class at Butler, and I still don’t know as much as I should about them. Teaching World Religions in schools would be disastrous because it would violate all three prongs of the lemon test. It would be impossible to regulate the curriculum to make sure that it was not biased in favor or one religion and to control all teachers to make sure that they taught objectively. Not all religions could be included, but it would not be fair to include some and to exclude others. All in all, it would not work. But still, it seems that religious education would help people to empathize with people of other religions rather oppressing them. Is it possible to ensure that religion remain privatized in the sense that it is separate from politics, but at the same time to de-privatize it in a way that would allow people to become more aware and accepting of beliefs other than their own? Or is this the wrong way of approaching the issue?

Creationism taught at universites?

Just came across this article:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/11/Calif-college-in-creation-teaching-debate/UPI-79551302552587/

This talks about a university in Riverside, CA called La Sierra University that is under pressure by a local Seventh-day Adventist Church to include Creationism more in their biology curriculum. This drew the attention of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges which is responsible for accrediting the university. This is very interesting to me because we have pretty much only talked about the problem of teaching Creationism in middle and high schools. It hadn't really occurred to me that this was a legitimate problem in some universities as well. I mentioned that I have been in a biology class all semester, and coincidentally we are talking about the Creationism vs. Evolution debate in class right now. Don't worry, I made sure to mention this class. In this university setting, it is taught that evolution exists, and we studied in depth the reasons why and the evidence for it. All that was said about Creationism was that it is pretty much a load of illegitimate claims. The discussion about the debate was very open dispite the number of people in the class, and I was surprised that people were actually willing to talk about it when it is such a touchy subject. But the point is, here, the common opinion is that, duh, evolution exists. I can't imagine having Creationism pushed on me in a university biology setting, and I was shocked to come across this article addressing just that sort of situation.

Lucy used tools!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2009968,00.html


The majority of this article discusses what the professor from IU talked to us about when he presented the slide show on Australopithecus afarensis. It goes into further detail and describes a new discovery that has been made, "Two animal bones, excavated in Dikika, Ethiopia, bear what the authors call "unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion [i.e., smashing] for marrow access." With this discovery, researchers can conclude that the hominids of this time had a level of intelligence. It is so interesting to me how much scientists can conclude from a rock or a piece of bone. I am excited to see what new discoveries are going to be made and how they will fit into the fossil record and help further explain evolution. I just don't understand how creationists can simply dismiss all of these discoveries as nothing. 

Response to Aja's post

This was supposed to be a comment on Aja's post, but it was too long and it wouldn't let me post it. So this is actually a comment, not my own post.

Aja, I can definitely see what you’re saying about it being hypocritical to only pick some parts of Christianity to believe in, and it’s definitely something that I’ve thought a lot about. I mean, I still have a ton of doubts about Christianity, so maybe I’m not the best person to ask if you want to understand how a strong Christian would approach the issue, but here’s what I’ve come up with in terms of what to believe/not believe.

First of all, the Bible is made up of 66 books all written by different authors in very different genres, so I think some interpretation methods have to change as a result of genre. Why would I ever take poetry literally, for example? In the English Bible, the first chapters of Genesis are formatted, more or less, in the form of a prose narrative. I’ve heard the first two chapters of Genesis read in Hebrew before, and it sounds like a poem. In my Spanish Bible, it is also formatted as a poem, and I know that the Spanish version is an interpretive translation just as much as the English version is, but it just goes to show that a lot of people view the first few chapters of Genesis as a poem, and it could be that the original Hebrew text was as well.

Secondly, if God is infinite and we are finite, then it is impossible for him to be completely comprehensible to us. Because of that, I think that any language we use to describe God must be symbolic. It seems natural that people would come up with symbols that relate to their experience—for example, God is continually referred to in the Bible as a king and as a shepherd, but those symbols aren’t particularly pertinent to our experience, so we tend to not use them as much. It’s not that God is literally a king or literally a shepherd, but rather that those are symbols for some of his attributes—that he is powerful, that he leads his followers, that he is good to them, etc. In the same way, why should the symbol of Creator be any different? Maybe he did literally create the world and made it look like it evolved, but maybe he didn’t. It seems natural that people would use the role of Creator to describe him in order to express that God was their source of life, their source of purpose, and that their way of life was ordained by God. Like we talked about earlier, it was their way of explaining how the world works and what their experience of God was like. In the New Testament, there are several passages where the language used sounds exactly like the language of Plato’s Republic, which doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid, it just shows that people express truth through the language that is known to them, and in a society heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, that is the language the Bible was written in. According to Tillich, “The criterion of the truth of faith therefore is that it implies an element of self-negation. That symbol is most adequate which expresses not only the ultimate but also its own lack of ultimacy…Ex: Biblical research has shown the impossibility of considering the Bible as containing the infallible truth of faith” (Dynamics of Faith p 112-113). That doesn’t mean that the Bible isn’t important. It still expresses truth about a great many things and teaches us much of what we know about God, but I think it does so symbolically, and I think that it would be more of a perversion of faith to interpret the entire Bible in the exact way and to take all of it literally than it would be to accept the uncertainty inherent in faith and recognize that everything we express about God is merely a symbol for what he really is because God is too big for us to wrap our minds around and describe concretely.

Thirdly, there are SO many different interpretations of the Bible, that I think it would be difficult to say that one is completely right and all the others are wrong. I mean, when they blatantly contradict each other, one must be more right than the other, but how can you ever know for sure which one is? You can argue which one best fits your experience of reality and which one makes the most sense, and eventually accept one to follow, but that doesn’t mean it’s absolutely 100% true. What Ham refers to as a “compromise” is anything that goes against his particular interpretation, but how does he know for sure that he is right?

You said, “Even if we were to define the Biblical account of creation as merely a parable, we would have to admit that it does provide a solid basis for the concept of sin, the Fall of humanity through Adam’s rebellion, and the subsequent curse followed by death, disease and suffering. It wouldn’t be false to claim that this account of creation provides the solid basis upon which major, overarching concepts of Christianity stand.” What you’re referring to is the Augustinian model, which is what pretty much all Western Christian churches follow. Basically, it’s cyclical. God created everything and it was a perfect paradise. Then Adam and Eve were tempted and they sinned. That is when evil entered the world, and from then on, the world exists in a state of sin and irreparable brokenness. Then Jesus died on the cross and if you accept him as your Savior, then you will be redeemed and eventually go back up the way things were initially intended to be after you die. And if you don’t accept him, then regardless of how good of a life you lived, you go to hell.

This is what I was always taught in church, and I agree that it does explain why evil came into the world, why Jesus needed to come to save us, why there is so much suffering in the world today, etc., but I also think there are a lot of problems with the model. First of all, one thing that many Christians (mostly Calvinists) believe is that God’s grace is irresistible. But if that is the case and if God is immutable, then why was his grace not irresistible in the Garden? If Adam and Eve were living in a perfect paradise in perfect communion with their God, why did they fall? Is a part of God’s image corruptible? Secondly, where did evil come from? How did it come about out of nothing, or rather how did a part of good just stop existing (since good is a substance, but evil is merely the negation of the good and has no substance of its own)? Did evil come about because of God if he created a world in which he knew that Adam and Eve would inevitably fall? Is he really good if he created people in order to send them to hell? How were Adam and Eve supposed to know that eating the fruit was wrong if the tree was what contained the knowledge of good and evil? Pride, which is a sin, came before the fall. Thirdly, if it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then did he really have free will? And if he didn’t have free will, then was he really human? Most people who follow this model also claim God to be omnipotent, which poses a problem for them if they think that he is also omnibenevolent, but I'm not sure where in the Bible it says that God is omnipotent. It says that he is very very powerful, but I think there is a difference between being very powerful and ALL powerful.

Also, according to this model, the world makes no sense without a very particular view of God, and so is contrary to the reality that much of the world experiences. This model paints a picture of a God who is perfectly just and perfectly good, as witnessed by the fact that the responsibility for sin is placed entirely on humans for eating the fruit. Justice, at least at some level, is one of the very few things that I’m pretty confident I know for sure (e.g. murder, rape, child abuse, etc. are terribly wrong). But if God is perfectly just and his view of justice does not correspond to my view, then he must be right because he’s God and he is the standard of justice. Which means that my view of justice must be wrong. If that’s the case, then how can I trust myself at all? How can any of my experiences, thoughts, or feelings be valid if everything I know is based solely on what God “tells” me to believe about the world rather than on my experience of the world itself? Shouldn’t God correspond to reality rather than contradicting it? I’ve always thought that you have to trust yourself at least a little bit to trust anyone else because if I trust you, it’s because, based on my experience of you, I deem you to be a trustworthy person. That means I must trust that my experience of you is valid and I must trust my ability to determine whether or not you are a trustworthy person. Hence, I must trust myself to a small extent to be able to trust you. Thus, if the very act of believing in a God who is so contrary to everything that I know destroys any trust I have in myself and forces me to deny my experience of reality, then how am I supposed to be able to trust him either?

In my religion class, we recently learned about an alternative model called the Irenaean model, which, as far as I can gather, is what the Eastern Orthodox church follows (which is a lot of people—this isn’t just a small group of Christians who believe it). Irenaeas also came before Augustine did, so this isn’t just a new form of liberal Christianity. Instead of being cyclical, this model is linear. The universe was created a long time ago and God is distant from the universe. Evil was built into the way things were at the beginning of the universe. By the time humans came into being, there was already death and destruction in the world because animals had been killing each other for a long time. The story of the fall is taken to mean that Adam and Eve were initially children, and they, like all other humans, lost their innocence as they grew into adulthood. Jesus came to pay a ransom for our sins and so that we could become God-like. This line of thought views man as being still in the process of creation, because humans strive to become more like God. This process of “soul-making” is something that won’t be finished until after you die. For them, the soul is a sort of cognizant awareness, and the Bible need not be taken literally because it was a way for people to explain what they saw using language, which is subjective. This model also claims that humans and God both have equal responsibility for sin. God put them into a world where they would almost inevitably sin, but humans still made that decision. It would be as if you put a recovering alcoholic into a room full of alcohol and told him not to drink it. If he drank it, it would be partly your responsibility for doing that to him, and partly his for actually doing it. But one of the most important aspects of this model is the fact that evolution is perfectly compatible with it because it does not take the Bible literally and because “creation” is viewed as a process (both the physical evolution of species as well as the evolution of the soul to be more like God). Granted, there are lots of problems with this model too, and it still doesn’t explain exactly where evil came from, it’s just something that has always been there. And there may be some glaring inconsistencies in the model that I haven’t discovered because I just learned about it in class and have not studied it extensively, but based upon what I know about it now, it seems to make more sense of my experience of how the world works than the Augustinian model does, and it is perfectly compatible with science and evolution.

So, all that to say, maybe you’re right and it’s hypocritical to take some parts of the Bible literally and to understand others as metaphors, but I’m not sure how it’s possible to avoid doing that. First of all, I think genre is important in interpreting the Bible, and I think that the only way to express truth about God is through symbols—and we need to recognize that they are merely that: symbols, not concrete, absolute truth. And secondly, there are so many different interpretations of the Bible that I think it’s important to consider different ones and to make sure that religious belief is consistent with your experience of reality. There are many other interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with evolution, such as the Irenaean model, which I’m pretty sure most of the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts. Not that I’m going to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy or anything, but I do find their approach to the Bible as literature is helpful. I still have a ton of doubts about Christianity, mostly due to the problem of evil, the issue of whether and to what extent God can be experienced, and there are a ton of problems I have with the church, but none of my doubts about Christianity are really related to science because I think there are enough different ways out there to understand how the two can be compatible.

The link to part 1/12 of Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-vsq48ZoU

While driving home from Butler with my dad on Friday afternoon for Spring Break, the four hour drive led us to cover many topics, one of which was our Evolution-Creationism class. I was telling him about the homework I was planning on getting done over break, which included a blog post and my book review’s first draft. Then I went on to explain the two books I was reading, The Lie: Evolution and Scientific Creationism. We got into a heated but fun debate (yes I fully admit to being a nerd and debating a school topic on my first day of break). I was trying to form a valid defense of the merit of Creationism science based on what I had read while he got to tell me how ridiculous I sounded trying to tout the Creationist beliefs and he was amazed at how un-based in reality some of their claims were.
This led him to remember a documentary he had watched awhile back called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It was a special done by PBS detailing the events of the Dover Pennsylvania trial from start to finish including all the testimony. My dad loves history and much of my childhood was spent watching documentaries with my dad, his form of quality time. So it was not an out of the ordinary occurrence for him to have watched a show about what I was learning in class and then insist that I watch it. So while suffering from a very different sleep schedule, brought on by college life, than the rest of my family, I watched the documentary over break one evening/morning.
As I watched the 12 parts of the show on YouTube, I was pleasantly surprised that I had already read about the majority of the evidence cited in the testimony in books assigned for this class. One argument I’m sure we all remember from our reading was the theory of Irreducible Complexity. During the trial Kenneth Miller debunked the Irreducible Complexity theory in an easy to understand example of the mouse trap being used for other functions if part of it are taken away. He also debunked the theory using the very example that intelligent design debaters has used as their poster child for Irreducible Complexity, bacterial flagellum. They did this by discussing the discovery that a component of the bacterial flagellum’s, that Intelligent design experts argued served no other purpose was also present in the bacteria yersinia pestis (my favorite disease ever since I did a 5th grade science report on it) also known as the Black Plague. In Yersinia pestis, that component, slightly modified, serves a totally different purpose than it does it the bacterial flagellum.
The documentary even talked about the transition species found between fish and reptiles that was discovered right before the case happened and was still being written up in a paper and so therefore could not be used in testimony. It’s the same transition species that we read about in our book for class.
The documentary systematically goes through the evidence and point by point proves Intelligent Design is religion not science and therefore should not be in taught in the schools. I found that the documentary really pulled all that we have covered so far in our class together quite nicely in an easy yet scientific way. Through dramatized episodes of the testimonies taken straight from the court transcripts, PBS brought the case and the science surrounding the Evolution-Creationism Controversy to life in a way PowerPoint and pictures or text in a book can’t quite manage. I recommend the 120 minute documentary to anyone interested in a summary source about what our class is all about.

John F. Kennedy on Separation of Church and State

Here’s a link to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Houston Ministerial Association in which he declares his position on the separation of church and state:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iihPUJcrUAQ

And here’s a link to an article his niece Kathleen Kennedy Townsend wrote about it, in response to criticism offered by Sarah Palin:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303209.html