"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (4 of 4)

Creationism: check reason at the door

I was walking home with my daughter the other day when I bumped into a neighbor I had only met briefly in our comings and goings. Let’s call him Jeff. Jeff and I exchanged pleasantries as usual but this time he stopped and asked what I did for a living. I told him and then asked the same of him. He said he was retired but was active in leading a Sunday scripture study with some other Christians from the valley. He gave me the usual “What it is to be Christian” pamphlet. We talked some more and one thing led to another and we started talking faith and religion. He expressed some displeasure with other Christian sects because they were not based as strongly on the Bible as he felt was necessary. We talked some more and he told me his son was a chemist. Jeff said he believed in a young earth but his son believed in an old earth. I asked him what he meant by this. Jeff explained that the world is only 7000 years old. In other words, Jeff believes in the creation story in Genesis and the timeline set by the Bible. His son, the chemist, believes the age calculated by science, which is 4.5 billion years (consequently he probably believes in evolution also). I told Jeff that I shared the same beliefs as his son but that it didn’t hamper my faith life because there is always room for God. I explained, “Science will never disprove the existence of God just as we will never prove He exists.” Jeff is a good guy. We don’t agree on how old or young the Earth is or on how we got here, but I respect someone who is willing to share his faith. I just wish I could understand why people like Jeff check reason at the door when it comes to their faith.

As I said in the previous post in this series, one of the more intriguing interviews Dan Merchant included in his book was that with former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. Santorum promotes the agenda of the Religious Right. He opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and supports the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. Right off the bat I took exception with the fact that he used Europe as an example of what’s wrong with faith in the world. He claims that Europe is an “advanced stage of the problem.” The problem being there is an “increased secularization of the world. Faith is being replaced with the hard realities of science and materialism.” His support for this statement probably comes from the fact that about 20% of Western Europeans attend weekly church services, less than half that of North Americans. But does this make Europe a den of evil, Rick? They also tend to be more open to same-sex couples and abortion than Americans, which probably adds fuel to his animosity towards Europeans. Santorum says he believes in a “God of faith, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – [Who is] also the God of reason, the God of philosophers.” But that it “takes more faith to believe the theory of evolution than it does to believe we were made by a divine being.” I’m sorry Rick, but most people find it easier to believe in something tangible or based on sound rational thinking than something shrouded in mystery. I have a fairly strong faith in the existence of God, but it would sure help if He’d wrap me on the shoulder one day and say, “Dude, it’s Me. What’s up?”

Santorum supports Intelligent Design. In 2001, he tried unsuccessfully to insert language into “No Child Left Behind” that would have sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent Design claims, “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” I just shake my head every time I hear the subject of Intelligent Design because there is really a lack of intelligence behind Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is merely an attempt to skirt separation of Church and State and bring creationism into the classroom. And the sad thing is supporters claim it is a scientific theory; a theory that cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own. Intelligent Design is not a science. It is a joke.

Creationists have a clear misunderstanding of how science works. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation to explain natural phenomena. Scientists use a process called the scientific method to test hypotheses (educated guesses). Experiments are performed that will either lend support or refute a hypothesis. Once enough evidence is gathered to support a hypothesis, the results are shared in peer-reviewed journals for further validation. A hypothesis that does not lend itself to experimentation can never be validated and will never be accepted by the scientific community as a truth. Intelligent Design has this problem. How do you provide experimental evidence of an intelligent cause? You can’t. Game Over.

Creationists misinterpret the terminology used in science, like theory in the theory of evolution. In layman terms, a theory is something that is a mere guess, but in scientific terms, a theory is something proven and generally accepted as true. True, like gravity.

Creationists struggle juggling Genesis and Evolution. Christians grow up with the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It is a wonderful tale of love, betrayal, and loss with the hope of someday reentering paradise. But it is just that, a tale. The Book of Genesis is a symbolic text (most Christians would agree). You can’t take it literally. Genesis was written 2500+ years ago to explain Earth’s and humanity’s origins to a people that had a far less understanding of the world they lived in then we do today. It provided comfort and knowledge that they weren’t alone. Since then, we’ve learned that the world is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe, the world is much older than the Bible says, we are made up of cells, life originated in the sea, chimps may be our distant cousins, there may be life on Mars, and cloning takes the fun out of passing on your genes. We learned this in school, in classes like earth science, life science, geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. It makes sense and supporting evidence has piled up over the years. But there is no assault on a supreme being by science. There is still room for God. What is to say that He made Adam and Eve, two paramecia fluttering around in a primordial soup on distant planet in another solar system billions of years before Earth even came into existence (but then he wouldn’t need Adam AND Eve, Adam (or Eve) would’ve been enough… because he’d simply divide, making a copy of himself, because he’s a single cell organism… never mind)? Why can’t the Lord be a primal mover, a higher being who simply set things in motion? Both explanations take into account the knowledge we’ve gained in the last 2500 years. The phrase “created… in His image” (Genesis 1:27) just paints a different picture of Him. Why can’t God be a paramecium? It would show He has a sense of humor.

So, why is it that creationists throw reason and their education out the door, conclude the Earth is only 7000 years old and dinosaur bones are just an elaborate hoax? Because… “that’s what the Bible says.” Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

To conclude, science has no agenda against the faithful or God. Scientists merely seek to explain the unexplainable, to learn more about the world we live in and the laws that govern it. It is a tedious, detail conscious profession in which you fail more than you succeed. This is what Einstein meant when he said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” In a way, we are all scientists, as long as we still have a curiosity of the unknown. Intelligent Design is not science. It is fiction. And it does not belong in the science classroom. Creationists need to step up to the plate, open up their minds, and evolve a little.

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (3 of 4)

Abortion

One of the more intriguing interviews Dan Merchant included in his book was that with former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. Santorum, along with Senator Sam Brownback (KS-R), were voices for Christian conservative causes like abortion, same-sex marriage, and intelligent design versus evolution. Santorum is a self described Compassionate Conservative. In an op-ed piece published in November of 2005, he said, “Compassionate Conservatism relies on… a focused government to achieve noble purposes through definable objectives which offers hope to all.” It sounds noble, but this talk comes from the same man that tried to insert language into “No Child Left Behind” that would have sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Santorum lost reelection to Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006. Santorum left much to be desired during the interview, for reasons I will go into during the discussion on Creationism, but I gleaned some respect for Santorum from his comments on abortion.

He states, “Let’s have a real discussion about the moral and worldly consequences [of abortion] instead of just saying, ‘Well, God says we can’t do this’ and just lay down the law. We have to engage people and help them think through the consequences.”

Yes, I say! Absolutely! That’s what I am trying to accomplish. We must be cerebral in our discussion on abortion, not just spout biblical verse and shout, “Abortion is murder!” I love enthusiasm, but I hate blind faith.

Let’s start the discussion about the moral and worldly consequences of abortion Santorum was referring to. Two points:

First, a human life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg. This produces a cell containing 23 sets of chromosomes, a cell that will divide and differentiate to form every cell in the human body. There is no disagreement with this fact, even between religious fundamentalists and scientists.

Second, in the eyes of the law, an embryo will never have the same rights as the mother. It is impractical to put mother and embryo on equal footing under the law.

This is an unsettling reality. Moral thinking tells us abortion is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to simply say “abortion is wrong, so it should be illegal” because the consequence of overturning Roe are daunting. Where are you sending women seeking abortions? What happens to the babies from unwanted pregnancies? History tells us women will seek abortions despite the law often in unsanitary conditions performed by people less than professional. Women should never be forced into dark back alley procedures. And the products of unwanted pregnancies should be placed in loving homes with people who can feed, nurture, and care for the child. The feds cannot provide this, no more than religious organizations. Until these problems can be resolved, abortion will remain legal.

I have a problem with the Pro-Life stance on abortion because it doesn't offer solutions to the problems listed above. Pro-Lifers are merely trying to force their agenda on others. It is as restrictive as the opposite stance, and I'm not referring to Pro-Choice. The opposite stance to Pro-Life is a birth ban, where conception is prevented. Funny? Imagine a society where everyone is strung out on contraceptives and it is against the law to have children. This could be a plot for a sci-fi novel. Scary, isn’t it? But is it any scarier than a society where you can be brutally raped and impregnated and the state mandates that you deliver the baby? Pro-Choice is the more moderate stance. It puts the decision to give birth in the hands of every American woman instead of the hands of the state. It supports the woman’s power to choose. It empowers people instead of restricting them. Abortion will remain legal.

I’m not sure if Santorum would agree with this string of reasoning, but I respect him for at least opening the door for discussion. It is short sighted to make or change a law without understanding the consequences of the action. We must not be blinded by our faith.