State of Protest

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

God: the Evidence

Come again? What “evidence”?

In religion, man is assumed to be the most important thing in the “universe”, the special project of some deity. This has lead to religion ignoring observable facts and insisting that the earth is the “center” of the universe” and indeed that everything revolves around it. This baseless assumption defined how most religions and especially Christianity interacted with humanity and our world.

The heliocentric solar system was not unfamiliar to those in ancient times, or to those from other religions. Aristarchus of Samos wrote that he was furthering the theories of Heraclides Ponticus in the third century BC.¹ Muslim scholars did work to show that the earth rotates.² However, all of these early scientists were decried by contemporaries.³ How dare they say that the earth is not the center of the universe! This slowly started to change when instruments were developed to allow us to observe our world more accurately. Galileo saw the moons revolving around Jupiter.⁴ Copernicus came up with the data and formulas to demonstrate how we revolve.⁵ We then had to acknowledge that pretty stories meant nothing when reality was knocking on the door.

When Copernicus originally revealed his theories, they were met with interest but not yet aversion. However, they met opposition 3 years later when a Dominican monk denounced them in a work that indicated that the Bible was inerrant, the absolute truth of how the universe worked.⁶ Following that, Galileo dared to reveal that his telescope supported the heliocentric model. With such an “attack” against the infallibility of the Bible, and therefore Catholic Church, that which was acceptable as an idea became unacceptable as reality.⁷ Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for supporting Copernicus’ ideas and Galileo was convicted of heresy.⁸ Any heliocentric works were on the Vatican’s Index of Prohibited Books in 1616 and the specific books by Copernicus and Galileo were on that list until 1835.⁹

As you can see above, Copernicus did much to advance man’s knowledge of his world. In 1973, there was a celebration of the 500th anniversary of his birth.¹⁰ At this celebration, many scientific papers were presented by many of the preeminent scientists of that time. However, there was one paper presented that was not of this caliber. One of the articles in U.S. News and World Report’s special edition “Secrets of Christianity” mentions this one in its “God: the Evidence” article. One would assume that a magazine dedicated to pursuing the facts about things would have perhaps read this article over more closely, looking for facts to support the subject’s claims or making sure that questionable claims weren’t included. However, that is not the case.

This article begins with mentioning the august figures in attendance at that 1973 symposium. The author takes great pride in listing the names of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, etc. However, it immediately insists that the “only” paper to be “remembered” from that conference was one by Brandon Carter, “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.”¹¹ Now, I suspect that there were many papers that were remembered from that conference. One, “Large Scale Anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background” by R.B. Partridge,¹² did much for advancing Big Bang theories.

Dr. Carter’s idea was one that many apologists attempt to use today. The idea is that the universe, with its myriad laws and constants are “perfect” for human life, or as Dr. Carter put it, “[W]hat we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions for our presence as observers.” This has been claimed to “prove” that God exists, because there needs to be an “intelligence” that decided it wanted humans and it then created a universe to support those humans.

The article goes even further to claim that the theories based on observation of facts, such as evolutionary theory and the heliocentric fact, “explained the tone of despair and angst that came to characterize modern culture, the desperate feeling that humankind was along and without moorings, and above all, without God.” However, the article does nothing to show how this supposedly occurred. This is an excellent example of more baseless assumptions upon which religion builds its claims.

Baseless claims like this are rife throughout the article. It is claimed that “scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics.” This “connection” is supposedly the one “overriding fact”: “Such values had been necessary for the creation of life.” Now, a fact is a very specific thing, especially in the scientific world. A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.¹³ Because we do not know exactly what is required for the creation of life — something that creationists are quite fond of reminding everyone — it cannot be claimed that it is known for a “fact” that the constants and laws of physics are indeed required for it. The article also does not cite who these “scientists” were, which is always a sign of a claim with no evidence to support it.

The article claims that the argument of “God did it” is a “simpler way of explaining” these constants and laws than the “exotic theories” of physicists. This could be a good assumption if one also believed that fairies made shoes for people in exchange for a bowl of milk rather than the “exotic theory” that cobblers make shoes.

Dr. Carter attempted to make his idea more scientifically palatable by attempting to claim that the “coincidences” that he claimed were too many to just be that, coincidences. However, there is no way to determine how many was “too many.” He also relied on an old idea about the universe. Once, it may have been considered simply “random” by 19th century thinkers, but no scientist thinks that the universe is totally random today nor is it likely that they did even back in 1973. Also, the author of the article has attempted to claim that “Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” could no longer be taken as an exhaustive explanation for the phenomenon of life. Again, these are common mistakes by apologists, using very outdated information and presenting half-truths, since evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis as he attempts to call the “phenomenon of life.”

There are further attempts to claim that “20th century science is closer to in spirit to the vision of the Book of Genesis than anything offered since Copernicus.” Unless one takes it all completely as “metaphor” and shoehorns any definition one likes into it, it is not. If one does this, then what of the Bible is “metaphor” and what is literal? Why is one person’s “interpretation” better than another’s? The article also tries to claim that finding an origin to the universe is some kind of “scientific embarrassment” and it adds to this the lie that science agrees at all with this unsupported idea that the universe is “expressly designed for life.”

Unfortunately, this article is emblematic of many other Christian apologist arguments. They try to co-opt the terms and discoveries of science to make Christianity sound more plausible, which is especially ironic when “good Christians” didn’t believe any of this when the theories were new and had less evidence supporting them. The article attempts to say that the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “God did it.” However anyone knows that the person who proposes an idea is the one who must provide the proof that it is correct and none has been provided. Each scientific discovery pushes any deity farther and farther into the gaps that they try to exploit. Life is in the universe because that’s what those constants and laws just happen to allow to arise. If those constants and laws were different, we would either not be here or we would be here in a different form. The universe isn’t “perfect” for us at all. We are “perfect” for it.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [↩]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo [↩]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus [↩]
6. Rosen, Edward (1995). Copernicus and his Successors. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 1 85285 071 X [↩]
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [↩]
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno [↩]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum [↩]
10. http://siarchives.si.edu/findingaids/FARU0500.HTM [↩]
11. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..291C [↩]
12. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..157P [↩]
13. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact [↩]

Every year, the U.S. experiences as many as 850,000 teen pregnancies. Those under the age of 25 contract an average of about 9.1 million STDs. 70% of females and 62% of males lose their virginity by the age of 18.¹ In a study commissioned by Congress, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. concluded that abstinence-only programs have no effect on the age students first have sex and no effect on their number of sexual partners.²

Clearly, education is the key. When northern Virginia began requiring “family life education” as part of their public school curriculum in 1987, teen pregnancies dropped by fifty percent, and teen abortions went down sixty percent.³ Students receive instruction in “family living and community relationships, abstinence education, the value of postponing sexual activity, the benefits of adoption as a positive choice in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, human sexuality, human reproduction, dating violence, the characteristics of abusive relationships, steps to take to avoid sexual assault, and the availability of counseling and legal resources, and, in the event of such sexual assault, the importance of immediate medical attention and advice, as well as the requirements of the law and the etiology, prevention and effects of sexually transmitted diseases. “ Yet, an important aspect of sexual education has been missing from this curriculum, i.e. information on birth control.

Last Wednesday, February 6^th, the Virginia Senate rejected a bill, SB 155, which would have added to the curriculum the requirement for education on the various methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Senate’s education and health committee cleared the bill with a 9-6 vote, but on the floor the bill narrowly missed passage with a vote of 17-22. It seems common sense that our children should be given proper information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and a recent survey showed that 82% of parents in the U.S. support programs that would discuss these methods,⁴ so why was this bill rejected?

Republican lawmakers accused the FDA-approved list of contraception of being too broad and unreliable. “Quite frankly, this list is rather staggering in terms of its scope, and in terms of its relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness,” Sen. Mark D. Obenshain said, referring to a spermicide on the FDA list that is not supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The spermicide he was referring to does have a comparatively high failure rate,⁵ but that is exactly the reason we need to educate students on these methods. Does the Senator really believe that the potential failure rates would not be discussed alongside the benefits? That, of course, would be one of the most important aspects for students to learn about. The patron of the bill, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, responded, “How better should our children be introduced to this laundry list? Should they go into the store, whether it’s the CVS or some other place, and guess at the efficacy of these products or guess how to use these products or guess as to whether these products are appropriate or not, or should they learn it in a classroom setting?”⁶

Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, one of two Democratic Senators who joined with Republicans to kill the bill, said he worried about Catholic students in public schools. “This was one of those efforts where the intent was right, but it could get in the way of families’ beliefs,” Houck said. This is a poor argument, as parents have always had the right to remove their children from the program if they feel it is inappropriate or conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The “Some Families” Foundation, while rallying for opposition to the bill, wrote in an action alert, “The bill…would replace current abstinence-based Family Life Education programs with a controversial contraception-only curriculum.”⁷ This is a blatant untruth! All the current teachings of the benefits of postponing sexual activity would remain in place. The education on contraception would merely be an addition to the existing criteria. In an action alert email, they stated, “This bill is the highest priority legislative initiative for Planned Parenthood. That pro-abortion group had close to 500 people here yesterday to argue for its passage. Some of their activists were still in high school. Are we going to let them go into our schools to recruit the next generation of pro-choicers without putting up a fight? These are our children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren and great grandchildren. No! We cannot let them win this critical battle. The education of our children is too important to trust to ineffective and dangerous contraception-based programs.” Ineffective and dangerous? Study after study confirms the inefficacy of abstinence-only education. Teenagers are going to have sex. To think that telling them “No” is going to somehow stop them from behaving contrary to their nature as human, sexual beings, is both naïve and the real danger to our students.

Based on the blaring inconsistencies in the opposition’s arguments and their willful ignorance of the hard evidence against them, could there be another, underlying reason for their vicious attack on this bill? In October 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine submitted plans to close a budget shortfall. One of the ways in which he accomplished his goal was to eliminate a $275,000 matching grant for a federal program which provided funds for fourteen nonprofit groups that taught abstinence only, making Virginia the fourteenth state to refuse to support abstinence-only education. Kaine’s communications director, Delacey Skinner, stated, “The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidenced-based.” Kaine cited recent studies which have found that in order to truly protect teenagers against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.⁸ Social conservatives reacted very angrily to the Governor’s decision and accused him and Planned Parenthood of hiding the decision until after the November election. Their accusations were unjustified, as Kaine’s budget amendments had been public for six weeks prior. Considering the close timing between these two incidents, it seems highly likely that Republican’s residual anger over the Governor’s decision had a considerable impact on their decision to reject SB 155.

Statistics aside, studies aside, evidence aside, the bottom line is that we have a responsibility to provide accurate, useful information to our students at a time when they need it most. When students are well-informed, they can make well-informed decisions. Withholding that information is tantamount to lying to our children and can only cause confusion and detrimental consequences. Please take the time to write to our politicians and express your support for comprehensive sexual education for our students. We owe it to their futures.

1. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm [↩]
2. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf [↩]
3. (Sen. Barker, D-Fairfax) http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/measure … nia-senate [↩]
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603764/ [↩]
5. http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html [↩]
6. http://www.examiner.com/a-1206268~Contraceptive_education_bill_killed.html [↩]
7. http://www.vbdems.org/?p=2177 [↩]
8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01716.html [↩]

In the late 19^th century, Charles Taze Russell, an American Protestant Evangelist from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, founded a religious movement known as the Bible Student movement.  He and his followers believed mainstream Christianity had been corrupted and that their movement was a restoration of first-century Christianity.  Russell was greatly interested in Biblical prophecy and came to adopt the eschatology of Nelson H. Barbour, who predicted Christ would return in 1873.  When Barbour’s prediction failed, he revised the year to 1874.¹ After this second disappointment, he decided Christ had indeed returned that year but had done so invisibly in heaven.  Russell adopted this belief and together with Barbour wrote the book The Three Worlds, in which they described their belief that in 1878 there would be a gathering of the saints to heaven and that 1914 would mark the end of Gentile control of Jerusalem and the end of rule by “human” governments. ²

In 1879, Russell broke ties with Barbour and began publishing his own magazine, Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence (now known as The Watchtower.) Russell then established Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881, a legal entity which still advises today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses.  “The Society” published a series of seven books (six written by Russell) entitled Studies in the Scriptures.  The early editions of these books mirrored many of Barbour’s claims, such as the “invisible” second coming of Jesus in 1874, a year he believed was marked by the lengths of the internal passages of the great pyramid of Egypt.  Russell wrote that the great pyramid at Gizeh is God’s Stone Witness and Prophet and that the Pleiades star cluster is the place of the eternal throne of God.³

After Russell’s death in 1916, there was a struggle for power amongst the Board of Directors for The Society.  The group that followed the original Watch Tower Society adopted the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” in reference to Isaiah 43:10: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”  The name Jehovah is an English form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH, and Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that making this name known to others is a requirement for true worship.

Most people are probably familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses through their proselytization efforts.  Witnesses are required to devote as much time as possible to going door-to-door, distributing literature from the Watchtower publications.  In order to be considered members, they must report monthly on the time they’ve spent preaching.  In 2007, Jehovah’s Witnesses reported an attendance of over 17 million at their annual memorial celebration of Christ’s death.  However, these are merely considered adherents.  About 7 million are considered worthy of the title member.⁴

The memorial celebration, held in March or April, is their most important annual event and the only celebration they believe is sanctioned by the Bible.  They typically do observe weddings, funerals and anniversaries, but religious or national holidays such as birthdays, Thanksgiving and Christmas are considered unchristian and are not celebrated.  They consider such celebrations, as well as patriotism, to be tantamount to worshipping an idol.  They are expected to obey the laws of the country in which they reside, but they refuse to serve in the military, salute any flag, or sing any nationalistic songs.⁵

Jehovah’s Witnesses consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God and do interpret many scriptures literally, but they believe that much of it is merely symbolic.  They consider the New World translation, first published by their own Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1950, to be the most correct translation.  They rely on a “Governing Body” of Jehovah’s Witnesses to interpret scripture correctly and are not permitted to interpret anything themselves.  They are forbidden from reading any material that is not sanctioned by the Watchtower Society, and they are strongly discouraged from attending colleges and universities.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus‘ death was necessary to atone for the sins brought upon the world by Adam and that he is the means of salvation for all those who are worthy, but they reject the doctrine of the Trinity, believing that Jesus is the archangel Michael and God’s first creation.  Instead of a cross, they believe he died on a “torture stake.”  They line up with typical conservative Christians in believing that homosexuality and premarital sex are sins, abortion is murder, gambling is sinful, and the husband is considered the final authority in the family structure.⁶  They believe that a war of Armageddon is imminent wherein the wicked will be destroyed.  They differ from most Christians in that they believe blood is not to be eaten, stored, or transfused.  Any Jehovah’s Witness who accepts a blood transfusion will be subject to organized communal shunning, and many have chosen death because of this.  They also differ in that they do not believe in any Hell of fiery torment, instead believing that the wicked that die are truly dead and have no consciousness.   They believe that only 144,000 people will get to heaven and that these will be co-rulers with Jesus over the rest of the humans who manage to survive the Armageddon.  Since many have already died whom they consider to be worthy of heaven, the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses expect to live eternally on the earth, after it is renewed to a paradisiacal state, not in heaven.⁷

1. Barbour, N.H. (1874). The Midnight Cry and Herald of the Morning [↩]
2. Russell, C.T. (1876). “Gentile Times: When Do They End?“. Bible Examiner [↩]
3. Russell, C.T. (1902). “The Time is At Hand.” Watch Tower [↩]
4. Wah, C., (June 2001) “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Responsibility of Religious Freedom: The European Experience,” Journal of Church and State [↩]
5. (September 2002) “Salvation Belongs to Jehovah.” Watchtower: 21. [↩]
6. (1995) “Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life.” Watchtower. 120. [↩]
7. (July 1998) “Death Is to Be Brought to Nothing.” Watchtower: 19–24. [↩]

The father of a co-worker on a different floor died the other day, and another co-worker got a card and started a collection for flowers for the funeral. No big deal. Passed the card around. I was one of the later persons to receive the card to jot down something. We do this all the time for birthdays, and it’s fairly easy to come up with something to say for a birthday. “Happy Birthday!” “Best Wishes!” “Hope you get laid!” You know, something like that. Cheery or morose, doesn’t matter for a birthday card. “Hey, at least you still have your hair! Most of it, anyway!”

Well, for a “Your father died. I didn’t know him. I barely know you. I’m sorry he’s dead, but only in that faintly ‘we’re all humans here and share some sort of emotional bond’ sort of way” card, it’s not so easy. I was the 16th or 17th signer on the card. I glanced casually at the other notes, just to get an idea of what others were saying. And what I saw kinda shocked me, although perhaps it shouldn’t have.

Out of 16 notes, 12 used the word “prayer” or “prayers” and 1 used “God.” Yes, I know that for most people, “you’re in my prayers” really only means that “you’re in my thoughts.” Which, of course, makes the use of both redundant but perhaps more encouraging? “You’re in my thoughts and prayers.” What’s that really mean? I’m thinking of you, and, oh, by the way, I’m thinking of you. It’s worse when it even remotely means actual prayer. What, seriously, is prayer going to accomplish in that situation? What, exactly, are these people praying for? “I pray your daddy comes back from the grave so you can say your final farewells.” “I pray that you die soon so that you can see your dad in heaven.” “I pray that you understand that God really loves you and your dad, and death is just His way of showing it. Really.”

Many State of Protest readers are former Christians. Here are some questions for you. When you told someone that they were in your prayers, what did you really mean? And then what did you do? Did you ever actually pray for someone after you said you would? Did you clasp your hands together and close your eyes and start praying with that person in mind? And, if you did, what did you say? For what did you pray?

And why does it so utterly disturb me that so many of my co-workers are praying for someone who just lost a father?

If, say, a member of my immediate family were to die, would I take the assertions of prayer by others as insults or just innocent ways of expressing their attempt at shared mourning? In other words, is someone who knows that I’m atheist intentionally infringing upon my beliefs by stating that they will pray for me, for my family member?

It reminds me of a classic dead-end conversation:

Theist: “It was nice talking to you. God bless!”

Atheist: “I don’t believe in God.”

Theist: “But He believes in you, and He wants you to know that He loves you!”

Why do we dislike salespeople who knock on our doors on Saturday morning, or who pester us in stores while we’re trying to look at something? Because they won’t take “no” for an answer. They’re rude, imposing, and have absolutely no care about your feelings, your thoughts, your beliefs. Same reason we don’t like evangelicals. Now, these 13 or so co-workers who felt the need to indicate (out of piety or self-righteousness) that they were praying for the card’s recipient probably wouldn’t consider themselves evangelical. However, aren’t they?

Are prayers useful? Apparently some prominent people would like to continue to encourage that belief. Some frighteningly prominent people.

In 2000:

At the White House, President Clinton said he was “saddened by the terrible loss of life” in Georgia, and asked Americans to pray for the victims.¹

The vice president [Gore] told tornado victims they could count on the prayers and resources of the nation.²

In 2003:

I express my sincerest condolences to the victims of the tornadoes that ripped through Arkansas and Kansas and Missouri, Tennessee, Nebraska and South Dakota. Our prayers and I hope your prayers are with those who — the loved ones who lost life or those who lost their home. The federal government, the local state and local authorities need to know the federal government will be moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide help where help is needed, and where help is justified. Nature is awfully tough at times. And the best thing to do right now is to pray for those who have suffered.³

In 2007:

I bring the prayers and concerns of the people of this country to this town.⁴

Today:

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday offered prayers and disaster relief to the victims of dozens of tornadoes that killed at least 48 people and injured hundreds more in southern US states.

“Prayers can help, and so can the government,” Bush said. “I do want the people in those states that the American people are standing with them.”

Twenty-four people were killed in Tennessee, 13 in Arkansas, and seven in Kentucky, officials in the three states said.

US media reported hundreds injured, and CNN said four people were killed in Alabama. Local authorities were not immediately available to confirm that death toll.

“I’ve just called the governors of the affected states,” said Bush. “I wanted them to know that this government will help them, but more importantly I wanted them to be able to tell the people in their states that the American people hold those who suffer up in prayer.”⁵

I’m stymied. Does Bush, does anyone really, honestly think that it’s more important that victims of natural disasters are “receiving”⁶ prayers from fellow Americans than it is for the government to help?⁷ I suppose knowing how the government “helped” after Hurricane Katrina, people might be somewhat distrustful of such intervention. Also, from the look of the trend — these tornadoes aren’t stopping — it would seem, from a rational point of view, that not only do the requested and given prayers not work, but from a corollary perspective, might even be the actual cause of the perpetuation of these wretched storms. Well, it’s just as realistic as the conjecture that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality.⁸

I find prayers devoid of usefulness. Ten million Americans can go home tonight after work, hold hands with their loved ones, and utter a solemn, moving prayer. They can go to church this evening, if they’re Catholic they can receive an ash cross, they can mass pray for the victims. They can close their eyes, and ask God in the most imploring inner voice they have to help the victims. All this accomplishes is the exact same thing it accomplished in 2007, 2003, 2000, and all the years between and since — absolutely nothing but the smug satisfaction of those praying that they somehow advocated on behalf of the victims. That they’ve done something useful. Heck, if the president says it’s more important, it must be.

On the other hand, ten million Americans can send a dollar each to a victims’ relief fund. Ten American entrepreneurs can send a thousand dollars each. Five American corporations can send a million dollars each. People nearby can send themselves. People at a distance can send canned food, fresh water, or organize relief donations that maximize what the victims actually receive.

I’m going to pray to President George W. Bush to explain why he thinks that prayer is more important than the myriad other ways these people and all other victims of disasters and war can be helped. I doubt, however, that such a prayer would ever be answered.

—————————–

Follow up!: Apparently “Prayer is among the increasingly creative ways that schools and the community are encouraging Central Florida students to excel on the annual FCAT….”

Perhaps the highest stakes, though, are at Evans High, where students hope to avert another failing school grade.
This week, FCAT prayers will be said at home. Next month, however, when students tackle the reading, math and science portions of the test, Kimbrough of Rising Sun Baptist plans to have church members walking, kneeling and joining hands in prayer on the sidewalks outside Evans and its ninth-grade center. The vigil is intended to last throughout test-taking.

There’s even a special FCAT prayer service March 2 at 3 p.m. at the Evans ninth-grade center that’s open to all. The faithful will pray for good grades but also that the students stay focused and confident.

“God could care less about the FCAT, but he cares about his people,” Kimbrough said. “He cares about what concerns his people.”⁹

If I were a kid failing a standardized test, would I want my parents and community to help tutor me or stand outside and pray for me? Perhaps they’re doing both. However, this is certainly violative of the First Amendment in addition to creating a form of intimidation for non-Christian students. Oh, and it’s “God couldn’t care less…” Apparently the praying hasn’t been working.

1. Death toll rises to 19 from Georgia tornadoes, CNN, February 14, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/14/storms.05/index.html [↩]
2. CNN, February 16, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/16/storms.04/ [↩]
3. Transcript of President George W. Bush, CNN, May 5, 2003, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/05/wbr.00.html [↩]
4. President George W. Bush, Bush visits Kansas town flattened by tornado, CNN, May 9, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/kansas.bush/index.html [↩]
5. Bush offers prayers, government help for storm victims, Yahoo, February 6, 2008, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080206/usa/us_weather_tornado_bush [↩]
6. What is the process by which someone receives a prayer? How would someone know a prayer has been made on that person’s behalf unless the pray-er informs the recipient? So, are prayers really just modern-day condolences, with no real supernatural affiliation? If so, why push prayer in school? [↩]
7. If I went to the site of the devastation from those tornadoes, and I walked around to each victim and asked them to choose: I would either give them $5,000 in cash for recovery or I would have 5000 affiliates pray for them, which option would the victims choose? Which would you choose? How is prayer effective again? How is it more important than government assistance? [↩]
8. 23% See AIDS as God’s Punishment for Immorality, Pew Research Center, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=311; see also Jerry Falwell quotes, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jerry_falwell.html [↩]
9. Physical, emotional and spiritual support pumps up kids for FCAT, Orlando Sentinel, February 10, 2008, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/consumer/orl-prayforgrades1008feb10,0,7753098.story [↩]

I had the misfortune of reading an article this morning from the St. Petersburg Times entitled “The evolution of a sensitive lesson: Educators find ways of handling The Theory. Some skip it. Others hunt for a balance point.”¹ The article states that many Florida public school teachers have been intentionally avoiding the teaching of evolution in their science classes, although Florida law requires it. What is their excuse? Backlash from offended parents. Parents who object to evolution being taught in schools.

Since “no one complains when a teacher does not teach evolution,” “There is not an outcry for, ‘Teach us Evolution.’” What a convenient excuse for using the public school system to misguide children. Evolution is a fundamental aspect of science, and the recurring attempts to overturn the success of the rational mind in 1925² evoke a sense of desperation combined with a pathetic waste of resources both monetary and mental. In what deteriorated state would the nation be if the holy book happened to state plainly that 2+2=5? Would teachers hesitate to teach correct math? Would their excuse be that there isn’t any outcry for “Teach us math”? Would they flinch and pander to parents who insisted that deviation from biblical pronouncement is offensive, regardless of any contrary evidence?

Here are some of the embarrassing statistics from the 2005 survey conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, as sited in the article:

31 percent said they felt pressured to include creationism or Intelligent Design in their science classroom. Most of the pressure came from students (22 percent) and parents (20 percent).

30 percent said they felt pressured to de-emphasize or omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum.

85 percent said they felt well-prepared to explain the reasons why it’s important for students to understand evolution; 11 percent said they did not.

19 percent said they de-emphasize or omit the term “evolution” in their lessons so as not to draw attention to it.

I say, let’s reverse this trend. If a teacher intentionally omits “evolution,” fire the teacher. If a parent tries to pressure the school or teachers not to teach evolution, or to add creationism, support the teachers who teach evolution. The state law states that evolution must be taught. The state, then, should stand behind teachers who do so.

The article throws in some definitions:

Darwin’s theory of evolution: Says species have changed over millions of years, driven by their ability to adapt and survive in changing environments.

Creationism: The belief that a god or gods created the Earth, the universe and life.

Intelligent design: The belief that some systems found in nature, such as the human eyeball, are too complex to have formed without the intervention of an unnamed designer.

Intelligent design is a modern-day reverse engineered, watered-down, “skeptic-friendly” version of creationism, as even a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush noted in what should have been the end of this controversy, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.³ In his decision, Judge John E. Jones III stated, “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.” Teaching intelligent design in public schools violates the First Amendment. Teaching evolution does not.

If you live in the state of Florida, or the United States, or anywhere that the public, tax-funded school system is under either direct or surreptitious attack by those who would threaten the livelihood of teachers who teach actual science, then it is not only your duty to intervene, but it is also in your best interest. These kids are going to be running this planet in a few decades, and I don’t want to see what the world will look like if the vast majority of them insist that the planet is six thousand years old, created by sky-daddy, and anyone who says otherwise will burn in hell — after burning at the stake, of course. If you don’t think human beings are capable of such irrational behavior, then you might want to brush up on your history and current events.

Contact the Florida Department of Education⁴ and tell them that you want the government of Florida to protect teachers who follow Florida law, teachers who teach science in science class, not mythology.

If you’re not in Florida? Contact the U.S. Department of Education⁵.

Then contact the department of education in your own state.⁶ Call, write letters, protest, become amici to related court cases. There is so much we can all do, even if it seems minor. It’s that important.

1. http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/03/State/The_evolution_of_a_se.shtml [↩]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District [↩]
4. Florida Department of Education: http://www.fldoe.org/ [↩]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education [↩]
6. Education Resource Organizations Directory: http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SEA [↩]

As humans, we’ve generally been taught that lying isn’t good. Now, sometimes it is used to spare feelings, or soften a blow, but in generally, to lie is to willfully ignore the truth for some reason, generally to the liar’s advantage. I personally don’t like lying because it tries to refuse reality which is pointless. Tim Mazur has a similar idea, though based on the Kantian idea that humans have intrinsic worth, something that I don’t particularly agree with wholeheartedly. “Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy.”¹ I don’t think morals have anything to do with it, but I do agree that lies are harmful. Now, I do agree that there are times when lies are necessary, e.g. to save one’s life if one has to promise something to a killer, to keep a confidence, etc. I still do not like them, but human nature, being what it is, does seem to require them.

Now, in my opinion, religion is a great lie. And I do appreciate the irony of finding Mr. Mazur’s quote on a Jesuit university’s website. None of them can demonstrate that they have any type of great ‘Truth’. The few similarities that exist between religions, oft pointed to by theists who want to think that their particular deity is the one behind all religions or all ‘good’, are simply from the fact that we are humans and humans function in similar ways and have similar societies. Religion promises proof but never provides it. I have found it amazing that people can pass around a story that no one knows the true provenance of, which promises much but provides nothing, and how they can keep believing in it. I believed Christianity for a while because I was taught to trust my elders. However, trust can be destroyed when reality raises its head.

Lies have become endemic in religion. Since they cannot rely on any truths, they must make up reasons for why something is or isn’t so. These ‘reasons’ change with society, not the other way around. These are no better than Rudyard Kipling’s Just-so stories and considerably less well-thought out. Since each religion depends on being the only ‘correct’ one, they all do what they can to keep their flocks in line.

This culture of lies also seems to influence the actions of their believers. I had the opportunity to see this first hand recently. I was responsible for the attendance at an invitation-only conference held by my employer. We had a limited budget for food and a limited space to fit people into. The rsvps went out to our invitees approximately 3 months in advance of the conference. Three days before the conference, I received an RSVP from an invited member of a Christian organization that had a note on it saying that they intended to also bring along 6 other people and that I was to call if this would be a problem. Being that we had long run out of space, I called and said that we would be unable to accommodate those invited and definitely no room for anyone else extra. I could tell by the woman’s voice that she was taken aback by my answer, especially when she asked me several times if what I said meant that no one of their group could come. Several days later, I was then contacted by another organization that these people, including a pastor, said that they had been invited by my organization’s president and that we had subsequently dis-invited them. This was a lie. The only people invited were three from their organization, contingent if they got their rsvps back in time just like everyone else, and that we had not told these people they could bring whomever they wanted. I was quite indignant about this. However, from my prior experience with Christians, I accepted it as business as usual. In my experience, Christianity does nothing to make a person any better than they would be without religion. It only seems to give excuses to those who are unpleasant people to begin with.

The day of the event rolled around and I was working registration with our hired event planner. Things were busy but I noticed a group of people well decorated with crosses approaching the registration table. By either chance or intent (I had a name tag on) none of them came to me to get their badges. However, I was familiar with enough names to know who they were. The ‘good Christians’ decided to come anyway. I reported this to my bosses but to no avail. No one had the nerve to tell them that they were unwelcome. I would have dearly liked to but I also wished to keep my job. By luck, it wasn’t the problem it could have been since a winter storm had been forecast and that few people came than we had thought. While not privy to their thoughts, I am reasonable sure, from prior experience, that these Christians were praising their God for allowing them to get in and that other people hadn’t come because of the storm. I’m reasonably sure that they also forgot that at least 7 people died because of this storm before it got to us and weakened. I had told other people that we had no more room and those people respected our decision. These people did not. They lied about the circumstances of their rsvps, they ignored my politely given denial of their request, and they could have caused a very unpleasant situation with their arrogance. They forced an occasion where they did not want to follow the rules. They wanted special rights, not equal rights.

I see on various forums that Christians are often aghast that anyone could possibly think bad of them. It is for reasons like my situation above, the circling of the wagons when televangelists are ignorant and intolerant, the simple words of the Bible, etc, that people often regard Christians as arrogant, willfully ignorant hypocrites who want nothing more than to force their will on others. Being a theist, whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroasterian, Wiccan, Hindu, etc., doesn’t automatically mean you are a good person.

1.  http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ … lying.html [↩]