Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

 
We have a problem with not knowing. Some say that religion is something people believe because it makes them feel better, basically. It gives them an answer. I would say the same exact thing about the theory of evolution. I recently learned about Ken Ham, a creationist who has an organization called Answers in Genesis. He actually built a life size Noah’s ark in Kentucky, among other things!

One item that quickly popped up for Ken Ham in a Google search was a debate he did with Bill Nye the Science Guy in 2014. Bill Nye the Science Guy videos were shown to me throughout public schooling in the U.S. I was very excited to discover and watch this debate! I also learned a lot. So many of the thoughts and ideas that I had formed on the matter were confirmed with the arguments that Ken Ham presented. The biggest point he articulated over and over again was something I had fumbled to say in many more words. He said that the word science has been hi-jacked to include both observational science and historical science, lumping them together and calling them science.

Historical science isn’t really science, or at least it's important to distinguish. When I think of science, I think of the scientific method with a hypothesis, independent and dependent variables, where we can observe that if you try to grow a plant in the dark, it does not work, thus concluding that it needs sunlight to grow.  We can see it, observe it, isolate the variables, and determine a truth about nature. That is science.

In all of my reflections on the matter, I have seen clearly that it is arrogant to make claims to things that happened long ago while only dealing with very limited information and having no witness accounts. To call such conclusions truth is to go completely against the way our court processes work. I’ve also seen that evolution lacks contribution to the scientific advancements we’ve made in medicine, engineering, technology, etc. I'm not claiming to be a young earth creationist. I'm not entirely concerned about the exact age of the earth, but I am surely a creationist. I also don't see that the young earth creation theory has been concluded impossible. 

What does the theory of evolution actually do for us? In all honesty, it seems to primarily be a theory that contradicts creation and the existence of God. It gives an alternative explanation and serves as an option for people who don’t believe in God. That’s its main purpose, not helping us to improve our living conditions, reduce physical or mental disease, or improve efficiency in any way. It seems to have caused lots of conflict during its 150 years and not much help. If anyone has a good argument that goes against that, I would love to hear it. If we stop viewing the world primarily through the lens of an evolutionist and open up the possibility of intelligent design, will our scientific advancements stop? Will they be affected? How so?

On the other hand, we can look at what the Bible does. Christians are not the only religion that believes that the Bible is the word of a living God and surely not the only religion that believes in the supernatural. The Bible, whether you think it was stretched along the way as Ken Ham claims in relating it to a tall tale, is a historical document and witness account. The theory of evolution was simply formed from the thoughts of Darwin after observing bird beak variations, and reported in two books that are filled with white supremacy and the dehumanization of human beings, who I would argue, alongside Ham, are image bearers of the living God. As Ham said, there is much greater variety in dog breeds than there were in the finch beaks Darwin observed, but we have yet to see one of those dog breeds convert into a separate species.

Many will claim that religion has been the cause of all sorts of horrors, and it is true that it has been a source of conflict. However, I would invite those same people to take a look at the country of Haiti. Millions of children have no access to schooling and kidnappings are currently happening on a daily basis. Check out the clips in my last post where I interviewed Jerry Floreal. He spoke about the school he went to as a child and the surrounding schools in the area. All are Christian schools supported by different churches. He also mentions support from World Vision, a Christian organization. This is the truth in Haiti and I believe other parts of the world as well. So the next time you hear someone talk about the bad that religion has done, don’t forget about these teachers being paid and kids being fed day after day, month after month, and what the motivation is for this service.  

Toward the end of the debate, the moderator read questions from the audience and they had a short amount of time to answer. This section really showed to me a strong difference in the two mindsets of these men. I saw Bill Nye display an insecurity in not knowing, a strong need to know, and excitement as well to research and find out. For example, when asked how matter gained consciousness, he said that no one knows! It’s one of the great mysteries! The way he spoke was intense as if not being able to give a scientific explanation was an urgent problem, one that must continue to be addressed until an answer is present. As Ham spoke, especially during the last part of the debate where they answered questions from the audience, Nye’s face was a bit intense and almost angry or at least stressed.
Ken Ham’s face and stature, on the other hand, was calm and cool. When he spoke of not knowing something, he didn’t seem stressed. He spoke of what he did know, gave biblical explanations to match scientific observations, and calmly admitted when there was not yet an answer on a topic.

At one point, they talked about the observation that the stars are getting further and further apart. Bill Nye excitedly explained to the audience that maybe if we knew the answer as to why that is the case, then it would be helpful in figuring out other things! He then went onto tell them that NASA does a lot of research in this area, paid for by their tax dollars.
And here is where I’ll rest my case. When I see that Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon, is investing his billions in developing a rocket ship experience where people can fly into space like tourists, I see pure heartlessness. Yes, it’s his money and he can do what he wants with it, but how can someone invest in something so unnecessary like that when our planet is full of urgent need still. I suppose it’s no worse than investing in expensive cars, clothing, jewelry, etc. It’s all pretty heartless.

My biggest heart cry is that every child on this island of Hispaniola where I live would have access to free, nurturing education delivered in their mother tongue. I’m sure funding the new schools that would be needed to do that wouldn’t be much for Jeff Bezos. It wouldn’t be much for many other people or for groups of people. If all kids could attend a nurturing school at least up to sixth grade, we know that Haiti would see the change it longs for. And it’s more than just investing money; it’s a project that takes smarts, planning, and dedication. But it’s apparently not as fun and exciting as developing space tourism or sending robots to Mars, so why invest in something like that?

Evolution has been studied for 150 years now. What have we found? What has it done for us? Ham gave an example of a rock and piece of wood found next to each other under the earth’s surface and with radiocarbon dating, one dated 45,000 years old while the other dated 45 million. Nye replied that the wood probably just slid on top of the rock. That was literally his response. This is what we’re calling science? Ham also argued several times that there are dozens of dating methods and most do not support the millions of years theory, which I did not hear Nye reply to throughout the entire debate. 

When do we stop with research for the sake of hopefully finding out something important and instead dedicate time, resources, and brains to proven solutions that just need to be implemented. It’s okay not to know everything. It’s not okay to have the means to help others who live in situations that no human should have to live in but waste your means on sheer pleasure or a desire to know everything. I think we have it backwards.    

 
There are a few other observations about the debate I’d like to make. Nye kept critiquing Ham, saying that his model could not predict anything that would happen in the future. It seemed a bit unreasonable that Nye doubted Ham’s Bible based theory, which does not seem to contradict science other than inconclusive evidence such as the radiocarbon dating example, which again is historical science, when he obviously had never studied the Bible. If he did, he would see that the Bible is far from a simple tall tale. It is so very intricate, diverse, wise, and I have many accounts of how it has been alive in my life, as do many others. It is also full of prophecies that were fulfilled, and to this day, people can share revelations that did let them know something about the future. Don’t let the Trump prophets be your only representation of prophecy! I talked about a video from Transformation Church in this blog post. It is the second video in the post and if you watch it, it shows proof of a small prophecy fulfilled right there.

Another point I’ll make is that Nye shared images of skulls found under the earth that were not human nor monkey on a few occasions. Ham did not address that. To be fair, they had limited time to speak at each opportunity and he must not have found that that was the most important point he wanted to use his time to make. I’m sure his organization has published information on the matter. But I have many thoughts on the matter.  The main point is that it’s not reasonable to draw conclusions with so little information.

Have we dug up the whole world in order to study everything everywhere, or just some spots here and there around the world? Do we really expect to be able to tell an accurate tale of history from archaeology? We have a hard enough time telling an accurate tale of history when it’s full of eye witnesses! Have we been able to observe what happens to bone underground over long periods of time under all sorts of conditions? How do we know that it doesn’t change shape? I’m not saying that I think it does, but I am just saying that we have no idea of all the variables. What explanation of dinosaur bones do we give when we realize that dinosaurs are not present on earth now? We say they went extinct. So why do we not think that perhaps some of these skulls were from creatures that are now extinct, if they are no match to any living creature?

Did the Bible say that God made the earth in a certain way? How do we know that he didn’t form the Grand Canyon? Why do we assume that the earth was a certain way and then formed that way over millions of years? So much of what Bill Nye argued was with the assumption that God could not intervene. Does the Bible say that God created in six days, then wiped a lot out with a flood and it grew back from there, but that all of his creation was limited to those six days? Nye’s whole thought process is very limited by a disbelief in God and then in any attempt he made to consider a creator, he put super limits on God.

The Bible has a consistent message throughout, reiterated hundreds of times. “Fear not”. Now, that doesn’t mean to ignore observations and neglect stewardship of the beautiful earth and its creations. It doesn’t mean that God controls everything as he certainly does not. He is powerful enough to but he did not create robots to control. And we have work to do! So much work to do! But I would rather have a calm and steady disposition like Ken Ham when it comes to where the ultimate control lies over Bill Nye’s stressed out, insecure look any day. Nonetheless, it’s so awesome that these two men came together to do this debate. I respect them both so much for that.

I almost forgot one last point I wanted to make. Throughout the debate, Bill Nye kept turning to the Kentucky audience, feeling like he had to motivate them to become involved in the field of science and warn them that if they didn’t, the U.S. could lose its stance as world power. He said this several times and didn’t use those same words, but did say that the U.S. will fall behind or that it will be harmed economically, etc. This concern reminds me of Richard Spencer’s interview I shared in a post about scientific racism. It’s fear, and this fear makes us see our others as enemies. This fear and attitude does not come from the Bible, but from an atheistic worldview. This doesn't mean that Christians don't adopt it sometimes too, but it does not come from the Bible. 

I would love to know what you think. Please comment below.  Thanks for reading.

#FreeHaiti

Illustration from Adventures of Son Son - Part 2

The first time I traveled to Port-au-Prince was days after the January 12, 2010 earthquake. If it was just for the earthquake, we wouldn't have gone. On the same day as the earthquake, we received news that one of the boys from Project Esperanza, Anol, had passed away. He was diabetic and had gone to visit family in the north of Haiti. We just had to go. We also had a friend that had been sending daily updates from Port-au-Prince so we ended up bringing care packages. 

We brought a Haitian friend who really wanted to serve with us. We stayed with his family in Gonaives the first night, then with Jeres' family in Canape Vert, Port-au-Prince. We ended up pitching a little house made out of wood and plantain leaves in the tent city set up on Plas Mozole. The plan was for our friend to stay there and use it to help set up a sort of government in the tent city that would organize distribution of any aid that came in and just organize life in general. Our efforts were super last minute, as no one knew the earthquake was coming, obviously. We planned on the drive over and stopped at a print shop to make letters in English and Creole, explaining our plan and purpose to any groups we ran into. We slept in the little house on Plas Mozole the last night in Port-au-Prince as an act of solidarity, and then headed up the crazy mountains to the north in the morning. 

I have gone through many bouts of insanity throughout my years and when I regain sanity later on, I can't believe that I did that. This was one. I'm not talking about sleeping in the little house in the tent city on Plas Mozole. I'm talking about going up those mountains with huge potholes, no guardrails, treacherous cliffs, with vehicles going way to fast around the corners! As for staying with the people in Plas Mozole, I wish I could do more of that. 

That night, a group of women talked to me. They were a women's organization fighting for women's rights. I explained to them what our plan was, and when I said our friend was staying in the house to serve, one of them asked, "A man?"

"Yes."

"A Haitian man?" 

"Yes," I replied again. 

"Volo!" A few of them yelled and repeated volo, which means thief in Haitian Creole. My heart sunk a little as they went on to criticize all Haitian men. I ended up asking what they were doing to change things. They replied that they treat their boy children and girl children as equals. If the girls haul water, the boys haul water too. The next day I would travel to my mother-in-law's house for the first time and see more of the gender inequality in how kids are raised in some households. As they spoke to me passionately about this, there was one twelve-year-old boy among them; the son of one of the women. 

They were so passionate and strong. I was honored to be talking to them and honored that God had given me the opportunity and the ability to speak and understand their language. As they talked, there was a rumbling of noise coming from the road. We were in the middle of sea of tents and little scrap houses so we couldn't see the road, but could hear the noise getting closer. As I realized it was people marching and singing, it was time for the chorus of the song and they joined in, with one woman in the middle holding her arms out as if she was worshipping or submitting. 

They sang, "Ayiti pa kapab soufri anko", which means, "Haiti cannot suffer anymore". 

As if it were planned, the singing continued and the woman who had had her arms out now looked directly at me and began preaching in a loud voice. She pointed her finger and declared that, "Ayiti pa kapab soufri anko. Haiti cannot suffer anymore. We have suffered too much. There was a child who died in Carrefour because he thirsted for water!" 

This was one of the most powerful moments for me that I can remember. I was in awe and grief. I wanted nothing more than to help these women. I had no resources beyond what we had spent. Their sons that they were working hard to raise to be responsible... were they able to go to school? Were they drawn into gangs despite their mother's efforts? Or draw in in what they felt was necessary to protect their mothers? I hope not. 

I actually wrote about this short lived Port-au-Prince effort in the first post of this blog in 2010. We tried, and hopefully we helped out some, but we were not equipped for the job.  

In a post I wrote in January called Haiti Cheri Part II, I shared that although there is still much political turmoil in Haiti, it is not at the state that it was in 2019 when schools could not even function. However, since writing that, there has been more conflict about President Jovenel Moise staying in office, saying he's violating the term set out in the constitution. I didn't understand that completely, but our cousin Jerry explained a bit more in the video below. You can see it's a bit ambiguous because the president's term is five years, which he has served four of, but a year was lost between the last president and him. 

I have seen news where the Biden Administration has taken a stance on the issue, saying that Jovenel should not be thrown out immediately as some want, but arrangements for an election should be made. Others conclude that this is simply the power hungry opposition supplying vulnerable youth and men with guns and sending them to the streets to wreak havoc. 

Whatever it is, it's sure sad. We have had boys in our program report that police (I believe it was) had given them guns to do harm with. One of these boys returned to Haiti several years ago when he was ill and ended up passing away. The second boy only came to the program a few times. It was the other boys who confessed this for him. Both boys were quite tiny. 

On March 14th, I posted this in Project Esperanza's Facebook group. 

Here is the article linked in that post. You see it mentions that this sparked #FreeHaiti that is flying around on Twitter. I blew the dust off of my old Twitter account and checked it out. It seems to be started by Ezili Danto. Here is her website.  From her tweets and her site, it looks like she sees the biggest issues that keep Haiti in bondage as foreign interference in Haitian politics, UN/US occupations, corruption among politicians, and the mindset of Haitians themselves, including NGO dependency. I do not see anywhere on the site where this is stated clearly, but I am gathering this from what is posted and from her tweets. She is all about mentally empowering Haitians to lead themselves. She says, "We are enough" meaning that Haitians shouldn't expect help from others, and they don't need it. They are enough.  

I can agree with all of those issues being problematic for the most part and I highly respect her for organizing. And I don't have to agree 100% to be supportive. I am not Haitian, myself. Jerry and I talked about things for over two hours. He ended up concluding that he thinks foreign interference in Haitian politics is 100% bad, but he does appreciate NGO support by means of education. He said that lots of support is wasted. He sees money come in, people drive around in cars, and don't get a lot done. But he went to elementary school at a Methodist school in Grisongarde, Haiti, as did my husband, where their tuition was reduced by World Vision, from what he said. He appreciates that and knows that support is a big part of the solution. 

I was glad that he concluded this and tried not to push him to do so, but let him talk and asked questions. I am glad because this is a solution that I believe with all of my heart. I'm not glad that education is not already provided by the Haitian government, but am glad to be a part of the solution in that way. I believe that a main focus must be providing nurturing education for all children in the country and that there are plenty of Haitians in the country who can teach. I hope we can be of support. As I said in Haiti Cheri Part II, we are channeling funds for Met Dev's school in Maroquee, which we mention in the above video.  

Over a series of posts, I'd like to share more thoughts about the chains that bind Haiti that Ezili Danto proposes, as well as share a few additional ideas. We humans... we have figured out a lot. We have explored space, figured out how to clone, and even have self driving cars. Do you think we can collectively figure out how to free Haiti? Let's not give up. Let's work together as one. 

Strategy to End Scientific Racism

Let's all say thanks to Percy Lavon Julian who, 
together with others, invented/developed chemical birth control 
and cortisone.

If you've read my past two posts, I've been pondering the subject of scientific racism, as well as a different U.S. public school model to combat scientific racism. I honestly believe that if done correctly, this would better follow the First Amendment than current practices. I'll try to get my remaining thoughts out in this post. While this post focuses strictly on scientific racism, I've shared many thoughts on systemic racism in the criminal justice system and in the hearts and minds of people who create and influence systems here and here. However, I now think that scientific racism may be the sneakiest form of all, from my understanding. 

If you haven't heard the term scientific racism before, it's using scientific findings or claims to support supposed superiority or inferiority among races. It is sometimes used to justify the mistreatment of one group of human beings by others due to the other group's said biological inferiority. Charles Darwin shows much evidence of this type of thinking. It's actually quite disturbing if you look at his racist text in his work The Descent of Man, as I did two posts back. This can also play out in medical interactions. This study found that, in the U.S., African Americans are less likely to receive care by a cardiologist while admitted to the ICU for heart failure. There is much more evidence to such inequalities, which one can research. 

Check out this Smithsonian Magazine article about scientific racism today. Here are the main points I want to highlight. The author claims that:

1. Results of research are influenced by the biases of people conducting the research. 

2. Most scientists refrain from comparing races scientifically after seeing how it was used to fuel and justify hate, such as in Nazi Germany. 

3. The genetic make up of all humans is extremely similar, no matter what racial differences are visible, leading to the saying that race is a social construct. 

4. Some scientists still do study and publish "race science", often used to reinforce white supremacy, which is frowned upon, but hard to contest, as proving something wrong scientifically takes time.

5. Scientific racial differences should not be ignored completely, but should be examined responsibly, and stereotypes should be avoided. 

After much reflection, what I want to say about this subject is that the danger in viewing human beings through simply a scientific lens is that science is the study of the natural world and equality does not actually exist in nature. Months ago, my friend Martine sent me a video where Charles Barkley and a civil rights attorney Gerald Griggs interviewed Richard Spencer, who is the leader of the white supremist political group Alt-Right. You can see that Spencer is unashamed in his desire for white dominance and racial segregation. 

When asked if he believes in equality, Spencer called the idea "bullsh#t" and went onto say, "There's no equality in nature. There's difference." If the video isn't working for you, here is a clip on YouTube, but it cuts off before he says that line. 

I've come to realize that everyone who views the world primarily through a scientific lens realizes this last part that he said. Most believe that no one should discriminate against another, but I don't know that they believe that everyone is created equal, because they realize that natural selection and evolution does not create equality. So applying this to human society is social Darwinism, which was Hitler's basis. This is what the Smithsonian Magazine article linked and outlined above explains is frowned upon. 

Whether it be white superiority, black superiority, brown superiority, or what have you, it is always a possibility when you look at humans through a scientific lens. We are taught to not look for hierarchies in that way when dealing with our fellow humans, but scientifically speaking, they are natural and possible. You may say that race is a social construct and studies such as the human genome project show that there is no biological superiority or inferiority among races, but to me, that seems like the whole "color blind" approach. 

Some people psychologically deal with racial differences by saying they are color blind. They don't see race. But race difference is a quite visible thing so that hasn't turned out to be the best approach either. This study from the Association of Psychological Science discusses that. 

"The allure of color blindness is that it seems to offer a relatively simple framework for managing issues of race in contemporary society: If people do not notice race, then race will no longer matter. Yet as the research reviewed in this article shows, color blindness is far from a panacea, sometimes representing more of an obstacle than an asset to facilitating constructive race relations and equitable race-related policies."

I especially appreciate this woman's call to be color brave, rather than color blind. Here is the link to her TED talk, in case the video isn't popping up on your device. 

I mentioned that the claim that it has been scientifically determined that there is no inferiority or superiority among races compares to the color blindness approach. People can see right through it. As long as there is difference, there can potentially be inferiority or superiority. And there is not just difference in appearance, but other physical differences, such as sickle cell anemia and keloids, which affect some of my family members of African descent, as well as our students and their families, but I did not see them in my predominantly white circle in Virginia growing up. As the lone white person in my circle, I am physically affected by things that others around me are not, like skin infections in the summer months. I suppose you could argue that that may not be tied to my race, but the point is, there is difference correlated to race and it goes beyond physical appearance. This article shares a study which found whites are more prone to irregular heart rhythms.   

So we could continue on as we are, knowing that there are scientific differences between races and ethnicities, but trying to influence everyone to not go down the path of inferiority and superiority. However, I think there is a much better solution. And in order to give this solution a shot, we'll have to use our imagination and put aside some things from the past. We'll have to also rethink the First Amendment. 

My suggestion is that we bring God back into schools. Am I suggesting that we revert back to the Dark Ages, as one person said? No, not at all. I am suggesting that we include this very important topic into our public education because it is just that: a very important topic. I am also not claiming that this will be a cure for all, but if done correctly, a definite and necessary step in the right direction. 

 I understand that belief in God does not have to do with how educated or intelligent someone is. It has to do with what someone has experienced. Some are taught to look for and communicate with God from the time they are little and therefore have different experiences than others who are not taught that. Some who are brought up believing in God stop believing later in life because of their experiences, or lack of experiences. Others who were raised to not believe in God become strong believers and proponents of their belief because of experiences they had. Similar to those who experience racism, we should not judge someone else's experience because we have not experienced it ourselves. We should be open to listen and consider. 

I think that harm has been done in trying to block God out of schools completely. I am sure that there is a way to include him that does not establish or inhibit any religion. True, atheism will be challenged more under this model, but atheism and the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life as we know it actually challenges all supernatural activity. If supernatural activity is presented as false or not important enough to include in school in any way, shape, or form, one can surely argue that this practice inhibits all religions other than atheism, while simultaneously establishing a religion or world view. We have to keep in mind that kids spend the majority of their young lives at school, so removing a topic completely is making a big statement. 

I am not suggesting that we teach religion or even study religion in public schools. I am suggesting that we recognize a higher power or creator or the possibility of one and define him as love. We should teach or at least recognize the possibility that he created all men equal, as is written in the Declaration of Independence. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." 

That beautiful phrase which our country is founded on doesn't quite make sense if you replace creator with a scientific explanation, does it? Some will see that line and say that our forefathers did not intend it to include races other than their own, but it says what it says. It says all men. You can try to replacing creator with a scientific explanation, but our smart, critically thinking kids and adults will be able to see through it. Richard Spencer sure did. We have evolved into a species that recognizes that we all have certain unalienable Rights? It doesn't hold the same power, if you ask me. It seems like wishful thinking. We have evolved into a species where all individuals have evolved equally? Now, that's just contradictory through and through. 

When you look at humans and different ethnicities through the lens of a creation, created by a loving God, you can see or argue that God created variety, just as siblings have variety among them, but all are of equal importance to loving parents. There is no inferiority or superiority, but different strengths, weaknesses, and combinations. Earthly parents may make mistakes and kids might not feel equally loved, but omnipitent, omnipresent, loving God does not. Inequality we see in the world is the result of the decisions of people, who have free will, not God. If people practiced more love, like God wants, the inequality would disappear. This would go beyond just fighting scientific racism, but injustice in general. 

Not only would promoting this world view at school work to end scientific racism, but it would work against any faulty teachings at home or in places of worship that teach people that God cares about their cause to the point that they could harm another for it. As it is, perhaps too much is left in the hands of religion. Does the First Amendment mean that the government can give no teaching of God's character at all, but it can negate his existence? Are God and religion the same thing? 

I shared in a previous post a prayer we say every morning at summer English camp. It was a compromise between camp counselors from the U.S. who grew up in and/or worked in public schools where prayer was not allowed, and students here, where prayer is the way each school day begins. Someone found it online and we all liked it. 

Thank you for the food we eat

Thank you for the friends we meet

Thank you for the birds that sing

We give thanks for everything. 

Amen

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, who can argue with giving thanks? It recognizes the possibility of a higher power, shows humility, and teaches gratitude. We all found it non-controversial, and I think U.S. public schools could too. Under this model, I believe teachers, when questioned, could be advised to take the optimistically agnostic approach, as opposed to atheistic. They can be taught to maintain certain limits and tell kids that the school does not provide answers beyond that. While they may personally hold further beliefs, they can't share them at school. Period. I don't think it's a huge change from current practices. The biggest thing is that it gives some power and authority to the idea of equality and the principles of sharing and caring, which we seek to teach kids.  

When questioned in science class if the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of humans and all life forms contradicts the loving God they are simultaneously taught about, the answer would be that some things do contradict each other, and we can't actually prove, scientifically or historically, anything that happened from time periods before we have witnesses. To say that they do not contradict each other is a lie. To argue otherwise would be to argue the idea of absolute truth, which may not be beyond an infinite God, but is beyond our capacity as humans. We are wading into murky waters if we try to argue absolute truth, because we have to teach kids the difference between truth and lies. We should surely teach kids to consider different points of views and complex issues, but absolute truth cannot be compromised.

Therefore, it's important to be clear and humble that we cannot prove the answer there. We can only observe patterns in nature, read historical texts for as far back as possible, and create theories. However, I think we should seriously reconsider the way evolution is taught, knowing that the texts that first raised the idea were blatantly racist and dehumanizing to certain ethnicities, while simultaneously tempting to white supremists. It would be hypocritical to do anything but that during this time of awakening, where everything seems to be under deconstruction in order to be reconstructed in a better way. 

I am not suggesting that we forget the idea of natural selection and evolutionary biology altogether, but that we move away from Darwin as a person, The Descent of Man, and The Origin of Species. We must ask ourselves what Darwin has done for us, really? Has he taught us anything about open heart surgery? Depression? World poverty? Climate change? Vaccines? Environmental sustainability? Engineering? Technology? Has he actually taught us anything about Genetics? Scientists can feel free to enlighten me, and I know he made contributions, but my point is, I don't think we'll really be missing out without him. 

Do most people know who Cecilia Payne is, who apparently discovered the composition of stars? Male scientists apparently stole her fame. Or perhaps even more relevant, what do you know about the scientists who first synthesized and mass produced steroids from plant compounds? (Ex: birth control & cortisone). Check out Percy Lavon Julian. 

So how will such change get implemented? My thought is that a charter school, or several charter schools, should be started as a trial. My previous post discusses thoughts about the legal arena there. I am rooting for a special person to act as a spokesperson for this change, but I don't know if he's reflecting on my several emails, or whether he has paid them any attention, although his administrative assistant is nice enough to reply and thank me for the attempts. He may think I'm simply getting dopamine surges from making connections, but I think this is something God would appreciate us acting on. This special person is Phil Vischer, who was able to bridge the gap between secular and religious education/entertainment through his creation of Veggie Tales, a cartoon that teaches about God's love without coming off as threatening to parents who hold varying beliefs. 

Although I'm rooting for Phil and the Holy Post podcast which he co-hosts, I would think many people would be interested in such an endeavor. But it should be done right, so as to not go down in the books as another unfavorable ruling by the courts for any mention of God in schools. I believe that the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few, as written in Matthew 9:39. Therefore, I am asking the Lord of the harvest to send out the workers so we can all enjoy the harvest together.   

I'll finish by sharing a few videos of my daughter when she was four years old. She was chosen to say the school prayer in front of her entire school here in Puerto Plata, which goes up to 12th grade. Even this prayer, which is longer and more involved, could be seen as religiously neutral, yet socially awesome. "Teach us to work without rest in order to fight always in favor of justice". In case the videos aren't popping up for you, here she is saying the prayer with English subtitles and here she is saying it in front of the whole school as they repeat. 

How Schools with God Can Better Comply with the 1st Amendment

Bonjou ou bonswa! 

I want to write an extension to my last post where I shared a realization of inherent racism in the theory of evolution or Darwinism. I also proposed a different approach to U.S. public school education that perhaps even better follows the First Amendment than current practices. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means that the government cannot act in a way that promotes or inhibits any religion, which I argue that it currently does. We do not live in the U.S. so my opinions are not formed as a parent, but from my personal K-12 education as a student. 

First, let me say a few things about my previous post. After sharing it in a few public places and getting some feedback from a spectrum from creationists to evolutionary biologists, I maintain that there is absolutely no conclusive proof that humans came to be after millions of years of evolution from lower life forms. You would think if there was solid proof, someone who was annoyed at my claims, as some were, would have shared it in order to prove me wrong. No one did. You can't prove something that happened long before you have any witnesses. 

Some people mocked me a bit after just reading the first paragraph of the post because I wasn't specific about the documentary I was watching when it dawned on me that Darwinism contains inherent racism. Does it really matter what exactly we were watching? The point was that I had not thought of the issue from a racial standpoint before, but now do. And my suspicions were correct because I was able to quickly find that Darwin's famous texts are full of white supremacy and dehumanization of people of color. Dehumanization is actually the literal and accurate word. Fine, if anyone really cares, it was a documentary on Curiosity Stream, but I still like my kids to watch them, I just teach them to think critically about factual claims to things that happened millions of years ago. 

I wasn't suggesting that we throw out natural selection altogether, but that we simply don't go beyond what we actually know, that we remove Darwin from his pedastool, and condenm him for his scientific racism, just as other racism is being examined and erradicated. In claiming to know more than we can actually prove and see, you exercise faith, which isn't different than creationism, is it? With creationism, you do have witness accounts that continue to be strengthened with things like finding more original bible texts, and scientific evidence, such as the "fine-tuning" of the position and composition of the earth and atmosphere which allows it to support life, which I've also shared in a previous post. 

To reiterate this again and provide even more proof to support this case, check out this article by a scientist at MIT. One point I especially appreciate in the article is the idea of falsifiability introduced by Karl Popper in 1934. It says that scientific theories, which can be proven false, do not lie within the realm of science, but fall into the realm of religion, philosophy, or mythology. 

Another reader asked if I thought that all religions, therefore, should be taught about in schools? In the previous post, I compared religious representation to cultural and linguistic representation which is important to engage multicultural kids in school, as I learned when I was working on my M.Ed. and already

observed through the work I do. I argued that God should not be a taboo topic at school and removed completely, as I felt it was growing up. I suggested a secular prayer we use at English camp and mentioned the view of God used in the Alcoholics Anonymous organization as suggestions of how to include God or a higher power in a way that doesn't establish or inhibit any religion, but serves the purpose of not establishing the religion of atheism and not inhibiting all religions that do believe in a higher power. 

I also suggested three extremes to avoid, which left us with the idea of a loving, just God/positive higher power. To whoever would argue that any inclusion of God in school establishes a religion, (violates the Establishment Clause), I argue that excluding God completely inhibits the free exercise of religion more than including him establishes a religion, if done correctly. 

Should religious texts be studied in school? I wasn't necessarily suggesting that religion be taught in K-12 school. I was simply saying that God be incorporated a bit so as to not negate his existence and give the impression that God and intellect are mutually exclusive. I suppose texts could be studied to an extent that would not be seen as establishing a religion. I suggest that if they are, they stay within the three extremes I mentioned. Of course along the lines of linguistic and cultural representation, it would make sense that the religious backgrounds of the kids at the school be represented in any such study of texts, while making them aware of other beliefs if the student body is religiously homogeneous. 

However, if religious texts are not studied, then students should simply feel free and encouraged to incorporate their beliefs into their work or creations in school, rather than to keep their religion completely separate from school. I told the person who asked this that it seems strange that the whole system we have to number our years, making this year 2021, is based on Jesus' existence, but he's not even mentioned in history class. 

One person also mentioned the human genome project, saying that what was found there showed that there is no one race that is genetically superior or inferior. That is interesting and reflects the notion of all men created equal. It doesn't really support the theory of all men evolving equally, does it? Wouldn't that be a huge coincidence, sort of like the perfectly fine tuning of the earth to support life? The same friend who mentioned the human genome project in defense of the theory of evolution also agreed that scientific racism is an issue that needs addressing and provided this article with proof.  

Someone else also said that I'm anti-science. I don't see how. Are biologists like Michael Denton who writes books critiquing the theory of evolution anti-science? Not to brag, but I got an A in all of my pre-vet courses at Virginia Tech and I have the transcripts to prove it! I'm a dork who gets excited over math and science. I love bringing science alive to our students at our educational farm here in Puerto Plata. The fact that people who say they are Christians are calling me anti-science for critiquing Darwin I think says something big about, well, overreach. Something seems to have gone a little too far. If I am missing some conclusive evidence as to how critiquing the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is anti-science, please feel free to enlighten me! 

Does challenging evolution challenge Chemistry? Does it challenge Anatomy? Does it all the sudden take away our understanding of how bodily systems work or atoms form to produce molecules, cells, tissues, etc? Does it challenge the law of gravity? Does it challenge technology? No, no, and no. The fact that people think it does shows the pedastool Darwin has been put on over and over by choosing him over God. Some people argue it's not a show down between the two but, if you believe in absolute truth, it is.  

So what could be done? How could these changes be carried out? This link gives a good history of the legal battle to keep the theory of evolution out of schools or teach creationism alongside it. It also mentions prayer a bit. I mentioned in my last post that things may be different than when I graduated high school in 2003, but it doesn't look like they are from a legal perspective. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. The last few pages of that link provide an appendix with a summary of all the key court cases. Perhaps it's just the author's bias showing through in this document, but after reading through it, I can see how Christians can claim a little persecution. I said that that was a delusional thought in a previous post, referring to conspiracy theories, but when it comes down to it, I am jealous for my God...or better said our God since he is equally accessible to everyone. I see a bias and a preference in the history of these cases that doesn't seem to be based on any proven truth. And it's not just Christians that lose here, but everyone who knows and has faith in our loving God. 

On the other hand, I see why the courts are hesitant to budge on these cases as well, thinking that if people are given an inch, they'll take a mile. Again, I appreciate that hesitancy as well. I sat through two weeks of a volunteer group singing Christian songs loudly, warning repeatedly that I thought one or two of the group were not Christian, unable to calm their fevor and cringing the whole time at the thought of making another feel uncomfortable. After the trip, one member emailed me to say great things about the trip, but also mention that he is Muslim and all the Christian singing made him feel a bit out of place! First and foremost we are called to love. Love is sensitive and gentle to others. It is welcoming. 

However, I think the right way to manage all of this is not to call things that can't be proven science or to say that scientific evidence pointing toward creationism is not scientific. If the government is playing with the lines of what is and what is not science, you can see how some people struggle to trust the government to inject new concoctions into their body without having proof of long term effects. Go get vaccinated people! I'm not saying otherwise, just making a point. 

This bias shows through especially when the government now asks schools to call kids names and pronouns according to their gender identity, allows transgender youth to use bathrooms according to their gender identity, and even play sports accordingly. I thought we were teaching science in school, not religious world views. Where is the science in that? 

I, of course, condemn hate toward anyone, but why are these students favored in this way for a cognitive, unprovable issue? I popped out of a deep sleep when I was 14 years old after hearing an audible message that was important for my protection. This is a story I would love to share with anyone interested. But somehow that is different than someone experiencing gender dysphoria? Again, I express love for anyone struggling in this way and don't mean to say anything otherwise, but I am serious in making this comparison. It would've been cool to have been able to speak more freely about such things with others. It could've helped me to do so and maybe could've helped them too. Don't say that my parents should've home schooled me without saying the same about transgender kids. This experience I share wasn't something my parents taught me to do but something that happened to me, comparable to kids experiencing gender dysphoria.  

Perhaps the right arguments haven't been made yet. In 1987, the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard) ruled that creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is religion, not science. But what about scientific evidence pointing toward intelligent design like the issue of fine tuning? I see two cases (Peloza v. Capistrano in 1994 and Wright v. Houston Independent School District in 1973) that ruled that teaching evolution does not constitute establishing religion. However, it doesn't look like either of these cases made it to the Supreme Court. And even if they did, why not keep pushing? 

Also, what were the arguments made to convice the court that teaching evolution does violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Was an argument made that, in addition to evolution being taught, God and all things related are made taboo at school, and therefore, a strong message is communicated to students that God and intellect don't mix, thus promoting atheism or contradiction between intellect and faith? What about the benefits of saying a secular prayer every morning like the one we say at English camp? What about the purpose and hope some inclusion of God or a higher power could give to struggling adolescents? What about the scientific racism that Darwin promotes? 

I wonder if a charter school could be started with this alternative approach. It could be a type of experiment or prototype. I recently watched a Holy Post podcast where an English professor and author named Karen Swallow Prior talked about how she believes the biggest problem facing Christianity today is an impoverished imagination. I highly agree. With some imagination, I think implementing changes here could work! 

I don't understand Christians in general. We seem to see all these differences to critique and divide, but miss uniting on things we should unite on. I wish we would unite on this issue to show how much God matters just as people united in 2020 with BLM. The world saw how much black lives matter with that united effort. However, I don't think it would be necessary to take to the streets at all. Believers already have the majority. We just have to get smart, get organized, and put our differences aside. 

Please, no one be scared off by the mention of BLM. I think we should use social media to spread articles and memes and have passion and unity like BLM, but simultaneously be smart and consistent in the court room, like Equal Justice Initiave. Someone also responded to my last post by saying that he noticed that lots of lawyers are creationists. Perhaps it's because law school trains us to present evidence for a case in order to lead a judge or jury to the truth without using coercion, such as hearsay information, and therefore don't fall for such coercion ourselves. If it's hard to convince adults trained in fair presentation of evidence that this theory is true, is it good to teach it to youth as fact? Is that not coercion? We'll have to examine the coercion test another time, but it's a test sometimes used to detect First Amendment violations.  

I was very excited when I saw the news about the new dead sea scrolls found the other day, but no one else seemed to get excited about that! The latest political conflict will have everyone talking, but something like that that should go viral just gets looked over. I would love some more feedback. Please comment! God bless.  

  

First Dr. Seuss, Now Onto Darwin!

A New Realization (for me)

Now that Dr. Seuss' estate has properly examined their works and made changes in order to refrain from influencing kids' minds with racist content, we should expect that other influencers do the same, right? As I was watching a documentary with my kids the other week, I felt uncomfortable with something that was explained. A scientist or an archeologist, I can't remember which, and it doesn't actually matter which, showed a picture of a skull that was apparently found on the continent of Africa. It was believed to be the skull of something like a Neanderthall, similar to a human skull, but a slightly different shape.  

It rubbed me the wrong way because I knew where that observation led. I realized at that moment that the theory of evolution is inherently racist. It would attribute differences in human races to evolution and claim that certain races are therefore superior or "more evolved" than others. I did a quick Google search and what I found supported my intuition. If you search it yourself, you will see that there are endless articles on the topic, some pointing out Darwin's own words, mostly from his work The Descent of Man, that consistently speak of a white superior race and a black race of savages that he predicted would eventually become extinct. He says, "Savages are states between people and apes". This article does a great job of laying this all out there. 

Then there are other articles acknowledging this racism, while trying to defend it or brush it under the rug. Some say that regardless, his racist views don't affect his science. I'm not sure how not. His science completely supports notions that blame victims and remove responsibility from abusers, justifying claims such as African Americans are low on the household wealth scale and have high incarceration rates because of their own intrinsic inferiority, not because of systemic racism. This is apparently called scientific racism. Believing that a loving God created everyone uniquely with different strengths or gifts, in abundant variety that is reflected in individuals but also perhaps ethnic groups, and seeing people and people groups as reflecting the image of a loving God is a very different world view. 

Check out this chart which gives the racial breakdown of people in the U.S. practicing different religions. You can see that people who identify as black are underrepresented in the religion of atheism. 3% as compared to a national percentage of 12%. I have not conversed with any African Americans about this, but assume that this underrepresentation is not due to a lack of welcoming in the congregation or history of segregation as is probably the reason behind things we see in this chart such as the United Methodist Church being 94% white whereas the African Methodist Episcopal Church is 94% black. Atheism doesn't really have weekly gatherings as the majority of the rest of this list does, although all U.S. public school students are introduced to atheism. I would assume that this underrepresentation of African Americans as atheists stems from the fact that they know that they are not a less evolved race and that the theory of evolution (large scale evolution as an explanation for the origin of man, that is), is based on that argument. 

This article from The Journal of Negro Education, (a Howard University quarterly review), claims that this scientific racism that Darwinism promotes is a main factor in why people of the dominant group have found Darwinism so appealing, as opposed to actual scientific merit. This is serious stuff! "Science has often been used as a justification to propose, project, and enact racist social policies. The philisophical and political underpinnings of ideas associated with racial superiority and inferiority were first given scientific legitimacy and credence with the publication of Charles Darwin's (1859) revolutionary book, The Origin of Species." If society is to ignore this and continue to uphold Darwin and his teachings during this time where all of history is being examined, scrutinized, and cleaned out, then the hypocrisy will be too much to bear.  

The theory of evolution as the origin of man directly contradicts the statement in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", which is an important American doctrine. A few posts ago, I wrote about this topic. I argued that in an attempt for U.S. government to keep religion out of the schools, they are actually promoting the religion of atheism. There is not enough scientific proof to teach evolution as any sort of explanation for the origin of man. That itself is a faith based idea, not a scientific one. What is scientifically proven about evolution? What has actually passed the scientific method? Whatever has actually passed is what should be included in science class. 

More Doubts

Furthermore, as I watch these interesting documentaries with my kids, I find that many claims highly contradict much of what I learned in law school. Scientists make claims to things that happened tens of thousands or even millions of years ago as if they are fact. However, if you look at how evidence is presented in the courtroom to protect the discovery of the truth, stating that anything happened before any eye witnesses were able to give testimony highly contradicts the way we seek to prove things in the courtroom. Even with modern day forensics, you do not rely on pieces of physical evidence alone to figure out the truth. 

Someone might reply to that by saying that scientists know that such theories are not proven. Even if you hear them state something as if it's a fact, they recognize that there is a lot of guess involved. I would say that if they know it's a guess, then they should not ever speak of it as if it's a fact. Doing so hurts their accredibility altogether and may contribute to people not trusting highly important things that do have more proof, such as global warming.  

Another life experience that has caused me to have an even more critical view of such statements making claims to things that happened long ago is the fact that I've spent the past 13 years of my life immersed in the Haitian community in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic. One of the biggest differences between this life I have experienced and the life I experienced in the U.S. has to do with space. In the U.S., we often have a large amount of personal space. Haitians often live and interact in much closer quarters. It has an effect on so many aspects of life. 

In the U.S., I often engaged in conversations where people told me things that happened between others, gossip basically, and I assumed it to be true. I found Haitians to generally be more careful about making such claims. Children are often taught to say they don't know when questioned. Sometimes this is bad because perhaps they do know something but are afraid of getting in trouble, but I would say that more often than not, it comes from a more humble point of view that has developed from gossip reaching the ears of the subject of the gossip in a more direct manner due to living in closer quarters. The lack of space and distance between people creates a higher level of accountability and awareness of "the other side of the story". As I observed this way of interacting, I realized that I had probably believed all sorts of gossip throughout my life that either wasn't true or was only partially true because I had never heard the other side of the story. 

Therefore, after having gone through law school and learning in detail about the specific care taken by U.S. courts to protect the truth by objecting to things such as hearsay, and also becoming accustomed to a culture that is constantly reminded that there are two sides to every story, I react to these claims of things that happened millions of years ago with laughter. It seems ridiculous to me to even say such a thing as if it's proven. It also seems highly arrogant. 

Proposed Modifications in Schools

My experience with K-12 U.S. public school from a child's point of view is that God was a taboo subject. I graduated from high school in 2003 so perhaps things have changed somewhat. Nonetheless, kids spend the majority of their time at school and the fact that God is "not allowed" is saying a lot. I appreciate the separation of church and state and the reason behind it. I honestly believe that God appreciates it too as he never wanted to force anyone to follow him but gave choice. But I do wonder if in an effort to honor the separation of church and state in order to refrain from pushing a state mandated religion, the opposite extreme hasn't been taken. Maybe it's time to balance out a bit. 

I like the Alcoholics Anonymous approach to the topic of God from a human development perspective. As one of the steps to recovery, people going through the process have to put faith in God as they understand him. This is the second step, after they have admitted that they are powerless over the hold that alcohol has on them. 

I find this to be a religiously open and universally healthy approach. Looking back at the list of religions practiced in the United States. most do believe in a higher power or admit to not knowing whether or not a higher power exists (agnostic). This link gives the breakdown of percentages of Americans (regardless of race) that practice each religion. Looks like at least three quarters of the U.S. believe in a higher power. Why, then, would there be an agenda to reflect otherwise in U.S. public school curriculum? That doesn't seem to make sense. We run a summer English camp here called Change My Stars. During the school year, our students are used to praying each morning. However, camp volunteers come from different faiths, mainly from the U.S. and Canada. It was a non-Christian volunteer, if I remember correctly, who suggested we start each day with the following prayer which she found online:  

Thank you for the food we eat

Thank you for the friends we meet

Thank you for the birds that sing

We give thanks for everything

Amen.

I personally think that such an approach to spiritual life and child development makes more sense than removing all mention of spirituality altogether. I think engaging the intellect and spiritual life together is important. I myself sometimes felt like I was living a double life where my spiritual life was always a very real and important part of my life, but it was basically hidden at school, I felt. I can only assume that others experience or experienced a similar conflict and it could lead to a dichotomy where people feel like spiritual life and intellectual life are in opposition to one another. 

I remember being delighted in college when my Sociology textbook included a snippet about a study where two groups of cancer patients were observed over the course of some constant period of time. The independent variable was that one group was being specifically prayed for while the other group was not. They had no idea they were being prayed for, but the recovery rate of those in the group receiving the experimental prayers was significantly higher. 

We now know that the healthiest way to educate a multi-cultural group of children is to try to have representation of each children's culture and their family's native language in the classroom. We now know that it is better for parents who speak another language to continue speaking that language with their children at home rather than only communicate to their children in English, often at a lower level than they would in their native language. It's healthiest to celebrate those differences kids bring, rather than try to exclude their varying cultures and languages to promote a culture that only reflects majority American culture. This changes students from being disengaged, feeling as though part of them is unwanted and unwelcome, to feeling comfortable and able to engage at school. It's directly correlated to their success at school. I think the issue of spirituality can be viewed similarly. Rather than an approach that attempts to remove it or block it out, an all inclusive engagement may be best. 

Here in the Dominican Republic, God is referred to as common practice in every day language, unlike in the United States. I was corrected many times for saying, "See you tomorrow" or stating any future plans as if I hold the future, before I finally got into the habit of saying "God willing" or as it's directly translated from both Creole and Spanish, "if God wants" or "if God allows". I love it. I absolutely love it. You also tell someone to "go with God" as they leave or "stay with God" if you are the one leaving. You say "sleep with God" as they head off to sleep. 

As Albert Einstein said, "There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." Which view gives people more purpose and hope? Growing up, I had peers who committed suicide and family members of peers who committed suicide. During a short visit over Christmas, my brother told us about multiple neighbors of his who committed suicide recently. I have lived here full time now for over 13 years. I spent a few years before that in transition between the U.S. and here. As I reflect, I can only think of two men I know of who have committed suicide, and both were European men. There is much more to say about that, but as I pondered the subject, I found that to be a point worth mentioning. 

3 Extremes to Avoid

I personally think there are three extremes on this topic that should be avoided. I find these three extremes to be harmful religious beliefs that exclude others and cause conflict. I hope I don't offend anyone in saying this and that even if someone reading falls into one of these extremes, they are open to reading a critique, knowing that even if their beliefs or religion is critiqued, it is not a critique on them personally. 

One extreme is atheism. I think it is arrogant and closed minded to ignore the spiritual experiences of so many people simply because they haven't experienced them themselves. I've already explained the problems I have with the theory of evolution. I can fully appreciate those who admit to not knowing or not reaching a conclusion, agnosticism, but for those who have concluded that God does not exist altogether, I see that as a premature conclusion and wish they would keep their options open a bit more. 

The second extreme is any belief or underlying notion that God is working for you or your people. Christian nationalism is a good example. I would say that I've seen the same attitude in what I would call church going Haitian Christian nationalists. God is seen as being there to defend their personal cause and it doesn't seem to be considered that God may want them to practice more patience or understanding. God is weaponized. Prosperity gospel could maybe fall into this category as well.  

The third extreme is anything that uses spiritual forces to bring about harm. In 2006 I first came to Puerto Plata and ran a street census along with other volunteers. We collected information on 140 boys working in the streets of Puerto Plata, 95% of whom were from Haiti. We then began supporting a school for Haitian immigrant kids, started a program for those working on the streets, and began housing a dozen or so. My husband actually has this background and some of the boys in the program have become like family to us. You can see an interview I did with one of our closest friends here:

These stories that Willy is sharing are what I have heard endlessly throughout the years from dozens of boys, although this exact topic was actually new to me during the interview. Some admitted to being raised to give food offerings to Satan. I have kept note of direct references to Satan as some who study world religions try to convince that Haitian voodoo does not involve Satan worship. This might not be what you read when you study an anthropology summary of voodoo, but these are the stories I have been told from those who have grown up in this religion. All boys sleep with the light on all night, at least until they get comfortable, and have an intense fear of evil spirits. Adoptive parents of Haitian children in the US and Canada have reported the same in a Facebook group I am a part of. 

Pretty much any time a Haitian dies, family, friends, and acquaintances have an explanation or theory that ties the death to a voodoo attack from someone who didn't like the person. This is true whether the person died of sickness or a motorcycle accident. It is always attributed, at least in part, to spiritual warfare. Of course not all Haitians practice voodoo. Many are devout Christians. But even if someone does't practice voodoo, it doesn't mean that they don't suspect others who practice it. Therefore, there is always this division; these accusations and suspicions. People are always watching their backs and also have their guard up against others using magic to steal from them. I have found very little, if anything I would call good in all of this. If you watch Willy's interview, you'll see the fear he embodies over the subject and the gratefulness he shows having come to know God, a loving father, who he learned wants us to love others as we love ourselves. 

I realize that my testimony claiming that Haitians accuse acquaintances of murdering their loved ones through spiritual warfare on a regular basis may seem to directly contradict my previous claim that Haitians are generally more careful to spread gossip than compared to what I observed in the U.S., as the use of space creates a higher level of accountability. However, I maintain that they both are true observations. Haitians are a complex folk that cannot be understood easily. They are also incredibly intelligent and multiply and divide by five on a whim while doing money transactions in an imaginary money system. Read more about that here or here. I've been intrigued watching children vendors do this.  

Conclusion

Anyway, need I say more? I think we should stay away from those three extremes. Other than that, I would say that regardless of religious differences, we should be able to respect, appreciate, and unify. Separation of church and state means that no one religion is pushed by the state. It doesn't mean that most religions should be ignored or hidden by the state, because in doing so, the state is pushing atheism. 

That is my positively honest opinion about the subject of religion, faith, and spirituality in U.S. public schools. Now to all of us who believe in a loving God or have hope that he exists, let's cancel Charles Darwin!  

Also, did you hear that they recently found Dead Sea scrolls with texts from the books of Zacharias and Nahum? Pretty cool! Here's more info on that. 

Dr. Seuss vs. Mr. Potato Head

On Saturday, I wrote a little poem to share my take on the Dr. Seuss drama. I inserted it in a meme creator, and shared it on Facebook. In one group, I see it has been shared over 200 times and has about as many comments. Here it is. 

If you read my previous blog posts, you can see that I plea that everyone be sensitive to racial injustice and engage in humble dialogue on the subject. I do think that Dr. Seuss' family exemplified that by ceasing to print six of his sixty books that contain words and pictures that are likely to make some kids feel embarrassed or singled out because of their ethnicity. These words and pictures are also the very thing that reinforce norms that create and allow systemic racism. 

Imagine a jury made up of a white majority deciding the fate of a young black man on trial. Or a young white man. Somehow the young black man gets the death penalty for destroying the evidence of a heinous crime one of his fellow gang members committed. The young white man is considered in a different light, though his crime more severe. He has a bright future ahead of him, etc. These biases are indoctrinated into the minds of children and it is wise for us to take them seriously. I recently wrote a post about just this. 

There was much discussion trying to portray Dr. Seuss as a victim being persecuted, as though his name would now go down in history as a dirty racist! Dramatic much? 

Now, about a week before the Dr. Seuss memes started circulating, there was hype about a decision Mr. Potato Head made. The name is being changed from Mr. Potato Head to simply Potato Head and there is a new family pack coming out with two adult sized potatoes, a baby, and a variety of body parts to create your own family, basically. This announcement has a little video presenting the changes and new product. You can see the video says, "There's no wrong way to play".    

So I just want to talk about these two situations in comparison since they are being grouped together as if they are the same thing. I see them as two completely different issues, despite the fact that they are so often lumped together in American politics, which I think does the issue of racial justice a disservice. While racial justice should be a no brainer for people with Christian beliefs or anyone who believes that everyone is created equally, the issue of sexual orientation is highly controversial when held up to the bible and to nature, actually. I don't wish to get into it all here, but to say a few things about content made for children.

I was outside of the U.S. during all of the Obama Administration and Trump Administration. Here in the Dominican Republic, I cannot say that I know a local same sex couple. As for my friends in the United States who are in same sex marriages or transgender, the last thing I want to do is to make them feel like I have anything but love for them as my friends from our youth, and also as people made in the image of God. I do, however, have concerns for where this is all going. 

Although I have been outside of the U.S. during a time when a lot of changes have been made in the area of sexual orientation, I have been able to observe changes in children's content. My personal view is that, out of respect for our loving God and his word given to us through the bible, which is a book that has proven to be alive to me on endless accounts of which I'm happy to share if inquired, I would prefer that same sex couples and transgenderism is not present in the content that my children watch. I see it as an attempt to indoctrinate them to normalize something that the bible teaches as outside of God's will. Maybe I don't fully understand God's stance on the issue, but there is enough language to make me quite cautious. Now, the bible also clearly condemns other things that are normalized at times, like pride, and I think we should push against them all. 

Of course it is appalling to think of a parent that would reject or hurt their child if they came to them to say they were experiencing attraction to their same sense, gender dysphoria, or anything along those lines. But that doesn't mean that in avoiding exposure to your child at a young age, you are one of those parents. Even if I don't always understand why, trust and respect for God means that we don't always have to fully understand to obey. 

Of course I have the choice to regulate what my children watch and what they don't. The issue is that parents don't normally have to screen content that is made for children. You normally assume that it would be void of adult content because it's made for children. But these days, it seems as though content creators want to include homosexuality into children's content, perhaps in an effort to teach kids to be more inclusive. And here is where the problem lies. 

I have never been able to figure out how a real compromise can be reached on this issue. In fighting for the rights of a very small percentage, others rights are encroached upon. If boys who feel as though they are girls can play girls' sports, then girls are made to compete against biological boys. And these boys have a huge and unfair advantage. That doesn't seem to make any sense. Furthermore, by letting boys play girls' sports because of a cognitive measure rather than physical, you've defeated the whole purpose of even having gender organized sports. This is just what example of many. The point is that I find it to be a very controversial and difficult topic where I struggle to find a sensible solution. Where do we express sensitivity for the struggles of others, challenge gender norms which I agree deserve to be challenged at times, and where do we draw the line on catering to constructs that are cognitive and not physical? 

Sexuality is not a children's topic but a pre-teen and beyond topic. Therefore, it only makes sense to me that it not be brought up or portrayed in children's shows, movies, and books. Is that too much to ask? Yes, showing two women as a couple is not overtly sexual, but the explanation behind it is. Have you not realized that in so many studies, there is a stance taken on one extreme, then the opposite extreme, and the solution always seems to be blend? I'll throw an example out there. Everyone accepted that personality was a biological construct. Then, it is challenged, and the other extreme is taken. Everyone accepted that personality was a product of one's environment. Then some other smart guy comes along and says, "Hey! It's actually a blend of both." Have you noticed this pattern over and over again, especially in the social sciences? I suppose I feel as though we have gone to a bit of an extreme on this issue and may need to balance it out. 

No one should be targeted by hate. If anything has come out of these changes, I hope that that has been made more clear. But can we not accept some limits? Conservatives have been critiqued for not accepting science on certain matters such as global warming and the handling of the coronavirus pandemic. But what the heck is going on with intervening medically with teenagers who report going through gender dysphoria? Where is the science that supports that that is a good idea? You wouldn't ask a teenager to commit to a college major at that point so why in the world would you engage in such a big decision like changing your sex medically? Anyone doing so is placing a lot of faith in a theory on transgenderism and a diagnosis they were given.

I recently heard Preston Sprinkles in a Holy Post podcast discuss this topic. He introduced Keira Bell who sued in the UK because she was medicalized in this way. He also discussed one doctor's argument that girls could always have breasts put back on later in life if they regretted having them removed at ages as young as 13!! Do they think people function just like Mr. Potato Head or the Potato Head family pack? Do they think that there's no wrong way to play this game of life, as the video introducing the new Potato Head family pack says? 

He said that many are concerned about this practice, yet it's going on. I hope we can see that this is not just a matter of accepting and celebrating people for what they are, which is what racial justice is about. The issue of transgenderism seems to be the opposite. It seems to influence people to feel empowered to change who they physically are. Are we getting overconfident? Keira Bell's interview testifies to the influence of media over youth in this way. 

In my last blog post, I examined the two topics of hell and evolution. I argued that much is taught on both issues that is not conclusive and that we should simply stick to what we know and admit what we don't know. While listing certainties we know in science, I said, "Natural is healthy but we can intervene if need be." When I wrote that, the topic of LBGTQ was far from my mind. I just realized, though, how much these modern practices are in contrast to that. 

I'd also like to examine in a future post how the theory of evolution is inherently racist. I realized this while watching a documentary with my kids the other day. A quick Google search shows that many others already realized the same. Now that Dr. Seuss has been appropriately corrected, it's time to go after Darwin! And I don't see how Darwin will justifiably come out with just a small fraction of his work suspended when passed through the same test! Let's not be hypocritical.