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.
No comments:
Post a Comment