American Politics, Progressive News, Human Rights, Civil Disobedience, Foreign Policy, Current Events, Cultural Activism, and Social Justice.
http://www.dustcircle.com | http://www.facebook.com/dissentingheretic | http://www.twitter.com/dustcirclenews
Showing posts with label indoctrination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label indoctrination. Show all posts

Monday, August 5

@dustcirclenews - HEADLINES: America Discredited, Bradley Manning Verdict, Myth of Socialism, Business of Mass Incarceration, NSA's Overreach, America's Power Declining, Education is Often Indoctrination, US Government Destroys Whistleblowers' Lives, FBI Hacking and Spying, Israel's Apartheid, Lies Your Government Tells You, more...


Bookmark us! http://www.dustcircle.com
America Discredited
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35732.htm

The banality of injustice for Bradley Manning
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/the-banality-of-injustice-for-bradley-manning/

The Bradley Manning Verdict Will Create Massive Chilling Effects For Whistleblowers And Journalists
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/02091524013/bradley-manning-verdict-will-create-massive-chilling-effects-whistleblowers-journalists.shtml

The Myth Of Socialism
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/01/the-myth-of-socialism-2/

JURIST releases inaugural podcast
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/07/jurist-releases-inaugural-podcast.php

As More Leaks Surface, Senators Seek to Curb NSA
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/221445-as-more-leaks-surface-senators-seek-to-curb-nsa/

Edward Snowden's Not the Story. The Fate of the Internet Is
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/28

The Business of Mass Incarceration
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/29

The NSA's Overreach And Lack Of Transparency Is Hurting American Businesses
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130729/09171423983/nsas-overreach-lack-transparency-is-hurting-american-businesses.shtml

3 Shocking Revelations from NSA's Most Terrifying Program Yet
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/3-shocking-revelations-nsas-most-terrifying-program-yet

America's Imperial Power Is Showing Real Signs of Decline
http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-americas-imperial-power-showing-real-signs-decline

Revealed: NSA Program Collects 'Nearly Everything a User Does on the Internet'
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/31-2

Building a Smarter, Stronger Democratic Movement in the Face of Opposition
http://www.alternet.org/activism/building-smarter-stronger-democratic-movement-face-opposition

What Passes for Education In America Is Often Just Indoctrination
http://www.alternet.org/education/educating-idiots

How The US Government Destroys The Lives Of Whistleblowers
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130729/17214923995/how-us-government-destroys-lives-whistleblowers.shtml

Religion Is The Biggest Bane For Any Democracy
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2013/08/03/religion-is-the-biggest-bane-for-any-democracy/

Cracks widen in the armor of the surveillance state
http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=14458#.UfvXNFORQ7s

Over 100 global civil society groups release human rights principles to govern surveillance
https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/07/31/over-100-global-civil-society-groups-release-human-rights-principles-to-gov

Palestinian NGOs reject negotiations with Israeli occupation
http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/palestinian-ngos-reject-negotiations-with-israeli-occupation/

10 Things Your Org Can Do Right Now To Give the Progressive Movement a Chance to Win
http://www.alternet.org/visions/10-things-your-org-can-do-right-now-give-progressive-movement-chance-win

The military's new massacres in Egypt
http://socialistworker.org/2013/07/29/the-militarys-new-massacres

Israel Is An Apartheid State
http://www.countercurrents.org/boyle020813.htm

FBI Taps Hacker Tactics to Spy on Suspects
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323997004578641993388259674.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth

The fields are ready but the workers are few -- the urgent need to witness against organized religion
http://new.exchristian.net/2013/07/the-fields-are-ready-but-workers-are.html

WHEN CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, #WENEEDADEMOCRACYMOVEMENTTOFIXTHISSHIT!
http://acronymtv.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/726/

The Lies Your Government Tells You About NSA Surveillance

The folks over at ProPublica have collected a series of flat-out lies by government officials concerning NSA snooping and put them all together in a short video.
It includes statements from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA boss Keith Alexander, Senate Intelligence boss Senator Dianne Feinstein and President Barack Obama -- all stating false claims about NSA surveillance publicly. It then shows how those statements were false. We've said it before but as these very same officials now are trying to assure us there's nothing wrong with the program, given their past lies, how can we take them seriously?

Wednesday, July 24

@dustcirclenews - HEADLINES: Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, Global Drone Warfare, New American Economy, Fighting for Farmworkers, How Monsanto Can Be Defeated, American Dream, Symptoms of Unemployment, Creationists Are Wrong, God and American Politics, more.


View more articles, links, book suggestions, documentaries, and other interesting things at:  http://www.dustcircle.com

Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/15-3

Which Nations Hate The U.S.? Often Those Receiving U.S. Aid
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/07/22/204516430/which-nations-hate-the-u-s-often-those-receiving-u-s-aid

US Expands Global Drone Warfare
http://www.countercurrents.org/gaist230713.htm

Surviving the New American Economy
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76636

US Reporters May Be Forced To Reveal Their Sources
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc200713A.htm

Fighting for Farmworkers
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76637

Bradley Manning 'Aiding the Enemy' Charge is a Threat to Journalism
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35606.htm

America , The Powerful And The Powerless
http://www.countercurrents.org/khawaja210713.htm

The Seeds of Rebellion Are Taking Root, and Protests Against Injustices Are Blooming Across the Country
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Seeds-of-Rebellion-Are-by-Kevin-Zeese-130720-935.html

How Monsanto Can Be Defeated
http://www.alternet.org/food/how-monsanto-can-be-defeated

The American Dream Has Turned into a Grueling Quest for Survival for Millions of People
http://www.alternet.org/labor/american-dream-has-turned-grueling-quest-survival-millions-people

Mind Raped by the Christian Right
http://www.alternet.org/belief/mind-raped-christian-right

Britain admits selling $12 billion in weapons to Israel
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/britain-admits-selling-12-billion-weapons-israel

Godless Political Values: Importance of Godless Values to Modern Democracy
http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessamericaamericans/p/PoliticalValues.htm?nl=1

Why Can't We Call A Whistleblower a Truth Teller?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Can-t-We-Call-A-Whistl-by-Kenneth-Kendrick-130721-14.html

Unemployment and Its Symptoms
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/unemployment-and-its-symptoms

Creationists are wrong. Science is actually concerned with the truth.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/07/19/creationists-are-wrong-science-is-actually-concerned-with-the-truth/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130719

God, Religion, and American Politics
http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/07/12/god-religion-and-american-politics.htm?nl=1

The 12 Best Reasons Why The U.S. Is Not Now, And Never Should Be, A Christian Nation
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/christian-nation/

Is Religion Good or Evil?
Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil in the World?

Thursday, June 28

What's the Matter With Creationism?


  • Share4436
  • |
  • |
  • StumbleUpon.com
  • |
  • Recommended by 1
  • |
  • Text Size A | A | A

(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, file)
Do you know what the worst thing about the recent Gallup poll on evolution is? It isn’t that 46 percent of respondents are creationists (“God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last ten thousand years or so”). Or that 32 percent believe in “theistic evolution” (“Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”). Or that only 15 percent said humans evolved and “God had no part in this process.” It isn’t even that the percentage of Americans with creationist views has barely budged since 1982, when it was 44 percent, with a small rise in the no-God vote (up from 9 percent) coming at the expense of the divine-help position (down from 38 percent). Or that 58 percent of Republicans are creationists, although that does explain a lot.

About the Author

Katha Pollitt
Katha Pollitt
Katha Pollitt is well known for her wit and her keen sense of both the ridiculous and the sublime. Her "Subject to...

Also by the Author

A university press is placed on the chopping block while the school’s head coach is paid nearly seven times its annual operation cost.
A pregnant woman who tried to kill herself after the father of the unborn child left her could face up to sixty-five years in prison for attempted feticide and murder.
It’s that the proportion of college graduates who are creationists is exactly the same as for the general public. That’s right: 46 percent of Americans with sixteen long years of education under their belt believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. Even 25 percent of Americans with graduate degrees believe dinosaurs and humans romped together before Noah’s flood. Needless to say, this remarkable demonstration of educational failure attracts little attention from those who call for improving our schools.
My brilliant husband, a sociologist and political theorist, refuses to get upset about the poll. It’s quite annoying, actually. He thinks questions like these primarily elicit affirmations of identity, not literal convictions; declaring your belief in creationism is another way of saying you’re a good Christian. That does rather beg the question of what a good Christian is, and why so many think it means refusing to use the brains God gave you. And yes, as you may have suspected, according to the Pew Research Center, evangelicals are far more likely than those of other faiths to hold creationist views; just 24 percent of them believe in evolution. Mormons come in even lower, at 22 percent, although official church doctrine has no problem with evolution.
Why does it matter that almost half the country rejects the overwhelming evidence of evolution, with or without the hand of God? After all, Americans are famously ignorant of many things—like where Iran is or when World War II took place—and we are still here. One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old? Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue. To celebrate its fifth anniversary, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has installed a holographic exhibit of Lucy, the famous proto-human fossil, showing how she was really just a few-thousand-year-old ape after all.
Patricia Princehouse, director of the evolutionary biology program at Case Western Reserve University, laughed when I suggested to her that the Gallup survey shows that education doesn’t work. “There isn’t much evolution education in the schools,” she told me. “Most have no more than a lesson or two, and it isn’t presented as connected with the rest of biology.” In fact, students may not even get that much exposure. Nationally, Princehouse said, at least 13 percent of biology teachers teach “young earth” creationism (not just humans but the earth itself is only 10,000 years old or thereabouts), despite laws forbidding it, and some 60 percent teach a watered-down version of evolution. They have to get along with their neighbors, after all. In Tennessee, home of the Scopes trial, a new law actually makes teaching creationism legal. “No one takes them to court,” Princehouse told me, “because creationism is so popular. Those who object are isolated and afraid of reprisals.” People tend to forget that Clarence Darrow lost the Scopes trial; until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 1968, it was illegal to teach evolution in public schools in about half a dozen states.
Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and practicing Catholic who is a leading voice against creationism, agrees with Princehouse. “Science education has been remarkably ineffective,” he told me. “Those of us in the scientific community who are religious have a tremendous amount of work to do in the faith community.” Why bother? “There’s a potential for great harm when nearly half the population rejects the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. It’s useful for us as a species to understand that we are a recent appearance on this planet and that 99.9 percent of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.” Evangelical parents may care less that their children learn science than that they avoid going to hell, but Miller points out that many of the major challenges facing the nation—and the world—are scientific in nature: climate change and energy policy, for instance. “To have a near majority essentially rejecting the scientific method is very troubling,” he says. And to have solidly grounded science waved away as political and theological propaganda could not come at a worse time. “Sea-level rise” is a “left-wing term,” said Virginia state legislator Chris Stolle, a Republican, successfully urging its replacement in a state-commissioned study by the expression “recurrent flooding.”
The group Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum, has plans to build a full-size replica of Noah’s Ark as part of its Ark Encounter theme park. If that “recurrent flooding” really gets going, you may wish you’d booked a cabin.
  • Share4436
  • |
  • |
  • StumbleUpon.com
  • |
  • Recommended by 1
  • |
  • Text Size A | A | A

Thursday, June 21

The Ungodly Constitution: How the Founders Ensured America Would Not Be a Christian Nation


comments_image 95 COMMENTS

The founders made a noble effort to say goodbye to all that in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.



 
Photo Credit: Jasmic
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 
 
When I was growing up in the fifties and sixties, almost no one in politics or everyday life went around proclaiming, “I am a Christian.” If indeed you were a Christian—that is, someone who considers Jesus Christ the Messiah—you identified yourself as a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Catholic, and so on in excelsis in order to let others know where you stood in the vast American religious landscape.
Calling oneself a Christian today, by contrast, has a special, politicized meaning. For most people in public life, this self-identification suggests a particular form of conservative Christianity, a brand of religion that seeks not only to proselytize but to impose its values on others through the machinery of the state. The huge exception to this rule is President Barack Obama, who has been forced by the birther-paranoids to advertise his credentials as a Christian in order to refute the lie that he is a “secret Muslim.”
Once upon a time (until around 1980, actually), the appellation “Christian” used to mean “right-wing Protestant,” as a consequence of the historic animosity between many forms of American Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. That is no longer true, as demonstrated by GOP primary hopefuls Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, the darlings of Protestant fundamentalists, although they personify the cliché “more Catholic than the pope.” (In Gingrich’s case, the relevant pontiffs would be certain medieval and Renaissance vicars of Christ who produced numerous children through extra-pontifical liaisons.) Santorum is in fact a Catholic fundamentalist—unlike the majority of American Catholics, who do not accept either the notion of papal infallibility or the Vatican line on sexual behavior. Liberal Catholics, well aware of the political meaning of Christian in American politics, generally call themselves plain old “Catholics.”
Thus, when Santorum and Gingrich used their dog whistles throughout the Republican primaries to imply that Obama is not the Christian he claims to be, what they really meant is that he is not their kind of Christian. It has also become standard for politicians to offer a nod to “our Judeo-Christian heritage” in an effort to display theocratic inclusiveness. The slippery Gingrich never stumbled over this phrase, but Santorum often did, dragging Judeo out to four syllables so that it came out “Jew-day-ee-oh.” It is clear that this ecumenical platitude was not a part of the sanctimonious Santorum’s upbringing.
Was the United States founded as a Christian nation, meaning that the framers of the Constitution established a government whose laws would not only reflect but also enforce the rules of a particular brand of Christianity? No, period. The answer is as clear as Santorum’s pronunciation of Judeo is slurred, and the explanation can be found in the old (i.e., pre-1980) American practice of identifying oneself by denomination.
Denominational identification is as old as the earliest colonies in the New World, given that the first Puritan theocrats were fleeing persecution by adherents of another denomination—the Church of England. By the revolutionary era, doctrinal and intellectual distinctions separating one Christian denomination from another remained as immense as the gulf between the beliefs of a Jew and any Christian, or between any orthodox religious believer and a deist.
The founders did not want doctrinal differences to wreak civic havoc of the kind then evident throughout Europe. That is why they left not only Jesus but indeed any deity out of the Constitution. That the American population was and is overwhelmingly Christian is a fact. That makes it all the more remarkable that the founders did not establish a Christian government.
The Christian Right cannot point to a single mention of Jesus or Christianity in any of the nation’s founding documents and is forced to rely, for divine antecedents, on the line in the Declaration of Independence that talks about all men being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. But even if this were a statement of belief in a specific god rather than a general assertion of the philosophy of natural rights, it is most decidedly not a statement of faith in Jesus Christ.
In any event, it is futile to engage in debate with spokespeople for the Christian Right on this subject, because for them, the Christian origin of the American state is an article of faith that cannot be disproved by facts or plain English. Tell them, for instance, that the godlessness of the Constitution was taken for granted and attacked by conservatives at state ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, and they will point to the conventional “Year of Our Lord” dating of the document. This supposedly refutes hundreds of statements by angry ministers complaining about the absence of God from the document that would furnish the young government’s written foundation. As one cleric observed at North Carolina’s state convention, the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for public office in Article VI, Section 3 amounted to “an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us.” He was entirely accurate in his description of the potential effects of letting anyone, regardless of religious belief, run for public office. And when it came time to ratify the Constitution, he and his fellow theocrats were voted down in every state.
The ungodliness of the Constitution kept popping up in public discourse throughout the nineteenth century, most notably when a powerful group of Protestant ministers came to Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and demanded that he support an amendment to declare Jesus Christ, not “We the People,” the source of all governmental power. Lincoln, a canny politician who knew when not to take on another battle in the middle of a bloody civil war, declined to take any action and instead went along with a move to placate the ministers by putting “In God We Trust” on a two-penny coin in 1864. Lincoln presumably viewed the inscription of trust in a deity on a coin as an innocuous action calculated to avoid the trouble that would surely be generated by a Christian amendment to the Constitution. Little did he know that nearly 150 years in the future, right-wing politicians would employ that slogan to attack the much older motto E Pluribus Unum.
Lincoln’s brand of compromise was described by Jon Meacham in Time magazine as “a long-standing covenant between believers and nonbelievers in which secularists live with public religious appeals and images in exchange for self-regulating moderation on the part of the faithful. It’s an ancient and wise accommodation that allows religion and politics to inform each other without promoting an eschatological war between church and state.”
In fairness, Meacham argues that extremists like Santorum had violated this unspoken and unsigned “covenant.” However, “self-regulating moderation on the part of the faithful” is a flimsy altar upon which to base any agreement regarding the separation of church and state. Had the founders believed in the capacity of the faithful for such “self-regulation,” they never would have prohibited religious tests for national office at a time when most state governments still had religious discrimination written into their laws.
One aspect of the imaginary covenant between religious believers and secularists began to break down in the 1960s, long before the rise of the Christian Right. Since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid and the expansion of federal aid to education during Lyndon Johnson’s administration, secularists have rarely objected to the expenditure of federal funds through religious institutions like hospitals and charities. This is hardly a symbolic matter. It is far more important than the symbolic victories won by secularists of that era in the Supreme Court on issues like school prayer.
The firestorm set off by the Obama administration’s effort to make Catholic institutions offer insurance policies that cover contraception was described by the media as a dispute over religious liberty. Religious liberty meant, to the Catholic bishops, the right to participate in federal programs and receive funds provided by all taxpayers while imposing their religious doctrines on employees and patients alike—whatever their religion or lack thereof. Not every religion wants to have the taxpayers’ cake and eat it too. Mormon charities, for instance, do not accept government money.
The ability of the religious Right to frame this dispute purely as a matter of religious freedom—meaning freedom for the most conservative forms of religion—is a direct result of the long erosion of the separation of church and state at the practical level of taxpayer funding. Throughout these decades of erosion, what was once the religious center has constantly been pulled to the right.
(It should be noted that the furor is also a consequence of the Catholic bishops’ inability to convince their own flock to follow the church’s lead on sexual issues. The bishops are attempting to reassert control over Catholic hospitals—some of them run by uppity nuns—where church doctrine has been violated for years when it comes to such matters as the morning-after pill for rape victims and abortions needed to save a mother’s life. But the split within the Catholic Church is not the subject of this article.)
There is no real answer to be found in the nation’s founding documents about this question, because the founders never envisioned an America in which the federal government would spend billions of dollars on health and education, whether through religious or nonreligious institutions. It is worth noting, however, that Virginia’s 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom—which later served as the template for the Bill of Rights—came into being in opposition to a proposal that would have taxed Virginians for the support of Christian teaching in the public schools. Virginia’s law, not the statutes of states that still had established churches, became the template for Article VI, which was supposed to ban religious preference within the government, and the First Amendment, which prevented government from favoring one religion over another. The issue in Virginia, then, like the national issue over the prerogatives of sectarian hospitals today, encompassed both religious freedom and money.
The bishops are not the least bit concerned about the freedom of non-Catholic (or, for that matter, Catholic) employees whose consciences tell them that contraception is just fine. They are not concerned about rape victims, whatever their religion, who will not only be refused the morning-after pill by their hospitals but also will not even be told about other nonsectarian hospitals that provide such services. They will not be concerned if someday the Vatican decides that living wills are a usurpation of divine and ecclesiastical authority and that everyone has a duty to go on living and suffering until some deity decides to pull the plug.
The question is not whether the United States is a Christian nation: it is whether church authorities adhering to a deeply conservative brand of Christianity (along with some ultra-Orthodox rabbis who do not speak for most American Jews, any more than bishops speak for most American Catholics or the Family Research Council speaks for most American Protestants) get to use taxpayer money to further their parochial agenda.
It is true that most American secularists tolerate a good deal more religious symbolism in public life than we would like, but it is sheer fantasy to suggest that we have signed on to any covenant that tolerates the expenditure of public money according to the prescriptions and proscriptions of canon law or general biblical laws.
Oh, wait. There really weren’t any biblical laws about contraception because there wasn’t any effective contraception. But then, biblical Israel was definitely not a Christian nation. It was, however, a theocracy, like every Christian feudal monarchy and nation-state that succeeded the Roman Empire. The founders made a noble effort to say goodbye to all that in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.
Susan Jacoby is the author of Freethinkers: a History of American Secularism (Metropolitan, 2004) and a forthcoming biography of Robert Green Ingersoll, to be published next January by Yale University Press.

Tuesday, August 9

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
[REPRINT]

Download Audio

Let's go back to the beginning — all the way to Adam and Eve, and to the question: Did they exist, and did all of humanity descend from that single pair?

According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.

Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.

But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

Researching The Human Genome

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an evangelical and the current head of the National Institutes of Health, who, because of his position, declined an interview.

And Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century. Another one is John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently. He says it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence.

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

'Fundamental Doctrines Of The Christian Faith'

To many evangelicals, this is heresy.

"From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith," says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong.

"But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem," Rana says.

Rana and others believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve for many reasons. One is that the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates. Second, it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it's not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that rebellious choice infected all of humankind.

"When Adam sinned, he sinned for us," Mohler says. "And it's that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.

Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.

Intellectual Rift

That's only true if you read the Bible literally, says Dennis Venema at Trinity Western University. But if you read the Bible as poetry and allegory as well as history, you can see God's hand in nature — and in evolution.

"There's nothing to be scared of here," Venema says. "There is nothing to be alarmed about. It's actually an opportunity to have an increasingly accurate understanding of the world — and from a Christian perspective, that's an increasingly accurate understanding of how God brought us into existence."

This debate over a historical Adam and Eve is not just another heady squabble. It's ripping apart the evangelical intelligentsia.

"Evangelicalism has a tendency to devour its young," says Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, a Christian Reformed school that subscribes to the fall of Adam and Eve as a central part of its faith.

"You get evangelicals who push the envelope, maybe; they get the courage to work in sensitive, difficult areas," Harlow says. "And they get slapped down. They get fired or dismissed or pressured out."

Harlow should know: Calvin College investigated him after he wrote an article questioning the historical Adam. His colleague and fellow theologian, John Schneider, wrote a similar article and was pressured to resign after 25 years at the college. Schneider is now beginning a research fellowship at Notre Dame.

'A Galileo Moment'

Several other well known theologians at Christian universities have been forced out; some see a parallel to a previous time when science conflicted with religious doctrine.

"The evolution controversy today is, I think, a Galileo moment," says Karl Giberson, who authored several books trying to reconcile Christianity and evolution, including The Language of Science and Faith, with Francis Collins.

Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia — says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was condemned by the church, and it took more than three centuries for the Vatican to express regret at its error.

"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it."

Abandoning Theology?


Fuzale Rana isn't so sure this is a Galileo moment: That would imply the scientists are correct. But he does believe the stakes are even higher in today's battle over evolution. It is not just about the movement of the earth, but about the nature of God and man, of sin and redemption.

"I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history," he says. "Because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not."

But others say Christians can no longer afford to ignore the evidence from the human genome and fossils just to maintain a literal view of Genesis.

"This stuff is unavoidable," says Dan Harlow at Calvin College. "Evangelicals have to either face up to it or they have to stick their head in the sand. And if they do that, they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have."

"If so, that's simply the price we'll have to pay," says Southern Baptist seminary's Albert Mohler. "The moment you say 'We have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world,' you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy nor the respect of the world."

Mohler and others say if other Protestants want to accommodate science, fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if their faith unravels.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...