Why good Evangelicals make lousy Americans

Read Professor Tom's rebuttal here.

That's right, kids. It's time to start beating your head against the table again. The inimitable Siger forwarded this article to me and it makes me want to stab myself in the head with staples:

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

By Anita Singh

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. Full story here.

This is so astonishingly depressing. This wonderful nation was brought into being by some of the smartest men ever to breath - but two hundred years after the Founding Fathers left their democratic legacy, it seems the nation's taking a step backwards.

We don't teach our kids about the incontrovertible evidence of evolution because it offends our 'religious sensibilities.' We deny gay Americans their basic civil rights because it offends our 'religious sensibilities.' We're even arguing about giving health care to the poor because our 'religious sensibilities' apparently decry sharing our hard-earned buck with the less fortunate (I think Jesus actually preached the exact opposite.)

This driving demon of extreme evangelicalism is perhaps why America's slipped from its position as the world's most competitive economy. Maybe it's why we're the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care. Perhaps fundamentalism is why India and China are beginning to eclipse us economically.

This obsession with medieval thinking is, just maybe, the reason why the rest of the developed world is marching inexorably forward and we're stuck resolutely where we were.

What happens to a nation which embraces extremist religion over science, humanism and reason? It becomes a hell-hole like Iran or Afghanistan. What happens to people who believe extremist religion trumps education? They become progressively more stupid as each new generation forgets what the prior generation learned.

The problem isn't Christianity - because Evangelicalism no longer even remotely resembles Christianity. The message Jesus Christ spread was simply to love your brother, something we're increasingly reluctant to do because loving your brother sounds suspiciously like 'socialism.'

Words just fail me. However much I rant, it seems impossible to adequately communicate my deep-rooted frustration with the 80 million or so Americans who believe their God-given purpose is to dismantle everything good, bright, right and sacred about this wonderful country.

It strikes me you can be a Good (Evangelical) Christian, or a Good American. I'm just increasingly losing faith that you can be both.

'10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help' by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D

Despite an interesting premise, with ‘10 Books That Screwed Up the World’, Doctor Wiker ultimately falls foul of his own double standards.

It’s a bold challenge Doctor Wiker makes with ‘10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help.’

He argues that some of the most infamous literature in history has become so ingrained in modern culture that people have accepted the ‘concept’ of these books without actually reading or contesting the original material.

These commonly accepted, yet half-understood ‘truths,’ he contends, are what’s responsible for promoting our materialistic, Godless and sexually promiscuous culture – of ‘screwing up’ the world, as he puts it.

But despite coming up with a fascinating premise for his book, Doctor Wiker sets off down the wrong path from step one – illustrating that the 10 books he’s highlighted haven’t so much ‘screwed up’ the world – just ‘the world’ as he believes it should be.

It’s clear Doctor Wiker is promoting an agenda simply by reading the list of the ten works be believes ‘Screwed Up the World.’ There are some logical choices there, like Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf.’ However, the rest reads like a Conservative shit-list, encompassing Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Alfred Kinsey and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Taking into account Ben Wiker’s previous books, like “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God,” and “Moral Darwinism,” it’s fair to suggest that Doctor Wiker reached his condemning conclusions about ‘the worst books ever written’ before even bothering to examine them.

That much is clear in the attacks he makes: With Descartes' ‘Discourse on the Method,’ for example, Doctor Wiker’s own theological beliefs become so entangled in his quarrel with Descarte’s ontological argument that his conclusion winds up being utterly subjective and unconvincing.

Similarly, his interpretation of ‘The Descent of Man’ attempts to bulldoze Darwinism into the role of the founder of the Eugenics movement, despite the fact that Darwin himself argued in that very book against the idea of using Darwinian methods in civilized human society.

Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the mother and father of the ‘sexual revolution’, are demonized for popularizing the study of human sexuality and breaking down the boundaries of traditional (in Wiker’s case, read ‘Christian’) morality. His evaluation of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ is clearly colored by the supposed ‘evils’ of socialism once popularized by McCarthy.

From start to finish, Doctor Wiker’s evaluation of these ’10 books’ originates from such a rigid and inflexible position that it makes his arguments and conclusions somewhat blithe. For readers coming from a similarly Conservative, Christian standpoint, they might find a lot they agree with in Doctor Wicker’s appraisals of the ‘ten worst books.’ For everybody else, you’ll have to make several leaps of faith just to keep up with his ‘logic.’

I think Thomas E. Woods sums up the intended audience of ’10 Books That Screwed Up the World’ best with his quote on the back cover: “Benjamin Wiker has read the worst books in Western civilization so you don't have to.”

It’s the ‘…so you don’t have to’ which sums it all up. If you’ve already reached your conclusion about the evils of books like The Descent of Man and the Kinsey Report, ideally without reading them, you’ll find '10 Books’ to be well written and comforting, agreeing with everything you believe you know about these ‘terrible works.’

If you’ve got a slightly more open mind, however, you’ll find Doctor Wiker’s appraisal of these books to be shamelessly one-sided and his conclusions less than watertight.

Facts, Interpretation and Truth

"Please tell the McCain/Palin Campaign (preferably politely) why teaching creationism in our public schools around America is superstitious and is not in our nation's best interests." Quantum Flux.

"...I would also add in closing that the comment about creationism being superstitious and not good for our country is ridiculous." The Maid

My last post sparked off two fascinating topics of discussion - abortion and creationism. I quickly wanted to touch upon the topic of creationism - and the concept of teaching it in American public schools.

Just to surprise everybody, I'll admit that I think creationism should be taught in every public school in America - but only EVER in Religious Studies class.

It's an important Christian concept and a major part of Christian theology. I totally support children being taught the basis of 'what Christians believe.' (Likewise, I think children would do well to learn the basic concepts of Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.)

What I do not believe in is teaching creationism as an 'alternative' to the currently accepted scientific theory on the creation of the earth. That's just wrong. Creationism is not a 'scientific theory.' It's fantasy.

Christians often argue that creationism is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution because the theory of evolution isn't complete. It has holes in - questions that still aren't answered.

How did the universe begin? How did life start of planet earth? There are theories, like 'the Big Bang' that answer this, but they're just theories (even though they're supported by very convincing scientific evidence.)

However, unlike creationism, there are parts of the evolution system that aren't theoretical. They're facts. Cold, hard, immutable, inarguable facts. These facts don't just help support the theory of evolution - they also prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the creationist doctrine is wrong.

To teach creationism as 'science' is to teach science that is wrong. It's a lie. In fact, it's bordering on child abuse. It's like teachings kids that the world is flat, or that 2 + 2 = 36.

Creationism says that God created the world six thousand years ago. Scientific fact proves that the world was forged between 100 and 150 million years before that. [Yo! Militant Ginger, you dumbass! Your dad points out that the Earth was formed 5 BILLION years ago. Geeze. Try using Wikipedia some time - Editorial Bear.]

Creationism says that God created Adam and Eve six thousand years ago. Scientific fact proves that man was walking the African plains two hundred thousand years earlier.

Creationism says that God created each type of animal (including man) individually. Scientific fact shows the evolution of fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals and those mammals (eventually) into man.

It's laid out in front of us like a jigsaw puzzle. To argue against these facts is like saying the sky isn't blue, or water isn't wet.

What fundamentalist Christians have lost sight of, in their battle to get creationist fantasy taught as scientific theory, is that God can still exist in Darwin's world.

Fourteen billion years ago, the universe got created in what scientists call 'the big bang.' Why? How? Nobody knows - and the suggestion that a 'higher power' deliberately created the universe makes as much sense (if not more) than the idea that it just happened randomly.

How did life arrive on Earth? Why didn't it appear anywhere else? One popular school of thought is that life arrived on Earth from outer space (a theory called Panspermia .) It would be just as credible to suggest that 'God' created life.

How come mankind was the only animal to develop language, art, science, music and technology? Atheists think it's just coincidence. Doesn't it makes more sense to believe that a 'higher power' guided us and helped shape the society that humanity has become?

The fact is, science and God can coexist quite happily. Christians can live in reality, yet still believe in a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What the religious right need to do is adopt scientific methods into their religion - and accept that time, fact and circumstance can help their beliefs evolve just like science does.

After all, even the most fundamentalist Christian wouldn't argue that the world is flat (although that was established Christian 'fact' four hundred years ago.) If religion has evolved enough to shed itself of that stupid, outdated and ignorant belief, why can't it do the same for creationism?

After all, according to the Bible, Jesus had an important message for his followers to spread and it sure as hell wasn't 'My Dad created the Earth in six days...'

The Evolution of Evolution

Back in April, I wrote a couple of posts about Evolution - since I continue to be astonished that there's a movement in America that refuses to accept Darwin's theory and still believes in 'Creationism' (as in, God invented it all over the course of a week.)

No, that's not the astonishing part. The fact that this movement hasn't been ridiculed into non-existence yet is the bit that boggles my mind!

One of the reasons 'Creationism' is still bantered about is because seemingly intelligent, reasonable people advocate it - such as blog friend and commentator CK.

Back in April, he had a few dissenting opinions on my appraisal of evolution - arguing that intelligent design was clearly a better theory since there were 'missing links' that had so far eluded scientists and prevented them from pinning down evolution as anything more than a theory.

As CK said: 'Intelligent Design: No need to see a fish turn to a bird, if a bird was designed as a bird and a fish as a fish. Animals adapt and evolve... but they don't change what animal they are in the process.'

He argued that God invented birds and birds, fish as fish and the rest of the animals started off as what they were and any 'evolution' that has occurred has been purely incidental.

It's a pretty logical argument, which makes sense since CK is a pretty logical guy. The flaw is that these 'missing links' DO continue to be discovered - reinforcing Darwin's theory and punching holes in the idea of Creationism.

In fact, last Thursday saw the discovery of the most convincing 'missing link' discovered yet. 'Ventastega' is a 100 million year old fish with tiny legs - currently the oldest discovered four-legged animal and concrete proof that the four legged mammals of today started their evolutionary journey as fish.

That's what is so comforting about theories like evolution. They start from the assumption that we don't know all the answers - but the more we find out, the more the facts back our theories. Creationism is the opposite - it stems from a belief that we DO know all the answers (or, at least, the Bible does) and it must be infuriating for 'believers' to see their doctrine hammered by reality each time a new fossil is unearthed.

Darwin's Legacy

CK left a comment on this post and pointed out that debating Creationist Doctrine's Ku Klux Klan roots is all well and good - but Darwin's Theory of Evolution didn't exactly bring out the best in some people, either.

In fact, the idea of 'survival of the fittest' inspired many proponents of Darwin's theories to suggest that the human race itself could be 'improved' by directly manipulating the evolutionary process.

Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, discovered that statistics suggested a congenitally deaf person was more likely to parent a deaf child than somebody with normal hearing. Therefore, theoretically, if the deaf didn't procreate, deafness could be eliminated from the human race. It was thinking like that which was the beginning of Eugenics.

Eugenics was such a popular theory that even Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, advocated it. In 1907, he supported Indiana becoming the first of thirty states to introduce compulsory sterilization of 'inferior' human specimens. Other states, like Connecticut, had already brought in legislation barring the "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.

By 1945, over 60,000 Americans had been forcibly sterilized to avoid 'polluting the gene pool' with their 'inferior' genes.

Although forced sterilizations continued until 1963, for the most part they stopped in 1945. This is when America was forced to come to terms with the legacy of their experimentation into eugenics.

During the Nuremberg trials, when top-ranking Nazi officers were placed on trial for the shocking and inhumane crimes they committed during World War Two, the issue of eugenics was raised. The Nazis had forcibly sterilized over 450,000 people - many for the genetic 'crime' of being Jewish.

Hitler himself had written: "I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

That was a bitter pill for the American government to swallow. That realisation pretty much ended the experiment into 'social eugenics.'

And not a moment too soon, because eugenics is a quack science.

Some of the basic theories, like Alexander Graham Bell's observation that deafness could be 'bred out' of the human race, sound convincing, but the theory of 'racial purity' flirted with by early American eugenicists (and embraced by the Nazis) is more likely to produce genetic abnormalities than 'cure' them.

For example, observant Ashkenazi Jews tend to marry within their own community (for social reasons) and as a result, have a much higher rate of certain hereditary diseases (such as Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan's disease and Goucher's disease.) This illustrates that 'racial purity' promotes a less diverse (and therefore less healthy) gene pool.

Most dog breeders have known this for centuries - it's well established that mongrel dogs tend to be healthier than 'pure breeds' and closely bred types of dogs often suffer problems because of their limited gene pool. The effort to breed the 'perfect' Bulldog, for example, results in many animals who have trouble breathing because their noses are so squished.

Eugenics simply misinterprets the theory of evolution. Darwin suggested that 'natural selection' favoured animals who varied in a 'manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life.' His whole theory celebrates genetic variety, while eugenics itself tries to eliminate it.

But in any event, CK was absolutely right when he pointed out that Darwin's theory of evolution has probably had a far more devastating effect on the United States than proponents of the Doctrine of Creationism. That's because Darwin's theory is based in fact - and fact is always infinitely more dangerous than fantasy.

That's the major difference between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Creationism.

The modern Doctrine of Creationism was the child of the fundamentalist movement (many of whom were documented members of the Ku Klux Klan.) It was based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Eugenics, on the other had, was created by manipulating a scientifically sound theory. The reason eugenics was such a popular lie - embraced by governments and people alike - was because it was based in fact.

When it comes to eugenics, I think this quote is appropriate:

"The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." George Christoph Lichtenberg.

When it comes to the Doctrine of Creationism, the classics are always the best:

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what a man wishes, he believes to be true." Demosthenes.