God Versus the Test Tube: Religion verus Science in the USA

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts"

We live in a country where one has the freedom of religion. And I am completely for that. In fact, I often feel that groups like the ACLU is way out of line, challenging the rights for individuals to pray in public buildings or using Judo-Christian Symbols in monuments. Those things have personal meaning to many people, and to take them away is the same in my mind as shoving them down a persons throat. But the point of my article is not to address the death of religion (as I think that day is far from, if never, going to actually be a reality). Instead, I am addressing how science often finds itself under attack by religion, even in a country that is supposedly as educated as ours.

Religion is in itself not outright a problem. It helps explain things that science can never answer (or at least, likely never will), such as meaning of the soul, if their is a God and what it/he/she/them is like, etc. However, we have hit a point where religion still attempts to cling to realms that it should not, namely science and history. Religion was/is used to explain the mysteries of this world. These used to include things from why an apple falls down to where babies come from. But these fields are within the realm of the physical and do not touch the metaphysical. God is not the force that makes the apple fall, the intrinsic force of gravity does. Lightning strikes when the difference in charge between the ground and clouds becomes too great and the electrons jump from earth to the clouds. These, amongst millions of other discoveries, explain the world not only in a way that does not rely on the metaphysical but also in a way that allows for us to predict and manipulate the world to a degree that is supersedes anything our ancestors could have possibly imagined. And our history and origin also have left the mists of legends and histories past. Indeed, we have through genetics and archaeology begun to trace our ancestry back to creatures from millions of years ago (not the 6,000 or so predicted by the Bible and other religious texts).

The problem arises when individuals and religious institutions refuse to recognize the science before them and instead cling to things that fly in the face of evidence. For example, we know beyond a doubt the decay rate of carbon and other atomic particles to within fractions of percents, and these show us the age of the earth and fossils as much older than most religious texts describe. Physics backs this with the movement of the universe and other evidence gathered by telescopes. Science has become more and more capable of explaining physical aspects of our word as religion finds itself more and more incapable of explaining why things are the way they are. And this is because religion's purpose was never to give an explanation of the physical world, but instead explore the meaning behind it. When lightning stikes, religion is not supposed to tell you how it happened. It is supposed to tell you that it is a sign of God's displeasure (maybe, I do not really know). This doesn't mean the science is invalid, it just means that there is a meaning on the metaphysical level. And this is the simple one. The story of Adam and Eve is not suppose to tell us how, scientifically, life came about (in fact, the bible itself cannot decide, as Genesis 1 describes a completely opposite order of creation of life). It is to explain why humanity cannot achieve true perfection on this plain, it explains where sin originated from, it explains that God loves us but why we are not with him in paradise. It is suppose to give a spiritual aspect to our very existence. To read it as a historical account is to at the very worst ignore these intents and at the very best ignore the world in which we live in.

Not only does religion sometimes ignore science, it sometimes bastardizes it. Intelligent design has been proposed as an alternative scientific theory to Natural Selection. The problem with this is that it is a pseudoscience, such as Phrenology (measuring parts of the skull so as to determine intelligence, creativity, etc.), which attempts to use scientific information coupled with preconceived theories and metaphysical properties so as to create an explanation. But like most pseudosciences, it is not solely used as a explanation for how/why something is a certain way, but it also tries to prove its original basis or support the proponents propaganda. For example, phrenology was usually backed by proponents who believe minorities and women were less intelligent and intellectually capable, and this showed as the measurements for intellectual ability were based on Caucasian male measurements. Intelligent design suffers the same flaw as it both attempts to prove there is a God as at the same time it relies on him as the basis of the explanation (circular logic). The fact that this is being demanded to be taught as an actual scientific theory would be a slap in the face of anyone who calls themselves a scientist, whether they are theists or not.

Philosophy is defined as "a set system of beliefs and thoughts pertaining to one or more subject". And I do not see how Religion should differ., at least in our school systems. Instead of outright banning it, why not teach about the different religious viewpoints (such as intelligent design, or the beliefs of the Judo-Christian, Eastern and Islamic traditions). This will allow for people to discuss their religious beliefs in the classroom without ridicule, and as long as discussions are kept respectful, allow for discourse on the varying traditions and beliefs. In fact, I feel this will help create a greater sense of tolerance for different religions .

Furthermore, even though science may always tell us the how something happens, it can never tell us the metaphysical why or should. Science can always tell us if something is possible and why it is possible, but it lacks the ability to tell us if, for example, we should clone a human. Religion and philosophy allow these questions to be addressed. I am not advocating that we should cling to these beliefs in the face of things that are scary or bizarre ( For example, cloning a human heart or blood so as to transplant a person should be legal, though it sounds Frankenstein), but it should be heeded so as to prevent travesties (such as the concept of the early 1900's Eugenics Projects or, say, cloning living humans for those cloned hearts and blood). Nor should it try and replace scientific fact, such as in the regards to the origin of life or Earth's history. And finally, it should not cause us to walk in fear of science, but instead learn about it and question it through our beliefs.

What ever happened to the melting pot?

Ok...Before I get cries of liberal propaganda, let me first state that I am someone who believe that America should have an official language: English. Most countries have an official spoken language, and to this day I do not understand why America does not.

Now on to my rant. Today I had the great pleasure of listening to a man rant about how America was falling into the shitter because of all these new immigrants (Indians, Mexicans, etc.) and how they were disrupting the society that we had with their new cultures. He then when on about how the left wants us to abandon our good old American values and make the cultural switch. Now, the problem is, this isn't an isolated incident. Americans today fear that we are going to lose what our country is with the influx of Spanish speaking individuals from South of the Border (for the sake of this argument, I am only going to address those who legally enter. Illegal immigration is a whole other issue). Their are two things I would like to address:

1. Our culture arises from a mixing of previous immigrant groups. America today looks nothing like America from 100 years ago, never mind 10.

2. This Nativist reaction isn't new either and has been a part of our culture since the nation was founded

Addressing 1, we have always been a country comprised of amalgamations of different nationalities. Now, I could understand some outburst at the president's statement that maybe instead of complaining about the Mexican kid in your classroom, your kid should be more worried about your kid learning Spanish (In fact, it annoyed me. Spanish is the one subject I have never done well in.) I feel that it may be pushing it to far to say that we should worry about adopting parts of the culture. But at the same time, it doesn't mean that:

A. There is nothing to gain from their culture

B. Learning a language spoken by approximately a third of our nation is a bad idea

I mean, lets look back at other immigrant groups for point A. We would not have a great deal of our modern culture if we had completely ignored incoming cultures. For example, Cold Beer and Franks can be ascribed to our German compatriots (we would have warm lager otherwise), and you can't get more good old American than that plus a game of baseball. Other things we take for granted stem from other immigrant groups . So condemning are absorbtion of other cultures would mean we have to forsake much of what

As for point B, a lot of people do speak Spanish, so learning it is not a bad idea. I am not saying though that they should not also learn English or given leeway. But the fact is, most first generation immigrants do not learn the language well, regardless of what group they are from. Many Italian immigrants in the the early 19th century learned only enough english to get by. It usually is only the second or third generation that fully adopts English as their primary language as they have been exposed to it long enough to be comfortable with it. Given time, we will likely see English beginning to become more common place in the Hispanic Communities.

Now as to problem 2, the nativist aspect isn't new either. For example, the Irish were hated on for a long period of time because they were Catholics. Most Mediteranean (Greeks and Italians) faced a great deal of dislike because they were of darker complexion and were less likely to speak English off the boat. The Chinese and other Asian cultures were disliked because they were beleived to be inferior humans, and Jews and Eastern Europeans were often viewed with suspicion. All were hated because they took jobs from good, honest "native Americans" (ironic, sicne most actual native Americans were treated as bad or worse then the immigrants at this time period). Though some of those groups still face predjudice from a small portion of the population, they have for the most part been accepted and aspects of their culture somehow fit into the hodgepodge of American culture. And now we have another group of non-white, non-english speakers trying to enter our country and we are faced again with a loud cry of hate. What is both ironic and sad is that it is almost the same outcry, that good, honest "native Americans" are losing out, when many are no more than third generation Americans themselves. America was built off of immigrants, and to now say that we no longer want to be such a nation is unfair, especially when you consider how much we like to promote that America is the nation that does not judge and where any man can rise from nothing.

Honestly, we should take it as a compliment that people are still fighting to get into our country.

Exiting the Victorian Era: Dealing with Teen Pregnancies

Okay, so I know this is a little after the fact (the study has been out for a while) but I saw a news clip this morning that reminded me of it. At the end of 2006, teenage pregnancies have actually gone up. Now, this comes after 15 years of decrease, and it it implies a reversal of the trend for at least the next couple years. Though Obama reversed the ruling that stated that those who taught safe sex would not receive federal funding, this does not mean that we are going to see hundreds of schools switching over. Many districts choose to pursue abstinence even though their is strong evidence that it does not work, and even common sense should tell us that it does not work (as a teenager, when someone told you not to do something, did you listen?). The areas that promote abstinence only programs also have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, with the South and Southeast both having the highest number of abstinence only programs and also the highest number of teen pregnancies. High poverty areas also have these issues, such as District of Columbia (outside the main part of DC) and parts of California (The heavily Hispanic, thus Catholic, areas for example) and this goes in line with a poorer education on the subject (low income areas are 7 times more likely to disregard or minimize sexual education).

And why does this happen? Because it is much easier to not talk about something and hope you do not have to deal with it then to outright address the issue, or that we feel that exposing them to the subject will cause them to see it as an endorsement. In a country where information is so readily available (between TV, Libraries, and the Internet) you would hope that people would know more. But to this day, people still have tons of misconceptions about sex, pregnancy and birth control (I actually have heard someone reciting the line "You can't get pregnant on top" from Knocked Up as a fact. She was 16). Parent's will fight to make sure their kids know nothing about the subject, and then let them watch television shows that promote sex without consequence. There is no context for sex, and the consequences are not depicted with any realism. Argueing that teaching about something is endorsing means that we shouldn't teach about the Holocaust because we are then endorsing it. In Europe, where sex is actually addressed and contraception is made available, England has the highest teen pregnancy birth rate, and it is half that of the United States. Most have a fifth or less. They also start later in most nations and are more likely to use both types of contraception (16% is the average in Europe for teenagers using them in conjunction, which is over 5 times higher than the US for similar ages.)

Now, I am Catholic. My church puts a big deal on waiting for marriage, about not using artificial contraception, and about the sanctity of sex. Now do not get me wrong, I am not saying that pursuing these is wrong or that I think teenagers should be having sex. But there is a huge gap between should and reality. You should love your partner, you should be responsible about it, and you should be ready to accept any consequences if you do choose to pursue sex. The problem is that abstinence simply says that you shouldn't have sex (and sometimes includes consequences but usually only as scare tactics), and doesn't address what you should do if you choose to pursue sex. And I will admit, that safe sex programs do not usually address the seriousness of the emotional aspect of sex and can address with no more passion then a biology class. What I would like to see is combining the concept of waiting and treating sex as more than a fun thing to do to be combined with the thought if you do it here is how to avoid/minimize negative consequences and this is what is actually happening. It is how I currently run my talks on our campus (though with my Audience, most either already know it or are too old to care) and it almost always gets a positive response. If this method of teaching could be brought into Middle and High School levels, I am sure that it would improve our standings and bring us more in line with the rest of the First World Nations. If only we as a country will move out of the cloistered and timid approach to sex that has been with us since the Victorian Era can we hope to see any change in the behavior of our teenage populations.

Introduction

So, I finally decided that I needed a place to vent/discuss topics that I have been thinking about or hoping to throw out there for feedback. I am probably going to fall into politics alot, but I will likely cover everything and anything that I find myself thinking about. I strongly invite feedback and commentary, and if you have a topic of interest, I will be happy to discuss it. I likely won't get into the full swing of things until I am back at school, but I will try and get some posts going before I get back.