Op. Cit.

September/October 2000 Back to Creation

From time to time I've come across a copy of your magazine and have enjoyed several of the articles in its pages. A recent article, "Monkey Fever in Kansas" (March/April 2000), was of particular interest to me as I do workshops for teachers and am a consultant with public schools concerning the topic of teaching about religion.
On the one hand, this article was a fine presentation of the complex history and the varied faces of the conflict between creationists and evolutionists. I appreciated Derek Davis's clear and astute presentation of the essential court cases concerning this topic. On the other hand, I perhaps did not understand his suggestions for handling this controversy "more effectively than it has been in the past."
Yes, both sides could better appreciate the other's claims for "diametrically opposed approaches to apprehending truth." No one who has studied the issue would disagree that our schools have the legal freedom, some would say the responsibility, to teach about religion in the public schools. But this is the difficulty. It seems Professor Davis is suggesting creationism, as a different perspective on approaching truth, could naturally be a topic for discussion in the science class. There are two problems with this approach.
First, the biblical story of creation is not the only creation story in the myriad of religious traditions (each with its perspective on truth), nor is the fundamentalist creation interpretation universally held by readers of the Bible. Thus those who argue for creationism in the schools are not actually arguing for the subject of creationism, they are arguing for a particular type of creationism. As a rabbi and reader of Hebrew Bible I have no problem with Darwin, or evolutionary approaches such as the big bang. On the other hand, I have several problems with biblical creationism as presented by the likes of Jerry Falwell, or the ICR, and their followers. As a subject for academic study, I don't have a problem with creationism that includes the Native American, ancient Mesopotamian, ancient Chinese, or a myriad of other approaches to truth; I do have a serious problem with the singular approach that I fear would be the result of following Professor Davis's suggestions. Whose perspective on approaching truth do we leave out?
The second problem is the issue of mixing the two topics of science and creationism. By following Professor Davis's suggestion it would seem that health science instructors should take time out of their classes to instruct their students in the perspective of Mary Baker Eddy or those who practice the ancient and venerable Chinese "medical science" of acupuncture. Frankly, I want my child who suffers from diabetes to take his insulin, and I don't care to have his health class spend precious instruction time balancing the scientific view of health with that of Ms. Eddy. Science is about the inductive reasoning process drawing conclusions based on the highest degree of probability given the empirical evidence. It is about the physical universe. Religion, on the other hand, is about the metaphysical universe, about abstract truth and spiritual claims. As regards theism, one can debate the merits of the cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments in support of the existence of God, and then turn to the atheist responses to each. But these arguments are hardly the topic of a class in the sciences. Conversely, from Maimonides and Aquinas to Spinoza, Kant, and Kierkegaard, each has, in some form, argued that ultimate truth requires something pure reason and science cannot provide us. In the final analysis the core of religion requires that famous "leap of faith" in the face of a science that cannot provide the ultimate answers for the followers of religion. Would Professor Davis have us interject an elaborate discussion of carbon-base theory into Kierkegaard's leap of faith or Spinoza's monism?
I have one other area of difference with Professor Davis. He says, "One of the greatest tests of any free society is its willingness to allow dissent about important issues of the day." One can hardly object to what seems to be a noble observation. And I agree, allowance for dissent is a cornerstone of a free society. The questions are Where? What kind of dissent? Holocaust revisionists use the same argument for courses in history. Do we give them balanced time in the public education of our youth? Does the rabbi, in total dissent from the creationist reading of the Bible, get equal time for his view of the creation story in the science class? When will the science teacher get back to science?
I teach courses in world religions, philosophy, and ethics at the local junior college. I find young people are starved for studies in these vital areas. It is a shame so few public schools include courses in the awe-inspiring world of comparative religions, or that survey the complex, wonderful worlds of philosophy and ethics. Yes, great religious, philosophical, and ethical questions might arise in a math class or a science class, but the objective of that math class or science class has enough to fill the curriculum without adding an entirely different agenda. And a shallow treatment of such complex issues by simply giving the briefest recognition that there is a different way of perceiving the issues raised hardly qualifies to be called educational.
So let our students learn that there are many ways of perceiving ultimate truth in this world; let them learn that there are those who read the same sacred texts who have diametrically opposed views about what those texts say and mean. But of course this won't please the creationists.
RABBI LESTER G. SCHARNBERG
Bayside, California

[A well-thought-out reply by the good rabbi, which underscores the perils of any religious instruction in a secular environment. We do need a balanced presentation of evolution that acknowledges its own deficiencies and required leaps of faith. We do not need generic or, worse, partisan views on creationism forced on students in public schools! --Editors.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Warning
Imposition of a particular religious faith is hardly the way to prevent school carnage. Some would require their version of religion to be part of every public school curriculum. They would do this by mandatory religious laws and amendments to the Constitution. Some, I am sure, would change this democratic republic into a theocracy. Religious rites required in public schools can only polarize a community that needs more than ever to be held together.
In this nation, with our separation of church and state, the government cannot tell us what to worship, when to worship, where to worship, or how to worship. The fourth R, religion, is a function of the home and church. Religion is personal, private, and, most of all, divisive. Have we learned nothing from religious history, past and especially present?
MELVIN S. FRANK
Poland, Ohio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy Days
For a solution to the issue of "Holy Days or Holidays?" issue raised by Samuele Bacchiocchi, one needs only to look to India, one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world. Home of Hinduism, birthplace of Buddhism, with more Muslims than Pakistan, and significant numbers of other faiths, including Christians, Farsis, and Jews.
When working there recently, our firm sent around a list of religious holidays covering several religions. As can be imagined, it was fairly long. The staff could then choose which days they wanted off, subject to a fixed limit. It was interesting to see Easter chosen by a Muslim (to celebrate with his Christian friend) and the end of Ramadan by the Christian friend to share with the Muslim.
Pity that we all can't be so accommodating.
CHRIS BENNETT
Auckland, New Zealand

[Yes, we should be accommodating to the spiritual sensitivities of others. We should not expect the state to formalize by general decree the holy days of any group, however.--Ed.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Quotes

During the past four years I have confronted more than 50 of my fellow fundamentalists concerning their use of "questionable quotes" attributed to our country's founders. Earl F. Dodge quotes one of the most commonly used of these in his letter to Liberty (May/June 2000). Dodge asserted that George Washington noted that "it is impossible to rightly govern the universe with God and the Bible." This unauthentic quote has been around since the 1800s. Moreover, there are several disputed quotes attributed to the founders during this same period of time.
In 1989 David Barton of Wallbuilders wrote The Myth of Separation. He set out to prove that the current application of "separation of church and state" actually represents a relatively recent concept rather than the enforcement of a longstanding constitutional principle. In the process of attempting to demonstrate this, Barton used more than 300 quotes from the founders. However, Barton failed to use only primary sources, and as a result he unknowingly included nine disputed quotes. Barton cited sources for all nine quotes, but those sources were from Religious Right lay historians who had not done all their homework. They had been guilty of sloppy research.
Since then Wallbuilders has come out with a "Questionable Quotes List" that has several of these unconfirmed quotes, and in the introduction Barton urges those in his Religious Right camp to only use authentic quotes that have a primary source.
Furthermore, the August 1996 version of the list provides a possible explanation for the origin of the unauthentic Washington quote: "There is a very real possibility that the quotation has its origin in an 1835 biography by James Paulding called A Life of Washington (NewYork: Harper and Brothers, vol. 2, p. 209). In a description of Washington's character, with supporting quotations, Paulding declares Washington to have said, 'It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.'
"The similarities are obvious; a paraphrase of these quotes could have easily generated the words in question. However, we have not been able to trace Paulding's cite to a more scholarly reference. He offers no footnotes."
Professor John George, of the University of Central Oklahoma Political Science Department and coauthor with Paul Boller, Jr., of the book They Never Said It! has commented, "While not agreeing with Barton concerning separation of church and state, I must say he has done everyone a service by circulating the 'Questionable Quote List.' Especially gratifying is his encouraging those in his own Religious Right camp to cite only primary sources for the quotes they utilize. Unfortunately, a sizable minority will ignore the advice."
I want to thank Liberty for the opportunity to clear up this matter. I hope my fellow
members of the Christian Coalition will follow Barton's advice. Let's stop using questionable quotes attributed to the founders.
EVERETTE HATCHER III
Little Rock, Arkansas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let Us Know
One of the big rewards in editing a magazine like Liberty is hearing from you, our readers. Sure, sometimes you send us your opinions packaged in verbal cudgels. But how could we object, given our commitment to freedom of belief? Other times there are heartwarming affirmations of the big principles that we are packaging for your perusal. Either way the bottom line is that we need to hear from you to keep the relationship vital and healthy.
After all, there's never been more to discuss. The topics are wide: ranging from vouchers and other forms of state aid to schools, prayer in public places, charitable choice, church zoning challenges, the societal tension from increasing religious diversity, the dynamics of Supreme Court deliberations on religion, the politicization of the religious community, and so on.
So get on the horn, computer, or whatever information highway you prefer and let us know your opinion on what we say and what we should be saying. We promise to read the letters and will try to print your comments where possible.
We are easy to reach. Try writing to us at Liberty, 12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904, e-mail me at steeli@NAD.adventist.org, or fax us at 301-680-6695.
Lincoln Steed, Editor.