Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Education

  • High School Bible Classes Again

    In a previous post, The Best Place to Teach the Bible, I discussed my view that home and church or other private organizations were the best way to teach the Bible. I’ve had a couple of comments to that post that I think deserve some comment, and since I don’t like to make post-length comments here on my own blog, I’m going to comment in another post.

    First, Dave L. comments:

    Henry, I agree with your position concerning keeping the Bible out of schools, but had a question for you on one of your responses above, namely, “just because someone reads Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek [doesn’t mean] they will agree on what the Bible says.

  • The Best Place to Teach the Bible

    See You in Bible Class says the MSNBC/Newsweek headline on a story that informs us that the state of Georgia has decided that having a Bible class is a critical part of the public school curriculum for their state. They’re going to mandate that it be added. The story is headed by the picture of a woman praying while officials in Odessa, Texas debate a similar proposal. Then from The Lady Speaks (Oh, Here’s a surprise, we have the comment that the Bible is OK in public school, provided that it is in the mythology section of the literature class. And therein lies one of the problems with having a Bible class in public school.

    Now let me provide a couple of links. The Newsweek article refers to two different groups that have prepared materials for use as Bible curriculum in public schools. One is the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which is endorsed by numerous Christian conservatives. There is also a review of their curriculum, done by Mark A. Chancey, Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University. I strongly recommend reading Dr. Chancey’s review of this curriculum. I haven’t had a chance to look at it, but assuming that he has read the material fairly, I would be extremely concerned about some of the content issues he raises. Moderate and liberal Christians need to be careful how they are counted in political issues. Frequently supporters of marginal positions claim the large number of people who are members of Christian churches as a reason to support their very particular Christian position, irrespective of the likelihood that all those people would support such a position.

    Alternatively, the Newsweek article mentions the The Bible Literacy Project, which has apparently received some criticism from conservatives. I don’t have any outside review of their material at hand.

    Personally, I oppose the use of either of these options in the public school. The Bible, as such, is a faith document. It collects a particular set of literature, known as the canon which is regarded as authoritative by a particular religious community. Not only does this canon differ for Jews and Christians, but it differs substantially amongst Christian groups. Whatever selection of literature you choose to call “The Bible,” on which to offer classes, it will be the faith literature of a particular group, and not be precisely the faith book of another group.

    I understand that the courts have ruled that this type of Bible course is legal, though I would note that the material from the National Council on Bible Curriculum could well face significant problems in court. I am not arguing here that having a Bible class in public school is illegal. I’m arguing that it is a bad idea. It is not a good way to advance the appropriate activities and function of government, and it is not a good way to advance the cause of religion. That picture of a lady praying for the action of the school board that heads the Newsweek article troubles me. There was the time that we, as Christians, prayed that the government would leave us alone, and not persecute us, so that we could carry on the work of the gospel. Now we are praying that the government will use the force of law to do our job for us.

    The simple fact is that any curriculum on the Bible us such will be religious in nature. It will be perceived as religious. It will function as a religious exercise. In those states that adopt a more liberal curriculum, conservative Christian parents are going to be angry when they find a more liberal approach taken in the curriculum than the one they prefer. In some more conservative areas, the class will become little more than a Bible class based on the views of the dominant group in the area.

    I believe that some elements of the Bible can be introduced in public school, and not just in the mythology section of literature class. There is some material in the Bible that belongs in a class studying mythology. But there is also material that could be involved in studying general poetry, history (with proper attention to historiography), and also as an example of religious literature in a comparative sense. This allows various elements of Biblical literature to be used without the government committing itself on the boundaries of the Bible as such.

    The Bible as a book of faith should be taught in church, at home, and in private religious schools. If you want the Bible as the basis of your child’s education and you want the Bible integrated into every day in the classroom, private school is your option. You can choose the school according to the curriculum it offers. On the other hand if you support the public school system, as I do, keep your public schools out of these controversies. Use the wonderful Sunday School, Wednesday night, and retreat opportunities to teach your child religion. This will be good for religion, for the quality of public education, and for religious freedom in this country.

  • Appeal to Numbers and Supposed Authority

    When I was in the U. S. Air Force, I had to attend a human relations training program. The instructor was enlisted, but very proudly informed us of his two master’s level degrees. During the course of his presentation he brought up a particular bumper sticker, which happened to be one I had on my car. Of course my buddies made sure he knew I had one, and so he starts to make his point about how I should not have such a bumper sticker. When I disagreed, and pointed out that nobody was obliged to obey my bumper sticker, he became quite annoyed. During a break he came to me and said, “I have a master’s degree in management and one in human relations. Don’t you think I know what I’m talking about?” He had no way to know that I also had a graduate degree, though I possess only a meager one of the same, but he was very shocked when I said that I too had one of those pieces of paper and so was in a good position to know what it was worth.

    His was an argument from authority, and at least it came from an area in which he could claim some authority. He might even have had a point about my bumper sticker. 🙂 But today I’m interested in the argument from authority when one has no authority, and the argument from numbers when one is in the minority. Religious debates, and particularly creation-evolution debates, are often characterized by these types of claims.

    Recently in an online debate I observed someone arguing in favor of a young earth brought up a paper on ocean sediments and their evidence for the age of the earth. When another correspondent questioned the report, the first individual called him an undergraduate student critiquing a paper by a PhD in geology. We get various forms of the argument from authority and the argument from numbers in creation-evolution debates all the time and it’s really quite a humorous process. (You can find this discussion on The Religion Forum.

    Before I go into this just a little more, let me give you relevant links on this topic. The ocean sediment argument is one of those that is so simplistic and so bad that there really aren’t that many detailed refutations online, so let me give some links. First, the source article is ICR’s Impact #8, Evolution: The Oceans Say No!. Note that while the author’s credentials right now are listed as an MS degree, since this document was written, he has received a PhD. Now in case anyone is interested in the basic refutation to this, try the following article from the US Geological Survey: Developing the theory. It gives some of the basics and should lead you to some answers. In addition, Glenn R. Morton’s article Young Earth Arguments: A Second Look and the following article, The Age of the Earth from the Talk Origins Archive expands on material that may not be fully obvious from the more general article.

    Note that there are many people who are quite thoroughly qualified in the field who challenge the views of this “PhD in geology.” And this is the thing that got me thinking about this particular blog entry. Let me give another example. I was debating a Seventh-day Adventist about the proper interpretation of Daniel 8:13 & 14. (I’m ex-SDA, so I occasionally get into these debates.) This individual cites some SDA authorities on the subject, which happen to include my uncle Don F. Neufeld, editor of the SDA Bible Commentary. When I do not accept these individuals as authority (my late uncle would have been appalled at the notion that I would accept his position on authority, but that’s beside the point), he asked how I could hold my opinion against “all those experts.” He suggested I was alone in my opinion. Now I’m not particularly concerned about being alone on an issue, but I found that very interesting, because the interpretation I was proposing is, in fact, one that is either supported or offered as an option by practically every commentary on the book of Daniel. Those who hold the “investigative judgment” position that is held by many SDAs are in a distinct minority. And that is not relevant. I would never use the argument that the SDA position is a minority position as a refutation of that position. It’s perfectly possible that a minority position can be right.

    But it again is an example of someone in a position of weakness trying to use the appeal to numbers. The idea is to convince the person holding a minority view that their view is untenable because it is a minority view. But the argument from numbers when one is in a minority position already is a peculiar form of deception, or even of self-deception. I think the two arguments–from (false) authority, and from (false) numbers are closely related, and they are a favorite of creationists of all stripes, from young earth to intelligent design advocates. The number of fake degrees among young earth creationists is one good example (see Some Questionable Creationist Credentials). The fact that they spend a good deal of time talking about the number of people who support them is another.

    If you have the evidence, talk about the evidence. If you don’t you have to have something to talk about. But why talk about numbers and authority when those are precisely the things you don’t have? For every PhD that creationists can claim there are thousands in opposition. For examples of the argument from numbers see Project Steve, a satire of lists of people in support of some position or another, when that position is actually supported only by a tiny minority.

    Please understand that I am not in any way advocating that one simply accept the real majority position. Sometimes one has to accept authority simply because one is not well enough informed on a particular subject. But those competent in that subject should be able to propose new, minority positions and have them judged on the actual evidence.

    I am not certain just why the appeal to (supposed) numbers and the appeal to (alleged) authority are so popular. I can only think of two options. 1) Someone has such a narrow frame of reference that they simply do not comprehend the numbers. I think my SDA friend falls into this category. He was simply unaware of the numbers involved. 2) Someone knows that he has no solid support, but is using deception to convince people who don’t know any better that their position is better than it really is.

  • Do you know these things?

    From the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune: Why is the sky blue? Facts you should know.

    The quiz doesn’t provide scoring, but the answers are at the end. Bar that I must say I mentally fudged the amount of water (thinking “about 3/4” instead of the precise 71%), and the “sky is blue question” when I just thought “diffusion,” I knew the answers to these, and I’m no scientist.

    What about you?

  • Resistance to Evolutionary Theory

    Why is it that some people resist evolutionary theory so stubbornly? Many times I have used the argument that evolutionary theory is more complex than creationism, and that we are asking people to go against their intuition in favor of the evidence. But the more I think about it, the less I think that is true. I do think that most creationist thoroughly and systematically misunderstand the basics of evolutionary theory. But I’m going to suggest that the misunderstandings result from the need to reject it, and not the other way around. Most of these folks could understand, but at the most fundamental level they don’t want to.

    Many of you will find this article pretty redundant. The reason I took up the topic is because of the example, which is in my area of expertise, and thus it tickled me to use it as an example. In addition, it was when I did a paper on the comparison of the Septuagint and Masoretic text versions of the genealogies that I first began to question young earth creationism. I read my first creationist literature before I was ten, and was pretty much steeped in it by the time I was in college. Then I began to examine it critically.

    Let me illustrate from Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism, and their article titled Who Was Cainan? This is actually a rather simple question, and I’m only going to discuss it briefly as an illustration. Basically, if you take your choice of available modern Bible versions, and read the genealogy of Jesus provided by Luke, you can find the order of the post-flood patriarchs. (Luke reads these leading back to Adam, and I’m going to put them in chronological order here.) Luke has Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah (also known as Sala) and so forth (verses 35-36). You can compare this to the genealogy of Genesis 11:10-13, and the order is Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah. Cainan is missing from the list.

    Now there is a simple explanation for this. This additional name occurs in the Septuagint (LXX), and this indicates that there is a textual variant in the text of Genesis, and the LXX, or another manuscript containing the same variant, was likely Luke’s source for this passage. Alternatively, the name could have been added by a copyist based on the same source, but the evidence for this is vanishingly light. If you consider the evolution of a text of this nature, you will start most likely with oral transmission for a period of time, followed by creation of written copies (there’s little agreement on the date of writing, though I suspect they may be quite early in the process of development of the Pentateuch, and form a framework for portions of it). These written copies are then included by redactors in broader documents, and then those documents are copied multiple times. Luke simply uses the documents available to him.

    Now old earth creationists use this very case to suggest that there may be gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, thus giving us Biblical room for a greater age for humanity on earth, and certainly a much earlier date for the flood. I would suggest in addition that the very formation of the lists into 10 names before and 10 names after suggests selected lists. So the old earth creationists find this name very convenient in support of their position.

    CSE cites Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis, who indicates that he believes this is one of the few copyists errors in our largely excellent manuscripts. For him, it is the autographs that are inerrant, and not any copy or translation. Thus, we solve the problem more or less by assuming a copyist’s error, and also assuming that the form of the text we have is correct. There is considerable variation in the genealogies in the LXX of Genesis 5 & 11, but this is beyond the scope of this entry. Also, I’m not trying to criticize Sarfati, and am not basing this on his work. (You can see his discussion at Cainan on the Answers in Genesis site.) So one set of young earth creationists would solve the problem with the assumption it was an error.

    But CSE does not approve of this answer. They want a result that allows them to claim that the Bible as they have it is inerrant, and not some autographs they can’t get a look at anyhow. So they must somehow preserve both the chronology of Genesis 11, and the presence of the name in Luke 3:36. Thus they explain how even if there was an intervening generation, the chronology would be unchanged. I’ll leave you to read the creative explanation directly from their site if you care to. In producing this ad hoc explanation, they use another interesting tactic, citing another group with very low credibility, Gail Riplinger’s AV Publications. Gail Riplinger is the author of one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever encountered in print, titled New Age Bible Versions.

    (At one point I started to critique that book, but after just a few pages I found there was insufficient space in the margins to keep track of even the major falsehoods, much less the more minor, but significant errors. (James White, who is much more conservative than I, nonetheless took the time to go through the book in detail. He has a lengthy response to New Age Bible Versions on his site, New Age Bible Versions Refuted. Riplinger in turn calls White’s material “libellous” and “actionable,” though I can’t see where she has tried to sue. For anyone who thinks Riplinger’s material has any value, look at her answer to the supposed question, “What is the most subtle change that new versions are making?”. In this she argues that changing the capitalization of pronouns that refer to God is changing the orthography of God’s word. I kid you not.)

    Now why do I go to this example? To illustrate a method. Neither CSE nor AiG can simply follow the evidence where it leads. The old earth creationists get into this situation in some cases, though in this case they have an explanation that accords with the evidence, though not, in my opinion, all of it. CSE has a previous theological position that the KJV as they have it must be inerrant, and thus there must be an explanation for that set of English words. AiG has a position that the autographs must be inerrant, and thus they must assume that the autograph did not contain the fateful added name. Old earth creationists accept the name because it is actually helpful to their claim that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11.

    You might say that I reject all these explanations simply because I want the passage to be inaccurate. But that is simply not the case. I would be fine with whatever variant was correct in the book of Luke, but the evidence points to the presence of Cainan in that text. It is possible, of course, that I’m wrong on this. Sarfati’s point about documents of the LXX might have some validity, though I think it’s weak. But you see, it would be no problem for me if he turned out to be right, and Cainan was not in the sacred, though unattainable, autograph.

    But the key here is that in the cases I cited we have something that must be true, so an ad hoc explanation for how it is true. With any ancient near eastern document, literary, or historical, the approach of historians is to examine critically its claims, and to determine its credibility based on that kind of historical study. Nobody thinks that the Sumerian antediluvian king lists are historical documents. Why? Because they give preposterous lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in the case of the Bible we are told to ignore all evidence in any direction except to confirm some interpretation. We should let the Bible speak for itself, and if we did we would realize that these lists belong to a different category of literature than “historical records” and could then treat them as such.

    So is it that evolution is counterintuitive? It seems rather intuitive to me, especially common descent. There is simply so much about the animal world that suggests a genetic relationship. I think it is not common sense, or our intuition that is the problem, but rather a prior commitment to treat a certain document as historical no matter what the evidence suggests. This results in a backwards methodology. A source is accurate not because one has checked it and found it so to the best of one’s abilities, but rather because it supports the position that already must be true.

    So one stray patriarch tells the story.

  • Home and Church Education

    As intelligent design (ID) propnents complain about censorship and freedom of speech, one thing is being ignored: They are getting their message out to the public, and any scientist who wishes to examine their data, should they care to provide some, can acquire the material should they desire to do so. In addition, high school students do not get all of their information in the classroom, nor should they. There are many other opportunities for us, as parents, to educate our children in things that are not part of the high school curriculum.

    I think that claims that ID materials are being censored are particularly empty. In this time in which internet publication is incredibly easy, it is practically impossible to keep an idea quiet. Acceptance is another matter. What the ID proponents crave is the opportunity to say, “See, we’ve been published in a peer reviewed journal.” It is unlikely that if the reviewers for a particular journal determine that an article is not sound enough to be published, the readers of that journal are going to be interested in it. After all, the journal has its customers as well, and if they are not presented with material that interests them, they will read something else. Thus creationists of various stripes create their own “peer reviewed” journals, that are read by those who are interested in such things. But the information is available to any scientist who finds it interesting.

    So it’s not that there is no way to make the information public that is the problem. The issue is really simply whether the high school students of the nation should be made a captive audience for ID. ID proponents are going to say, at this point, that right now these same students are a captive audience for Darwinism, but that is not accurate. They are a captive audience for science, whatever is the current consensus body of knowledge that represents. What every other new idea has had to do in order to get into the textbooks is to demonstrate through the scientific process that it is truly science, and to become the consensus view, it has to convince the key thinkers in the appropriate field that it (a proposed theory) represents the best explanation. ID propoents want to dodge this part of the process.

    But then there are those who, for religious reasons, believe that evolutionary theory is wrong, and they want it replaced with something. For the moment they are kind of united on the plan of getting their collective foot in the door, but be assured that once that is accomplished, there will be plenty of differences of opinion over just what variety of creationism should be taught. But I believe that these parents have a right, to a certain extent, to raise their children as they see fit. The limits of that right, in my view, involve avoiding abuse, and failing to prepare their children to live in the real world. I’d even go very far in allowing parents to determine to educate their children in ways I might find very counterproductive, though I do see a state interest in setting some standard of education. Within those limits, however, parents have many options, including home schooling, private schools, and supplementary materials provided at home or at church.

    The fact is that these ideas are not suppressed at all. They simply fall outside of certain boundaries for discussion at certain places and times. We don’t expect the psychology teacher to discuss horticulture in class (except, of course, as therapy!), and we don’t expect the science teacher to discuss religion. This is very similar to the frequent arguments about prayer in school. I hear parents complain regularly that their children can’t pray in school. But that’s not really the problem. The problem is that their children are not directed in prayer by teachers or staff, or that prayer is not officially mandated or provided for. The children can, and do pray. What the parents need to do is teach their own children how to pray, and how to lead prayers, and the young folks can meet as much as they want. I think that’s a much better idea than asking the school to teach children.

    The same thing applies to things that are not taught in science class, but we think our children ought to hear. I have some suggestions:

    1. Turn the TV off one night and spend some time talking to your children about your faith and how it relates to science. If you think the earth was created in one literal week, tell them. Explain your reasons. If you don’t know much about the subject, get one of the many books on your particular view of creation and learn.
    2. Provide your child with books that support your viewpoint. (I recommend having someone read materials on all sides, and then critically examine them. That will probably require you to get involved again.)
    3. Ask your church education department, to offer a seminar, Sunday School series, Wednesday night program, or series of sermons on origins. It’s your church, and you and your fellow believers will get to decide what the content should be. As you might have guessed, I think such teaching should talk about all views that Christians hold on origins, but that’s just my view. (I offer just such a seminar for churches.) Now we’re talking about your church.
    4. Regularly communicate with your children about your faith and theirs, and let them express themselves on what they have heard at school and elsewhere. Get involved with their education, whether they are in public, private, or home school.
    5. Encourage your church to have a substantive Sunday School program for various ages, so that children can learn about their faith and how it relates to the world. There’s no reason for young people to be shocked when they get to college because they find out the world is so different from what they are used to at church. I have frequently encountered young adults who feel that their pastors and Sunday School teachers lied to them. (It is more likely that those individuals simply didn’t know, although I have heard pastors justify withholding facts from their congregation.)
    6. Make your home a place where learning is an expected part of life. Books, computers, and opportunities to learn about the physical world should be plentiful. Let them know that questions are good.

    You will do much more to build your children’s faith by these means than by any amount of political activity to include religious materials in public school.

  • Zimmer: The Sixty-Million-Year Virus

    I only do this every few weeks, but I wanted to make sure that “Threads” readers noticed this wonderful article on The Loom. (Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where I saw it first.)

    I really don’t have anything to add on this one, but I do challenge young earth/old earth creationists to produce a credible scientific explanation for this data under their models.

  • AAAS on Hana and Francisco Ayala

    The AAAS web site has a wonderful profile of Hana and Francisco Ayala, along with an interview with both on video. Dr. Francisco Ayala states that ID is not science, but it is also very bad theology. He calls evolution the unifying principle of biology, and calls intelligent design “blasphemy.”

    This is worthwhile listening for anyone who is really interested in this issue. I strongly recommend listening to it. There is a written summary here.

  • Darksyde on Bill Dembski

    There’s a new post on The Daily Kos, Know Your Creationists: Bill Dembski, that readers may find interesting. It provides some background, and there are some links to some work on the math in the comments.

    I appreciate those mathematicians who have deconstructed Dembski’s math. When I first read something by him, it occurred to me that there was a major problem, in that the whole thing really depended on the probability of a process occurring when he really did not know what that process was. What is the probability of the bacterial flagellum being produced by natural processes? Unless we know the processes or we can truly eliminate all possible processes, there’s really no way to know. It could be absolutely impossible, or it could be quite a simple variation. I didn’t bother to plow through the math as I’m certainly not qualified to comment on it. There’s a simple principle however, applicable to any algorithm, that garbage in will produce garbage out. I simply (and perhaps lazily) assumed that if garbage was going out, it didn’t matter how many pages it took to describe the math, garbage was coming out.

    An excellent place to start on critiques of Dembski is the work of Howard van Till. His article E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski’s Case for Intelligent Design is excellent. You can read it as a PDF as well, which would be my own preference, and you can follow more of the exchange starting with the following links on the AAAS web site: Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion: Perspectives.

  • Identifying Your Gifts and Service

    Identifying Your Gifts and Service is a workbook that I wrote, which is published by my publishing company, Energion Publications. I’m going to write here about how to use that workbook effectively in helping church members understand their spiritual gifts and put them to use in support of the church’s mission.

    Identifying Your Gifts and Service provides the materials for a six session (50-60 mins) Spirit-guided program of exploring spiritual gifts. It can be used in a small group or a whole congregation, but will be most effective when used with the support of the congregation’s leadership. One element of the program is an opprotunity for each student to discuss his or her gifts and calling with appropriate representatives of the church leadership in order to find a place of service in the local congregation.

    The program works in the following stages:

    Introduction: Depending on the prior preparation of the congregation, it may be useful or even necessary to conduct a basic class in spiritual gifts prior to starting the program. A good procedure for this is to study 1 Corinthians 12-14 (don’t skip chapter 13!) along with parallel material in Romans 12:6-8 and Ephesians 4:9-16. There are handouts on the major scriptural spiritual gifts provided in the manual. These are useful for review whether or not you choose to precede the gifts program with a study of the gifts.

    The program itself can be divided into six sessions:

    1. Spirit Led Ministry
      This session introduces the concept of Spirit led ministry, unified under the guidance of the one Spirit. You will revisit 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Galatians 6:22-26 and learn about fruit, gifts, and offices. There is a handout in the manual based on a Power Point presentation. This session can be split based on time, depending on how long it takes to present and discuss the material. (All Power Point presentations are available on CD from Energion Publications.)
    2. Identifying Your Gifts
      This session deals with listening to the Holy Spirit and the role of the Spirit in giving and revealing gifts. The importance of listening is emphasized. A Power Point presentation is available, and the slide handouts are included in the manual.
    3. Small Group Sessions I – Gifts:
      Two exercise involve the students in helping one another identify their spiritual gifts.
    4. General or Small Group Session – Gifts Survey:
      This survey is designed to stimulate thinking about gifts and the ministries in which one can use them. This is not a scientific gifts survey to be used to determine what gifts each person has, but a “thinking tool.”
    5. Small Group Sessions II – Service:
      The students discuss in a structured way how their gifts and calling can fit into the mission of the church. Members are urged to keep the church’s mission statement handy to remind themselves of the vision of their congregation.
    6. Christian Mentoring:
      Optional, but strongly recommended. This session deals with how to guide others into the use of their gifts in service and do so in a Christlike way. The emphasis is on empowering others to work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in unity with the body of Christ. A Power Point presentation is provided and slide handouts are in the book.

    The book includes the contents of a number of the Participatory Study Series pamphlets on spiritual gifts. Before I prepared this workbook, I used to use these pamphlets as handouts. It is much more convenient to have a single manual that contains all handouts in addition to adequate space to take notes. So that you can review the philosophy on which the manual was based, here are the links to online versions of the pamphlets that are included.

    As noted on the Participatory Study Series web site, all of these pamphlets are available to download free of charge and permission is given there for you to print copies as you need them. If you don’t have a printer, you can order them from us, but that is not normally the most economical way to get them.

    Also, at the moment we are offering this class at Gonzalez United Methodist Church. Reports are on the Pacesetters Bible School news blog, and the most recent report is from 3/22/06.