It’s a rare day when I mostly agree with PZ Myers, but since his recent post about Ken Ham’s Creation Museum and some Creationist textbooks actually being used in Texaswas mostly spot on, I felt the need to celebrate by posting a response of my own. I recommend you check out his article first, as I’m going to swing high and low around some of his points without much explanation. His description of excerpts from actual text books being used in Texas schools (he doesn’t specify whether they’re from public or private schools) is terrifying to say the least. Not only do they spout anti-scientific anecdotes influenced entirely from biblical interpretations, in some cases they even explicitly state, according to Myers’ article, that “the Bible is the written word of God” and that their hope is for students to come to believe that “’Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.’ And may you have ‘life in His name.’” This is in a secondary school, not seminary, or Sunday School!
As much as I think Creationist teachings are completely off the charts wrong, I actually wouldn’t object to some of them being taught in a History of Religion or Philosophy class (in fact, I think they should be). But these “lessons” are being taught as science, not just in addition to actual science, but often as a replacement for it. This is a problem. It’s been a while now, but I can honestly say looking back, my secondary school science education (Minnesota) was seriously lacking. I can only assume that many schools take the least controversial approach to avoid controversy. I was not taught creationism in the class room, but I wasn’t really taught about the scientific method with much rigor either. Not in any meaningful, long lasting way. And Creationism was certainly never refuted. I can even remember trying to stir the pot with my physics teacher (back in my religious years), but he nervously sidestepped the issue fairly well. I wasn’t a hardcore Creationist by any means, but I had a few beliefs that were created from that mold. Poor guy.
I’m getting a bit off track, but my point is that as a former believer-turned-atheist, I’m no shill for this kind of crazy instruction. I see how even moderate tolerance of Creationism can find its way into a secular school merely because administrators and teachers don’t want to offend some students and parents. This is a danger to our future, it needs to end, and real science needs to be a part of every grade level. And as for Ken Ham of the Creation Museum, he can keep his dinosaurs walking two by two up towards his model of Noah’s Ark if he wants to, but keep them out of “science” or “history” textbooks, and stop inflicting this misinformation on children!
Where I would quibble with Myers (and luckily nobody reads this blog because incurring the wrath of Myers is both an achievement and terrifying), is his characterization of people who believe some Creationist teachings as racist. Myers starts his article by discussing how ignorant Ham is that one of his Creationist viewpoints — that Africans are descended from Noah’s son Ham (irony much?), and were cursed (known as Hamite theory of race origins) – has been used to further the agenda of racist ideologies, but then later Myers flat out calls Ham a racist. These are two very different things. Calling an idea racist, or highlighting its ability to lead people to racism is one thing; calling specific people racist is another.
The charge of racism is a serious one, especially in today’s world, and it should not be tossed around lightly. I cannot say for certain whether Ken Ham or his followers, or proponents of Creationism are in fact racist. I cannot see into their hearts, nor have I seen specific evidence of their racism such as direct statements or actions. I simply don’t spend my entire life energy capturing their every word and action. If anyone can produce evidence that Ham is a racist, I would be happy to amend that assertion. But a bad idea or belief does not make the person believing it bad. At least not automatically. I wouldn’t argue against the likelihood that whoever fabricated, or popularized the Hamite philosophy was probably a racist. It smacks of revisionist history in order to justify slavery. But I seriously doubt that Ken Ham sees it that way, nor do most of his sheep. I could be wrong.
I think believing false notions like the Hamite “theory” (I hate to call it that as the word theory is so often misused by Creationists) could potentially lead to racism. That is part of the danger in these types of teachings. In the wrong hands, imprudent ideas can be twisted even further. But do I think that all Creationists are racists? Not even close. As someone who once believed in magical explanations for the way the world works, and someone who was taught a doctrine of why those beliefs are correct (with the fear of spending eternity in hell as the price to pay if I was getting it wrong), I can only say, accusations of racism against an individual for that doctrine are misguided, and potentially life ruining. I think in order to level the charge of racism, there must be clear intent on the part of the so-called racist to be so. That is, I think it requires intent to demean, and generally do harm to the person or group being attacked. Haven’t we all said foolish things that could be deemed offensive, or lead to a misunderstanding of our true character? I know I have, and those I know have, usually out of pure ignorance, not malice. For example, there are older people in my life who still use the term “Oriental” to describe people of Asian descent. Do I believe for a moment that they are intending to be racist or cause harm? No, they are simply following along with terms used in their day, and don’t know any better. I’ve attempted to correct them, but they truly do not understand the issue, because they are not attempting to be hateful. I’m sure when I’m older, I’ll do the same thing. Keeping up with norms and changing language is tough. I think a reasonable person knows the difference between ignorance and hate.
To level a blanket charge of racism onto an individual for beliefs that have complex origins is simplistic, and unfair. Perhaps the ideas themselves are racist, or objectionable, but to call the person who believes them a racist is a dangerous path to take. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Attack the idea, not the person. Sometimes that’s a difficult line to find, but it’s important to try. Through respectful discourse, not name-calling, we have a chance to impact the minds of those who believe in silly, archaic ideas that need to die, like Creationist teachings of human origins. Appealing to their rational brains, rather than fanning the flames of passion-infused defensiveness, is the way to open people up to science. Calling each other undeserved names potentially closes the door forever. I know this because I was once a believer, whose mind was changed over time by evidence. Being insulted just made me want to hunker down more to defend my position, and words like racist or bigot never expressed what was in my heart. Perhaps Ken Ham is beyond the reach of rational analysis, but there is some kid out there right now who believes what Ham believes, and has heard that his ideas are – and therefore he is — racist even though he doesn’t feel any malice towards anyone of another skin color. That kid has a choice to risk the fires of hell and rebuke Ham’s ideas, or to join with those who respect him. As a non-believer, I want to make that kids choice easy… do both. There are those of us out there waiting to help you navigate the world through reason, and not condemn you merely for dogma you were indoctrinated into. Hopefully, you’ll find our voices as well.
Cheers,
PersephoneK
