Faith

In a commentary with the same title, Kathleen Parker discussed the reports that...

...the Vatican is considering sanctioning the use of condoms among married couples when one of the partners is infected with AIDS. This move, though not yet a done deal, has been heralded as revolutionary and as a sign of hope for AIDS sufferers, especially in Africa, where some 6,600 people die every day of the disease. The Vatican has made clear that any endorsement of condom use to prevent the spread of disease should not be construed as a shift in doctrine regarding birth control. This highly technical exception, if approved, would be permitted only in the spirit of self-defense, not contraception.

The rest of the commentary discusses how senators, such as Rick Santorum and Richard Durbin,

...have been pushing Congress to donate ever larger sums to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. While such expenditures are consistent with President George W. Bush's pledge to fight AIDS in Africa, they are nonetheless controversial in some quarters, specifically to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who has been expressing disapproval and sending oblique threats to Santorum via the airwaves. Why? Because the Global Fund distributes money to countries and organizations, including some faith-based ones, that in addition to distributing drugs to AIDS victims also distribute condoms -- sometimes, possibly, to people who may use them for unapproved purposes, including prostitution. But condom distribution is a minute part of the work the Global Fund provides for, which includes antiretrovirals to more than 384,000 AIDS victims, care for widows and orphans, and treatment of more than 1 million cases of TB. Yet, in one of his radio broadcasts, Dobson used the word "wicked" to describe the Global Fund and to let Santorum know that he was on thin ice.

Dobson should get a clue about pragmatism. Surely fighting TB and AIDS (and reducing the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies and abortions) are worth taking the chance that distributed condoms might be used in ways Dobson wouldn't approve. This is the sort of battle Dobson would choose to fight?

I've been getting the feeling lately that us Ph.D.s have a tendency toward smugness and condescension when addresses the public about our area of expertise. I got that feeling from Garry Wills recent NY Times op-ed piece with which I mostly agreed. Another example is the recent one titled "Evolution's Bottom Line" by Holden Thorp. It has the same smug feel. I can agree with some of the particulars, like:

THE usefulness of scientific theories, like those on gravity, relativity and evolution, is to make predictions. When theories make practicable foresight possible, they are widely accepted and used to make all of the new things that we enjoy - like global positioning systems, which rely on the theories of relativity, and the satellites that make them possible, which are placed in their orbits thanks to the good old theory of gravity. Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way. The creationists took it on their intelligently designed chins recently from a judge in Pennsylvania who found that teaching alternatives to evolution amounted to the teaching of religion. They prevailed, however, in Kansas, where the school board changed the definition of science to accommodate the teaching of intelligent design. Both sides say they are fighting for lofty goals and defending the truth. But lost in all this truth-defending are more pragmatic issues that have to do with the young people whose educations are at stake here and this pesky fact: creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does.

In a gross oversimplification of his argument, let me say that he goes on to claim that the theory of evolution has been the enabler of all the recent advancements of modern science and technology. Students growing up in a place that sees the much more philosophical theory of intelligent design as an alternative to the hard science of evolution are doomed to be runners up in the race of human progress. The main problem I have with his piece is that he's set up a straw man and then smugly knocked it down. The straw man is the assumption that anyone who might believe in a creator - anyone who doesn't find the current content of our scientific knowledge to be a sufficient explanation for how all this began and came to be what we observe around us - must also discount the process of evolution as the driver for any change in the natural world. Of course, that isn't the case. Any student of science can understand the principle of evolution and would see that it must happen. That same person can reasonably come to conclusion that, as an explanation of origins, neither a creator nor 13 billion years of random mutations is something that be understood or proved based on our extremely limited ability to scientifically observe either of those processes. Chances are, that person is in no danger of being the odd man out in the quest of "...finding the innovations to improve society and compete globally." Some more from the op-ed piece:

So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria. What does this mean for the young people who go to school in Kansas? Are we going to close them out from working in the life sciences? And what about companies in Kansas that want to attract scientists to work there? Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution... In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush mentioned our problems in science education and promised to focus on "keeping America competitive" by increasing the budget for research and spending money to get more science teachers. I hope he delivers, but we can't keep America competitive if some states teach science that has no commercial utility. Those smart youngsters in India and China whom you keep hearing about are learning secular science, not biblical literalism. The battle is about more than which truth is truthier, it's about who will be allowed to innovate and where they will do it. Sequestering our scientists in California and Massachusetts makes no sense. We need to allow everyone to participate and increase the chance of finding the innovations to improve society and compete globally. Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school.

From an AP article of the same title by Murray Evans appearing on Tacoma, WA's NewsTribune.com:

The turning point for Jeff Walling came two decades ago at a church youth conference. Sitting with arms folded, he listened to 3,000 teenagers singing and praising God with a guitar accompaniment - and felt ashamed. Walling, the son of a Churches of Christ preacher, had adamantly held to his group's teaching that using instrumental music in worship was wrong. But as he heard the youths worship, he began having doubts. Now Walling and other Churches of Christ leaders are at the forefront of what could be a seminal moment for their fellowship: a possible reconciliation with a group of independent congregations 100 years after the two became recognized as separate... Local congregations, known collectively as the "Churches of Christ," shun practices not contained in the New Testament, in particular the use of musical instruments in worship. The "independent Christian" or "instrumental" churches, use musical instruments and generally associate with the annual North American Christian Convention. But the two groups have common roots... The two groups claim a combined 2.6 million members in 20,000 U.S. congregations. But some, particularly within Churches of Christ, aren't excited about the possibility of reconciliation, as they believe that to compromise on the instrumental-music issue is akin to risking one's salvation. They maintain there is no New Testament example of instruments being used in worship, and that Christians need to be silent where the Bible is silent. "While we love our brethren very much, we don't feel that we can approve unauthorized worship," said Phil Sanders, the minister at the Concord Road Church of Christ in Nashville, Tenn. "Until we can get past that issue, we can't approve the reuniting of our fellowship."

The article goes on to discuss in some detail the history of the "Restoration Movement."

From a story by Elizabeth Mehren in the LA Times:

Virginity pledges, in which young people vow to abstain from sex until marriage, have little staying power among those who take them, a Harvard study has found. More than half of the adolescents who make the signed public promises give up on their pledges within a year, according to the study released last week... "The Harvard report is wrong," said Janice Crouse, a fellow at a Concerned Women for America think tank. "This study is in direct contradiction with trends we have been seeing in recent years," Crouse said. "Those who make virginity pledges have shown greater resolve to save sex for marriage." [The Harvard study also found that]...of those who had sex after telling the first interviewers they had taken the pledge, 73% denied in the second interview having made the pledge.

Another article about the trend of teaching Bible in school (see previous post here)...an AP article on MSNBC.com titled "More public schools try Bible curriculum":

The long-dormant idea of teaching public school students about the literary and historic importance of the Bible is getting a fresh look this year from state legislatures and local school boards - though with political bickering and questions about what should be included... In a notable 1963 ruling, the [Supreme] court banned ceremonial Bible readings in public schools but allowed "objective" study of the text in a manner divorced from belief.

The article goes on to discuss the two competing curricula: one from the Bible Literacy Project and one from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.