Let’s examine the situation a little more deeply. Question: What is the real connection with evolution to any kind of disagreement on theology? Answer: Absolutely nothing.  Unfortunately, evolution has been dragged into this fight presumably without first consulting it. There is nothing about atheism that connects with evolution any more than atheism connects with gravity or knot theory.  But evolution had the misfortune to have some implications that certain religious groups couldn’t reconcile with their long held myths, so it has been branded a religious debate.  Let’s not pretend that this is a completely one-sided fault either. While there may have been some Christian science watchdogs analyzing the theory of evolution and its implications from the start, there probably was an equivalent force on the other side, waiting for the opportunity to say “Hey! Look, you guys are wrong, and we have proof!” The debate is what it is today, and it’s short-sighted to claim that it was one side’s fault over the others.

But is it really untouchable? I don’t think that it’s completely out of line to say that this debate has become so polarized, that some people are so incredibly invested in one side or the other, that they may ignore any criticism from the outset. Honestly, I’ve spent enough time on the internet to know that these people are around for just about every debate you might have. It’s only because of the enormous fame of this one that these people have actually gotten real publicity. But I think that the real problem comes from a confusion of terminology that plagues evolution already. People who don’t understand the terms that scientists use will snicker at the “theory of evolution”, when it’s actually quite a solid idea. The terminology that gets lost here, though, is what people mean when they say “Evolution”. Richard Dawkins is often misinterpreted when he says that there is no doubt in his mind about evolution. “Oh REALLY?” his opponents say. “You must have some strong FAITH in that THEORY!” Or something like that. But it’s all rubbish. There is evolution the theory and evolution the fact, and it’s important to understand the distinction.

When Dawkins says that evolution is a fact, he’s stating something that we can be almost 100% certain of – creatures evolve. It has been seen; it’s a known effect. The overarching principles, the explanation of the effect, the reasons, that’s the theory. Suppose that someone said that gravity was a fact, and he was dead certain about that. Any qualms with that? Nope, he’s perfectly justified in saying that because we see the effect. Things fall down; masses are pulled together. We see it. It happens. Fact. Why does it happen? How does it happen? Can we quantify it? Those are questions for the theory. The Law of gravity is, essentially, wrong. Newton described things quite well, but he was ultimately wrong. So our theory changed, but the fact is still true. The one we have now seems pretty good, but who knows? It could change again, but I still will see things falling no matter what our best understanding is of the reasons.

I think that very few real thinkers would actually claim that we have an exact scientific theory with no holes or open questions, which will be solid forever, about evolution. What they get defensive about is that people are trying to force the idea out of consideration all together. “Look at this problem with evolution…”  is ultimately followed by “Life doesn’t evolve”, which is the mistake. It would have seemed incredibly silly for Einstein to say “I see problems with the Law of Gravity… Gravity must not exist!” But it happens every day for evolution. Science progresses by observing and theorizing, then repeating, over and over and over. Claiming that problems with our theory discount the observation is backwards – so don’t do it.

Yes, evolution is somewhat untouchable – evolution the fact. We’ll be refining evolution the theory for a long time to come.

Text reads:

Ezekiel 4:9

As described in the holy scripture verse: “Take also unto thee WHEAT, and BARLEY, and BEANS, and LENTILS, and MILLET, and SPELT, and put them in one vessel, and make bread of it…”

Now, I’ll admit that I did not invest the time to read the book, and only have experience with the >2 hours of movie that explains his journey. That said, it’s amazing the number of biased or otherwise improper research techniques he employs in the short amount of time he had to work with. It’s also amazing how he could ask a few good questions, and then abandon the reasonable thought that brought him to those questions. As an example, and probably the one that bothers me the most, he trots out many different ‘authority’ figures for whatever he’s researching throughout the movie. Not once did a person’s background not look something like this:

I. B. Right – Professor of Divination, Nutjob Bible ‘College’

It was a sea of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of Jesus, but not an objective study. There may be hints of real research in these places, but overall they are colleges founded with the answer already in mind. They undoubtedly have school charters that mention the first rule of following God. This is not objective research.

Another example: math blasphemy. I don’t recall the group of researchers he mentions, but he smugly quotes a probability that makes me almost want to cry. They somehow tried to calculate the probability that one man could fulfill all of the prophecies that Jesus would have to (and did, apaprently) in order to be the messiah, and this number was some fantastically small probability (1:10^30, or something). What? How do you pretend to make a calculation like that? Are we saying that a man living a random life doing random things would only fulfill all of those things? Are we including “rise from the dead” as one of them, and how exactly do you get a probability for being able to do that? The biggest problem I have is that in this case Jesus knew exactly what would be expected of him if he was to be the messiah. He undoubtedly spent his childhood learning all of the scriptures and their predictions, just like all other boys. But the difference is that he had his mother telling him from the start, “You are the son of god.” So it’s not a random life that happens to fulfull a bunch of predictions. It’s a guy living his life thinking about them all the time, and finding ways to make it happen. My guess is that if you’re trying to do this stuff, the odds get quite a bit smaller.

Lastly, I have a big problem with all the gospels that didn’t make the cut. It’s especially bad in The Case for Christ, because he uses one argument to try to get me to accept the 4 official gospels, and the opposite argument to get me to reject the rest. A not-insignificant amount of time is devoted to reminding us how accurate these 4 gospels really can be even though they were written decades after Jesus actually lived. We’re told to understand that oral tradition was a huge part of life back then, and people devoted their lives to memorizing the exact words and getting it right. Also, it was a huge community of people memorizing the same stuff, so it would be a “self-correcting process”, since your friends would let you know if you screwed something up (really? How sure are we about that?). So, what if I accept this argument? Well, then I might feel the same way about those dozens of gospels that weren’t included. What’s the problem there? Not 5 minutes later, he asks the same question and answers it by saying how old that writing is, even as old as a couple of hundred years! Wait, I thought being old wasn’t a problem? I don’t think they were in some sort of ‘information age’ by the second or third century yet.

As you may have gathered, I was not convinced. Really, it didn’t change my mind about anything except journalists (what he claims for a day job). I hope they don’t all report like this, but how would you know if they did? Even-handed reporting is not a trivial task, but this is just ridiculous.

We all know the basics of Christianity, but there are so many controversial points with a countless number of arguments that we just get lost in semantics most of the time. This is literal, that is not. This is part of my core belief, that is not. This part of the bible is dubious, that part is the word of god. It’s enough to make your head spin. With the accessability of the internet growing every day, the number of Christian “denominations” is growing to meet the number of people who have an opinion.

So I got tired of it. In the interest of information gathering and sharing, I am setting out on a project. I’ve done my research, compiled a list of the most hotly debated topics that we deal with, and I’m going to find out what the authorities think. I’m requesting that local church leaders find an hour or so to sit down with me and discuss these things, not because I want to try to argue them into submission, but because it’s important to know what they actually teach. I don’t care what the crackpot on the street says about the rapture coming in 17 days. Christian denominations have assemblies of large numbers of theologians that determine exactly what their church teaches. I want to know what that really is. What are these people hearing in the sermons every week?

Let me stress again that this is not a confrontational “interview”. I’m a sucker for a good debate, so I will probably bring up some of my personal questions regarding some of these issues, but in no way do I intend to make it combatative. It is simply that I know very well what kinds of questions a lot of people already have, and I want to discuss them with someone who is well versed in the official teachings of his/her church.

In this light, I’d like anyone who would like to leave a comment regarding any issue you want me to bring up. I have already hit the big obvious ones, so you don’t need to worry about those. But if there is something that you’ve never gotten an adequate answer on, let me know. I will do the research as much as I can, and then raise it to the church leaders.

Stay posted for updates. I think this will be a very interesting and enlightening project.

Apparently, this is becoming such a big issue that it’s creating a divide in the Christian denomination as a whole, and others are facing the same issue. My question is: How is this an issue? Not because I have reservations about gay rights, but because I really wonder about the people that are discriminated against and stick with the church! The original article states that the current ban prohibits gay people from being appointed as ministers unless they vow to be celibate (which I guess is not a requirement if you’re straight).

So is it just people clinging to their beliefs? I would think that people who are gay, with their church telling them it is sinful from the start, would not even want to be a minister, much less enough of them that it’s dividing their organization. Maybe I just don’t understand the details very well.

But can I take a quick moment to raise some points about the gay rights issues in Christian denominations? First, I challenge someone to give me bible verses that show that this is really the teaching of your religion, rather than people trying to justify their prejudice. You want to quote me Leviticus?

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Fine, then I get to quote Leviticus too:

Leviticus 25:44-46 – “Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids…. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.”

I guess our hands are tied. We get to have slaves. How convenient that the bible commands this one too, or do you just want to pick out the passage that suits your current beliefs? Or, we can use the one from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 23:17-18  - “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

My turn again:

Deuteronomy 23:2 – “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. ”

Deuteronomy 21:15-16 – “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.”

So it would seem we also can take multiple wives, and we need to turn away people who were born out of wedlock from praying with us. Better get some good church bouncers if you’re going to stick to the bible! There’s also some fun stuff about not letting any man whose genitals have been crushed into your church. How do you plan on enforcing that one?

Either follow the bible or don’t. You can’t call it a sacred text when you want to interpret it literally, and then ignore the parts that seem wrong for this age when you want that. Give me a break.

But, guys, read about it a little more before you hit the “Submit with alarming caption” button.  First of all, it’s an ELECTIVE. Kids can choose to take it if they want. I bet they already have a Greek mythology elective too. I don’t recall outrage when that was made an option. Second, it’s not even a standard, always available, elective:

The legislation states that all school districts must offer a course as an elective for the 2009-2010 school year if more than 15 students show interest.

That’s right, 15 students have to ask for there to be a bible course before they are required to provide it. And let’s not get into the debate about parents asking for it when the kids don’t want it. If the parents want to force them to go to bible study every night, they can already do that.

Finally, while I may not agree with following the bible for a guide on every decision in your daily life, learning about what it says is hardly a bad thing. The vast majority of people in this country identify themselves as Christian (I think it’s near 75%). I think that makes the book somewhat relevant to our society, whether I like it or not. It’s up to the teacher to decide how the book is presented, but you cannot deny that a book that has survived 2000 years and has 75% of the country following it isn’t worth some study.

So please, atheists, let’s stop jumping at shadows and spend our time worrying about things that really are a problem. Here are two reasonable examples: [Atheists can't hold office in Arkansas] [Atheist bus ads pulled].

What do you think? Am I too lenient here?