#ClemsonStrong, you're doing it wrong*

*Post title borrowed from Jessika, a friend from Tiger Band
I thought about posting on a different blog, but this one started as a project at Clemson for a course on evolution & creationism, so it's fitting.

A week ago, the Freedom From Religion Foundation released an open letter to Dabo Swinney and the Clemson football program highlighting what they feel is an inappropriate entanglement with religion (in particular, evangelical Christianity) in athletics. FFRF isn't pursuing litigation, but rather is highlighting the questionable practices of maintaining a team chaplain, scheduling devotionals, and taking the team & coaches to church via privately funded buses. These and other intertwined proselytizing were described in a Chronicle of Higher Education article last fall.

Shortly after this, a firestorm of activity from fans blazed across social media. I noticed this on twitter- in particular the @HillWatch and @ClemsonTom accounts which are incredibly popular, spamming @FFRF with sentiments essentially saying to stay out of our business, we're believers, etc. etc. They in turn egged on fans, especially with the hashtag #ClemsonStrong. A facebook page called "I Support Dabo's Stand for Jesus" popped on facebook and as of this post, has nearly 30,000 members. While I didn't watch facebook too much, I did grab screenshots from twitter, not censoring any names because these are public accounts- I found them with a simple search, and by posting on a public medium they declare their opinions.

In some cases, there seemed to be a misunderstanding (the assumption that Clemson was getting sued). 

Or, a complete misunderstanding of what a public university is- that Clemson is a state school, publicly funded, and if a student desired a specifically religious education, they have numerous options less than 100 miles away. 

Personally, I'm more offended by my fellow Tigers than by Dabo's actions. He released a statement (essentially a nonstatement since he didn't address any of the specific concerns and just performed testimony as my Mormon neighbors back home would say) following Clemson University's own statement where they see no wrongdoing but will investigate claims. In repsonse to part of Dabo's statement where he says the program emphasizes good character & citizenship, FFRF replies that being a good citizen also involves following the Constitution. I think the original letter was a good way to start a dialog, but many have taken it to mean taking a knee jerk reaction and becoming God Warriors.

Dabo's a good ole' boy and isn't likely to change his personal beliefs, and in the South the two most important affiliations are who you root for on Saturday and where you worship on Sunday. However, as many of the posts above demonstrate there is a profound lack of awareness that the overwhelming presence of a majority doesn't nullify the minority. In fact, it's almost disturbing, especially since Clemson added a "Culturious" component to their freshmen orientation. I was the first class to experience it so I'm not sure if it's retained, but it was definitely something they took pride in, even garnering an award for promoting diversity & inclusion in its third year. Why does the FFRF exist, some people ask? Because sometimes communities such as ours need a reminder that the majority does not speak for all. Dr. Roger B. Rollin, emeritus professor of literature at Clemson, recently wrote a Letter to the Editor in the school newspaper, raising alarms that proselytizing may even be going on from professors to students, taking advantage of a powerful position. 

Some of my best memories are at Clemson (if anyone at this point is questioning devotion, I graduated from there and by virtue of Tiger Band for four years attended all home games in my time), and my favorite part is the Clemson family- the idea that all Tigers, no matter your stripe, are bonded by this school. Taking a step back it sounds hokey, but in person my experiences were overwhelmingly positive. When I read posts like the above, I honestly question the welcomeness I felt. Is the Clemson family only a veneer, that only certain members can be considered 'family'? I'd like to think not. #ClemsonStrong shouldn't be about pounding chests for the faith or starting another Crusade, but rather embracing our diversity as what MAKES Clemson a strong institution. 

For us, does it get better?

The Damon Fowler story in Louisiana irritates me infinitely, especially given that the school completely disregarded the first amendment.

If you need a refresher, it says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Though I have seen a few supporters of the student who led the Lord's Prayer argue she was expressing her freedom of speech and exercise of a religion, they seemingly forget the forget the wall of separation between church and state implied by author Thomas Jefferson.

Also, Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe as a precedent. Because even if the school didn't print it on the program and made it a 'Moment of Silence' instead, by not pulling the mike from Ms. Mattice implicitly endorsed her speech.

The internet support has been wonderful (See Hemant Mehta's posts linked above, r/atheism on reddit, etc.), but it really makes me wonder: why isn't there a nontheist equivalent to the "It Gets Better Project"?

There are some parallels between the homosexuality and nontheism movements: minority perspectives, distrusted by various segments of the population, and ostracization of 'out' individuals in homogenous populations. This last part troubles me in particular, as I've seen people I knew in high school only come out of the closet as a gay person after arriving at college, away from the dog-eat-dog world of high school. I also know people who've come to the conclusion they don't believe in a God on their own, but refuse to publicly admit it for fear of familial backlash.

There are differences between the movements, true, as I can't think of any specific legislation against not believing (in fact, as mentioned above it's protected as a right to believe or not), whereas both at the state and national level laws have been made denying GLBT individuals the right to marry, the right to serve, and in some states the right to adopt (or any single parent for that matter, which is silly considering the number of children that need homes).

Also, as a friend asked me the other day, does it really get better for nontheists? We may not be legislated against, but certainly receive flak for merely existing. And that's as adults, so not sure I could honestly say it gets better.

But what we could borrow from the LGBT movement is an equivalent to National Coming Out Day, so individuals don't have to feel like their hiding their true selves, as well as showing other people, "Hey, we're not alone, and we do exist!" Having a supportive framework would help towards this, which is why I applaud the increase in high school chapters of the Secular Student Alliance, as well as at college campuses (including our very own Clemson! Check us out). Especially in places like the Bible Belt, it really does help to know you're not alone. I almost wish we had an equivalent at my very Mormon high school, but then I remember I hung out with all the nontheists, Catholics and other religious minorities anyway.

There is the Out Campaign for individuals to come out (and encourages people to let others 'out' themselves when they feel ready), and I highly recommend it.

Taking my own advice and declaring myself (though subtly put on my facebook) as an agnostic atheist, meaning: I don't believe there's a God or gods, but I also don't know that it's true (see explanation for definitions here)

Another attempt at a wedge?

The New York Times today had this article about antievolutionists now adding global warming and climate change to their "Teach the Controversy" agenda. Denialists bother me, and it's disturbing to think that two kinds merging into some kind of horrific hybrid could descend upon schools with "Academic Freedom Bill" nonsense. I almost want to ask if alchemy and Stork theory can be included, but all facetiousness aside, this is frustrating. It also reminds me of the mock stickers Dr. Waldvogel showed us last year warning that books may contain information about gravitational theory, germ theory, etc.

Climate change may be the "new kid on the block" scientifically speaking, but the current consensus is that it is anthropogenic. Volcanos can account for only so much... but I'm not going to climb on that particular soapbox until I can do more research for a clearer, better-cited post.

Among the comments was this gem (oh Highlights feature, how awesome art thou) from a clergyman concerned with the rise of anti-intellectualism among the evangelical movement, who, like Randy Olson points out that science is terrible at public relations, that the man on his pulpit can reach into the hearts of people to guide them to Christ's light and that scientists need such a person to show people that proper science is by extension an indication of a creative God.

In my podcast last year, I highlighted this issue- that while I personally adore PZ Myers and his cephalopod love, having such a popular figure also tear down theism on a regular basis isn't likely to help "bring people into the fold" of scientific literacy. Dr. Ken Miller is an excellent example of someone who practices a particular belief and still understands and appreciates how science works.

I'd rather not tell you what to believe, to be all condescending and make decisions based on my particular world view. Instead, I opt for spreading critical thinking and rational thought in hopes of raising scientific literacy. Whether you see it as evidence of the existence of a higher power or not, I don't care so long as you can intelligently reason. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into mens souls"

Commentary on "Running into the Brick Wall of Creationism" essay, extra credt #3

Danielle Tom
Biol 210: Evolution and Creationism
Dr. Jerry Waldvogel
4/21/09
EC #3
Commentary on “The brick wall of Creationism”
Reverend Penny Greer’s opinion that fundamentalism (religious movement) and scientific viewpoints are separate perspectives on the world agrees with lectures earlier in the semester on religion and science as different ways of knowing. Having a historical background will allow for better communication between opposing sides as it allows for greater understanding. It is interesting to see the positive attitudes towards science early in the movement, still prevalent today that an intelligent designer manufactured the rules that govern the natural world. It puzzles me that a hypothesis would be regarded as pure speculation, though, even with evidence. I guess the real reason would be at a glance the theory of evolution puts ‘chance’ in place of an omniscient deity even though a closer look at Darwin’s words would indicate that perhaps such a move towards complexity would be a sign of someone smart enough to create it.
I think her view that the dominant fundamentalist tenant is literalism may be too… stereotypical? Not the right word I’m looking for. Painting the whole one color, I guess, as we DID see earlier in the semester the chart of levels of acceptance of evolution. Fundamentalism is not solely confined to the Flat Earth Society fringe; not all are so vehemently opposed to the general theory (instead halfstepping it with “I believe in micro, not macro.”) Creationism isn’t a solidly brick wall; it’s segments here and there, much like how the Great Wall of China isn’t one long wall but various segments.
Although understanding the historical context of the division will improve communication, true reconciliation is likely impossible as both sides include staunch individuals unwilling to concede or listen to the other’s point of view (as evidenced by the fringes of Dawkins and Dembski). The Rev. has a sound rationale, which will work best in discussions between those closer to the center of the aforementioned chart. In most things, the middle mass tends to be the majority, so for everyday use basic understanding of the history behind fundamentalism and their points of view will be useful. Trying to persuade the fringes will likely be a fruitless task, much like mending the fraying ends of a blanket.

Raw notes from the Tuesday speakers

4/14/09 Profs.
Dr. Hap Wheeler, Biological Sciences, Episcopalian.
-1982 convention- supports evolution. Catechism rejects literal creation, including ID.
-Most fall into theistic evolution.
-does not engage in religion-science debates, counterproductive.
-Main focus should be on preserving that creation, controlling our mastery.
Dr. Bob Kosinski, Catholic
-Agrees w/ Dr. Wheeler
-Catholic church;s position pretty clear.
Science relys on natural law. Why pick on evolution when there’s other bones of contention? Like gravity- law, or God pushing on it?
-One place where Catholics (and other religion) are kinda squicky- science does not believe in teleological explanations- natural system is trying to do something, following a plan or attaining a particular goal. “Earth turns to share the joys of sunlight with all her children!”
-Science seeks the simpler explanation; religion looks for teleological explanations, “God’s plan”, a purpose, etc.
Dr. John Morse- Baptist
-No such thing as a Baptist perspective or doctrine (well, Gogle seemed to pick up on that), so this is a personal perspective.
-Not much of a relationship between faith & science.
Broadly speaking, faith motivates social interactions… argh.
-TRUTH- uses all objective experiences AND subjective experiences.
-Faith starts with assumptions. Science believes world is ordered by principles, senses are reliable. Faith- assumptions of God’s existence, etc.
-our existence. Science has corroborating dating methods, hierarchy of life. In faith, consistent character of God
-100+ dating methods… radiometric, ice cores, coral reef layering, red shift, etc. etc.
-All these methods say the same story- age of life, the universe, and everything. Chance of all happening randomly is remote.
-Family trees (his specialty, hierarchy of life). Not one species occurs out of the tree.
-Choice- creation 6000 years ago (assumption that God made things seem older and related), or other? Is God’s character consistent
Dr. Peter Cohen, professor of philosophy, Jewish
-Cannot speak for all of Judaism, has a wide spectrum. God is ineffable- don’t know his character, so hard to understand.
-not necessarily a worldview of faith more of practice.
-last Wednesday, sun was at the same position it was during creation (every 28 years)
-Science is a part of the grand scheme, but we don’t know what it is.
Megha Kumar- Hindu
-again, too broad so personal view
-300 G=gods, but belief in all necessarily
-reincarnation mirrors natural view
-open to the idea that man and monkeys are cousins
-works with embryos, but taken aback by other grads. God in how you lead your life.
Basma Damiri- Muslim
- believes in both Christianity and Judaism at the same time
- The Bible, The Quaran And Science by Dr. Mauice Bucaille
- In Islam, Allah created everything, life came from water. Humans come from clay (Qur’an 21:30) Everything developed order not random, pushed by a power (Qur’an 41:11, 79:30, 39:5, 51:47)
- Origin of man… nutfah, looks like a leech/clot of blood. Then, a chewed piece of meat. Kept in three darknesses- belly, darkness, uterus. 7th century holds up well with 20th century science.
- Both work well, just need to believe, in an organized thing
Takashi Maie- Buddhist/Shinto
-Shin = god (OHHO SHINIGAMI I GOT IT)
-both very supernatural. In Shinto, preexisting gods create other gods.
-in Buddhism, depending on what karma you have here, you get placed in different levels of afterlife. BUT, reborn in another life. You become god when you escape the cycle. In principle, similar to Hinduism
-neither makes sense to him in terms of creation….just pursues science.
Dr. John Hains, Unitarian/universalists
- unterarian universalists are not Christians, but share things in spirit. In terms of phylogeny, after Judaism and before Catholicism in terms of alcoholic consumption… (joke)
- not bound by doctrine or dogma, free thinkers (includes Joseph Priestley, Louisa M. Alcott, John C. Calhoun, Bela Bartok, Dorothea Dix, Linus Pauling, Clara Barton… etc.)
- no problem with evolution, free thinking.
- In personal opinion, what separates them is to consider the possibility that they’re wrong about it, will reconsider if proper evidence is brought.
- Darwin was in this… called it a featherbed for fallen Christians.
Question time!
-how do universalists reconcile the miracle things, such as ressurection or virgin birth? Dr. Morse- “I have no clue. 1st Corinthians 13… if I’m still interested in these kinds of question when I get to heaven, I’ll ask”
John Hans- “youtube Father Reginald Foster, watch what he says about some of the stories from the Bible… miracles aren’t much different from magic”
Dr. Cohen- “…when I’m teaching, I look at the miracles as people’s reaction to events as miraculous. How people interpret is more important than how it actually occurred.. virgin birth wasn’t immediately accepted, political decision on a lot of levels in the early centuries… sociological reaction- what do people do with it, and where does it take them” Intro to world religions
Dr. Waldvogel to Basma Damiri- is evolution as a topic sidestepped or being addressed in a particular way in the education system? “The holy book explains many things… there IS an effect, things don’t happen randomly. It’s about what knowledge you know to explain, though- we can explain things in the Qur’an much better than past centuries. Now we can see things referenced before, like that Nutfah, etc. Science comes to explain things we don’t have any knowledge about”
DeWitt- answering Tomas’ question (ooh, former Christian? MAN I wish that thread still existed....)- it’s a supernatural mystery, the whole POINT is that it’s unexplainable. That’s how religion explains that… see what I’m saying?
Basra supplement- 7th century, when people asked Muhammed for a miracle, splitting the moon in half. He fretted, but then pointed, it split, then came back. Read in a magazine to prove religions and found someone who mentioned this miracle, ‘oh it’s crazy’…. But then watched tv and saw on the moon, the moon HAD split but changed back, split at some time, scienctifically. There is cause for everything,”
Meghra- “If I tried to look at all the Hindu miracles and tried to explain them, I’d probably kill myself. Kind of overboard to keep track all…”
Chris question- science isn’t necessarily responsible for answering religious questions, isn’t obligated to answer for virgin births and moon splitting, like taking a history class and expecting to learn science. Not addressed, but can be done
Dewitt- saw a movie- if you saw a miracle, how can you explain a miracle?