08-Nov-2006: Teach sex and evolution or close, part 2
With so much going on today such as the American midterm elections and another evangelical leader being revealed
as being a human being (much to the dismay of his worshipers), I thought I'd expand on the topic of my last entry:
religion and education. I explained how Quebec evolved from a system of education tightly controlled by the Roman
Catholic church to a very successful secular system. And now the Quebec government is telling schools run by evangelical
groups that they have to start following the provincial curriculum or close. Of particular interest was the subject of the science of evolution
and a course on human sexuality which such schools refuse to teach.
Privately run schools are free to exist—and they are most-frequently associated with a religious groups—both in Quebec
and in the rest of Canada. They can spend 6 hours a day imparting their religious views if that's what they wish to do, as long as the
students receive a secular education equivalent to what students in public schools receive. I stress that because the issue is not about the
mixing the state and religion or about parents being allowed to chose alternatives to the publicly-funded system. The interesting question, to me,
is why these two subjects (evolution and sexuality) are considered to be so important by both the government of Quebec and
the private schools.
Let's start with the easy one: human sexuality. Historically in North America the teaching of children about this immensely important
aspect of being human was left to parents. Having said that, most children received what information they could find from their
peers—and that, by its very nature, is coupled with myths some of which are harmful. Of course when I was young things were
simple: sex did not exist. Yes, "bad girls" were sent off to special homes and women could not work in public places (such as schools) if
they were pregnant. Even the word "pregnant" itself was banned from television and movies. As for STDs, well, they were punishment
for doing "bad" things, though what such things could be were beyond a child's comprehension.
Then something very interesting happened: the "baby-boomer" generation reached sexual maturity at about the same time that the civil rights
of black Americans were being fought for and upheld; and the American government was involved in a very unpopular war. The mid 1960's
were in a "perfect-storm" situation that eventually was labeled the counterculture revolution. The effects on Western societies were very profound—including
the discovery that sexuality was something we all share and that we could talk about it openly. And, once sex was out in the open, it became obvious that
education could prevent problems associated with sex outside of marriage in the West, like unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs.
Governments who had the ability to look at problems squarely saw the heartbreaking failures caused by parential and peer education and started
introducing courses about human sexuality into schools. The purpose, if you wish to be cynical about it, was to avoid the costs of dealing with single parents and
STDs. The philosophy behind such courses (and least the ones I knew about both as a teacher and a parent in Quebec) was one of giving young
people knowledge so that they could make informed decisions. Such courses help reduce the social and political (medical) problems associated with sexuality far better than
do ignorant stories that if you do "it" your penis will turn green and fall off, or, if a girl, you'll be sent away to a "home" somewhere to bear your shame
out of the public eye. I read not too long ago in the newspaper that the number of cases STDs is greater, proportionately, among those young Americans who
took the "Virgin Oath" than among the general population. I was not surprised. The more forbidden something is the greater the risks associated with it, such as
not carrying condoms. I understand that a number of these so-called virgins also operate under the misconception that only penile-vaginal intercourse carries the
risks associated with STDs and unwanted pregnancy and the avoidance of such intercourse is enough to qualify as a virgin.
Okay, now for evolution. First off, the idea that religion and science cannot both be "true" is absurd. You cannot talk about a "belief" in Darwin's theory; nor
can you send a spaceship to "heaven." (Maybe I should mention that when I was a graduate student a long time ago I taught an undergraduate course entitled,
"The History of the Relationship between Science, Philosophy, and Religion in the Western World." Quite a mouthful. I say that to indicate that what I am saying
about the subject are not just random ideas casually picked up—I have studied and thought much about such topics.) I am a practicing Christian and I can find no conflict
between the creation story in Genesis and the science of the evolution of our universe. of our unvierse. In fact, I find it rather amazing that the ancient Israelites had the story in the right
sequence. I've also read the Upanishads and Gitas and can't find a conflict between the three stories, though the ancient Hindus had a better concept of time. In fact,
almost every creation myth that I have read from many cultures contain the same germ of the idea: nothing existed at one time, elements got sorted out, planets and stars
formed, life arose on one planet that we know about in the order of simple creatures to the more complex. Different names are used to describe the processes and the
reason behind creation, but that is to be expected.
Where the problem appears to lie is with those who claim that the religious view is absolutely and literally a description of the world and that those who say there are other
descriptions of reality are godless and damned. The problem is exacerbated by elaborate stories constructed to explain away the obvious clues of evolution, like rock
formation and fossils so that the result somehow "confirms" the account in Genesis. Such stories are then called a "theory" and presented as if they were an alternate "theory"
to the Theory of Evolution. The trouble is they are comparing apples to oranges. A "theory" as a collection of speculative stories is not what we mean when we talk about a
scientific theory. Scientifically, there is no such thing as a "missing link" in a description of evolution; and, it is still called a theory because we have not yet verified
that its processes are universal. Once spaceships and probes start reaching planets beyond our solar system we will then have enough proof to call it the
"Law of Evolution" (the same way we describe the "law of gravity").
So why should we care if some schools want to teach children that there is a valid theory that is not shared by science to explain how we came to be? Because,
to do so is to make a mockery of religion (by reducing it to a comic book view of an old man reaching down from the clouds to create life on earth). And, it
does a tremendous disservice to children. To teach children that the world of those about them is run and inhabited by the immoral soulless damned is to cut
them off from the very world they inhabit; and, to teach them that they should stop using the brains God gave them in order to discover and understand what is
around them is an affront to God and to the souls of those children. If God exists, then he gave us brains so that we should use them, not hide under a blanket
of half-truths and outright lies.
I mentioned the problems of another evangelist at the beginning of this entry. I hold that if Ted Haggard had received a modern education that included the
teaching of science and a few courses on human sexuality he would not have had to live such a duplicitous life fighting private demons. And, he might well have
been a better Christian for it.