A Very Brief History of the Modern Calendar

YouTube Preview Image

HT Scott Bailey Watch until the end, it will tell you everything you need to know about the Mayan calendar and 2012.

Happy New Year!

I wish all readers of this blog a happy new year!

(Even you Mayans, with your silly calendar!)

Proportional Time for Creationism: A Simple Solution to a Science Education Conflict

Many have called for “equal time” for creationism in science classes, while the vast majority of people oppose such measures. But conflicts over this issue appear time and again, wasting valuable time and resources of lawmakers, courts, schoolboards, and everyone else involved.

In a comment on Facebook, Ed Babinski suggested a brilliant solution that both sides should find acceptable: proportional time for evolution and creationism.

The process of evolution has taken roughly 4 billion years. Young-earth creationists say that everything was made in the form in which we now find it in six days. Ed’s suggestion? Simply apportion time proportional to the amount of time each viewpoint says was involved in the formation of life into its present form. Since evolution involves a longer time period, it is only natural that one will spend more time explaining and exploring it.

The first step in calculating the appropriate proportions of time to be spent on each is to multiply 4 billion by 365, so that one is working with days on both sides. Then place the 6 days of creationism over the 1,460,000,000,000 days of evolution. Converted to a decimal, this is 4.10958904 × 10-12, or .00000000000410958904.

Keeping that number handy, we then calculate how much time a biology class in a public school will spend on evolution. While the majority of high school biology teachers spend between 3 and 15 hours on evolution, those who consider it important may spend as much as 18.5 hours on it. Let’s maximize the time for everyone and go with the higher end of the spectrum.

If one devotes 18 hours of class time to evolution, then all one has to do to calculate the proportional amount of time to spend on creationism is multiply by the decimal we calculated earlier.

18 x  .00000000000410958904 = 0.000000000073971

One then multiplies by 60 to calculate minutes, and again to calculate seconds, with a result of 0.0000002662956

Rounding up to the nearest whole unit of time, that means that roughly one millisecond of class time should be devoted to creationism.

Obviously, if a teacher spends less than 18 hours on evolution, then to be fair, they really ought to reduce the amount of time spent on creationism proportionately. However, as an act of generosity on the part of the supporters of evolution, given that they will be getting the vast preponderance of class time, I would argue that creationism simply be given a millisecond across the board, even by those spending significantly less than 18 hours on evolution.

As it happens, the proportion also seems to do justice to the amount of evidence for each viewpoint.

And so this seems like a doubly fair solution. What do others think? Would this be acceptable to all parties?

 

Star Trek vs. Star Wars: Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism

Bob Cargill pointed out to me an article in CNN about the latest volleys in the Star Trek vs. Star Wars wars, with not only fans but actors getting involved in the controversy (and George Takei’s entertaining attempt to argue for the need for peace so as to face a common foe).

YouTube Preview Image

To me, the suggestion that one has to choose between them is like saying you have to choose between the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita, or between Christianity and Gnosticism.

What’s that you say? You do have to choose?

But the funny thing is that if I were to say that it is like saying that you have to choose between the Torah and the New Testament, or between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John, then the antithesis might indeed seem like a false one – to Christians, at any rate. Jews might well agree that one needs to choose between the Torah and the New Testament.

And so this really is a matter of perspective – of defining canons and inhabiting symbolic narrative universes. One cannot inhabit the universes of Star Wars and Star Trek simultaneously.

Or can one? Even in the examples of religious texts and traditions I shared earlier, the matter is not at all clear cut. Most Christians might agree that one must choose between the Bible and the Gita, but Hindus will often regard the choice as unnecessary. Orthodox Christians argued strenuously that one has to choose between Christianity and Gnosticism. But many Gnostics were Christians, or at least considered themselves such.

And in the case of the New Testament canon, it is common to forget the controversies that preceded the inclusion of certain works in the collection, and to miss that some works within it really do offer incompatible perspectives (e.g. the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, or the Christologies of Luke and John).

When it comes to science fiction fandom, it is possible to adopt any of the three stances towards other religions delineated in Christian theology. One can be an exclusivist, and say only your favorite series/show/movie is good. One can be an inclusivist, and say that while yours is better, others are not therefore necessarily bad – or at least, not completely bad. And one can be a pluralist, and treat multiple stories/programs/films as equal.

But there are lots of ways of going about this, and it may be that not only is there something to be learned in science fiction fandom from considering these different theological viewpoints, but perhaps there is also something to be learned in the realm of religion by considering this sci-fi question.

If one treats both Star Trek and Star Wars as equal, then are you both a Trekkie and a Jedi, or are you neither, but a generic sci-fi fan? Is being a fan a matter of appreciation, or of exclusive appreciation?

It seems to me that this is a fine example in relation to which to explore the relationship not only between different canons and traditions, but also openness to learning from and appreciating others while also being committed to one’s own tradition.

So what’s in your canon? Is it broad enough to encompass both Star Wars and Star Trek? And whatever your answer to that question, there are also others: Is the expanded universe canon? Original series? Prequels? Is Jar Jar in your canon or relegated to the apocrypha? What’s you “canon within the canon”?

I’d welcome discussion from fans and detractors of all stripes. And as you discuss, may the Force be with you as you live long and prosper.

Creationist Legislation in Indiana

I often try to do what I can to help support those in other states who try to defend science education against those who seek to undermine it, even though state legislators are largely deaf to anyone but their own constituents. Today, news about legislation being proposed here in Indiana came to my attention, via the NCSE. First, here’s the news item:

CREATIONIST LEGISLATION IN INDIANA

Senate Bill 89, prefiled in the Indiana Senate and referred to the
Committee on Education and Career Development, would, if enacted,
amend the Indiana Code to provide that “[t]he governing body of a
school corporation may require the teaching of various theories
concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the
school corporation.” The sponsor of the bill is Dennis Kruse
(R-District 14), who chairs the Senate Committee on Education and
Career Development. In 1999, while serving in the Indiana House of
Representatives, Kruse pledged to introduce a law to remove evolution
from the state’s science standards, according to the South Bend
Tribune (August 27, 1999). Instead, however, he introduced bills with
the same wording as Senate Bill 89, House Bill 1356 in 2000 and House
Bill 1323 in 2001. Both died in committee.

“The obvious problem,” commented NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C.
Scott, “is that the Indiana legislature can’t authorize a school
district to violate the Constitution. And the Supreme Court held, in
its 1987 decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, that it’s unconstitutional
for creation science to be taught in the public schools.” She added,
“It’s disturbing that a veteran legislator like Kruse is ignorant of
– or indifferent to — the blatant unconstitutionality of his bill.”
The most recent antievolution bill in Indiana, 2006′s House Bill 1388,
was aimed at supposed errors in textbooks, although its sponsor had
previously announced his intention to introduce legislation requiring
the teaching of “intelligent design” in the state’s public schools; HB
1388 died in committee. The current legislative session resumes on
January 4, 2012.

For the text of SB 89 as introduced, visit:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/IN/IN0089.1.html

For the text of HB 1356, HB 1323, and HB 1388, visit:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2000/IN/IN1356.1.html
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2001/IN/IN1323.1.html
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/IN/IN1388.1.html

And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in Indiana, visit:
http://ncse.com/news/indiana

The next question is, what can be done about it. The answer is, write to your local senator if you are a resident of Indiana. Here is what I wrote to mine:

Dear Senator Schneider,
I am writing to express my concern about Senate Bill No.89 which has recently been introduced, attempting to allow the teaching of what it calls “creation science” in schools.

I am disturbed by this for a number of reasons. First, as a teenager, I was taken in by so-called “creation science” and while I was fortunate enough to learn more about the subject and to have pointed out where this movement was making false claims, others may not be so fortunate. So-called “creation science” is at odds with the scientific understanding of the history of life on this planet, as Christian biologists, paleontologists and others with relevant expertise almost unanimously agree.

I am also disturbed by this legislation because, both as a professor who teaches Biblical studies at Butler University, and as a Christian involved in teaching Sunday school at Crooked Creek Baptist Church where I am a member (and, until the end of the year, church moderator), I know that what “creation science” claims about the Bible is every bit as mistaken and in error as what it claims about science.

“Creation science” does serious harm to Christianity, making it seem to be a faith whose adherents are ready to lie, mislead, or give gullible assent to charlatans. It also persuades many people to believe that they must choose between modern science and their faith, and if they ever learn that modern science is correct on points that young-earth creationists dispute, they often then lose their faith, unnecessarily.

But even setting aside such concerns, the teaching of creationism has already been declared a violation of the separation of church and state, and so the introduction of a bill that will inevitably be disputed and overturned even if passed is a waste of time and money. And even if the teaching of religious views about creation were to be allowed in public schools, which ones should be taught? We have significant Hindu, Muslim, and other religious populations here in Indianapolis, as well as Christians who disagree with “creation science” on scientific and Biblical grounds. Are we to make time for teaching about all those views in science classes? Ought the focus in science classes not to be on that which can be studied scientifically? Science is open to people of all faiths, and those of none, precisely because it uses a shared set of tools and methods which can be used by anyone, focusing on studying and making sense of the evidence. That approach to knowledge is incredibly effective, and it is important not to allow the education of our state’s children in the methods and conclusions of the natural sciences to be interfered with.

I sincerely hope that you will oppose this legislation. I will gladly provide more information about the relevant data from the natural sciences and Biblical studies, or recommend further reading on these subjects, should you find that helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. James F. McGrath

Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature

Butler University

Feel free to borrow from what I wrote in writing your own letter, if that will be helpful.

I have also set up a Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/CreationistLegislationInIndiana. Please click “like” and spread the word!

The War on New Year

Apparently the forces of darkness are mounting an attack, this time on the Christian holiday of New Year’s Day, which commemorates and worshipfully celebrates the anniversary of the day on which a Romanian monk miscalculated the year in which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born. In addition to the anticalendricals, it seems that the Chinese, Jews, and Muslims are all opting out and deciding to celebrate other days as their new year. More recently the ranks of these heathen have apparently been joined by the ancient Babylonians and Mayans. Worse still, countless American companies are yielding to the pressure from these groups, and instructing their employees to wish people “Happy New Years Day” rather than “Happy New Year’s Day,” in so doing acknowledging a plurality of new years rather than the only true one.

Truly committed Christians should be listening carefully for the lack of apostrophe, and boycott any stores that prove to be committed to this heretical anapostrophism.

Fight the good fight. Make sure that you drink too much champagne on December 31st as midnight approaches, and not on one of the days celebrated by the heathen. Too much is at stake. Imagine the confusion if we had enormous crowds and brightly lit orbs descending upon Times Square all throughout the year.

NOTE: This originally appeared on my blog back in 2008, but it seemed worth reposting, since apparently this is still a live issue.

X-Men First Class: Never Again, Ever Again

I finally got around to watching X-Men First Class, and found it not only an enjoyable superhero action movie and a satisfying prequel exploring the earlier lives of the X-Men, but also a challenging parable about the danger of history repeating itself when we most want to avoid it doing so

In the first X-Men movie, we briefly got to see Magneto’s power manifesting itself for the first time as he desperately tried to stop the Nazis separating him from his parents in the Auschwitz concentration camp.

In X-Men First Class, we see that scene and then the ensuing story, as a mutant working with the Nazis realizes that Eric’s ability manifests itself when he is angry, and tries to enable his use of it by threatening and then killing his mother. Eric is for a while simply out to avenge himself on his erstwhile captors and the murderers of his family.

But we also see him acting out of a concern to avoid seeing mutants hunted and exterminated in a similar fashion.

At one point he utters the phrase “Never again,” the famous Jewish slogan referring to the Holocaust.

YouTube Preview Image

The irony, of course, is that Magneto sees a war coming and is willing to contemplate the extermination of unmutated humans as a means to ensuring the survival of his own “superior race.”

Visitors to Israel are often struck by the irony of the fact that there one can encounter both graffiti that says “Never Again” and graffiti that says “Gas the Arabs.”

The lesson from X-Men First Class and from the history of Israel seems clear to me. If one genuinely wishes to avoid horrors such as the Holocaust ever happening again, then simply perpetrating similar horrors on others can never be the means to that. Carrying out a Holocaust is by definition making that great atrocity happen again. And so if one genuinely means “Never Again,” then the answer can only be to work towards a world in which the dehumanization and demonization of others, xenophobia, and the scarcity of basic necessities that can lead people to turn on their longtime neighbors are eliminated.

Those are the two choices: never again, or ever again.