Evangelical reputation takes another knock

Since the election, I find myself reading less political news. I just don't have the stomach for it. For now, I am trying to focus on surviving this semester and maybe starting to write a little on the connection (or disconnect) between Christianity and the environment.

I had also been working (since Thanksgiving) on a posting as an open letter to my evangelical friends. We shared Thanksgiving dinner and post-Thanksgiving dinner with several friends and the general discussion about our culture was illuminating. I had hoped to express that in a letter, but it just isn't working.

But one of the major points had to do with my scientific friend's general dismay with Christian approach to science and history. We shared that frustration, that so many Christians were so willing to dismiss the host of scientific evidence (evolution) and historical scholarship (America's Christian heritage) despite having little scientific or historical training themselves. Faith, we all agreed, is a good thing. But when faith simply encourages you to selectively dismiss evidence or conclusions you don't like--that is anti-intellectual and not good for either your faith or our culture. Nor is it good when psuedo-scholars like David Barton present "historical scholarship" that begins with a conclusion and then combs the historical record for any supporting evidence to support that. That isn't how scholarship is made. Same with science. Scientists don't start with a conclusion and then keep doing experiements until they find those that fit the conclusion. They examine the evidence and the conclusion is the best explanation for the data they have. It is always open to revision--given new evidence or data. That is what historical scholarship is, and that is what a scientific theory is. It is not, contrary to how I hear many contemporary Christians talk about it, just one person's opinion on the matter. History may be subjective, but it isn't open to every uninformed theory out there.

Ok, enough ranting. What spurred this exact post was the report in the Wash Post about abstinence programs. I don't really have a problem with abstinence, and agree that many kids become sexually active way too young. Encouraging them to have sex before they understand the implications is problematic.

But, and this relates to the above rant, the difference between what you want something to be and what it actually is demands recognition. Wanting America to be a Christian nation doesn't make it so, neither does wanting a 6,000 year old earth. And wanting abstinence-only programs to be the ultimate solution for American youth doesn't make it so. And adhering to that in the face of contrary evidence just makes you look less intelligent and less reasonable. We have had ample evidence in the past that kids who take the "pledge" for abstinence are just as likely to have sex as those who don't. The problem is that many of the pledgers have less knowledge and tools for dealing with sex when they decide to, er, you know, do it. So, as a group, they were more vulnerable to STDs and unintended pregnancies. That isn't good. Seems like losing ground not gaining.

Now this report suggests that the majority of abstinence programs actually further mislead kids about some basic stuff--like how one becomes pregnant and how you catch or don't catch STDs. That isn't good either. Lying to kids usually ends up making them more vulnerable than less.

Thanks to Slactavist for the story.

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says (washingtonpost.com): "The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a 'thinking person.'

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called 'Me, My World, My Future,' teaches that women who have an abortion 'are more prone to suicide' and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said."