Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Worldnutdaily has published an absolutely laughable review of the Bible curriculum produced by the Bible Literacy Project. The Bible Literacy Project curriculum was written to provide a truly scholarly and objective text for a Bible course in public schools, as required by law and as opposed to the clearly unconstitutional NCBCPS curriculum that is nothing more than a collection of religious right propaganda.
The review is written by an Alabama state senator named Scott Beason and he appears to be quite incapable of thinking logically. The entire first half of the article is nothing but a list of ad hominem arguments concerning Charles Haynes, one of the folks involved in the BLP. The arguments take this form: "Charles Haynes says something don't like about X, or once worked with group Y, and therefore"....well, he doesn't actually state his obvious point.
But the strategy is obvious: rather than providing a substantive critique of the content of the BLP curriculum, he just wants to personally discredit one (!) of the people involved. But this in no way shows that there is anything wrong with the BLP curriculum at all. And some of what he says about Haynes is quite amusing. Like this:
Charles Haynes, of the innocuous-sounding Freedom Forum / First Amendment Center, has written an article entitled "When the Government Prays, No One Wins," in which he infers that the National Day of Prayer should be declared illegal.
Not quite. Haynes has written, quite reasonably, that since the National Day of Prayer was explicitly commanded by Congress, it's unconstitutional. That's a perfectly reasonable position, one that would have been shared by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (while other founders would not agree with it). Being against government declarations of prayer is not, of course, the same thing as being against prayer itself.
Charles Haynes was a project director for the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Another example of what I call the argumentum ad labelum: "Look, I've attached the word liberal to him and therefore defeated any argument he might make." This is the adult equivalent of "he's got cooties" and should be taken just as seriously.
Almost everything in the Beason's screed is taken directly from this webpage, including some things word for word. Like this from Beason's review:
The textbook by the Bible Literacy Project, "The Bible and Its Influence," incorporates the Hegelian dialectic process outlined in "Finding Common Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Education" by Charles Haynes and ACLU author/lawyer Oliver Thomas. Thus, schoolchildren learn "about the Bible" through a pre-planned group process that twists the Bible into the evolving ideals of the planned global spirituality.
And this, from the other page:
Yet, Christians across the country praise this revival. With their approval, a compromised view of the Bible blends with other sacred writings and religious messages in the classroom. By a strange consensus, these religions are being adapted to fit a new interpretation of the First Amendment -- one that twists its promised freedom into pretext and control. Thus, schoolchildren learn "about the Bible" through a pre-planned group process which twists God's truths into the evolving ideals of the planned global spirituality.
All of this is nonsense. There is no "Hegelian dialectic" (an idea which describes a historical pattern rather than prescribing an educational strategy) in the curriculum; all this means is that the curriculum often presents two or more positions on various issues involving the Bible and asks students to understand them. For instance, here is a quote Beason uses from the curriculum in order to discredit it:
"Do absolute good and evil exist?" (page 163). "The Setup: Many students although aware of good and evil, have not thought deeply about it. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is considered to be all good, all knowing, and all-powerful. Yet this view presents a problem. Where does all the evil in the world come from? How could an all-good God let something like the Holocaust happen? Why would God let innocent children suffer?"
This, Beason says, "redefines Biblical terms and demeans God." But that's just silly. This is a perfectly legitimate question. They're trying to introduce students to a key subject of dispute when it comes to the Bible, the problem of evil. This has been debated for centuries and will continue to be debated long into the future; it would be absurd not to address it in a Bible class and have students discuss it.
Notice that the curriculum doesn't mandate any particular answer to the question, it merely asks the questions. I'm sure it also provides a description of several possible answers, both positive and negative. That's what a scholarly and objective Bible curriculum should, indeed must, do. Another "negative" quote he uses from the curriculum:
"Job is one of the most difficult books in the Bible in that the text provides no clear cut moral or answer to Job's situation"
This, he says, "Denies the moral value of Old Testament illustrations." No, it doesn't. It states the utterly obvious, that the book of Job has long been one of the most troubling books of the Bible, even - perhaps especially - for Christians and Jews. This is hardly disputable. Volumes have been written on the subject by theologians wrestling with the difficult moral issues in that book. Again, it would be absurd to have a Bible course without introducing students to these disputes.
Yet another, also involving Job:
Diminishes the value of Old Testament texts: "The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning." [Job 42:12] "This ending though pleasing in some ways, has failed to satisfy various readers over the centuries" (page 160).
What in the world is wrong with that statement? All it does is point out that some people, even many Christians and Jews, have a difficult time understanding God's actions toward Job and some have found that this particular verse doesn't answer their questions.
But these objections reveal the primary problem: the predominately conservative (theologically and politically) Christians who are pushing for Bible classes don't want a scholarly and objective Bible class; they want a class that presents the most simplistic ideas about the Bible, namely that it's all true from beginning to end and no one could possibly make a reasoned argument against anything it contains.
As these examples show, they throw a fit at the mere mention of a dissenting view or the mere mention that some passage in the Bible might be troubling or difficult to understand. Because to them it's remarkably simple and it's summed up in the sticker so many of them have on their cars: God said it, I believe it and that settles it. Well no, perhaps in your Sunday school that settles it, but in the real world it doesn't.
That's why the theory of teaching a Bible class in public schools will always butt up against the reality of teaching one. Those who advocate them don't want, indeed will not tolerate at all, a class that offers dissenting viewpoints on any part of the Bible. Yet without that, such a course could not meet constitutional standards.
P.S. Before someone accuses me of a double standard because I argue for "teaching both sides" when it comes to a Bible course but not when it comes to evolution, let me state the obvious: there is a big difference between a Bible course and a science course. In science there is a well established means of establishing ones claims in a scholarly and objective manner; it's called peer review.
In science there is a process that removes the subjectivity and bias as much as possible by requiring that all data be made available to all other scholars to check and recheck results, and there are objective means of testing explanations by making accurate predictions and retrodictions about the nature of the evidence. The reason why ID has no place in science classrooms is precisely because ID advocates avoid this scholarly process entirely.
Comments
It seems this guy wants the Bible course to not only ask the questions, but provide the Answers, that is, what conservative Christians espouse. A more open-ended curriculum that allows students to debate, discuss and (gasp!) think is threatening to any church that has a strict interpretation of Scripture. As solid as this curriculum is, I suspect it would be difficult to find teachers who would not impose their own faith's interpretations, especially in the Bible Belt. Parents would have to keep a close eye on those instructors.
The Bible, for better or worse, is an important literary and sociopolitical source for Western civilization. I went to a public school on Long Island and had practically no religious instruction growing up, so Biblical references were pretty much lost on me until I forced myself to read the Bible on my own. A fair-minded Bible course would be a superb addition to the HS curriculum, for anyone of any religious background. It's too bad that some Xians would rather it be a vehicle for proselytizing.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 14, 2008 9:39 AM
This is very true, and it's unfortunate that so many Christians can't be happy with schools making Bible education a part of normal curriculum. A part of my American lit course in high school was on the Bible, and the teacher was very clear that the purpose of studying it was to introduce students to it as a work of literature that is alluded to quite frequently in American lit. He didn't cover the controversial topics, but he also wasn't teaching the religion aspect so much (although he did try to address questions that students raised). This curriculum really does sound like it would be a good approach to Bible education in a way that is fair to any student.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 14, 2008 9:52 AM
Just as I was about to give up on the column, I saw the line "Georg Hegel was an occultist whose philosophy laid the foundation for communist brainwashing." Priceless.
Posted by: Bartholomew | April 14, 2008 9:53 AM
Some of the non sequiturs in there really make you wonder if this guy's got anything at all going on upstairs:
....huh?
Posted by: Wes | April 14, 2008 9:56 AM
The questions that the reviewer can't stand are the exact questions that serious theologians have been studying for thousands of years. What does he want these students to do? Learn that annoying "God said to Noah there's going to be a floody floody..." song? This guy would throw out St. Augustine, Moses Maimonides, CS Lewis, and everyone in between. Of course Job is a difficult book. That's the whole point of it!
I've been paying attention to these bozos for most of my life, and they never cease to amaze me with their stupidity. First they want you to teach the Bible, then they get mad when you teach the Bible! Sheesh.
Posted by: BT | April 14, 2008 10:19 AM
Whoops!
Judeo-Christian principals - excellent! Even more hilarious that what this illiterate bozo presumably thought he was writing.
Posted by: Matthew | April 14, 2008 10:31 AM
I'd just like to point out that I hadn't read BT's comment before choosing the word bozo. It's just one of those funny little coincidences.
Carry on...
Posted by: Matthew | April 14, 2008 10:33 AM
Soooo, Beason doesn't want any acknowledgment of the fact that there are different readings of the Bible. What ever happened to 'teach the controversy'?
Posted by: Elf Eye | April 14, 2008 10:34 AM
As always, "teach the controversy" means "let our stuff in now so we can ban your stuff later."
"Teach the controversy" has always been a ploy, not an actual goal.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | April 14, 2008 12:42 PM
Ed - You may not have seen the Bible Literacy Project's response to this, in which they point out that not only are all of Beason's criticisms stupid, several are outright lies.
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/PressRoom/press080411Response.htm
Posted by: Zora | April 14, 2008 1:27 PM
So the dude plagiarized from Berit Kjos (the wingnut who runs crossroads.to)? Priceless. He and the "Expelled" people who ripped off that Harvard video should start the "Plagiarizing for Jesus" club.
Posted by: Adrienne | April 14, 2008 2:06 PM
Well, Dostoyevsky was Russian, and Russia later became the first successful communist takeover, and was the world bastion and exporter of same for about 70 years.
Therefore any reference to Russian lit (even that written decades before the October Revolution) is obviously a plug for Communism.
Or something like that.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 14, 2008 2:34 PM
Well, heck: you're God's favorite dude, but he destroys your house, bankrupts your farm, kills all your children, afflicts you with a painful illness, and makes your wife dump you (sounds like a C&W song, don't it?). All to settle a little bet he had with Satan.
But that's OK, because after he's proved his point, you get better, he gives you a new farm bigger than the first, and you have more kids (no word on whether it's the same wife -- probably a brand new Trophy Wife). I mean, no reasonable person could possibly have a problem with that, right?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 14, 2008 2:53 PM
Indeed, the problem of theodicy is considered by many theologians to be one of the more important issues of religios thought. But, I guess that might be too much thought for Mr. Beason.
Posted by: sirhcton | April 14, 2008 4:18 PM
Ed stated:
"There is no "Hegelian dialectic" (an idea which describes a historical pattern rather than prescribing an educational strategy"
Hegel was a theologian I might add. It would have been more accurate for them to state "Dialectic Materialism" if they were trying to pin this on Marxism. That was Marx's theory. I think Hegel's theory actually is true. We can even see it is Marxism. Right or wrong most government's in the world right now have incorporated some form of socialism.
While I would disagree with many tenets of Marxist thought in its full context, I do see the world a better place because of things like unions and other grassroots movements that have fought against tyranny. WND seems to believe that some form of World Government is coming with a world religion. I think I see some signs. But to look at the "left" and think that this is where it will come from is naive. Religious oppression has always pushed "Conservatism". Read Modern European History. I use conservatism in the 18th Century sense.
Ed is WND the branch of Liberatarian thought that you feel is more paleo-conservative than Libertarian?
Ed also stated:
"This, Beason says, "redefines Biblical terms and demeans God." But that's just silly. This is a perfectly legitimate question. They're trying to introduce students to a key subject of dispute when it comes to the Bible, the problem of evil. This has been debated for centuries and will continue to be debated long into the future; it would be absurd not to address it in a Bible class and have students discuss it."
I agree 100% with you. If they want to bring the Bible in it has to be treated like any other book. If it presents questions they need to be discussed. You are right on with this. This is more fear of something in the Religious Right. If God is who He says He is in the Bible then they should have no worries. All this paranoia worries me. We have to hold things up to scrutiny.
Beason's objection:
"Job is one of the most difficult books in the Bible in that the text provides no clear cut moral or answer to Job's situation"
I have no problem with this at all. It is true. Job is a very difficult book to understand. It gets into the question of why the good suffer? I would also assume that this implies something about his friends and their lack of answers for Job. Morals are not as clear cut as most Christians would like them. I do believe in absolute truth. I just do not believe in man's infallible understanding of what it is. I also believe in moral absolutes but am open to some situational ethics. I think there is a difference between morals and ethics. I am not sure what it is but have thought a lot about this.
Ed also stated:
"P.S. Before someone accuses me of a double standard because I argue for "teaching both sides" when it comes to a Bible course but not when it comes to evolution, let me state the obvious: there is a big difference between a Bible course and a science course. In science there is a well established means of establishing ones claims in a scholarly and objective manner; it's called peer review."
I probably agree with you on this but I would have to see in more detail what you think the difference is. I have been reading Jared Diamond' book "Guns, germs, and steel" and this dude is using biological evolution to write a history book. I have a real problem with that. It seems like people want to be multi disciplined when it suits them but nail others. It is actually a good book but it makes me nervous.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 14, 2008 6:36 PM
A few points in response to this:
1.) Since biological evolution is historical in nature, using it to interpret history is actually not as much of a stretch as you think.
2.) Diamond's argument is very empirical in nature. He's pretty good at backing up his points with empirical evidence. Scriptural interpretation, however, involves subjective hermeneutics and social mores, and is very different in nature from science. Be cautious about drawing an analogy between the two.
3.) Diamond's theory in Guns, Germs, and Steel is not yet established scientific fact by a long shot. There are still many possible objections to it, and it has not achieved the full status of scientific theory enjoyed by such theories as gravity, plate tectonics, or evolution. Though Diamond does a good job of presenting what evidence is available, the evidence is still spotty in many areas, and open to dispute. In other words, further (peer reviewed) testing is necessary, and in the case of Diamond's theory "teaching the controversy" is actually still applicable, seeing as legitimate controversy over his proposals remains.
4.) When has Jared Diamond ever criticized others for pursuing multi-disciplinary research? I'm not familiar with him ever denouncing multi disciplinary approaches in others, so I'm a bit baffled by your accusation. Certainly there's nothing wrong with taking multi disciplined approach, so long as you put out the effort to achieve some degree of expertise in the disciplines you intend to follow. The accusations are usually leveled at people who traipse into other disciplines without knowing a damn thing about them (e.g. engineers or medical doctors with no knowledge of biology attacking evolution, economists who have no understanding of climatology denying global warming, etc).
Posted by: Wes | April 14, 2008 7:02 PM
KOI:
Ed is WND the branch of Liberatarian thought that you feel is more paleo-conservative than Libertarian?
I can't speak for Ed, but my guess is no. WND is extremely far-right in its politics, and I would go so far as to say that its slant is theocratic. There may be individuals calling themselves libertarian who write for it, but on the whole I don't imagine that WND is considered by anyone to be libertarian (even "faux" libertarian).
And what Wes said regarding Jared Diamond and "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 14, 2008 7:29 PM
Wes,
Or Math guys who delve into Science! The get labelled hacks. Maybe they should but we have to be fair
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
No, WND isn't even remotely libertarian by any measure.
I've not read Diamond's book, but I don't have any problem with interdisciplinary studies at all. It's often quite useful to use the tools of one discipline in another field, it can offer insights that the traditional tools of that trade don't offer. It just has to be kept in mind that just because he may be applying some aspect of the theory of evolution in another area does not mean that his ideas are part of evolutionary theory (just like Dawkins' atheistic inferences from evolution are not a part of the theory at all).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 14, 2008 8:16 PM
I read Diamond more as saying "here are the environmental variables present in these various locales, and here's the impact I argue they had on the human populations there." Since he's dealing in human time spans, it's not really an "evolution" book, it's much more an "environmental" book.
The short version is, the animals and plants available to various groups of humanity had a dramatic impact on their later global power and technological development. Those who got lucky by having easily domesticable livestock like horses available where they settled, for instance, had a distinct advantage over those like the Africans who had none (zebras don't domesticate).
Where evolution does come into it a bit is with the "Germs" part of the book, but even that's more of a health-care study than deep-time capital "e" Evolution.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 14, 2008 9:06 PM
One of my favorite bloggers to read on ScienceBlogs (when he's able to post, which is about once a week) is Jason Rosenhouse, who's a mathematician that delves into evolution issues. No one is calling him a hack, to my knowledge. As I said, multi-disciplinary research is not the problem. The problem is when people traipse into fields which they haven't even attempted to understand and then pontificate on them as if they were experts.
Bill Dembski, a mathematician who blabbers ignorantly about evolution (and to whom I presume you're referring), is a good example. His writings betray ignorance of biology, and a complete lack of initiative to remedy that ignorance. He feels he can pontificate on evolution, proclaiming all biologists to be wrong about biology, without bothering to learn what the theory really says. His problem is not that he's multi-disciplined--his problem is that he is ignorant of the disciplines he attacks. In reality, he isn't actually multi-disciplined, but just pretends to be.
So it's not that Dembski is a hack because he's a mathematician who talks about biology. He is called a hack because he's a mathematician who talks ignorantly about biology, and uses his credentials as a mathematician to create a false veneer of authority on the issue. It's the "fake expert" phenomenon that Mark Hoofnagel describes over at denialism blog. Dembski has no expertise in the fields he attacks, but he pretends to have expertise in order to trick and manipulate people in the public who don't understand biology. That's a very, very big difference from a genuine multi-disciplined research project.
Posted by: Wes | April 14, 2008 10:08 PM
KoI was right to see the strong influence of Darwinian evolution on Diamond's thinking. It's definitely there.
Diamond's thesis relies pretty heavily on applying natural-selection thinking to cultural evolution. It's very evolutionary in its outlook and involves treating cultural advances like adaptations which survive and proliferate by allowing the cultures who are lucky enough to get them to out-compete other cultures. His theory is not biological evolution (in that he denies that one culture conquers another because of their biological advantages), but his theory is certainly very strongly influenced by the type of thinking involved in biological evolutionary theory.
I don't see any problem with Diamond using Darwinian thinking to study human cultural evolution, because Darwinian evolution is a historical process involving chance events conferring an advantage and spreading through one population, thereby giving them an advantage over other populations, and human cultural evolution also involves these elements (or so it seems, anyways). And it's not a good idea to draw a dichotomy between "environmental" and "evolutionary"--the two are very, very closely intertwined. Yes, Diamond's thesis is "environmental". His theory is so heavily environmental that it's also Darwinian. In fact, the ecological element of Darwin's original proposal (which he derived from Lyell) was one of the things that made it stand out from earlier evolutionary proposals such as Lamarckism. If your theory involves chance events conferring an advantage in your environment which results in your population out-competing others, it will probably turn out rather Darwinian in nature.
Posted by: Wes | April 14, 2008 10:37 PM
Wes,
I actually think he is right about the actual History he wrote in the first few chapters. The part on evolution and all is not history. It is Scientific Theory. I guess my possible problem(I have not read the whole book) is that his language seems to assume evolution as a fact. This is a subjective comment but if we put it to what the Supreme Court uses in Establishment Cases( I understand this has nothing to do with that just an example of how to judge these things) of what a reasonable person would conclude, I think they would read it as a fact. Anyway, it is a good book I like the Historical angle he takes. I just think it is am example of people using Evolution in other disciplines and maybe infringing on them.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 15, 2008 8:09 AM
Good points, Wes.
KOI:
1) Evolution is both a theory AND a fact. It is a fact that evolution occurs, and natural selection (with lots of other stuff going on too) is one of the most successful theories to explain that fact.
2) Even most creationists accept "micro evolution", or natural selection in small steps. The use of that concept in other disciplines is no more controversial than using vulcanology to explain what happened to Pompeii.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 15, 2008 8:22 AM
Jeff Herbert,
He implies more than micro-evolution is the beginning chapters of the book. He does not clearly explian the difference between abiogenesis and human evolution. This is the most misunderstood concept as even admitted by some here. Many Christians and Theists have no problem at all if until abiogenesis comes up.
The other thing that troubles me with your statement is that I have said the same words so many times and others have told me that there is no "micro-evolution". I have been told repeatedly that evolution is not a fact and is not presented as one. I think I am getting confused with the metaphysical and methodological materialists again.
My argument still stands that the "truce" of stating that Science makes no claims at all about the supernatural seems to be ok when talking about the Public Schools but discarded in discussions among academics. PZ Myers admits this openly. I think he stated that it is ok to compromise to keep Creation out of the public schools but it is important not to compromise on the bigger war. What is his war? To use Science to prove there is no God it seems.
Diamond's book I think touches on religion some but does not tackle the big question: Does God exist? If Science rules has nothing to say about the supernatural at all then how can we take a Scientific approach to history as he states? History invariably brings up the God question. Or are we trying to get that question removed from academia in general.
The Establishment clause is about religion. The word establishment seems to have been changed to influence in some of these court cases. It seems to me that a discussion about the existence of God can be had apart from religion or its establishment. If it is not in Science class then where? The first humanists made this question a part of classical education among other important ideas that are not discussed today in the name of seperation of church and state.
The problem is that we will have relgiously illiterate kids that will be sent out to compete in a global economy that is dictated by religious interests as times. This is especially true as we begin to interact with the Muslim, HIndu and Buddhist worlds.
I think Ed and at least some on here would agree with most of what I just said as long as it does not come up in Science class. I think I am fine with that as long as Science does not begin to infringe on legimimate discussions in my History class. Whether is be public school or University.
There is huge difference between keeping religion from being established in our nation and discussing God and the supernatural. I actually do not think the Bible should be taught unless, at very least, the Holy books of the other big religions are taught too. If the idea is education the one needs to know all viewpoints. Now this has to be within reason.
Learning about others religions and cultures I think should bring more tolerance and peace. This makes some uneasy because the view may get watered down in the process. But this is not Bible class. I do think experts from each religion should come in and teach it right but that it has to be equal access. Food for thought. I think Diamond actually does a good job overall. I just think we need to be careful not to let Science be anything more than it is. Other academic disciplines are important.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 15, 2008 1:18 PM