No Coincidences

Tag: Schooling

  • The Mis-Education of the Negro

    The Mis-Education of the Negro

    I read a book recommended by CJ (thanks CJ) that I’ve wanted to write something about ever since reading. It was such an interesting and powerful book. It proposed some thoughts I’d never considered and really opened my mind to a different way of thinking about a particular part of American history.

    The book is titled The Mis-Education of the Negro, written in 1933. When I started the book, I immediately texted CJ and said there was too much in the book and that we should start a podcast series exploring the topics. He jokingly agreed to do a podcast. As I continued to read, I noted 40 topics, each I thought would make for a worthwhile discussion.

    CJ and I are at a combined 6 children 4 years old and younger, so a podcast is definitely on hold.

    I read this book a couple years ago.

    Discussing race is difficult. I’ve debated posting this for some time. Not that I’m saying anything controversial or crazy. Just that I don’t like to think too much about race. But our race is important. It makes who we are.

    Sometimes commenting on race as a white person feels like a lose-lose situation. I’m either so positive about other races that it seems like pandering to the point of insincerity or like I’m trying to make up for something, or I’m not positive enough and come across at best not understanding and at worst a racist.

    I think this is why talking about race in America is so difficult. I’ve written about it before and it still is one of the most difficult things I’ve written. 

    And yet, I continue to hear from my black brothers and sisters say that the best place to start is to just be open about discussing it. Which led me to put this post together. Nothing profound. Just my thoughts on a good book.

    I should mention that the book was written in 1933 which led me to continuously ask, is it still that bad? I think many of the disappointing and sad truths the book lays out have improved. Not yet perfect, but improved.

    I want to list some of the topics I noted as interesting from the book. Then I’ll elaborate on one of them.

    1. The “equality” of black and white people. Are black and white people the same? No, we are different in so many ways. From upbringing, culture, background, experience, etc. And that’s ok.
    2. Black people being nominally free but economically enslaved.
    3. Has education for black people gotten better or worse since 1933? I assume it must have improved, but it was a thought this book made me consider.
    4. This is something I feel like people my age have started talking about more- why didn’t we learn how to do taxes instead of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Sante Maria? – The question I asked from reading this book, what is education good for? Why do we care about random historical facts from Europe? To be clear, I appreciate as much as anyone the importance of understanding history and where we came from. But shouldn’t I also know how to file my taxes and apply for a job? Also, on that note of “where we come from.” I remember a lot of history being taught about Europe. I don’t remember a ton being taught about Africa, Asia, or South America.
    5. The opportunities that are afforded whites because more white people own businesses, etc. compared to black people. I think this was much more prevalent in the 1930’s compared to today.
    6. I really struggled with reading this book because I passionately hate the word in the title of the book. Underlining it over and over throughout the book drove me crazy. I almost put the book down many times because I hated how a group of people was being, I felt, unfairly characterized.
    7. Competing churches taking away from impoverished areas.
    8. Why do we study the domineering, warring nations and not the peaceful, productive nations?  The answer is obvious- the winners of wars write history. But philosophically something to consider.
    9. Interesting point mentioned about former slaves avoiding using art to portray their experiences. There were so few books or art pieces made by former slaves depicting that struggle. I think we see that more embraced today with hip hop. Artists like Tupac, Ice Cube, and Kendrick Lemar come to mind as individuals that fully embrace the struggles they have experienced in life and have made great art out of it.

    I heard this not from this book but 3+3 and 2+4 are the same. Different, but still the same.

    The point I’d like to discuss a little more is point one. The author of this book pointed out that we’re so obsessed with making everyone equal that we disregard that people are different. He points out that maybe black people and white people shouldn’t be taught exactly the same. We come from different backgrounds and different life experiences. Something that resonates with me and helps me learn may not resonate or help someone else with a different culture from mine.

    Still, I think this idea is interesting. Generally speaking, a black person has a different life experience from a white person. I’m not talking about just upbringing, I’m talking about the way we see the world, I’m talking about the way we interact with the world, I’m talking about the way the world interacts with us. Black people and white people can be different. That’s not bad though. We’re not different in an inferior / superior way, just different. Good and bad. Different.

    From the book:

    “The differences of races, moreover, is no evidence of superiority or of inferiority. This merely indicates that each race has certain gifts which the others do not possess. It is by the development of these gifts that every race must justify its right to exist.”

    It makes me think about what is happening with gender. Women and men are different, and that’s ok. We all have our own skills and talents that make us who we are. The fact that I’m a man makes me different from my wife. My wife has many skills and talents I’ll never possess. Recently I heard it put this way – 3+3 and 2+4 are the same. Different, but equal.

    That said, the most important thing is that we remember we are all sons and daughters of God. White and black doesn’t mean anything to God. What matters to God is what’s in our hearts. We are all individuals. That’s ok. We should all be treated equally, of course. But we should remember that we are unique. Our uniqueness is great.

    If you want to read a book that makes you consider race and the history of education for black people, this is a great book to read. I encourage all of us to study these ideas so we can better love and understand each other.

  • The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    This is a version of an essay I wrote for a science and religion course. That’s why it has such an “official” tone, and the headlines. I don’t share this because I think it’s an extraordinary essay. But I do think I made some decent points about the “God issue” in science. When you spend this much time writing an essay that fits the theme of your blog, it’s just gotta be shared. So here’s my essay on intelligent design, evolution, and God.

    Intelligent Design and Evolution

    God is the center of the debate between science and religion, and in particular the debate between the theories of evolution and intelligent design. To claim any other conflict ahead of the question of whether God exists is to distract from the root cause that separates these theories. If the question of God’s existence could be solved one way or another, then evolution and intelligent design could coexist and potentially benefit one another. Unfortunately, the existential question of God will never be solved by science. Therefore, with God being the center of the issue, exploring the “God issue” between evolution and intelligent design is the best way to help the two theories reconcile with one another, even if the true question, “does God exist?” is never answered.

    The God Question

    Believers of evolution and believers of intelligent design have more to agree upon than is often realized. However, there is one topic or question that creates a gulf between the two fields. That question is: Does God exist? When evolutionists and intelligent design proponents come to understand this as the main question that separates them, it may be possible to relate and coexist, and therefore grow as fields of knowledge alongside one another. It is the loud voices of ardent atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett who pronounce aggressive disbelief in God, and it is the loud and passionate voices of creationists who oppose belief in the undeniable evidence of evolution that create this void (Wolf, 2006). The milder, middle-of-the-road voices get drowned out by the louder minority. The believer in intelligent design who accepts the facts of evolution and the believer in evolution who can see the merits in intelligent design theory are the voices that bring these two fields to an agreement that benefits both. Intelligent design need not deny many aspects of the theory of evolution. Evolution need not devalue the merits of the theory of intelligent design. At the root of the conflict is the belief in God. Coming to understand God as the major issue and question can bring both sides into more agreement, or at the very least, a middle-ground of mutual understanding.

    Historical Belief in God

    The thinking of the world has transitioned aggressively from a belief in God. While there has been a movement away from God, especially in scientific communities, as can be illustrated in countless scholarly writings such as The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006) and Why Intelligent Design Fails (Young & Edis, 2014), a large portion of the world still believes in some higher power, some creator that put humans on this earth. It is nearly impossible for a firm believer in God to remove that innate belief from their consciousness.

    In the book The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen (2011) discusses John Locke’s famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. “In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All of these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering” (Skousen, 2011, pp. 95-96). Locke’s thinking agrees with the teleological argument of intelligent design put forth by William Paley in the 1700s (Crashcourse, 2016). Locke continues to expound on this topic by pointing out how a man can come to know God exists. Skousen concludes with Locke’s thinking, “And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation” (Skousen, 2011, p. 97).

    These examples from Locke are used to illustrate a point. It was not long ago that disbelief in God was deemed a ludicrous proposition. It wasn’t long ago that these theists were the louder voices. Historically, those with no belief in God have been discriminated against and ridiculed similarly to how science ridicules belief in God today. Ridicule of the belief of God is as counterproductive today as the ridicule of not believing in God has been throughout history.

    Attack on God

    An outspoken opponent of theism in the scientific community is Richard Dawkins. One of the basic attacks Dawkins uses against God is comparing belief in God to belief in any number of mythical creatures. Dawkins often refers to belief in God as being similar to believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster (Dawkins, 2006). Dawkins says that because people believe in something ridiculous like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn’t mean he has to accept it. This analogy is not close to comparable. There aren’t books handed down for centuries about belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t a majority of the world population believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. We don’t have any support for the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. This is just one example of an unfair attack from the “militant atheism” that Dawkins proposes (Dawkins, 2008).

    Scientists like Dawkins ignore the evidence that does exist out there because it doesn’t suit their needs or beliefs. This is the opposite of scientific progress and something Dawkins is “militantly” opposed to. There are many unexplained phenomena with adequate scientific evidence behind that scientists like Dawkins disregard simply because it’s phenomenal and they can’t understand it. Take, for example, near-death experiences. The catalogs and books being put together of people of different cultures, ages, demographics, and backgrounds all detailing a similar experience is dismissed out of hand. Science is based on observation. If any other phenomena like gravity or momentum had as much documented support as near death experiences that have been cataloged, scientists would explore further, not dismiss automatically.

    Another main critique of intelligent design is that the theory mentions design without defining who the designer would be. The reason intelligent design refuses to mention the designer is obvious. The mere mention of God is liable to get extreme backlash from the scientific community. Furthermore, it leaves the concept open to the many interpretations of the nature of God and who the creator may be across varying religions. This is an example of why the attack on God is counterproductive. It creates the dynamic where intelligent design theory talks about an ambiguous “designer” without simply stating that the designer is a theorized divine creator. God is the answer to the question of who the intelligent designer would be, and yet because of the aforementioned loud minority, God is not specifically mentioned. The issue is that while so many believe in this designer, in and out of the scientific community, no one can say the name for fear of being criticized.

    Intelligent Design within Evolution

    There is plausible proof of many elements of evolution. However, this does not remove the possibility of the influence of intelligent design. That is to say, it is conceivable that the world can evolve while also having the influence of an intelligent designer that planned for this evolution and progression. The two theories need not be at odds with one another. Intelligent design and evolution both have holes and flaws in their theories as Darwin himself admitted (Leddra, 2010). Neither theory is perfect. If either theory were perfect, there would be a definitive answer. That’s why they are still classified as theories. The conflict really comes down to one question: is there a God? This is where the entire conflict between intelligent design and evolution lies. That question will not be answered decisively by either science or religion.

    Science will not answer whether God exists. That will always be a matter of faith. If that question is answered it will mean that God has revealed Himself and His purpose, as science will never disprove God. This is obvious, for you cannot prove that something does not exist. If there is a God and He reveals Himself and His purposes, designs, and methods to humanity, then the conflict between intelligent design and evolution will instantly become a moot point. Humanity will know for a fact how living things came to be. The question of if they evolved, how they evolved, and God’s role in it, and these debates between intelligent design and evolution will become null and void. 

    Conclusion

    These examples showing the change in how God is perceived in both society and science, and how science has changed in the attack on God, go to show the underlying cause of all the controversy. It is ultimately about the existence of God. We can conclude, then, that it is extremely important for religion and science, and their respective theories, to consider how they can coexist with one another. By rejecting even the possibility of a God, science limits itself and its ability to explore the universe. By rejecting evolution, the theory of intelligent design limits its ability to coexist with science. Science will benefit by cooperation between the theories of intelligent design and evolution. This cooperation ultimately hinges on finding a way to reconcile the question of God, for the ability of all theories to progress to their fullest potential, and the furthering of knowledge for humanity.