What Santorum Really Means By Indoctrination

Rick Santorum has said some silly things about higher education over the past week.

Not only did he say that Barack Obama was a 'snob' for wanting all Americans to go to college (funny, since Rick Santorum has a BA, an MBA, and a JD), but he also stated that “62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it.”

Where to start, right?

Oh yeah, he also called universities "indoctrination mills."

There's a few things going on here. First, we have Santorum's notion that to want kids to be educated and to succeed is snobbery -- all coming from a guy with several degrees. Isn't that kind of like the priest telling his congregation that they're a bunch of sanctimonious pricks for wanting their children to attend church?

Since when have we become a society that values an under-educated society? I have a feeling it has been ever since Barack Obama took office. This is also about the same time that we became a society that looks down on being healthy, boos the golden rule, and cheers for executions.

And where did Rick Santorum get this statistic that 62 percent of kids who enter college with a faith commitment leave without it? The claim is totally bogus.

Via Talking Points Memo:

A slight problem: multiple studies have found that the opposite is true — including the one that Santorum has reportedly been referring to.

A study published 2007 in the journal Social Forces — which PBS reports that Santorum’s claim is based on, although his spokesman didn’t respond to TPM’s request for confirmation — finds that Americans who don’t go to college experience a steeper decline in their religiosity than those who do.

“Contrary to our own and others’ expectations, however, young adults who never enrolled in college are presently the least religious young Americans,” the journal concluded, noting that “64 percent of those currently enrolled in a traditional four-year institution have curbed their attendance habits. Yet, 76 percent of those who never enrolled in college report a decline in religious service attendance.”

Perhaps Santorum got his studies mixed up. A 2006 Harvard study found that 62 percent of college Republicans think “religion is losing its influence on American life.” Well, that's an entirely different thing, Rick. Republicans think a lot of things -- but that doesn't make them true.

The interesting thing about the Harvard study, if this is indeed where Santorum pulled his bogus figure, is that it found the opposite of Santorum's 'loss of faith' claim to be true. It found that “a quarter of students (25%) say they have become more spiritual since entering college, as opposed to only seven percent (7%) who say they have become less spiritual.”

Rick Santorum is scared of secular America. (He's not alone.) He knows that once children leave the nest, where they must think for themselves, they might actually embrace or formulate philosophies and life stances that are not in synch with their parents, or with their parents' faith.

He says he was ridiculed for his beliefs in college (quite frankly, he should've be ridiculed for some of them, such as his denial of evolution):

“I’ve gone through it,” Mr. Santorum said. “I went through it at Penn State. You talk to most kids who go to college who are conservatives, and you are singled out, you are ridiculed.”

“I can tell you personally,” he added, “I went through a process where I was docked for my conservative views.”

If Rick Santorum had his way, children would be home-schooled from kindergarten through graduate school, and would live under the same roof as their parents, and forced to attend church each and every Sunday.  We wouldn't want them to have to learn to defend their ideas about the world, would we?

Now, about those "indoctrination mills." I would ask Rick Santorum this: Is baptizing your child not a form of indoctrination? Is sending your child to vacation bible school not a form of indoctrination? If we are going to be honest with ourselves, we need to agree that there are many forms of indoctrination, and, sure, college might classify as indoctrination in some regards.

However, when we look at what indoctrination actually means, we find that indoctrination "is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." We also see that "instruction in the scientific method, in particular, cannot properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine."

What Santorum means by "indoctrination" is "critical thinking" and "skeptical scrutiny" and "critical self-evaluation" -- things that might lead a young person to question things they have been told.

What Santorum means by "indoctrination" is "discovering that the indoctrination received at home might not stand up to the skeptical scrutiny that is encouraged in a higher learning environment."

Santorum's rhetoric reeks of a man who knows his ideas don't stand up under scrutiny. His stance on evolution reveals quite a bit.

I think there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and do believe that it is used to promote to a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.

This is a man whose biggest problem with evolution isn't that he doesn't have enough data to formulate an opinion -- it's that acceptance of evolution might lead to questioning faith.

Rick, we are indoctrinated at every turn in our lives. Before we can even think for ourselves, we are told which sports teams to root for, which religion we believe in, which political party we align with. When we attend church as young children, we are told that, without a doubt, this particular religion will be our salvation.

If the biggest fear of higher education is that our children might stray from these beliefs once they leave the cocoon, then perhaps we should question the very beliefs we fear will be so easily unraveled.

Get Your Crayons Ready! It's The Creation Museum Dinosaur Coloring Contest!

The folks over at Kentucky's Creation Museum have announced a fun way to get your children on their way to needing remedial instruction in science.

Can you draw a saddle and a human?

The Creationist Disneyland, as NCSE director Eugenie Scott likes to call it, will give your child $5 off their admission for coloring a picture of their friendly dinosaur. (The dinosaur was created by God on day 6, it says on the page.)

Or, if your child likes to draw, they can turn in a drawing of their favorite dinosaur. If a child were to go this route, I imagine they might get bonus points for drawing Adam & Eve, perhaps saddled atop the dinosaur on a romantic ride through Eden.

The contest will be judged in four age groups: preschool, 5–7 year olds, 8–11 year olds, and 12–14 year olds.

While the Creation Museum is a bit vague about what exactly kids might win, they have confirmed that "prizes will be awarded."

One can be fairly certain that science education is not among the prizes.

Here's what some smart people have had to say about the museum:

British scientist, doctor, and professor Robert Winston:

It was alarming to see so much time, money and effort being spent on making a mockery of hard won scientific knowledge. And the fact that it was being done with such obvious sincerity, somehow made it all the worse.

The National Center For Science Education received over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement:

We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis.

Lisa Park, professor of paleontology at University of Akron, and an Elder in the Presbyterian Church:

I think it's very bad science and even worse theology... and the theology is far more offensive to me. I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public.

British writer A.A. Gill:

A breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul...This place doesn't just take on evolution—it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology.

I think they owe thousands of childen an ap-ology.

Ken Ham & Answers In Genesis Refute Evolution With 3-Minute Video

Stop the presses! Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have refuted evolution with a 3-minute video.

A still from AiG's 'Check This Out' DVD series

From AiG:

We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true.

Yes, Ken, it's exactly like that. A "strange Darwinian chant" from atheist blogs and secular universities.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from the world's largest scientific society, with over 130,000 members, and over 262 affiliated societies comprised of over 10 million individuals.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from pretty much every scientist (97%).

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 90 educational organizations, over 30 religious organizations, and over 100 scientific and scholarly organizations.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 1170 scientists named Steve (Steves make up approximately 1% of all scientists).

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 12,000 American Christian clergy.

What is so explosive about the information in Ken's video that he believes disproves the theory that serves as "the foundation of modern biology?" The video states, "What the bible reveals makes sense of what we see and understand. Evolution does not. 'Nuff said."

Ham's refutation centers on the following two statements:

1. Life has never been observed to come from non-life. 
2. There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. 

Let's have a look:

 

Let's address the first refutation. First of all, the theory of evolution does not depend on how life began. Abiogenesis is another matter altogether, and proof or dis-proof of abiogenesis would not affect evolution in the least. Evolution is defined as "the gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms." As long as there is life, there is evolution. Saying that evolution cannot exist without proof of abiogenesis is like saying the germ theory of disease does not work without first understanding how bacteria first originated.

Secondly, just because science has not observed abiogenesis does not mean that God created all life in its present form. This is a 'God of the Gaps' argument and it's silly. It is true that we have not replicated abiogenesis, but there are many models to describe how life may have originated, and we are learning more and more each day. There was a time when we could not explain where lightning came from, and so we attributed it to the gods. We later gained the knowledge to explain how lightning works, and the gods explanation faded away. Abiogenesis is a little more complex, and may or may not be replicated in my lifetime, but that does not mean that it cannot be explained. Science is closing in on it. This is how science works.

Now on to Ham's 2nd refutation: "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism." This is, quite simply, a flat out lie. Although creationists never seem to be able to define exactly what they mean by "information," It appears that they keep this definition rather loose, so that they can exclude whatever evidence is put in front of them. Regardless, new genetic information is indeed routinely added to biological systems through various evolutionary mechanisms. You just need to look at the evidence, which is overwhelming. You just won't find it in Creationist sources. 

John Rennie writes in Scientific American:

Biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. 

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. 

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

Nice try, Ken. Sadly, however, there are many parents and churches who will plop their kids in front of your DVDs, and no new factual information will be added to the child's brain. Most of these kids will eventually have evolution explained to them properly. However, some kids will inevitably grow up to be the next Ken Ham.

It's like some strange Creationist chant.

From the Guy Who Gave Us 'Veggie Tales': 'What's In The Bible?'

You'd have to have been in a coma for the past 18 years to not know about Veggie Tales, the Christianity-based anthropomorphic vegetable show (and movies) for kids. You'd also have to have avoided a Chick-Fil-A, as it seems there is perpetually some Veggie Tales tie-in with their kids meals. (Chick-Fil-A, of course, being the Christianity-based (and anti-LGBT) fast food chain where actual vegetables are scarce).

Veggie Tales co-creator, Phil Vischer, has created an online network for kids called Jelly Telly. His goal is to grow Jelly Telly into a Christian Nickelodeon of sorts. The venture is partly funded by Focus on the Family, James Dobson's tax exempt non-profit organization founded in 1977. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Focus on the Family as one of a "dozen major groups [which] help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade."

Lots of folks would assume that Jelly Telly and its programs are fairly benign, but the association with Focus on the Family should be enough to raise concern about whether any of the 'Christian values' threaded through Jelly Telly's programming also help drive the religious right's ideology into the minds of young children.

One Jelly Telly property that is gaining in popularity is a new DVD series based on the network titled What's In The Bible. The show features a mix of puppetry, animation, and musical performances. Kind of in the same vein as Jack's Big Music Show or The Muppet Show.

In an introduction to the series, Phil Vischer tells us that the Bible is the "most widely owned, least widely read in history. It sits on more shelves, gathering more dust, than any book in the world." I would agree with him there. He continues, "And yet this book holds the keys to understanding our lives." That certainly is the opinion of many.

Vischer says, "We have a crisis in the church today. Sixty-five percent of kids are dropping out of church as soon as they graduate from high school. We need to do something about this."

What's Phil going to do? He continues: "We're gonna walk kids through the Bible all the way from Genesis to Revelation and answer their big questions about who wrote it, and where it came from, and why we can trust it, and what difference does it make."

The series contains 5 DVD's, and I have not viewed the material outside of the clips that can be found online, but from what I can gather, the series steers clear of the tired fundamentalism associated with Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism. So that is somewhat of a relief.

For example, it was refreshing to see that they describe up front how the Bible is a collection of writings (including letters, poems, etc.) written by over 40 people over the course of 1600 years, instead of insinuating that it's one book written by God which should be taken 100% literally.



However, as a secular parent, I personally am not too crazy about the idea of presenting The Bible in this way to children (Christian or otherwise).  While I certainly believe that some of The Bible's themes (i.e. empathy, good will, sacrifice, compassion, etc.) are important to instill in a child at a young age (these are not unique to Christianity, or to any religion), I think many of the Bible's themes, even some of those simplified and presented here in this series, are capable of doing more damage to a child than people realize.

I'm all for religious literacy.  I think too many people, including the devout, do not know enough about religion.  However, there is a big difference between teaching about religion and religious indoctrination, which is precisely what is going on in What's In The Bible?. 

We don't learn from the series that "many people believe X and Y." We learn that, "This is the truth, straight from God, and this is the doctrine you must follow to avoid misery in life." Of course, I expect as much from Phil Vischer and Focus on the Family. He's not teaching Religion 101 to children. This is not a Unitarian Universalist show.  He's planting the seeds of Christian faith (and all that comes along with it, good and bad) in the minds of impressionable children who have no reason to reject what they are being spoon-fed.

Phil seems to have taken to heart the Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

While I am sure that many children enjoy the series (there are quite a few children's reviews on YouTube, many of which aren't terribly convincing), and while I'm sure that many of Vischer's young viewers will grow into fine grownups, I can't help but think about the ones that are being primed for a life of Christian exceptionalism.  To be indoctrinated at a young age with the belief that there is only one route to salvation, and that thinking differently will lead to misery and damnation, is to be primed for intolerance (not to mention undue anxiety and guilt).  Sure, this is just a t.v. show, one that does the same thing that Sunday school did for previous generations, and many of us turned out just fine. But Sunday school was never presented with such production value, and quite honestly most of us didn't pay much attention.  Vischer's intention is to get the child's attention by imitating the entertainment they see on Clubhouse Disney and Nick Jr., and then start in with Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus.

Granted, much of children's programming is irreverent, abstract, and sometimes a little creepy (Barney, anyone?), but I would think some of this series' segments could be rather terrifying to a child, because the show speaks about the child -- about her life (and afterlife), her soul, and her fate as it relates to her behavior and her beliefs.  This, when you think about it, is really quite heavy, and quite disturbing for children's programming.  The child is presented with concepts that appear to have serious implications. Yo Gabba Gabba it's not.

For example, if we view the section on Genesis below, from a young child's perspective, we learn that God is male, that we shouldn't trust ourselves (it will make God angry at us), and that sins are small terrifying monsters that will attack you, ride around on your back forever, and cause facial blemishes.



I kid (sorta), but young children do not need to be saddled with supernatural concepts of salvation, eternal damnation, and sin.  Young children can be taught to be moral, compassionate, and ethical without invoking the supernatural, and without employing guilt, insecurity, and fear.

The truth is, even the above segment, which is actually some fucked up shit to lay on a toddler when you think about it, is tame in comparison to what's really in the Bible.

At what point, Phil, are you going to tell the kids about what else is in the Bible: slavery, selling your daughter, dashing babies against the rocks, killing kids who sass their parents, killing brides who are not still virgins, killing those who follow other religions, women as submissives who cannot teach, killing those who work on the sabbath, etc., etc.  I look forward to seeing those episodes.

My point in bringing up those barbaric passages is that, despite the fact that the Genesis clip above does not contain killing or raping or slavery does not make it any less distressing to a child.  In fact, describing how ancient civilizations committed barbaric acts for their god is much more abstract and less harmful to a child than saddling them with the concepts of sin, damnation, and pleasing an all-knowing, always-watching, supernatural man in the sky who holds their very fate in his hands.

What do I suggest as an alternative to What's in The Bible?  What alternative means do we have to instill our children with morality, ethics, and compassion?  We can best serve our children by teaching them, in real world, non-supernatural terms, why it is important to treat others with compassion and respect, and why it serves society to act morally.  We can best serve our children by teaching them about the world around them -- its people (and their wide range of beliefs), its cultures, and its beauty. We can explain to them why humanity rewards compassion and honesty, and why harmful actions are rejected. We can even point to examples of this that predate monotheism.  We can draw from religion, for sure (religious literacy, after all, right?).  Many religious traditions feature wonderful stories that highlight the merits of being a moral person -- they are literature, after all.  But there are just as many, if not more, wonderful stories (or other means of teaching) that fall outside of religion, and which are just as effective (and which don't have those pesky raping, killing, slave-holding parts to avoid).

While many atheists and secularists believe that children should be shielded from religion, I tend to believe that they need to learn about it.  Our culture, especially here in America, is steeped in religion. Our wars are based partly on religious clashes. Clashes the world over have at their root religious disagreements.  To shield a child from knowledge of religion is not much different than shielding them from history or biology.  However, the key is teaching children about religion in the way that we teach them about different cultures. Muslims believe X. Buddhists believe Y. Christians believe Z. Etc., etc. Teach them that even within each religion, there exists an entire spectrum of beliefs. Teach them that religion can be used for good and evil, and provide them with examples.  And most importantly teach them that they can choose what (or if) they believe when they feel they wish to make that decision.  And most importantly, that they can change their minds.

So, I say, "Thumbs down, Phil Vischer." "Thumbs down, What's In The Bible."  I appreciate that you're not telling children that the earth is 6,000 years old, that people cohabited with dinosaurs, or that homosexuality is an abomination.  But I do think that you're putting blinders on children. (I also realize this might be your intention.)

If there were a way to groom children into a life of Christian exceptionalism, serving up religious dogma masquerading as a Nick Jr.-style musical puppet show wouldn't be the worst way to go about it.

Miss USA: Some Worry Evolution Questions Cause Anxiety and Compromise

The Christian Post has a piece about the controversy over asking Miss USA pageant contestants controversial questions, including those about evolution.

Agents and pageant directors believe that forcing contestants to answer questions about controversial topics, such as evolution, causes undue anxiety and intimidation.

Past contestants, however, haven't been particularly shy about their views on evolution:

While many contestants expressed an openness to include evolution in public schools, one contestant – Miss Kentucky Kia Ben-et Hampton – said that evolution should not be taught, alluding to the differing opinions expressed in the scientific and religious communities.

Miss Mississippi Keeley Patterson discredited evolution in her answer.  "I think evolution should be taught as what it is; it's a theory, so I don't think it should be taught as fact."

A few other contestants including Miss Nebraska Haley Jo Herold, Miss Alaska Jessica Chuckran and Miss New Hampshire LacyJane Folger answered affirmatively, but expressed their desire to see the other side – such as creationism – given equal time in the classroom.

Chuckran said in her answer,  "I think it's necessary that evolution is taught in schools ... However, personally, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that each one of us were (sic) created for a purpose by God and that just gives my life so much more direction and meaning."

Miss North Carolina Brittany York responded,  "I think it's great to get both sides of the story. I'm personally a Christian so I believe the Bible's version but you can't push opinions or beliefs on children so they need to know every side that's out there. So yes, I do believe that (evolution) should be taught but so should the other side of the story."

If there were ever a perfect vehicle for showcasing the ridiculousness of evolution-denial, it's the Miss USA pageant. We learned so much about maps from Miss Teen South Carolina in 2007. Sarah Palin, with her creative interpretation of the Paul Revere ride, appears to still have quite a bit of pageant blood running through her veins.

I don't mean to be so hard on pageant contestants. I realize that many of these women are intelligent, strong, and are competing because they want to compete. But I also realize that many of them have been indoctrinated as young children.

The concept of creationism, or Intelligent Design, is also a product of indoctrination. If a child were to grow up without hearing the fantastical stories of a 7-day creation of the earth, a man and woman forged from mud and bone, and a global flood, there would be no point in their lives in which it would be necessary, or wise, to accept those stories as true.  There are no credible universities that do not teach evolution as the bedrock of modern biology. There are no credible universities that teach creationism, or Intelligent Design as a plausible theory. And after all, evolution is only a theory. Like gravity. Not that many of these creationist beauty pageant contestants are pursuing a career in the life sciences -- good luck to those who are.

So, I say, let the contestants continue to wax philosophical on the topic of evolution. It's hilarious.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson