Calling all "offensive Christians"

Before you start sending hate e-mails, read on.

Amid the many blogs out there weighing in on Florida's heated debate over teaching evolution in schools, there's a new one called Offensive Christians that's caught our eye. Its author, who posts as "OC," writes that Christians need to go on the offense in the war of ideas: "We must not stand idly by only preparing to defend against the latest attack. We must seek positions to attack humanism, atheism, radical Islam, and 'arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ.'"

And OC has put out the all-call to Florida's offensive Christians, asking them to stand up for the "academic freedom" bill that Sen. Ronda Storms and Rep. D. Alan Hays have filed in the Legislature. It takes particular aim at the Florida Citizens for Science, which has led an active campaign to add evolution as a key standard (something many scientists across the country also advocated).

Florida Citizens for Science (as if Creationists like Newton, Pastuer [sic], Kelvin, Boyle, Kepler, Pascal, and Babbage were anti-science) is mobilizing the humanists to defeat this bill. You've got to get out there and counter their initiative if you want to be able to even discuss any scientific concerns anyone has with macroevolution. Florida Citizens for Science has a link tracking the bill and tips for contacting legislators. Wouldn't it be ironic if we used their link to track and ensure the passage of this bill? I think it would also be wise to read their background and talking points so we can make effective counter-points.

Florida Citizens for Science has, of course, already responded.

Funny. Many of our members are Christians. For example, our president is a deacon in his church and in the church choir. One of our board members is president of Pacesetters Bible School, Inc. Groups like Offensive Christians really need to get the message that our side of the fight is focused on science education. ... It's not about fighting for or against any religion. Unfortunately, many of those on the other side of the fight are focused on religion to a fault.

Don't want to take sides in this one. We'll just sit back, as reporters do, and watch the fireworks (and tell you about them). Probably tomorrow, when Hays shows Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" to his colleagues in Tallahassee. Ben Stein is even supposed to be there.

Comments

That's the ironic thing 5:28- many private schools teach evolution.

There's this thing.... it's called private schools. P-r-i-v-a-t-e s-c-h-o-o-l-s. You can do what you want and take all your kool-aid drinkers with you!

[Tom]

Snip - I've been characterized as a crusader, a scientific idiot, unChristian, a waster of money - snip

Yes, pursuing the pushing of religious belief into the school system is a recipe for wasting money.

Any effort to push ID/Creationism into the science classrooms will be countered by a lawsuit citing a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Existing case law shows time and again that trying to circumvent this important piece of the First Amendment will be struck down by Federal Courts.

It costs money for these things to go through the court system.

Money that will have to be pulled from education budgets around the state.

Which, of course, means LESS money for instruction.

All this because Fundamentalists can't understand that what protects science classrooms from being pulpits for personal beliefs is what keeps the government from telling churches what they can teach.

Again, OC, please teach creationism/ID until your heart's content at your church and in your home. But, leave science classrooms to science.

[Drew Smith]

Offensive Christian writes: "That's why I'm opposed to protecting Darwinism from criticism."

Nobody is attempting to protect "Darwinism" from criticism. However, many of us *do* want to protect science from non-science and pseudo-science. Don't you?

***

Offensive Christian writes: "I'm just an Offensive Christian™ who has scientific doubts about macroevolution"

What are these "scientific doubts"?

[Drew Smith]

Offensive Christian writes: "the fact that I'm a Christian only gives me the motivation to question macroevolution"

As the vast majority of those who accept evolution are Christians, I fail to see how your being a Christian gives you motivation to question "macroevolution".

***

Offensive Christian writes: "I disbelieve the religion of Evolution..."

Evolution isn't a religion.

***

Offensive Christian writes: "The dogmatic state-sponsored support of a flawed theory of origins and the religion of Humanism is a problem when opposing views are squelched without regard for the scientific merits of their objections."

How is the support "dogmatic"? How is the theory "flawed"? Where does "humanism" enter into this? What are the scientific merits of the objections?

***

Offensive Christian writes: "It seems unscientific to me to support a belief based on an a priori commitment to naturalism..."

There is no "a priori commitment to naturalism". Science offers only explanations based upon natural processes, but science makes no claims that only the natural world exists.

[Mike]

OC,

You may not think there is a grand conspiracy, but when things like the Wedge strategy surface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) you may want to second guess your thoughts. Personal beliefs aside, organized religion has been used for centuries to control populations. My implication was subtle, so let me voice it clearly. Young minds will take anything adults say with MUCH more blind belief than other adults. Both can be duped, but as society it is our responsibility to prevent such duping through the educational system. There is a difference in science and humanism. Both exclude supernatural explanations, though science excludes anything that is not measurable. Science, however, tends to be self correcting and ever changing.

Unfortunately for YEC and the likes, the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet is highly unlikely to change from evolution. Does that mean evolution is fully understood? No. But most of what we do know is almost definitely how things occurred based on all available evidence. It's not nice to propose a Pascal's wager as a reason to not accept evolution. Fear of the unknown is not a reason to doubt something else. What if should not come before what is.

[Offensive Christian]

Mike,

The subtle implication you make is that only a child would be duped into believing anything other than macroevolution. I disagree.

I don't think there is any grand conspiracy to inculcate all the nation's children into some cultish adherence to antiquated myths. I know others do. Worldviews are built early and I came from atheism to belief later in life. It was a hard road because I'd been fed all the humanist dogma. I believe in truth as you do. (I assume you do, else you wouldn't be concerned with convincing me or others of your beliefs.)I further believe that the immortal soul of each person hangs on a decision for or against Christ. That decision is personal and one that I would never force on anybody. I just don't want the dogmatic protection of a humanistic worldview to impede others to be saved from the consequences of living in a fallen world.

You see, I believe the world was made perfectly in the beginning and man goofed it up. I make mistakes, we all do. I believe God, who is beyond this universe, a primary cause, doesn't make mistakes and can't tolerate our selfish errors (sin). Something had to be done so His Son Jesus came and lived a perfect life and supernaturally rose from the dead after being made a perfect sacrifice to pay our debt for messing up the perfect creation. I believe everyone should be given the chance to hear that message and either believe it or not. The religion of Humanism as taught in our science classes through an exclusively Darwinian (Neo or otherwise) lens makes it rather difficult for people to make an informed choice on the most important question they will ever face.

That's why I'm opposed to protecting Darwinism from criticism. I'm not from Answers in Genesis. I'm not from the Discovery Institute. I'm just an Offensive Christian™ who has scientific doubts about macroevolution and acknowledges the possible eternal implications of overlooking those doubts.

OC

[Mike]

OC,

Just a question. I would agree with you that science is taught in a dogmatic aspect in and through the K-12 school system. However, would I be wrong in saying that it does not matter at that level as long as the dogma is reflective of field research done by scientists who hold a less than dogmatic view for the research they are doing? How this comes off to anyone that has followed the challenges to science (I'll refrain from calling them attacks, but they are definitely negative and sometimes deceitful) is an attempt to control developing minds by placing doubt to someone that doesn't know about the subject.

How can we reasonably say that we should let children decide when we haven't given them a foundation for what they are deciding about? This is pretty much the same reason voting occurs at 18 and older, they cannot fight in wars until they are 18, or why they are protected from so many other decisions until 18. The educational system prepares them to make critical analysis, it shouldn't be presenting it to them. College is a perfect place for these challenges, and yet, it is not the target for these views because unconvincing evidence is hard to pass on learned adults.

[Offensive Christian]

Jeff,

Thanks for the plug. First, my apologies to Pasteur, I can never spell French names:)

Wow. I'm overwhelmed. It really wasn't my intention to get you folks so upset. I was merely trying to get some support for what I believe to be a good cause. I've been characterized as a crusader, a scientific idiot, unChristian, a waster of money, and the list goes on. These attacks against me and my comrades are of no relevance to the debate at hand.

I would say, however, that I did not propose the legislation, I don't know Casey Luskin, and the fact that I'm a Christian only gives me the motivation to question macroevolution, not the reasons that I do. That is to say, I disbelieve the religion of Evolution based on scientific terms, not ideological.

I am sincerely sorry if my web site is off putting to many of you. It is an allegory, I believe our nation is in a culture war and worldview pervades everything. I may make some edits to soften the edges but I still believe we are in a war of ideas; and I'm sure that we can all agree that ideas matter.

I hold that too many Christians are marginal in their beliefs and do not have an understanding of the implications of their belief system. I agree with Gandhi, Christians need to be more like Christ. Christ relied on the word of His Father, not the changeable and fallible words of men. I don't ask that you agree with me. I don't expect you to. I am merely encouraging the Church and Christians to think about their beliefs and be ready to defend them.

The dogmatic state-sponsored support of a flawed theory of origins and the religion of Humanism is a problem when opposing views are squelched without regard for the scientific merits of their objections.

It seems unscientific to me to support a belief based on an a priori commitment to naturalism at all costs.

I've written enough for now. I'm sure I'll get an opportunity to respond to more attacks:)

OC

[Tom]

Yeah, that's downright American to teach all things and have people decide. That's why I am in favor of teaching:

* Creation in biology class
* Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in biology class
* The snake is the lowest form of life because it tricked Adam and Eve into eating that apple
* Diseases are caused by 'bad air' and the 'smiting of God'
* Adolph Hitler was just a misunderstood visionary
* Slavery was a good thing
* The Earth is flat
* Humans never landed on the Moon
* 9/11 Terrorist attacks were carried out by secret government agents because George W. Bush wanted to impress Jodie Foster.

And, once those things are taught, we should give all of the students ballots, and they can decide what they believe in.

Sounds rational, right? Let the majority have their vote to see what the truth - or the best understanding of what the truth - really is.

The only problem is that by teaching things that some folks believe is true and giving students the opportunity to 'weigh in' on what they believe, we are condemning them to a very bleak future.

Students around the country and the world who are being taught sound science (among other things) will take the good jobs, get the high-paying careers and squeeze out those who have been instructed by the well-meaning but misguided evangelicals trying to push their agenda down the students' throats.

Besides, teaching (Christian) creationist science is illegal - it is an attempt to establish a state religion - something strictly forbidden in the first amendment's establishment clause. That's why court after court - all the way to the Supreme Court - have struck it down.

[Drew Smith]

eloquentmind wrote: "It is American to show all popular sides and THEORIES, and let the audience decide."

According to whom? In the scientific community, the only popular theory is the theory of evolution. So what is there for the "audience" to decide?

***

eloquentmind wrote: "Teach evolution and creationism side-by-side, giving equal time to both."

Why does creationism deserve "equal time"? It was already replaced by evolution in the late 19th century, when scientists originally debated it. Why argue about it *again*?

***

eloquentmind wrote: "Don't sink to personal attacks on Christians for defending their rights"

What "rights" would that be? Is there a "right" to pretend that non-science is science?

***

eloquentmind wrote: "...just as scientists vehemently defend their rights to the point of pushing out creationism all together."

Scientists aren't "defending their rights". They are defending *science* against attacks by those who would replace science with pseudo-science and non-science.

***

eloquentmind wrote: "Why are the creation-haters so frightened?"

Who says that they are "frightened"?

***

eloquentmind wrote: "Why are they monopolizing the curriculum?"

They aren't. Many things are taught as part of public school curricula other than about evolution.

***

eloquentmind wrote: "I don’t see the mass majority of Christians calling for NO EVOLUTION taught in schools"

Ever heard of the Scopes trial? How about the Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas?

***

eloquentmind wrote: "Supporters of EVOLUTION are demanding no CREATIONISM in the classroom. Who’s really out of line?"

Those would teach religion as if it were science in a public school science class.

[Chris W]

eloquentmind, here's why that "argument" doesn't apply.

Things taught in science class get a high degree of credibility. It is incumbent on teachers and course designers to make sure that anything added to a science class has already earned its spurs (so to speak) in the lab and in the field. Otherwise, science class becomes the "fad-of-the-month" club.

Creationism and "intelligent design" fail this test miserably. Neither one explains data that evolution cannot, and both tend to confine themselves to pointing out (bogus) problems with evolution instead of making positive testable predictions of their own.

On top of this, creationists commit a number of really atrocious behaviors ranging from quote-mining and fantasizing to outright lying and hoping their followers are too besotted or scared to notice. "Intelligent design" theorists don't do this as much (because they need to pretend to be scientists) but their errors are just as numerous. Michael Behe is probably the most prolific generator of bad monographs and articles (misusing information theory, not bothering to read the literature in his own field before making sweeping pronouncements about the nature of systems, etc.).

Creationism, by and large, is a large-scale circle jerk. Its practicioners are sincere (some of them, at least), but they're sincerely wrong (and often they're spectacularly wrong).

[eloquentmind]

It is American to show all popular sides and THEORIES, and let the audience decide. Teach evolution and creationism side-by-side, giving equal time to both. Don't sink to personal attacks on Christians for defending their rights, just as scientists vehemently defend their rights to the point of pushing out creationism all together. Why are the creation-haters so frightened? Why are they monopolizing the curriculum? I don’t see the mass majority of Christians calling for NO EVOLUTION taught in schools… Supporters of EVOLUTION are demanding no CREATIONISM in the classroom. Who’s really out of line?

Squeal like a pig boy!!!!!!

[RB]

Cue the banjoes

[ugh]

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
~Gandhi

[Tom]

I have to wonder if they'll be donning medevil cloaks with crosses on them and charging off to defeat the infadels with swords and shields in hands. Oh, sorry, forgot, that was the Catholics. They've learned from their mistakes.

[Garbanzo]

Why is it that the religious zealots insist that we teach religious superstition in our public schools but don't want us to teach hard, proven science? Are we really headed back to the dark ages? Creationism has absolutely no basis beyond superstition. Please keep your religion in your head and in your church. It has no place in our public schools.

[Tom]

I saw this at another website... it was kind of interesting when describing the Bible as a scientific textbook:

The sun doesn’t orbit the earth. (Josh 10:13)
Insects don’t have 4 legs. (Lev. 11:20)
Hares don’t chew their cud. (Lev. 11:6)
Fowl don’t have 4 legs. (Lev. 11:20)
Eagles don’t carry their young on their wings. (Deut. 3:11)
The earth does indeed move. (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chron 16:30, Psalm 93:1)
Pi does not equal 3. (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chron 4:2)
The world is not flat. (Matthew 4:8)

What other lies in the name of 'academic freedom' are going to be shoved down the throats of our children?

[Jon]

Offensive is right, but not in the same manner they are going for. The podcast is scary, bullet fire sound effects in the intro. "We are in a war."

http://cdn4.libsyn.com/offensivechristians/2008-03-04-23-33-12.mp3

Apparently the first rev of the site had machine guns in the theme. How blind can they be?

[Tom]

This initiative makes me sad. It's so Christian to waste taxpayer's money to promote their own agenda.

Really, I'm sad about this...

[Jesus]

Jim, you are so right. Peace be with you.

[Jim]

Creationists are just people that haven't come to realize that there is NO MISSING LINK, otherwise, every other ape and monkey on the planet would have already evolved as well.

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

[Drew Smith]

So the sponsors of the bill repeatedly tell us that this bill isn't about religion, yet the organization apparently fighting hardest for its passage is called "Offensive Christians"? I see.

[kitty]

That has got to be the most unchristian thing I've read in my life.

[kitty]

yikes!