And He Became a Living Soul

I do not write in this blog very much about abortion, since I do not fully understand the issues. But I heard an interesting news report from South Carolina. Anti-abortion protestors stand at the top of the escalator in front of state senators’ offices and accost democratic senators who did not support the total ban on abortion that has just passed. Women senators have had objects slapped onto their backs, and protestors have sent children to run up to them and beg them to stop killing kids. If progressive protestors did this to Republican senators, for example regarding the death of the environment on which our lives depend, they would be jailed.

In one case, a Democratic senator knew more about the Bible than did the protestor. The protestor screamed that the Bible says abortion is murder. The senator, a woman, quoted the Bible back to him. Genesis 2:7 says that Adam became a living soul after God had breathed into him the breath of life. This implies that before a newborn breathes, it is not yet a living soul. Of course, nobody believes abortion is ethical right up to the moment of birth.

Genesis implies, but does not prove, that a fetus is NOT alive. The point is that this interpretation is just as valid as the other interpretations that the anti-abortion activists put upon it. The so-called Christian activists insist that their interpretation, and theirs alone, is correct. They will not permit anyone else to interpret scripture. Apparently God speaks through the Republican party, not through the Bible.

Only Republicans think they have the right to interpret the Bible. The Bible is their weapon, and nobody else can lay a finger on it. God is their God, not the God of the rest of us. Puh-raise Trump!

Religion Allows No Gray Areas of Uncertainty (as in Abortion)

Nearly everything on Earth (and probably every place else in the universe) has areas of uncertainty between opposites. For example, there are plants, and there are animals, but there are some protists that could be considered neither one nor the other.

But religion is in the business of creating absolute distinctions. You are either going to Heaven, or to Hell; something is either sinful, or it is not; there are the sheep, and the goats.

One recent example of the difference between science and fundamentalist religion involves abortion. I have written very little about abortion, since I know little about it, and my opinions have little validity. I will let other people get angry on one side or the other. I am more interested in the light band of grayness between the two sides. Here are two relevant stories.

A Texas couple looked forward to having a child and were overjoyed with preparation for its arrival. Then, mid-pregnancy, an unthinkable tragedy occurred. The woman’s water broke, and all the amniotic fluid was lost. The fetus was thus doomed to death. But Texas has a heartbeat law. Abortion is murder if a heartbeat is detectable. In this case, the fetus still has a heartbeat, and under Texas law a doctor cannot abort the fetus. The woman has to carry the fetus, which has no hope of survival (unless God performs a miracle), perhaps risking her own health, until the heartbeat stops, something that could take a long time. What kind of law would insist that a woman carry a fetus until it inevitably dies? Only a law that attempts an absolute definition of pregnancy and allows of no exceptions, that’s what.

In Ohio, a nine-year-old girl was raped, and became pregnant. But Ohio law forbids abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. She had an abortion in Indiana. What kind of law would force a now ten-year-old girl to carry through a pregnancy from a rape? This assumes that her body would even be capable of handling this. Only a law that attempts an absolute definition of pregnancy and allows of no exceptions, that’s what.

I am not saying whether or not a state should or should not have an anti-abortion law. But it is clear to me that individual exceptions must be allowed. But individual exceptions are something that fundamentalist religions will not allow.

The only thing I am absolutely sure about is that we can trust the women. A mother’s love is a force of nature. Mothers are not looking for a chance to kill their fetuses unless an old white man points a gun and tells them not to. Abortion is an act of desperation, as the above examples and thousands of other news items illustrate.

Among other things, life is about gray areas of uncertainty. An absolute light/dark distinction is a characteristic of death. Science fiction writer Clive Staples (C.S.) Lewis made this distinction in his Perelandra novels. In these novels, the forces of evil wanted to make everything black and white, as on the Moon; but on Earth, there is a lot of penumbra. Many religious fundamentalists today would side with Lewis’s forces of evil. But Lewis was a Christian and used to be, at least when I was younger, a very popular Christian writer. Times, apparently, have changed, or at least Christianity has.

For Conservatives, All Causes Are in the Service of Racism

 

I am a member of several organizations that defend the teaching of evolution against creationist attacks, including the Oklahoma Academy of Science (OAS) and Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE), both of which I am a past president. We have put a lot of effort into opposing creationism. If that was our main intent, then it was all a waste of time.

More recently, OAS and OESE has put a lot of effort into opposing global warming denialism. If that was our main intent, then it was, also, a waste of time.

It is even possible that the conservative Right to Life proponents do not really care very much about unborn babies.

Conservatives, I have come to believe, do not really care about creationism, or global warming denialism, or even anti-abortion causes. These causes merely serve to promote their ultimate extremist agenda, the central tenet of which is white supremacy.

Numerous recent events, some major but others largely unnoticed, illustrate my point. The act of domestic terrorism (so defined by the FBI) that led to the January 6 invasion of the Capitol was not people defending creationism, or global warming denialism, or the Right to Life. If you engaged any of them individually in conversation, they would probably proclaim their hatred of evolution, global warming science, and abortion. But their loud and clear message on that day was white supremacy. That’s what January 6 was all about. It was not merely some guys who flew off the handle in anger. Someone planted bombs on the same day. Their attack was planned. And it was white supremacist.

But consider the smaller things also. Donald Trump says things about global warming and abortion (he left creationism to Mike Pence). In connection with July 4, 2020, Trump said that “the American way of life began in 1492.” He thus dismissed any contribution from Native Americans, blacks, or Hispanic natives of the land that would only later become the southwestern United States. Rick Santorum is well known for his defense of creationism and opposition to abortion. But on April 23, 2021, he revealed his racism when he said that America was birthed [by whites] "from nothing” before dismissing Native Americans as having nothing to contribute to “American” culture. This caused something of an outcry in America, especially from chiefs of Native nations such as Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee tribe. But the reaction overseas shows that Santorum’s remarks contributes to an image of America as a bastion of white supremacy.

For both Trump and Santorum, white racism was the goal toward which all their other beliefs pointed.

By spending our time, as my fellow OAS and OESE members have done, on creationism and global warming, we are treating a symptom. And not even a real symptom; I suspect it is just a disguise to hide the white supremacist agenda. I urge my fellow science activists to consider that, while it is important to speak out that all races have a common evolutionary origin and global warming threatens all races, direct opposition to anti-evolution and anti-climate statements by conservative leaders is a waste of time. The conservatives can crank out misinformation a thousand times faster than we can dissect and carefully explain their errors. They already know their errors, as do their followers.

I have written five science books, all of which could be seen as opposing the conservative anti-evolution and anti-climate stand. But this was not their purpose. If I had structured any of these books as having anti-conservatism as their main focus, they would have been a waste of time. I have just published the sixth (and not the last) instalment of a series called “Creationist Funhouse” in the national magazine Skeptical Inquirer (see the table of contents for the previous articles here). Everyone who reads the magazine already know creationists are wrong. But I used a wry ridicule of creationism as an invitation to discover the wonders of fossils, molecular biology, and ecology. This, I believe, is why I have received such positive feedback about the articles. Nobody wants to see me scowl and say, “creationists are wrong,” but they want to smile with me and learn new things about science, things that creationists cannot allow themselves to enjoy. I urge my fellow science activists to proclaim the beauty of science and the worldview—which does not include white supremacism—that it promotes.

And I believe that OESE would consider the main purpose of teacher workshops on evolution and global warming (with help from the Oklahoma Meteorological Survey) to be helping teachers to enjoy teaching science more and raising a new generation of young people who share the joy of science. This is what OAS does also. Because we focus on the joy of science education, we have been successful.

I can only hope that white supremacism dies away, though I fear it will not. Every time I think it might be in decline, I see a new Confederate flag in my neighborhood in Durant, Oklahoma. But if white supremacism does die away, maybe it will take creationism and global warming denialism with it.

Of course, there are individual conservatives who are not racist. I know some, and so do you. Some are even black, such as Senator Tim Scott who told viewers after President Biden’s April 28 speech that America is not a racist country. (I cannot find any links to this event that does not require you to subscribe to a newspaper.) But it is not the moderate Republicans who have the most guns or who reached their most recent climax on January 6.

This article represents my viewpoint and has not been endorsed by OAS, OESE or any other scientific organization.

Trust the Mother

One of the most divisive political issues is abortion rights. I am a scientist, and I can tell you that there is no single point in embryonic or fetal development in which the unborn child “becomes human.” It depends on the indicator that you use: heartbeat, brain activity, etc. all begin at different times. There are even three events that occur during “the moment of conception.” As a result, I have no scientific opinion about “when life begins.” Nor will I speculate about morality or politics. But I do have some scientific insights that you might find useful.

Love evolved. Love is, from the evolutionary point of view, the instinct for helping and protecting other animals in your species. Natural selection has favored animals that protect their offspring. In this way, they maximize their reproductive success. If you want to know more, search for information about inclusive fitness. The most famous examples are from insects such as bees, ants, and termites, and among mammals such as ourselves.

The strongest love in the natural world is the love between a mother and her offspring. It is a force of nature. If you get between a mother bear and her cubs, it might be the last thing you do. This is because the cubs are the mother bear’s entire genetic future. Human mothers are no less motivated to protect their young, including those not yet born, than any other species of mammal.

In the animal world, a mother’s love is, on the average, stronger than a father’s love. The reason for this is because the mother always knows which offspring are hers, but the father cannot be certain. Every ounce of effort that a mother puts into nurturing and defending her young is well spent, but for the father, there is the lingering subconscious question about whether the offspring are his. (“Mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe.”) Genetic tests, in humans and birds, show that some of the offspring in the nest or the home, which the father supposes to be his, are not. The offspring may not be the father’s entire genetic future. Most of us fathers love our children, but on the average, mothers love their children more.

And a mother loves her offspring, including those not yet born, more than politicians do.

Given that a mother’s love is the strongest love in the natural world, I believe we should trust the instincts of an individual mother. The idea that pregnant women are eager to kill their unborn children unless white men pass laws and tell them not to is ridiculous. Maybe we should trust the mother to make the right decision regarding her unborn offspring.

Religion vs. Science, the Vast Gulf Part Eight: Where Babies Come From

The most widely and deeply held conviction of religious conservatives is that life begins at conception. They believe that the Bible says so. Of course, it does not. The reason is that, back then, and for over a millennium after the Bible was written, nobody knew about sperm and eggs. Everybody thought that babies grew from the man’s “seed,” which is the literal meaning of “sperm,” which he planted in the womb of a “fertile” woman, as a farmer plants seed in a fertile field. When spermatozoa were first observed under a microscope, scientists imagined they contained little humans (homunculi). Since many ancient people had actually seen spontaneously aborted fetuses, they knew that a developmental process occurred, under the direct control of God (“He knit me together in my mother’s womb,” Psalm 139:18). (We will leave aside the question of whether it is literally a process of knitting.)

I tell my biology students that science cannot tell them when life begins. There isn’t even a “moment of conception.” There are three: when the first sperm penetrates the egg membrane; when meiosis is completed; and when the sperm and egg nuclei join. And then everything that we associate with human physiology (brain activity, heartbeat, etc.) begins at a different time during fetal development. If you want to believe human life begins at conception (perhaps the third moment of conception), no scientist can prove you wrong. But if we had only the information in the Bible to go on, we would not even be having the discussion.

It is tragically humorous that religious conservatives seem to have a self-imposed vagueness about where babies come from. It is not exactly a well-taught part of home-school science. Young teenage girls are taught to not sleep with their boyfriends, as part of abstinence-only education. But the Bible belt leads the nation in births to unwed teen mothers. Rick Perry’s protestations aside, abstinence-only education does not work. I heard that one Texas teen said she did not know how she became pregnant because she only had sex with her boyfriend; she did not actually sleep with him. (This story may be apocryphal; but the statistics are not.)

By now everyone has heard about Rep. Todd Akin’s statement that during “legitimate rape.” He said that in certain instances, such as legitimate rape, a woman’s body can shut down a pregnancy. While many people, including myself, ridiculed Akin’s statement, let me stick up for him in just one small way. He was probably remembering, back during a biology class somewhere, the Bruce Effect. This occurs when a pregnant female, exposed to the hormones of a new male, spontaneously aborts the fetus sired by a previous male. Many rodent and primate species do this. According to a recent paper in Science, spontaneous abortion in one monkey species benefits the female as well as the male, assuming that the alternative is that the new male would kill the babies, which is the brutal truth for many species such as lions. So maybe Akin was remembering more of his biology class than most other elected representatives. (A little learning, said Alexander Pope—not to be confused with Pope Alexander—is a dangerous thing.)

Clearly people back in Bible times considered the development of a baby in the womb to be miraculous. Modern physiology is a threat to Biblical literalism because it says otherwise.