There are many alt-right types who use IQ statistics to distinguish between groups of people, and yet they themselves do not seem to grasp statistics or even understand what IQ actually measures. They suggest their own lack of intelligence through this. And, given that their use of IQ is most often directed at those whom they deem to be inferior races and is what makes them feel superior, this is deliciously ironic.
Yes, certainly IQ does matter. But it matters in the same way that hitting a golf ball and bench pressing do as being a measure of overall athleticism. Sure, it does differentiate natural ability for those with equal training, and yet says very little about the inborn abilities of those coming from vastly different circumstances. In other words, I can out bench many bigger men who never saw a gym. But not because they couldn’t outperform me if they put the same time in. And, likewise, the kind of intelligence that IQ tests measure is built on practice.
No, IQ tests tend to focus on a kind of abstract reasoning that has no practical application for prior generations or those who are raised outside of an advanced economic system. My ability to reason through engineering problems may unlock earning potential in a very controlled environment and yet doesn’t mean I would survive a day in the Amazon basin or on the streets of Rio. So this assumption that my test scores prove something about my superiority is basically nonsense.
The really crazy thing about racial supremacist mid-wits (or at least those who I know of European ancestry) is that they will so often make fun of the pointy-headed intellectuals (those who outscore them in IQ while lacking street smarts) only to turn around and use IQ statistics to create a racial pecking order. I mean, if IQ is a reason for some to rule, why do these same people turn to wild conspiracy theories to explain why many Ashkenazi Jews are disproportionately more successful (academically) and in positions of power or influence? Why not just assume they are the next stage of human evolution?
The truth is culture and environment have a large part to play in our development. What is prioritized in homes and communities can make a huge difference in outcomes. If my dad was an attorney and I was sent to a prep school, I would probably be more likely to score higher and go further in pursuit of a professional career. Alternatively, if I was raised in a place where everyone was obsessed with track speed and achieving celebrity status, I doubt I would’ve grown up playing with Legos or visiting various museums with my parents. My own 97th percentile IQ was likely built on experience as much as anything else.
Lastly, it is worth noting that outliers do not tell us a whole lot. Interestingly enough, men are both smarter and dumber than women and this has to do with standard distribution or how the bell curve works. What this means is that there can be more or less diversity within categories. Or, put otherwise, some Kenyans being excellent long-distance runners doesn’t mean all are and this superiority of some Kenyans will tell us even less about those on the other end of the African continent. Too often we look at the cream of the crop (or bad actors) as an indication of the whole and yet group statistics never tell us about individuals.
If you read the Gospel narratives and get to the end of these books, you come across some very interesting passages. It is after the resurrection and right before Jesus ascends that we read this:
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
(John 20:21-23 NIV)
And according to St. Luke:
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
(Luke 24:45 NIV)
What strikes me, in both passages, is how this final transformative step took place after a long-drawn-out process of teaching and showing by example. Why go through this protracted effort if ultimately their minds needed to be opened by the Holy Spirit?
Furthermore, why even go through the centuries, from the time of Abraham on, leading these stubborn Israelite people, if the real plan is to send Jesus and rely on the power of the Holy Spirit? If all of this eighth day of creation could have been accomplished with God merely saying the word, why not skip steps A to Z or cut to the chase?
In the Beginning…
There are many who believe that anything other than a ‘literal’ interpretation of the word days in the first chapters of Genesis takes away from God’s power. In their mind it must be twenty-four-hour, the earth spinning a full rotation on its axis, days and nothing else.
Of course, knowing the little I do about language, and how words like “gay” can evolve from happy to men who prefer men, it makes very little sense to die on the hill of one particular translation from archaic language. It does not seem necessary to turn this into an either/or and especially considering that none of us were there to witness the events described. There is a sort of poetic metre to the opening chapter of Genesis, it could certainly suggest we could see this as a summary rather than something exhaustive.
All that the long way around to saying that this opening act of Scripture culminates at this moment:
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
(Genesis 2:7 NIV)
The interesting part is that this is the second account of the creation of man, whereas this is the first version of this significant event:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)
In the above account we have both male and female, or mankind, being created simultaneously on the “sixth day” and yet in the very next chapter we have Adam naming all of the animals, not finding a suitable match for himself amongst all of the creation, and this *before* Eve being formed. At best that was one heck of a long day, at worse the first two chapters of the Bible directly contradict each other.
Of course, then we get into what a “day” really is without a sun, as celestial bodies weren’t created until the fourth day according to the Genesis account. Time is not some immutable thing, it passes faster and slower depending on the reference frame, the Palmist tells us that a thousand years is as a day from God’s perspective. So I’m not sure what is gained by insisting on the one interpretation that most conflicts with the scientific evidence.
A Biblical Preference for Process
It does not take a deep dive into theology to realize the importance of ritual. Whether Namaan’s seven dips in the river Jordan before being healed, the march seven times around the walls of Jericho before they fell, or Jesus spitting in mud and rubbing it into a blind man’s eyes before the miraculous, there’s a distinct pattern of the creation doing and the God coming through to complete the work.
Maybe the repeating record of Scripture is trying to tell us something?
First, the elongated process does not eliminate or even diminish God. Sure, many of us want immediate results, we want everything to materialize, fully formed, rather than have to wait days, weeks, or years. And many do conclude after a prayer is not immediately answered or according to their own timeline, that this does rule out the possibility of God. But the clear Biblical pattern is that everything is always in the fullness of time:
So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
(Galatians 4:3-5 NIV)
St. Paul likens the spiritual transformation, made possible through Christ, to the two sons of Abraham—one of them the result of rushing the process and the other of truly Divine origin. The law is a foundation and yet not the fullness or complete fulfillment. Even now, even for the believer, we know we are not a completed work until that day we hear “well done, good and faithful servant!”
Cutting to the chase, the “formed a man from the dust” of Genesis doesn’t tell us much about the process behind that formation. But the “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” of Genesis does parallel with “he breathed on them” in the Gospel of John. The disciples, like Adam, had some kind of form prior to this transformation and enhanced spiritual life. The time they had spent with Jesus prior to their mind being opened was not purposeless.
God could have created without a process. Still, the overwhelming pattern appears to be that God catalyzes things that are already underway or set in motion. It would therefore not be all that surprising if forming out of dust alludes to an evolutionary process, which was finalized in Adam and this special spiritual life breathed into him.
What Makes Us More Than Animals?
Truly, in terms of biology, we aren’t different from animals, we have instincts that drive us, and can lose our humanity too. Indeed, we can be degraded to an animalistic existence through our actions and lose that element of being created in the image of God:
But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
(2 Peter 2:12 NIV)
So the Bible tells us about evolution (and de-evolution) from the perishable fleshly form or physical body to those are quickened in spirit and being transformed:
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
(1 Corinthians 15:42-50 NIV)
It is this spiritual component—this ‘breath’ of God both in Genesis and the end of the Gospels—that sets us apart from the animal. We’re essentially on the same journey as Pinocchio, who wanted to be a real boy, in this pursuit of the Divine transformation. We have evolved, even if not in the Darwinian sense, from that first cell in our mother’s womb to the learning of our childhood, and this is a creative process guided by the Holy Spirit from start to finish.
“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13)
Question: How to know the salt of a religion has lost its savor?
Answer: Religiously themed amusement parks that seem to be more about preserving pet dogmas (or boosting the ego of a charismatic personality who built them) than the actual Gospel preached by Jesus and lived out by the early church.
Encounters of the wrong kind send the wrong message.
This tourist trap of mammoth proportions might end up more like Bakker’s now derelict ‘evangelical’ pleasure mecca. It actually seems more like a dead end of fundamentalist dogma than it does a truly faithful living witness of Christian love.
And, at 40 dollars a pop to enter, it is evident that our modern expressions of grace are not cheap—we might have already encountered a bit of a messaging problem.
Finding answers in Jesus, not Genesis.
Yes, the Ark Encounter and other expressions of faith, like charitable giving, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But I see only one of the two endorsed by Jesus as an outreach and it is not the Genesis themed recreational Biblical tourism kingdom of Ham.
Perhaps, instead of creating hundred million dollar gimmicks, that may be as likely to win as many converts outside of blood relatives as Noah’s original did, we should be focusing our kingdom building efforts elsewhere? Could we do more to provide substantive help to those around us in need?
The problem with the modern ‘scientific’ attempts to bolster Biblical claims is that they often aren’t all that scientific nor do they well reflect the faith of Scriptural example. The Gospel of Jesus never needed to evolve or be adapted for our time. No, our time needs to adapted to actual life of spiritual reality that was once found in the early church:
“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)
The truth of our faith is the truth that we live. That is our strongest argument and apologetic. Jesus never said we should try to prove the historical accuracy of Biblical narratives as a means to covert others to faith or convince ourselves. Jesus said to live we he taught and then the Spirit would reveal itself in and through us.
There is no need of an edifice built of wood as an evangelical tool to share true faith. What there is need of is a body of believers who acts in unison as the hands and feet of Jesus. A church that literally feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, shelters the homeless, meets the practical needs of their own communities and leads in genuine love:
“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. […] The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (John 14:15-21)
The truth of our love for God (expressed in our obedience to love other people as Christ commanded) will reveal the truth of God to us and the world. It is really that simple.
Either Jesus is the answer or He is not.
I recall my own hope based in apologetics and my taught mistrust of mainstream science. I remember my own hopeful glances over at the secular neighbors, who attended an Evolution versus Creationism debate with my family, and at the time not realizing then that my own confirmation bias shaded glasses were as blinding as theirs.
It was a well-meaning yet misguided effort. My trying to prove Christianity through study of history and using theories (often more flimsy and unscientific than the ones they mocked) only left me thirsty for truth. My religious indoctrination actually caused me to doubt. The deeper I got into the available evidence the less I believed anything.
It was only through an encounter with Jesus that I realized the error in my ways. It was when I stopped resting in my own knowledge and started to live more obediently to the simple unadulterated teachings of Jesus. It has been a transformative spiritual experience that cannot be duplicated through intellectual, artificial or forced means.
If you want to encourage faith be faithful.
Save what you would spend on Ark Encounter, find someone in your own community with a need (perhaps a single mother or elderly person) and fill it—that will do more for the faith of your family than feeding Ham’s Answers in Genesis empire.
If you wish to encourage your children in faith, show them how to be salt and meet the needs of their neighbors in Christian love. That is the obedience to the law of Christ that will show them real truth and bolster your own faith.
If you have not encountered any real needs around you, then I pray you have an encounter with the Spirit of God and your eyes opened.
Here I go again talking about politics and religion. Well, truthfully, this post is more about ideas, inquisition, how stories are presented by the media and alleged bias.
It seems everyone complains about media bias. There is endless controversy over what stories get covered, how they are covered and why, with charges of favoritism from all sides.
I suppose I am just another voice adding fuel to that fire. But hopefully I add a bit of helpful reason and rational to the discussion rather than just one more partisan crying foul only when his own side is (in his own mind) treated unfairly.
Two things got me thinking about media bias. The first a couple cartoons and social media comments about the shootings in Chapel Hill that allege it was not being covered adequately. The second the off-topic questioning of an American politician and the way it was presented.
Ho-hum, no story here…
I first heard about the three students killed in North Carolina the morning after (as evidenced by my blog post yesterday) and on the CNN website via my smart phone. The shooting took place “just after 5 p.m. on February 10” and, according to the New York Times, it was early the next day before specific information was available about the shootings:
“In fact, the police did not release the names of the victims or the accused until after 2 a.m. Wednesday; Mr. Hicks turned himself in to sheriff’s deputies in Pittsboro, a few miles away, but it was not clear when. During a court appearance Wednesday, a judge ordered him held without bond. By that point, most major American news organizations had reported the story, but that did not slow the allegations of news media neglect.”
So basically a local homicide became a national news story overnight and that is likely something to do with the unusual nature of the crime. But many complained within that time frame that the story was being ignored and that this was an example of media bias. Here are a few examples I have found from those alleging media bias:
If anything the murder of these attractive and ambitious young Americans will receive more attention than similar cases. Beautiful people with promising futures are often are shown preference. Add to that the man who confessed to the murders is an outspoken atheist, the victims identifiably Muslim, and that feeds speculation.
Having myself been raised in a tradition (Christian) where women veil, and having a dear friend (Muslim) who dresses similar to those pictured, I couldn’t help but take interest and wonder if their appearance played a part. I have worried for my sisters and my Muslim friend because of prejudicial views I have heard expressed.
It is probably their appearance, the fact they were killed in the manner they were, the race and the views of the man, that made this a big story. It is understandable the Muslim American community can feel embattled at times and unfairly blamed for the acts of people who do not represent them (terrorists) and thus afraid of reprisals.
However, this case is not necessarily a ‘hate crime’ as some speculate. Yes, the shooter did openly share his views that blamed religious people for violence and (ironically) proclaimed atheism as the solution, but that doesn’t equal a motive.
From available evidence he seemed to be an unreasonable and angry man who may have murdered over a parking dispute. Whatever the motive, it is an act beyond my comprehension and I mourn with those who have lost loved ones to this senseless act of evil.
The other story concerns the Governor of Wisconsin (and potential candidate for President) who was on a visit to discuss trade with British officials. The story headline, “Wisconsin Gov. Walker refuses to answer evolution question,” centers on a question asked that has nothing to do with trade.
The question if Walker “believes in the theory of evolution” seems a rather odd thing to ask a politician. Doubly interesting is that the Associated Press writer felt it necessary to mention Walker’s faith and the occupation of his father, as if those two facts were relevant to the story:
“Walker, an evangelical Christian and the 47-year-old son of a Baptist preacher, also declined to answer a series of questions about foreign policy…”
I’m not really sure how his faith comes into play here, especially as it relates to the Governor trying to keep on topic of trade by not answering irrelevant inquisitions. Maybe somebody can explain the connection between his father and foreign policy, but I’m not understanding it.
What I do suspect, both as the reason scientific theory is being asked about and also why religion is being mentioned, is an attempt to construct a label or pigeonhole Walker. I think it is a classic example of dog-whistle politics in that the intend recipients are supposed to read between the lines and apply a particular stereotype.
The intent is likely to paint the fiscally conservative Walker to voters, who are tired of government expansion and yet not religious, as dogmatic and ignorant. I could be wrong, but when a story that should be about trade becomes one about refusal, theory of evolution and religion, there seems something to be amiss.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder…
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps bias is as well. What we think deservers more or less coverage is probably as much a matter of our own biases as it is of anyone else’s.
Muslims, understandably, take immediate interest when three who share their faith are killed ‘execution style’ by an irreligious man. Me, being a political conservative and religious, know too well the presumptions often made about those of faith and saw some sort of prejudice at work in the Walker story. We take notice when people we identify with in some way are targeted unjustly and we probably miss many instances that counter our own narratives.
The media is undoubtedly biased. The media is produced by people and people are inherently biased. But our personal biases also mess with our own perception of what is important and our judgment of presentation. We need to be as aware of our own potential biases to the same degree we believe others are guilty.