InterVarsity to publish pro-evolution book.

I really enjoyed this article from Inside Higher Ed that covers what the folks at the BioLogos Foundation are doing to fight back against Kirk Cameron's anti-Darwin campus hit squads. Cameron, if you haven't heard, is visiting secular colleges to give away a "special edition" of Origin of the Species, complete with an introduction that smears Darwin and uses pseudoscience to dismiss the impact of Darwin's discoveries. The folks BioLogos, meanwhile, are creating a series of pro-Darwinian workshops and science curricula for Christian colleges.

Most interesting to me was that BioLogos has signed a publishing deal for its defense of Darwin books with InterVarsity Press, a move that is sure to give critics pause. There are few organizations with better "Christian" credentials than IV. If they're willing to explore an alternate view of the science/faith debate, perhaps others will open their ears as well.

By His Stripes, The Insured Shall Be Healed (Five Unforgivable Arguments Against Real Health Care Reform)

Well, the public option more or less died this week, but it has continued to sicken me (pun intended) that the loudest voice against substantial health care reform has been the evangelical church. In particular, Christians on the right have fought the public option as socialism (and we all know Jesus was a clear capitalist). I personally refuse to take this fight sitting down, as I firmly believe that health care reform is not a debate of public policy, politics, or economics, but of moral imperative.

Below are five common (and in my view, unforgivable) arguments leveled against universal health care, along with my responses.

1. Health care is not a fundamental human right, it is a commodity.

I suppose this kind of claim is subjective and always open to debate, but if health care is not a fundamental human right, what on earth is? Thomas Jefferson started with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly health care is implied somewhere in there? How can my pursuit to be happy rank as more fundamental to my dignity as a human being than my pursuit to be healthy?

Health care reform is nothing if not an issue of life and death: people are dying. According to the American Journal of Public Health, 45,000 Americans die annually of diseases for which they need not die, simply because they cannot afford access to quality care. Where are the Right-to-Lifers on this critical threat to human life?

Why is health care treated as a commodity (or a luxury)? How is trauma care for a life-threatening injury or urgent treatment for a critical disease more like buying a new car or video game than like getting a fair trial or having the freedom to express oneself? Reason dictates that even the freedom of speech is a relative luxury compared to life-saving medical treatments. Why is the former a right in our country but the latter is treated as a commodity? That's simply irrational.

2. Your access to health care is not my responsibility.

This argument against health care reform, to me, is the most insidious. To speak plainly, I believe it to be evil. What do we call such blatant, self-serving callousness if not evil? It flies in the face of every moral lesson we try to teach our children, and for Christians, it certainly flies in the face of all of Jesus' teachings. Who can forget the Good Samaritan who made his enemy's trauma his own burden to bear?

For an even more explicit instruction from Jesus' teachings, let's take a scenic tour of Matthew 25: 31-46, shall we?

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Conservative Christians are quick to equate political action with moral action. Voting for someone who supports abortion rights or marriage equality for gays is the equivalent of condoning murder or sexual immorality for many. However, these same conservative Christians are willing to actively work against legislation that will heal the sick.

Make no mistake, people will suffer disease and people will die from lack of treatment if universal health care is not passed. Some people will recover and survive only to bear the burden of years of debt and financial ruin. From a Christian point of view, every single person who raises his voice against reform has played a part in those deaths, that suffering, that debt. "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me," Jesus said, and if you take that at all seriously, then you should take serious your responsibility to every American who cannot afford quality health care.

3. Your access to health care is not the government's responsibility.

This is one I hear a lot, and from Christians, it usually sounds like this: "Health care is not the job of the government. It's the job of the church." Whether or not it is the job of the church, the church is certainly not providing universal health care. Furthermore, had first-century Rome decided to provide all its conquered subjects with free quality health care, I cannot imagine a Jesus who would condemn such a thing. Jesus was not the kind of Son of God who would condemn a public good because it conflicted with the religious establishment's views of its role in society. Can you really imagine Jesus protesting universal access to quality health care for all Americans? Really? If your answer is yes, you believe in a Jesus I've never heard of.

Beyond the religious arguments, I've already written elsewhere on the self-evident common sense reasons why health care access is exactly the kind of thing our government is meant to provide. The Preamble of our Constitution claims as one of its principal purposes the promotion of the "general Welfare" of the people, and I can think of few things as essential to the general Welfare of every American than affordable health care access.

4.Universal health care is too expensive and doesn't even work in other countries.

This argument further states that everyone in those other countries wants to come here because they're jealous of our health care system, never mind that the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not offer government-provided health care.

Let's start by getting the first part out of the way: the U.S. spends far more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other industrialized nation, as well as more per capita. Meanwhile, FOX News reports (FOX NEWS, PEOPLE!) that Americans are far less satisfied with their quality of health care than the citizens of other countries. According to FOX News, "people in the U.S. face longer wait times to see doctors and have more trouble getting care on evenings or weekends than do people in other industrialized countries."

This gels with my personal anecdotal experience, having numerous friends living abroad or having come from countries with universal health care. To the person, they have rated their care and access as better in other countries.

Likewise, 65% of Americans favor the public option, along with 73% of doctors.

5. I've gone without health care in the past, and I was just fine.

Lucky you. Glad you didn't have cancer, a child born with congenital defects, or a spouse with a crippling injury. Clearly, 45,000 people annually are not as lucky as you (or 22,000, if you prefer a more conservative estimate). Whether 45,000 people die annually from lack of insurance or 22,000, it is too many.

Think of it this way, if only 22,000 fetuses were aborted annually, would that change your Pro-Life stance? If your answer is no, then why aren't you standing up for the thousands who die annually from lack of insurance?

Transgendered Methodist Minister Discovers the Power in Sharing His Story

Thanks to my friend Carrie for sharing this video:

Evolving Attitudes

My mother recently sent my eldest sister and I this interesting opinion piece in the USA Today from Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk, two college science professors who embrace both the fact of evolution and a faith in Jesus Christ. The main purpose of the article was to announce their new website, BioLogos.org, which they had created to offer a Christian alternative to such voices as the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the Creation Museum. My mother's forwarding of this article was provocative to me for a number of reasons, first of all being that my mom is Jewish, not Christian, and also because my sister is a very literal believer in the seven-day creation story of Genesis 1.

A few days later and for unrelated reasons, my sister forwarded me an email about the Great Faith Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza coming soon to UCF. The person forwarding the information to my sister signed off their email with the phrase, "Defeating Darwin, anyone?" which set me off a bit on a reactionary tangent about the purpose of true debate and how anyone interested in really being challenged in academic dialogue could do better than two such extremists as Hitchens and D'Souza, whose respective book titles are God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I know something about how such debates go. They are usually quite entertaining and maddening, but few in the audience walk away with anything more than their own biases confirmed and comforted.

After my initial reaction, I spent some time researching D'Souza, with whom I was less familiar than Hitchens. The thing that surprised me was that despite being a liberal-bashing right-wing extremist, D'Souza is also a Christian evolutionist who has written eloquently in defense of Darwinism in multiple venues, and one of his books is even on the BioLogos Foundation's list of recommended readings for Christians who wish to reconcile their faith with the scientific breakthroughs of the past century.

How fascinating is the human mind and its capacity for assumption? Whoever sent the email to my sister assumed that any case against an atheist like Hitchens must also be a case against Darwinism, and I jumped to the same conclusion -- a foolish one, especially given the thoughtful article from Giberson and Falk I had read only days before. Just because some evolutionists are atheists, it does not follow that evolution is atheistic.

As D'Souza himself has written, atheists such a Hitchens "are in a way confusing the two faces of Charles Darwin. They are under the illusion that to be an evolutionist is essentially to be an atheist. Darwin, to his credit, rejected the equation of these two stances as illogical even if he didn't always maintain, within his own life, a clear distinction between his science and his animus toward God."

I've begun to follow BioLogos on Twitter, and I've really enjoyed some of the science they've led me to, as well as some of the inspiration. To deny evolution to me is our generation's equivalence of denying the heliocentric model of the solar system (just watched Carl Sagan's fascinating account of the importance and difficulty of that revelation, which hey, is available free from Google video!). It continues to frighten me that some people of faith believe their God is so weak that we must bend science to justify his existence, just as we did in the dark ages. However, I take comfort that the conversation continues, and that many find spiritual beauty in the complexity of natural law.