Unworthiness, and the Prodigal Who Played by the Rules

There were interesting discussions at my church's Bible study last night.  We talked about such topics as the challenges and difficulties in interpreting the Bible, people who have been released from mental institutions who cannot get on their feet, and the challenges of dealing with hospital bureaucracies.  "You almost have to be your own advocate in these hospitals," someone astutely said.  Of course, that's not easy for everyone!  There seemed to be a humility and a compassion in the group's discussions last night.  That, in my opinion, is better than its discussions about why we need to put prayer in school!

I'd like to highlight two issues from last night's Bible study.  First of all, there was a lot of emphasis on our unworthiness.  We read the story of the blind man who cried out to Jesus for mercy, and Michael Card was saying that mercy is someone giving us what we do not deserve.  This doesn't particularly resonate with me, to tell you the truth.  I can understand that I should not have a huge sense of entitlement, since that will lead to disappointments, and it will get on people's nerves as well.  I also recognize that I have my share of flaws.  But why should I say that the blind man did not deserve to be healed?  He's a human being created in God's image.  Doesn't he deserve a whole life?  Don't all of us?  I just have problems with the standard Christian spiel that we should all be so grateful that God has not snuffed us out for our sins.  While I realize that I have my moral flaws, I have a hard time seeing myself as some kind of worm, who should be happy with whatever table scraps God decides to give me.  Then again, come to think of it, there are a few times when I do feel like a worm, but that is when I have done something that I regret, not because I'm trying to brainwash myself to accept some theological spiel or script.

Second, the workbook asked us which son we identify with in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son: the younger brother, who went out and spent all his inheritance money on fun, then humbly returned to his father; or the older brother, who stayed behind with his father and followed all the rules, and was resentful when his father welcomed back the prodigal son and threw the prodigal son a party.  To be honest, I have a hard time putting myself in either box.  I wasn't a wild kid, but I played by the rules.  I did well in school, read my Bible, etc.  But I can't go to the other extreme and paint my life as one of perfect rectitude, so, while I can understand the older brother's reaction, I don't exactly resent those who made bad decisions and are trying to get their lives in order.  I suppose that I characterize myself as one who played by the rules, and yet, as I look back, even then I had problems, some of which I wasn't even aware were problems. 

Reinventing Richard Nixon 8

I finished Daniel Frick's Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession.  In this post, I'll use as my starting-point something that Frick says on pages 222-223:

"...Dallas Boyd, who has developed a fascination with Buddhism, theosophy, astrology, and channeling, has come to believe in an authentic Richard Nixon who exists outside the man's physical shell.  Through his intense identification with the role he plays on stage, Boyd has been inviting this genuine Nixon into the actor's body.  Enticing this spirit to experience the play might permit the man's tortured soul to slough off the 'prejudices and stubborn self-images' that imprisoned the historical Nixon throughout his life.  The point of all Boyd's efforts of these past fourteen months, he comes to realize, is to provide some form of expiation for the disgraced former president: 'I've already forgiven myself.  It's all for Tricky Dick from here on out.'  As he prepares for his performance each night, Boyd meditates, channeling all of Nixon's 'anger and hatred,' transforming it into 'the most peaceful, wonderful feelings.'  Exploring Nixon's guilt permits the actor to realize that Nixon's chance to exorcise the demons of his past might redeem us all.  As Boyd, transformed into Richard Nixon, makes his entrance on stage, the walls and ceiling of the theater evaporate.  The stars of the Milky Way shine overhead while, below, the dead from Cambodia and Kent State join the audience, along with Pat Nixon and the actor's dead lover.  Together, all these imperfect people, 'as flawed as Dallas, as flawed as Richard Nixon,' desire simply 'a glimpse of the truth.'  And that release, through Boyd's spiritual performance, seems only moments away."

Frick is talking here about the short story "Nixon Under the Bodhi Tree," by Gerald Reilly.  The story is about a forty-three year old homosexual actor named Dallas Boyd, who is going to play Richard Nixon in a one-man show.  Boyd is getting rave reviews, but he is finding that he is too tired for the two-hour performance, since he is in the late stages of AIDS.  Also, Boyd learns that Richard Nixon has recently died.

I don't know if Boyd is literally channeling Nixon, in the sense that Nixon's spirit is possessing him, or if "channeling" in this case simply means that Boyd is really identifying with his character.  I am not a supporter of channeling, but the image of healing, redemption, and reconciliation in the midst of human imperfections is beautiful in the passage that I just quoted.

The passage reminded me of something that Frick said near the beginning of his book.  Frick was discussing Richard Nixon's funeral, and he noted that evangelist Billy Graham in his sermon at the event likened Richard Nixon to Saul.  Frick describes Graham's sermon as follows:

"Reading the noted Hebrew Bible scholar Ernest Wright's characterization of the first king of the Israelites evokes an unsettling case of reverse [deja vu]:  'Saul had some fine political successes, but he seems to have possessed a certain instability of character.'  By conjuring up this tragic figure of a man who could have been a great king had it not been for 'an evil spirit from the Lord [that] tormented him,' Graham reminded us of Richard Nixon's presidential accomplishments while calling us to mourn that he had succumbed to his demons.  At the same time, Graham insisted, the nation must cease to condemn Nixon, because 'in the end the only thing that really counts is not how others see us here, but how God sees us' (Services, 18).  Pronouncing that he believed Nixon was now in heaven, Graham attempted to complete the process of spiritual healing by forever taking the power to judge the former president out of the secular realm and by aspiring to inter not just Nixon's physical remains but also the uneasy spirit of his political legacy that had haunted recent American experience."

I've long felt sorry for Saul because he had his inner demons, and he came to a bitter end.  He's a tragic figure.  II Samuel 7:15 even goes so far as to say that God removed his mercy from Saul.  Does this call into question God's unconditional love for each and every human being?

I like the themes of healing and reconciliation.  I would like to think that everyone, regardless of who he or she is, will experience that.  But some might think otherwise.  Alger Hiss, the man Nixon claimed was a Communist spy, said that Nixon went to his grave with sins un-atoned for.  Does believing in some healing, reconciliation, or mercy in the afterlife entail assuming that sin and whom it hurts does not matter, that God is a God of cheap grace?  I don't think so.  Even a number of universalists will say that there may be discipline and purgation of sin in the afterlife for those who are in "hell."  I believe, though, that it's a positive thing to hope that people will arrive at a state of happiness, inner healing, and reconciliation with others.  We were born into this world, and some had a harder road than others, which may have influenced how they turned out.  All of us had made poor choices, for different reasons.  We all need mercy and healing.

Wisdom from Josh McDowell on Unbelievable

As of late, I haven't been able to get enough of the radio program Unbelievable?, a Christian British program that is hosted by Justin Brierley.  Brierley has on prominent Christian apologists, scholars, and thinkers, as well as non-believing writers and scholars.  Among some of the guests who have appeared on the program are William Lane Craig, Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, Bart Erhman, atheist John Loftus, John Hick, and the list goes on.  (I've also enjoyed listening to guests whose names I did not know previously, but who have interesting things to say: I think of Holly Ordway, an academic, who wrote a book about her conversion from atheism to Christianity, and who is updating that book because of her later conversion to Catholicism.)  The program has also had episodes about world religions, in which Christians discuss (say) Islam or Buddhism with a Muslim or a Buddhist.

What particularly impresses me is that the discussions are generally respectful.  Yesterday, for example, I was listening to an episode about the religious right, which had on a British Christian who was a socialist, a British gentleman who was part of a political party that is socially conservative yet economically progressive, the emergent Christian Brian McLaren, and someone from the right-wing American Family Association.  You would expect for sparks to fly on that episode, and, on some level, they did!  But each of the guests made reasonable, albeit different, points, and, overall, they seemed to me to be respectful to one another.  It was an intelligent conversation, not a shouting match!

I was listening to one of the programs, and it had on the Christian apologist Josh McDowell, as well as a skeptic.  I was rolling my eyes at a lot of McDowell's arguments (especially the one about Jesus fulfilling a bunch of prophecies), but I had to admire his skill as a debater.  He knows his spiel and how to articulate it!  Anyway, after experiencing the ordeal of listening to him mop up the floor with the skeptic (who asked valid questions, but who I wished had manifested more familiarity with the relevant issues, while making his points in a crisper manner), I suddenly heard McDowell say something that changed my outlook on life for the rest of the day.  He was saying that it's his responsibility to tell people about Jesus, but that it is up to them what to do in response to that.  And, he went on, even if a person chooses not to believe in Jesus, that will not affect how he treats that person, for that person is created in the image of God and deserves respect and love.

That really ministered to me.  I am the sort of person who cannot stand a lot of people, especially people who see things differently from me.  But McDowell was sharing another way of seeing the situation: I should respect people's right to make their own decisions, and how I treat them should not be conditional on whether they do or see things my way.  Revolutionary, isn't it?  Well, right now, I think I can do that, but who knows if that sentiment will last!

Reinventing Richard Nixon 7

In my blog post today about Daniel Frick's Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession, I'll use as my starting-point a passage on pages 167-168.  There, Frick states:

"For liberals, Richard Nixon serves as more than an easy target----he functions as a touchstone for the validity of their values.  In 'Angst for the Memories,' a September 1993 episode of Murphy Brown, a situation comedy about a 60 Minutes-like television newsmagazine, Murphy (played by Cand[i]ce Bergen) lands an interview with the reclusive author of a landmark 1960s novel, Technicolor Highway.  The excitement of this scoop fades when Murphy discovers that her literary hero has become a virulent neoconservative.  Commiserating afterward at their favorite tavern, Murphy and her co-workers admit that they too have changed.  One by one, these denizens of the liberal media offer confessions----one now believes that many welfare recipients are lazy, another has considered purchasing a gun----until one of them cuts to a final test: 'Does anyone here think Nixon might have gotten a raw deal?'  Instant denials reassure them, and, with great relief, Murphy and her colleagues clink glasses, toasting, 'At least we've still got that,' affirming Nixon's villainy as their one bedrock belief."

I checked the Internet Movie Database for this episode, and I noticed that Martin Sheen was on it.  I wonder if he was the actor who played the author who became a neoconservative.  It would be cool if he was!

Change.  I'm interested in shows that depict a change in one's ideology or religion, whether that change be from right to left, or from left to right, or from either extreme to someplace in the middle.  I was intrigued when I read a description of an episode of Family Ties, "My Back Pages," which was during Season 5: "An old college friend comes to Steven to ask his help in starting up an old left wing political magazine, 'The Scavenger.' But after hanging around with the other staff, Steven realizes he no longer has the same ideals he had back in the 1960's, fearing he has accepted the middle of the road thinking he protested against as a youth."  What specifically was Steven's ideological change?  Essentially, he came to support the PTA, and he voted Democratic rather than taking the radical approach of rejecting both parties.

Frick elsewhere in his book talks about people's ideological changes.  There was Ron Kovic, whose belief in American myths about America being the good guys and the good guys being winners were undermined by his own experience in Vietnam, along with its aftermath.  There is another Vietnam vet Frick quotes, who said that he realized that the American soldiers in Vietnam were like the Redcoats during the American revolution, the ones who were depicted to him as evil back when he was a child.

A conservative relative of mine once told me that more liberals become conservatives than vice-versa, as if liberalism is naive idealism, whereas conservatism is a more realistic, "grown-up" perspective.  But my conservative relative is wrong, I suspect, in saying this, for I know a number of conservatives who became liberals as a reaction against the extremism of the Tea Party.  While I believe that the inefficiencies and intrusiveness of government can convince a liberal to question his or her faith in big government and to become a conservative, I also think that a conservative can lose faith in the tenets of conservative mythology, as they shatter against the brick wall of reality: that everyone has a chance to succeed in America, that many who are poor are poor due to lack of effort, or that America is consistently a force for good in the world.

A problem that Frick highlights more than once in this book is that liberals have not successfully replaced the widely-accepted conservative mythology with their own narrative that can catch on.  There may be some truth to what Frick is saying.  I can think of reasons that cause me to doubt his sentiment.  For example, liberals are good storytellers in terms of crafting populist narratives.  Which is more inspiring: the little guy taking on a big corporation that is polluting his area's water supply, or a corporation resisting big government regulations?  I suppose that Atlas Shrugged is a fairly good story, even though it's in the latter category, and yet I find the former narrative to be more widespread and inspiring.  Championing the downtrodden against the rich and powerful makes for good storytelling.

But I cannot deny that conservatives have crafted quite an influential narrative.  During the debate on Obamacare, a liberal I know was complaining that, although Democrats were in power at the time, conservatives had still managed to shape the debate about health care.  We were hearing, and many were assuming, standard conservative lines about the issue: that government-run health care is a bad thing, that the Canadian health care system is terrible because it has long lines, and the list goes on.

One problem, if you will, with the liberal narrative may be that it just does not resonate with a number of Americans.  That does not mean that the liberal narrative is necessarily false, but rather that it's not what many Americans may want to hear.  In a country that prides itself on rugged individualism and pioneer spirit, many may not want to hear about community, or the importance of society taking care of the least of these.  In a country that sees itself as a force for good in the world, many may not want to hear the argument that America does not consistently do good when it comes to its intervention in other countries.  I realize that my definition of "liberal narrative" here is rather simplistic, since there are times when a liberal might support American interventionism into other countries, whereas a conservative may not.  But it is often those on the left who question the assumption that America is a force for good in the world.

Anyway, that's my rambling for the day!

Reinventing Richard Nixon 6

My latest reading of Daniel Frick's Reinventing Richard Nixon challenged the revisionist claim that President Richard Nixon significantly advanced the well-being of African-Americans.

According to Frick, more public schools became desegregated when Nixon was President simply because Nixon was enforcing the Supreme Court decision of Alexander v. Holmes County.  Frick states that "Put simply, Nixon had no choice but to act as he did" (page 155).  On page 158, Frick notes that the unemployment rate for African-Americans jumped from 6.4 percent in 1969 (when Nixon became President) to "as high as 10 percent in 1972" (page 158).  Frick also states that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1974 (Nixon's last year in office), 22.6 percent of African-Americans between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four were in poverty.  African-American men between 1969 and 1979 merely gained $21 for every $1,000 that white men earned, whereas they had gained $82 between 1959-1969.  Frick then notes that the ten years after 1969-1979 (the decade that would include the Reagan years) were even worse in terms of the gain in African-American income in comparison to what white men made: it was $22.

Joan Hoff, in her revisionist book Nixon Reconsidered, offers other, more positive statistics.  On page 97, she refers to independent surveys that Nuestro Business Review and Black Enterprise conducted in 1981, which showed that "56 of the top 100 black firms had been established 'between 1969 and 1976, 30 of them in the years of 1969 through 1971 when the federal minority enterprise program [under Nixon] was being launched.'"

I did a search on the African-American poverty rate.  I could not find specifically the poverty rates by year for African-Americans between the ages of 18 and 64.  Here and here, though, are charts about the African-American poverty rate over the past five decades, or so.  Essentially, during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, the African-American poverty rate plunged dramatically, though it still remained in the double digits.  Under Nixon, it increased slightly, then decreased slightly, then increased slightly again, and then decreased.  It would later make a dramatic rise under Carter (probably due to the recession), and it continued to rise under Reagan until 1983 or so, when it fell.   Through all of this time, it was in the double digits.

UPDATE: On page 267, Frick states: "Even Nixon's successes in affirmative action served this scheme.  [Presumably, the scheme is taking political advantage of divisions.]  The Philadelphia Plan, which worked to increase the number of blacks gaining unionized employment in the construction industry or the administration's program to give a predetermined number of federal contracts to businesses owned by minorities allowed Nixon to pit blacks against organized labor."

Reinventing Richard Nixon 5

On page 126 of Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession, Daniel Frick states:

"In the first months of 1991, when the United States led a UN coalition of forces to free Kuwait from an invading Iraqi army, George H.W. Bush, flushed with 89 percent approval ratings in a New York Times/CBS News poll, boasted, 'By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.'"

I was in Junior High School during the first Gulf War.  What the above passage brought to my mind was the fact that I grew up when the United States was recovering from the Vietnam War.  I grew up in the 1980's, which some present as a time when people were either reinterpreting or trying to forget what happened to the United States in Vietnam.  But people around me did not forget.  The TV shows that I watched were set in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.  Family Ties featured Steven and Elise Keaton, who were both flower children during their younger years.  And Highway to Heaven had a couple of episodes about people recovering from Vietnam: one was about a veteran who had been paralyzed in that war and was having difficulties getting dental coverage from the VA, and another was about a father whose Missing-in-Action son was found to be dead, and Jonathan and Mark were encountering challenges as they tried to raise money for a scholarship fund in the son's name.

On a personal level, my Mom would tell us about the military draft, and the very concept (quite frankly) scared me.  My Dad also occasionally talked about the draft lottery.  I also had teachers who were in college during the Vietnam War.

I guess that we as a country were still recovering from Vietnam when the 1991 Gulf War broke out.  And yet, then again, we were probably getting more accustomed to military intervention.  Reagan sent troops to Grenada, and there was Bush I's invasion of Panama.  But I don't think that those things completely alleviated the fears that many Americans had.  I wasn't old enough to be drafted, but I felt a sense of relief when President George H.W. Bush said on television that the soldiers in Desert Storm would be all-volunteer.

We ended up winning the first Gulf War, and more than one person heralded the end of Vietnam Syndrome----the fear that we had of interfering in other countries because that could lead us to become embroiled in a situation like the Vietnam War.  But were we truly healed?  I know that I was afraid when I was in college and there was discussion about the U.S. intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo.  Although the positive outcome (for the U.S. at least) of the first Gulf War led many to support George W. Bush's Iraq War----Sean Hannity, after all, predicted that the U.S. would win, and the liberals would then be applauding the returning troops because "Everyone loves a winner"----there were a number of protests against the impending war.  Largely, they were by people who hated George W. Bush.

I reflect on my experiences growing up when America was recovering from the Vietnam War.  And yet, I was an actual adult when we were in other wars: the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I wonder what impact those wars have on young people, or will have on succeeding generations.

Book Write-Up: Scientists Confront Creationism

Laurie R. Godfrey, ed.  Scientists Confront Creationism.  New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1983.

Scientists Confront Creationism contains essays by scientists, anthropologists, and others that attempt to explain and critique young-earth creation science.  I have seen this book in libraries for years, but only recently did I decide to read it.  Because the book is from the 1980's, it has references to Ronald Reagan, and the creationists who are criticized include Henry Morris and Duane Gish.

I am not a science person, so I cannot claim to have understood everything (or even most things) in this book.  There were cases in which the arguments of both creationists and evolutionists went over my head.  But, in contrast to my recent reading of Gabriel Vahanian's The Death of God (see my post about that experience here), I did not feel totally in the dark when reading Scientists Confront Creationism.  I could understand what was going on: creationists were appealing to science to make certain claims, and evolutionists were attempting to refute those claims by depicting the creationists' understanding of the issues as limited or outdated.

I found the book to be a good resource in terms of addressing prominent creationist claims.  One creationist claim that I have heard, for example, is that the earth must be young because the magnetic field has been decaying, and it would be gone by now if the earth has been around for millions of years.  The response that this book gives to that argument is that the magnetic field does not just decrease, but it also fluctuates, meaning that it has not experienced an inexorable decline over the years.

Another creationist argument is that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics: whereas the second law supposedly states that nature tends towards increasing disorder, evolution is an example of increasing order.  The response to this argument, if I understood it correctly, is that such an understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is incomplete, for there are cases of increasing order within nature.  The second law of thermodynamics does not exclude such a possibility, the argument that I read was saying, for it allows for increasing order when there is assistance from outside of the system, plus its claim is that there has to be more movement towards disorder than movement towards order, not that movement towards order cannot exist.  John W. Patterson states on page 101: "As long as the downhill flows, off of which [the uphill flows] feed, exceed the build-up or construction processes, no violation of the second law is involved." 

Yet another creationist argument is that evolutionary explanations tend to be circular: they argue that there is evolution on the basis of the succession of animals in the geologic record, then they date the succession in reference to evolution.  A couple of the essays in the book retorted that the succession of animals in the geologic record was seen and acknowledged before Darwin's theory of evolution even existed.  While these essays said that there may be cases in which a newer layer is underneath an older layer (when one would usually expect the opposite), due to an earthquake, for example, they do not believe that this overthrows scientists' argument that earlier species are deeper in the ground than later species, for one can often identify when there are exceptions to the rule and account for them. 

A couple of essays in the book seek to correct misconceptions about evolution, some of them held by certain evolutionists themselves.  Often, one hears the argument that less complex animals are older and deeper in the ground, whereas more complex animals are newer and higher.  Some creationists attempt to account for this alleged phenomenon through an appeal to the flood of Noah: the more complex animals were able to reach higher ground when the flood was occurring, and that's why they're higher in the ground!  Two of the essays in the book, however, dispute the idea that more complex animals are necessarily later, while less complex animals are necessarily earlier, for this is not always the case.  There are, for example, less complex animals that are later.  One essay, if I read it correctly, was disputing that evolution consistently moves in the direction of complexity.

The essays in the book maintained that creationism was inadequate and flawed.  As on the evolutionist web site talkorigins, there is a kind word said about creationist Robert Gentry, yet an essay goes on to note an example of Gentry having to retract one of his articles.  On creationism, one essay in the book argued that creationism is nebulous about what a "kind" is.  Genesis 1 presents God creating "kinds" and commanding the animals to reproduce according to their kind, and there are creationists who have argued that, while there may be microevolution that occurs within a kind, there is no evidence for macroevolution, in which an animal of one kind becomes an animal of another kind.  The problem, according to this one essay, is that there are animals within the same species who cannot reproduce with each other.  Are these animals indeed part of the same kind, or did God create them all separately, and all of them somehow fit onto Noah's ark?  

But, to my surprise, there were also essays in the book that struggled somewhat with evolution.  It's not that they denied its facticity, for they noted evidence for it: fossils of animals that are different from what exists today, skeletons that are human-like and also ape-like, and similarities between animals that, when mapped out, are consistent with the evolutionist hierarchy of development and taxonomy.  But some of the essays puzzle over why there are not too many fossils of intermediate species (they exist, but even Darwin wondered why they didn't exist in greater number), or how one can explain the sudden appearance of certain species.  Punctuated equilibrium and the rarity of fossilization are solutions that are explored in this book.

Those are examples of the book's scientific angle, and I hope that I expressed them accurately!  The book also had a decent humanities component.  I enjoyed the essay about populism and its relationship with anti-evolutionism.  Populism was a leftist movement, composed largely of farmers, and populist politician William Jennings Bryant was a prominent opponent of teaching evolution in schools.  But the left changed as it came to accept the insights of intellectuals, whereas the right-wing became the place where anti-evolutionism tended to reside.  One essay talked about the controversial 1980's MACOS (Man: A Course of Study) curriculum in public schools, which taught evolution and cultural relativism, inspiring opposition from many on the right.  The essay noted that the cultural relativists were not as effective at mobilizing support for their position, since they could understand where the right-wingers were coming from, whereas dogmatism was what enabled the right-wing's political success against MACOS.  I guess that dogmatism sells!

Robert J. Schadewald's chapter, "The Evolution of Bible-science," was definitely worth reading.  Schadewald compares young-earth creationism with flat-earthism, and the part of the book about the contributors states that Schadewald "has accumulated one of the world's most complete flat-earth libraries."  Both question scientific consensus with religious motivations.  Both offer money to anyone who can prove the opposite of what they believe (i.e., evolution, a round earth).  Both engage in public debates with scientists, and they are effective in that they attack, attack, and attack.  (Schadewald notes an example in which a panel declared the flat-earth proponent the winner of the debate!)  And there is even some intersection between the two movements: When creationist Duane Gish denied that there were members of the Flat Earth Society in the Creation Research Society, a flat-earther member of the CRS stepped forward.  Schadewald states that "Ironically, Gish may have created a fact". for the flat-earther then quit from the CRS!

I enjoyed the final essay, "Is It Really Fair to Give Creationists Equal Time?", by Frederick Edwords.  For one, as an ex-Armstrongite, I liked that Edwords mentioned the Worldwide Church of God's support for the gap theory in his discussion of which creationism should be taught if creationism were to be in public schools!  (Edwords' point is that young-earth creationists only want for their own brand of creationism to be taught alongside evolution, implying that they are as intolerant as they accuse evolutionists of being.)  Second, I appreciated Edwords' point that there should be a class----outside of the science class----that explores different beliefs about human origins.  Overall, while I found this book to be quite sarcastic in places, I did think that it maintained a rather tolerant tone towards those who embrace religion.  It was a far cry from the new atheist rhetoric of people like Dawkins and Hitchens.

In terms of criticisms I have of the book, there were some issues that I wished it had explored further, such as how creationism went from being a part of the political left to becoming a part of the political right.  I also think that the book could have been clearer, especially when discussing the scientific evidence for evolution.  But my main criticism is that I wish that it had addressed another young-earth creationist argument: that the universe must be young because there is not much dust on the moon, and the moon would be buried in lots of dust if the universe were old.  The book addressed a creationist argument about the moon, but not that one!