Calmly engaging in dialogue with a right-leaning young-Earth creationist from Texas seems like an impossible, or at least useless, task to many center- and left-leaning non-theists. One does not have to look far to understand why. When people persistently claim the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs co-existed with humans because a 2,000-year-old book says so, despite all scientific evidence (and simple rational thought) showing otherwise, it is easy to want to mock them or refuse to speak with them on the grounds that they are too irrational to engage.
I know from firsthand experience what it is like to face young-Earth creationists, and it is rarely a pleasant experience for either of us. When Mr. Paszkiewicz, my junior year U.S. history teacher, insisted dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark and if we reject Jesus as our savior we “belong in hell,” I was troubled to say the least. When I attempted to discuss the situation with him he bullied and intimidated me and bore false witness against his neighbor (Exodus 20:16). As a result I took counsel from Proverbs 14:7: “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.”
My teacher was unwilling to have any kind of rational dialogue, even about his own words, but I didn’t conclude all young-Earth creationists should be ignored. After my high school experience I was very interested in religion in public schools. So when I came across some websites, papers, and television shows that claimed Thomas Jefferson was to be completely removed from Texas. social studies curriculum in spring 2010, I was intrigued. As an aspiring broadcast journalist I felt an obligation to investigate the matter.
The Texas Board of Education was reasonable enough to put the proposed changes online. I read through the documents for a few days straight. As it turned out, Jefferson was only being removed from one section. Of course, this section was the only one which would require teachers to discuss Jefferson’s views on church/state separation, which many religious fundamentalists oppose. The wealth of atrocious proposals seemed infinite. They were planning on referring to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis as “heroes,” and making the Pledge of Allegiance a student “responsibility.” In a section on the First Amendment they cite all sections except the first, which of course deals with freedom of religion.
As host of the Equal Time for Freethought radio show on WBAI 99.5 FM, which airs in New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut, I am always seeking interesting and informative interviews. I decided to speak with someone on the Board of Education. As I investigated the story I found most journalists were speaking with Don McLeroy, dentist and young-Earth creationist, who appeared to be leading a charge to create “balance” in the curriculum. Based on what I read in the curriculum, “balance” was code for “right-wing Republican Christian fundamentalist propaganda.”
I realized every news source that spoke with McLeroy asked very basic questions and did not challenge him on specific points. Those who did challenge him didn’t do so in an open and thought-provoking way. Instead they mocked him, calling him an “idiot,” and “stupid moron.” I realized that while many of the Board’s proposals were, perhaps, idiotic and stupid, that didn’t necessarily mean those who proposed them were. Perhaps they were just pushing a biased point of view they understood for years to be truth because no one had ever approached them in a way that elicited useful discussions.
Using Google I found McLeroy’s cell phone number. He answered immediately, and I told him I would like to have him on my show. He spoke pleasantly and said he would enjoy the discussion.
Our interview was intense but respectful. Though he defended himself, the interview at least opened the door for discussion. But no real change seemed to result. So I decided to have him on again, and this time we would have an hour-long show to discuss the issues. No one expected what happened next.
When the time came for the second interview, I was fully prepared. Our discussion again maintained a passionate but respectful tone, and I discovered some interesting things about him. For example, he frequently listens to the Point of Inquiry podcast.
Our dialogue began forming a pattern. I would mention part of the curriculum and explain the problem, McLeroy would defend his position, and we would discuss that particular issue. Throughout the interview, to the surprise of my listeners and me, McLeroy changed his original position on certain topics:
I pointed out the clear bias when a section was changed from “analyze issues addressed in U.S. Supreme Court cases” to “analyze the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations” of the First Amendment in different cases. I explained that it is more important for students to learn the issues before analyzing the interpretations, and teachers shouldn’t instruct students how to feel about the decisions. McLeroy, after some debate, said that was a “good point” and “this is what the public comments are for, to find things like this.”
Another part of the curriculum asked students to “analyze the importance of the First Amendment rights of petition, assembly, speech and press and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” The Board specifically added the second amendment to that section, but neglected to include the first part of the first amendment regarding religious freedom. I said it should be added to the curriculum and he said, “I think we have to put that in there. I might make that motion myself.” He continued, “There’s no reason to leave it out. So let’s add it. You’re absolutely right.”
The Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis section describing them as “heroes” prompted one of our longer discussions. McLeroy brought up the topic before I did, challenging the argument I made during the last show. But as we talked McLeroy changed his position, saying he had no problem correcting that section so the term “heroes” does not apply to Davis and Lee.
The last topic I brought up was recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which the Board called a “responsibility.” McLeroy didn’t see a problem with that so I explained my own pledge experience: how I was bullied by students and administrators for quietly sitting during the pledge. McLeroy did not shout or interrupt me or call me unpatriotic, as some of my classmates and administrators had. Instead, he calmly listened. I asked him why the pledge was called a “responsibility.” This time he paused and then said something that few people believed would ever come from the mouth of a young-Earth creationist: “I don’t know.” By the end of the show he agreed the pledge should not be referred to as a responsibility.
McLeroy proposed some of the changes we discussed on the show, but they were knocked down by the rest of the Board. While the overall result was not a dramatic alteration of curriculum, he changed some of his views and he walked away from that interview learning something, as did 1.
McLeroy did not just speak with me to argue. He came to have an actual discussion about the curriculum, taking time to flip through it and find each section I was referring to and then read the section aloud. He did not respond to my argument automatically as most young-Earth creationists appear to do. Instead, he took the time to think.
I can’t explain how someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old can simultaneously change his mind on other issues. However, I can say that discussion sometimes changes a person’s views. Nothing positive will come from a complete unwillingness to open the door for dialogue. McLeroy explained that I was the only person with an opposing perspective to use quotes from the proposed standards and discuss the issue rationally with him. All the others based their information on news stories, and if they approached him they could not explain their views clearly because their points were clouded by anger and frustration. McLeroy even received threats.
I am sickened by the Texas curriculum standards. I am sickened by the fact that while McLeroy and I maintain a friendship, he probably still believes that I will burn in hell for eternity if I do not accept Jesus as my savior. However, people are very complex creatures who can’t be easily categorized and dismissed. We can’t give up the struggle for uncovering some rationality in those whose positions seem irrational.