BELIEF AND SUNBURN IN THE WEIGHT ROOM

Abstract

1 0 6 Y B E L I E F A N D S U N B U R N I N T H E W E I G H T R O O M B R U C E F L E M I N G Not long ago I had a conversation with a former student of mine from the U.S. Naval Academy, where I have taught for three decades , a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. I had some credibility with him, both as his professor of several years earlier and as a fellow weight-room user. Indeed, our conversation took place in the weight room we both use, which meant it didn’t last very long because serious conversation in the weight room is impossible. So that left me mulling over what we might have said and its implications long after the brief interaction was over. We had shaken hands and exchanged grunts, which is about the extent of weight-room conversation (there are places where words do not rule, and the weight room is one of them), and so I felt I could make a brief comment about the brick-red color, obviously the result of too much sun that weekend, of his normally beige face. ‘‘Slather on that sunblock,’’ I encouraged him, I hope in an avuncular tone. To avoid any appearance of telling him what to do – after all, I’m not in his chain of command now – I immediately added, ‘‘My mother has to go to the dermatologist every year or so to get stu√ cut o√ her face. And she never really even went in the sun.’’ 1 0 7 R The captain’s response was interesting. ‘‘I believe,’’ he said, ‘‘that heredity has as much to do with whether you get that stu√ as going out in the sun.’’ The captain was telling me what he believed. I immediately had a thousand questions, reasons why what he was suggesting might well be false – was heredity an equal player with sun exposure in producing skin problems? – or in any case could not be asserted without substantiation. He was o√ering me belief; my impulse was to respond with analysis. The distinction between belief and analysis is a distinction between two fundamental manners of doing things. It’s the dichotomy played out in the ongoing public discussion between matters of faith and matters of science. Currently in the United States, this is couched in terms of a conflict between teaching what the Hebrew Bible is held to say about the creation of the world and teaching what science, building on Darwin, says on the same subject. As one example of how timely this conflict is, the Creation Museum that opened in 2007 in Petersburg, Kentucky, makes clear that it is founded on belief. Its website opens with the words ‘‘Prepare to Believe.’’ It tells us, ‘‘The state-of-the-art 75,000square -foot Creation Museum brings the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form.’’ The site, to be sure, suggests that there is no conflict between belief and science – but only if you accept a di√erent sort of ‘‘science,’’ one based, in fact, on belief: Creationists love science! In fact, the word science means ‘‘knowledge.’’ We invite you to dive into the Bible and the scientific evidence with us to gather as much knowledge about God’s creation as you can. You’ll learn about the different types of science and discover facts and logical arguments you might have never considered. When you start with the Bible as your ultimate authority, your mind is unlocked and ready to discover creation science. By ‘‘di√erent types of science,’’ the museum means types that scientists would not consider science: they are not based on scienti fic inquiry. The museum suggests that there is at least one other kind: ‘‘creation science.’’ It speaks of ‘‘the Bible and the scientific 1 0 8 F L E M I N G Y evidence,’’ suggesting that the two are di√erent – but the Bible is the ultimate authority. ‘‘The Creation Museum shows why God’s infallible...