More exciting news this week: Below is the first few paragraphs of a column I wrote for God’s Politics — the leading blog of Sojourners, the country’s top progressive Christian media outlet. As with my BioLogos essay, you’ll have to click over to the main site to read the rest of it.
What you won’t find there, but what I’m happy to discuss here, is that I’ve had about a half-dozen columns turned down by Sojo before I was finally able to break through with this one. This week has been a good one for me so far, but that doesn’t change the fact that writing is a tough job, and rejection comes with the territory. But, as even scripture says, good things come to those who don’t give up.
If you perused some of the headlines coming out of Slate the past couple weeks, you’ll find that, not only are Texas schools teaching creationismschools all over the country are teaching creationism, and — even as we speak — lawmakers in South Dakota and elsewhere are introducing legislation that will let their schools teach creationism.
Such news leads me to one of two conclusions: Either the proponents of teaching creationism — a viewpoint I thought it was ruled unconstitutional to teach by the Supreme Court in 1987 — have been very busy lately, or what passes for “creationism” in the eyes of the mainstream media these days has become pretty fuzzy.
I lean toward the latter.
Look, I’m a writer and a journalist, too. I get it. I understand the desire for a sexy, emotionally heavy word that “seems” to describe the given topic and will — of course — generates millions of clicks from the churning, polarized body politic that powers the Interwebs.
But this willy-nilly misapplication of the terms “creationist” and “creationism” simply has got to stop, and here’s why.