Theism and Naturalism at Odds: Intelligent Design Debated

2
EXPANDING THE OPTIONS
THEISM AND NATuRALISM AT ODDS
In the previous chapter we listened in on a debate between a
theist and a naturalist. What was impressive is that they stayed
calm and listened to each other. The attacks didn’t get personal.
As every reader will know, that’s often not what happens.
People tend to dig into their own positions more and more
deeply. Once they are entrenched, they begin to launch missiles
at each other. Insults fly, and any pretense of dialogue ends.
One of the most famous – or notorious – examples of hos-
tilities between religion and science is the battle between ‘intel-
ligent design’ and ‘the new atheism.’ Intelligent design, or ‘ID,’
started with the claim that what is today called science is
actually
built on a prejudice against religion. Darwin’s theory of evolu-
tion, for example, is really an anti-theistic worldview rather
than
empirical science. As Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of
the
ID movement, has written:
As the Darwinists move out to convert the nation’s school
children
to a naturalistic outlook, it may become more and more difficult
to
conceal the religious implications of their system. Plenty of
people

Clayton, P. (2018). Religion and science : The basics. Retrieved
from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from lehman-ebooks on 2019-06-07 09:28:43.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se

rv
ed
.
18 EXPANDING THE OPTIONS
within the Darwinist camp know what is being concealed, and
cannot
be relied upon to maintain a discreet silence.1
The appropriate response to the ideology that parades as sci-
ence, these theists argued, is to create a new kind of science
that is willing to include God from the start – a creation
science.
As Johnson once wrote, ‘[Intelligent design] means we affirm
that God is objectively real as creator, that the reality of God is
tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly
in biology.’ The basic logic is easy to state: things that evidence
design must have a designer. An intelligent designer must there-
fore stand behind the appearances, and God’s creative hand
must
be visible through them. The role of ID science, then, is to
study
those parts of the universe that offer the greatest evidence of
having been designed.
Let’s consider an example from the birth of the universe and
an example from the evolution of life. William Dembski pointed
out that atheist physicists rely on the concept of information.
But ‘information is not reducible to natural causes’; the origin
of information must be sought in ‘intelligent causes.’ Hence his
definition: ‘Intelligent design . . . becomes a theory for
detecting

and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing
its flow.’2 Because the early universe contains more
information
than can be explained by any naturalistic theory, it is
scientifically
justified to postulate a conscious agent who intentionally cre-
ated the natural order – the agent whom believers call God.
Others argued in a similar way from biology: biological
evolution could not be ‘unguided’ or random. Michael Behe
gave one of the most famous defenses of this view in his book
Darwin’s Black Box:
[A]s biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple
structures
like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering
complexity,
with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is
very
likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are
required
for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required
parts
increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together
sky-
rockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets.
Darwin
looks more and more forlorn.3
C
op

yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
19EXPANDING THE OPTIONS

Behe admits that naturalist science can explain some of the
complex features that we find in organisms. But, he responds,
the
development of life is actually irreducibly complex – so
complex
that it could not have evolved gradually through natural
processes.
For example, red blood cells could not have been ‘selected for’
through natural evolutionary processes until they were already
carrying oxygen throughout the organism; but they could not
be carrying oxygen unless they were selected for. Hence, he
argues, there cannot be any Darwinian explanation for the exis-
tence of red blood cells. Only an intelligent designer could have
created them, and he must have created them apart from or out-
side of evolutionary biology. Therefore the best science is one
that includes the hypothesis of the existence of God.
Of course, it is always hard to launch a completely new
research program in science, since existing areas of research
tend
to garner higher levels of financial support. But, again,
struggling
scientists have always managed to get the word out about exper-
imental breakthroughs that challenge existing paradigms; word
has spread; and eventually the institution of science catches on.
In the case of ID, there doesn’t seem to have been significant
new empirical data. In an online discussion in 2004 Paul Nelson
wrote:
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to
develop a
full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a
theory
right now, and that’s a problem.

A year later Michael Behe admitted:
there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for
intelli-
gent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations
which
provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any
biological system occurred.
These failures notwithstanding, ID continues to spread and
to win advocates. It is hard to overstate the influence of the
intelligent design movement. At one point, surveys showed that
more than 50 percent of American evangelicals did not believe
in (Darwinian) evolution. Intelligent design also has massive
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou

tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
support in the Muslim world; estimates are that it represents
the majority view within Islam as well. ID supporters recognize
that there are tensions between the naturalistic explanations on
which biology today is built and the belief that God directly
creates (‘designs’) new species that are adapted to their
environ-
ments. Rather than finding ways to live with these tensions, to
reconcile them with belief in God, they challenge evolutionary
science as a whole and offer a believer’s alternative.
So what is it that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus really
care about? Most believe that God, the ultimate origin and

ground of reality, is intelligent, conscious, and Creator of the
universe. ‘Designer,’ then, is for them an appealing way to
affirm
that God is, in some sense or another, responsible for the uni-
verse as a whole – and thus for the beauty, order, and regularity
that we discover within it. Many theists, and many others as
well,
share this sense that there is some sort of design or order in the
universe, something that is ‘meant to be.’ Could it be, then, that
the real insight of ID is this intuition of design, this experience
of sensing order in the universe? If that’s right, then the painful
mistake of ID is the attempt to turn the intuition of divine order
into a new kind of empirical science.
Imagine that Jerrod has something like this experience, say, as
he walks under a starry sky at night-time. He might say,
I can’t help but feel that there must be some intelligence behind
it.
After all, how could such beauty and order have come about all
by
itself? I’m not sure I have a good argument for this sense of
God, but
it’s certainly a part of my basic response to the universe around
me.
Perhaps Jerrod’s experience is widely shared by others in his
religious community. He and others may be able to show that
their experiences of the world as created by God can’t easily be
explained away as illusions or mere wish-fulfillment. But that’s
not the same as building an alternate science in order to defend
their experiences.
GOD, DESIGN, AND DELuSION
As Newton recognized, for every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction. Perhaps not surprisingly, the virulent

rv
ed
.
anti-science stance of the intelligent design theorists gave rise
to
a virulent anti-theistic reaction in defense of science. Without
a doubt, the most famous of these ‘new atheists’ is Richard
Dawkins. The quickest way to get a sense of new atheist attacks
on religion is to let Dawkins speak for himself. (Unless
otherwise
noted, the quotations come from his famous The God Delusion.)
• ‘God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters
will show, a pernicious delusion.’4
• ‘I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods.
I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything super-
natural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be
invented’ (36).
• When you reject religion, ‘you stand to lose comforting
delusions: you can no longer suck at the pacifier of faith in
immortality’ (Devil’s Chaplain, 13).
• ‘The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster
of the Bible. Unfortunately it is scarcely more likely that he
exists, or ever did. In any of its forms the God Hypothesis is
unnecessary’ (46).
• ‘Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific

education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning,
eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, “sensible” religion
may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for
fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years,
that unquestioning faith is a virtue’ (286).
• In Christianity and Islam, ‘you don’t have to make the case for
what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his
faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another,
or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to “respect” it
without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in
a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade
Center, or the London or Madrid bombings’ (306).
• ‘Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification
and brooks no argument. . . . Faith can be very very danger-
ous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of
an innocent child is a grievous wrong’ (308).
Dawkins’ allies have been no less unambiguous in rejecting
religion
for the sake of science. As Sam Harris wrote, ‘The truth . . . is
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
that the conflict between religion and science is unavoidable.
The success of science often comes at the expense of religious
dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the
expense of science.’5 Similarly, Christopher Hitchens argued
that religion, even apart from its damage to science, is simply

immoral: ‘Violence, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and
tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free
inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children:
organized religion ought to have a great deal on its
conscience.’6
Not surprisingly, the new atheists’ vitriol about religion
produced an equally vitriolic response from theists, giving rise
to a sort of nuclear arms race. Books attacking the other side
multiplied like nuclear warheads. Consider just one (painful)
example: after the new atheist publications, the Christian phi-
losopher Alvin Plantinga fired back at them. In ‘The Dawkins
Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum’7 he wrote,
Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God: ‘The God of the Old
Tes-
tament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of
fiction.
Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-
freak; a
vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic,
homophobic,
racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
megalomania-
cal. . . .’ Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea.
Daw-
kins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let’s hope
for
Dawkins’ sake God doesn’t return the compliment.)
One can only be sad when the atheists throw names at God and
the theists threaten eternal punishment in return.
A BROADER (AND MORE INTERESTING) EXCHANGE
For many years people felt that they had to be on one of these
two sides, whether they really wanted to be or not. In fact, how-

ever, there are a number of ways to go between the horns of this
dilemma. One of the major developments of the last years is the
explosion of options. The religion-science discussion has
become
broader and more inclusive – and hence more interesting.
Consider three famous typologies of positions on religion
and science. The most widely known is Ian Barbour’s fourfold
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll

rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
division.8 Conflict refers to the kind of battle between new
atheism and intelligent design that we have just been trac-
ing. Independence means that science and religion each has
its own realm where it is authoritative. Dialogue begins with
honest, back-and-forth debate as the first step, waiting to see
where authentic dialogue may lead. Integration, by contrast,
implies not only finding common ground but being able to
show how the two are interconnected in certain areas such
that they may be able to work together in a complementary
fashion.
John Haught’s four categories offer a slightly different angle.
Science and religion may conflict, contrast with one another,
make
real contact, or confirm one another.9 Confirmation has
multiple
forms: science can confirm religion, religion can confirm sci-
ence, or both can confirm each other in a kind of reciprocal
relationship. Contrasts are an important heuristic tool. The con-

trasts between two people, for example, can help others under-
stand the unique features of each one more fully; similarly, the
religion-science contrasts are a means for comprehending the
nature of each, precisely through their differences.
Ted Peters’ typology includes eight options. It does not gen-
eralize as well to all cases, but it does provide a more detailed
snapshot of forms of relation and exclusion (I quote from the
helpful summary by Christopher Southgate):10
• scientism: religion is outdated; science tells us all we need to
know.
• scientific imperialism: science can give us good information
even about what were formerly religious questions.
• ecclesiastical authoritarianism: the Church should have
authority
over science.
• scientific creationism: geological and biological data attest to
biblical truth.
• the two-language theory, or ‘peace through separation’: the
two
disciplines speak in their own discourse and shared under-
standing is impossible.
• hypothetical consonance: the two disciplines do raise
questions of
concern to each other, and should be open to subjecting their
assertions to further investigation.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

• ethical overlap: theology has a vital role in speaking to
questions
of value raised by science and technology, especially in respect
of the ecological crisis.
• New Age spirituality: a term covering certain recent attempts
to fuse science and spirituality.
The list could easily be extended. It does however make a
crucial point here at the beginning of our inquiry. Many people
first become aware of our topic through the science-religion
battles as covered in the media, which ask them to take the one
side or the other. Looking more closely, they recognize that
these
two major features of human existence are in fact related in
myriad ways. Of course, one can declare them independent, as
the
scientist Stephen J. Gould did in his book Rocks of Ages. Gould
argued that they are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA); the
realm of the spiritual and the realm of the worldly each has its
own knowledge and authority, but there is no common ground
between them. But this declaration of independence fails to do
justice to the uncountable ways that science and religion are
related: in human thought and practice, in history and across
cultures, in law and politics – and, I think, intrinsically as well.
Let’s consider some examples of some new (and sometimes
startling) ways that the relations have been playing out in recent
years.
CONSTRuCTIVE SKEPTICISM: MICHAEL SHERMER

One can’t say that, since the epic battles of a few years ago, all
talk has been of the harmony between science and religion.
A number of contributions to the dialogue are skeptical. But
the role of skeptics is not always to deconstruct; sometimes they
contribute to constructive reflection as well.
Consider the role of Michael Shermer, the editor of Sceptic
magazine. I remember being the moderator for a debate between
theists and skeptics that Michael organized. Some 1,100 people
packed the large auditorium at CalTech in Pasadena, California,
one of the world’s leading schools for science and technology.
You wouldn’t say that it was a happy meeting among friends.
The Christian and the atheist participants in the debate deployed
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle

dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
their strongest arguments, and the huge audience cheered and
booed like fans at a football match. What I noticed, however, is
that the two sides were (most of the time) actually talking to
each
other rather than just past each other. And some of the speakers,
such as Ken Miller from Brown University, could find enough
common ground that they won respect from both sides.
Make no mistake about it: Shermer does enjoy debunking
false claims. But his questioning has also contributed to more
sophisticated responses to the conflicts that religion sometimes
faces. For example, in 2016 Michael Shermer debated the
Oxford
theologian Keith Ward on the topic ‘Has Science Made God

Obsolete?’ Consider these central points from the two debaters:
Shermer: The supernatural answer – ‘well, God did it’ – is not
an answer. That’s what we call the God of the gaps
argument. . . . [We need] something testable that we
can sink our teeth into . . . we don’t need to add an
extra entity.
Ward: Religion is more like appreciating the true nature of
reality than it is like giving some physical explanation
of an unknown fact. . . . So the real question is: well,
what is the nature of reality?11
As one of the world’s most famous skeptics, Shermer
challenged
Ward’s clam to know that God exists. We should be skeptical of
the existence of God, he argued, unless we have clear evidence
for this conclusion. Ward, who clearly understood the
challenge,
suggested a different way of thinking about religion: it’s not
like
explaining a fact, but more like appreciating the beauty or good-
ness of a person or event.
In 2017 Shermer took on Alister McGrath, the Idreos Pro-
fessor of Science and Religion at Oxford, on the topic ‘Is God
a Figment of Our Imagination?’ Again, consider their main
arguments:
Shermer: There is more evidence to show that we constructed
the idea of God than vice versa.
McGrath: Belief in God is both cognitively and existentially
sat-
isfying. In other words, it seems to make sense of our

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv

ed
.
world, but above all, to give meaning to our lives. . . .
We all need a way of seeing ourselves and our world
which we find to be deeply satisfying rationally, mor-
ally and aesthetically.12
Again here Shermer, using the scientific model, pushes the
evidence question. And again the theologian suggests that the-
ism is not about the best explanation of the facts. But where
Ward appealed to metaphysics and the ultimate nature of
reality,
McGrath appeals to religion’s power to make life meaningful.
Because belief in God is ‘deeply satisfying’ (in rational, moral,
and aesthetic ways), it merits affirmation.
The science-oriented skeptic and the religious believer have
not reconciled their differences. But they are able to hear the
objections of the other and to formulate their best arguments in
response. It’s then up to the reader to decide which side is the
most compelling.
THEISTIC EVOLuTION: FRANCIS COLLINS
On the religious side, the media love to cover the intelligent
design movement, which is the source of the spiciest quota-
tions. Although ID is a great example of rejecting science in the
name of religion, it’s not particularly helpful for bringing the
two into any kind of constructive dialogue. In Chapter 3 we will
explore some of the ways that religious beliefs can be revised to
minimize the conflicts. First, however, let’s consider a more

tra-
ditional, orthodox Christian response that nonetheless seeks to
maximize the positive connections with the biological sciences
and to minimize the conflicts: Francis Collins’ popular book
The
Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
No one challenges Collins’ credentials as a scientist. Collins
was the leader of the international Human Genome Project,
which succeeded at sequencing the human genome for the
first time and identifying the genes that it contains. But where
others might have experienced tension with Christian belief,
Collins makes the case that no conflict is necessary. In his
book
he describes the press conference with President Clinton in the
East Room of the White House in the year 2000.13 During his
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R

ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
speech, Collins added, ‘It’s a happy day for the world. It is
hum-
bling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught
the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known
only to God.’ In the book he adds, ‘for me the experience of
sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most
remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achieve-
ment and an occasion of worship.’
Collins is obviously not a naturalist. He pushes back strongly
against Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and vehemently

defends the existence of a supernatural God. He argues that suf-
fering and evil in the world do not undercut the goodness of
God, since suffering may be a by-product of an evolutionary
world and perhaps even necessary for developing moral charac-
ter. Collins also affirms miracles, though in a nuanced way:
I don’t have a problem with the concept that miracles might
occasion-
ally occur at moments of great significance, where there is a
message
being transmitted to us by God Almighty. But as a scientist I set
my
standards for miracles very high. . . . In my own experience as a
phy-
sician, I have not seen a miraculous healing, and I don’t expect
to see
one. Also, prayer for me is not a way to manipulate God into
doing
what we want him to do. Prayer for me is much more a sense of
trying
to get into fellowship with God. I’m trying to figure out what I
should
be doing rather than telling Almighty God what he should be
doing.14
Collins raises a number of objections to naturalism. He does
not think that it can ultimately make sense of the ‘moral law’
that we experience. He maintains that biological explanations
of human social behaviors (sociobiology) cannot explain human
altruism, that is, acts of self-sacrifice for the sake of others,
even
others outside of one’s clan or who are not genetic relatives.
‘For the evolutionary argument about group benefits of altru-
ism to hold,’ he argues, ‘it would seem to require . . . hostility
to individuals outside the group.’ But, he continues, this is not
actually what we observe in complex populations.15 In his

view,
scientific cosmology supports the same conclusions: either we
are extremely lucky, with astronomical odds against our exis-
tence, or we are the product of God’s intentional creation. The
latter answer does not conflict with science: ‘there is nothing
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht

s
re
se
rv
ed
.
inherently in conflict between the idea of a creator God and
what science had revealed. In fact, the God hypothesis solves . .
.
questions about what came before the Big Bang, and why the
universe seems to be so exquisitely tuned for us to be here.’16
In some ways, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents
Evidence
for Belief is an intensely personal book. The evidence that
Collins
presents is sometimes experiential evidence that he and many
others have had but that many non-theists have not had. For
example, he says that he has found theistic evolution a
‘satisfying’
and ‘consistent synthesis’ of faith and science.17 But the book
also seeks to make a more general case for the compatibility of
traditional Christian faith with Darwinian evolution. Intelligent
design is wrong; it’s not true that ‘science needs divine help.’
As
strong as the biological sciences are, there is a level, above the
level at which scientists work, at which theists can still affirm
that God is guiding evolution as a whole. This is ‘BioLogos’ –

the
combination of theism (Logos) and biology (Bio). Because here
we face questions that science was not intended to answer any-
way, we are free to respond with faith and worship of God. This
is the place where science and faith are in harmony.
AGNOSTIC NATuRALISM: NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON
Naturalism in the hands of the new atheists means claiming to
know that religion is worthless, that nothing at all about it is
worth preserving. But much more subtle, and intriguing, ver-
sions of naturalism have been developed since that time, with
names like ‘deep naturalism,’ ‘broad naturalism,’ and ‘ecstatic
naturalism.’ Understanding the natural world in scientific terms
does not need to silence the responses of awe, wonder, even
reverence. These new versions of naturalism open up important
common ground between science and religion.
The most famous atheist of the first half of the twentieth
century, Bertrand Russell, used science to support his famous
argument, ‘Why I Am Not a Christian.’ And yet at the end of
his
book Science and Religion, he still affirmed a sort of mysticism
in
response to the cosmos.
Probably the most famous representative of religious natural-
ism in the twentieth century is Albert Einstein. Best-known is
C
op
yr

ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

his observation in 1954, ‘science without religion is lame, reli-
gion without science is blind.’ Einstein was not an advocate of
a personal God; he was a naturalist who was deeply impressed
with the mystery, and the comprehensibility, of the universe.
The
ways that he integrated his naturalism with religion deserve
close
attention, since they transgress the usual categories. Einstein
wrote, ‘if something is in me which can be called religious then
it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so
far as our science can reveal it.’18
Reading Einstein, one begins to wonder: Is it possible to be
a naturalist without being an opponent to religion? Perhaps
the most famous defender of this view today is the current
host of the classic science series Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Together with Bill Nye (the science guy), he is probably the
best-known advocate on behalf of science in North America
today. Tyson is never shy when it comes to taking on the Really
Hard Questions. He notes that he dislikes the word ‘atheist,’
per-
haps because the label tends to associate him with the virulent
anti-religious language of the new atheists. Tyson, who prefers
to describe himself as an ‘agnostic atheist,’ once posted a video
entitled ‘Does Religion have an inherent conflict with science?’
on his website, BigThink.com.19 No advocate of the ‘warfare’
model, Tyson observes that:
[t]here’s been a happy co-existence [of science and religion] for
cen-
turies and for that to change now would be unfortunate. . . .
Consider
also that in America 40% of American scientists are religious,
so this
notion that if you are a scientist you’re an atheist or if your
religious

you’re not a scientist, that’s just empirically false.
Tyson shows a similar openness to being religious and valuing
science. Consider this passage from Frank Johnson’s In the
Words
of Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Most religious people in America fully embrace science. So the
argu-
ment that religion has some issue with science applies to a small
frac-
tion of those who declare that they are religious. They just
happen to
be a very vocal fraction, so you got the impression that there are
more
of them than there actually is. . . . It’s actually the minority of
religious
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R

ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
http://BigThink.com
people who rejects science or feel threatened by it or want to
sort of
undo or restrict the [places] where science can go. The rest, you
know,
are just fine with science. And it has been that way ever since
the
beginning. . . . 20
Make no mistake about it: Tyson is an agnostic, not a religious

believer. He is critical of certain religious forms of thought,
especially those that undercut scientific work. He rejects ‘the
God of the gaps,’ that is, using God to explain events that
science
has not yet but may someday explain. But he is also convinced
that science and religion can coexist without warfare. As Tyson
puts it in Death by Black Hole (with his usual edge), ‘as they
are
currently practiced, there is no common ground between sci-
ence and religion. . . . Although, just as in hostage negotiations,
it’s probably best to keep both sides talking to each other.’21
What makes it possible for this co-existence to take place? In
disputes about empirical fact, we need to let the empirical sci-
ences do their thing, since religion is not designed to construct
empirical theories. This is probably Tyson’s most urgent
message:
religion and science have complementary roles to play, as long
as
science is still free to formulate and test specific laws and
expla-
nations for specific kinds of phenomena in the world, without
interference from religion.
Great scientific minds, from Claudius Ptolemy of the second
century
to Isaac Newton of the seventeenth, invested their formidable
intel-
lects in attempts to deduce the nature of the universe from the
state-
ments and philosophies contained in religious writings. . . . Had
any
of these efforts worked, science and religion today might be one
and
the same. But they are not.22

What works best for deriving reliable theories about the natural
world? Tyson: ‘I simply go with what works. And what works
is the healthy skepticism embodied in the scientific method.
Believe me, if the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source
of scientific answers and enlightenment, we would be mining it
daily for cosmic discovery.’23
And yet the successes of science do not in any way undercut
the awe and wonder that it evokes in us. They even evoke a kind
of reverence for what is:
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.

A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
It’s quite literally true that we are star dust, in the highest
exalted way
one can use that phrase. . . . I bask in the majesty of the cosmos.
I use
words, compose sentences that sound like the sentences I hear
out
of people that had revelation of Jesus, who go on their
pilgrimages
to Mecca. . . . Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in
us.
I don’t know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that
brings
upon me.24
It’s been said that your view of the Before and After guides
your
actions in the Now. Certainly this is true of belief in creation,

reincarnation, or the coming Messiah. It seems to be equally
true for a reverential naturalist such as Neil deGrasse Tyson. He
closes, ‘So what is true for life itself is no less true for the uni-
verse: knowing where you came from is no less important than
knowing where you are going.’25
NEW VISTAS
The goal of this chapter has been to invite you in to an open-
ended discussion. The dichotomy, ‘intelligent design versus new
atheism,’ no matter how great its popularity in the media, is
like a straightjacket; it does not give you room to nuance your
responses. The wide range of additional options covered here
opens the door to a much broader participation. Theists can
now be Darwinians, and naturalists can find room for awe, won-
der, reverence, and ecstatic mystical experiences. Similarly, the
British mathematician and logician Alfred North Whitehead
opens up new vistas from the side of religion:
Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond,
behind, and
within, the passing flux of immediate things; something which
is real,
and yet waiting to be realized; something which is a remote
possibil-
ity, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives
mean-
ing to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something
whose
possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach;
something
which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest.26
In the coming chapters this range of positions will only
increase. We will look first at the religions of the world, then
at the major categories of science, then at the history and

ed
.
philosophy of science, and finally at ethical issues raised by
sci-
ence and technology. There is hardly a hypothesis regarding
science and religion that you might wish to try out that needs
to
be excluded in advance from this panoply of possible positions.
The goal of these chapters is to invite you into this free-ranging
dialogue. Of course, proposals will need to be defended; you
will find some proposals stronger than others. But, as in
science,
the time for pruning possible positions does not come before
they are formulated, but only through the crucible of critical
dialogue.
quESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCuSSION
1 How do you evaluate the two opening positions, intelligent
design and new atheism? Are you strongly drawn to one of
the two, or do you tend to want to distance yourself from
both? Try to explain your reasons for favoring one or the
other (or neither!).
2 Think of the categories in Barbour’s (or Haught’s) typology.
Which of the four categories do you think most accurately
describes the relationship between science and religion, and
what reservations do you have about the other three? Can you
come up with a fifth category that you think better describes
the relationship?

3 The author claims that the well-known skeptic Michael
Shermer can be of service to theologians by helping them to
formulate their faith in stronger ways. This might seem like
a rather strange claim, since Shermer is an agnostic about the
existence of God. So is the author right? In the end, what
is the role of skepticism in religion? In science? Are skeptics
more helpful in the one than the other? (Is it sinful to be a
skeptic?)
4 The famous biologist Francis Collins maintains that one can
be a biologist and a believing Christian at the same time.
Take a careful look at his quotations and the summaries of his
position. Which parts of his argument do you think are suc-
cessful and which not? Theistic evolution is widespread across
multiple religions, and many believe that it may be the only
way to reconcile God and evolution. Is it the best strategy for
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R

ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
accomplishing this reconciliation, or can you think of others?
And (to name the most controversial part) can science and
miracles ever be reconciled?
5 The chapter ends by considering forms of naturalism that
are not anti-religious, focusing in particular on Neil deGrasse
Tyson. Try to specify more clearly what the word ‘natural-
ism’ might mean in this new context. If possible, set up a
debate between the different kinds of naturalists to evaluate
the different meanings of the word and decide which ones

you think are the strongest. Can religious people find allies
in these naturalists who are no longer dismissive of religion?
If so, what does this tell you about their understanding of
religion?
6 Consider Alfred North Whitehead’s quote at the end of the
chapter. Suppose you accepted this definition of religion. In
that case, how might religion differ from science? How might
religion be similar to science? How might religion complement
science?
7 To what extent do the results of science influence your reli-
gious (or your anti-religious) orientation? How much and
what kind of evidence would it take to change your beliefs
about God, for example, from theism to atheism or vice
versa?
NOTES
1 Phillip E. Johnson, ‘Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment
of Naturalism,’
First Things 6 (1990), 15–22, republished in Robert T. Pennock,
ed., Intelli-
gent Design Creationism and Its Critics (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2001),
59–76, quote 75.
2 William A. Dembski, ‘Intelligent Design as a Theory of
Information’;
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm.
3 Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2006), 73.
4 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin,
2006), 31. The following references in the text are also to this

work unless
otherwise noted.
5 San Harris, ‘Science Must Destroy Religion,’ Huffington Post
( January 2,
2006), updated May 25, 2011; www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-
harris/
science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html.
6 Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion
Poisons Everything
(New York: Twelve [Hachette, Warner], 2007), 56.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg

e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-
destroy-reli_b_13153.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-
destroy-reli_b_13153.html
7 Alvin Plantinga, ‘The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad
absurdum,’ Books
and Culture 13/2 (March/April 2007), 21.
8 Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science, Gifford Lectures
vol. 1 (San Fran-
cisco: Harper & Row, 1990).
9 John F. Haught, Science and Religion: From Conflict to
Conversion (New York:

Paulist Press, 1995), chapter 1.
10 Christopher Southgate, God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A
Textbook in Science
and Religion, 3rd edn. (London: T & T Clark, 2011). Southgate
references
Peters’ article in The Modern Theologians, ed. David Ford
(Oxford: Black-
well, 1997), 650–654. See also Ted Peters, ed., Science and
Theology: The New
Consonance (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998).
11 Keith Ward in his debate with Michael Shermer, ‘Has
Science Made
God Obsolete: The Great Debate,’
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM2Q5
REenmk&t=2869s.
12 Alister McGrath in his debate with Michael Shermer, ‘Is
God a Figment of
Our Imagination?’;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScykHWO4LY&
t=212s.
13 You can view the press conference at
www.youtube.com/watch?v=
slRyGLmt3qc.
14 Francis Collins in dialogue with John Horgan in 2009;
http://inters.org/
Collins-Scientist-Believer.
15 Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents
Evidence for Belief
(New York: Free Press, 2006), 28.

16 Ibid., 81.
17 For this and the following quotes, see pp. 200–204.
18 Einstein, 1954, letter to an atheist.
19 Tyson’s video is now accessible only at
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbv
DYyoAv9k. See also
www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/quotes-by-
neil-degrasse-tyson/spirituality-quotes.
20 Frank Johnson, In the Words of Neil deGrasse Tyson: The
Inspiring Voice of
Science (CreateSpace, 2014), 74–75.
21 Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other
Cosmic Quandaries
(New York: Norton, 2014), 347.
22 Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures
of an Urban Astro-
physicist, 2nd edn. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004), 183.
23 Ibid., 188.
24 Neil deGrasse Tyson, ‘Beyond Belief: Science, Reason,
Religion and Sur-
vival,’ Salk Institute for Biological Studies (November 7,
2006).
25 Tyson, Death By Black Hole, 345.
26 Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World
(New York: Free
Press, 1967), 191–192.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM2Q5REenmk&t=2869s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM2Q5REenmk&t=2869s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScykHWO4LY&t=212s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScykHWO4LY&t=212s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slRyGLmt3qc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slRyGLmt3qc
http://inters.org/Collins-Scientist-Believer
http://inters.org/Collins-Scientist-Believer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/quotes-by-neil-
degrasse-tyson/spirituality-quotes
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/quotes-by-neil-
degrasse-tyson/spirituality-quotes
SuGGESTIONS FOR FuRTHER READING
Barbour, Ian G., Religion in an Age of Science, Gifford lectures
1989–1990 (San
Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1990).
Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1988).
Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press,
2006).
Clayton, Philip, Adventures in the Spirit (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2008).
Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin, 2006).
Dawkins, Richard, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion,

and the Appetite for
Wonder (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1998).
Dembski, William and Michael Ruse, eds., Debating Design:
From Darwin to
DNA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Pennock, Robert T., Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the
New Creationism
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999).
Polkinghorne, John, Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of
Science and Religion
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005).
Ross, Hugh, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest
Scientific Discover-
ies of the Century Reveal God, 3rd expanded edn. (Colorado
Springs, CO:
NavPress, 2001).
Whitehead, Alfred North, Science and the Modern World (New
York: Free Press,
1967).
C
op
yr
ig

ht
©
2
01
8.
R
ou
tle
dg
e.
A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
12/17/2017 Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced | GQ
https://www.gq.com/story/colin-kaepernick-will-not-be-silenced

1/21
Men Of The Year
Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced
� E-mail Address S U B M I T� Search S E A R C
HNewsletterStyle Grooming Best Stuff Culture ��
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
2/21
November 13, 2017
He's been vilified by millions and locked out of the NFL—all
because he took a knee to protest police brutality.
But Colin Kaepernick's determined stand puts him in rare
company in sports history: Muhammad Ali, Jackie
Robinson—athletes who risked everything to make a difference.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In 2013, Colin Kaepernick was on the cover of this magazine
because he was one of the best football players in the
world. In 2017, Colin Kaepernick is on GQ's cover once again—
but this time it is because he isn't playing football.

And it's not because he's hurt, or because he's broken any rules,
or because he's not good enough. Approximately
90 men are currently employed as quarterbacks in the NFL, as
either starters or reserves, and Colin Kaepernick is
better—indisputably, undeniably, flat-out better—than at least
70 of them. He is still, to this day, one of the most
gifted quarterbacks on earth. And yet he has been locked out of
the game he loves—blackballed—because of one
simple gesture: He knelt during the playing of our national
anthem. And he did it for a clear reason, one that has
been lost in the yearlong storm that followed. He did it to
protest systemic oppression and, more specifically, as he
said repeatedly at the time, police brutality toward black people.
When we began discussing this GQ cover with Colin earlier this
fall, he told us the reason he wanted to participate
is that he wants to reclaim the narrative of his protest, which
has been hijacked by a president eager to make this
moment about himself. But Colin also made it clear to us that he
intended to remain silent. As his public identity
has begun to shift from football star to embattled activist, he
has grown wise to the power of his silence. It has
helped his story go around the world. It has even provoked the
ire and ill temper of Donald Trump. Why talk now,
when your detractors will only twist your words and use them
against you? Why speak now, when silence has done

so much?
At the same time, Colin is all too aware that silence creates a
vacuum, and that if it doesn't get filled somehow,
someone else will fill it for him. In our many conversations
with Colin about this project, we discussed the history
of athletes and civil rights, and the indelible moments it called
to mind, and we decided that we'd use photography
—the power of imagery and iconography—to do the talking.
B Y T H E E D I T O R S O F G Q
P H O T O G R A P H S B Y M A R T I N S C H O E L L E R
� E-mail Address SUBMIT� Search SEARCHNewsletterStyle
Grooming Best Stuff Culture ��
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
3/21
Subscribe Now

Get the Magazine
4/21
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
5/21
Want Colin Kaepernick’s Citizen of the Year issue? We've stash
ed a few for new subscribers. Click here to
get yours.
By the end of the 1960s, Muhammad Ali's stand against the
Vietnam War—he'd marched in Harlem with the
Nation of Islam after he was drafted and refused to serve—
resulted in him being locked out of his sport for three
years, at the peak of his talent, much as Colin is now. He
continued to train throughout that period, waiting for his

chance to return to boxing. He was known for jogging in the
streets, and kids would chase him—the People's
Champ, boosted in his darkest days by the joy of his truest fans.
That's why we decided to photograph Colin in
public, in Harlem, among the men, women, and children he is
fighting for. To connect him to a crusade that
stretches back decades. And because Colin has spent a year as a
man without a team, we worked with him to
assemble a new one: ten of his closest confidants—artists,
activists, academics, and one legend of the civil rights
movement—who shared with GQ what Colin's protest means to
them, and what we all should do next.
.........................................
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
6/21
Ava DuVernay
Filmmaker, Selma, 13th, and 2018's A Wrinkle in Time

I see what he's done as art. I believe that art is seeing the world
that doesn't exist. A lot of people excel at creativity
—making TV, movies, painting, writing books—but you can be
an artist in your own life. Civil rights activists are
artists. Athletes are artists. People who imagine something that
is not there. I think some folks see his protests, his
resistance, as not his work. Not intentional. Not strategic. Not
as progressive action. As if this was just a moment
that he got caught up in. This was work. This is work that he's
doing.
The last time I saw him was the night after Trump called him
out at the Alabama rally. It was a really dynamic
weekend. I had dinner with him and Nessa [Kaepernick's
partner]. To be able to sit with that brother on this
particular day—on the day between two historic cultural
moments that swirled around him—was shape-shifting for
me. Being able to observe that and witness his stillness and
wisdom—I'm just really honored to know him. He's
sitting there and I'm sitting there and I'm like, "Look at this
brother—he's doing better than any of us would've
done." A lot better. With a lot more elegance.
.........................................
Carmen Perez
Activist, executive director of The Gathering for Justice, which
addresses mass incarceration and child
incarceration
What I always tell people is, I could teach you about the law, I
could teach you about the criminal-justice system—
but I can't teach you how to have heart. We don't need a
movement full of experts. We need people who care deeply
to stand up and offer what they have, because there's a role for

everyone. You make music? Make some for the
movement. You cook? Organizers need to be fed. You teach
self-defense or yoga? Help people heal. You're an
athlete? Use your platform to raise awareness. It's not about
everyone trying to become the next Martin Luther
King Jr., because he had clergymen and journalists and artists
like Harry Belafonte. It's about how we connect to
our neighbor and offer our skill set. As Mr. Belafonte has said:
Don't pay me back—pay it back to the cause.
I want people to understand that even if incarceration doesn't
personally impact you, or police brutality doesn't
personally impact you, you can still be involved. How can we
show these mothers who are suffering that we love
them and we care about them? I often ask: Can we see our
liberation bound to one another's? I'm a proud Mexican-
American and Chicana who deeply believes that black lives
matter and that once black people are free, then my
people will be free.
.........................................
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
7/21

Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
8/21
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
9/21
Colin Kaepernick walks tall on the streets of Harlem. Jacket by
Harlem Haberdashery / Turtleneck and tuxedo pants by Waraire
Boswell / Watch by Cartier /
Necklaces, his own

Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
10/21
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
11/21
J. Cole
Rapper
Colin and I met years ago. I am—I was—a big 49ers fan. I met
him during his breakout season. I actually went to
the first game he really played in, against the Jets. I just
happened to be at that game. It hit another level for me the
second I learned he was taking a knee. And it wasn't just that—

it was when I saw the shit he was saying in the
interviews when they pressed him about it. His answers were
just so clear and potent. Like, right on point. And he
wasn't backing down. And he wasn't afraid. He was just being
honest. And it didn't seem like he was looking for
attention. It caught me off guard because, you know, nothing
personally against him, I just didn't know when I met
him that the person with the biggest balls in sports would be
him.
You're talking about a guy in his athletic prime, who's lived his
whole life dreaming about playing football at a level
that millions of kids dream to get to. And in his first big season,
he takes his team to within five yards of winning a
Super Bowl. But then, at some point in time, he becomes
conscious about what's happening in the world. And
suddenly something that he's been doing blindly for his whole
life—standing for the national anthem—now feels
uncomfortable. Why? Because now it feels phony! It feels like,
Man, how can I stand for this thing when this
country is not holding itself true to the principles it says it stan
ds for? I feel like we're lying. And look what
happens to him. Had he not done that, this guy would be making
millions of dollars right now. Period, point blank.
And more important than the money, he was living his dream.
He sacrificed his dream.
.........................................

Tamika Mallory
National co-
chair for Women's March; activist on issues related to women's
rights, health care, anti-violence,
and ethical police conduct
My position is that people should not be watching football right
now, while we're in the middle of this, because we
don't need to add to their ratings. We need to ensure that we're
not on social media talking about the game as if
Colin Kaepernick is not still up for deliberation. Now, I have
some family members who have said to me that they
don't agree. But if everybody agreed about everything, our
society wouldn't be as diverse. And I think that where an
opinion turns into the oppression of another human being, or a
group of people, that's where we must draw the
line. Some people want to argue, "But the national anthem may
not be a place for this because this is about all of us
as Americans, the American dream, and American freedom."
And then I have to give them the history of the third
verse that Francis Scott Key wrote, which refers directly to us
as slaves, and being unable to escape the wrath of
slave owners. When I bring that to them, they begin to
understand.

Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
12/21
.........................................
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
13/21
Tank top by Calvin Klein Underwear
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine

14/21
Ameer Hasan Loggins
Writer and U.C. Berkeley academic, lecturer, onetime Bay Area
hip-hop icon
Colin is just a learned person. If you really sit and talk to him,
he is a seeker of knowledge. One time I just
happened to mention, "Yo, I teach class at Berkeley," and he
was like, "I'm gonna come through." I was like, "Yeah,
all right." And he did. He did so in a way that showed me a lot
about his character. He didn't just come through
like, "I'm Colin Kaepernick." He had his little notebook, he had
his pencil, he was taking notes, he was
participating, he was reading the texts. He was on time to every
class, making that trip from San Jose.
His protest has exposed the truth about a lot of people in the
NFL, even while he hasn't said anything. I think
people underestimate the tactical brilliance involved in that. I
understand why people want him to speak out. I
understand that. I think they should take the time to understand
why he hasn't.
I think that Colin's convictions provide him with comfort. A
comfort that some of us are uncomfortable with,
because we're mad for him. We're upset to see somebody who
gives a damn being treated so poorly.
It's a problem that we've decided the conversation leans on

"Does Colin want to be an activist, or does he want to be
an athlete?" As if the two cannot happen simultaneously. You
can care about people and play sports. Athletes do it
all the time. The problem is that his particular activism was
toward the cause of blackness. That's what he's being
ostracized for. You see players talk all the time about their
nonprofit organizations, their donation to this
foundation they work with. Nobody's talking about them not
being able to juggle their football careers and being
helpful to the community. It's only with him that it's questioned.
The irony now is that the NFL is trying to make
him voiceless because he made himself a voice for the
voiceless. Which is one of the reasons I'll die on that sword to
defend what he has done. Because he did it for the people.
.........................................
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
15/21
Eric Reid
Safety for the San Francisco 49ers, Kaepernick's former teamma
te, and the rst NFL player to join him in
kneeling during the anthem

My goal this year has been to get the narrative back on track.
We started having communications with the NFL, and
they said they're going to help us make progress on these issues.
But the next step is to get Colin back in the NFL.
Because he's the one that started this. I think we're finally
getting where me and Colin envision this going. Now it's
time for him to get back in the league.
These issues are real, and people know they're real. But some
will do anything to distract from that, to change the
narrative, and it's gotten Colin blackballed from the NFL.
The Bible talks very explicitly in Proverbs about being the
voice of the voiceless and speaking up for the vulnerable.
Another verse is: "Faith without works is dead." I guess
selfishly I'm trying to get to heaven.
.........................................
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
16/21

Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
17/21
Christopher Petrella
Writer and scholar at Bates College
In my view, the most pernicious element of white backlash
against Colin's protest has been the way in which the
narrative has been co-opted and re-framed so that taking a knee
is now somehow synonymous with disrespecting
the flag, with a lack of patriotism. The American flag is not a
neutral ideology—it represents something very, very
specific to most folk. When someone comes along and tries to
point out the history, for instance, of the national
anthem, or the emergence of the American flag and its various
iterations over time, and asks very difficult
questions of "an adolescent country"—that's a James Baldwin
phrase—it becomes uncomfortable. You may recall
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments last year, when Colin started
his protest. Someone who's known as a fairly
liberal, left-leaning, or moderate, or whatever terms you wanna

use, Supreme Court justice called his protest
"dumb and disrespectful." Which is fascinating, because many
folks have pointed out that politicians on the right,
obviously those in the White House, have been very critical of
these protests. But often it's bipartisan.
I think it was Howard Thurman, a modern civil rights activist
and educator, who said, "Don't ask what the world
needs. Ask what makes you come alive." What the world needs
is for people to come alive. In a lot of ways, Colin
operates through that unspoken philosophy. My hope is that
Colin's protest will help mainstream white America to
come alive to the deep injustices of our time and of our nation's
history. That's the beginning of what the world
needs.
.........................................
Track pants and sneakers by Fear of God.
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine

18/21
Linda Sarsour
Activist, co-
organizer of the Women's March on Washington, former executi
ve director of the Arab American
Association of New York
An activist is anyone who cares about something and has a
talent that they're willing to put toward it. Every single
one of us needs to prioritize: What is it that touches your heart
the most? Is it the killing of unarmed black people?
Is it domestic violence against women? Is it immigration and
protecting undocumented people?
I always tell Colin: "You are an American hero. You may not
feel like a hero right now, but one day, people will
realize the sacrifices that you made for so many others." There
might even be a day when we'll be walking down
Colin Kaepernick Boulevard and people will remember what
Colin Kaepernick did, just like we remember
Muhammad Ali. And I truly believe that in my heart.
.........................................
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine

19/21
Jacket by Musika Frère / Custom T-shirt by Kerby
Jean-Raymond of Pyer Moss.
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
20/21
Gray sweatpants by Alexander Wang.
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine

21/21
Nessa
Nationally syndicated radio host/TV personality, American Mus
lim who works in communities for social justice,
and Kaepernick's partner of nearly three years
Colin has always been helping people, he has always been
involved, because he has empathy. Empathy was a reason
why he was adopted: His parents—two of their children had
passed away from heart defects. It's why he helped so
many young children with heart defects get proper care—he's
been doing that for years. I'm very fortunate that I
have Colin next to me. It's everything. We love each other, we
care for each other, and we have to remind each
other that, hey, we're doing our part, we're trying to make a
difference.
As long as you're educated and you have the facts, get into
those discussions about race. Have those conversations.
I don't care how intense they get. You need to let Uncle
Whoever and Auntie Whoever, who might feel a certain
way, who might be racist or prejudiced, know that it's not right
and it's not okay. Their beliefs are never based on
facts. It's always opinions or lies or misinformation, and that is
where you can make a difference—by helping them
get educated. Just know that it's probably going to be a fight at

first, and be okay with that. You know, your
Thanksgiving might not be that good this year. Your Christmas
might not be the best because we just had an
argument. But you know what? It's okay, it's all right—that's
what families do, anyway. And why would you want a
family member out there sounding ignorant? So it's fine, we're
going to fight over the eggnog, and that's just what it
is. We may not see eye to eye, but I did my part, sharing the
truth, because that's all you can do. Be just in an unjust
room.
.........................................
Harry Belafonte
Artist, activist, legend
In my 90th year of life, to see people like Colin Kaepernick
having gotten the message and carrying the cause
forward is the greatest reward I could ask for. Colin is a
remarkable young man. The fact that he spoke out on
police brutality against young black men—I thought it was
absolutely admirable. I'm prepared to do anything it
takes and whatever steps I can to support him if this insanity
continues.
And this is not just confined to black athletes—any person with
a high profile has to consider their responsibility to

help keep the nation honorable and honest. After all the
courageous things that have been done by so many
courageous people, it's a cop-out to not speak up. Trump has
betrayed our nation. Taking a shot at him is worthy of
all of us. Not being "political" is not a solution. Any young
person who takes that position would have to ask
Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson and so many of us if we
had anything at stake. I know how someone who is
young can get the feeling that this is the worst things have been.
I see how someone could think that. But it's going
to be okay. Even in the Trump era, America is going to be okay.
Subscribe Now
Get the Magazine
ARTICLES
Racism and Police Brutality in America
Cassandra Chaney & Ray V. Robertson
Published online: 12 January 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract What, if any, changes have occurred in the nation’s
police departments
21 years after the Rodney King beating? To answer this
question, this study examined
findings provided by the National Police Misconduct Statistics
and Reporting Project
(NPMSRP). An additional goal of this study was to examine
how the public generally
perceive police and how race and racism shape this discourse.
To answer this secondary
question, we examined narratives provided by 36 contributors to
the NPMSRP site. The
following two questions were foundational to this study: (1)
What do findings from the
NPMSRP suggest about the rate of police brutality in America?
(2) How do individuals
perceive the police department, and what implications do these
perceptions hold for
Black men in America? In general, fatalities at the hands of
police are higher than they
are for the general public. Grounded theory analysis of the data
revealed that individuals
perceive members of law enforcement in the following ways: (a)
contempt for law
enforcement, (b) suspicion of law enforcement, (c) law
enforcement as agents of
brutality, and (d) respect for law enforcement. Supporting
qualitative data are presented
in connection with each of the aforementioned themes.
Keywords Black . African-American . Critical race theory .
Discrimination . Police
brutality . Race . Racism . Rodney King
What, if any, changes have occurred in the nation’s police

departments 21 years after
the Rodney King beating? To answer this question, we
examined findings provided
by the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting
Project (NPMSRP). In
addition, we examine how the public generally perceive police
and how race and
J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505
DOI 10.1007/s12111-013-9246-5
C. Chaney (*)
College of Human Sciences and Education, School of Social
Work, Child and Family Studies,
Louisiana State University, 323 Huey P. Long Field House,
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4300, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
R. V. Robertson
Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice,
Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
racism shape this discourse. To answer this secondary question,
we examined narra-
tives provided by 36 contributors to the NPMSRP site.
The topic is important for two reasons. First, although several
scholars have
examined the increasing rate of police brutality against Blacks
(Dottolo and Stewart
2008; Elicker 2008; Kane and White 2009; Smith and Holmes
2003; Tomaskovic-
Devey et al. 2006; Staples 2011), we are aware of no studies to
present findings from

the NPMSRP nor discuss the implications of these findings in
light of the Rodney
King beating by members of the LAPD, which occurred in 1991.
This endeavor is
especially important given the negative stories related to “bad
cops” that have come
to light within the last decade (Boyer 2001; Savali 2012).
Second, this study
examines how the public generally perceive the police, per the
findings presented
by the NPMSRP. Given King’s position as being the “face of
police brutality in
America” and thus influence how the public generally perceive
the police, the
following two questions were foundational to this study: (1)
What do findings from
the NPMSRP suggest about the rate of police brutality in
America? (2) How do
individuals perceive the police department, and what
implications do these percep-
tions hold for Black men in America?
In the section that follows, we place the goals of our study
within the empirical
literature. We begin by discussing the effects of racism and
discrimination on Black
men in America. Next, we discuss police brutality against Black
men. After this, we
discuss the general portrayal of Black men in the media. Then,
we discuss the
relevance of Derrick Bell’s critical race theory (CRT) to our
current discussion.
Lastly, we will provide a conceptual framework that integrates
racism, police brutal-
ity, and the CRT on which this study is built.

Review of Literature
Racism and Discrimination According to Marger (2012),
“racism is an ideology, or
belief system, designed to justify and rationalize racial and
ethnic inequality” (p. 25)
and “discrimination, most basically, is behavior aimed at
denying members of
particular ethnic groups’ equal access to societal rewards” (p.
57). Defining both of
these concepts from the onset is important for they provide the
lens through which
our focus on the racist and discriminatory practices of law
enforcement can occur.
Since the time that Africans were forcibly brought to America,
they have been the
victims of racist and discriminatory practices that have been
spurred and/or substan-
tiated by those who create and enforce the law. For example,
The Watts Riots of 1965,
the widespread assaults against Blacks in Harlem during the
1920s (King 2011), law
enforcement violence against Black women (i.e., Malaika
Brooks, Jaisha Akins,
Frankie Perkins, Dr. Mae Jemison, Linda Billups, Clementine
Applewhite) and other
ethnic women of color (Ritchie 2006), the beating of Rodney
King, and the deaths of
Amadou Diallo in the 1990s and Trayvon Martin more recently
are just a few public
examples of the historical and contemporaneous ways in which
Blacks in America
have been assaulted by members of the police system (King
2011; Loyd 2012; Murch
2012; Rafail et al. 2012). In Punishing Race (2011), law
professor Michael Tonry’s

research findings point to the fact that Whites tend to excuse
police brutality against
Blacks because of the racial animus that they hold against
Blacks. Thus, to Whites,
J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505 481
Blacks are viewed as deserving of harsh treatment in the
criminal justice system
(Peffley and Hurwitz 2013). At first glance, such an assertion
may seem to be
unfathomable, buy that there is an extensive body of literature
which suggests that
Black males are viewed as the “prototypical criminal,” and this
notion is buttressed in
the media, by the general public, and via disparate sentencing
outcomes (Blair et al.
2004; Eberhardt et al. 2006; Gabiddon 2010; Maddox and Gray
2004; Oliver and
Fonash 2002; Staples 2011). For instance, Blair et al. (2004)
revealed that Black males
withmore Afrocentric features (e.g., dark skin, broad noses, full
lips) may receive longer
sentences than Blacks with less Afrocentric features, i.e.,
lighter skin and straighter hair
(Eberhardt et al. 2006).
Shaun Gabiddon in Criminological Theories on Race and Crime
(2010) discussed
the concept of “Negrophobia” which was more extensively
examined by Armour
(1997). Negrophobia can be surmised as an irrational of Blacks,
which includes a fear
of being victimized by Black, that can result in Whites shooting

or harming an African-
American based on criminal/racial stereotypes (Armour 1997).
The aforementioned
racialized stereotypical assumptions can be deleterious because
they can be used by
Whites to justify shooting a Black person on the slightest of
pretense (Gabiddon 2010).
Finally, African-American males represent a group that has
been much maligned in the
larger society (Tonry 2011). Further, as victims of the
burgeoning prison industrial
complex, mass incarceration, and enduring racism, the barriers
to truly independent
Black male agency are ubiquitous and firmly entrenched
(Alexander 2010; Chaney
2009; Baker 1996; Blackmon 2008; Dottolo and Stewart 2008;
Karenga 2010;Martin et
al. 2001; Smith and Hattery 2009). Thus, racism and
discrimination heightens the
psychological distress experienced by Blacks (Robertson 2011;
Pieterse et al. 2012),
as well as their decreased mortality in the USA (Muennig and
Murphy 2011).
Police Brutality Against Black Males According to Walker
(2011), police brutality is
defined as “the use of excessive physical force or verbal assault
and psychological
intimidation” (p. 579). Although one recent study suggests that
the NYPD has become
better behaved due to greater race and gender diversity (Kane
and White 2009), Blacks
are more likely to be the victims of police brutality. A growing
body of scholarly
research related to police brutality has revealed that Blacks are
more likely than

Whites to make complaints regarding police brutality (Smith
and Holmes 2003), to be
accosted while operating a motorized vehicle (“Driving While
Black”), and to underre-
port how often they are stopped due to higher social desirability
factors (Tomaskovic-
Devey et al. 2006). Interestingly, data obtained from the
General Social Survey
(GSS), a representative sample conducted biennially by the
National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago for the years 1994
through 2004,
provide further proof regarding the acceptance of force against
Blacks. In
particular, the GSS found Whites to be significantly (29.5 %)
more accepting
of police use of force when a citizen was attempting to escape
custody than Blacks
when analyzed using the chi-squared statistical test (p<0.001)
(Elicker 2008).
Police brutality is improper and unjust. So a plausible concern
becomes how in a
society that ostensibly emphasizes egalitarianism, can a milieu
exist which allows police
malfeasance to thrive? Myrdal (1944) as cited in Greene and
Gabbidon (2013, p. 232)
presents information on the historical legacy of the less than
collegial relationship
between Blacks and law enforcement by stating the following:
482 J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505
The average Southern policeman is a promoted poor White with

a legal sanction
to use a weapon. His social heritage has taught him to despise
the Negroes, and
he has had little education which could have changed him….The
result is that
probably no group of Whites in America have a lower opinion
of the Negro
people and are more fixed in their views than Southern
policeman. (Myrdal
1944, pp. 540–541)
Myrdal (1944) was writing on results from a massive study that
he undertook in
the late 1930s. He was writing at a time that even the most
conservative among us
would have to admit was not a colorblind society (if one even
believes in such
things). But current research does corroborate his observations
that less educated
police officers tend to be the most aggressive and have the most
formal complaints
filed against them when compared to their more educated
counterparts (Hassell and
Archbold 2010; Jefferis et al. 2011).
Tonry (2011) delineates some interesting findings from the 2001
Race, Crime, and
Public Opinion Survey that can be applied to understanding why
the larger society
tolerates police misconduct when it comes to Black males. The
survey, which
involved approximately 978 non-Hispanic Whites and 1,010
Blacks, revealed a
divergence in attitudes between Blacks and Whites concerning
the criminal justice
system (Tonry 2011). For instance, 38 % of Whites and 89 % of

Blacks viewed the
criminal justice system as biased against Blacks (Tonry 2011).
Additionally, 8 % of
Blacks and 56 % of Whites saw the criminal justice system as
treating Blacks fairly
(Tonry 2011). Perhaps most revealing when it comes to
facilitating an environment ripe
for police brutality against Black males, 68 % of Whites and
only 18 % of Whites
expressed confidence in law enforcement (Tonry 2011). Is a
society wherein the
dominant group overwhelming approves of police performance
willing to do anything
substantive to curtail police brutality against Black males?
Police brutality is not a new phenomenon. The Department of
Justice (DOJ) office of Civil
Rights (OCR) has investigated more than a dozen police
departments in major cities across the
USAon allegations of either racial discrimination or police
brutality (Gabbidon andGreene 2013).
To make the aforementioned even more clear, according to
Gabbidon and Greene (2013), “In
2010, the OCR was investigating 17 police departments across
the country and monitoring five
settlements regarding four police agencies” (pp. 119–120).
Plant and Peruche (2005) provide some useful information into
why police
officers view Black males as potential perpetrators and could
lead to acts of
brutality. In their research, the authors suggest that since Black
people in
general, and Black males in particular, are caricatured as
aggressive and crim-
inal, police are more likely to view Black men as a threat which

justifies the
disproportionate use of deadly force. Therefore, it is not beyond
the realm of
possibility that police officers’ decisions to act aggressively
may, to some
extent, be influenced by race (Jefferis et al. 2011).
The media’s portrayals of Black men are often less than
sanguine. Bryson’s (1998)
work in this area provides empirical evidence that the mass
media that has been
instrumental in portraying Black men as studs, super detectives,
or imitation White
men and has a general negative effect on how these men are
regarded by others. Such
characterizations can be so visceral in nature that “prototypes”
of criminal suspects
are more likely to be African-American (Oliver et al. 2004). Not
surprisingly, the
J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505 483
more Afrocentric the African-American’s facial features, the
more prone he or she is
expected to be deviant (Eberhardt et al. 2006). Interestingly, it
is probable that less
than flattering depictions of Black males on television and in
news stories are
activating pre-existing stereotypes possessed by Whites as
opposed to facilitating
their creation. According to Oliver et al. (2004), “it is important
to keep in mind that
media consumption is an active process, with viewers’ existing
attitudes and beliefs

playing a larger role in how images are attended to, interpreted,
and remem-
bered” (p. 89). Moreover, it is reductionist to presuppose that
individual is
powerless in constructing a palatable version of reality and is
solely under the
control of the media and exercises no agency.
Lastly, Peffley and Hurwitz (2013) describe what can be
perceived as one of the
more deleterious results of negative media caricatures of Black
males. More specif-
ically, the authors posit that most Whites believe that Blacks
are disproportionately
inclined to engage in criminal behavior and are the deserving on
harsh treatment by
the criminal justice system. On the other hand, such an
observation is curious because
most urban areas are moderate to highly segregated residentially
which would
preclude the frequent and significant interaction needed to make
such scathing
indictments (Bonilla-Silva 2009). Consequently, the
aforementioned racial animus
has the effect of increased White support for capital punishment
if questions regard-
ing its legitimacy around if capital punishment is too frequently
applied to Blacks
(Peffley and Hurwitz 2013; Tonry 2011). Ultimately, erroneous
(negative) portrayals
of crime and community, community race and class identities,
and concerns over
neighborhood change all contribute to place-specific framing of
“the crime problem.”
These frames, in turn, shape both intergroup dynamics and
support for criminal

justice policy (Leverentz 2012).
Critical Race Theory Critical race theory is a useful theoretical
approach when
examining the situations encountered by marginalized groups in
a hierarchal society.
The father of critical race theory, the late legal scholar Derrick
Bell, opined in his
classic Faces at the Bottom of the Well (1992) that “writing in
critical race theory
stresses that neither neatly divorceable from one another nor
amenable to strict
categorization” (pp. 144–145). Further, according to (Solorzano
et al. 2000), a critical
race approach is open to intense scrutiny of the experiences of
subordinated groups
because of its reliance on five areas of focus. The tenets of
critical race theory are: (1)
the primacy of race and racism and their interconnectedness
with other forms of
subordination, (2) a questioning of the dominant belief
system/status quo, (3) a
commitment to social justice, (4) the centrality of experiential
knowledge, and (5) a
multidisciplinary perspective (Crenshaw 2011, 2002; Solorzano
et al. 2000; Zuberi
2011). Moreover, critical race theory is used in this paper to
assess the media’s
coverage of the passing of Rodney King who was brutally
beaten on tape by the
Los Angeles Police Department in 1991. It was the beating of
King, and the
subsequent acquittal of some of the officers involved in his
beating, that served as
the spark that brought to light police brutality against minorities
and served as the

catalyst for Los Angeles riots of 1992. Finally, the less than
sympathetic coverage of
King’s death will be analyzed within the larger framework of
Black men being
maligned in the media and as the victims of racial oppression,
the prison industrial
complex, mass incarceration, and the ill-conceived and
ineffective war on drugs.
484 J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505
Methodology
Research Design The methodology utilized in this study
involved two steps. The first
step involved examining the statistical findings presented in the
NPMSRP (Police
Brutality Statistics, April 13, 2011). The second step involved
thoroughly reading the
comments provided by contributors on the NPMSRP site and
looking for recurrent
themes within the narratives. To identify the themes that were
presented within this
paper, all narrative responses were content analyzed using
grounded theory and an open-
coding process (Holsti 1969; Strauss and Corbin 1990; Taylor
and Bogdan 1998), and
themes were identified from the narratives. In order to clearly
abstract themes from the
written responses, words and phrases were the units of analysis.
Specifically, coding
involved examining all responses, keeping track of emerging
themes, assigning words
and symbols to each coding category, and examining how the

themes presented are
specifically related to the public’s perception of the police. In
cases where the narrative
provided by a respondent was compatible with two different
themes (this was the case
for the two narratives provided byKarinWildeisen), the
researchers made the decision to
place the narratives with the category with which they best fit.
To assess the reliability of
the coding system, a list of all codes and their definitions along
with the written
responses was given to an outsider who then coded the
transcripts based on this pre-
determined list of codes. The outside coder was selected due to
their experience with
coding and analyzing narrative data. After a 98 % coding
reliability rate was established
between the first author and the outside coder, it was
determined that a working coding
system had been established. In order to sufficiently control for
reliability, a second
outside coder was selected to code and analyze the narrative
data after the initial coding
reliability had been established. The reliability established
between the second author
and the two outside coders was 97 %.
Presentation of the Findings
Research question 1: What do findings from the NPMSRP
suggest about the rate of
police brutality in America?
Statistics from the NPMSRP were compiled between the months
of April 2009 and
June 2010. During this time, there were 5,986 reports of

misconduct, 382 fatalities
linked to misconduct, settlements and judgments that totaled
$347,455,000, and 33 %
of misconduct cases that went through to convictions and 64 %
of misconduct cases
that received prison sentences. The average length of time
convicted officers spent in
prison was 14 months (Police Brutality Statistics, April 13,
2011). (See Table 1 for
National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project on
police brutality cases
that happened between April 2009 and June 2010).
Research question 2: How do individuals perceive the police
department, and what
implications do these perceptions hold for Black men in
America?
Grounded theory analysis of the data revealed four emergent
themes: (a) contempt
for law enforcement, (b) suspicion of law enforcement, (c) law
enforcement as agents
J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505 485
of brutality, and (d) respect for law enforcement. The “contempt
for law enforcement”
theme was indicative of individuals who used words and/or
phrases that represented
their disdain (dislike) for law enforcement. The “suspicion of
law enforcement”
theme is words and/or phrases related to thoughts, feelings, or
beliefs that members
of law enforcement directly or indirectly engage in police

brutality and/or condone
the brutal actions of other members of law enforcement. The
“law enforcement as
agents of brutality” theme was related to words and/or phrases
related to members of
law enforcement directly or indirectly witnessing acts of
brutality perpetrated by one
or more members of law enforcement against citizens. The
“respect for law enforce-
ment” theme is related to words and/or phrases related to the
belief that law enforce-
ment contributes to order in society and that the members of law
enforcement have
good, altruistic, and benevolent intentions (see Table 2 for
themes, definitions, and
supporting commentary).
Theme 1: Contempt for Law Enforcement
Five individuals (0.14 %) used words and/or phrases that
represented their disdain
(dislike) for law enforcement. Interestingly, the narratives
ranged from insulting
sarcasm (regarding the sexuality orientation of law
enforcement) to indignation
regarding the individuals that have been victims of police
brutality. For example, a
respondent by the name of Scott wrote the following on May 18,
2011 at 1:31 p.m.:
“COPS SUCK! I like this website because it exposes the
assholes that ‘protect’ us, for
who they really are.” Scott’s comment was supported by John
who wrote this on
October 21, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.: “Police are some hoes.”
Another respondent who
identified himself/herself as T expressed anger at another

blogger by the name of
Carolyn who believed “police are the backbone that keeps
sanity and security in our
homes, neighborhoods, and the world at large.” The blogger T
used these words to
express their indignation on May 23, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.:
We are all entitled to our opinion but Carolyn, that’s bs. Google
police brutality
and see the number of people affected. Then you tell me what
you think.
Although the narratives provided by most of these respondents
expressed a strong
contempt for law enforcement, one narrative juxtaposed the role
of law enforcement
Table 1 National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting
Project on police brutality cases that
happened between April 2009 and June 2010
Reports of
misconduct
Fatalities linked
to misconduct
Related settlements
and judgments
Police officer convictions
5,986 382 $347,455,000 Percent that went through to
convictions
(33 %)

Percent convicted that received prison
sentences (64 %)
Average length of time spent in prison
(14 months)
486 J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505
T
ab
le
2
T
he
m
e,
de
fi
ni
tio
n,
an
d
su
pp
or
tin
g
co
m

m
en
ta
ry
T
he
m
e
D
ef
in
iti
on
S
up
po
rt
in
g
co
m
m
en
ta
ry
C
on
te
m
pt
fo

r
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
W
or
ds
an
d/
or
ph
ra
se
s
th
at
re
pr
es
en
t
a
st
ro
ng

di
sd
ai
n
(d
is
lik
e)
fo
r
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
“C
O
P
S
S
U
C
K
!
I
lik
e

th
is
w
eb
si
te
be
ca
us
e
it
ex
po
se
s
th
e
as
sh
ol
es
th
at
‘p
ro
te
ct
’
us
,
fo
r
w

ho
th
ey
re
al
ly
ar
e.
”
S
us
pi
ci
on
of
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
W
or
ds
an

d/
or
ph
ra
se
s
re
la
te
d
to
th
ou
gh
ts
,
fe
el
in
gs
,
or
be
lie
fs
th
at
m
em
be

rs
of
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
di
re
ct
ly
or
in
di
re
ct
ly
en
ga
ge
in
po
lic
e
br
ut

al
ity
an
d/
or
co
nd
on
e
th
e
br
ut
al
ac
tio
ns
of
ot
he
r
m
em
be
rs
of
la
w

en
fo
rc
em
en
t
“W
ha
t
ab
ou
t
th
ei
r
bu
dd
ie
s
w
ho
w
at
ch
ed
,
co
ve
re
d

fo
r
th
em
,
or
lo
ok
ed
th
e
ot
he
r
w
ay
?
T
he
%
of
ba
d
co
ps
go
es
th
ro

ug
h
th
e
ro
of
.”
L
aw
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
as
ag
en
ts
of
br
ut
al
ity
W
or
d
an
d/

or
ph
ra
se
s
di
re
ct
ly
or
in
di
re
ct
ly
re
la
te
d
to
w
itn
es
si
ng
ac
ts
of
br

ut
al
ity
pe
rp
et
ra
te
d
by
on
e
or
m
or
e
m
em
be
rs
of
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t

ag
ai
ns
t
ci
tiz
en
s
“L
O
L
at
R
ya
n!
!!
T
he
se
st
at
s
ar
e
fo
r
C
O
N
V
IC
T
IO

N
S
!
W
hy
do
n’
t
yo
u
do
so
m
e
re
se
ar
ch
an
d
fi
nd
ou
t
th
e
ra
te
of

co
nv
ic
tio
ns
of
O
B
V
IO
U
S
po
lic
e
ab
us
e?
G
o
ah
ea
d,
st
ar
t
w
ith
th

e
vi
de
os
,
th
er
e
ar
e
hu
nd
re
ds
of
co
ps
ou
t
th
er
e
be
at
in
g
an
d
ro
bb
in
g

pe
op
le
on
vi
de
o
th
at
ge
t
no
pu
ni
sh
m
en
t…
N
ow
th
in
k
to
yo
ur
se
lf
,
ho

w
m
an
y
of
th
es
e
th
in
gs
ar
e
ac
tu
al
ly
ca
ug
ht
an
d
ca
m
er
a…
an
d
th

e
ca
m
er
a
su
rv
iv
es
w
ith
vi
de
o
in
ta
ct
?
Ty
pi
ca
l
m
or
on
w
ho
ca
n’
t

do
si
m
pl
e
ob
je
ct
iv
e
th
ou
gh
t
th
at
w
or
sh
ip
s
co
ps
as
he
ro
es
.”
R
es

pe
ct
fo
r
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
W
or
ds
an
d/
or
ph
ra
se
s
re
la
te
d
to
th
e

be
lie
f
th
at
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
co
nt
ri
bu
te
s
to
or
de
r
in
so
ci
et
y
an

d
th
at
th
e
m
em
be
rs
of
la
w
en
fo
rc
em
en
t
ha
ve
go
od
,
al
tr
ui
st
ic
,
an

d
be
ne
vo
le
nt
in
te
nt
io
ns
“W
ow
,
th
is
is
pa
th
et
ic
.
T
he
pe
op
le
w
ho
go

ou
t
ev
er
y
da
y,
to
pr
ot
ec
t
yo
u,
ar
e
so
di
sr
es
pe
ct
ed
in
to
da
y’
s
so
ci

et
y.
S
ay
th
at
co
ps
do
n’
t
do
sh
it
w
he
n
th
ey
sa
ve
yo
u
fr
om
so
m
eo
ne

w
ith
a
gu
n,
or
st
op
s
yo
u
fr
om
ki
lli
ng
yo
ur
se
lf
,
or
w
or
se
,
so

m
eo
ne
el
se
,
w
he
n
yo
u
ar
e
dr
iv
in
g
dr
un
k.
G
o
w
at
ch
H
ow
N
ot
to

ge
t
yo
ur
as
s
ki
ck
ed
by
th
e
P
ol
ic
e,
on
Y
ou
T
ub
e
by
C
hr
is
R
oc
k.

It
’l
l
sh
ow
m
os
t
of
yo
u
w
ha
t
to
do
.”
J Afr Am St (2013) 17:480–505 487
in society against Emergency Medical and Trauma Services
(EMTS) workers and
firefighters. For this individual, members of the former group
were “douchebags,”
while members of the latter group (EMTS workers or
firefighters) were praised by
being referred to as “good guys.” One respondent by the name
of gabriel escobedo
expressed himself in this way on June 18, 2011 at 6:06 p.m.:
SHOUT OUT TO ALL THE EMTS AND FIREFIGHTERS

EVERYWHERE
THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS. COPS ARE PRETENTIOUS
DOUCHE
BAGS. OFFICERS MAY HAVE A DANGEROUS JOB BUT Y
CHOOSE A
LINE OF WORK WHERE MOST OFF HATES YOU.
In contrast to the other four respondents, one blogger insinuated
that some
members of law enforcement are inclined to become cops due to
latent homosexual
inclinations and/or tendencies. Such was the case for Pig killer
who wrote the
following on May 18, 2012 at 11:43 p.m.:
Why do cops shower together after work? They don’t get
dirty… Maybe it
explains why they all have moustaches, for the tickle effect?
Clearly, these five individuals have a strong contempt for
members of law en-
forcement and used derogatory terms or labels (e.g., “assholes,”
“hoes,” “douche
bags,” “Pig killer”) to express their opinions about cops that
they deem less than
honorable. Essentially, these individuals expressed delight that
the NPMSRP on
police brutality cases (and other Internet forums) exists as these
“exposes” law
enforcement whose goal is to “protect” others. Thus, statistics
related to incidents
of reporting misconduct of law enforcement and the actual
stories of individuals that
have been victims of police brutality shed light on an “ugly
truth”: that some
members of law enforcement are perpetrators of brutality

Theism and Naturalism at Odds: Intelligent Design Debated

Theism and Naturalism at Odds: Intelligent Design Debated

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Theism and Naturalism at Odds: Intelligent Design Debated

Similar to Theism and Naturalism at Odds: Intelligent Design Debated (11)

More from rhetttrevannion

More from rhetttrevannion (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Theism and Naturalism at Odds: Intelligent Design Debated