Education

I would say that YECs and those that believe in a literal interpretation of the Creation accounts show willfull ignorance or simple ignorance. Those who are simply ignorant will, over time, learn more and abandon such literal interpretations.That leaves those who are willfully ignorant. Is that a sign of insanity or simply a sign of stubbornness? I realy don't know. If it's a mental illness then they should be excused for their behavior, but their limitations regarding their ability to analize evidence and make rational decisions should be noted.In either case they should be kept out of decision making positions where their inability to make rational decisions might cause harm to others. That is no different than saying that a blind man should not drive the bus. There is nothing in the link you provided that supports your assertion that the Pope does not support the Theory of Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant

---

I would interpret that as the way the church sees it.

...I take that as a "no"

This piece from Reuters/MSNBC suggests that Schoenborn found it neccessary to clarify what he meant in his Times piece, presumably the original was vague (and unimportant?). TTFN,WK

Jar, are there not many types of YECs, some 'stupider' than others ... some more 'idiotical' and/or... some 'wackier', etc.?If, I myself quit Nave-YECism, I'd still seem *forced* (as a science 'practitioner') to hypothesize 3 real creation etiologies that seem fairly 'literalist'. Something like:
1) "Heaven(s) and Earth" (Gen 1.1)
2) Complex life-forms (Gen 1.21)
3) Man (male and female) (Gen 1.27)This (being supernatural) may not *seem* in absolute accord with ”science class’, but then theistic-evolutionism might seem even mor perverse (another topic), depending on the number of miracles or something...If you postulate even just ONE creation event(s) . would that ”fit’ and/or ”support’ science-education?(Note, please go easy on me, I’m just suggesting that science-education might seem less flawed if it tolerated a creation-event or something).This message has been edited by Philip, 12-21-2005 10:54 AM

I think you are confusing credible with palatable.TTFN,WK

Note the edit: "less flawed"

As noted above it doesn't make it more or less credible. "Credible" from an evidence point-of-view doesn't change.In the science classroom what we have are things which are very well established, things which are much more tentative and things which are unknown (and lots of shades in between).If someone wants to put forward an evidenceless idea against one of the first two categories then they they have very low credibility. If they want to put forward a creation idea into the unknown category they are proposing another God of the Gaps arguement.It seems that the best way to approach it is with an understanding that some believe that there is a sentience responsible for how things are and some aren't so sure. These two groups both consist of scientists and non-scientists.For those that believe there is some "one" (whatever that is) responsible for everything the best approach is to (as, at one time or another ALL agree) take how this someone accomplished this as a mystery and NOT to allow beliefs to color how we THINK it should have been done.If you inject something as simple as God being responsible for the big bang you get into a mess if we find the cause of that and that here have been many of them. Jar's view that God set the "rules" of the game up (whatever they turn out to be) stays out of trouble and speaks of something that is much more powerful than a hands-on, dirty-fingered sculpture of clay.

It's hard to understand what you're saying so if I'm misunderstanding you, please correct my mistakes.I think you are saying that Science should allow for one supernatural intervention. If that is correct,my answer is a resounding NO!.Allowing even one super-natural event as scientific means that all of our scientific knowledge must be thrown out. We can no longer rely on medicine or any other field of knowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yea, I'd say less flawed. If it moves into areas of more tentativity and less rock solid science. However, it might only be moving into a gap so you have to be careful how you express it.If you are talking about inserting something into the science classroom and want to avoid "establishment" clause issues I think something like what was in one of my daugher's early science texts is fine (but I'm not a constitutional judge). This had a couple of paragraphs saying that many religions have ideas about how life etc. was created.I have emphasized the 'how' as that is what is then discussed from then on.

I agree, but......This sounds like a creation-event to me (theistic-evolutionism or something); or a One-Creation-Event hypothesis.

The point is 9nth grade science-education is extremely precarious; you and I are accountable that these individuals are given "science truth" without religious nor faulty evolutionistic notions.A bold disclaimer of some sort must be applied to 9nth grade biology.

You take what as a "no"? I've re-read my message and can not figure out WTF you're referring to. How about you actually address the points I brought up? Of course, as I predicted, you avoided that idea altogether and instead gave a flippant response of "I take that as a no" . which in no way makes any sense. But then, why should I have expected otherwise?Here are just three points to which I'd like some sort of reasonable response. Is that asking too much of you Philip?1. What do space-time continuums, light, and whatever the hell "inflationary big-bang-etiology(s)" are, have to do with the ToE?2. Explain to me what “punctuated chromosomal mutations during the Cambrian" even are.3. Please list for me the "special creation hypotheses" that salvage the "perverted" ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.I look forward to your explanations and descriptions.

The difference is that I hold that as a personal belief, not a scientific fact.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not unless we debate more 'politely'.(Admins, please regard these posts...)