Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

Hopefully he's referring to Of Pandas and People, Davis and Kenyon's anti-science screed. Not Gould's book.

I'm a bit curious as to what you see is the "big picture" in science? I'm fully aware that you consider both abiogenesis and evolution to be myths - your belief on that particular question is not what I'm asking.

I must not have expressed myself clearly, as you didn't address the question. I was asking you to clarify the following statement:

quote:

---

The only real parts of what is called science under question regarding orgins doesn't much affect the big picture anyhow.

---

You used the term "big picture". I'm trying to understand what you meant by that. If this "big picture" is outside of science, as you seem to imply in your response (if I'm reading you correctly), then I'm confused as to how what we teach (or don't teach) in science class has any relevance.On the other hand, you seemed to also imply in your response that whatever this "big picture" is that we're supposed to be teaching DOES have some impact on science when you say "the main areas of science are not that affected".Do you see why I'm confused? Clarification would be appreciated. If I understand what you're trying to say, I can possibly come up with some reasonable point of discussion.

Ahh, thanks. Now I get where you're coming from. I'm always interested in the implications of peoples' ideas. Let me add three questions here.1. There are over 34,000 recognized Christian churches, denominations, sects, etc in the world. Slightly less than 2/3 of them have at least some representation in the United States. Most of these groups differ from each other either slightly or fundamentally in many doctrinal areas, including origins. Which group's (or collection of groups') doctrines will be the guiding principles? Does this group (or these groups) represent a majority of Christians in the US? If so, what is the legal/ethical/constitutional status of the "minority" Christian groups?2. Non-Christian groups represent some 15% (or ~40 million people) of the population in the US. Although a clear minority, if your proposal were adopted, what would their legal/ethical/constitutional status be? Would their origin stories be permitted in school, or not?3. Does your majority control of science refer to only teaching, or do you intend for it to have wider application? If the former, are you limiting majority control to secondary and below, or would you also require majority control over state-funded colleges and universities as well? If the latter, which sciences would be directly effected (i.e., which sciences would be prohibited under your system from conducting basic research, etc)? Probably a good thing none of us has that power, don't you think? Autocracies have a deservedly bad reputation historically. Oh, they're fine when you're a member of the ruling class, but everybody else gets the shaft. And whose ox is being gored can change on a whim. Edited by Quetzal, : edited kuz I kant spel

Right. It supposedly is. However, the interpretation of the Book is one of the things that has created such a plethora of different denominations, churches, sects, etc (doctrinal and ritual disagreements comprise the remainder). Why do you think your particular group's idiosyncratic interpretation would be the main one? From sheer numbers, the combined Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, mainline Presbyterian, etc, outnumber the inerrantists about 2:1. None of these churches are against evolution. If you go by majority rule, you lose. I would say, therefore, that interpretation of doctrine would be a pretty critical issue for you. So, why is yours best, or why would the other denominations accept it? Wait a sec, aren't you guys the ones who are always on about how persecuted Christians are around the world? Isn't what you're advocating here the same thing? For example, the Stalinists in the former Soviet Union had a very similar rule when the suppressed the Russian Orthodox church, if I remember correctly. How do you justify this kind of oppression in light of Christianity? So, essentially, any teaching of life sciences at any level would be limited to descriptions of things like photosynthesis and cell mechanics. Got it. Biology is reduced to butterfly-collecting. Quite a few, I would imagine. Besides biology and ecology, we have cosmology, astrophysics, cosmogyny, etc. Who knows - just about any science could be conceivably disliked by someone. I don't know about "obligation", but certainly funding basic research has had a net positive effect on human life, don't you agree? You realize of course that there was something similar in the past, don't you? Today it's called the Dark Ages, for reasons that it might be good to contemplate.Tell me something. Is this attitude unique to you, or are you a member of an organized group that maintains similar radical ideas?

In that case, I guess we can all breathe a nice sigh of relief. The basic doctrine you've outlined here is pretty consistent across most Christian sects. They may word things differently, but it's pretty straight forward. However, that wasn't your contention, now was it? You claimed that the "majority" would decide to eviscerate biology to the point of irrelevancy, render geology impotent, throw out most of modern cosmology, physics, etc, because they disagreed with it on religious grounds. Since you apparently are now aware that "majority" rule would be against your view, you appear to be backing off from that initial claim. Am I reading you correctly?I'd appreciate a response to the rest of my post when you get a chance. Thanks.

My ancestors, as far back as I can trace them with confidence anyway, were as invariant a bunch of thugs, scum and opportunists as you could ever want to meet. The relevancy of what my ancestors did 400 years ago escapes me, however.

That seems to be a pretty big "if". Given the fact that the inerrantist/literalist groups are substantially outnumbered by the mainline denominations that have no problem accepting the findings of science in "majority rule" terms, I'm not sure your "bringing the two into line" has much chance of success. I'd be very interested in hearing how you think that might occur. As I see it, the only way you'd be able to pull it off is if you seized control of all of the organs of government and law enforcement, and instituted a sort of "tyranny of the minority" to force the others to accept your interpretation. I'd guess that's possible, but sort of puts paid to your argument that we should only teach what the "majority" finds acceptable. Restate that to read, "a majority of those who believe...", and I think you're closer to the mark. The Flood, etc, believers represent a rather small minority of all Christians, after all. Heh. More like heart removal from a corpse than a transplant. Or sacrifice.I think I asked you this before. If you responded, apologies but I missed it. Are you a member of an organized group that espouses this ultra-radical view, or are these your own ideas?

Damn, I'm sorry to hear that Lith. If you need to file a countersuit (if it goes that far), try the ACLU.Another reason to be glad I'm in a field position, rather than academia. I may not have the fancy credentials, but nobody tries to get me fired over ideology. Poor contract management, on the other hand...