Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible

Here is a link to the article in the Des Moines Register.I do like this bit:

quote:

---

Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.

---

I like the way that it was felt necessary to identify Prof. Avalos as an atheist religion professor.The comments section is an interesting read, too.Added by edit:Oops. I see that bob gray has already linked to this article. I didn't reread the thread after I read it this morning, so missed it.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Actually, it's not. The theory of evolution is a description of a phenomenon, nothing more. The theory of evolution is simply the statement of the facts that in a natural population some individuals produce many offspring, some produce few offspring, and some produce none at all; in a natural population, this difference in reproduction is because of variations in the physical characteristics; these physical variations are inherited; so in the next generation, more individuals will have the physical characteristics associated with the production of more offspring, and fewer individuals will have the physical characteristics that produce fewer offspring; over time, the population will eventually consist solely of individuals with the characteristics that produce many offspring, and no individual will have the characteristics that produce few offspring; and that new variations appear. Furthermore, the theory of evolution states that that the many species that we know derived from a single ancestral population several billion years ago through this process of differential reproduction due to inherited physical characteristics.See? The theory of evolution is simply a description of a phenomenon. There is nothing in this description that labels some actions as "good" or other actions as "bad", nor does it imply any sort of ideology or philosophy.This is much like Newton's theory of gravity is simply a description of a phenomenon. It does not imply that people should live in low valleys and avoid hilltops; it does not state that flying in airplanes or living in tall buildings is wrong. It simply describes how objects will fall to the ground; it does not imply that humans should leap off of cliffs because that is the "natural thing to do".- Exactly. People will be racists and will commit acts that we think are morally wrong. They will then justify their beliefs with the explanatory framework that is available to them. In present day North America, white supremists are Christians. They found justification for their racism with their interpretation of the Bible. In the early 20th century, eugenicists were more scientifically minded. They justified their racist views with their interpretations of biology.- Nor can we "blame it on evolution" when we do wrong.- That is what happens anyway. Most religious societies are simply the result of a consensus of what's right and wrong.- Which is an opinion that seems to be confined to those followers of God, and hence isn't an unbiased opinion.- Okay. So I know that abortion is right; preventing a woman from terminating her pregnancy is wrong. I know this. Is this because God wrote this in my conscience?- Actually, it is a reasonable and logical explanation of the physical evidence that we see around us, evidence that is so overwhelming that one can only refuse to accept it by perversely sticking to one's religious beliefs. The data simply show that the events recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis (as well as the chapters describing a global flood) did not happen. If God did indeed write Genesis, then, yes, I'm afraid that what God wrote is not true.I can see how you would be troubled with the idea that God might write something that is not true; I'll leave it to you how to deal with it. I will suggest, though, that simply dismissing the overwhelming abundance of evidence that supports the theory of evolution isn't a particularly rational way of dealing with this, and it's possible that this sort of emotional avoidance of issues that you find unpleasant might be harmful in other situations. But that's your call.Edited by Chiroptera, : typoEdited by Chiroptera, : Fixed a parody of a quote to use the same word.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

(Content hidden -- I just saw Ned's warning.) I will unhide this part, since I think it is relevant: Wow! You really can't stick to a topic, can you? You can't even stick to the topic of your own digressions.Have you ever considered that this inability to focus on a given topic for any length of time is a sign that maybe your somewhat confused about the topic and issues?Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : Edited the last sentence to try to make it sound less insulting. But maybe it still is, I dunno.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Beretta,I started a new topic concerning morality and evolution to discuss whatever connections you might see. If you want to continue this topic, join us there.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe