|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: More importantly the question is whether sectarian dogma should be presented as fact in schools - when the evidence is greatly against it,
quote: How should we react to people who reject science while claiming to be “scientists”? .And the dishonesty noted among creationists hardly helps.
quote: Because they prefer to teach the truth over false sectarian dogma.
quote: That’s an example of creationist dishonesty - perhaps not on your part, you may well have been deceived yourself. Nevertheless it is a fact that honest science overwhelmingly supports evolution,
quote: There’s whole issue of religious freedom - which rules out the theocratic tyranny wanted by “Biblical Christian religion” (which is not Biblical nor very Christian). And then there’s the very bad behaviour of those promoting it which rather contradicts the idea that their religion is the “basis of good behaviour”. If it were its followers should be notably better behaved than most, rather than notably worse.
quote: No.
quote: The Founding Fathers of America gave the freedom you want to take away. In part because of the abuses of the Puritans. Look up the Boston Martyrs. Look up the history of Maryland. The Founders ruled out religious tests for office. The Founders gave America the First Amendment - and the religious freedom there is the basis for keeping sectarian dogma out of schools. And how are you forbidden from “living the standard”? Think about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: So you absolutely do not want creationism taught in science classes. Which is odd, given all the references to creationism in your post. Creationism is a sectarian dogma - one that is rejected by many Christians. Indeed you seem to be referring to Young Earth Creationism which is rejected by even more Christians.
quote: I don’t think so but I certainly got the impression that you did. How else would a ban on teaching creationism in science classes prevent you from following your religion?
quote: I’ll note that “no religion” is obviously not a religion.More importantly you never connected the original assertion to any point. quote: I’m not aware of any significant scientific knowledge that supports creationism. I am aware of a vast collection of apologetics for sectarian dogma - apologetics that are often less than honest. (But then religious apologetics are often less than fully honest).
quote: Regardless of the question of “fear” there is the point that it is much quicker and easier to make a false assertion than it is to refute it. Classroom time is limited. Using it to promote the views of a sect - and then taking time to refute those claims - would seem a poor use of it. The more so since all sects would claim the right to have their views presented - imagine having to discuss the Book of Mormon when dealing with pre-Colombian history!
quote: You really don’t know much about science, do you? Though I put to you the Law of Faunal Succession as relevant.
quote: I certainly am. Indeed Creationism is not “supporting the Bible” - at best they are supporting a dubious view of the Bible which often results in distorting and misrepresenting Scripture.
quote: I would count Creationism as mishandling whatever truth there is in the Bible. Indeed the idea that the truth is to be found by taking myths literally seems a quite clear example.
quote: The mere existence of a possibility is hardly a counter-balance to a known threat. The people who want theocratic tyranny are here and they are active. Indeed the whole movement to restore prayer in schools is a part of it.
quote: I hardly think that forcing your religion on children is a means of ‘controlling sin”. And as for chaos wouldn’t the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 be a clear example? Did prayer in school stop that?
quote: That is a very selective reading of the First Amendment. You omit the fact that it forbids government support for religion. Teachers - as government employees - therefore cannot use their position to advance their religion. Eg by wasting time in science class teaching sectarian dogmas like creationism instead of science. If that is the “free exercise” you have in mind then it is quite obvious that it is forbidden - and rightly so. I also note that free exercise is not a carte blanche. Religious justification only goes so far when it comes to actions,
quote: First science belongs in science classes. Your sectarian dogma does not. Second, the First Amendment does not grant the right to use government positions to promote your religion - and I very much doubt you would be happy if a teacher used their position to promote Islam or Hinduism. Or even if a teacher made Christian arguments against creationism in a science class.
quote: I would not count creationism as good religion. If the “right” claimed would only be granted to Creationists and not to the followers of other religions (as I am sure is intended) the claim is not made in good conscience. “Unbiblical behaviour” - if that means teaching the curriculum honestly and professionally - seems obviously good in comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Nobody claims that men are descended from actual amoebas. In addition the whole question is largely an irrelevance. The whole idea that scientific conclusions must be supported by “laws” creates a vicious circularity since the “laws” themselves are scientific conclusions. However, The Law of Faunal Succession describes the order of the fossil record. Not only is this something that Young Earth Creationists have failed to explain evolution does explain features of the order which would be puzzling if it were not true. E.g. the earliest life we can find is relatively simple, then we only find marine life. Eventually we find animals increasingly adapted to land - while marine life continues,
quote: A creationist is someone who insists that the variety of life is largely due to individual creation rather than evolution. Though most Young Earth creationists have backtracked quite significantly on that. In large part they insist that the Biblical creation stories must be taken literally (although Old Earth Creationists allow more latitude to interpretation to harmonise more with scientific conclusions). I will note that no creationist I have heard of insists that any of us were created outside of the usual reproductive processes. It is creation outside of those processes that is the issue - please don’t conflate them.
quote: It is creationist interpretations of the Bible that are the main issue. Surely it is valid - even in your view - to make challenges to that interpretation based on the Biblical text. And certainly there are good grounds to do so - the disagreements between the two creation stories and the construction of the Flood story from two differing traditions being examples - as is the rather obvious fact that the stories are myths. Then again why should an interpretation be immune from criticism on scientific grounds? Creationists do not adhere to the cosmology of Genesis 1 - preferring the facts shown by science. Why should other aspects of the story be treated differently?
quote: It is based on belief - which is not necessarily true. Indeed, since some of the Founders were Deists it certainly was not based on creationist belief.
quote: It is clearly about an idolatrous cult called creationism trying to set up men as false gods. The group you call “evolutionists” includes many Christians. Now there is a real example of “bad judgement”.
quote: Again you tell us to uncritically accept the word of men. Why should we do that?
quote: Who decides that this knowledge is “essential”? Why is teaching creationism important to it? Why should we reject the findings of science that conflict with the sectarian teachings you accept? Why should we hold that any teachings of men are beyond challenge? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I would say that the knowledge of how to learn and how to reason is essential.
quote: Men can’t ”settle” the truth by decree. The Bible does contain myth and legend - and there are disagreements between the books of the Bible. You can’t simply dismiss that truth because your sect teaches otherwise or because you don’t like it.
quote: Many Christians hold that the central message is what counts - not trying to pretend that myths are literal facts.
quote: Do you even realise that that doctrine doesn’t fit with a simple literal reading of the original story? Don’t you think that’s a sign that a simple, literal reading is not the correct way to read it?
quote: Many Christians would disagree.
quote: Oh, it is from men. It is certainly men who told you that the myths must be taken literally - and those personal testimonies were all from humans, too.
quote:There are plenty of business owners who take steps to suppress criticism. Simply claiming that the business is good and calling the criticisms smears is not an answer. quote: I have not argued that God is evil. I leave that to people like you.
quote: Indeed - creationism is exactly that. The Bible never puts a great emphasis on taking myths as fact. It’s not required for salvation. Nor is putting on an appearance of piety.
quote: And there is a fine example of an attempt to “victimise” science through “faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive”.
quote: Then I guess you’d better get beyond promoting sectarian dogma and misrepresenting the Bible,
quote: Which is why you were bragging about finding a clever loophole in the First Amendment. No, preaching the doctrine of one religion - let alone a sect of that religion is not something that belongs in schools. The notoriously dishonest behaviour of creationists is another count against your claim. Why would people with lives “enriched” by their belief be full of falsehood and hate and hypocrisy? If they believe that the Bible is the Word of God why do they show it so little respect? They seem to worship a Bible of their own imagining and reject the actual book - which they seem reluctant to even read. It doesn’t make sense if things are as you say, does it? Edited by PaulK, : Fix typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
According to Genesis 1 the sky is a solid dome with water above it (verses 6-8) and the sun, moon and stars (including the planets) are just lights in the dome (verses 14-18)
But creationists never seem to argue for that. When they do try to take on astronomy they usually accept that the stars are hugely distant - and they also never condemn the moon landings or NASA’s planetary missions as frauds. Which they must surely be if the Biblical picture of the universe is correct. It’s as if they know the Biblical cosmology isn’t “settled truth” at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: There’s no real concern that these figures - to the extent that they are true (David Barton is notorious) - are due to the removal of school prayer. Nor do any of your sources make any attempt to show otherwise.
quote: School prayer IS forcing your religion on others. That was why it was banned.
quote: That is rather obviously untrue.
quote: What “Biblical Truth”? - perhaps a start would be to do more to avoid telling unbiblical untruths. Or indeed to engage in discussion of the issues rather than simply stating opinions.
quote: For a start it is possible to see humans actually engaging in the processes of building houses or manufacturing cars. Surely you know that? Do you have anything equivalent?
quote: I’m afraid it isn’t. That’s why philosophers have struggled to find arguments for the existence of god for many centuries - and still haven’t succeeded.
quote: I don’t think that anyone would reject the idea that a God existed if given proof.
quote: Because the writers didn’t have good evidence either?
quote: There certainly is.
quote: Not really, since it is only by faith that you attribute the words to God and it is only by trust in men that you interpret them in the way you do. If asked to choose between men promoting falsehoods and science - which is a collective effort aimed at discovering the truth - then I will choose science. And that is - for instance - the case when discussing Noah’s Flood (which even Old Earth Creationists usually interpret as a local event)
quote: As I have said, you really don’t know much about science. Science is mainly about finding explanations for why things are the way that they are. Evolution is such an explanation, resting on a huge amount of evidence and research. Ask yourself why Young Earth creationists still don’t have a valid explanation of the Law of Faunal Succession. And that’s a small part of the evidence (though one that’s been known since the early 19th Century).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There are quite a few questions you haven’t answered. But it seems you’d rather talk at us rather than discuss - even though this is a discussion group.
quote: Thanks for the implicit admission that God is not at all obvious - that we need to be told about him. Although it would be rather better if you actually used this assertion to make a relevant point.
quote: No, we don’t. I don’t claim to be perfect or even more than averagely good, but that’s enough for me.
quote: The real reasons are the Bible and Christian theology. The former paints God quite badly in a number of places while the latter often implies it.
quote: And if God is all Christians say he is then he knowingly created that situation. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense (not to mention that Calvinists have a quite different take).
quote: Somebody who is not aware of the alleged debt, does not trust that the person making the offer has any authority to do so and who finds the additional conditions - which you left out a rather high price. (Not to mention the disagreements over that price among Christians).
quote: And you also said - or at least implied - that you’d abandon your faith in God if the Noah’s Ark myth turned out not to be literally true. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
quote: Why? You’re hardly the first person to preach untruths at us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
So the reason you won’t engage in discussion is:
quote: Presumably, then, you aren’t interested in the information - or even identifying the real problems. An interesting admission, but hardly a good reason.
quote: Let us note that that rather implausible assertion still contradicts the Biblical claim. (If it was really true that our nature prevented us from seeing the supposedly obvious it would still be a reasonable excuse).
quote:Well, I don’t want to be worse, and creationists do tend to be worse than average. So I wouldn’t think that joining your religion would be a good thing at all. Maybe you should convert to something better. quote: I don’t think that my limits are in question here. We don’t need perfection - and it doesn’t seem as if anyone has any better answers.
quote: The Bible was written by people - with a number of different viewpoints. So it is an example of “what people say”.
quote: I’m pretty sure that my understanding is adequate. These aren’t highly complicated things and there doesn’t seem much nuance.
quote: Yes, we should - if we believe what Christianity says. That’s one of the problems. Why should man have a “fallen corrupting nature”? God supposedly created man so any weaknesses in man would be his responsibility, for a start.
quote: Well obviously, we can’t excuse God on the grounds that he couldn’t reasonably foresee the consequences of his actions. So you’re right in that respect. But I don’t see how there is anything there that helps you.
quote: However we are talking of responses to the claim that there is a debt. Surely you don’t expect me to believe that I owe a debt just because you say so.
quote: You say that, but it still looks like an attempted fraud. I’m not going to pay a high price for a supposed “debt” that can’t be reasonably established. Nobody should.
quote: There are plenty of “Christians” that can’t be trusted. And even the honest ones might be in error or deceived.
quote: In Message 1995 you stated:
If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us? And in context it certainly appears that you meant that the Biblical myths should be taken as fact. So yes, it does appear that you can’t have faith in God to save you unless the myths are literally true.
quote: So if I’m imperfect I have to worship men as false Gods? Perhaps you would like to explain that. Your claims to knowledge, like every other human claim, can be and should be examined.
quote: This is where discussion comes in. Instead of relying on assertions you could provide support for your claims. Or perhaps you can’t because you haven’t bothered to inform yourself. If that’s so, then you are engaged in foolishness.
quote: Well thank you for that irrational rant. What you say makes no sense at all. Not accepting the Bible as a reliable source of truth hardly means rejecting ideas or claims just because they are in the Bible. There is a huge gap between being 100% right and 100% wrong. Just as there is a difference between your preferred interpretation of the Bible and what the Bible actually says. Probably quite a large difference in places.
quote: So you’ll just accept the word of men without considering even the Bible. That’s what you really mean. It’s fascinating really how little creationists understand the Bible - and how hostile they are to understanding it.
quote: I don’t believe that I made any “claims against God”.
quote: I think I do. Rationally examining claims to determine the truth seems pretty important to me. If your sect doesn’t like that isn’t that an indication that they have a problem?
quote: I doubt that you understand the point Marx was making. But there is, of course, a huge difference between rejecting religion and endorsing Marxist views on other matters (indeed aspects of Marxism are quite compatible with Christianity - consider Acts 4:32). Indeed, much of what I have said is simply rejecting your sectarian views rather than Christianity itself,
quote: Maybe you should learn to distinguish better between God and men. Learn more of the variety of beliefs in Christianity. And certainly learn more about the Bible. In fact I think you should learn more to understand rather than simply “believe” - after all you can’t really believe something if you don’t understand it. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024