DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on February 06, 2007, 04:25:58 PM
-
Separated At Birth
by Devilstower
Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:52:11 AM CST
Those who have followed the efforts of fundamentalists to push creationism into American classrooms are all too familiar with situations like this.
Tens of thousands of schools and universities have received copies of a book refuting Darwin's theory of evolution and describing it as "the true source of terrorism."
...
Entitled "The Atlas of Creation," the 770-page book asserts that "human beings did not evolve (from another species) but were indeed created."
So what's different this time around? The truth is, I edited the paragraphs above just a bit. Here's the full text.
Tens of thousands of French schools and universities have received copies of a Turkish book refuting Darwin's theory of evolution and describing it as "the true source of terrorism."
...
Entitled "The Atlas of Creation," the 770-page book by Turkish author Harun Yahya quotes several passages from the Koran and asserts that "human beings did not evolve (from another species) but were indeed created."
Darwin's birthday is being celebrated next week around the world, and the forces of fundamentalist creationism in the United States are fuming at the sudden willingness of museums to stand up to intimidation and show the new documentary A Flock of Dodos which reveals the duplicity and ignorance at the heart of the whole "Intelligent Design" movement. It must cheer them immensely to find that they have allies among radical Islamists.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/6/11949/74808
-
I have no problem teaching creationism in schools.
As long as it's done in a theology class.
Science should be taught in science classes, not theology.
-
I have no problem teaching creationism in schools. As long as it's done in a theology class. Science should be taught in science classes, not theology.
As a Christian, I'm willing to reach that compromise
-
I'm not.
A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find "Intelligent Design" to not only be faulty science, but poor theology as well.
I don't want to have public money spent teaching fundamentalist Protestant theology in school. If you want that, send them to a Southern Baptist school (or something similar). A true religious studies course would not teach "intelligent design" either, at least not without teaching a lot of other religious vantage points as well (and offering none of them as "the truth").
-
I'm not. A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find "Intelligent Design" to not only be faulty science, but poor theology as well.
Pardon my french, but how the hell does the teaching of creationsim, which is founded in theology, & taught in a theology class, considered "poor theology"?? :o
-
Pardon my french, but how the hell does the teaching of creationsim, which is founded in theology, & taught in a theology class, considered "poor theology"??
Creationism is based on literal interpretation of Genesis and it is not as old as you might think. For example, Saint Augustine argued for an allegorical interpretation of the creation of the Earth, in other words the six days were a framework - not a literal time period for which God created the planet we know.
The Young Earthers and Neo-Creationists came later and gained popularity after Darwin. There were of course some who believed they could date the creation of the Earth through the lineages of the Old and New Testament, but these weren't widely accepted until later.
So yes, poor theology, unless you are a fundamentalist Protestant (i.e. believe in literal interpretation). Why should public schools fund one sect of Christian thought?
-
I have no problem teaching creationism in schools.
As long as it's done in a theology class.
Science should be taught in science classes, not theology.
We have consensus surprisingly.
-
We have consensus surprisingly.
Of course; I take the common sense approach.
;D
-
I'm not.
A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find "Intelligent Design" to not only be faulty science, but poor theology as well.
I don't want to have public money spent teaching fundamentalist Protestant theology in school. If you want that, send them to a Southern Baptist school (or something similar). A true religious studies course would not teach "intelligent design" either, at least not without teaching a lot of other religious vantage points as well (and offering none of them as "the truth").
Personally, if they're learning that christians think a god created man and woman then learning that another god created a man and woman and another god has the world riding around on the back of a turtle, the whole lot of them get sunk together.
-
So yes, poor theology, unless you are a fundamentalist Protestant (i.e. believe in literal interpretation). Why should public schools fund one sect of Christian thought?
Who said they were limited in presenting just 1 thought?? It's a theology class, for crying out loud
-
We have consensus surprisingly.
Of course; I take the common sense approach.
;D
I can appreciate you thinking that however, I have not always found that to be the case.
-
JS---about the teaching of one sect of Christian thought: exactly. I was never taught that literally, God took 6 days to make the earth. God created the earth, yes. A day to God might be eons.
And why only teach Christian creation? How about Native American creation stories?
-
And why only teach Christian creation? How about Native American creation stories?
My assumption would be a theology course would teach more than one theology.
-
And why only teach Christian creation? How about Native American creation stories?
My assumption would be a theology course would teach more than one theology.
Mine as well.
-
I can appreciate you thinking that however, I have not always found that to be the case.
Just because I disagree with you does not mean I have abandoned common sense; usually the opposite is true.
8)
-
And why only teach Christian creation? How about Native American creation stories?
My assumption would be a theology course would teach more than one theology.
Precisely
-
How about people who believe in worship of ancestors, or idols? Do you teach that too?
Do you teach Santeria? Taoism, Paganism, etc.?
-
How about people who believe in worship of ancestors, or idols? Do you teach that too? Do you teach Santeria? Taoism, Paganism, etc.?
Wouldn't you?
-
<<My assumption would be a theology course would teach more than one theology.>>
My assumption is that a comparative religion course teaches more than one theology, and a theology course teaches about "God" which of course is dependent upon the viewpoint of the teacher which in turn probably depends upon the viewpoint of the college that hires him or her. In other words, a Methodist school teaches Methodist theology, etc. But never having studied the subject, I wouldn't know.
-
I'm not.
A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find "Intelligent Design" to not only be faulty science, but poor theology as well.
I don't want to have public money spent teaching fundamentalist Protestant theology in school. If you want that, send them to a Southern Baptist school (or something similar). A true religious studies course would not teach "intelligent design" either, at least not without teaching a lot of other religious vantage points as well (and offering none of them as "the truth").
I'm perfectly fine with that - with the caveat that if fundamentalist Protestants are forced to send their children to private schools to get the education they deem appropriate, the tax dollars they're being charged to support the public schools are refunded.
After all, they're paying for a "public service" that is totally inadequate to provide for their needs.
-
I read this story in the book "A Primate's Memoir".
http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Memoir-Neuroscientists-Unconventional-Baboons/dp/0743202414
While weighing and measureing a babboon he had sedated a primatologist was visited by two Masai men who were passing by.
They had never seen a liveng Babboon so close so they were very interested .
The Primatologist was glad for the company and began to tell them interestiong facts about babboons , his vocation and wound up telling them about evolution ment that Men like themselves were desendants of creatures that were something like Babboons.
One of the Masai replied at this point that he had best stop talking this way or elese he would poke a hole in the primatologist with the spear he happened to have.
The scientist dropped the subject.
This Turkish author is blameing our insistance on teaching evolution for terrorism , should we humbly apologise and quit doing this irritateing thing?
-
The problem now is that you've broadened your public school theology course into several courses that cannot be adequately taught in one simple class (or even a few classes over a few years). Also, while this might sit well with this community of somewhat reasonable people ( ;) ) how well will teaching modern islamic thought go over with the public school system in Alamance County, NC? How well will teaching Catholic doctrine go over in the heart of Southern Baptist evangelical country? How well will tax dollars being spent to teach animism go over with Rep. Tiahrt's constituents in Kansas?
Unfortunately the reasonable solution is not always the most practical. Kids will have to wait until they get to university to take decent religious studies classes. Personally, I took some very good classes when I got to that level. I took a class on pre-17th century Islam that gave great insight into the Islamic beliefs and why Muslims believe what they believe (and despite some popular myth professors don't try and convert anyone ;) ).
-
Unfortunately the reasonable solution is not always the most practical.
Well, then, if they can't teach it adequately in a theology course, I guess they shouldn't teach it. ;)
And yes, I had a comparative theology semester as part of my AP English senior year in a Buncombe County, NC public high school.
-
Unfortunately the reasonable solution is not always the most practical.
Well, then, if they can't teach it adequately in a theology course, I guess they shouldn't teach it. ;)
But of course ;D
-
It figures you'd be an Ashevillian ;)
-
It figures you'd be an Ashevillian ;)
Don't insult me.
Weaverville. ;D
-
Have you driven on I-26 since they finished it?
My favorite feature are the Erwin police waiting for speeders at the bottom of the mountain.
-
Have you driven on I-26 since they finished it?
My favorite feature are the Erwin police waiting for speeders at the bottom of the mountain.
Just small sections of it. And the Erwin police remind me of the police at the bottom of Old Fort Mountain, which I drove weekly for a while.
-
The problem now is that you've broadened your public school theology course into several courses that cannot be adequately taught in one simple class (or even a few classes over a few years). Also, while this might sit well with this community of somewhat reasonable people ( ;) ) how well will teaching modern Islamic thought go over with the public school system in Alamance County, NC? How well will teaching Catholic doctrine go over in the heart of Southern Baptist evangelical country? How well will tax dollars being spent to teach animism go over with Rep. Tiahrt's constituents in Kansas?
Unfortunately the reasonable solution is not always the most practical. Kids will have to wait until they get to university to take decent religious studies classes. Personally, I took some very good classes when I got to that level. I took a class on pre-17th century Islam that gave great insight into the Islamic beliefs and why Muslims believe what they believe (and despite some popular myth professors don't try and convert anyone ;) ).
I agree evolution should not be taught till colledge.