A Fundie Is A Fundie is a Fundie...

[Brassmask]

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

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

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

[_JS]

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").

[sirs]

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"??   

[_JS]

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?

[Brassmask]

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.

[Amianthus]

We have consensus surprisingly.

Of course; I take the common sense approach.

 

[Brassmask]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Brassmask]

We have consensus surprisingly.

Of course; I take the common sense approach.

 

I can appreciate you thinking that however, I have not always found that to be the case.

[Lanya]

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?   

[Amianthus]

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.

[Brassmask]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.