Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
Yay. Finally our all-knowing, benevolent government is helping us fight those evil, anti-knowledge Christians who are bent on starting a modern day crusade against science!!!! /sarcasm
Next on the agenda: apply same tactics to fighting those who don’t buy into human-created global warming, moral equivalence of all religions, the morality of killing unborn babies, and pro-homosexual teachings . . .
And so continues the USA . . . to hell in a hand basket!
The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from the voting mob.
It is impossible for education to be religiously neutral. When government owns and runs schools, government is establishing religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment.
The solution: Begin the process of privatizing all education on every level.
By the way, this case would never be in court if the college had been private. Private schools can establish any godless or god-centered religious worldview or specific religion or atheistic philosophy that they want.
Is that true? I've seen surveys that said that the percentage of scientists who are believers is around 15%, with mathematicians having the highest percentage and that was in the low 20's. Sorry, I can't put my finger on the studies but the numbers stuck in my mind.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God
The BJU text believes that random mutations and natural selection occurs. Just not to the extent complex life was created out of molecules banging together. They do spend some pages showing their point of view.
The text supports young earth because it believes the inerrancy of the Bible. However, it does present the other points of view, such as old earth creationism, gap theory, progressive creationism, evolution, and does have exercises directing the student to understand these points of view.
I find the chapter (chapter eight) in the text insufficient to cover the subject for the serious science student. As with all texts, it is merely a springboard to other readings and better understanding. Just the same, I would bet that students reading that chapter learn more about the arguments than are taught in any secular text. Most secular texts just have a few lines on creationists giving the impression on how they are just sort of nuts.
I got my doctorate from a secular university, and I had teachers that thought Darwinism was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I can see how they thought he put things together for them, but I, frankly, have problems with it.
Like a jigsaw puzzle that you think the pieces are fitting, but when you hold them up to the light they still have chinks coming through, and you know you have the wrong piece. The idea of the universe being intelligently designed by an omniscient being makes so much more sense to me.
I make sure my students understand all of it. For one, I do have some non Christian students, and I also tell them that when they go to a secular college they are going to run into rabid atheists who are seeking to tear down all their arguments, not because they want to understand, but by doing so they are attacking the “God Delusion”.
In any case, people need to understand why they come to conclusions, not just parrot facts - I guess that’s why I like being a conservative, also!
Interesting. Thanks for the link. Of course, there’s a difference between believing in God as a vague entity and adhering to a particular religion in all it’s aspects. For example, I’ll bet if you asked how many biologists or physicists believed in the Genesis story of Creation the percentage would be in the single digits.
Sure. But what does that have to do with this case?
By the way, this case would never be in court if the college had been private. Private schools can establish any godless or god-centered religious worldview or specific religion or atheistic philosophy that they want.
This case had nothing to do with religion. the UC schools have certain neutral requirements for student admission. The people who lost this suit did not want to be bound by those requirements. They lost. Maybe they should try and play by the same rules as everyone else nex time.
This situation has nothing to do with your monomaniacal obsession with defunding public schools. Attendance at State universities is wholly voluntary and is therefore quite different from public elementary and high schools.
This is where I have a problem. This requires rejecting centuries of knowledge about physics, geology, astronomy, archeology, etc. Is the speed of light a variable? Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans? How does a science textbook deal with this? Well, I guess I should read it to find out, time permitting.
We were taught evolution in my Catholic high school. By a nun, no less. I kid you not. She taught us that whether you believe it or not, you have to look at the evidence with a critical eye. And besides, she told us, if it exists, it was in God’s plan. A reasonable, even-handed approach, and the Diocese stood behind her 100%.
I just don’t understand why you can’t keep science and relligion separate. Learning the theories and evidence doesn’t mean you have to believe in them. And yes, that includes Global Warming. But the theories are there, and should be taught as part of a science curriculum.
By the way, I really had problems with this judge’s ruling. for instance, he writes, “ They...instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.”
I’ve read tons of secular and non secular texts, both in science and history. IMHO, it’s the secular texts that leave stuff out, because they run into too much trouble if they mention God or religion.
For instance, ever read a secular text about the pilgrims? They may mention the Mayflower compact, but they won’t quote it. It mentions God.
The Pilgrims came to america because they were so committed to worshipping God in their own way. So you would think that in a text on the Pilgrims the primary emphasis would be on religion and how it influenced pilgrim society and how it got them there in the first place.
But the school text I read the emphasis in the pilgrim paragraphs was on how they repressed their women! Now, does that lead to any understanding of them?
You can see it all through secular school texts. I just read a classic christian textbook, The Church in History. When I put it down, I said, oh THATS who Charles Martel was. Because that area of history is so disjointed in modern texts, I never understood really what was going on there.
Without the understanding of faith and religious movements, the study of history and science become confused and chaotic. You don’t really realize why anything got to where it did.
I am not a young earth advocate. But there are arguments for it. It’s not a subject I can cover in a post.
Here is a site where you can peek inside the text. You can’t pick any page you want, and the part they show doesn’t cover evolution. But you can get the “flavor” of the book.
http://www.bjupress.com/product/187021?path=9767&samplePage=15#lookInside
Those polls are crap. Most scientists I have known are definitely religious. One of the most religous has his Phd in astrophysics and mathematics from MIT. It seems to be a habit among adherants to certain denominations to say if you don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the bible then you are a non-believer or athiest. Even those who do not believe in following the denominational system of beliefs generally believe in God and even in Christ’s teachings. The bible is a many times over retranslation of oral traditions by many people over many millenia. The current versions of the bible are the ones sanctioned and rewritten and reinterpreted by an English king and/or the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. If you look at the old testament over many centuries of writing you find that parts have been added or deleted depending on who controlled the process based on beliefs of that time or political necessities. Most scientists believe that God’s hand is apparent in the incredible complexity of the universe and even in evolution. Ancient man had no understanding of the world 25 miles from their home much less geological or biological processes. The oral scriptures and later the written scriptures had to be understandable to those people at that time and so it was written as lessons and allegories that would fit their knowledge and level of understanding. Every religion and culture has a great flood story so historically a great flood of some kind did occur. Was it the result of the end of an ice age or an earthquake? Maybe; each cultural version differs but no doubt something along those lines occurred. For the Christian tradition it is not important exactly what or how it occurred or who was involved; it is the lesson imparted from the story about how God does not abide evil and sin on such a large scale and the fact that believers will overcome and survive.
Patently False.
The original scrolls in their original languages are the sources of all the translations.
Besides this, there are multiple cross checks, such as the letters that the original leaders of the church wrote to each other, from which all but about 30 verses of the New Testament could be recreated.
Another cross check to the "multiple retranslation" myth is that the earliest works were translated into multiple languages on multiple continents, and these translations still "jive" with today's translations.
Here’s someone that has done the research and has a great apologetics outline of the inerrancy of the Bible:
Look for “Why do you choose to believe the Bible”
Patently False.
King James version of the bible. Well documented as having been translated from a Latin version of the bible. The scrolls you refer to were Armenian.
Ballpark it.
Are there more than four significant digits in the number?
http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.