Skip to comments.Results from nationwide poll (Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate)
Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
I’m no surprised. there is also a lot of support for the fairness doctrine -that’s basically what the drive to force force science to teach things not supported by science equate to - the Fairness doctrine but for schools rather than media.
Precisely, the earth’s foundation was built so that it SHOULD BE MOVED. And yet it’s movement is fixed, according to the laws God created to govern its motion.
Evos don’t have a “stranglehold on academia.” Creationist notions are propounded at fundamentalist Bible colleges and at countless other institutions, websites, etc. You are free to donate to a fundamentalist college or other creationist outfit, or to pursue a doctorate in science so as to be able to carry the ball for creationism yourself.
I also find it interesting that even though creationist outfits have the money, they choose not to publish peer-reviewed scholarly journals of their own, even while loudly complaining that the established journals will not accept their works. Are they as much as admitting that they’d lack a rational basis on which to accept or reject an article?
Marie2: I pinged you hither as I think this response also addresses your post #100.
Cedric: Careful about attributing to Richard Dawkins the idea that life on Earth was seeded from space. I saw where he mentioned that in reviewing Francis Crick’s hypothesis, but Dawkins seemed to find it quite unfounded.
Big difference. The Evos use the government and the courts to enforce the religious dogma emanating from the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism on our public schools and government funded science institutions. Talk radio is governed by the free market. The libs seek to thwart the will of the market with respect to talk radio in the same way that the Evos thwart the free market of scientific ideas with respect to creation/intelligent design.
A literalist interpretation used to be that the Earth did not move based in part on that scripture. How did it change?
>>Evos dont have a stranglehold on academia. <<
In science classes at most respectable schools, high school and college, it would be fair to say that generally accepted science is usually required as the basis of the curricula
==So what was the mechanism of change that swept over the Christian world concerning the proper interpretation of this scripture?
It began as a tale of compromise with the science of men. Surely you know that the Catholic church inherited the fixity of the earth from the pagan greeks? Ever heard of Aristotle? Ptolemy?
It was the Young Earth Creationists—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton-who convinced the Christian world that the pagan greeks were wrong about the fixity of the Earth.
>>Big difference. The Evos use the government and the courts to enforce the religious dogma emanating from the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism on our public schools and government funded science institutions. Talk radio is governed by the free market. The libs seek to thwart the will of the market with respect to talk radio in the same way that the Evos thwart the free market of scientific ideas with respect to creation/intelligent design.<<
I think the fairness doctrine is a apt analogy - if we were talking about forcing philosophy classes to teach contrary to their normal curriculum or to force religion classes to give equal time to non-religion or forcing basketball teams to spend half their times saying “maybe basketball is wrong” then I would also feel it was similar to the fairness doctrine.
I don’t want to misquote you but I think you and I are in agreement that the constitution was never meant to limit voluntary public expression of religion. I think we would both support voluntary bible study anywhere, including public schools. What I don’t understand is the attempt to inject religion or ID or anything else not accepted by science into science curriculum.
I’d certainly support letting kids ask an question - I happily fielded questions about the flood, for example, but that’s different from adding it to the curriculum.
If that is your argument, then evolution needs to be exluded as well. Like creation and intelligent design, evolution is an historical inference about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. As such, evolution does not fall under the perview of operational science, and thus should be excluded. If you argue that it should be kept (and enforced), then competing historical inferences should also be given a fair hearing. That includes creation and intelligent design, not to mention panspermia and other competing evolutionary theories.
Cedric spoke of “academia” and “grants,” so I surmised that he had in mind colleges and universities. I suppose that “academia” could include high schools as well, but that would be a rather eccentric usage. Creationism has indeed lost badly in the marketplace of ideas at most reputable colleges and universities, and I think it ill becomes a conservative to complain about losing in the free market. It seems to suggest the desire for a sort of intellectual affirmative action, or set-aside, which is anything but conservative. And, it’s not as though creationists don’t have supportive places to go to college, though to be sure they don’t have as many choices. But then again, we conservatives are supposed to reject the entitlement mentality.
>>If that is your argument, then evolution needs to be exluded as well. Like creation and intelligent design, evolution is an historical inference about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. As such, evolution does not fall under the perview of operational science, and thus should be excluded. If you argue that it should be kept (and enforced), then competing historical inferences should also be given a fair hearing. That includes creation and intelligent design, not to mention panspermia and other competing evolutionary theories.<<
Actually, my argument is that consensus mainstream science should be taught in science class and that in other classes they can teach the consensus in those fields.
BTW, when developmental biology is no longer standard science we’ll know it when companies that depend on biology to make money stop using and shift to ID or something else. Developmental biology is accepted because it makes useful predictions. ID is not used because it does not make useful predictions.
One can like that or not like it. And that’s OK. But science works by useful predictions.
If a Greek also suggested the same thing it is OK to dismiss a literalist interpreting of a particular scripture?
Is that the criteria?
>>But Christian literalists defended their Geocentricity with that scripture. What mechanism convinced the Christian world that this particular interpretation was in error?<<
I believe it was that the non geo-centric model made useful predictions that were important.
Thanks for the ping!
Data convinced people, good God fearing Christian people, that a literlist interpretation of Psalm 104:5 was in error.
Now nearly everyone in the Christian world accepts that the Earth circles the Sun, and that Psalm 104:5 doesn't mean anything more than that God made the Earth a safe place for us, a secure foundation.
I’m saying the Church learned its first lesson not to compromise scripture based on the wisdom of the world. BTW, Psalms is poetry, whereas Genesis is literal history. It is interesting to note, that you and Dembski share something in common with respect to your interpretation of biblical poetry:
WD:Psalm 93 states that the earth is established forever and cannot be moved.
Dembski should read the verse in context. The next verse says, [Gods] throne is established of old, where the same word kôn is also translated established. And the same Hebrew word for moved (môt) is used in Psalm 16:8, I shall not be moved. Surely, even Dembski wouldnt accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! He meant that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. So the earth cannot be moved can also mean that it will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set (firmly established) for it.
WD:A literal interpretation of Psalm 93 seems to require geocentrism.
Well, the Psalms are poetic books, so we should generally expect figurative language and be very careful before concluding that a particular verse is literal. Psalms have the defining characteristic of Hebrew poetry, which is not rhyme or metre, but parallelism. That is, the statements in two or more consecutive lines are related in some way: saying something, then saying it again in a different way. Or saying one thing then saying the opposite. So the parallelism in Psalm 93 clearly shows the reader that the verse Dembski cites should not be taken literally.
Conversely, Genesis is straightforward historical narrative. This should be obvious, because it has all the grammatical features of Hebrew narrative, e.g. the first verb (in Genesis 1:1) is a qatal (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (waw consecutives); it contains many accusative particles that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined.
Like “morning” and “evening” when there wasn’t even a Sun?
And being so serious about chronology that the two accounts differ?
If Genesis is literal then which one?
Those were the predictions I was referring too.
in much the same way, it is useful predictions (i.e. not predicted correctly by any other means) that make developmental biology the current theory today and its the lack of useful predictions that prevent ID or any young earth theory from being current science.
And science class should really teach current science.
I wasn't talking to you. The question was posed to someone else.
But, if you are really this incapable of having a civil discussion, what are you doing on this thread?
In the comment I replied to, you distinguished between three possible teachings, rejecting two of them, on the sole basis of what the Bible says.
It doesn't matter what you or I believe, or even if your belief is correct. Your choice is clearly a religious one, not a scientific one. You are entitled to it, no problem. But you should accept that it is a religious belief and don't expect that it be taught as science.