Posted on 04/08/2010 8:07:40 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
A Tennessee father told his son’s school board they need to ban a biology textbook because of it's ‘bias’ against Christians.
Kurt Zimmermann is appealing a Knoxville school district's decision to keep the book. He says the textbook used in his son’s biology class cites creationism as a "biblical myth." According to reports, he requests, 'non-biased' textbooks be used. In his words, the current textbook's phrasing misleads, belittles and discourages students in believing in creationism and calls the Bible a myth.
(Excerpt) Read more at liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com ...
The more correct statement would be religious myth.
That allows for all the myriad creation myths, current and archaic.
It covers not only Genesis but the Hopi, Navajo, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Shinto, and what ever.
First, it shouldn’t be discussing it. Second, it isn’t accurate.
In the context of that definition the word story is used to mean parable or allegory. So no, the Bible is an actual historical account not a story as defined here.
And isn’t that the rub; Christianity being singled out among the world’s religions. Gotta ask myself why that is.
Well, if you insist on cutting all discussion of creationism of out the (public) classroom, you won't get any argument from me.
Second, it isn’t accurate.
Christianity has its creation myth, just as other religions do. Calling it such isn't a slight, it's simply a clinical description.
Relegating the Bible to a myth isn’t a discussion of creationism. It is disparaging to Christianity. Calling biblical creation a myth doesn’t make it one but you are welcome to your belief as well.
Secularism has it’s creation myth as well, it’s the one that is preached as science in every public funded classroom in the nation.
Evos have a creation myth too: “Everything just happened randomly for no reason!” Evo believe this by faith.
I disagree. Is calling the story of Athena springing from the head of Zeus a myth disparaging? Does it disparage Islam to describe as a myth the story of mohammed flying on a winged horse? The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda is mythical. Does that description disparage Hinduism?
Calling biblical creation a myth doesn’t make it one but you are welcome to your belief as well.
I never asserted that calling biblical creation a myth made it so. It simply is, regardless of your belief otherwise.
Secularism has it’s creation myth as well, it’s the one that is preached as science in every public funded classroom in the nation.
Why would you characterize the theory of evolution as secular in nature? It doesn't address the existence or non-existence of God(s) in any way.
What an odd way to describe physics, biology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry...
Evolution=random, natural processes=no god involved
The description of biblical creation as outlined in Genesis is the historical account of how the world came to be. It simply is, regardless of your belief otherwise.
And no I don’t find it disparaging to call a myth a myth. However, I do find it disparaging to call the truth a myth. I also find it disparaging to single out Christianity to be labelled a myth. Why go to all the trouble to discredit Christianity? It is because they can’t let the truth get in the way of their belief.
Lol!
Natural processes aren't random. As for the involvement of a deity, it simply isn't addressed, any more than describing the nuclear fusion in the heart of a star needs the invocation of The Gods to explain it.
The description of biblical creation as outlined in Genesis is the historical account of how the world came to be. It simply is, regardless of your belief otherwise.
You're free to believe that. Scientific evidence says otherwise.
And no I don’t find it disparaging to call a myth a myth. However, I do find it disparaging to call the truth a myth. I also find it disparaging to single out Christianity to be labelled a myth.
Please note that I've already mentioned mythical elements of Hinduism and Islam in this conversation.
Why go to all the trouble to discredit Christianity? It is because they can’t let the truth get in the way of their belief.
Or (more realistically), it's because there is a strong movement in this country to promote Christian mythology in the public schools in place of sound science, while at the same time there is a decided lack of groups pushing for science to be replaced by Greek (or Hindu, etc.) creation myths.
I would note that you have an ally in your fight against Evil Science, however: Islamic Creationists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism
Birds of feather?
No scientific evidence disproves creation. Some interpretation of scientific evidence says otherwise. However, man is fallible. God is not. If I am going to have faith in something, I think I will choose God and His Word. You are just as religious as I am, but you can’t see it.
You are wrong. There isn’t a huge movement in this country to introduce creationism in schools. THAT is a myth. There is movement to include ID in schools and a truthful discussion of evolution instead of just the dogma. No self respecting creationist would want a public school teacher to push creation.
And Hitler was a big believer in evolution as was Margaret Sanger. Would you like to play that game? Have a nice day and don’t respond to me again if you are going to compare me to Muslims.
Understanding how science works also is critical to understanding the seemingly never-ending debate between those who support evolution and those who support creationism. The debate typically devolves (no pun intended!) into the argument by creationists that scientists cannot prove that evolution has occurred; therefore, their hypotheses of creationism are equally valid. Hypotheses regarding numerous aspects of evolution have been posed and tested. As testing has winnowed out incorrect ones, our understanding has become ever more clear. As with electrons, knowledge of the precise nature of evolution will undergo constant refinement, but the total current weight of scientific evidence supports the existence of evolution. As scientists, we do not arrive at that conclusion out of capriciousness or because of a “leap of faith,” but rather because of the systematic process for understanding physical reality called the scientific method. In fact, anyone who supports evolution because of faith or belief is not using scientific rationality.
Several arguments posed by creationists do constitute hypotheses and therefore are falsifiable. The hypothesis that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old has been proposed numerous times, but refuted in many ways. Conversely, alternative hypotheses that the Earth is much older have been repeatedly supported. Indeed, today the weight of evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is billions of years old. Unfortunately, many other arguments posed by creationists are not falsifiable and therefore cannot be addressed using scientific inquiry. How can we falsify the hypothesis that God or an Intelligent Designer created the major forms of life on Earth? Creationist theories that cannot be refuted represent a particular world view, but they are not science. These theories can be taught in schools as philosophy or religion, but they must not be taught as science, unless the instructor uses them to demonstrate to the class what is and what is not science.
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml
Contrary to your belief, there are highly respected scientists in every field of study that do not believe in evolution while not necessarily believing in creation. I have never said that lack of evidence for evolution led me to believe in creation as being true.
Evolution has become a religion in which anyone that disagreees is labelled a young earth creationist and systematically destroyed.
Wow that link was awesome! Thanks for the info.
That said, the authors of this textbook were remarkably tone-deaf to use the word that way (if that's what they meant). You can't ignore the connotations words have in common use. I'd be fine with a social sciences textbook using the Bible as an example of how societies are shaped by their beliefs about themselves and referring to it as a myth in that context. But this is a biology textbook, and there's no need to use that word.
BTW, we understand the scientific method. Evolution cannot be observed tested or repeated. And don’t confuse the terms and say ‘antibotic resistance’ etc. We believe in adaptation/natural selection. You know the things that science CAN observe. It is a leap of faith to go from there to molecule to man evolution.
I think the textbook was very clear that they are saying that the Bible is not true. I realize they believe this. They have no business impressing their views on children that were not given to them by God to raise.
Obviously they can not discuss this issue without doing that so the issue should not be discussed. Of course, this is one of the many thousands of reasons that we homeschool our children. And no they aren’t deficient in their science education. They know alot more about evolution than their public school counterparts.
To quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm curious, suppose someone were entirely non-religious. Where do you think they would come down on this issue?
You are wrong. There isn’t a huge movement in this country to introduce creationism in schools. THAT is a myth. There is movement to include ID in schools and a truthful discussion of evolution instead of just the dogma. No self respecting creationist would want a public school teacher to push creation.
Creationists like Behe? Quoting from the Dover trial:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_28_of_139
Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (end quote)
ID isn't science, it's religion.
And Hitler was a big believer in evolution as was Margaret Sanger. Would you like to play that game?
Sure! Hitler also believed in superhighways (the Autobahn). That's doesn't make some who advocates in favor of the interstate highway system a Hitlerian.
Your turn!
Have a nice day and don’t respond to me again if you are going to compare me to Muslims.
In context it's wholly appropriate. We're discussing the movement to replace science in the public classrooms with creationism. Besides the Christians who are doing so, there's also a move amongst Muslims to insert their particular brand of mythology into the science classroom.
Why in the world would pointing this out offend you?
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.