Take THAT religious nutters!

[FrostyBoy]

If we're going to start teaching philosophies, which one should we teach? Muslim and Buddhism seem to be popular.

[David Floyd]

Here's what I truly don't understand.

Why do Christian fundamentalists have a world-view that basically says everyone is out to get them and everyone hates their theology? The simple truth is, most of us do think they are wrong, but also don't really care. I certainly don't care enough about you being wrong regarding evolution to want to strip it from science textbooks just to spite you, and neither does UC nor anyone else.

OTOH, most of us DO care enough that we want pseudo-science of all kinds - and just as bad, religion masquerading as science - out of science textbooks. You can preach all you want about Bible > science, but you can't do it in a science textbook. You can even be RIGHT about that, and still it isn't OK to have it in a science textbook. Why?

Because as has been aptly pointed out - and even agreed to by you - science is about what can be proven empirically. Because God can't be proven empirically, one way or the other, then no science textbook can or should take a side on the issue. I don't even think you can teach something like Creationism in a science textbook as an "alternative viewpoint" - there is simply no empirical evidence for it, and this is clearly shown everytime there is a major debate between an evolutionist who knows what he is talking about and a Creationist well-versed in that theory.

If you want to include the flaws of evolutionary theory in a science textbook, that's fine. You can, and should. Science after all is about asking questions. But when universities refuse to give accreditation to courses that purport to teach science but include concepts like God and Creationism, don't assume it's because the world hates you. They may, but that isn't the reason we don't want your theology in science books. Seriously, grow up and stop acting like the jaded minority kid who is always *****ing that the teacher is only picking on them because they are [insert race here]. The shtick gets old, and I'm shocked that Christian fundamentalists aren't called out on it more often.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
If we're going to start teaching philosophies, which one should we teach? Muslim and Buddhism seem to be popular.

Not as far as the day to dat living in modern society. And actually, I think Christianity has a larger total number of adherents.

No, I am talking about the philosophy of science, and I am aimed mostly at the PoMo crowd whose attacks on science are making a lot more head way than religions attacks on science.

JM

[FrostyBoy]

Yeah, religion is so last millenium!

[Pekka]

God still doesn't belong to any scientific theory. It simply doesn't matter if it involves quasi-science in the process. God as a construct is simply impossible, it is not science, period.

[fed1943]

I am a believer and I am chocked with Ben's words.

"Biology for Christian Schools" (?) ; is there a God for Christians?
I do not believe Him. I just believe in the One God, the Creator. And,
yes, I do think the Bible tell us about the One, not the small God for
any group or goal.

And we can not find any evidence about God, because He is not one
modifier among others, He is the only Creator, so His "matrix" is
everywhere, cannot be distinguished or compared, because there is
nothing to check with.

And to tell that a plain flies or a species develops because it's God
Law, while truth, is useless.

So, the path, I think, is to begin with Science, Philosophy, Religion,
simple observation, and best of all, honesty and love to try to
"understand" and "get closer" a little of Him. Because we just unable
to get a relation of understanding with the Absolute.

My best regards,

[Whaleboy]

Where's the observational evidence for the early period in evolution? I agree we should judge a theory based on observational evidence, but by that standard, evolution as a whole doesn't stand up very well against intelligent design.

I think that frankly you're going to need to go into a hell of a lot more detail on this - your objection to evolution as you've presented it here seems to boil down to an argument from incredulity.

Which is why I've stated that God-directed evolution is one theory that has been presented to reconcile the two

But again we boil back down to your desire that it be true. Beyond that, what argument do you present?

I think this has already been shown to be both non and anti science.

I'm going to disregard you here now; if you were able to listen to and counter arguments like you used to be able to do then I'd debate with you until the cows come home. Right now you seem to have forgotten that skill and so we've descended into a circular discussion which is when it becomes a waste of time.

I wonder the same thing. Whaleboy in particular seems like a masochist.

I have my limits

[Arrian]

The shtick gets old, and I'm shocked that Christian fundamentalists aren't called out on it more often.

People are scared of 'em, I think. I'm happy to call them on the bull**** victim complex but public figures shy away from it because of what the response would be. See: McCain, John v.2000, with the "agents of intolerance" (now his buddies apparently) thing.

-Arrian

[Kirnwaffen]

Here's what I truly don't understand.

Why do Christian fundamentalists have a world-view that basically says everyone is out to get them and everyone hates their theology? The simple truth is, most of us do think they are wrong, but also don't really care. I certainly don't care enough about you being wrong regarding evolution to want to strip it from science textbooks just to spite you, and neither does UC nor anyone else.

OTOH, most of us DO care enough that we want pseudo-science of all kinds - and just as bad, religion masquerading as science - out of science textbooks. You can preach all you want about Bible > science, but you can't do it in a science textbook. You can even be RIGHT about that, and still it isn't OK to have it in a science textbook. Why?

Because as has been aptly pointed out - and even agreed to by you - science is about what can be proven empirically. Because God can't be proven empirically, one way or the other, then no science textbook can or should take a side on the issue. I don't even think you can teach something like Creationism in a science textbook as an "alternative viewpoint" - there is simply no empirical evidence for it, and this is clearly shown everytime there is a major debate between an evolutionist who knows what he is talking about and a Creationist well-versed in that theory.

If you want to include the flaws of evolutionary theory in a science textbook, that's fine. You can, and should. Science after all is about asking questions. But when universities refuse to give accreditation to courses that purport to teach science but include concepts like God and Creationism, don't assume it's because the world hates you. They may, but that isn't the reason we don't want your theology in science books. Seriously, grow up and stop acting like the jaded minority kid who is always *****ing that the teacher is only picking on them because they are [insert race here]. The shtick gets old, and I'm shocked that Christian fundamentalists aren't called out on it more often.

Spot on. What I think has gotten lost in the transition from the discussion about the court decision to the evolution vs. creationism discussion is that the court decision wasn't even about either of those topics. Nobody has said that the coursework can't contain religious or philosophical material; they simply said that the coursework failed to meet the University's standards to be counted for credit.

And who can blame the University for being concerned?

How can a textbook that explores historical figures based solely on their religious motivations come even close to providing a comprehensive understanding of US history? And the Bible as the Unerring source for the interpretation of historical events? Please.

I guess my larger point is that this isn't the persecution that the religious right wants to make it out to be; it's an indictment of these courses.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


People are scared of 'em, I think. I'm happy to call them on the bull**** victim complex but public figures shy away from it because of what the response would be. See: McCain, John v.2000, with the "agents of intolerance" (now his buddies apparently) thing.

-Arrian

It's because it is hard to attack the Christian nutters and not attack Christians in general....

JM

[David Floyd]

Not really, except insofar as many "Christians in general" are conditioned by religious nutters to take such attacks personally.

And I do know what I was talking about - I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist home that did in fact teach me that the world hated us and our viewpoint and the "Godless establishment" would stop at nothing to eradicate our views. It was bull**** then, and bull**** know, but apparently enough people really believe this that it's an acceptable viewpoint.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


It's because it is hard to attack the Christian nutters and not attack Christians in general....

JM

It shouldn't be. It's no more difficult than it should be to attack/disagree with (for example) leftist nutters without attacking liberalism in general. It's simply a matter of chosing one's words properly.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do Christian fundamentalists have a world-view that basically says everyone is out to get them and everyone hates their theology?

Good question. My perspective is from the outside in. I know for a fact that Christians are generally mocked and ridiculed by folks who don't know better. I know because I was one of the folks who used to mock. The idea is that Christianity is superstition, and that one of the primary goals of science is to destroy all superstition. Ergo, it becomes the mission of science to not only expose Christianity, but to destroy it because the existence of Christianity is contrary to scientific principles.

If you want to include the flaws of evolutionary theory in a science textbook, that's fine. You can, and should. Science after all is about asking questions. But when universities refuse to give accreditation to courses that purport to teach science but include concepts like God and Creationism, don't assume it's because the world hates you.

I doubt if a science textbook taught the dharma or the Koran, that the school would have an issue. When they explicitly refer to the inerrancy of scripture, this automatically makes the Christians feel like they are being singled out. I agree that philosophy is not science, and that includes Atheists. Atheists are no better then the Christians they despise when they insist that Darwinism is an affirmation of Athiesm, and go to great lengths to attack Christianity. I think it's natural for Christians to want to defend themselves from that hostility.

They may, but that isn't the reason we don't want your theology in science books. Seriously, grow up and stop acting like the jaded minority kid who is always *****ing that the teacher is only picking on them because they are [insert race here]. The shtick gets old, and I'm shocked that Christian fundamentalists aren't called out on it more often.

Honestly, if the university really didn't care about the philosophy, they would just admit the students based on the science content. However, the truth is that they DO care about the philosophy, and because the philosophy is opposed to what the university believes, they are excluding these students. It's not accreditation, but they are not giving the student's credit for these courses wrt to admissions. In essence they are saying that these private high schools don't have the level necessary to get in rather then to get credit at a university level. I think this is total bunk.

[Jon Miller]

It is true that atheists often use science to attack Christianity (and religion, period). This is a lot of the reason why Christianity gets so defensive...

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

they simply said that the coursework failed to meet the University's standards to be counted for credit.

Yet the students seem to do just fine at the university level. Obviously the issue isn't one of scientific competence, but philosophy.

How can a textbook that explores historical figures based solely on their religious motivations come even close to providing a comprehensive understanding of US history? And the Bible as the Unerring source for the interpretation of historical events? Please.

And that sir, is discrimination. You can't exclude people because they are taught this, especially not in history. Is there a theory of history that accounts for all of causality? No. Provided that the facts are identical, I don't see how teaching the historical reliability of scripture is at all a hindrance to obtaining knowledge of history.

I guess my larger point is that this isn't the persecution that the religious right wants to make it out to be; it's an indictment of these courses.

It's discrimination if you make the statement that a student is unqualified for admission because he believes that scripture is inerrant. The university is going to get sued, and this will get overturned. Had the university made it an issue of competence, I could see the point, but as soon as they even mentioned inerrancy, they lose, simple as that.