Seperation of Church & School

[Arathena]

Where'd you get that stat? About 75% of people in the US identify themselves as Christians, with half the US population identifying themsleves as Protestant and the other 25% as Catholic. So eliminate the Catholics who don't beleive in a literal interpretation of Genesis nor are creationists (for the large majority).

Then eliminate the Mormons, Methodists, most Baptisits, Lutherans, Epsicopalians, and other centrist Christian religions and there's no way you can make that statement with a straight face. In order for your statement to be true... ALL Christians would have to believe the earth was created by God in the last 10K years.

You're smarter than that.

I didn't say the earth. I said mankind. Amusingly, at least 19% of the population, by these numbers, must believe one of God used "guided" evolution to create man, or that lesser animals evolve, and man alone is specially created. This one pegs the Young Earthers at 40% of the population, and the 'evolution used to specially create man' crowd at 38%. I guess the other 20% believe that Goddidit an unspecified time more than 10kya. So, at best, even granting a significant failure of understanding of evolution as trying, you're still defining roughly half of Christians as 'splinter groups'.

[Kulaf]

Why would God need to "guide" evolution?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Where'd you get that stat? About 75% of people in the US identify themselves as Christians, with half the US population identifying themsleves as Protestant and the other 25% as Catholic. So eliminate the Catholics who don't beleive in a literal interpretation of Genesis nor are creationists (for the large majority).

Then eliminate the Mormons, Methodists, most Baptisits, Lutherans, Epsicopalians, and other centrist Christian religions and there's no way you can make that statement with a straight face. In order for your statement to be true... ALL Christians would have to believe the earth was created by God in the last 10K years.

You're smarter than that.

I didn't say the earth. I said mankind. Amusingly, at least 19% of the population, by these numbers, must believe one of God used "guided" evolution to create man, or that lesser animals evolve, and man alone is specially created. This one pegs the Young Earthers at 40% of the population, and the 'evolution used to specially create man' crowd at 38%. I guess the other 20% believe that Goddidit an unspecified time more than 10kya. So, at best, even granting a significant failure of understanding of evolution as trying, you're still defining roughly half of Christians as 'splinter groups'.

Actually, you're the one doing the defining, not me.

There is no doubt that some fundamentalist Christian sects are of the belief that God created man out of dirt, placed him in the garden of Eden, yanked a rib out of him and made woman out of it. Oh, and created the whole universe. In about 6 clanedar days no less. But that's a tiny minority of Christians. Most beleive that Genesis is illustory, not literal. But all Christians, by definition, beleive that man was created according to God's wil. And most of those Christians make the distinction that by "man", they mean "humans", and by "humans" they mean beings with an everalsting soul, capable of receiving grace, capable of free will, and capable of everlasting life outside the physical realm.

From a Catholic perspective, the time of the creation of man was when a being first appeard on this earth with one of those souls. I haven't looked into it in depth, so I don't know if the Catholics ascribe some historical time point to that event. But I also know it would be relatively unimportant to Catholics on "when" it happened, and more important that it "did" happen. And I think most other Christian denominations are of the same view.

Edit: As an aside, I'm intrigued by what the Christain response to sentient aliens would be. Ones that may have their own belief system that doesn't include a Christ figure.

[Arathena]

Yet, consistently, between 4 and 5 in 10 Americans profess to pollsters that they believe that God directly created mankind. Even where your official catchecism may say otherwise. 44% of Catholics believe that Genesis is literally true. 75% of Protestants. And the more they go to church, the more likely they are to believe it is literal truth.

[Taxious]

But that's a tiny minority of Christians.

lol??

[Embar Angylwrath]

But that's a tiny minority of Christians.

lol??

Srsly Tax... the minority of Xstianns don't beleive in a literal translation of Genesis.

[Minute]

Why wouldn't Christians believe the bible was exactly as it is stated? So Genesis is too unscientific to be literal but the rest of the bible is ok? That's hypocritically stupid.

[Ddrak]

That's hypocritically stupid.

The fact you're using this as an argument makes me think you don't talk to people much.

Dd

[Taxious]

But that's a tiny minority of Christians.

I've been and worked at 3 different christian camps and was pretty involved in my church and youth group growing up. In my experiences, this is definitely untrue...

[Kulaf]

Why wouldn't Christians believe the bible was exactly as it is stated? So Genesis is too unscientific to be literal but the rest of the bible is ok? That's hypocritically stupid.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethi ... -true.aspx

There is the polling data.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Crazy.

[Embar Angylwrath]

On the face of it, it is. But who knows the context? Especially that last question which was obviouslty portrayed to be a genteically ignorant question with racial overtones. He could well have asked how fruit flies with different color eyes evolved from the same root species (genetically its the same question). But they chose to portray that question in racial tones. And who knows how the teacher answered? Notice a response wasn't given to the questions?

These types of 'tubes are only presented to show a slant. They take aposition before they are created. This isn't reporting, Jaro, its an edited hack job. The crazy people are thoe ones that take it as face value.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Especially that last question which was obviouslty portrayed to be a genteically ignorant question with racial overtones. He could well have asked how fruit flies with different color eyes evolved from the same root species (genetically its the same question). But they chose to portray that question in racial tones.

You think a high school kid would be more aware of the color of fruit flies' eyes than the various colors of human skin? I also didn't see any "racial tone" in the question, more incredulity at the notion that evolution could account for different pigments, as well as possibly a lack of understanding that the only difference in the skin of differing races is melanin. Regardless, it seemed like an honest question from an evolutionary skeptic. Maybe not the best example, but a readily accessible one.

No, I mean crazy as in the teacher's comments. Yes, I know they're being taken out of context. Yes, I know the question at the end of the vid isn't answered. But take these:

"Creationists like to be lumpers, lumping lots of organisms together. Evolutionists like to be splitters, they like to split up a whole bunch of different organisms."

"An evolutionist says there are natural reproductive boundaries out there that prohibit dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes from reproducing."

"I don't think God has to have evolution to make a world. I don't believe a supernatural being has to use a natural process...I don't personally believe he did."

I don't need to tell a former marine biologist how scientifically vacuous these comments are. To disbelieve evolution as a fucking biology teacher is as nonsensical as teaching geography as a flat earther or physics while disbelieving general relativity. If he honestly does not believe that evolution took place, he will not be an effective biology teacher. If he's a bad teacher, he should be replaced.

If, however, these comments can mean something other than "I have no idea what the theory of evolution or even the scientific method are" in a different context and he somehow is effectively teaching the theory to students, I concede that the vid is a pure hack job and he's welcome to keep his position. And while I concede it's possible, I find it very unlikely and personally find his own words damning enough.

[Ddrak]

The video was definitely edited to make a point. Who knows if the science teacher was just so frustrated at being attacked by his class whenever he mentioned the "E-word" that he had to devolve to kindergarten analogies? Overall he didn't seem too competent, but meh. I've heard a lot worse.

Dd

[Minute]

Not to mention the accent. I swear I could have been watching a discussion between Mensa members on quantum physics & they still would have sounded fucking dumb. I openly hate the south.

[Minute]

The idiocy continues

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gop-co ... tion-bill/

[Kulaf]

Bill Summary

This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming. This bill also requires such persons and entities to endeavor to:
(1) Create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues; and
(2) Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.

Umm......ok. That just sounds........horrible?

I could just as easily see the glass half full and say that this bill prohibits school boards from barring evolutionary talk in class.

In fact:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinf ... 368&ga=107

Teachers, Principals and School Personnel - As introduced, protects a teacher from discipline for teaching scientific subjects in an objective manner. - Amends TCA Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10.

That is exactly what it is meant to do.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf

[Ddrak]

The intent of the bill is pretty obvious - it's to allow "objective challenges" to evolution and climate change in the classroom.

However, the bill is poorly constructed to achieve that aim. Any truly objective discussion would destroy opposition to either, so a science teacher would be placed in a pretty precarious position to maintain the legal definition of objectivity in arguments that are going to end up almost always subjective - especially when you're dealing with high school students.

Dd

[Freecare Spiritwise]

It shouldn't be this complicated to decide what to teach our children. We should just level with them and tell them that grownups can't agree on what the truth is, so we just teach them all of the competing truths.

You tell them that there's lots of belief systems out there, that grownups can't agree on them and that every adult has to make his/her own choices. Here's what the Christians believe, here's what the Buddhists believe, here's what the athiests believe and here's what daddy believes. Here's everything we know or think we know, now go out there and decide for yourself.

[Jarochai Alabaster]