Bible studies approved

[shadron]

As far as I can tell, your work history is not part of your credit report per se. Mine referred to my work history only with a couple of general addresses of the work places which I had to have deleted. Of course, they may have more data they're not showing me; also, to get almost any loan you have to show proof of your current employment.

Employers are not allowed in the US to give out any more information about your employment other than your dates of hire and termination. Anything else leaves them liable to civil suit.

Almost all employment not covered by a union contract in the US is At Will.

 

[gdnp]

How does anyone get a mortgage or credit rating in Texas? If you can be sacked at any time it must be very difficult?

I think the paradox is solved when one compares what companies can do and what they typically do. People hire employees because they create value for the company greater than their expenses. Experience counts, training is expensive, and most people are reasonable. Firing one employee without cause creates an unpleasant work environment for those left behind, decreasing morale and employee loyalty. Therefore most companies do not fire people on a whim, especially in a tight job market.

 

[drkitten]

How does anyone get a mortgage or credit rating in Texas?

By kissing up to the boss no matter how unreasonable he is. (And, yes, in Texas it's almost certainly a "he.") And by being more valuable than the alternative of firing you and hiring someone else.

If you simply "teach the curriculum," which in this case means "Christianity as viewed through the Southern Baptist doctrines," you'll do fine, because they don't want to have to hire a replacement. But if you refuse to teach the curriculum, you'll be replaced by someone who will.

Yes but in your example the curriculum was to teach the authorshiip of the Pentateuch.

Er.... no, my example was a curriculum that assumed Mosaic authorship (and that had been deliberately chosen because of that perspective). Under that circumstance, any divergence from that assumption would be actionable.

The idea it was Moses could not be taught without critiquing and presenting the alternatives.

Er, "nonsense"? That's not the way elementary education really works anywhere; I don't think I was ever presented with an "alternative" to atomic theory or the idea that the Allies won the second World War or my six-times table.

In very simple terms -- the school district picks (and buys) the books that the teachers are required to use. Good luck trying to teach real Biblical criticism out of a Baptist textbook....

The British National Curriculum came in in 1988, after I left school but it still allows massive leeway for teachers to decide what to teach - lesson plans are not standardized, only the subject areas taught, that is the curriculum. So individual teachers still play a huge role here in how to present the lessons and what to discuss to meet the learning objectives.

Yeah. You're assuming that the South Bumbleburgh School Board allows that much leeway to their teachers. You're assuming that they're as good at curriculum design as the experts behind the UK national curriculum. Heck, you're assuming that they're honest.

 

[cj.23]

So the real problem, in summary, is these people have no desire to educate at all, merely to indoctrinate? Now don't get me wrong -- I recall say learning the Periodic Table,and sure, there was little discussion of "alternatives" (well we were taught it was a representation or instrument for understanding physical realities, not the 'reality', but hey...*) However in Biblical Criticism very few issues are remotely settled, so the only way to learn is to be familiar with all arguments and the debate? Surely the government School Inspectors would prevent mere indoctrination and beliefs taught uncritically as fact?

EDIT: * On the periodic table thing, I was taught with an instrumentalist bias, but with a Popperian objective realist angle. Still I was also taught what Scientific Realism was, and can see it from that perspective -- but all the same, this is a fine example of how we should teach surely? To give students the capacity to understand the epistemological frameworks in which the knowledge is constructed, and critically assess claims to knowledge? Any 13 year old can learn this stuff...

cj x

 

[drkitten]

So the real problem, in summary, is these people have no desire to educate at all, merely to indoctrinate?

Got it in one. (Well, in four, maybe....)

However in Biblical Criticism very few issues are remotely settled,

Are you kidding? "If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me." You have only to look at some of the amateur theologians on this forum (check out any thread started by DOC) to see that in their worldview, every issue is settled for all time by what they learned in Sunday School.

The only reason your ex- believes in multiple authorship is because she has been deceived by Satan.

Surely the government School Inspectors would prevent mere indoctrination and beliefs taught uncritically as fact?

Not when the local school inspectors are elected by the same group that elects the local school board and attend the same local Baptist church. That's one of the reasons that the ACLU does a land-office business filing suit against these people in Federal court to get an outsider to look at the asinine, incestuous little policies that these people push.

That's another difference. The USA has a Federalist system, which basically means that the states (and counties and cities) can do what they like unless the Fed has set policy on a subject. The Fed has not set a national curriculum, so states can teach more or less as they see fit. Of course, they can't violate Federal law,... but even there, the Fed will not typically proactively check to see if they're in compliance. There aren't any Federal inspectors (and the state inspectors are in on the racket). What does exist are Federal judges....

I've referred to the Pennsylvania Pandas trial several times; have you actually read it (or any of the excellent books that have come out about it over the past several years?) I'm not just typing because I like to see my name in print, you know. The local school board publically declared, if I remember correctly, that "separation of church and state is a myth," that "this country was established as a Christian country, and our schools should reflect that," and that pushing "creationism" in class was "standing up for" Jesus and that it justified perjury in federal court. Yes, the judge slapped them down hard --- but it took a year and several million dollars in litigation.

A typical school board in the USA is elected from the local business community and may or may not have anyone familiar with actual law on it --- and the fundamentalists have had a long-standing policy of trying to pack local school boards with their type of believers as opposed to actual education experts, in order to push "their" type of education. This is why sex education is usually gutted (because the school boards consider it immoral), why evolutionary biology is watered down (because the school boards object), why literature with non-traditional themes (homosexuality, Islamic cultures, &c) are stripped from the library (ditto), and so forth.

It's actually rare that a school board crosses the line into "illegal" simply because there's no constitutional right to read about Communism in the library or to learn that the rhythm method just means that your children will be musically inclined. But what they can do is make sure that the curriculum you teach has been as scrubbed of objectionable elements as possible. If they simply say "don't teach evolution at all," there's little that the ACLU can do about it. And there's no reason (at all) for them to permit "Biblical criticism" to be taught if there's the slightest chance that it means someone will publically question biblical inerrancy.

The "usual" solution, then, is that the Bible doesn't get taught at all, precisely because the boards won't permit genuine criticism to be taught, and the ACLU won't permit proselytizing for inerrancy in a public classroom. But it's not a stable solution, precisely because the theocrats are always looking for a new phrasing they can use that will get around that pesky First Amendment.

Again, look at the Dover trial, where the book switched mysteriously from being about "creationism" to being about "intelligent design" in only a month, as soon as a Federal court ruled that "creationism" violated the First Amendment. It was clearly a shell-game; the underlying concepts, even the very definitions and examples used, hadn't changed a character. But because the new book didn't use the word "creationism," they thought they could get away with it, and some scholars have spotted "sudden emergence" as the new "intelligent design" after the hammering that ID took in Dover.

 

[shadron]

Dr. Kitten, I agree most wholeheartedly with what you say. I have a quibble about some of the minor facts in the Dover case; I don't think anyone said the things you believe they said except perhaps inside the church there in Dover (that they believed them and said them amo0ng themselves is very likely). Perhaps you have better sources than I. The head of the board did make that one damning statement to the local news reporter about creationism that got him in hot water. Also, most boards in the US as a matter of policy put a lawyer on retainer to handle the legal end of what they do; their liability insurance carriers demand it. In fact, Dover's lawyer told them not to take the vote that set their course; that if they went that way they would have a very high probability of loosing, but they ignored his advice. Since they did that, their liability insurance refused to pay the awards; they came out of school district funds.

I would also mention books. Writing and publishing books for elementary and high school classes in the US is a big business. Obviously, the publishers will publish what their users want, but they aren't very keen on doing more than one edition of a book. To do that they try to aim at the least common denominator of the public which makes the buying decisions. However, two major customers - Texas and California - make up about 30% of their business, and that gives the Texas and California State Boards a lot of punch in publishing their views; that is why there is so much brouhaha about things like stickers on the books (that, if they stayed, might find their way into actual print at some point). That is one very big reason why, until 1957, evolution was quite he missing topic in schools - it simply wasn't in the books.

I think the most ironic happening in the Dover case is how DI went in with guns and pandas blazing; how after Ken Miller's testimony they suddenly got cold feet and extricated DI from the looming disaster, but had to leave behind their very cleverly phrased and crafted "intelligent design" to face the same mangling that creationism faced before it. Now it's soiled goods. I'll bet there was a lot of carping about that behind closed doors in Seattle.

 

[cj.23]

Yeah I'n familiar with the Dover Trial - the transcripts were linked on this site at one point, though I believe the link is broken now. Hang on, Evolution was not taught in US Schools till 1957??? That shocks me - mainly because I date YEC from 1961 and Henry Morris, and thought most Evangelicals even accepted it before that date, if only in framework theory or Age day? And surely Catholic schools have some influence? As far as I can make out the majority of mainstream Christians have accepted evolution since the 1860's? 9and some before, as in Chambers or Lamarck etc?)

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Are you kidding? "If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me."

made me laugh out loud! I'm pretty sure even the most uneducated Christian would realize there was no New Testament at the time of Paul, let alone a translation that was written some milenium and a half later, in English? Maybe they might not know about James armininianism and Catholic sympathies, or the questions over his sexuality and the precise relationship between him and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, but one would assume that would be covered perhaps in history? Or is English history not taught? Not that King James personal pecadilloes has much to so with the Authorised Version, any more than his rather interesting views on witches do, or his mothers "colourful" sex life and the explosive end of her husband, but hey... OK, I have met people (though mainly non-Christians on atheist forums) who think the 2 Timothy bit about "All Scripture is good for..." applies to the NT (and OK, the Pastorals are very late, but still well nefore a NT canon), and is hence a circular argument, but I think most people who have read anything about Christianity would realize the 7 authentic Paulines are the earliest New Testamant writings?

Mind you, in the rows I sometimes get involved with over on Dawkins place it becomes apparent that many US folks otherwise decent and educated lack even the most basic religious education - and now I begin to see why.

cj x

 

[drkitten]

I'm pretty sure even the most uneducated Christian would realize there was no New Testament at the time of Paul, let alone a translation that was written some milenium and a half later, in English?

Er,... I think it was H.L. Menken who famously stated that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

I think most people who have read anything about Christianity would realize the 7 authentic Paulines are the earliest New Testamant writings?

Perhaps, but then you need to realize that better than half of the American population has not read anything in the past 12 months. So the number of people who have read anything about Christianity is smaller than you think.

Again, I refer you to DOC, who apparently believes that the book of Matthew is more reliable than the other Synoptic Gospels, because it was written by an eyewitness. (I kid you not.) The idea that Matthew is largely a later copy of Mark has apparently never crossed his radar.

And although it's easy to point and snicker at DOC -- and who doesn't? -- the unfortunate fact is that he had to learn his "history," "science," and "theology" somewhere. Someone out there is teaching people like him how to be idiots, and someone out there is reinforcing them with the idea that Jesus truly does love them better than He loves the secular humanists who believe in abominations like the Big Bang theory.

And, no, most Evangelicals do not (and have never) accepted the theory of evolution, primarily because it teaches, as they distort it, that "man came from monkeys." Old Earth Creationism in opposition to Evolution has been around for more or less as long as Darwin's writings themselves. While Young Earth Creationism is relatively recent, simple opposition to evolutionary theory has been part and parcel of American culture at least since the rise of the "fundamentalist" movement in the late 19th century. (Check out the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920s, and consider who would pass such a law.)

 

[drkitten]

Dr. Kitten, I agree most wholeheartedly with what you say. I have a quibble about some of the minor facts in the Dover case; I don't think anyone said the things you believe they said except perhaps inside the church there in Dover (that they believed them and said them amo0ng themselves is very likely). Perhaps you have better sources than I.

Most of my quotations are paraphrases from the court trial and news reportage on it.

Bill Buckingham stated (and was reported to have stated) on the June 7th board meeting that separation of church and state was a myth.


At that same meeting, Buckingham said that "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such."


On June 14, he stated "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross for us. Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him," and was quoted (and taped) afterwards talking about the need to introduce "creationism" (you're familiar with that clip.)

From the decision:

Fifth, Buckingham made several outwardly religious statements, which include the following remarks. "Nowhere in the Constitution does it call for a separation of church and state." He explained that this country was founded on Christianity. Buckingham concedes that he said "I challenge you (the audience) to trace your roots to the monkey you came from." He said that while growing up, his generation read from the Bible and prayed during school. He further said "liberals in black robes" were "taking away the rights of Christians" and he said words to the effect of "2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

I'm afraid he made more than one damning statement, and there were a lot more religious nutcases involved than just him. (Buckingham's wife and Alan Bonsell, for instance).

 

[drkitten]

I'm pretty sure even the most uneducated Christian would realize there was no New Testament at the time of Paul, let alone a translation that was written some milenium and a half later, in English?

Er,... I think it was H.L. Menken who famously stated that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

I think most people who have read anything about Christianity would realize the 7 authentic Paulines are the earliest New Testamant writings?

Perhaps, but then you need to realize that better than half of the American population has not read anything in the past 12 months. So the number of people who have read anything about Christianity is smaller than you think.

Again, I refer you to DOC, who apparently believes that the book of Matthew is more reliable than the other Synoptic Gospels, because it was written by an eyewitness. (I kid you not.) The idea that Matthew is largely a later copy of Mark has apparently never crossed his radar.

And although it's easy to point and snicker at DOC -- and who doesn't? -- the unfortunate fact is that he had to learn his "history," "science," and "theology" somewhere. Someone out there is teaching people like him how to be idiots, and someone out there is reinforcing them with the idea that Jesus truly does love them better than He loves the secular humanists who believe in abominations like the Big Bang theory.

And, no, most Evangelicals do not (and have never) accepted the theory of evolution, primarily because it teaches, as they distort it, that "man came from monkeys." Old Earth Creationism in opposition to Evolution has been around for more or less as long as Darwin's writings themselves. While Young Earth Creationism is relatively recent, simple opposition to evolutionary theory has been part and parcel of American culture at least since the rise of the "fundamentalist" movement in the late 19th century. (Check out the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920s, and consider who would pass such a law.)

 

[cj.23]

{MODS - I have drifted rather off topic here, feel free to cut this from the thread and move to the Religion or History sub-fora if you feel applicable - sorry! I hate to be a pain!}

Er,... I think it was H.L. Menken who famously stated that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Yet every American I have met seems to me as intelligent as any other individual; indeed i have the utmost respect for many American academics. It is merely on issues of religion that they seem to possess a curious blind spot, and i can only assume that the absence of state mandated eduction in these matters have left many Americans in a state where they can be preyed upon by snake oil salesman of all kinds of degree of faith or absence thereof? This strikes me as the real tragedy - on a matter that seems so dear to the American psyche, religion, the government has abdicated responsibility to inform and educate?

Perhaps, but then you need to realize that better than half of the American population has not read anything in the past 12 months. So the number of people who have read anything about Christianity is smaller than you think.

It seems strange a country so passionate about religious beliefs should not be at all inclined to critically study them? I am baffled by this!

Again, I refer you to DOC, who apparently believes that the book of Matthew is more reliable than the other Synoptic Gospels, because it was written by an eyewitness. (I kid you not.) The idea that Matthew is largely a later copy of Mark has apparently never crossed his radar.

Well the idea of Matthew priority has a tiny minority support among Biblical Critics (Johannine priority is now margibnally more respectable I think, Marcan priority isthe vast majority position), mainly because of early second century references to Matthew having existed in an Aramaic or Hebrew version initially. Textual reasons make this tradition unlikely. The (Mt) material which is found in Matthew alone is significantly theological, but the 5 book structure is clearly modelled on the Pentateuch, the birth stories reflect the Moses story, and so forth. I'd suspect a Jewish convert as the author, not least because of the anti-Judaism material which may reflect a period of rising tensions in the synaggogues in that late 1st century. Hard to tyell though, and probably deserves it's own thread. Does Matthew contain any "eyewitness" material? - well presumably some of the pericope derive from eyewitneses, but at how many removes we can not tell. After all there were eye witnesses to the ministry, but those stories then pass through a maybe fifty year period of oral transmission and are shaped by the authors theological intent and the sitz in leben of the early church, like any of the pericope which comprise the gospel traditions. Never actually seen a post by DOC, will have to have a look! I'm guessing we may have varying theological attitudes however.

And, no, most Evangelicals do not (and have never) accepted the theory of evolution, primarily because it teaches, as they distort it, that "man came from monkeys." Old Earth Creationism in opposition to Evolution has been around for more or less as long as Darwin's writings themselves. While Young Earth Creationism is relatively recent, simple opposition to evolutionary theory has been part and parcel of American culture at least since the rise of the "fundamentalist" movement in the late 19th century. (Check out the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920s, and consider who would pass such a law.)

This is where we will have to disagree. Age Gap, Framework and Age Day theories were the Evangelical consensus before Darwin - a fact reflected in the massive contribution of Evangelicals and Anglican churchment to the geological breakthroughs of the early 19th century. Catastrophism and flood geology was an extreme minority position, and only one Evangelical newspaper, The Record, appears ot have much time for it.

Evolution was pioneered in America by the devout Evangelical Asa Grey, writing Darwinia (1876) which reconciles his Evangelical beliefs with orthodox Darwinianism, and indeed being the only non-British member of the Darwin circle who saw Origin of the Species (1859) prior to publication. He dedicated much of his life to publicising and popularising Darwinian Evolution. A good bibliography is here-

http://www.huh.harvard.edu/libraries/asa/asabio.html

As I stated, a large number of Evangelicals were already evolutionist, just not Darwinians - but many of the objections raised like those of Soapy Sam Wilberforce were primarily scientific not theological -- Darwinian Evolution was at that point completely impossible in terms of our understanding of the laws of physics (see Kelvin) and a theory not substantiated by any empirical evidence: indeed it ran contrary to much. It was of course correct,but that was not to be establsihed for many decades to come. Despite this the Evangelicals response was extremely positive.

Now, who accepted evolution in those first years? It's a who's who of Evangelicals.BB Warfierld, AH Strong, Van Dyke, Landey Patton, AA Hodge, WT Shedd, James McCosh -- all hard core Evagelical leaders. (Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, Scottish Academic Press, 1987). Let us not forget Frederick Farrar, James Orr, Charles Kinsley and Henry Drummon, who Henry Morris castigates for misleading Christians - the father of YEC fully accepted what he percieved as the dreadful failures of his Evangelical forebears in acepting Darwinism or other form of Evolutionary theory.

These Evangelicals critique the science from time to time, but accepted fully its theological compatability with their Evangelical beliefs. Others like Rev.Macloskie, JD Dana, GF Wright, JW Hulke etc were evangelicals who fought hard for the scientific NOT just the theological acceptance of evolution - one could go on, but many historians of science and religion have already surveyed this territory and found that on both sides of the Atlantic works in favour of Darwin in Christian circles far outnumbered the minority oppositionof opposition.


Now you mention Fundamentalism, and The Fundamentals. I am immediately minded of Chapter 69 - The Passing of Evolution.
(online here - kudos to the chap who undertook this herculean task! -
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund69.htm )

As you can see, this limited acceptance of Darwinism and objections based upon scientific principle is not quite what one might be led to expect from the very founding document of Fundamentalism.

Orr's chapter 18 contains a resolute defence of evolution, though he was Lamarckian and here disparages Dariwnism. You can read it fo ryourself here
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund18.htm

In recent years the point in which “conflict” between Scripture and science is most frequently urged is the apparent contrariety of the theory of evolution to the Bible story of the direct creation of the animals and man. This might be met, and often is, as happened in the previous cases, by denying the reality of any evolutionary process in nature. Here also, however, while it must be conceded that evolution is not yet proved, there seems a growing appreciation of the strength of the evidence for the fact of some form of evolutionary origin of species — that is, of some genetic connection of higher with lower forms. Together with this, at the same
time, there is manifest an increasing disposition to limit the scope of evolution, and to modify the theory in very essential points — those very points in which an apparent conflict with Scripture arose.


Much of the difficulty on this subject has arisen from the unwarrantable confusion or identification of evolution with Darwinism. Darwinism is a theory of the process of evolution, and both on account of the skill with which it was presented, and of the singular eminence of its propounder, obtained for a time a very remarkable prestige.

Yet Orr accepted Lamarckian evolution, or at least appears to.

I could go on and on - I probably will, it's what I do - but I suspect that the "meme" of Evangelical refusal of evolution has developed quite recently, and part of the "conflict between science and religion" woo one sees so much of these days. The popularity of the idea is simple -- it appeals to both hard atheists wishing to disparage religion as an opponent of reason, and to devout YEC types who wish to claim this was always the Christian faith. Few voices speak out against it - few people bother to check the facts, despite the mountains of printed material avaliable, and modern studies like those of Marsden and Livingstone.

Now Scopes... I'll come back to that very American episode if I may -- it's 4am here.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

A quick addendum to my previous post -- My contention is that YEC only dates from 1961 and Henry Morris - certainly OEC was common, but that looked at an earth many millions of years old (though limited by Kelvin's calculations on the sun which gave the Earth an age of not more than 25 million years - http://www.me.rochester.edu/courses/ME2 ... kelvin.pdf - which led to his and many other physicists rejection of Darwin as physically impossible.) The debate between physicists and geologists over the age of the Earth was ongoing, until the understanding of the actual processes involved in the sun showed the geologists were right. Physicists however probably were greater opponents of Darwinism in the early years (as pseudo-science that defied our understanding of physical law) than Evangelicals? Dunno!

The Creationists as we know them are very modern - the Seventh Day Adventists, who gave Americans many interesting doctrines almost unique to that continent did much to support the rise of OEC, and McCready Price in the 1920's was the first major anti-evolutionist who went for seven literal days I can think of? Willliam Jennings Bryan for example (he of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial) favoured one of the two main Evangelical theories --, Age/Day, where a Day represented millions of years not a 24 hour period, and the famous Schofield Refence Bible of 1909went for the other - Gap theory, where there was a Gap of millions of years between DAy 1, and Day2, and possibly between other Days. Both arguments preserve inerrancy.

The myths were already building fast even by then, indeed before the end of the 19th century, one of the most famous being about the debate between Huxley and Wilberforce over the Origin of the Species. Superb essay on the history of this by JR Lucas here, well worth reading (honestly it is!) --
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
As you can see, this encounter is one of the most common stories almost everyone knows, but the truth is shall we say a little more obscure?

Legendary indeed!

Inerrantists has long accepted Gap Theory, Framework Theory or Age/Day by Darwin's period - many leading geologists were devout evangelicals, so the age fo the Earth was known to be exceedingly ancient, and as Augustine and Origen both accepted the reading of this passage as non-literal as did theologians all through the ages, it is not surprising really they had cheerfully gone with the new science. It was a reaction to be expected in light of the dominant Baconian "Two Books" paradigm?

Anyway, one does not have to be stupid ot be a Christian, it's entirely optional - then as now. A few of us still possess brains, and a cynical scepticism about how susceptible we are to modern myths, no matter how much we can see the problems with ancient ones...

Hope my historical whitterings have not bored to death. You see teaching me Religion at school has not done me any real harm, apart from rendering me insomniac!

cj x

cj x

 

[shadron]

Most of my quotations are paraphrases from the court trial and news reportage on it.

Bill Buckingham stated (and was reported to have stated) on the June 7th board meeting that separation of church and state was a myth.

At that same meeting, Buckingham said that "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such."

On June 14, he stated "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross for us. Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him," and was quoted (and taped) afterwards talking about the need to introduce "creationism" (you're familiar with that clip.)

I'm afraid he made more than one damning statement, and there were a lot more religious nutcases involved than just him. (Buckingham's wife and Alan Bonsell, for instance).

I stand corrected. You've read deeper than I have, and I bow to your knowledge.

I really enjoyed watching Bill work himself into a lather over the judge in the NOVA program. He really puts the C into Christian there, I think.

Hang on, Evolution was not taught in US Schools till 1957??? That shocks me - mainly because I date YEC from 1961 and Henry Morris, and thought most Evangelicals even accepted it before that date, if only in framework theory or Age day? And surely Catholic schools have some influence? As far as I can make out the majority of mainstream Christians have accepted evolution since the 1860's? 9and some before, as in Chambers or Lamarck etc?)

1957 was, of course, the Sputnik launching, and that revised everything in science pretty quickly. Before that, evolution was taught in colleges, but not generally in high school - there were state laws against it; the Scopes monkey trial was a trial under that law in Tennessee, and Scopes lost, but the laws really weren't enforced after that. The biology course I got in catholic high school in 1962, was fair; it concentrated mostly on descriptions of the plant and animal kingdoms. There was one chapter exclusively on evolution, and it was taught, but it wasn't really emphasized. Then again, it might have just been me - I was into physics, not biology. No one seemed to really grasp the concept that the descriptive biology we had spent 6 months walking through was a direct result of evolution (of course, cladistics hadn't really risen up out of Linnaeus' system at that point).

 

[drkitten]

A quick addendum to my previous post -- My contention is that YEC only dates from 1961 and Henry Morris - certainly OEC was common, but that looked at an earth many millions of years old

I think you're confusing YEC with "opposition to the theory of evolution." Yes, YEC in its modern formulation is relatively new, but even the Old Earth Creationist evangelicals have generally and steadfastly opposed the theory of evolution at least as far as it applies to the human race.

Let's face it, there is no possible way to preserve Biblical inerrancy in the face of a theory that states that Man arrived from other animals via descent with modification instead of being specially created "in His image" from the dust of the ground. Questions about whether rabbits came from rats or vice versa are possibly legitimate, but the special creation of Man is a cornerstone of evangelical theology.

You also have a rather odd view of what is compatible with biblical literalism if you include Day/Age theory as compatible; I am willing to chalk that up to the lack of hard-core fundamentalists in the Anglican tradition, but questions like that (and the rejection of things like Day/Age theory) are among the reasons that the fundamentalist movement -- which insisted not only on inerrancy, but on literalism -- was created and grew in the States.

Basically, what you're claiming is that Evangelical Modernists were happy to accept the theory of evolution. In the States, Evangelical Modernists have never been more than a bit of background noise, and even they do not accept the theory of common descent for man and apes.

Or to put it another way,.... if creationism really was an invention of post-war theologians, who wrote (and passed) the law that Scopes was prosecuted under?

 

[cj.23]

Hi Dr Kitten, I want to reply properly to your points -- but I split my previous post off and created a new thread here --
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119760
as we had now gone so wildly off topic. Would it be OK if I replied there?

If you would like to post your reply again there, I will respond happily. Or if you prefer I will just respond there?

cj x

 

[Beerina]

No curriculum guidelines because it "could lead to constitutional problems in the classroom". Wow. This really is taxpayer funded bible study in the guise of education.

It's also clueless on their part. No guidelines are exactly why it would get thrown out.

They need to define the studies to be about it as a historic book of significance. Without that, teachers will try to walk down the chatechism line, stepping inside whenever nobody's looking.