• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cobb County - remove the stickers

jzs said:
If one doesn't interpret it as literal as possible, I don't see anything wrong with interpreting each passage.

Because if that's the way it works, if each passage can be interpreted in whatever way you like, then there can be no consensus of opinion as to what it is supposed to mean.

You would have to accept the possibility that, when the bible talks about God, it might mean some sort of metaphorical god. Jesus might be just be intended to be an imaginary friend. The whole thing might just be the retelling of a dream someone once had.

Therefore, how can Christians say that their interpretation of the creation story is the right one?
 
"Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive," school district attorney Linwood Gunn said in an AP report. "This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science."
(My bold)

My science doesn't need religion, it seems to me that it is only religion that is trying to prevent a mutual exclusivity in an effort to try and protect itself by association with something that is a reality.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Because if that's the way it works, if each passage can be interpreted in whatever way you like, then there can be no consensus of opinion as to what it is supposed to mean.

You would have to accept the possibility that, when the bible talks about God, it might mean some sort of metaphorical god. Jesus might be just be intended to be an imaginary friend. The whole thing might just be the retelling of a dream someone once had.

Therefore, how can Christians say that their interpretation of the creation story is the right one?

Hopefully someone that goes for the "broad interpretation" method of keeping their bible relevant to them, is open-minded enough to allow that some people may have a different opinion.

Actually going down this road is sort of what ended my exploration of Wicca. I liked it, because it was a beautiful idea, and generally had an equal treatment of men and women, and the moral standard was "harm" instead of someone's list of sins. I steered away from those that seemed as dogmatic about certain pagan specifics as some are about Christianity... there didn't seem to be any basis for such rigidity. So my favorite neo-pagans had their own ideas about how it all worked, and I began to come up with my own. Round about then it began occurring to me that we were just making ◊◊◊◊ up... borrowing gods from whatever pantheon we chose, and generally playing a big game of make believe. While it was great stuff there was no reason to believe it was cosmically true just because we liked it. In addition to that, I rejected Christianity early on as part of a rejection of superstitious beliefs in general... after being involved in Wicca for a while I noticed that lots (not all) of the people around me were quite superstitious in the classic sense, worried about bad luck, "Karma", malevolent spirits, and so forth. So eventually, though I still try to hold to some of the good ideas behind it, I stopped considering myself Wiccan. I still enjoy a good ritual now and then if I happen to stop by the old unitarian church on a moonlit weekend night... :)
 
"Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive," school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. "This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science."

One must wonder, if the school is so concerned about its children, why they aren't also clamouring for science teachers toenter the Sunday school and teach the theory of evolution.

If they calim the kids need to be exposed to alternating theories, seems to me this would be fair.



A board spokesman said no decision had been made on when, or if, the stickers would be removed.

Actually, the decsion has been made:

A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks

Not a lot of grey area there. Whoever this mysterious spokesman is perhaps they should sit in on a few of those reading classes in the school......
 
jmercer
BTW, Batman Jr. - AFAIK, the bible doesn't explicitely state anything about geocentricity or flat earth... does it? Maybe I've forgotten...
It depends on how the bible is interpreted. Specifically it’s mentioned a number of times that the earth rests on pillars and that the sky is a dome holding back the waters and that the stars are hung from the dome – Genesis.

What is or isn’t specifically mentioned in the bible does not stop people from declaring what they believe holy writ, ie Israel being the center of the ‘flat’ world and depicted as such on medieval maps.


Ossai
 
TheBoyPaj said:
, if each passage can be interpreted in whatever way you like, then there can be no consensus of opinion as to what it is supposed to mean.


There is rarely concensus of opinion in any subject.


You would have to accept the possibility that, when the bible talks about God, it might mean some sort of metaphorical god. Jesus might be just be intended to be an imaginary friend. The whole thing might just be the retelling of a dream someone once had.


That's true.


Therefore, how can Christians say that their interpretation of the creation story is the right one?

Some do, some don't.
 
jzs said:
There is rarely concensus of opinion in any subject.
But our point is that there is no source of objective information to have an informed conversation about what the Bible actually means. Many subjects of scholarly interest will be shrouded in controversy, but the difference with the Bible is that it's really not possible for a consensus to ever be reached.
 
headscratcher4 said:
This decision is like winning a small battle, the war is still being lost...

Too right.

The day before running this story, my newspaper reported this

US school in eye of creationist storm

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday January 13, 2005
The Guardian

The battle over attempts to introduce a version of creationism into the curriculum of American schools has become focused on a small town in Pennsylvania.
Biology teachers at a high school in Dover have rejected the instructions of local officials to read a statement in class today questioning the theory of evolution.

They had been ordered by the town's elected school board to preface their usual class on evolution with a statement, saying "Darwin's Theory is a theory ... not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence."

As an alternative, the statement mentions "intelligent design", an updated form of creationism which argues that life on earth is too complex to have developed at random.

The teachers asked to opt out of making the statement, and it will be read instead by a school administrator before a biology class early next week.

The Dover school board's actions make the town the first in the US to promote "intelligent design" in competition to evolution. It has become the subject of a lawsuit by a group of parents that has pitted the Christian right against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case is due to be heard in the next few months.

"Intelligent design is more than an attack on evolution. What these folks are proposing is to allow faith and miracles and supernatural creators to be considered as science," the ACLU's legal director in Pennsylvania, Witold Walczak, said.

A supreme court decision in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it would violate the separation of church and state.

The Dover school board decision is one of a series of signs that the movement is making a comeback. Mr Walczak predicted that it would gather steam as Christian conservatives drew inspiration from President Bush's re-election.

A CBS/New York Times poll at the time of the election found 55% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form, 27% believed in evolution guided by God and only 13% believed God was not involved in human evolution. And 65% backed teaching creationism alongside evolution.

The Dover school board and its supporters argue that "intelligent design" is not covered by the 1987 supreme court decision because it is not inherently religious, but a scientific challenge to Darwinism.

"Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design," said Carl Jarboe, a former chemistry professor and school board supporter. "I am alleging there is not one piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution."
 
Couldn't we cut a deal with these guys?

If they promise not to tell lies in schools, we'll promise not to tell the truth in churches.

Just a thought.
 
Living in Cobb County...

Living in Cobb County and having gone to elementary/middle/high school here, this whole thing has upset me greatly.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0105/23isevolution.html

Fortunately, with articles like this, the local media has cemented itself on the side of education. A majority of teachers have also cemented themselves firmly on the side of education, and have opposed this thing from the beginning.

I've seen any number of articles from various individuals with science and education backgrounds that have decided to take a public stand against this, to paraphrase Penn, Male Bovine Excrement.

Unfortunately, there are also a number of creationists that have taken to the public forum and have been spreading lies and misinformation.

Please pass on a link to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to any and all of your skeptical friends/associates, and urge them to send in letters or articles of support for the judge's decision.
 
"Darwin's Theory is a theory ... not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence."
Dr. A has objected to the second sentence, but it simply says that there are gaps, and that there is no evidence for said gaps. Therefore they are hypothesized gaps. I wonder who hypothesized them?

Edited to add: Oh wait, never mind, it says that the gaps exist. Therefore they are not hypothesized. Yet there is no evidence for them.

:D

~~ Paul
 

Back
Top Bottom