BS: Creation v Evolution

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Gary T
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:50 PM

Ah, John Hardly, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your perspective.

'The "separation of church and state" that we have was instated to protect religion from persecution by a "state religion" as well as to keep the government from being corrupted by a religious oligarcy.'
So far, so good.

'To, as a matter of course, be instructing in public schools (paid for and attended by religious and non-religious citizens) that creationism is false is intolerant and is a use of state monies and facilities to persecute religious beliefs.'
No, it's a use of state resources to teach science. Now, if the state insisted on invading the churches and teaching in Sunday Schools things that the churches find objectionable, that could be considered persectution.

'Should the state be allowed to tell a religion that is law-abiding, that it's theology is objectively wrong?'
Of course not, but this isn't the issue. Theology is not an objective matter, and it doesn't belong in public school science curricula. The churches have no more right to insist their theology and beliefs be taught in public schools than anyone (government, schools, etc.) has to insist on taking their agendas into churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:41 PM

Hmm, well Roger, I think I am much more interested in getting to know you and what you mean by your questions, than in the questions themselves, because if I answer them from my assumptions about what you meant, and give in exchange something about which you will form a number of assumptions about what I meant, then we will not have exchanged something that we might have otherwise valued greatly. And I won't settle for a counterfeit of the real communication that would be required to open up these questions, look around inside them, consider the other viewpoints inherent in them, and have a good time doing what I have come to call Making Sense.

Rick, I think you got what I said, about discussing them thar thnags with friends... it can be as intense as making love, to Make Sense, but it has to be made, it is not just there to display usually, and that is what I like to do is Make Sense. Fortunately *G* there is no prohibition I know of on doing so with more than one partner. Of course the time to build a cart that will haul is a limiting factor.

How many can I know deeply at one time? Only one I know can do that easily is that God dude, and I am learning as much as I can frm Him to widen my circle as far as I can without losing effectiveness.

But partnership does seem to be necessary on these really tough questions. Must be my prejudice for two-headed thinking, that twin thing, excuse me.

Also, Roger, I don't think we agree on what the key issue underlying this situation is. Not that I am sure I have the right idea on that myself. But for instance, I have worked in the education sector, in parent and community involvement and organizational change, and I would not address the question as you have defined it-- I'd want to bring in the view I have had of good people, teachers and administrators, caught up in a system that makes them seem to forget why they joined that system in the first place, usually to change the world and move it toward a dream or a vision of wholeness that they have. I won't start a discussion, my end of it, from blame, and then try to sort out which a**hle is more or less blameworthy.

Last week I had a great talk with someone with whom I have taken the time to learn, mutually, the rhythms necassary to Make Sense for hours at a time. We talked about: Which side of the street are you walking on? On my side, there is no need to worry about getting a parking ticket, what's wrong with the courts, we oughtta fire the police chief, the meter maids are corrupt-- which they certainly may be, over there on his side. But I disabled the parking meters on my side, long ago, and I stay on this side of the street as much as I can. Now, some of the people on the other side are SO ATTRACTIVE I can't seem to resist occasionally going over there for a cup of coffee, but then I always wanna drag them over to my side! Because I just can't stand to be on the other side for too long, the coffee gets so bitter and stale.

Hey flattop, some smokin' imagery there! Good wording! Furball of the day! PPP!

And hey, I'm definitely coming to Toronto on my next big explore. Me and Hardiman. Clearly the best next trip.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Ely
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM

Touchy subject. I was an atheist from a religiously-liberal family ("unprogrammed" Quakers with scientific backgrounds) attending high school in a pretty solidly Southern Baptist district (a suburb of Houston, Texas) and there were numerous occasions when I and other non-Christians felt the pinch.

At my brother's National Honors Society induction, they had a Baptist preacher speak and he spent the whole time waving a Bible at the audience. The Christians thought it was great but the growing Hindu and Muslim population made such a fuss that there was no prayer/moment of silence of any sort at graduation that year. That doesn't sound like much but it's a huge concession in an area that usually prays for everything (including football games, as some of you may have seen in the news recently).

We always got the "you don't have to believe it but the law says I have to teach it" speech at the beginning of the evolution section of every biology class.

I have always been of the opinion that each person's truth is largely their own, so they should be taught as many different views as possible and allowed to make up their own minds. I don't understand the appeal of fundamentalist religion but I can tolerate it as long as nobody tries to make it my only option. I have always believed that religion was the parents' responsibility and would very much prefer to see it out of public schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Gary T
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM

It was the Kansas State Board of Education (ten people) that stirred up the fuss, by rejecting portions of testing standards prepared for them by a committee chosen to do so. The Theory of Evolution was the significant subject matter eliminated from state testing standards, portions of which were rewritten by non-professionals in the area of education/testing/curriculum, and which were rather transparently espousing the views of Creationists. While various local school districts could include the teaching of Evolution and/or Creationism as they saw fit, this move by the State Board of Ed. had the practical effect of making science education in Kansas suspect, in that a graduate of any Kansas high school would not necessarily have been taught what the rest of the country (and most of the world) considers standard scientific knowledge.

In the most recent state election, the leader of the anti-Evolution faction lost her seat on the board and the "voting split" on this issue has shifted. I'm not sure whether or not the testing standards have been changed yet to what the original standards committee recommended, which would be in step with the rest of country, but it's a pretty sure bet that they will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:03 PM

I appreciate that you straightened out the facts, paddymac, and I like your take on it. I also very much appreciate Susan's take on it--issues of faith are unwisely discussed without the physical evidence of a life lived/changed by that faith--the 'net isn't a good vehicle for that--hypocracy is almost invited by the anonymity. I would, however request that you think about the characterization of only one of the sides as being "intolerant". I think you might agree that the preponderance of people these days who consider themselves to be knowledgable believe creationism to be intolerable. The "separation of church and state" that we have was instated to protect religion from persecution by a "state religion" as well as to keep the government from being corrupted by a religious oligarcy. To, as a matter of course, be instructing in public schools (paid for and attended by religious and non-religious citizens) that creationism is false is intolerant and is a use of state monies and facilities to persecute religious beliefs. It's not an easy question. Should the state be allowed to tell a religion that is law-abiding, that it's theology is objectively wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: flattop
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:01 PM

I know nothing about Sheffield but the religions that I see here in Canada are not much into vile hatred. Quite the opposite, in spite of different beliefs, they seem to be into helping people within their fellowships and without. They especially seem to enjoy helping the sick, the poor, the needy, the homeless, the families who are struggling in our economic system, the mentally ill who spend too much time on mudcat reading the furball of the day. Perhaps that one of the reasons that pew perching is plummeting. Their message may not be nasty enough to appeal to sinners like you and me, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: kendall
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:00 PM

Was it really 400 years ago that Galileo was persecuted for his observations? Seems like just yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: paddymac
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM

As I recall that Kansas story, it was a local school board that voted to delete evolution from the curriculim in favor of creationism. The vote was 3-2. At the next election, a few months later, the composition of the board changed and the creationsim/evolution policy was promptly reversed. Those kinds of "local" things happen sporadically, and the press usually gives them far more coverage than they're worthy of. Religious fundamentalism in the political realm has indeed been on the upswing here for the last twenty or so years, but if the current election cycle is any indicator, the political influence of those folks is beginning to ebb. I recall a press note a year or so ago to the effect that there's even a theatrical version of the famous/infamous "Scopes Trial" playing to modest success on the southern small town circuit. Despite the fundamentalist (i.e.; intolerant) quirks that happen here from time to time, the vast majority of the population is tolerant of a great variety of religious expressions. It was not without reason and sad experience that the founding fathers so clearly separated church and state. Theocracies, of any sort, are just bad forms of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 01:09 PM

Creation, Evolution, a bit of both? where do you stand Praise? Do you think it is right to remove information from a syllabus to facilitate a certain version of a Truth. Or is it better to give as much detail as possible to people and let them make their own choices?

Roger

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Bud Savoie
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 01:02 PM

Welp, I can see the potential for trouble on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 12:56 PM

Smart thinking Susan. That's why I just gave a reasonably objective overview of the Canadian Political situation. Dumpin' on folks' beliefs, hurts..so why bother?

On the other hand I LOVE discussing religion and politics with friends. Two things my Daddy said NEVER to do, 'cause it wasn't polite.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 12:50 PM

My personal policies are:

To question the necessity of any thinking being cast in terms of Something VERSUS Something Else. (My experience being that Truth usually is roomy enbough for Something AND Something Else, neither of which quite make sense without the other).

To refrain from discussing something this complicated issue, chockfull of various bits of old mixed up stuff, with anyone with whom I am not (yet!!) close enough to exchange a look in the eye, a song, a snog, a laugh, and perhaps a bit of childlike wonder or even prayer.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 12:00 PM

If you absolutely must worship a god, the Sun makes a most convincing candidate. == Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:19 AM

I see it as Open mind versus Closed mind
The only religion I currently hold to is Sun worship*. I love sunny days they make me feel good, without the sun life on Earth would die
Not sure that life on Earth would die with out organised religion and I could certainly do without all the vile hatred some religions put out

Roger






*If a Monty Python style Lord appears above the clouds I reserve my right to be converted on the spot

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Clinton Hammond2
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:13 AM

There's no gods
And precious few heros

{~`

Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:12 AM

Other than in pretty small isolated rural areas, it's never been much of an issue in Canada. Interestingly though, we now have an actual fudamentlist Christian as leader of the opposition in the Government. He's a huge fan of American style politics, and is pretty vocal about Capital punishment, abortion, welfare, multi-culturalism, Gay rights, prayer (Christian) in schools, and bilingualism. Since the vast majority of our population is concentrated in our large cities (lotsa pretty empty country spaces) more moderate opinions tend to always hold sway. His supporters will always be hugely vocal,(and the press love that) but the real conservative positions never seem to be more than a blip here. It's interesting to watch though.

Rick

Subject: Creation v Evolution
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Oct 00 - 10:20 AM

I heard on BBC World Service last night that in the face of pressure from creationists, evolution theory is be removed from biology syllabus in Kansas schools. The report claimed that more than 50 per cent of Americans reject evolution science in favour of the judaic creation story.

Here is Britain, where religious influence is in decline (as it is in most western European countries, even approaching free-fall in Ireland) this is hard to comprehend. However I am aware that religion and fundamentalism are growing in the states and most parts of the world. How do Mudcatters see it?