Thanks for explaining. I think I understand better now. I guess what I'm not clear on is what you think should be done. Do we educate in science based on your beliefs?
Creationism in science class rooms
- Thread starter snr5557
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
River Jordon
You come to a Christian forum peddling your evolution, and consider questions concerning Jesus Christ addressed to you as a personal attack. How silly and hypocrital you remain.,
Again, who do you think Jesus Christ was?
Quantrill
You come to a Christian forum peddling your evolution, and consider questions concerning Jesus Christ addressed to you as a personal attack. How silly and hypocrital you remain.,
Again, who do you think Jesus Christ was?
Quantrill
Wormwood
Chaps
River,
I don't know that there is a simple answer other than to have people stop suggesting that secular education is non-religious while Christian education is religious. Both are religious. It needs to be made clear to the public that both political policies as well as educational tracts steeped in secularism are religious. Personally I think all education should be done by private institutions where religious and philosophical assumptions are made apparent...rather than having one State-funded secular religion get special privileges and get propped up under the false advertising that it alone is truly scientific.
I don't know that there is a simple answer other than to have people stop suggesting that secular education is non-religious while Christian education is religious. Both are religious. It needs to be made clear to the public that both political policies as well as educational tracts steeped in secularism are religious. Personally I think all education should be done by private institutions where religious and philosophical assumptions are made apparent...rather than having one State-funded secular religion get special privileges and get propped up under the false advertising that it alone is truly scientific.
Wormwood,
I think maybe you might be confusing different types of "secularism". From what I can tell, you're arguing against the type of secularism that is closely related to atheism, in that it makes positive claims about the nature of our consciousness and the existence of God (they claim He doesn't).
However, there's a more broad type of "secularism", which is more like "not associated with any particular religion". It's a term that stands in contrast to societies and institutions that are run according to religious law, like the difference between Saudi Arabia (religious state) and the US (secular state). This type of secularism doesn't make any positive claims one way or another about the nature of our consciousness or the existence of God.
IMO, the latter better describes our educational system, in the same way it describes a car repair shop, an IT department, or a chemistry lab.
If your argument is that in all of those cases, there's an underlying assumption that our minds are our own and not gifts from God, then I would counter that in most mundane aspects of our daily lives, it's just not practical. I don't really want my car mechanic to spend a lot of his time focusing or explaining to me that his mind and our reality are gifts from God. I want him to fix my car.
Finally, I think you're defining "religious" in a peculiar way. You believe that our minds and everything around us are gifts from God (and I agree), but you're defining as "religious" anything that doesn't explicitly endorse that belief. IOW, when I'm in chemistry class, unless the professor goes out of his way to state that our minds and the reagents we're working with are gifts from God, then she is engaging in religious instruction.
IMO, that's not correct. In that class, the professor doesn't say anything about God one way or the other. She doesn't say "Our minds are gifts from God", nor does she say "Our minds are our own and we don't need God to do anything". Either one of those would be religious statements, but saying nothing at all on the issue doesn't mean she is now engaging in religious education.
I think maybe you might be confusing different types of "secularism". From what I can tell, you're arguing against the type of secularism that is closely related to atheism, in that it makes positive claims about the nature of our consciousness and the existence of God (they claim He doesn't).
However, there's a more broad type of "secularism", which is more like "not associated with any particular religion". It's a term that stands in contrast to societies and institutions that are run according to religious law, like the difference between Saudi Arabia (religious state) and the US (secular state). This type of secularism doesn't make any positive claims one way or another about the nature of our consciousness or the existence of God.
IMO, the latter better describes our educational system, in the same way it describes a car repair shop, an IT department, or a chemistry lab.
If your argument is that in all of those cases, there's an underlying assumption that our minds are our own and not gifts from God, then I would counter that in most mundane aspects of our daily lives, it's just not practical. I don't really want my car mechanic to spend a lot of his time focusing or explaining to me that his mind and our reality are gifts from God. I want him to fix my car.
Finally, I think you're defining "religious" in a peculiar way. You believe that our minds and everything around us are gifts from God (and I agree), but you're defining as "religious" anything that doesn't explicitly endorse that belief. IOW, when I'm in chemistry class, unless the professor goes out of his way to state that our minds and the reagents we're working with are gifts from God, then she is engaging in religious instruction.
IMO, that's not correct. In that class, the professor doesn't say anything about God one way or the other. She doesn't say "Our minds are gifts from God", nor does she say "Our minds are our own and we don't need God to do anything". Either one of those would be religious statements, but saying nothing at all on the issue doesn't mean she is now engaging in religious education.
Wormwood
Chaps
I disagree. How can the laws of the USA not be "religious?" It is all based on a particular epistemology, ontology and view of humanity that is intrinsically religious. You think the decision to make the murder of the unborn legal is an areligious proposition? You think the decision to go to war and sacrifice the lives of thousands of people can be done apart from worldviews and ideologies that are faith-based? You think the establishment of "rights" and the protection of those rights are based out of "science"? The very idea that we are all autonomous, independent beings warring in a world over limited resources with the need of the State to bestow upon us "rights" and disperse the limited resources of our planet is a religious notion. And it all gets a pass because it has somehow been wrapped in the label of "logic/reason" whereas others are based on "faith" and are dubbed as "non rational" and thereby excluded from the conversation. How convenient.
The point is, "why do they not explicitly endorse that belief?" Is it because of science? No. Its because of a philosophical view of who man is, how knowledge is obtained and what our purpose is. I am not saying they can't believe that. I am saying it isn't based out of science or logic. Its based on faith. To suggest that our minds are self-possessed and all things are to be doubted except the intransitive thinker is an act of faith. It is teaching a world view that is perpetuating an idea about knowledge and God....specifically that God is other and entirely independent or completely unnecessary to human knowing and the world around us. This is not based on science, but faith. it is religious instruction and it is why people are abandoning the faith in droves....and embracing the secular consumerism that turns life into a hedonistic pursuit.
I think the fundamental disagreement we have is that you believe a professor, mechanic, IT manager, or anyone not saying anything about things being gifts from God, is the same as them explicitly saying that those things aren't gifts from God. IOW, we have three possibilities...
1) A teacher tells her students that their minds, selves, and things they're studying are all gifts from God;
2) A teacher tells her students that their minds, selves, and things they're studying are autonomous and have nothing at all to do with any God; and
3) A teacher says nothing at all about it.
You seem to be taking the position that #2 and #3 are effectively the same, that by not saying anything the teacher is giving her students the impression that we can learn and study without any need of God.
If that's accurate, I guess while I see your point, in practical terms I can't agree with it. We live in a very diverse society, so as soon as any teacher starts teaching in the context of God, that opens the can of worms of "What God are you talking about". Muslims in the area would object if it's not Allah, Christians if it's not Christ, Hindus if it's not any of their Gods, and so on. And of course non-theists would object to any mention of God at all.
1) A teacher tells her students that their minds, selves, and things they're studying are all gifts from God;
2) A teacher tells her students that their minds, selves, and things they're studying are autonomous and have nothing at all to do with any God; and
3) A teacher says nothing at all about it.
You seem to be taking the position that #2 and #3 are effectively the same, that by not saying anything the teacher is giving her students the impression that we can learn and study without any need of God.
If that's accurate, I guess while I see your point, in practical terms I can't agree with it. We live in a very diverse society, so as soon as any teacher starts teaching in the context of God, that opens the can of worms of "What God are you talking about". Muslims in the area would object if it's not Allah, Christians if it's not Christ, Hindus if it's not any of their Gods, and so on. And of course non-theists would object to any mention of God at all.
Wormwood
Chaps
Well I would argue that you are exalting the idea of autonomous human reason over God.
Here is why I think your three options are faulty.
Suppose a person teaches "Creationism" in the classroom but never says anything about the Creator. They speak of the "science" behind the earth being 6,000 years old, that all creatures only reproduce according to their kind, the existence of mutually dependent species, and indications of major catastrophes is the sediment deposits.
You and I both know the real basis of this "science." It's faith in the genesis record. Just because the Bible or God is not mentioned, does that make the underlying philosophy non-religious?? Of course not. Everyone would yell, "hidden agenda! Religious presuppositions!" And they would be right as you know.
The same is true with secularism. There are religious undercurrents. Just because they are not expounded on does not mean they are not there or that not exposing them makes the whole endeavor non-religious.
Here is why I think your three options are faulty.
Suppose a person teaches "Creationism" in the classroom but never says anything about the Creator. They speak of the "science" behind the earth being 6,000 years old, that all creatures only reproduce according to their kind, the existence of mutually dependent species, and indications of major catastrophes is the sediment deposits.
You and I both know the real basis of this "science." It's faith in the genesis record. Just because the Bible or God is not mentioned, does that make the underlying philosophy non-religious?? Of course not. Everyone would yell, "hidden agenda! Religious presuppositions!" And they would be right as you know.
The same is true with secularism. There are religious undercurrents. Just because they are not expounded on does not mean they are not there or that not exposing them makes the whole endeavor non-religious.
But here's the main difference....
That creationist teacher is indeed teaching a religious agenda. Young-earth creationism is entirely dependent on a specific religious belief.
But I, a born-again Christian, can teach a standard science class and never make any mention of the gift from God material you're talking about, and so can anyone from any faith or non-faith perspective. IOW, the material is entirely independent of any specific religious belief.
The only counter I've seen from you is that "not mentioning it" = "religion", which as I said earlier I just don't agree with. By that token, absolutely everything we do or say is "religion". When I blow my nose, if I acknowledge that my nose and breath are gifts from God, blowing my nose is a religious exercise. But apparently if I don't say anything about God when I blow my nose, blowing my nose is a religious exercise because I might be assuming God isn't necessary for me to blow my nose.
That seems silly to me.
That creationist teacher is indeed teaching a religious agenda. Young-earth creationism is entirely dependent on a specific religious belief.
But I, a born-again Christian, can teach a standard science class and never make any mention of the gift from God material you're talking about, and so can anyone from any faith or non-faith perspective. IOW, the material is entirely independent of any specific religious belief.
The only counter I've seen from you is that "not mentioning it" = "religion", which as I said earlier I just don't agree with. By that token, absolutely everything we do or say is "religion". When I blow my nose, if I acknowledge that my nose and breath are gifts from God, blowing my nose is a religious exercise. But apparently if I don't say anything about God when I blow my nose, blowing my nose is a religious exercise because I might be assuming God isn't necessary for me to blow my nose.
That seems silly to me.
Born again? Did you enter a second time into your mother's womb?
It is impossible to be born twice.
Click here to read about human gestation.
It is impossible to be born twice.
Click here to read about human gestation.
Wormwood
Chaps
River,
You are completely missing my entire argument. Its not just about assumptions of where things come from. Its the very foundations of epistemology and ontology that secularism is built upon.
You are completely missing my entire argument. Its not just about assumptions of where things come from. Its the very foundations of epistemology and ontology that secularism is built upon.
I guess so, but I still maintain that your argument conflates two distinct types of secularism.
1) There's the positive secularism that makes positive assertions about God, our consciousness, and reality (God either doesn't exist, or has no relation to the other two).
2) And there's the functional secularism that is a result of how it's just not practical to delve into the philosophical questions about God and reality in every aspect of our routine lives.
So back to science education...it is based on #2, not #1.
1) There's the positive secularism that makes positive assertions about God, our consciousness, and reality (God either doesn't exist, or has no relation to the other two).
2) And there's the functional secularism that is a result of how it's just not practical to delve into the philosophical questions about God and reality in every aspect of our routine lives.
So back to science education...it is based on #2, not #1.
Wormwood
Chaps
I disagree. Secularism is a positively constructed ideology. It is based on a very specific philosophy, theology, ontology, epistemology that shapes every aspect of it. You have bought into the lie of this worldview that it was constructed in a vacuum of facts that was formed once the unnecessary elements of religion and myth were stripped away. This is what the secularist WANTS you to believe, but it simply isn't true. They have been so good at promoting this ideology under such a guise that public policies, educational models, laws and wars can be justified simply because they are viewed as non-religious. Look at the secularist assumptions that are totally faith-based:
All things possess a univocal ontology
Reason is grounded in nothing.
An epistemology that is extremely limited in how it defines how we acquire knowledge
A worldview that is by necessity deistic or atheistic
None of these things are based in science. They are all faith-based assumptions and yet those who are up front about their faith-based assumptions (for instance, the Christian) is immediately discounted as being anti-intellectual. I think it is a great evil and Christians are blindly soaking it in such that they exalt this so-called "reason" over revelation....such that revelation must be validated by human "reason" (which, as I have shown, is not based in reason or science at all).
The results of this seculization are legion. Christians are afraid to share their faith because it is deemed irrational and an affront to human liberty and "rights" (which are established and removed by the State). Christians cannot engage in political debates because their views are "tainted" by religion...while the secularist has every right to kill the elderly, the handicapped, or the unborn because we have been duped into being taught such ideas are based on rationality rather than the irrationality of religion. The origins of secularism are taught in the school which claims we are the result of random, mindless reactions spanning billions of years...and because God is not mentioned, it is viewed as purely science rather than religious discourse. Our media is given no restrictions as the ultimate aim of life is perpetuated through the secularist agenda which is to be a consumer and a loyal citizen of the State who is willing to lay down their lives (and their faith) for the greater cause of the Nation. To die for one's faith is to be a foolish zealot, but to die for the Nation-State is to be exalted as a great hero. To sing hymns to God in the school is viewed as a great sin while to sing hymns of allegiance to the State is viewed as great honor. Christians go to war killing Christians because the State tells them to, and no one blinks an eye. Our allegiance to our humanly constructed flags, boundaries and "rights" far exceeds our allegiance to Christ. Just as the secularist agenda would have it.
Christians better wake up because we are raising a generation who could care less about Jesus but is ready to give life and limb to the principles of their Nation-State.
All things possess a univocal ontology
Reason is grounded in nothing.
An epistemology that is extremely limited in how it defines how we acquire knowledge
A worldview that is by necessity deistic or atheistic
None of these things are based in science. They are all faith-based assumptions and yet those who are up front about their faith-based assumptions (for instance, the Christian) is immediately discounted as being anti-intellectual. I think it is a great evil and Christians are blindly soaking it in such that they exalt this so-called "reason" over revelation....such that revelation must be validated by human "reason" (which, as I have shown, is not based in reason or science at all).
The results of this seculization are legion. Christians are afraid to share their faith because it is deemed irrational and an affront to human liberty and "rights" (which are established and removed by the State). Christians cannot engage in political debates because their views are "tainted" by religion...while the secularist has every right to kill the elderly, the handicapped, or the unborn because we have been duped into being taught such ideas are based on rationality rather than the irrationality of religion. The origins of secularism are taught in the school which claims we are the result of random, mindless reactions spanning billions of years...and because God is not mentioned, it is viewed as purely science rather than religious discourse. Our media is given no restrictions as the ultimate aim of life is perpetuated through the secularist agenda which is to be a consumer and a loyal citizen of the State who is willing to lay down their lives (and their faith) for the greater cause of the Nation. To die for one's faith is to be a foolish zealot, but to die for the Nation-State is to be exalted as a great hero. To sing hymns to God in the school is viewed as a great sin while to sing hymns of allegiance to the State is viewed as great honor. Christians go to war killing Christians because the State tells them to, and no one blinks an eye. Our allegiance to our humanly constructed flags, boundaries and "rights" far exceeds our allegiance to Christ. Just as the secularist agenda would have it.
Christians better wake up because we are raising a generation who could care less about Jesus but is ready to give life and limb to the principles of their Nation-State.
Wormwood,
Everything in the first part of your post is true for positive secularism (#1 in my previous post), but is not at all true for functional secularism (#2). When I take my car to a mechanic I never ask what he believes about the ultimate nature of reality, where reason comes from, or the existence of God. All of those are completely irrelevant to his ability to fix my car. The same is true for just about everything in our daily lives; it's just not practical. If you disagree, please explain how those questions are relevant to things like picking a mechanic, IT expert, or restaurant.
Also, regarding education....whose version of religion gets to set the educational framework? Yours? Mine? Islam's? Buddhism's? All of those people live in this country and would object massively if your version of religious reality were exclusively taught at public schools.
Everything in the first part of your post is true for positive secularism (#1 in my previous post), but is not at all true for functional secularism (#2). When I take my car to a mechanic I never ask what he believes about the ultimate nature of reality, where reason comes from, or the existence of God. All of those are completely irrelevant to his ability to fix my car. The same is true for just about everything in our daily lives; it's just not practical. If you disagree, please explain how those questions are relevant to things like picking a mechanic, IT expert, or restaurant.
Not from where I sit. I see lots Christians more than eager to share our faith, myself included.
Not sure what country you live in, but in the US religion is a major issue in politics. On the GOP side, not only do candidates compete to appear to be the most Christian, at times they actually field candidates who are former pastors! Here in my local area, we just elected a pastor to the county commission, and he ran on an overtly Christian-themed platform.
Wow....where do you live?
And there's that false dilemma you keep invoking, where not saying anything about religion is the same as promoting positive secularism. Since my car mechanic has never said one thing or another about God or the nature of reality, should I conclude that he's a secularist? Should I ditch him and look around to find one who is overtly theistic?
Also, regarding education....whose version of religion gets to set the educational framework? Yours? Mine? Islam's? Buddhism's? All of those people live in this country and would object massively if your version of religious reality were exclusively taught at public schools.
I agree that nationalism can get a bit overboard, but I'm not aware of the media mocking people dying for their faith (except maybe the ones who are truly bizarre, like the Raelians).
So you would prefer to live in a theocracy, where all public life must conform to one specific set of religious beliefs? That raises the question above....whose beliefs? And what do we do with the people who don't conform to those beliefs?
That's been the case since...well, the beginning of humanity. Christians have persecuted and killed other Christians with or without orders from any state. It has nothing to do with secularism and more to do with basic human nature.
So what is your solution? Start with the education system....what changes would you make?
I guess the equivalent rebuttal would be...
No it shouldn't, because it's not.
And how do you reconcile your empty assertions about evolutionary biology with the statements by various Popes on the subject and the fact that evolution is taught as legitimate science in Catholic schools across the world?
No it shouldn't, because it's not.
And how do you reconcile your empty assertions about evolutionary biology with the statements by various Popes on the subject and the fact that evolution is taught as legitimate science in Catholic schools across the world?
Wormwood
Chaps
Are you suggesting that if the mechanic is a Christian it limits his ability to work on your car? However, even in these matters this is significant. A mechanic who sees his purpose in life is to "get what he can and can what he gets" and one who sees themselves accountable to a Creator may play a major role in how honest he is with me as a customer. Why are these things irrelevant to matters that are purely pragmatic? In any event, I didn't think the nature of the OP was referring to teaching only that which is "practical."River Jordan said:
Really? Statistics show that 80% of churches are stagnant or in decline and that it takes 80 believers to convert 1 unbeliever. I don't think the American culture is what one would classify as "evangelistic" as it seems biblical literacy and overall church attendance in this country are plummeting.River Jordan said:
Yeah, the discussions on "religion" in politics are pretty laughable in the US. Someone can be a "Christian" and still be in favor of abortion, same-sex marriage, and a host of other hot-button issues as well as get caught up in all kinds of scandals and this is not seen as a contradiction.
I live in the US, where over 1 million children are aborted every year, where doctors regularly consult patients to terminate pregnancies where the child will be born with disabilities, where courts pull feeding tubes from the disabled against a parents will, and where for years the elderly are priced out of insurance so they cannot get coverage during the times of life when they need it most (although this is a bit of a ping pong match at the moment).
I think there are some philosophical issues at play here historically you are unaware of. I would encourage you to read Theology and Social Theory by John Milbank. There are philosophical shifts that have taken place in the past 200 years that are assumed that were not assumed prior to that time. I think you are working off of those assumptions.
Yeah, that's just the thing. Its completely ignored. Do you know that there is a Christian killed every minute for their faith in our world? Christians are the most heavily persecuted religious group worldwide and you never hear of churches bombed in Iraq, pastors killed in South America or Christians killed in mass on firing lines in North Korea. However, if a pastor or priest gets caught in a scandal or comes "out of the closet" it makes world news. Im not claiming some grand conspiracy...im just saying that people just roll their eyes at a Christian who is willing to give their live for their faith. But if someone dies in a war for their country, it is wildly heralded. I propose to you a challenge. Take a group of singers to a nursing home. Sing in the cafeteria a group of old hymns and invite them to sing along. At the end, the national anthem. You fill find every person jump to their feet, remove their hat and often tears streaming down their faces during the anthem. I find this stark contrast troubling and it didn't happen by accident.
We already live in a theocracy..that is the point. People are already being conformed to religious beliefs. There are people more willing to die for a flag and a set of "rights" then they every would for faith in a "god." Purpose, meaning, value and worldviews are being imbedded into people through our schools, universities and media...and none of it is "religiously neutral." I guess if we say it loud enough and long enough people will believe it. But again, no one is going to war or ripping an unborn child from a womb based on "science." You need to get your head around that.
Tha
Ah yes. The religious wars of medieval times or the "Dark Ages" when foolish religious presuppositions ruled the ignorant masses, witch hunts were commonplace and inqusitions killed millions. Isnt that how the story goes? Unfortunately our "Enlightened Era" has a way of reframing history. Did you know that somewhere around 1,000 people died in a year from the inquisition (which was not altogether a "religious" agenda)? Did you know that it was something like 25 or so thousand people who died in the crusades that spanned decades? I am not saying these things are anything to wink at. However, these numbers are laughable compared to the millions upon millions slaughtered in power struggles between nation-states and secularist agendas. Yet we are led to believe that "religious" battles have been the great evil of human history. Hardly
Well, personally I would make all education based in private institutions that are all up front about their religious presuppositions. But even if I came up with 50 solutions, it is all a bit of a pipe dream. Christians are not home in this world and we should understand that we are strangers and aliens here. We live in Babylon that will be overthrown in a moment at the coming of the Lord. This is the reality we need to live under. We need to not get caught up in the adulteries of this world and have our minds shaped by the principalities and powers of this dark age but rather keep them conformity to the teaching of God's Word. Our aim is not to create a theocratic kingdom in the world, but to keep ourselves from being polluted and shaped by the wisdom of our age. We have not done a good job in pointing out the faulty assumptions that are not consistent with a Biblical worldview which is why so many are more zealous about their careers, country, politics, and hobbies than they are Christ.
No, I'm saying the exact opposite. His views on God, the nature of reality, or any of the other things you're talking about are irrelevant to his ability to fix my car. He may even be a raving atheist for all I know, but he sure can fix a car. And isn't that why I took my car to him in the first place?Wormwood said:
And that's my point. You seem to be arguing that all daily interactions, exchanges, and encounters are religious. I honestly think that's silly.
There's absolutely no shortage of examples of business people claiming the banner of "Christian" and then ripping people off, and neither is there no shortage of business people with no religious affiliation being very good at what they do, and so on.
And that's my point. In most of our routine, daily activities it's completely impractical to dig down into the philosophical/religious questions you've raised. But by what you've posted, failing to get into those issues is a religious activity in itself. So again, I think that's silly.
None of that is the same as the blanket claims you made earlier about Christians being afraid to share their faith or not engaging in political debates. And I'm not aware of feeding tubes being pulled from children when the parents have different wishes. Do you have an example? And while I may agree on problems with our heath care system, I don't really see expensive insurance as the same as "killing the elderly" in the context you put it in (like it's being actively and intentionally carried out).
You didn't answer the main part of what I asked. Who decides what religion frames our everyday lives?
I've seen reports of all those things. It may not make the headlines, but it's still reported. And like I said, I don't disagree that nationalism can get out of hand.
Again, this is all based on your premise that not diving into philosophical questions in the course of our everyday activities amounts to "religion". Again, I find that silly.
The fact remains, people kill other people for all sorts of reasons, including sectarian killings within major religions, and with or without "state" reasons.
So every sect of every religion has to set up their own schools, including people who claim "no religious affiliation"? Does that seem practical to you?
IMO, a lot of that is because what constitutes "a Biblical Worldview" is extremely subjective.
Similar threads
