Creationism in science class rooms

[snr5557]

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.

I think a very key word here is "may". Being an atheist does not automatically mean that they are cheats or somehow devious. One of my best friends in an atheist actually. She is completely honest in all of her opinions and thoughts, she has no problem questioning authority whether it be a mechanic or a scientist. If the only reason a person acts good is because they believe they will go to hell if they do not, they lack morals. She would never cheat another person because she does not think she will be punished, she does not cheat because she believes that honesty is a moral value. Although she is one of God's creations, she does not believe in God, so therefore I do not think that He is in involved in her thought process of what is right and wrong. I know that some Christians view atheists as just the worst people on the planet going out to do their best to be awful to everyone, but I thought you were above such things.


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."

I think these things are important because a teacher's job is to provide information, like a mechanic's job is to fix a car. Both are providing a service, so in a way I see why this is relevant. What do you mean about teaching what is practical? Are some parts of education not practical? If that is what you mean please explain what parts are not practical.


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.
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 do not think that religion (especially the Christian religion) is not involved in politics. Are there people who claim to be Christian to simply look better in the eyes of their potential votes, I have no doubt. But to convince me that Christianity is not involved in politics I would need some credible sources that claim that to be true.


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.

I have never seen that sort of reaction to the national anthem, but then I have never visited a nursing home so I would not be an accurate judge of how often that happens.
Just because people do not get emotional over hymns does not automatically mean that they do not hold God close to their heart, I personally do not care much for traditional hymnal music, but I have felt deep emotional responses to more modern Christian music. The same message, but with different wording can make a difference.
I agree with the fact that persecution is not well known. I feel so annoyed when people complain about the "war on Christmas" over a plastic nativity scene while there is an actual war that is costing the lives of Christians. I'm actually going to be part of this organization next semester where different religious groups on campus to have this specific space for groups to have meetings, Bible studies (or Torah or Quran studies, depending on the religion) and I really hope I can bring awareness to actual issues that face our faith, as well as persecution of other faiths as well. No one should have to live in fear that they may be murdered because of their religion.
I don't think it is fair to say that the only reason people are either upset or proud of those who have died for their country is for nationalism. Those soldiers have friends and family, who would without question be upset that they had died, but proud that they had died for a cause. Does nationalism play too large a role? Yes, but I think that some of that grief and pride is not because of the flag, but for family members and friends. It can also be a mixture of those emotions as well.


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.

Many of those rights go along with what God wants I think, whether a person is a Christian or not. Unless, you are going to argue that the rights our government gives us is not the same as what God wants for us.


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


Those wars have been a great evil, as well as secular wars have been great evils. People fight one another, for their religion or their own gain or a mixture of both, but we should not simply ignore what has been done. The lesser of two evils (if we can accurately say which has been more evil in the case of war) is still evil, and should not be brushed aside with the reason "it's not as bad, therefore it does not count."



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.

How would people pay for these private institutions? We have public schools so that parents can be guaranteed that their children can have an education. What if a student converted, should they relocate to another school? Would the education be the same? Not to mention the cost of creating schools for specific religions, what about a school for each denomination in each school district? How many religious schools would have to be created?

I think a school should do their best to remain unbiased in how they approach education when it comes to things such as faith. For example, if I went to a public school that had a Jewish focus, I would not feel right because those are not my beliefs. Jews are of course welcome to have those views, and to have special schools specifically learning about Judaism is fine, but to enforce those views in a public school would not be right, would it?

 

[Wormwood]

I think there seems to be a lot of "ships passing in the night" in this discussion. Again, my primary argument is that there are philosophical and religious presuppositions embedded in the educational process currently. You may not be aware of it or think it is of any significance, but I would disagree. I don't know that this forum is a proper venue to go into the issues in great detail. But let it suffice to say that all of our laws, "rights," educational structure, political foundation and so forth are based on very specific philosophical ideas that I believe run very counter to the teaching of the Bible. Let me again point to abortion. A woman can terminate a pregnancy because of her "right" to choice. The same "rights" do not apply to the unborn because "rights" are designated by the State. The State has deemed that "rights" only pertain to those who are self-sustained...which (mark my words) will begin to influence how the elderly and mentally disabled are viewed. They are not productive or often self-sufficient so their "rights" will be called into question in due time (they already are....see link below). So ask yourself, "where do we get this concept of "rights?" I assure you it isn't anywhere in the Bible. Yet we just assume they are there and when the State says the unborn have no rights, we hardly blink as a holocaust happens every year as one million unborn are slaughtered. How can you say these issues of purpose, epistemology, ontology and so forth have no bearing on everyday life? They shape who we are, how we think about knowledge, purpose, meaning, life, and everything else these "practical" decisions are based upon. To teach that knowledge is attainable without God is to teach that God is entirely unnecessary. Our culture, as a result, is deist at best and antichrist at worst. Everything is based upon the intransitive thinker and even the validity of revelation is filtered through our concepts of what constitutes true knowledge.

Allow me to say one more thing. The rise of relativism is a direct fallout from these philosophical undercurrents that are unjustified. Moderns believed that there was a foundational rationality that knowledge could be based on. This is shown to be untrue. Current philosophies are showing that there is no "objective" rationality. All of our observations are shaped by culture, language, intellect, and a million other forces. Thus, "truth" is being discarded because all we are left with is perception. Individuality is being deified and no one is able to question the legitimacy of anyone else's ideas or actions because there is no foundation from which to draw a common ground. All we can do is appreciate the uniqueness of anothers perception. Thus, those who argue for absolutes are viewed as being obtuse and infringing upon the individuality of another. Our laws are starting to reflect this philosophical shift as behaviors that were once viewed as deviant or the result of mental illness are now applauded and put on public display. None of these things are based on "science." A Christian can do "science" just as any non-Christian. The issue has to do with how education takes place and what we learn about where understanding comes from and the purpose behind it all. The secular upbringing is clearly embedding the idea that knowledge is found only in the individual's mind and the only purpose is that which is created by the individual or more importantly, the State.

Your link:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

First, let me say that I appreciate your posts. Even though we may not agree, your posts are very thoughtful and it's obvious that you are taking the time to carefully think about the subject and write quality posts. That's very refreshing.

I understand the broader philosophical questions you're raising, and again I think it just gets back to an issue I've always had with philosophy....so much of it just isn't practical. It's interesting, but like the example I posed....do such philosophical questions matter to things like picking a car mechanic, cooking a meal, playing a soccer match, or studying E. coli? I don't think they do. When I think about what spices to put in a curry, do I need to think "What is truth? What is reality?"

When it comes to governments and societies, a lot of times the practical trumps the philosophical....because it has to. Governments are constructed to help keep a society functional. In a lot of ways, that involves practicality. Zoning laws, parking rates, tax rates, etc...it's jut not practical to dive into deep philosophical questions about "what is reality".

Finally, I didn't realize you were talking about the Terry Shaivo case. I thought you meant actual children whose support was pulled despite parent's wishes. If I were a married adult, I would want my spouse making that decision rather than my parents. My spouse would know "adult me" much better than my parents.

 

[Wormwood]

I appreciate the discussion as well. Thanks for engaging in it and I respect your reasons for disagreeing. Let me clarify a few things...

I am not saying that philosophy needs to be imbedded into every class. I am not saying we have to give a 10 minute lecture on epistemology or Christianity before engaging in a class on cooking or auto repair. But what I am saying is that "secular" education as a whole is a built on a philosophy and religious ideology that is not scientific fact. Saying that education and religion are on different ends of the spectrum is a religious and philosophical argument. At one time, theology was seen as the queen of all science. Theology was not a section over in the Liberal Arts department that was completely independent of the educational process. Theology was seen as the root of all knowledge and scientific inquiry. Most of the Ivy League schools were originally built on glorifying God and Christ as the ultimate aim of all academic pursuits.

Look at the original purpose of these institutions...

Harvard University:
“1. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of him (Prov. 2:3).
2. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoreticall observations of Language and Logick, and in practical and spiritual truths, as his Tutor shall require, according to his ability; seeing the entrance of the word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130).”
The motto of the University adopted in 1692 was “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” which translated from Latin means “Truth for Christ and the Church.” This phrase can be found embedded on the Harvard Shield and on many buildings around campus including the Widener library, Memorial Church, and various dorms in Harvard Yard. Interestingly, the top two books on the shield are face up while the bottom book is face down. This symbolizes the limits of reason, and the need for God’s revelation.

Yale University:
Yale's roots can be traced back to the 1640s, when colonial clergymen led an effort to establish a college in New Haven to preserve the tradition of European liberal education in the New World. This vision was fulfilled in 1701, when the charter was granted for a school “wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State.”

Pennsylvania University:
The motto of the school was literae sine moribus vanae ("Letters without morals [are] useless")

I could go on and on with pretty much all of the primary Ivy league institutions in this country. They were founded based on the idea that all understanding must be grounded in a knowledge of God. Now, however, this has shifted to religion being an optional course in the humanitities section of the school that is viewed as completely irrelevant to one's core education. It is a philosophical shift that has changed how education is viewed as a whole. We have cut off creation from the Creator and it is having devastating effects.

Now, certainly I am not suggesting that we force all people into Christian schools and force Christian principles on them. However, neither should we force all people into secular schools and force deistic and atheistic principles on them....a "letters without morals" paradigm.

Again, I am not suggesting we not be practical here. I am suggesting that if we teach that religious concepts are impractical and do not play foundational roles to our basis of science and understanding, then we are still teaching a religious concept, just an antichristian one.

Let me close from this quote from Newbigin:

When reason is set against revelation, the terms of the debate have been radically confused. What is happending is not that reason is set against something unreasonable, but that another tradition of rational argument is being set against a tradition of rational argument which takes as its starting point a moment or moments of divine self-revelation and which will therefore naturally continue to say, not "we discovered," but "God spoke and acted."

When an epistemological tradition is forced upon students that will not allow for "God spoke and acted" but only "we discovered" then that tradition with its religious assumptions is all that is allowed to be said about the nature of science and understanding.

 

[River Jordan]

But what I am saying is that "secular" education as a whole is a built on a philosophy and religious ideology that is not scientific fact.

I think it's more built on practical concerns.

At one time, theology was seen as the queen of all science. Theology was not a section over in the Liberal Arts department that was completely independent of the educational process. Theology was seen as the root of all knowledge and scientific inquiry. Most of the Ivy League schools were originally built on glorifying God and Christ as the ultimate aim of all academic pursuits.

So what changed? Was there a major philosophical shift? I don't think there was. There were definitely some philosophical changes, but not what I think you're describing. I think it was more that it's easy to have universities and their science departments be all about God and Christ when almost everyone who would ever go there (wealthy whites) were not only all Christians, but were largely of the same denominations. And not only that, but the people in charge were able to exclude people who didn't fit that mold.

But that hasn't been the case in this country for a while now. We're not just populated by Christians, education is not reserved for wealthy white males any more, and minorities (racial and religious) cannot be excluded from education. So it's no longer was practical to have these institutions be exclusively Christian.

Also, I think there was a slow realization that....gasp.....non-Christians could do perfectly good science! When white Christians are the only ones doing science, it's easy to be all like "Science is about studying God's creation and giving glory to Christ". But as soon as deists, agnostics, Jews, etc. start cranking out their own science and it's just as good, and sometimes better than, that from Christians, it slowly starts to become apparent that science can be done extremely well without any religious underpinnings. Throw in cases of sectarian beliefs actually getting in the way of scientific progress, and you end up where we are today.

We have cut off creation from the Creator and it is having devastating effects.

What effects do you mean?

Now, certainly I am not suggesting that we force all people into Christian schools and force Christian principles on them. However, neither should we force all people into secular schools and force deistic and atheistic principles on them....a "letters without morals" paradigm.

And that's where I see the problem with your argument. They're not having "deistic and atheistic principles" forced on them.

Let me close from this quote from Newbigin:

When an epistemological tradition is forced upon students that will not allow for "God spoke and acted" but only "we discovered" then that tradition with its religious assumptions is all that is allowed to be said about the nature of science and understanding.

Again that's a false dilemma where anything less than overtly incorporating Christianity into everything = atheism.

Overall, I'm getting the sense that a major underlying component of your posts is that Christianity just isn't as dominant a force in our society as it used to be. Most of our public institutions and civic aspects of life used to be governed by and/or had strong Christian overtones. But as our society becomes less religious overall, and more people from other religions live here (and they all have found their legal voices), those rules and overtones are quickly going away. And I guess if you were one of the people who have been around for a while and have seen how fast things have changed, it's probably pretty shocking.

Am I close to what you're talking about here?

Of course to me, it all seems normal. Why would I want education or most other things to be religiously segregated? A lot of my good friends in middle and high school were either non-Christian or from a different denomination. If we had all gone to different schools that were separated along religious lines....well that just seems like nonsense to me. I think being around different POV and such was a good thing that I wouldn't ever want to give away.

And I guess that's a pretty fundamental question/issue....how comfortable are you being around people who are very different than you? How comfortable are you living in a society that isn't run according to your beliefs?

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks for your response. Well, I think in some areas you simply disagree, which is fine. However, in many areas I feel I am not communicating well enough and I feel like that must be my fault. I just don't know how I can communicate any differently to make the points more clearly. So I guess I will just have to leave things as they are.

I will just conclude by saying that this really has nothing to do with segregation or trying to impose my beliefs on others. Also, I would strongly contest your historical views that early universities were built on such principles because they were just all a bunch of white Christians seeking an education and as culture changed to be more diverse the universities followed suit. I think this is a very poor understanding of the philosophical and cultural shifts over the past 200 years.

Again, I don't know how I can make it any more clear, but my point has NOT been that we should push a religious agenda in our educational system. Rather, it has been that one is ALREADY being pushed. You are stuck with the notion that the "secular" is what exists when religious presuppositions are pushed to the side. Secularism is a positively formed ideology, not a negatively formed one. It is not the absence of religion but a religion of absence. If you don't grasp that then nothing I say beyond that will make any sense in this discussion.

Anyway, I know I am just rehashing things I have said already and I don't want to do that. I welcome anyone else who may be grasping what I have been trying to communicate to jump in and say it in a more clear or effective way. I have appreciated the conversation.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks for your response. Well, I think in some areas you simply disagree, which is fine. However, in many areas I feel I am not communicating well enough and I feel like that must be my fault. I just don't know how I can communicate any differently to make the points more clearly. So I guess I will just have to leave things as they are.

Oh shoot no! Your posts are fantastically well written. I think it's just that we disagree that creates the impression that there's a misunderstanding.

I will just conclude by saying that this really has nothing to do with segregation or trying to impose my beliefs on others. Also, I would strongly contest your historical views that early universities were built on such principles because they were just all a bunch of white Christians seeking an education and as culture changed to be more diverse the universities followed suit. I think this is a very poor understanding of the philosophical and cultural shifts over the past 200 years.

If you have a suggestion for something to read on this subject, I'm all ears.

Again, I don't know how I can make it any more clear, but my point has NOT been that we should push a religious agenda in our educational system. Rather, it has been that one is ALREADY being pushed.

This is the only area where I guess I'm confused about what you're saying. You seem to be saying...

Education in the US used to be oriented around Christian beliefs.

That is no longer the case, and by removing any overt religious context from education (becoming secular), the system is promoting deism and/or atheism.

That is a bad thing.

And from earlier, the solution you offered was for each religious or philosophical group to have their own education system.

You are stuck with the notion that the "secular" is what exists when religious presuppositions are pushed to the side.

Because that's the definition of secularism "Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries."

IOW, it's related to the practical aspects I've been describing.

Secularism is a positively formed ideology, not a negatively formed one. It is not the absence of religion but a religion of absence. If you don't grasp that then nothing I say beyond that will make any sense in this discussion.

That's philosophical secularism, or "secular humanism" "The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making."

IOW, it's related to the positive philosophical arguments you've been describing.

Anyway, I know I am just rehashing things I have said already and I don't want to do that. I welcome anyone else who may be grasping what I have been trying to communicate to jump in and say it in a more clear or effective way. I have appreciated the conversation.

Me too!

 

[Wormwood]

I would encourage you to read Theology and Social Theory by John Milbank. It may be a bit dense though. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy by James K.A. Smith would be another good read. Another very good read would be The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society by Lesslie Newbigin. These would provide the kind of background philosophically and historically that I cannot provide in short informal posts.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks! I'll look for those.