New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Setanta wrote:

This is pretty pungent horseshit. Sowell tips his hand with the use of the expression "evolutionist." A theory of evolution, well founded in science and incorporated into a wide variety of scientific disciplines, is not an ideology. The only people who use the term "evolutionist" are the creationist/ID crowd. And in fact, Sowell is here peddling a notorious creationist talking point. The creationist screed presented at Eternal Perspective Ministries includes the following statement: "Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information." The same talking point can be found in a slightly different form at Answers in Genesis. Sowell is simply peddling creationist swill, and attempting to appear as though he is taking a neutral position.

Actually, I think the intention is to point out that there is more useful and important information to be taught (math, reading, writing, etc.) then arguing about whether the world was created or big banged. I would tend to agree with that... but I'm pretty sure you'll just call that horse **** as well.

If you assert that the teaching of science is not a useful exercise, then i will tell you that is horseshit. If you assert that a theory of evolution is concerned with cosmic origins, i will tell you you are certainly very ignorant. A theory of evolution does not deal with cosmic origins. It does not matter to a consideration of the process of evolution whether the world were created or came into existence by some other process. References to a "big bang" are meaningless to a theory of evolution. It is perfectly reasonable to stipulate that there is a god and that this god created the universe, and that subesequently, the contemporary diversity of life on this planet arose through an evolutionary process of desecent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors.

The problem arises with the right wing fringe of evangelical protestant christians in the United States, and in those countries in which they proselytize. It is their contention that the Holy Bobble is inerrant, a complete and absolutely truth account of the the origin of the world and everything which currently inhabits this planet. It is in the nature of religious extremism never to question canonical scripture--to do so is heresy. These particular christians avow this doctrine of "revealed truth." It is a dodge to assert that a theory of evolution requires the universe to have come into being from a "big bang." A theory of evolution is mute on the subject of cosmic origins--it is not pertinent, and to that extent, a theory of evolution does not "care" how the cosmos came into existence. A theory of evolution only concerns itself with the rise of life on this planet. Extremist evangelical christians associate evolution and the "big bang" in their minds because they swallow Bishop Ussher's tripe about a six thousand year old planet, and any other description of the world does violence to their exegesis--and they therefore reject it as heretical.

Do you assert, JP, that teaching science is not a useful activity in schools?

Actually, I think the intention is to point out that there is more useful and important information to be taught (math, reading, writing, etc.) then arguing about whether the world was created or big banged.

I would tend to agree with that... but I'm pretty sure you'll just call that horse **** as well.

That is your typical tripe, MOAN. It is the "Intelligent Design" crowd, who posit for the Heavenly Interior Decorator who claim--falsely--that they accept "some" of a theory of evolution. Creationists stipulate a complete creation at the outset. Have the good taste not to attempt to peddle your lies in such a flagrant manner. A theory of evolution is an integrated description which attempts to account for all of the data--it is not possible to take some of it and reject other portions. To do so would be to modify the theory--and if you modify a theory, it must be capable of accounting for all known data or it is a failure as a theory.

Therefore, when you used the expression "arguing about whether the world was created or big banged."--it appeared to me that not only were you defending Sowell's statement, but that you subscribe to a notion that evolution is an attack on creation, and therefore unacceptable in public education. As well, the phrase "there is more useful and important information to be taught" appeared to suggest that the teaching of science (of which evolution is an integral part) is neither useful nor important.

JP -- perhaps you already did that many pages ago, but could you give some context and maybe a URL for the Sowell quote? It looks to me as if he is trying to annoy liberals, which for some reason he likes to do. But I'd rather to read the context than second-guess him.

Yes, JP i consider that much better--now we only need to get you to realize that science education is both useful and important.

Yes, JP i consider that much better--now we only need to get you to realize that science education is both useful and important.