Re: Cobb County

Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

>Beyond science and theology issues, this does contain a
>legal component as well.
>
>
Yes indeed it does. I particularly am more comfortable with the teaching
of evolution with the "examine these ideas closely" caveat (the subject
of this discussion) than I would be with the public school teaching
biblical creation with its nuances and literary models etc. (in addition
to being a lawyer, I have an MA in Systematic Theology, BA in Religion
and a Second BA in Philosophy, so those are my areas of best knowledge).
I am having a hard time understanding why the scientists on this list
are so opposed to a small indicator of healthy skepticism in science for
the textbooks, when most scientist operate under the same skepticism to
discover new things, in my understanding. Is it a reactionary impulse
toward the YEC crowd?

I would rather have self examining science taught in the classroom than
anything religious, but the way the textbooks are written, with a clear
atheistic and anti-Christian bias (at least the ones I have had to
examine here in Washington), it is not sufficient to allow the status
quo to reign. If a child is taught every day that evolution excludes the
possibility of God, and other "religious" statements made in the name of
science, we need our children to be skeptical of such things. If
evolution were taught without the constant beratement of religion and
exaltation of science as the final arbiter of truth, most Christians
would have little problem with it.

When we here knowledgeable Christians in Science fight to support these
textbooks which we know have clear anti religious statements, it tends
to make us wonder where their loyalty lies, with Christ, or with
science. I know they do not have to be mutually exclusive, and shouldn't
be, but the constant circling of the wagons anytime there is criticism
of school science textbooks really is disturbing from a pastoral point
of view (I was a pastor for several years before attending law school).
Why not textbooks that teach evolution without making religious claims?

>
>
>>Should we only teach evolution in college when young people have come of age? Should we teach some mish-mash of creation myths to satisfy every religious group?
>>
>>So is Genesis a myth to you, maybe that's the problem we have communicating here?
>>
>>
>>
>
>This is a rhetorical statement. To my limited understanding of the
>law, at present, we would have to teach all these "origin models"
>with the "myth"-word included (like it or not). Dawkins & Co should
>also be included on the list in my opinion because it is an ideology
>and not science, but nevertheless "myth" would be the equalizing term
>for all of them under the eyes of the law (as far as I know).
>
>That is even more reason why I don't
>think it is a good idea to teach a mish-mash. Some group of crazies
>will almost surely claim they are not properly represented regardless
>of how ridiculous their ideas are, and we will be required to inform
>the youth about them.
>
>
You are probably correct on this.

>
>
>>The latter seems even worse than the former because the youth would not only be exposed to _potential_ atheist views by certain kinds of teachers, but views of various cults as well. What would you suggest we do?
>>
>>Teach the truth about science and its ever changing claims, and then allow teaching of the current prevailing theories alongside scientific challenges to those theories.nbsp;
>>
>>
>>
>
>If there was only one, that _might_ be easy, but the US has many
>world views now. I agree that exposure to views has some merit,
>but even as a complete layman at law, I would be concerned that
>this issue requires some very deep thought.
>
And the problem is that our legal climate regarding such issues is in a
state of flux. the judicial activism and legislation from the bench
taking place, its hard to tell where the state of the law will be in a
few years.

>I surmise that people
>would have to also be exposed to Hindu creation stories and their
>defense (which is probably not so bad), but cults?, such is much worse
>than the status quo. Naturally, the more lunitic the group is, the more
>they would be determined to advertise their inane ideas to potential
>converts.
>
>That is where I'm not sure where to hang my hat.
>
>in Christ
>Wayne
>
>

-- 
.......................................................................................
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between
classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every
human heart - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
.......................................................................................
Edward J. Hassertt
Reason By Faith
Auburn, Washington
http://www.reasonbyfaith.org
Christian Legal Discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advocatusdeus/