And you’re trying to use the laws of physics to describe something which by definition is outside the laws of physics. By extension, you want those of us who understand the laws of physics to discard them when they prove inconvenient. No chance. God’s interventions as described in Genesis are pretty extreme. It would be ridiculously (if not infinitesimally) easy for him to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence to us jaded 21st-century types. The fact that such a being chooses not to suggests to me that:
[ul][li]He doesn’t exist;[/li][li]He exists but is indifferent to us, which means our worship/nonworship is irrelevant; or[/li][li]He exists and cares about us, but that care takes a form completely alien to any concept of “care” we humans have (i.e. slaughtering your children out of spite, or letting one group of children massacre another group).[/ul][/li]
Overall, evolution provides a simpler explanation than the third point, which requires all kind of philosophical backflips to explain why such a God is worthy of worship as well as his true nature and origins.
I am for Creationism being taught in school, in Religion Class or History.
Many say the fact that the Jews were restored to Israel as a result of WWII was the miracle. Hardly forsaken in modern days, their existence in spite of all attempts to eradicate them (regardless of their on again / off again recognition / obedience to God) is in line with God’s promise to them.
Christian persecution in Roman days resulted in scattering the Christians into the world to better reach the world.
God is not the source of evil. It is the miracle of God to turn what was meant as evil into good. Yes, He could prevent it… sometimes he does. Yes, He could stop it… some times He has. Sometimes He allows it… we don’t always see why. But He is never the source. Those that are His are guaranteed life… always in the next world, and somtimes miraculously in this one.
Personal responsibilty… Hitler was the bad guy. Overcoming him, and the restoration of the Jews he sought to eradicate was the miracle.
This I wouldn’t have too much of a problem. I mean, given that the course would spend equal time teaching about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Daoism, Shinto, paganism, pantheism, Ba’hai, and of course Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Catholicism, and every other religion I left out.
Hell, you could spend an entire year just covering creation myth from all of the major religions.
Um, excuse me? I’ll take “No farking way” for $1000, Alex.
In the case of the Pharoh in Egypt, however, this does not seem to be the case. The story basically says that God hardens the Pharoh’s heart (i.e. causes him to do evil) essentially so that God can have a chance to show off. Maybe that’s a justifiable reason, but it certainly seems like God is being the source of an evil here, especially since the ways God wishes to show off include a bit’o genocide on de’ children.
I’d just like to point out that one of the major reasons (I feel) that evolution is rejected is because of the abysmal state of education in the biology areas in most of the united states. Check it out, most people who reject evolution (and again, IMO) reject it because they don’t know much about either it or science.
And because of that, the 2nd law predicts disorder once the earth’s energy source runs out. But until then, we’re fueled. Understand?
In History as in “Historical beliefs” not as in “Our history began when God created the earth 6000 years ago…”. Duh!
Once again, I’d be fine with this, as long as “world history” mentioned the word “Buddhism” once and “Islam” more than in passing, while spending a week covering the Protestant Reformation. Or maybe took a look into some of the pre-Christian European pagan beliefs. Perhaps if it spent some time concentrating on the Eastern European beliefs, instead of the Western. Apparently, we have to “understand Christianity” to understand history of Europe, but we don’t need to understand African pagan beliefs or Asian Daoism, Shinto, Buddhism, etc to understand Asian history. Hell, we didn’t even look much at Roman paganism while studying ancient Rome, in high school history.
History is already biased and crowded enough without having to preach various religious beliefs. If you want a religious studies course, don’t try to pass it off as “history.”
yes. Thank you.
A couple of thoughts off the cuff here…
Pharoah had already done, and was continuing to do evil to the Hebrews.
“Hardened his heart” in context merely “set” what was already there in his heart and had been demonstrated by his policies and actions. Punishment can seem evil to the punishee. Forced humility can seem evil to the proud and defiant. This does seem to me like a showdown that was meant to be followed through to a definite, irrefutable conclusion, that spoke loudly enough to be heard by both sides.
I’ll research it some more.
I don’t know what History and Religion classes look like at your place but Islam was covered pretty well here. Of course more time was spent with Christianity but then again, it’s a mainly Christian country so I think that’s ok. Buddhism, Islam and Judaism of course get a lot more mention and Hinduism and Shinto only get a passing note but that’s fine by me, I’m not very likely to encounter that many Shintoists or Hindus.
Also, I have no idea what you mean with:
I think creationism fits the bill as well as heliocentrism and what-not. Western history is so saturated with christianity it would be impossible to teach one without the other. Since I’m a rabid atheist I’m of course hoping that won’t be the case with 2000+ history in teh future 
But the more you focus on one religion, the more it becomes a government indoctrination of that religion. If you are going to spend time in history class - you know, the factual discussion of the past - on religion and specifically on creation, you’d damn well better cover it all.
The overview of Islam I got, at least, was a very brief discussion about the religion and some discussion on pilgrammage to Mecca. That is hardly “covering” it.
I can see a European History course going more into depth of elements of Christianity, though at the same time, it would still have to cover Islam, unless you want to completely ignore south eastern Europe (which most people do, anyway).
Simple. Religious studies is not history. Creationism has absolutely no place in history, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think kids should be taught YEC in public schools. Flat earth theory too. Throw in various ways of spotting and punishing witchraft while you’re at it.
Specifically, I think they should be taught “These are some really, REALLY, motherfuckingly stupid things that many people, some of them your parents, have been conned into believing. Never trust what someone tells you without thinking it out for yourself first.”
including evolution
but of course, nothing else is being taught beside evolution; nor is included a disclaimer of its disputed/ hypothetical status; nor any retractions of heretofore taught-as-fact hypotheses that are now debunked.
Nope,
just evolution.
That’s not true at all. Plenty of things are being taught (I assume you mean in science class); physics, chemistry, genetics, even some atomic theory, etc.
Evolution is being taught because all the evidence points towards it; it is both fact and theory. It is a fact that organisms evolve over time, the theory of evolution explains this fact.
As to having a disclaimer or stating that it’s hypothetical, that’s just nonsensical thinking. Why include a disclaimer on something that is known to be true scientifically?
I believe the reason you don’t accept evolution is a combination of two factors: 1. A poor biological education, not your fault really-see my previous link. 2. You believe that evolution must not be true because of a religious conviction.
Yea, but that’s because it isn’t disputed. Something isn’t “disputed” because someone objects to it. Is the Holocaust “disputed”? Something is “disputed” when there is evidence to show that it may be incorrect, or at least something it doesn’t explain.
The only “debunking” that Creationists have done of evolution is psuedo-science and broad claims like, “you can’t add information to genes” despite utter lack of proof. On the other hand, evolution has mounds of evidence on its side. Most of the “debunking” is contradictory and doesn’t have basis in real science, like the “second law of thermodynamics.” On the other hand, evolution follows every scientific precedent.
Believe it or not, there isn’t some giant conspiracy between scientists to come up with BS. In fact, the government is controlled by Christians, not scientists, though most of them have the common sense to admit when the evidence is piling on top of them. In fact, many scientists are religious, and around the world they agree to this.
As soon as anyone comes up with some proof for something else - I mean, proof other than “this book says so” or “because we believe it” - then nothing else gets taught in science courses.
I believe the reason some accept evolution is a combination of two factors: 1. A poor biological education, not their fault really-see his previous link. 2. They believe that evolution must be true because of a religious or philosophical conviction.