Free Speech: Okay to Prosletyze When Teaching Class?

[BDC]

Well domestic animals like dogs, cats and even cows (I think) are still interbreedable with their wild ancestors. Till that changes I'm not sure if we can talk about different species. When we can, however...

Why not? We can see genetic codes are clearly heriditary and carry information. Sooner or later they will be so different as to prevent cross-breeding, at least usually. Therefore different species. I'm not sure there is any sensible way to argue against that, at all.

[Watchman]

That's what I was referring to. Since evolution of living things is basically a side effect of heredity, it would seem to me refusing one would basically require also dumping the other more or less per definition.

[Papewaio]

I do not know if the world is 6000 year old but it surely is a lot closer to 6000 than the malarkey time frames evolutionists would give.

Its not evolutionists who have figured out the age of the Earth. It was geologists and then later on refinements in physics and chemistry that lead to even more accurate analysis of the Earths age. Geophysicists are pretty happy with the age measurements and they are a lot older then 6000 years old.

Add to that what astronomers figured out what the age of the universe is. Add more refinements from Astrophysics and the age of the solar system is for all intent and purposes the age of the Earth. A lot of this was figured out after we understood nuclear fusion far better and then the results in B^2FH paper. So we can figure out the age of stars.

The size of the galaxy alone being 100,000 light years across... meaning just to see the other edge of from our position would take 80,000 years... puts a minimum age of our galaxy at that... which well and truly beats 6000 years. Then add in further afield galaxies that we can see and the minimum age of the universe increases.

So from stellar nucleosynthesis we know our star is at least a third generation one. That is because we have elements heavier then iron. We know that it is a typical star of its size (main sequence) and hence it is about 4,570,000,000 years. The Earth formed out of the same solar nebula hence we know it is of the same age category.

So astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists, geophysicists and run of the mill physicists have all determined in one way or another that the age of the Earth is significantly more then 6000 years old.

Not biologists.

[Pindar]

For some reason the US has a problem with anything other than fundamentalist Christianity. That doesn't mean that there aren't other types of Christians but what is the odd minoriety here in Europe seems to be the norm in the US now.

The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both given the green-light to evolution. Why do Christians in the US have a problem with it. Even more so, why do they have a problem with the Big Bang.

Hi Wigferth,

Your question is more properly addressed to Evangelical Protestantism rather than a larger label Christian*. Evangelicalism is doctrinally most often part of Reformed Christianity. This means notions like sola fides and sola scirptura are stresses. The rhetoric of sola scriptura is important because it serves as a counter to the traditional claims of say Catholicism to having ecclesiastical authority. It also means the scriptural text (The Bible) is taken as complete and untainted revelation. This is where notions of inerrancy (meaning without error) derive. Thus, reference to a six day creative period can be taken at face value.

Evolution as a mid-Nineteenth Century innovation is seen as a direct attack on the Divine Creative impulse where man was formed complete and in relation with God until the advent of Original Sin and the Fall. The Fall is understood as the issuing in of death: man and creation became mortal. Evolution has death as a critical function of natural selection, which applies to all organisms, is thus incompatible with a Divine Order that was once pristine and complete.


*Though interestingly Evangelicals will often refer to themselves as Christian to the exclusion of any other sect of Christianity.

[Soulforged]

The problem was he was proselytizing Christianity. If he was a Marxist and told some bourgeois kid he was going to hell, he might get away with it.

LOL- You silly anticommunist, if you knew your enemy well you'll know that marxists hate the idea of hell as much as they hate the bourgoisy. If the teacher was an actual marxist he wouldn't be teaching at all, what you describe is just hate without ideas, like all the nonsense that this teacher allegedly spouted.

[Louis VI the Fat]

in addition to being apostates, the Pope and Archbishop are also heretics.

If there's any sort of benevolent God, he'll reserve a private part of heaven for you alone...just so you'll never ever find out about all those other Christians who made it to heaven too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hi Wigferth,

Your question is more properly addressed to Evangelical Protestantism rather than a larger label Christian*. Evangelicalism is doctrinally most often part of Reformed Christianity. This means notions like sola fides and sola scirptura are stresses. The rhetoric of sola scriptura is important because it serves as a counter to the traditional claims of say Catholicism to having ecclesiastical authority. It also means the scriptural text (The Bible) is taken as complete and untainted revelation. This is where notions of inerrancy (meaning without error) derive. Thus, reference to a six day creative period can be taken at face value.

Evolution as a mid-Nineteenth Century innovation is seen as a direct attack on the Divine Creative impulse where man was formed complete and in relation with God until the advent of Original Sin and the Fall. The Fall is understood as the issuing in of death: man and creation became mortal. Evolution has death as a critical function of natural selection, which applies to all organisms, is thus incompatible with a Divine Order that was once pristine and complete.


*Though interestingly Evangelicals will often refer to themselves as Christian to the exclusion of any other sect of Christianity.

Uh okay, that makes it slightly clearer. To be honest though as a moderate Arian Christian I'm not impressed by the arguement. Just because the Bible is perfect (which I don't believe) that doesn't mean it all has to be taken litterally.

If the Bible is just litteral (six days) then that makes it pointless. It means you never have to think about what you are reading, where is the understanding? It's God just appearing and saying "believe or else." If he does that faith becomes irrelevant.

I would contend that the Bible cannot be taken litterally.

The Pope and Archbishop have entirely given up their faith: they put the evil thoughts and desires of men ahead of what God said. Surely that is definitely giving up their faith in God and replacing it with faith in evil man himself. In addition to committing what the Bible says is the one unforgivable sin: turning the Word of God into a lie. This is exactly what the apostate church as described in the Bible consists of.

Or perhaps they are more tollerant and forgiving of the faults of the world and try to gently correct them, rather than launching a crusade.

[Pindar]

Uh okay, that makes it slightly clearer. To be honest though as a moderate Arian Christian I'm not impressed by the arguement. Just because the Bible is perfect (which I don't believe) that doesn't mean it all has to be taken litterally.

The tension with evolution is not the literalness per say, but the notion that pre-Fall death could occur.

If the Bible is just litteral (six days) then that makes it pointless. It means you never have to think about what you are reading, where is the understanding? It's God just appearing and saying "believe or else." If he does that faith becomes irrelevant.
I would contend that the Bible cannot be taken litterally.

Not all Evangelicals are complete literalists. Inerrantists would argue the text is without error. This doesn't mean analogies and metaphor don't exist. Even so, a penchant for literalism seems more common than not.

[Fragony]

Dear diary, they just don't understand me

Actually, the correct translation would have been 'to whipe out'. Been nice here.

[macsen rufus]

Oh, well, I was about to say what Papewaio said (though less eloquently than he did). To rule out evolution and rule in a 6,000 yr old earth also requires such things as the speed of light, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, and other DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL PROCESSES to be discounted. The only option is to believe that "God" is a consumate deceiver, that he created the world so that in the short term things work, but he fixed the books on the past. Not a great reference for an entity propounded as the only source of truth. I thought it was The Other Guy who was supposed to be the Great Deceiver

I was also under the impression that the Fall/Original Sin theology derived from Augustine, rather than the Bible itself, and have been far more impressed by the "Original Blessing" / Creation Theology championed by theologians like Matthew Fox, which he makes a very good case for being a suppressed and more original theology of the Christian tradition.

But what really bugs me about the literalist/fundamentalist mindset is that it is so anti-intellectual, encouraging people to discount science as "anti-Biblical", to rule out any validity for rational investigation of the universe and effectively neutralising any attempt at education and rejoicing in the resulting ignorance. That's why I believe creationism and its mutant offspring "Intelligent Design" deserve no place in the schoolroom.

[Don Corleone]

IIRC Don Corleone's numbers in the above post are quite wrong as has been proven in a thread on this board a few months back that caused him to get very upset that apostates and secular humanists were starting to get outnumbered by Bible-believers.

I got upset because of the way the polling question was asked and the way the answers were interpreted. They asked Americans a leading question that did not directly point to evolution or creationism, and from the answers, they drew the erroneous conclusion that 65% of Americans believe in the 6 day creation story. The point of the poll, and the thread itself was not that Americans were particularly evangelical. It was how ignorant and stupid Americans as a whole are.

Folks, I urge you to remember that evangelicals such as Navaros do not have a particluarly universal view of Christianity. Anybody that disagrees with a strict literal interpretation of the bible or that disagrees with what their particular pastor teaches on ANYTHING isn't welcome and they don't view the rest of us as Christian. So when Navaros says something like 'All Christians agree with me', in his view he is correct, as none of the rest of us qualify, BECAUSE we disagree with him, and there's only about 40 Christians out there. Fred Phelps and Dr. James Dobson BARELY qualify....

How come you never answer people on other literal interpretations Navaros? I'm getting a little tired of you skulking in here, firing off a missle attacking everyone who doesn't subscribe to your limited world view, then refusing to answer rebuttals. Do you actually stone your neighbor to death if he sleeps with his wife after she's had her period but before she's ritually cleansed herself in the Jordan? You've been asked time and time again about those portions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that you choose not to cite, as apparently they don't suit your purposes, and to be honest, your silence is very telling.

I swear, "Christians" such as yourself, so full of anger and intolerance, you miss the whole point. Reminds me of a funny joke:

On one particular morning, a bunch of newly deceased souls arrive at the pearly gates. St. Peter welcomes them all heartily and leads them all over to a tour bus. He ushers them on and begins a tour of Heaven. He drives along the road and the riders see a large mansion. Hundreds of people cavort and dance in the front yard. Wine and beer are abundant, but nobody appears to be out of control. St. Peter explains that's where the Catholics live. He continues driving along the road. They come to a large beautiful golf course. It seems every golfer hits a hole in one, every time he swings a club. St. Peter explains that's where the Presbytarians live. At the next stop, there is a huge picnic with blankets all scattered around. St. Peter explains that's where the Methodists live. As the bus crests a hill, St. Peter shuts the bus off and coasts down the hill. He whispers loudly that nobody is to make a sound. Halfway down the hill, they pass an eerily quiet southern mansion. People walk quietly about the grounds, and they have a bit of a dour look. Once past, St. Peter starts the bus and begins driving again. One of the riders asks what the last place, with all the taciturn folks was. St. Peter giggles and explains that's where the evangelicals live. He continues with "We have to hide from them. If they knew anybody else was here, they'd leave!"

[Fragony]

Usually it's navaros that is being attacked, ask his opinion and you know what you are going to get. Doesn't really offend me as a protestant-light by the way, and if our pressence offended him he probably wouldn't be here. I grew up in the dutch biblebelt, there are many people that think like Navaros there, kinda got used to it. The guy is serious about his religion.

[Kralizec]

I haven't met a lot of people who are so deeply religious, but those I did weren't self-righteous and smug about their beliefs. There are a few (moderate) christians I sometimes talk with about religious stuff, but I can't imagine a conversation with Navaros in real life without me leaving the room halfway.

[Don Corleone]

Well, when somebody calls me a heretic, because I focus on the message of love and forgiveness that Christ preached, I feel a need to defend myself. You're right of couse, Fragony, that at the end of the day, Navaros probably pities all of us. It seems like there's some anger there too, but I imagine it's mostly pity. I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing, and I can appreciate that. Sorry Navaros, Fragony's right... I should learn to try to just take what you have to say at face value. (don't worry, that's grape juice in there).

[Fragony]

I haven't met a lot of people who are so deeply religious, but those I did weren't self-righteous and smug about their beliefs. There are a few (moderate) christians I sometimes talk with about religious stuff, but I can't imagine a conversation with Navaros in real life without me leaving the room halfway.

Well if you are ever close to Barneveld, steer clear then, you wouldn't believe it

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well seeing as how everybody is jumping at Navaros somebody's got to say something in his favour as well: to me, his beliefs certainly don't make any less sense than generally held ideas such as bread turning into human flesh and wine into blood by blessing it; a vaguely humanoid entity creating the entire universe by sheer willpower; three being really one.

In fact, he often simply carries widely held theological beliefs to their logical conclusion.

To me, he differs from mainstream Christians mostly in that the latter are more at ease with those of different persuasion, and more at peace with the material world around them. (Navaros, sometimes you sound almost Manichean in this last respect...)

[Reenk Roink]

To rule out evolution and rule in a 6,000 yr old earth also requires such things as the speed of light, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, and other DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL PROCESSES to be discounted.

And this is really how the creationists should proceed...

Skeptical arguments about the material world are powerful, and would be a much more devastating critique of current scientific theories than what is being offered.

[Pindar]

I was also under the impression that the Fall/Original Sin theology derived from Augustine, rather than the Bible itself...

Hi Macsen rufus,

That is correct. Original Sin is a product of St. Augustine and thereby the early Fifth Century. Recall the Reformers were heavily influenced by St. Augustine: Luther had been an Augustinian monk. Bucer, Calvin etc. followed in Luther's basic footsteps. Augustine, as filtered through Luther and/or Calvin, typically serves as the theological backdrop through which the Bible is understood for Evangelical Christians. Most Evangelicals I've met are not familiar with the larger Christian Theological Tradition.

[Pindar]

Well, when somebody calls me a heretic, because I focus on the message of love and forgiveness that Christ preached, I feel a need to defend myself.

Heretic!

[Pindar]

Skeptical arguments about the material world are powerful, and would be a much more devastating critique of current scientific theories than what is being offered.

Most are unfamiliar with Hume's work.

[Tribesman]

I must wonder further , since Navaros is once again reluctant to answer simple questions about his very strong and vocal beliefs , perhaps a simpler one might get a response .
So Nav , do you believe the theories of geocentric astronomy , as proven beyond doubt according to scripture by God making the sun stand still ?

[Scurvy]

I haven't met a lot of people who are so deeply religious, but those I did weren't self-righteous and smug about their beliefs. There are a few (moderate) christians I sometimes talk with about religious stuff, but I can't imagine a conversation with Navaros in real life without me leaving the room halfway.

I know a few very religious christians who have similar views to Navaros, and they're very nice people, even when talking about religion they are forceful, but very polite and mannered, although they obviously disapprove of my lack of belief.

[Reenk Roink]

Most are unfamiliar with Hume's work.

Well, true, and considering Hume's attack on religion, creationists would be reluctant to use his arguments anyway.

But they can look other places; Bishop Berkeley would be a perfect fit.

[Pindar]

Well, true, and considering Hume's attack on religion, creationists would be reluctant to use his arguments anyway.

But they can look other places; Bishop Berkeley would be a perfect fit.

The bugger with the British empiricists is opting for one of the earlier versions points you on the way to Hume. Perhaps, a better option would be Bergson's philosophical critique of evolution. It doesn't require an idealistic appeal or a rabid skepticism.

[Meneldil]

The teacher is totally right.

Contrary to "popular belief", it's a teacher's job to teach the truth, not propagate the kids' minds with total horse manure which "evolution" and "the big bang" are.

"Teaching" evolution and the big bang are prosletyzing unfounded propaganda nonsense, and that is fundamentally wrong.

About time someone took a stand to end that crap.

Kudos to David Paszkiewicz!

I've been lurking in this forum for like 2 years, and I still don't know if Navaros is talking seriously, or just trolling for the fun of it.

[Papewaio]

I must wonder further , since Navaros is once again reluctant to answer simple questions about his very strong and vocal beliefs , perhaps a simpler one might get a response .
So Nav , do you believe the theories of geocentric astronomy , as proven beyond doubt according to scripture by God making the sun stand still ?

Just to annoy both of you... Inertial Frame of Reference a la Relativity.

[Reenk Roink]

It doesn't require an idealistic appeal or a rabid skepticism.

Where's the fun in that then?

[macsen rufus]

I've been lurking in this forum for like 2 years, and I still don't know if Navaros is talking seriously, or just trolling for the fun of it.

Same here - it's the "light blue touch-paper and retire" style that makes me wonder.....

[Rameusb5]

Since when did getting a teaching certificate count as a license to teach whatever the hell you want? This guy should be fired immediately. I could care less what the "community" thinks. I grew up in a small mid-western town where a lot of people looked the other way as history teachers taught straight out of the Bible instead of the textbook. I actually had one teacher (chemistry) disrupt his own curriculum to rant about how the history teach tought evolution even though he was REQUIRED BY LAW to do so. Thanks for wasting my time. Thanks also for brainwashing yet another generation in thinking that there could only possibly be one answer, so why bother trying to explore the world around you at all? Try doing your job instead. It's why we pay you.


If you want your kids to learn about religion, take them to church. There are plenty to choose from. But school is mandatory for kids and should NOT be used as a forum to spread your own personal beliefs, no matter HOW right you happen to think you are.


I'm really getting sick of people who take side with a wrongdoer simply because they approve of his message. I wonder how they'd feel if the teacher had said that Islam was the true faith and all Christians were going to hell? The way I see it, it's EXACTLY the same thing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I could care less what the "community" thinks.

On a completely different side-note:

I could care less
I couldn't care less

I hear and read both versions. Logically, 'I could care less' makes no sense, it means you care a lot. Yet I see it so often it is probably not a mistake. Nor does anybody ever seem confused about it, or tries to correct either one. Apparently, rather than meaning the opposite, both have the exact same meaning of 'I don't care'.

Why is that? Why is that? Why is that?

Is it yet another Anglosaxon plot to confuse foreigners? A prank that you're all in? From Alaska to England to New Zealand? Just another one of those genetic designed linguistical defects of the English language, where opposites can mean the same and the same often can mean the exact opposite?