School textbook mocks creationism
No respect for Christian beliefs? Or is it only Muslims, blacks and homosexuals who get respect? The book could have simply given the "generally accepted scientific theory" and not mentioned the Bible at all. It was after all supposed to be a science textbook, not a theological commentary.
"A Tennessee father says a biology textbook should be banned from his son’s curriculum because of it's ‘bias’ against Christians.
Kurt Zimmermann is appealing a Knoxville school district's decision to keep the book. He says the textbook used in his son’s biology class cites creationism as a "biblical myth." According to reports, he requests, 'non-biased' textbooks be used. In his words, the current textbook's phrasing misleads, belittles and discourages students in believing in creationism and calls the Bible a myth.
Knoxville County School superintendent Jim McIntyre says the committee's finding to keep using the book is appropriate. However he asks the board to hear Zimmerman's appeal Wednesday, April 7....
Local papers report Zimmerman pulls a quote from page 319 in the book, Asking About Life, where creationism is described as, "the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days."
Source
As an atheist, I don't believe in either of the Bible accounts of creation (See Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2) but I think Christians and Christianity deserve respect.
23 comments:
I think Christians and Christianity deserve respect.
Why?
The Bible or Creationism should not be mentioned at all in a biology textbook as they are irrelevant to science. Creationism does not have a scientific basis but relies on ancient text for its "authority", whether that text was based on "folk myth" or some other unknown source.
I would say because they (Christians) no longer believe or practice the murder of infidel/heathen/pagan/hedonistic/atheistic individuals (outside of the occasional lone schizophrenic). They just say bad things about them and try to warn them of their eventual spiritual demise. Islam still kills the godless, I believe, and they receive more consideration from cowards because of it. I think Muslims too believe in the creation “myth”.
it is indeed a biblical myth. That doesn't mean (though I strongly hold that it does) that there's no basis of truth in it (as many myths have been shown to have some basis in reality).
And why would your theory deserve any more respect than the Christain theory? You have just as much proof of yours as we do. Explain to me how all of this universe was just an accident. Something does not come from nothing, therefore God must have played a major role. It may not have gone down exactly as written in the bible (the bible was written by man after all)but the hand of divine providence is easily seen if one opens their eyes.
3:01 - Science doesn't say "something comes from nothing" - you are creating strawman arguments. The Bible doesn't give scientific explanations but general summaries of events (some inconsistent with each other), though it's odd that there was day and night before the Sun came into existence or that plants could grow before there was a Sun (that is not explained in the Bible). Maybe you will have the brilliant theory that it doesn't matter coz God can do anything!
Friends,
Please remember that "Science" has ALWAYS been right, and right the first time. "Science" should ALWAYS be accepted as the truth. For we know the world is flat because "Science" can't be wrong!!!
[Where is that sarcasm font when you need it???]
Science doesn't say "something comes from nothing" - Anon 3:37 AM
It most certainly does. In case you missed it, re-read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" - specifically the chapter "Black Holes Ain't So Black."
Also, unless I missed it, the Big Bang is based on all time-space being balled up into a singularity that came from...??? Guesses, anyone? Oh...well, we don't know. Not "nothing" because we just said that's impossible - or not, depending on who you ask. It had to come from somewhere, which had to come from somewhere else, or else everything came from nothing, and science doesn't say that happens.....sometimes.....
Scientists say all the matter in the universe was in a big pile and then it blew up in one big explosin and here are. Right. If you use a little common sence you should see that the story of the bible and the big bang both are hard to blieve. No I should say impossible to believe. I can only guess at how dim someone must be to kill people in the name of god. Try putting your feet in those shoes. I can't. Stormewaters
Another error in a classroom text books...according to the Judeo-Christian theory of creationism the Earth was created in "6" days, not "7" days.
On the seventh day God rested, union rules...mandatory rest breaks. (there's your sarcasm)
A more respectful word choice, and perhaps more accurate as well, is the Creationist "explanation". After all, it was the explanation offered by the humans of 2000 or more years ago that went into the Bible, and later scientists developed their explanation, one that has gained general agreement and acceptance. That's what superior explanations do. Like the teacher character in "The King and I" said, "The Bible wasn't written by men of science, it was written by men of faith."
Creationists provide a valuable service in their critique of evolution.
Well, according to science creationism is a myth and it is based on the bible. It's perfectly acceptable to say so in a science textbook when discussing the topic. Science textbooks are not supposed to support religious theories, that is not why they exist.
No religion deserves any special protection. Of course it's good to avoid insulting someone's beliefs on purpose but that cannot mean that you couldn't mention anything that is somehow contradictory to any given religion. Or next you cannot mention that some dog breeds are actually man made as that would seem to have something to do with the theory of evolution. Plus the fact that all living beings are created by God.
The Finn : The textbook is needlessly derogatory of the Creationist point of view. To call something a "myth" as a form of rebuttal is not good Science (in any sense of the word.)
The Scientific Principal that I always heard espoused in grade school was that "Things happened in the past the same way they do now." Rivers deposited silt at their mouths, sediments solidified into rock. Stalagmites and stalactites grew in caves at the same rate they do now, etc...
If that principle is true, then the "Old Universe" theory has legs, and stands quite well on it's own - down to and including "evolution." If that principle is false - if things happened differently in the past - then science has no hope of telling us how they happened at all.
The Textbook should simply state that theory, and build upon the available evidence to argue the "Old Universe" theory.
Creationism is nothing more than an alternative theory to the primary assumption of "pre-historic" science. It states that things DID happen differently in the past - which can't be proven one way or the other - and then uses a certain text to describe how they happened. The universe, in a Creationist view, sprang into being fully formed, with all the artifacts of being old already "built-in."
You can't argue that - it's no more "scientific" than declaring the universe was created last Thursday, fully formed, and that any memories we have prior to that event were planted by it's Creator.
Science must be based on certain universal assumptions. Faith doesn't suffer that restriction.
The problem is in the language. The phrase "Biblical myth" really is accurate in that "myth" simply means "story", so calling it a Biblical myth is simply stating that it is a Biblical story.
Unfortunately, the word myth has also taken on the meaning of being "false" or "untrue". While I don't know the intention of the textbook writers, generally speaking, when Creationism is spoken of from a scientific perspective, it is typically not favorable to Christianity.
While it was a poor choice of wording from an "objective" textbook, but not completely inaccurate in definition.
when Creationism is spoken of from a scientific perspective, it is typically not favorable to Christianity.
DUH!!! We have a genius here.
Yep, I am a genius. Thank you!
Yet the real genius about this is that one CAN be a Christian who is saved by the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ, believes in the literal Biblical account of 6 24-hour days for Creation, and can reconcile science without compromise. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that "God did it, and science explains how"?
Anon 5:36,
Ridiculous.
Many Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story, as it could be and probably was just meant as an allegory, like countless other creation "myths" of primitive peoples. The Bible account just happens to have its origins in Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq).
It takes just as much faith to believe in the "theory" of the big bang as it does to believe in the "myth" of Christianity. But to disparage someone for faith in one and not the other is utter stupidity.
It takes just as much faith to believe in the "theory" of the big bang as it does to believe in the "myth" of Christianity.
BULLSHIT!
The "Big Bang" theory (as all scientific theories) is based on scientific observation not "faith". If further observations suggest the theory is incorrect in some or all respects, then a new hypothesis or modification of the theory will be looked for to account for those observations. There should be no vested interest in a particular theory or hypothesis if the discipline of science is being pursued rather than some personal pet opinion or say a commercial interest.
Religious dogma on the other hand only looks at evidence that might possibly be interpreted in its favor, and ignores or refutes all other evidence, as it believes it has the "truth" regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary.
People who believe in God are the same as people who believe in Harry Potter or Star Wars. Fiction is fiction. Get over over it losers.
Post a Comment