[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Of course, you could just avoid causing trouble and just stick that "assuming evolution..." at the beginning of the relevant questions, or at the beginning of the biology section, and all would be well.

In the eyes of the professors teaching those classes and responsible for the curriculum, this would be exactly the same as sticking "assuming heliocentrism" in front of astronomy discussions. Evolution is a controversial subject among religious America, but it is absolutely not a controversial subject among teachers and scientist.

If that isn't good enough, it seems that you are more concerned with kicking out people that disagree with you than actually interacting and being at peace with your lesser brethren.

What would you do if you were an astronomy professor and one of your students believed the earth was the center of the solar system, Donny? The situation is identical. It is not the professor's responsibility to cater to students who object to scientifically proven theories based solely on religious grounds.

If you object to evolution because you are a conservative Christian--that is simply too bad for you. It is too bad for you, in the same way that it is too bad for Amish people who want to travel to Africa, or for Hindus who want to try steak. Your religious beliefs prohibit you from engaging in a scientific curriculum. It is not the college's job to cater to your religious beliefs anymore than it's the restaurant's job to cater to Hindu vegans.

Whether or not there should be a "core curriculum" for colleges which requires all graduates to know about diverse subjects like biology, even if it's unrelated to their major, is another issue entirely. I am a fan of core curricula, but there are many detractors (many more than fundamentalist Christians), so fortunately for you, Donny, you can probably find a college that will give you a degree in an unrelated field if you don't believe in evolution. You could not, however, get that degree at (I'm guessing) any Ivy-league school.

[Qingu]

By the way, Donny, there are plenty of colleges I can't get admitted to, by virtue of me being an atheist (there are many Christian colleges to varying degrees of fundamentalism). You don't hear me complaining about this, though.

So what exactly is the problem? Is it just because the colleges I can get into are considered much more prestigious than the colleges fundamentalists can get into? Why should that matter to a Christian fundamentalist? The truth is what matters, and the Bible says that evolution is false because a god named Yahweh molded a clay statue of his own likeness and breathed life into it, and created all the animals and plants, at a time that is simultaneously before (Gen 1) and after (Gen 2) he created his statue-man. Why should you care what the world thinks of people who hold degrees that teach contrary to this? Isn't the wisdom of the world foolishness anyway?

[+Donny]

In the eyes of the professors teaching those classes and responsible for the curriculum, this would be exactly the same as sticking "assuming heliocentrism" in front of astronomy discussions. Evolution is a controversial subject among religious America, but it is absolutely not a controversial subject among teachers and scientist.

But they know it is controversial among others, so out of respect for that, they should at least be a bit compromising and put a little phrase somewhere in their test, shouldn't they?

What would you do if you were an astronomy professor and one of your students believed the earth was the center of the solar system, Donny? The situation is identical. It is not the professor's responsibility to cater to students who object to scientifically proven theories based solely on religious grounds.

I would show him the facts and if he continued believing such, I would tell him that if he wants to continue to study under me, he needs to do his work assuming heliocentrism. Now shift that over to creation vs. evolution and you have my stance on that, too.

If you object to evolution because you are a conservative Christian--that is simply too bad for you. It is too bad for you, in the same way that it is too bad for Amish people who want to travel to Africa, or for Hindus who want to try steak. Your religious beliefs prohibit you from engaging in a scientific curriculum. It is not the college's job to cater to your religious beliefs anymore than it's the restaurant's job to cater to Hindu vegans.

Whether or not there should be a "core curriculum" for colleges which requires all graduates to know about diverse subjects like biology, even if it's unrelated to their major, is another issue entirely. I am a fan of core curricula, but there are many detractors (many more than fundamentalist Christians), so fortunately for you, Donny, you can probably find a college that will give you a degree in an unrelated field if you don't believe in evolution. You could not, however, get that degree at (I'm guessing) any Ivy-league school.

All I am saying is that they shouldn't require belief in it. As I say above, require them to do work as if evolution were true, but requiring a statement of faith of sorts seems stupid. This, and whether the state should mandate that evolution be taught as truth at the high school level, are the only two disagreements that I see.

Add, furthermore, a degree is not a job. If you come out with a degree and yet affirm creationism, if your claims about the scientific field are correct, you aren't going to get a job at any place aside from ICR, so what's the big deal? That a creationist who knows enough about science is running around with a degree? So what? What about Christian philosophers, historians, etc.? If atheism, or liberalism, or something or that sort was obvious and agreed on by 99% of the academic community, do we kick out all Christians?
And I was called on for appealing to the masses, yet both of you have appealed to the mass of scientists. Is it that evolution is obviously true, or that all the scientists agree that it is obviously true? The former reduces to absurdity, and the latter seems hypocritical.

[+Donny]

By the way, Donny, there are plenty of colleges I can't get admitted to, by virtue of me being an atheist (there are many Christian colleges to varying degrees of fundamentalism). You don't hear me complaining about this, though.

So what exactly is the problem? Is it just because the colleges I can get into are considered much more prestigious than the colleges fundamentalists can get into? Why should that matter to a Christian fundamentalist? The truth is what matters, and the Bible says that evolution is false because a god named Yahweh molded a clay statue of his own likeness and breathed life into it, and created all the animals and plants, at a time that is simultaneously before (Gen 1) and after (Gen 2) he created his statue-man. Why should you care what the world thinks of people who hold degrees that teach contrary to this? Isn't the wisdom of the world foolishness anyway?

I am speaking more about state schools. Private schools should be able to exclude whoever the hell they want.
If a Christian school wants a Christian student body, fine. If a humanist school wants a humanist student body (or atheist, or communist, or whatever), fine. Jerry, however, seemed to be saying that, ideally, no college should accept someone who doesn't believe in evolution. You don't find me saying that about Christianity.

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

I just don't know if it's liberal vs. conservative. It's more about 'values.'



I heard that while the seculars are winning the battles, they are losing the war.


I think it all depends on how small the world is. As the world gets smaller and smaller, the power of the fundy will deminish. Isn't it enhanced exploration that brought humanism to the world in the first place? It's a lot harder to believe in a christ figure when you're consantly exposed to other religions/cultures and scientific naturalism.

If I were the general on fhe secular side (I'm a 1st private at best), I'd focus everything on making college education a requirement for finding a career (it already is), make serious biology classes a requirement for both college and high school (it almost is) and keep home-schooled kids down. That way they have to learn evolution. Actually, the same should be down with world religions. Make everyone in school learn world religion, evolution, and psychology and the war is over. Though there'd be a few who would remain christians, the vast majority would become agnostic/atheistic or at least ambivalent towards religion. I think we're already seeing this-- we just need to keep pushing it. Just my random ideas.

I haven't read the entire thread yet but I did want to express my thoughts concerning this post.
It is clear that the secularist and liberals have the colleges and that they seek to educate the masses into thinking like they do. Of course this was the message of the Humanist Manifesto. The real problem lies in the fact that there are no historic examples of liberalism and secularism that has actually accomplished any real good. History may be re-written and facts discarded but there will always be someone who will set the record straight. I do admit, however, that the secularists and liberals seem to be winning at the moment. Still the tide seems to be turning toward conservatism. Of course time is like a pendulam that swings both ways. At the moment it seems to be swinging toward concervatism.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

The real problem lies in the fact that there are no historic examples of liberalism and secularism that has actually accomplished any real good.

Yeah, the founding of the United States of America ... that sure didn't help anyone.

Neither did the Geneva Convention, or the millions of lives saved by U.N. charities.

Did I misunderstand you? Or are you actually claiming what I think you are claiming?

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Yeah, the founding of the United States of America ... that sure didn't help anyone.

Neither did the Geneva Convention, or the millions of lives saved by U.N. charities.

Did I misunderstand you? Or are you actually claiming what I think you are claiming?

I believe I am claiming what you think I am. You wil have to show me how the things you quoted came from a secularist or liberal viewpoint. While I do realize that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists I believe that there was enormous influence from Christian beliefs.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

But they know it is controversial among others, so out of respect for that, they should at least be a bit compromising and put a little phrase somewhere in their test, shouldn't they?

Nah

All I am saying is that they shouldn't require belief in it. As I say above, require them to do work as if evolution were true, but requiring a statement of faith of sorts seems stupid.

I can't imagine any sort of statement of faith. I also have a lot of trouble imagining such a hypothetical student who doesn't believe in a unifying tenent of biology but pretends to for an entire class or classes.

This, and whether the state should mandate that evolution be taught as truth at the high school level, are the only two disagreements that I see.

I think it should be taught as truth at the high school level, because public high schools must conform to a national curriculum, one which involves preparing students for scientific majors.

Parents have the option of homeschooling, or sending their kids to a Bible school. But public schools are not religious schools and the only reason why one would object to the teaching of evolution is religious. The Supreme Court has held as much numerous times.

The obvious response to this will be "shouldn't public schools cater to the rights of religious people?" To what extent? Should we revise medieval history and eliminate teaching about the Inquisition because Catholics believe the church is infallible? Where, and how, do you draw the line? I draw it at "is the school teaching what the national education association deems necessary to prepare students for college?"

Add, furthermore, a degree is not a job. If you come out with a degree and yet affirm creationism, if your claims about the scientific field are correct, you aren't going to get a job at any place aside from ICR, so what's the big deal? That a creationist who knows enough about science is running around with a degree? So what?

It's rather dishonest.

What about Christian philosophers, historians, etc.? If atheism, or liberalism, or something or that sort was obvious and agreed on by 99% of the academic community, do we kick out all Christians?
And I was called on for appealing to the masses, yet both of you have appealed to the mass of scientists. Is it that evolution is obviously true, or that all the scientists agree that it is obviously true? The former reduces to absurdity, and the latter seems hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

[JerryLove]

How does this shift to "any answer is fine as long as you believe it"? It is a statement regarding human fallibility and the consequent arrogance of dogmatism; it is not a statement of relativism.

"Public schools teach in favor of evolution, homeschoolers who believe in creationism will teach in favor of creationism. You can't just say, "I'm right, so they need to stop it." It doesn't work that way." - #27

1. Many colleges require you to show compitency in several subjects for any degree.
2. Biology is one of those subjects.

If you disagree with the principle of requiring a bredth of knowledge... too bad, that's not the topic.

Should we allow people to pass a course / competency in biology (or any other subject) who don't know the material? Shall we not teach any material which any group disagrees with?

Only if that test is written in such a way that a Christian conservative would be forced to violate his religious convictions in order to pass it. This is not simply a matter of bare facts.

Of course it is simply a matter of facts... and not ignoring them because someone disagrees.

We are talking about an issue within a discipline. You don't have to be an evolutionist to know about biology, and even if evolution were essential to biology, you don't have to be an evolutionist to know about evolution.

You don't have to be able to compute powers to know about math either... you don't have to believe in powers to be able to do the math either.

I don't really care what you "believe". No one has to swear on the proverbial bible that evolution is true; they have to asnwer questions and perform work based on it.

If 99% of people believed in X, and yet the scientific elite believed in non-X, would it be okay to make non-X a requirement for college admissions?

Yes. For example, it would be OK to introduce that time and space are the same thing, or that gravity is a deformation of timespace. I doubt even today much more than 1% of the populus would say that.

Or maybe they don't require non-X, and then portions of the 99% actually start believing in non-X. If non-X is so vitally important, why not let them in and teach them?

Why require they be lieterate to enter college? Why not just teach them?

No, it would go something like this, "the underlying implication that anyone wanting entrance exams to require affirmation of ideas that directly contradict doctrines of established, large, recognized religious organizations is....."

by depiction of your inference was as accurate as yours of mine.

And no one has suggested an "affirmation of belief". The actual occurance is an entrance exam, classes, and testing within classes.

BTW, you don't need a 100 on an extrance exam, so even if you included evolution, you could get in.
Of course, you could just avoid causing trouble and just stick that "assuming evolution..."

Shall we also "assuming math, assuming reality, assuming heliocentracism, assuming a round earth, assuming bouyancy, etc.?"

Perahps you should just assume an "assuming evolution" and stop hacking at you "affirmation fo belief" strawman?

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I believe I am claiming what you think I am. You wil have to show me how the things you quoted came from a secularist or liberal viewpoint. While I do realize that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists I believe that there was enormous influence from Christian beliefs.

The entire scientific revolution and enlighenment derived from secular thinking.

http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/ws2/set3b.htm

Oddly enough this is all in caps. As if someone was screaming it to you.


The founding fathers weren't just deists, they were, for the most part, anti-christian. Not just in the mythology but in the practices of the adherets in Europe. They wrote the establishment clause for a reason, kid.

[+Donny]

I don't really care what you "believe". No one has to swear on the proverbial bible that evolution is true; they have to asnwer questions and perform work based on it.

Then we are fine; the rest of the debate wasn't getting anywhere and probably had little to do with the original issue anyway.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

The entire scientific revolution and enlighenment derived from secular thinking.

http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/ws2/set3b.htm

Oddly enough this is all in caps. As if someone was screaming it to you.


The founding fathers weren't just deists, they were, for the most part, anti-christian. Not just in the mythology but in the practices of the adherets in Europe. They wrote the establishment clause for a reason, kid.

The poster you are responding to is probably quite a bit older than you. He should be calling you "kid".

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by +Donny

The poster you are responding to is probably quite a bit older than you. He should be calling you "kid".

In my culture, we use 'kid' during educational moments.

I.e. secularism is the way of the future, kiddo


I was thinking, the seculars have all the power areas namely, science, education, popular media. But the fundies have the people. If only leaders could organize the people force, it would be something. But most of the leaders become corrupt or already so (i.e. bennett/Falwell, et al.).

I also think the fundies will invariably lose becuause they are on the wrong side of science. And our cutulre is too dependant upon science to sacrifice it.

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

The entire scientific revolution and enlighenment derived from secular thinking.

http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/ws2/set3b.htm

Oddly enough this is all in caps. As if someone was screaming it to you.


The founding fathers weren't just deists, they were, for the most part, anti-christian. Not just in the mythology but in the practices of the adherets in Europe. They wrote the establishment clause for a reason, kid.

I would disagree that they were anti-Christian. The establishment clause came about more because of the Baptists from Rhode Island than because of the Deists. I guess it depends on which wrtiter of history you read. The secularists tend to emphasize that religieon is evil and the religionists emphasize that secularism is evil. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Now I would contend that the culture war is one that the secularist advocates because they seek to establish an elite group of thinkers who will be able to tell us common uneducted folk what to think and how to live. Marxism and communism is an example.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I would disagree that they were anti-Christian. The establishment clause came about more because of the Baptists from Rhode Island than because of the Deists. I guess it depends on which wrtiter of history you read.

How about you read some of the actual writings of the founding fathers?

For example, Jefferson called the Bible a "dung-heap."