You tell me. What do you think would be at stake? What consequence would follow from such an error? On the other hand, if Christians weren’t fighting to keep evolution out of science classes or questioning climate science that would have to go on the plus side of the ledger.
To say it was theologically wrong you’d have to know more about it than I do. I’m not sure what science has to say about religious beliefs, let alone philosophy. I studied philosophy as an undergrad and can’t think of many philosophical facts that religion might be in violation of.
I think how anyone’s faith could be clearly in conflict with science without spelling out what exactly they believe and what part of science that must be in conflict with. It isn’t even clear that faith can be fairly summarized as a series of propositions held as true. I don’t really know but I’m sure there must be more subtle positions out there than that.
Does the science teacher have to be Christian? Couldn’t a good science education be obtained from teachers who aren’t Christian? perhaps atheists? Are math teachers required to be Christian? How about music teachers? I am getting the feeling that somehow a good secular education in science is creating atheists out of kids from good Christian homes.
Historically nearly all school teachers in public, private, and parochial schools were either Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. Today, you may see some religiously unaffiliated teachers at the younger end of the age distribution of teachers.
I just happen to think there is value in ensuring that what one believes to be true, actually is true. Call me crazy.
And avoiding that is what I suspect is the less openly acknowledged goal of this sort of endeavour. It is more acceptable to say the goal is to avoid creating science deniers out of Christians. Not that this is not a very laudable goal which I wholeheartedly support.
Even if this were true what would be the problem? As long as they aren’t doing it in class. I routinely stayed after class to talk to teachers about all sorts of things. Better equipping teachers to do so doesn’t seem like a bad thing…
I don’t see BioLogos stating that science teachers have to be Christians.
I would strongly suspect that everyone at BioLogos would agree that you can get a good science education from non-Christians and atheists.
It would be interesting to hear from Christians who have opted to send their kids to private Christian schools or homeschool them. In the case of parents and teachers that BioLogos is trying to help out, I highly doubt it has to do with science class. It probably has more to do with the social aspects of public schools.
@Kathryn_Applegate has changed the description of INTEGRATE at BioLogos to clear up any confusion, and has also shared her thoughts on how INTEGRATE fits into public schools.
As is fairly obvious, I see no problem with criticizing BioLogos for things that they actually believe and have actually done. It isn’t fair, however, to criticize them for things they have not actually done.
In this case, @patrick, it seems that @Kathryn_Applegate makes 100% clear that you were wrong. I think you owe her an apology, and you owe us all not to repeat the same mistake again.
@Kathryn_Applegate glad this helped you update the language, though even with the earlier language it did not seem like a fair criticism.
I don’t think you’re crazy but it does sound like you believe you have sufficient grounds to justify your position vis-'a-vis the incompatibility of science and religion. Do you believe you are in possession of grounds sufficient to persuade any informed and fair minded person, or are they merely sufficient to satisfy you?
This is an appropriate response to @Faizal_Ali in that it offers a suitable parallel to the Biologos program’s concern for addressing possible conflict between an overarching worldview and the pursuit of science. I’d say curriculum as it is delivered in public school already supports the pursuit of science without regard to a student’s worldview. In that sense all of public education is already serving atheist sentiment so the suggestion that we need to be still further catered to seems misguided to me. I guess one might question whether public education should seek to address a student’s need for a cohesive worldview, but to the degree that this involves religion means it is already off the table in this country. As an atheist it seems natural to think that the search for meaning is an individual affair, disposing me to accept the status quo in which fostering student’s WV is not a concern of public education. But I confess I do not have a good grasp of exactly what the trade-offs may be.
You misunderstand me. I do not claim to be able to justify that position, nor to even hold it. But your claim was “The fewer Christians raised to see science as incompatible with their beliefs, the better.” And my response was to ask whether that would be the case even if, as many believe, that incompatibility actually exists.
There are many Christians who see no possible conflict between science and Christianity because biblical interpretation is guided by the discovery of facts. People can be Christian and accept science.
In the hypothetical, your question is interesting. Would society improve if religions died off because their tenets were disproven by science? Would we be worse off if science is discarded by political institutions based on the religious beliefs of those within those political parties?
Well, since I don’t think there is any necessary conflict and since the Christian portion of the electorate in the sway of AIG has so many ill effects for public policy I still say - the fewer the better.
How about that I sincerely thank @Kathryn_Applegate for the clarification and wish her and Biologos well in their efforts in providing good high-quality science education to young Americans.
I’m good. Thank you for doing this and thanks to BioLogos for clarifying. I will go back to fighting the real enemies of good science education in the United States. (YECism and Christian Nationalism)