BioLogos: Teaching Evolution to Students of Faith

I think that goes too far. Good teachers illustrate ideas with examples. And most of the examples that they use would not be listed in the state currriculum. That would fit your “embellishments” but I don’t think they are required to avoid such illustrations.

I do agree on the importance of religious neutrality.

1 Like

The strategy is not to attack religion it is to drive evolution into the religious community and here we have it in Bio Logos etc.

The general strategy is to indoctrinate youth through the educational system. Developing secular thought in future generations. This is a house of cards as what Patrick is accusing the DI of attempting the NCSE is implementing just with the opposite ideology.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. They have not been accused of violating the establishment clause yet but who knows. We have a conservative supreme court now.

NCSE should have a lot of say what goes in science textbooks AND religious organization should have NO say. As religion is not science. And religion is not allowed in public schools at all. Creationism is religion and is not science therefore not allow in public school textbooks. That is settled law in the United States.

Regarding the gap between the cutting edge of science and what is in textbooks, there needs to be a gap of say 2 to 3 years as the science consensus builds on new discoveries and insights. But more than a 3 year gap is too much as then textbooks are out of date and obsolete upon publication.

Dr Swamidass is a better person to ask. To me, the cutting edge is what I read in Science Daily tomorrow morning.

Law like science is always tentative :slight_smile:

Come on… The opportunity to discuss evolution is in the science class. Are you suggesting that the teacher of a philosophy class would be suitable to guide and adjudicate the discussion? We can go with that, but who knows where the opinions will end up without some science teacher there?

It seems like a bit of a free-for-all, whereas the conversation would be more profitable in the science class. Still, I agree with you that philosophy should be mandatory.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Could Religious Groups Have Say on Science Education?

I think the NCSE is partially a religious organization. I went to one of their meetings with the local San Francisco bay area atheists organization and saw the joint planning going on. They are clearly pushing a secular world view.

Why do we need any advocacy groups pushing the education material.

I agree with you both sides should have a say in what goes on.

The claims of evolution have been maintained because it is seen as a God substitute. I think this is very bad for science. Its truth (the grand claims of evolution UCD etc) is based on assumption and not tested science yet sold as fact.

The only think worse is having one religious organization controlling all the content :slight_smile:

Please elaborate? How is NCSE partically a religious organization? You are not going to claim atheism is a religion, are you? Tell me more of this San Francisco meeting. What groups sponsored it?
I hope you are not conflating secularism (no religion) with atheism (opinion that there is no God). Secular organizations are not atheist organizations.

Are you claiming it is not?

Do you think Atheists are more responsible in overseeing educational content the Theists?

The meeting was arranged by the NCSE and was to update the local Atheist organization on evolutionary theory and have an open discussion how to push acceptance of the theory in the community.

Of course atheism is not a religion. It is merely an opinion that the Christian God and all other gods don’t exist.

I really think that you are conflating atheism with secular humanism. There are relatively few atheist organizations but thousands of secular humanist organizations and even more purely secular organizations.

NCSE is by bylaws a secular organization dedicated to the advance of science education in the United States. It is bylaws neutral on the existence or absence of God.

That is not true according to leading atheists. One of the key contributions of the New Atheists has been creating religious practice around atheism.

They are not true atheists. They are AINOs (Atheist in Name Only) They defile true atheism. If we had any doctrine, dogma or creed, they would be violating them. :sunglasses: I refuse to pray for them. May nobody have mercy on their non-existent soul. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: But we love them and wish them a life full of happiness, meaning, and purpose. :grinning:

1 Like

They include Dawkins my friend.

Richard sure gets around. I am sure he will appear on Peaceful Science for somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000 an hour.

I hope he wouldnt attempt to take money from a poor scientist like me. Maybe he will make a contribution? Don’t we all want a more peaceful scientific society?

What is an orthodox atheist?


Dawkins is now a business enterprise. Just like Hawkings was.

I love this. Sounds like what the Catholics and Protestants went through. I advise against a holy war :slight_smile:

1 Like

An orthodox atheist is an atheist who can speak the following with no errors in pronunciation in seven seconds or less:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”