Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.

As long as this crap is not taught in science class. You can teach kids to grasp at straws when it comes to making the bible fit the facts, but don't pretend it has anything to do with science.

Easy. This is the quote that prompted my response:

quote:

---

Teach all the present concepts so no one will get their toes stepped on! That's the ticket.

---

I just wanted to clarify that this is acceptible if it does not mean teaching in science class. The above is nearly identical to a common creationist/theist argument. They argue, why can't we just teach both sides in science class and keep everybody happy? Because one clearly has nothing to do with science, and it would be an absurd waste of time to push this in the classroom. However, anything outside the classroom is fair game.On that note, what happened to the "reply with quote" link?This message has been edited by Beercules, 05-05-2004 08:18 PM

I don't understand what you are arguing for. If you agree that the bible is not a science book, why on earth would you waste classroom time discussing it? As I said, religious interpretation of scientific data or theories is completely irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Adding religion contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of the actual science.This message has been edited by Beercules, 05-08-2004 05:28 PM

quote:

---

You sound like a reasonable person.
The answer as to "why" a person would teach from scripture in a science classroom is that Georgia and Kansas mandated it, by law.

---

I understand. Your argument is that since religious education has been required by law anyway, we might as well teach all 3 viewpoints in the science classroom, right?That is not quite what is going on in Kansas or Georgia, though there have been attempts to do that in the past. However, every single attempt by a school to bring creationism into the classroom has resulted in the Supreme Court declaring it illegal. Creationism is a religion, and the courts have stated religion has no business being taught in the science classroom.

quote:

---

So, let's look at just what the bible says, as a hypothesis, concerning the subject of how man finds himself the dominant life form, how the earth came into existence, etc. Why? Its the law, now.

---

Since we both know that teaching religion in science class is illegal, and thus ultimately doomed to being overturned by the Supreme Court, you can't claim it's already a fact of public education. What the bible says is irrelevant, Since we agree that the bible has nothing scientifc to offer, teaching it in science class would be like teaching golf in cooking class.One other thing to comment on. To clarify on my earlier comment about grasping at straws:

quote:

---

Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (pre-Homo Sapiens) came in unto the daughters of men (Neanderthal), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids leading to Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

---

This is just sad, and a perfect example of grabbing any old explanation to fit the facts. The text says giants, and this deep thinking author decides that must somehow be a reference to Homo Erectus. This is blatent intellectual dishonesty and I find it quite pathetic.This message has been edited by Beercules, 05-09-2004 11:53 AM

quote:

---

I assume that you have read the passage in Genesis and have another explanation?

---

Yes. It would seem more likely that the ancient Hebrews believed there was a time when giants literally walked the earth. By my interpretation isn't really the point. Taking the above to mean Homo Erectus, when there clearly is no connection between the two is really a matter of making the facts fit a worldview.

quote:

---

Also, you made no mention of the hybriding between two different types of humans. It seems that you are defending some other explanation for both these ideas. What are the "authoritative sources" and the "accepted interpretations" on these passages?

---

It's not my task to do so. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the interpretation provided is a wild leap from the actual text. There is no justification for assuming the bible is talking about what the author claims. It's just another case of taking known facts, and making the text fit.