Rather than...

quote:

---

An example was the wandering of the Hebrews in the desert for 40 years, which would have apparently taken then past numerous Egyptian garrisons.

---

[Fixed quote. --Admin]I can see difficulties in examining the (or any!) bible to determine if it is historically accurate. It goes without saying that you need to go to the original language, and then interpret that with knowledge of what the original writer was intending to present. This is the way historical criticism is usually done. Of course, if the source writer was simply intending to transmit an earlier story, it is very hard to take any specific text string and decipher the writer's intention - there may literally be none if simple copying is being undertaken, and all sorts of odd errors creep in.As with any copied document there will be errors, misinterpretations, losses of whole sections, inappropriate additions of other material (I presume noone disagrees with the assumption that the bible is a varied collection of many documents from many sources?). But there is one point I would like to raise about the quote above, which illustrates the extreme difficulty of deciding what was meant by a translated sentence, and how hard it is to say that any sentence is 'accurate'.I had always understood that the use of the words 'for 40 years' was a common usage meaning 'for a long time'. Rather like our use of the word 'ages', which can be literally interpreted to mean 'lifetimes', or periods in excess of a few hundred years. If I now say 'Building that wall took ages', do I mean many hours, many days, or centuries? Because language can be used in complex metaphoric ways it is almost never possible to decide it has one single meaning.If the bible (or any other fundamental religeous text) was intended to be a definitive specific true-for-all-time message from a person-like deity, I would expect it to be written in legalese, or mathematic notation, like Z or Backus-Naur.Incidentally, why is creationism seen as such a problem? AFAIK, it is only an issue in parts of America. People can believe things which are much stupider elsewhere in the world and it doesn't cause a problem. Why not let towns ban scientists if they like? There were some political systems (luckily few nowadays) where any education at all was seen as a threat, and we didn't get half so worried about them.[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Creationism really only becomes an issue here in the states when Creationists attempt to either have Creationism taught alongside evolution, or have teaching of evolution watered down or removed from the curriculum.

​

--Percy

---

A bit off topic I suppose, but my point is: Why not let them? Presumably students in these schools will start failing their exams at this point, and parents will start withdrawing them. If a Creationist group then set their own exams, presumably few commercial organisations or universities will accept these as valid.I don't know much about the American educational system, but you must have centrally-moderated examination syllabuses? I presume these are nation-wide, and therefore proof against hijacking by a small group?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Me writes:

---

A bit off topic I suppose, but my point is: Why not let them? ... fail their exams ...

---

​

A few years ago the Kansas Board of Education removed evolution from the science curriculum causing a state-wide uproar and a national embarrassment. In the next election (board members are elected, not appointed, in Kansas - it varies from state to state) two of the three responsible board members were up for reelection and were turned out of office, and evolution was restored to the guidelines.

​

--Percy

---

Perhaps we should start a new thread - I find this topic interesting and maybe it has some relevance to the Creationist/Evolution debate.Your description of the US educational system matches many countries, I suspect. It is similar to the UK's - though we famously call a lot of private schools 'public' (because they were, back in the 1500s. In the sense that was meant, they still are 'public'!).The differences seem to come in the national or local standards. Many other countries have standard examinations - the French Baccalaureate or British A level are good examples. I assumed that any school or town altering their curriculum to avoid teaching evolution would fail the standard Biology exam. Your answer does not mention examinations at all - does that mean you have none, or that the examinations are also locally set, and so part of the problem?My original point still stands - you seem to have tried the experiment in Kansas, and I suppose that it is no longer a problem there now? It may seem a bit cruel (that's Evolution for you!) but one approach to the problem may be allowing some local town to reject evolution every so often, and start an outcry.You might be aware that there is currently some concern in the UK that the A Level is becoming easier to pass? One result is that a few UK schools are now offering the International Baccalaureate as an option. Do you think that there is a evolutionary niche for a foreign moderated high-grade exam to exist in the US? Of course, there may be a niche for a creationist exam as well. In the UK, such an exam could easily be set up, but I suspect no employer would accept it as an appropriate qualification.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
Your answer does not mention examinations at all - does that mean you have none, or that the examinations are also locally set, and so part of the problem?

---

​

Pretty much all of the exams that effect one's classroom success are locally set, often by the teachers themselves.

​

---

By the teachers themselves? I thought Italian degree courses were a bit iffy, but I haven't come across this idea. I suspect that the US may have more problems than creationism in its schools.