Competing Creation Stories: Part one

Teaching the controversy

Or, how, outside of a Texas school board meeting, can anyone think that the above picture is rational?

(PS, I am considering submitting a new science book to the TSB. The above is an illustration used in the physical science section on fulcrums and levers.)


Michael Lockridge said...

Obviously both science AND religion are too controversial to have in school. They both should be eliminated. Of course, that would impact the teaching of history, so that should be reduced to an outline of some kind.

Math is alright, but no word problems. Too much potential for science or religion to enter in. On second thought, just teach arithmetic. Just enough to be able to make change according to what the cash register reads out.

I guess enough reading would have to be taught so that they can read the menu at the fast food place they will make their career.

Perhaps we could just go back to apprenticeships.

Big Mark 243 said...

LOL... I do want you to know that I am still working on 'deist logic' and maybe you have summed it up with this picture!!

pboyfloyd said...

I don't 'get it'.

All they have to do is concede that their God could, in fact 'do it' any way HE wanted to 'do it' and data collected and scientific knowledge gained seems to point towards God 'doing it' using evolution of the species over time.

WTF is wrong with this idea? Seems to me it's not 'teaching the controversy' so much as 'stoking the controversy' that's being demanded.

pboyfloyd said...

What I'm saying is, is that all this nonsense about 'Darwinsim' being a philosophy and Evolution being a separate religion all falls apart if evolution is simply thought of as how God 'did it' contrasted with the first chapters of the first book being extended metaphors explaining the 'whys' rather than the 'hows'.

Now personally I don't go along with the supposed 'whys' simply because they don't seem to fit. All loving God makes rules which, I'm afraid have already been broken way before I got here? Sorry, I'm not taking the blame for THAT, buster!

Word Verification:-blamige

mac said...

Maybe it's because all thse books serve to enLIGHTEN ?

Harry C Pharisee said...

Yes! mac 1, pliny a big fat goose egg.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Maybe it's because all thse books serve to enLIGHTEN ?

Badda BOOM!

I'm not sure the Genesis of your response Mac, but it does leverage your tendencies to pun!

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Let the puns begin!

cody said...

Pboyfloyd, interestingly, people like Ken Ham seem perfectly aware that if they admit any single detail of the book to be anything other than the honest-to-god truth (honest-from-god?), then the whole book is suspect.

Then he goes a step further and figures that if there is reasonable doubt over the veracity of the book then there is no real foundation for morals, which is also true (in my opinion). The problem here is that they have this idea that morality only exists if it is absolute--they reject the notion of moral relativism as a valid moral system because of this.

So they've worked themselves into this corner where they fear any fault in the bible would lead to a complete destruction of morality. What's strange is that they don't stop to think: if they were to somehow discover a clear proof that there is no god, they wouldn't start rioting murdering raping and stealing, because their sense of right and wrong really does exist independently from any book.