Introduction

[Reasoned]

Hi. I'm a middle-aged scientist/engineer/mathematician who cares deeply about science education. I recently attended a creationist presentation on our nearby college campus, which included the movie Icons Of Evolution, and was really extremely appalled at their glib and sincere presentation of disinformation.

I have read widely in the creation-vs-evolution debate, including all 28 days of trial transcipts of Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board. I believe, on the basis of this, that many people high up on the creationist side are simply not acting in good faith. Most members of the Discovery Institute, for example, which produced Icons Of Evolution, admit that their goal is not to improve science, but rather to destroy it completely and replace it with literalist, fundamentalist, bible-based teachings. (Over my dead body.) And then they pretend that this is a debate about flaws in the theory of evolution. It's utterly dishonest. And it's NOT science ... if you don't believe me, take the word of of the conservative, Christian, church-going, Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush who tried the Kitzmiller case.

Obviously the above is short and I have not provided supporting evidence for everything said. The evidence is there though, I assure you. I hope to present some of it here as time permits.

Let's turn it around. Suppose that someone made a film about Christianity in which the ONLY facts presented were things like the murder of Hypatia, the Spanish Inquisition, the selling of indulgences, the cultural genocide perpetrated on peoples of the New World, and the molestation of children by priests. Each of these items would be, in some sense, true. And yet the overall picture they would paint of Christianity would be horribly biased and misleading and wrong. The core beliefs of Christianity would be absent. The purpose and value of Christianity would remain umentioned. The everyday life of ordinary practicing Christians would not be considered.

What the leading creationists are doing is even worse than that. They have not stopped at presenting a handful of facts seemingly at odds with evolution (ignoring the literally BILLIONS of pieces of evidence supporting it), but have gone beyond that to invent controversies that do not exist, and misrepresent facts, theories, and the consensus beliefs of most scientists repeatedly and systematically. This is not right, or just, or fair, or loving (i.e. it is not "Christian" in the highest sense of the word); it is certainly not scientific; and it harms young people, who have a right to know.

I'm not Christian, but I just don't believe that such deceit serves Christianity well. Apparently most Christians agree, but how do we reach and enlighten the remaining ones, and/or get them to stop trying to force their narrow fundamentalist beliefs into the public school system in violation of the U.S. Constitution?

I would love to know the answer ...

[Goat]

Hi. I'm a middle-aged scientist/engineer/mathematician who cares deeply about science education. I recently attended a creationist presentation on our nearby college campus, which included the movie Icons Of Evolution, and was really extremely appalled at their glib and sincere presentation of disinformation.

I have read widely in the creation-vs-evolution debate, including all 28 days of trial transcipts of Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board. I believe, on the basis of this, that many people high up on the creationist side are simply not acting in good faith. Most members of the Discovery Institute, for example, which produced Icons Of Evolution, admit that their goal is not to improve science, but rather to destroy it completely and replace it with literalist, fundamentalist, bible-based teachings. (Over my dead body.) And then they pretend that this is a debate about flaws in the theory of evolution. It's utterly dishonest. And it's NOT science ... if you don't believe me, take the word of of the conservative, Christian, church-going, Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush who tried the Kitzmiller case.

Obviously the above is short and I have not provided supporting evidence for everything said. The evidence is there though, I assure you. I hope to present some of it here as time permits.

Let's turn it around. Suppose that someone made a film about Christianity in which the ONLY facts presented were things like the murder of Hypatia, the Spanish Inquisition, the selling of indulgences, the cultural genocide perpetrated on peoples of the New World, and the molestation of children by priests. Each of these items would be, in some sense, true. And yet the overall picture they would paint of Christianity would be horribly biased and misleading and wrong. The core beliefs of Christianity would be absent. The purpose and value of Christianity would remain umentioned. The everyday life of ordinary practicing Christians would not be considered.

What the leading creationists are doing is even worse than that. They have not stopped at presenting a handful of facts seemingly at odds with evolution (ignoring the literally BILLIONS of pieces of evidence supporting it), but have gone beyond that to invent controversies that do not exist, and misrepresent facts, theories, and the consensus beliefs of most scientists repeatedly and systematically. This is not right, or just, or fair, or loving (i.e. it is not "Christian" in the highest sense of the word); it is certainly not scientific; and it harms young people, who have a right to know.

I'm not Christian, but I just don't believe that such deceit serves Christianity well. Apparently most Christians agree, but how do we reach and enlighten the remaining ones, and/or get them to stop trying to force their narrow fundamentalist beliefs into the public school system in violation of the U.S. Constitution?

I would love to know the answer ...

Welcome to the fray. You will find some related discussions in the Science and Religion section.

[McCulloch]

Hi
My parents were both educators, my brother is a high school teacher and my sister is a professor. I too am interested in science education.

[Confused]

Welcome. Look forward to your input. But dont tell Zorro you don't beleive in Santa Claus. Bad idea. (I know, really bad moderators, but it is general chat section so cut me a little slack, I think I have earned some)

Hope to see your input on existing threads as well as starting new threads. Some are getting old and off topic.

Warmest,

Michelle

[Keef]

Greetings!

I found this forum totally by accident when looking for information for a php.bb site where I'm an Admin. Serendipity indeed!

Reasoned speaks words that strike a chord with me. I'm a Reader (a form of ministry in the Church of England) - I preach, teach, and do all the usual things. But I am absolutely not a fundamentalist. To me, evolution "fits the facts" and is the theory I subscribe to.

I don't see it as in any way conflicting with Christianity - the Creation stories in Genesis are aetiological (I think you spell that differently in the USA), not historical. I know fundamentalists will disagree with me. But then, I am also all too aware of the dreadful things that have been perpetrated by so-called Christians to further their faith - Reasoned lists the main ones.

I shall lurk for a while to judge the tenor of the site. I've been involved in enough diatribes and debates elsewhere that I don't want to go through all those arguments again (they lead nowhere) - the rules of this site as PM'd to me sound encouraging on that score.

[McCulloch]

Welcome

Where in the spectrum of Anglicanism would you place yourself? Close to Spong and Tom Harpur, or closer to the other end?

[Keef]

Welcome

Where in the spectrum of Anglicanism would you place yourself? Close to Spong and Tom Harpur, or closer to the other end?

Hi there!

I'm in England - our Diocesan Bishop is John Gladwin, and our Archbishop is Rowan Williams. Them I know well - and respect deeply. Spong and Harpur I don't know - should I?

Spectrum-wise: I'm pretty much in the middle - neither Evangelical nor Catholic. Robes=yes; chasubles=OK; incense=NO WAY (makes me sneeze); sermons=meaningful, challenging, some teaching element; ministry of all believers=yes, but only those who know what they are talking about should be allowed to preach (keep heresy out of the pulpit). Does that help?

[McCulloch]

Spong and Harpur I don't know - should I?

John Shelby Spong

• The Right Reverend Dr. John Shelby Spong (born 16 June 1931 in Charlotte, North Carolina) is the retired Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark (based in Newark, New Jersey).
  
  bestselling liberal theologian
  One prominent theme in Spong's writing is the need to rethink the basic ideas of Christianity to make them consistent with a postmodern understanding of the universe.
  He rejects the historical truth of some Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus that he claims would define the resurrection as the literal resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus (Spong, 1994).
  Spong's home page

Tom Harpur

• Canadian author, broadcaster, journalist and theologian. He was ordained an Anglican priest. From 1957 until 1964 he served the congregation of St.-Margaret's-in-the-Pines in the Scarborough, Ontario community of West Hill.
  
  From 1964 to 1971, Harpur was Professor of New Testament at the University of Toronto's Toronto School of Theology.
  
  Harpur is a liberal theologian who has concluded that there is no historical evidence of Jesus' existence [1] and views Christianity as having pagan roots. He believes the bible should be intrepreted allegorically rather than literally.
  
  Tom's Web Site

Spectrum-wise: I'm pretty much in the middle - neither Evangelical nor Catholic. Robes=yes; chasubles=OK; incense=NO WAY (makes me sneeze); sermons=meaningful, challenging, some teaching element; ministry of all believers=yes, but only those who know what they are talking about should be allowed to preach (keep heresy out of the pulpit). Does that help?

Yes, thank you.

[Keef]

No, those two don't sound like my kind of theology.

[McCulloch]

No, those two don't sound like my kind of theology.

One thing I have to admire about Anglicanism (Episcopalianism for the Americans) is that I think that it is one of the most ecumenical Christian denominations.