heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (05/16/84)
If we are to be forced by legislation to teach what is essentially a matter
of religious faith in our public schools, why must it be confined to the
christian version of creation? Creationists speak of fairness in their
arguments for teaching their views of the origin of the world as we know it.
If fairness is the issue, then along with teaching the theory of evolution and
the christian myth of creation in our biology classes, we should also tell our
children the Hopi version of the emergence, the Buddist and Hindu stories, the
Australian Aborigine's stories of what happened during the Dream Time, and the
thousands of other tales various peoples have developed to explain their
place in the cosmos.
If this idea were to be adopted, the amount of available
subject matter would obviously be too much to confine to an hour of biology
class each school day. I would therefore purpose that a new required course be
inserted into the curriculum and that biology be reserved for dissecting frogs
and studying the inner workings of living things. The new course would be
labeled Mythology with the understanding that myths are, as mentioned above,
a people's way of explaining their place in the cosmos and without the
christian bias that makes myths the other guy's religion. I can already hear
folks out there screaming "That's religion. We can't teach that in public
schools!" I would prefer to think of it as an investigation into the spiritual
side of human psychology to see what it is in the human psyche that makes us
feel one way or another about a supreme being (even atheists attach enough
importance to this subject to feel it's worth arguing about).
The point of all these ramblings is that if the creationists see fit to
teach a faith that I don't agree with to my child, then they damn well better
be willing to teach my views on the subject to their children.
Thank you for hearing me out,
D.G. Wood
tellabs1!heahdlab@qubix.UUCP (05/19/84)
> If we are to be forced by legislation to teach what is essentially a > matter of religious faith in our public schools, why must it be confined to > the christian version of creation? Creationists speak of fairness in > their arguments for teaching their views of the origin of the world as > we know it. If fairness is the issue, then along with teaching the > theory of evolution and the christian myth of creation in our biology > classes, we should also tell our children the Hopi version of the > emergence, the Buddist and Hindu stories, the Australian Aborigine's > stories of what happened during the Dream Time, and the thousands of other > tales various peoples have developed to explain their place in the cosmos. Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation." This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented. If you have a model ( => useful as a model) supported only by SCIENTIFIC evidence, feel free to present it. A book which may be scientifically accurate does not qualify as scientific evidence. > The point of all these ramblings is that if the creationists see fit > to teach a faith that I don't agree with to my child, then they damn well > better be willing to teach my views on the subject to their children. For the converse side, read the first few pages of Senator Keith's book "Scopes II: The Great Debate." -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/20/84)
Larry Bickford commented on a previus article. The original is preceded by >>, Larry's comments by >, and mine by nothing. >> If we are to be forced by legislation to teach what is essentially a >> matter of religious faith in our public schools, why must it be confined to >> the christian version of creation? Creationists speak of fairness in >> their arguments for teaching their views of the origin of the world as >> we know it. If fairness is the issue, then along with teaching the >> theory of evolution and the christian myth of creation in our biology >> classes, we should also tell our children the Hopi version of the >> emergence, the Buddist and Hindu stories, the Australian Aborigine's >> stories of what happened during the Dream Time, and the thousands of other >> tales various peoples have developed to explain their place in the cosmos. > Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation." > This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model > SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented. If you have > a model ( => useful as a model) supported only by SCIENTIFIC evidence, > feel free to present it. A book which may be scientifically accurate > does not qualify as scientific evidence. Larry, you are making a subtle error. We are NOT talking about whether particular material should be presented in the classroom, we are talking about whether or not teachers should be REQUIRED BY LAW to present that material. There is a tremendous difference. Evidence enough exists to have convinced several courts that "scientific creationism" is really just an attempt to dress up religion to look somewhat like science.