Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[noguru]

We agree... science isn't done by quote mining. As it says in the OP...*public schools should create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

You would not know scientific evidence and critical thinking if it smacked you in the face.

I love how you specify "appropriately" and "respectfully" there. You are not appropriate or respectful. You do not appropriately analyze (or even consider all) the evidence. Therefore you are disrespectful to people who actually do this. Of course you won't admit when you are wrong, so you will never acknowledge your error.

You think "simply being obstinate" makes you right. That is not respectful at all. You insult other people's intelligence all the time.

 

[The Barbarian]

We agree... science isn't done by quote mining.

And yet you proposed to do science classes that way.

As it says in the OP...*public schools should create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

You propose replacing evidence with:

If (transitionals) is allowed to be taught, then statements that would oppose that, by qualified scientists should also be allowed. (By both secular and religious scientists.)

So many of the quotes you offered so far, turned out to be edited to make it appear scientists think other than they do.

 

[noguru]

So many of the quotes you offered so far, turned out to be edited to make it appear scientists think other than they do.

6days is so willfully ignorant I am dumbfounded. It appears that he thinks as long as he ignores certain parts of reality then they do not exist. Here is the "Quote mining project" from TalkOrigins, it covers so many of the quotes he misuses to mislead people.

Do you think 6days will read this and actually absorb the implications?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

 

[6days]

yet you proposed to do science classes that way.

I proposed that teachers and students have the academic freedom to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and*respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

 

[noguru]

I proposed that teachers and students have the academic freedom*to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and*respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion*about scientific subjects.

They already do. They don't need you to push your specific interpretation of Genesis as part of a science class.

 

[The Barbarian]

That creationists do whatever they can to undermine academic freedom when they think they have the power to do so, is a matter of public record. They lost the Dover case when it became clear that they were trying to force teachers to lie to their students.

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."[8] All eight of the Dover school board members who were up for re-election on November 8, 2005, were defeated by a set of challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class. (The ninth member was not up for re-election.) The school board president subsequently stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

[6days]

That creationists .....
The ruling concluded that intelligent design.

Two very different things that evolutionists like to lump together.

And quite unlike the Dover trial, a number of USA states have seen the wisdom in public schools creating an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

 

[The Barbarian]

Two very different things that evolutionists like to lump together.

The Dover trial settled that. ID is just creationism with clean clothes and a shave. The most damning evidence was that a creationist textbook was converted to an "ID textbook" by changing "Creator" to "Designer." No one is fooled by any of that.

And quite unlike the Dover trial, a number of USA states have seen the wisdom in public schools creating an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence

That's what happened in Dover, and you're upset about it. The courts ruled that creationists could not force teachers to lie to students.

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact'' and has inexplicable "gaps.'' It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People.''

But the judge said: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.''
http://www.livescience.com/3998-judge-rules-intelligent-design-taught-class.html

Notice the attempt to introduce a poorly-disguised religious text into public school. Do you not understand that trying to force your new religion on students is going to backfire on you?

 

[Jefferson]

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It requires no discussion or debate in relation to science. And if this bill is not about creationism, what is it for? Science teachers already teach the basics of scientific inquiry. They don't need a new bill saying it's ok.

Amazing. Here's a liberal actually preaching don't question authority.

 

[6days]

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution.

Quite unlike Biblical creationists who don't want Biblical creation taught in public schools. It would make no sense to require an atheist to teach religion. It would be poison in the classroom. However what should be allowed in the classroom is academic freedom for both teachers and students to strengths and weakness's of things such as common ancestry beliefs, or anthropomorphic global warming.

 

[aikido7]

Either that is true...in which case God's Word can't really be trusted; or, you don't have a correct understanding.*


Again, if you are correct then the God's Word is simply like a buffet where we pick and choose what to believe.

I believe chapter 2 complements chapter 1 providing additional details, in regards to humans. For example, animals are mentioned in this chapter because Adam names them. Chapter 1 provides us with the order of creation...not ch.2.


Again, if you are correct then the God's Word is*wrong. *Chapter 2 is not providing the sequence of events as found in ch.1. But, ch.2 is providing details *surrounding the creation of humanity.


I suspect you are not sincere in studying and trying to understand God's Word Akido...although possibly I'm wrong and you just worded things poorly. Christians don't generally diss God's Word, or treat it with irreverence by referring to it as a myth, as you have done.*

I like your metaphor of the Bible as a "buffet" where we pick and choose.

I have often said we are born into God's infinite orchard of cherry trees, and we spend our lives cherry-picking our own thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

Another metaphor I have used is the example of topiary, where a gardener uses clippers to shape bushes and hedges into animal shapes.

This is exactly what we do with the Bible. And it is exactly what Mark, Luke, Matthew and John did with the oral traditions of Jesus they inherited.

If you pay close attention to this very website, all of the posters present their own cherry-picked ideas and then other posters counter their thoughts and feelings with other cherry-picked theological ideas.

 

[aikido7]

Either that is true...in which case God's Word can't really be trusted; or, you don't have a correct understanding.*


Again, if you are correct then the God's Word is simply like a buffet where we pick and choose what to believe.

I believe chapter 2 complements chapter 1 providing additional details, in regards to humans. For example, animals are mentioned in this chapter because Adam names them. Chapter 1 provides us with the order of creation...not ch.2.


Again, if you are correct then the God's Word is*wrong. *Chapter 2 is not providing the sequence of events as found in ch.1. But, ch.2 is providing details *surrounding the creation of humanity.


I suspect you are not sincere in studying and trying to understand God's Word Akido...although possibly I'm wrong and you just worded things poorly. Christians don't generally diss God's Word, or treat it with irreverence by referring to it as a myth, as you have done.*

Bringing up contradictory traditions that are actually IN our Bible is not the same as "dissing" the Word.

You say if I am "correct" then "God's Word is *wrong.* "

I see that as a rather silly conclusion.

I am not so arrogant and self-serving that I believe I am right.
I see the Bible as "inerrant" but that does not mean I can claim my understanding of it as equally inerrant.

The contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible do not bother me.
Since they are all found in the Bible, I take them all seriously.

What we see in the Bible are different traditions, theologies, myths and legends. Everything in the text is inspired (my opinion).

 

[aikido7]

I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it. :up:


Begging the question is a logical fallacy. And I have read about 100 versions of the Sunflower movement, proving absolutely that it was entirely metaphorical.

You take them seriously by denying they ever happened.



You're allowed your stupid ideas. :up:

It is an interesting idea that an adult dialogue can degenerate into mockery and name-calling. I guess I am just surprised to hear that from you.

 

[6days]

Bringing up contradictory traditions that are actually IN our Bible is not the same as "dissing" the Word.

There are no contradictions in God's Word.

The contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible do not bother me....
What we see in the Bible are different traditions, theologies, myths and legends. Everything in the text is inspired (my opinion).

You believe in a god who inspired contradictions, discrepancies, and myths? That seems to be a different god than the God of the Bible.

 

[6days]

I like your metaphor of the Bible as a "buffet" where we pick and choose.

The Bible describes that as idolatry... you have made a god of yourself making yourself a judge over God and His Word.

 

[aikido7]

There are no contradictions in God's Word.


You believe in a god who inspired contradictions, discrepancies, and myths? That seems to be a different god than the God of the Bible.

The Bible was written by inspired men who sometimes contradicted the traditions of other inspired men.

Myth is how humans express absolute truth.

It is a feature of ALL sacred literature.

A failure to recognize and even to celebrate the contradictions is a way of covering up some deep metaphysical panic.

The text is rich in different traditions, theologies and legends.

According to Jesus and John the Baptizer, God is merciful and demands repentance and a contrite heart. According to Paul and the Gospel of John, God is a jealous God of justice who demands a blood sacrifice.

Two traditions: one of forgiving our sins as we forgive the sins of others, and one that demands the spilling of blood on the altar.

Jesus made clear in his words ("I desire mercy, not sacrifice") and his actions (attacking the Jerusalem Temple during the last week of his life) where he stood on the matter.

 

[aikido7]

The Bible describes that as idolatry... you have made a god of yourself making yourself a judge over God and His Word.

A Jesus who never claimed divinity for himself and said his message was to the House of Israel has become an idol worshiped by Gentiles. To me, that is idolatry.

 

[6days]

The Bible was written by inspired men who sometimes contradicted the traditions of other inspired men.

God's Word is without contradiction.

According to Jesus and John the Baptizer, God is merciful and demands repentance and a contrite heart. According to Paul and the Gospel of John, God is a jealous God of justice who demands a blood sacrifice.
Two traditions: one of forgiving our sins as we forgive the sins of others, and one that demands the spilling of blood on the altar.

You are missing an obvious conclusion... God's Word is in perfect harmony.... that it is inerrant, and that you reject it / don't understand it.

 

[aikido7]

God's Word is without contradiction.

You are missing an obvious conclusion... God's Word is in perfect harmony.... that it is inerrant, and that you reject it / don't understand it.

How do YOU deal with the fact that Jesus dies on the Day of Preparation in the Gospel of John and he dies on Passover according to Mark, Luke and Matthew?

What do you say about the friends of the paralytic who dug through the dirt and branches of the roof in Mark, and then "removed the tiles" according to Luke?

What do you do about "Blessed are the poor" in Mark and the "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in Matthew?


How do you regard your own pastor and church when you also read Jesus' admonition to not pray in public?

How do you see our capitalist system when it comes up against Jesus' advice that humans "cannot love both God and mammon"?

The Gospel of John has Jesus saying he is divine--over and over and over again. Yet in Mark, Luke and Matthew he scoldingly says he should never be seen as God. Oh my--what to do!

 

[aikido7]

God's Word is without contradiction.

You are missing an obvious conclusion... God's Word is in perfect harmony.... that it is inerrant, and that you reject it / don't understand it.

Do you mind if I crack a smile here?

I am always amazed by folks who say the Bible is "inerrant" and then turn right around and assert that their understanding of it is also "inerrant."

"Forgive them for they know not what they do."