Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP reports:
The Louisiana House has agreed to a bill that would let science teachers change the way they teach topics like evolution, cloning and global warming in public school classrooms.Senate Bill 733 by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, would let teachers supplement school science textbooks with other materials when teaching. The House voted 94-3 for the bill Wednesday.
Supporters say the bill is designed to promote critical thinking, to strengthen scientific education and to help teachers who are confused about what's acceptable for science classes.
Opponents say the proposal is a veiled attempt to add religion to science classes and to challenge well-established science teachings.
This is an interesting provision that could mitigate some of the possible damage:
The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to the chamber for approval of a provision added by the House that would give the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education the ability to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate.
The identical Michigan bill has been submitted to committee, but the indications we have so far is that it will not get out of committee and likely won't even get brought up for discussion in committee. That could change, of course, but it's one of the benefits of having the Democrats in charge of the House in this state. Committee chairman have almost total power over what gets a vote.
Politics
Comments
I am just glad my two boys are now adults because if they were coming through school now and they came and told me that someone was teaching creation to them I am afraid I would have to go and slap the shit out of someone
Posted by: Ex Partiate | June 13, 2008 9:57 AM
To get a stupid law passed, give it a positive-sounding name, like "clear-skies initiative". What, you're against academic freedom? Elitist!
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | June 13, 2008 10:31 AM
Yeah, that's the problem with bills like these. "Oh, well academic freedom is a good thing, right?" You can't be against THAT? It's just upsetting that it passed by such an overwhelming majority.
Posted by: Robert Ward | June 13, 2008 10:36 AM
Well it will be interesting to see how this plays itself out. Will some science teacher use this as an opportunity to teach a unit on Genesis? And will that action create a well publised incident?
Posted by: Cheddar | June 13, 2008 10:47 AM
"Will some science teacher use this as an opportunity to teach a unit on Genesis?"
I'll bet school officials under local fundie pressure will force science to teach it. And most teachers will knuckle under to keep thier jobs.
"And will that action create a well publised incident?"
Yes, and it will lead directly to another court case, and many students with a terrible science education.
Posted by: RAM | June 13, 2008 11:03 AM
Wheee!!!
So, by this, then the fundies won't mind when "The God Delusion" is used to supplement evolution teaching.
This *is* what they meant by "academic freedom," right?
Posted by: nunyer | June 13, 2008 12:13 PM
I'd certainly love to see some teachers stand up to the law by doing just that nunyer. Well not necessarily the god delusion but other literature that just destroys every argument the IDiots propose.
I wish science education included this now so that a few years down the road the kid doesn't get immediately deluded by some preacher that the eye is irreducibly complex.
Posted by: Jon | June 13, 2008 1:23 PM
As it stands with the amendment, the bill reads, in relevant part:
The actions of individual teachers may actually be easier to control under this scheme. Under the law, local teachers are required to teach the material in the approved textbooks. If teachers in the local school fail to teach evolution (a large problem, as the recent survey in PLoS showed) or try to introduce materials not approved ahead of time by the local board or fail to follow the State Board's guidelines, a simple demand to the school authorities that the teachers stop violating the law might be enough to curtail the practice and, if not, then the school district and local board can be more easily sued for failing to enforce the requirements of the law. If the state board fails to prohibit creationist materials, it can be sued. Unlike some of the other "academic freedom" proposals, you won't have to chase after individual teachers.
This law could turn out to have a very sharp double edge for the creationists.
Posted by: John Pieret | June 13, 2008 1:54 PM
Well, if you ask me, this was long overdue. Now maybe some English teachers can get Wrathful Dispersion into the curriculum.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 13, 2008 2:03 PM
You know, stunts like this are endlessly outrageous. Not only will the willfully ignorant go to great lengths to protect their right to be ignorant, but it's essential that they try to ensure that everyone else is as ignorant as they are. It's such a waste of time, energy and resources--and the kids get caught in the middle.
Posted by: gary l. day | June 13, 2008 4:39 PM
>> You know, stunts like this are endlessly outrageous. Not only will the willfully ignorant go to great lengths to protect their right to be ignorant, but it's essential that they try to ensure that everyone else is as ignorant as they are. It's such a waste of time, energy and resources--and the kids get caught in the middle. >>
LOL. As if our education system was anything to brag about anyway. Private schools here in CA have waiting lists years long because the public schools suck so bad. And who is running the public school system from top to bottom in this country? Liberals. And it has been an utter disaster. Criticize cons if you want, but liberals have plenty of blame to take for themselves.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 5:05 PM
"And who is running the public school system from top to bottom in this country? Liberals."
Proof please..............
Posted by: RAM | June 13, 2008 5:11 PM
"And who is running the public school system from top to bottom in this country? Liberals."
Proof please..............
Posted by: RAM | June 13, 2008 5:11 PM
>> "And who is running the public school system from top to bottom in this country? Liberals."
Proof please.............. >>
Oh, so you are implying that conservatives are running the public schools?
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 5:13 PM
Wow, were 'liberals' responsible for Proposition 13? I didn't know that... ;D
Posted by: Ab_Normal | June 13, 2008 5:14 PM
Cousin Ab? ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 13, 2008 5:19 PM
Anyone who blames liberals generally or conservatives generally for anything wrong with the world has his "Take Me Seriously" card immediately revoked.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 13, 2008 5:27 PM
Oh, so you are implying that conservatives are running the public schools?
No, I was asking for a shred of evidence for your statement. Not an open ended straw man "liberals did this or that or the other thing to us" statement. I see all/most of this creationist crap pushed by consertitives. Re-read the above, and the many past posts like it. I must be missing something. Proof, please, that liberals run the schools.
Posted by: RAM | June 13, 2008 5:32 PM
mrroberts apparently has never become acquainted with that labor-management divide thingy. With the exception of the issue of raising local taxes, District offices are overwhelmingly populated by conservatives, just as you would expect in a managerial endeavor.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 13, 2008 5:33 PM
>> Anyone who blames liberals generally or conservatives generally for anything wrong with the world has his "Take Me Seriously" card immediately revoked. >>
I did the former, but the latter happens on this blog all the time. President Bush is blamed for everything wrong with America and Obama will continue that as he tries to get elected. Why is that surprising? If you can't see that, then I think your "Take Me Seriously" card needs to be revoked.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 5:35 PM
I see Raging Bee blame Republicans for everything under the sun, but other than that-- nope, don't see it. And George Bush is a single conservative, not "conservatives generally." And a lot of things happen to be his fault. You can be darn sure, for that matter, that if Obama gets elected president nobody here will restrain themselves from criticizing him as well. You've been reading this blog and the comments on it for far too long to reach the idiotic conclusion that it's for liberals only. And I trust you've been alive for far too long to think that anything is either all the liberals' fault or all the conservatives' fault.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 13, 2008 5:40 PM
>> No, I was asking for a shred of evidence for your statement. Not an open ended straw man "liberals did this or that or the other thing to us" statement. I see all/most of this creationist crap pushed by consertitives. Re-read the above, and the many past posts like it. I must be missing something. Proof, please, that liberals run the schools. >>
Wow, so universities are not overwhelmingly left-leaning? The teachers unions don't consistently support liberal Democrats? The NEA does not consistently push a leftist philosophy? Academia is top to bottom dominated by left-leaning people. Is this a surprise to you? Out here in CA, the public schools are literally run by the teacher's unions, and the unions consistently support liberal Democrats and donate to their campaigns. The unions also openly campaign for liberal causes. The NEA does this too. Read their website if you want to see how lefty they are. CA schools are awful, and it is liberals who are running them. I am not saying that conservatives do no wrong, only making the point that lefties have plenty of blame to take for the pathetic state of our school system. Maybe you don't like what is happening in Louisiana right now, but the whole public school system is rotten to the core. I'm sending my kids to private school.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 5:43 PM
>> You can be darn sure, for that matter, that if Obama gets elected president nobody here will restrain themselves from criticizing him as well. >>
Is that a serious comment?? What have people on this blog criticized Obama for? Most people I talk to that support Obama can't even name 5 concise reasons he would make a good president let alone find something to criticize him for.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 5:46 PM
At this point, I pretty much think that China and India will have wholeheartedly earned their eventual evisceration of us in the global science arena.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 13, 2008 5:56 PM
Well, let's see here....
"Obama's answer is bad. It's a bunch of babble about marriage being sworn before God that I regard as utter nonsense." -- Ed
"Well, I happen to think that anyone who believes in God is idiotic (hello Clinton and Obama!)" -- Mark, Dec. 28
"So, now I must vote for Hillary or Obama. Congratulations you're right. We must vote to continue enslaving ourselves to our government."-- Andrew Panken, same day
"Hillary, Obama, and the rest continue to believe in a primitive religion with no scientific substantiation whatsoever." -- cj, same day
"Ed, making this into a moral issue is disingenuous: Obama has already "gone there" by attacking Clinton for her position on health insurance with Reagan type scare tactic adds." -- uncle noel, Feb. 22
"The Obama folks are purposefully misinterpreting this so they won't have to put Clinton on the ticket. The goal is commendable. Publicly lying and distorting to get there . . ." -- Oran Kelley, May 24th
"No, I think the Obama supporters are the ones who are stupid and the ones who look stupid. . . If this is Obama's brand of gotcha politics, he'd better stick to the high road." -- Oran Kelley, same day
"Now I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama" -- Ed, Aug. 26
That's about all of the searching I care to do right now. If Ed decides to pop in here, I am sure he can personally tell you what he doesn't like Obama. If Obama gets elected, I am quite certain that Ed will continue to do so. The main reason why more criticism of Obama has not happened here, I suspect, is that Hillary Clinton has behaved so much worse.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 13, 2008 6:22 PM
Mroberts, you appear to have us confused with the denizens of Free Republic and Townhall. While I personally am a staunch liberal, I am not a Democrat (I will be enthusiastically voting for Obama come November, though). The second that Obama gives me a reason to criticize him-- which he inevitably will at some point, as the man is human after all--I will not hold back. If you are able and/or willing to look past the fact that most of us disagree with you and instead focus on the substance of our arguments (in other words, if you are able to refrain from assuming that, because most of us are far more liberal than you, we are, by default, wrong), I think you will find that few of us are so blinded by our ideology that we project onto our political representatives messianic qualities that render them immune to criticism. Of course, I may be assuming far more than you are capable of. So far you have given me very little reason to believe that you frequent this blog for any reason other than bolstering your own sense of self-righteousness.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 13, 2008 6:23 PM
My reply had too many links it, and got caught up in moderation. Hopefully Ed will put it up soon. But in the meantime, here's a quote:
"I'm certainly no fan of Clinton or Obama either" -- me, Aug. 26th
Posted by: Gretchen | June 13, 2008 6:25 PM
>> (in other words, if you are able to refrain from assuming that, because most of us are far more liberal than you, we are, by default, wrong), >>
That's an amusing statement. I am often considered to be wrong by default simply because I am more conservative than most on this board.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 6:31 PM
>> "I'm certainly no fan of Clinton or Obama either" -- me, Aug. 26th >>
I can appreciate that. I think far too many people blindly support candidates based purely on party affiliation.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 6:33 PM
Mroberts, I don't consider you wrong more often than not simply because you're conservative. I consider you wrong for many reasons, including but not limited to the following: 1) you make unsubstantiated, emotion-based statements that, when shown to be false, you nonetheless still cling to because they support your prejudices; 2) you become distinctly unhinged and make increasingly silly statements the longer a particular thread goes on; 3) you project onto the members here traits that are not in evidence; 4) your arguments ultimately stem from how you apparently think the world should be, not the way it actually is; and 5) your positions, if put into place, would deprive a remarkably broad percentage of the population of basic rights.
Ed talks a lot about the distinction between mundane ignorance and virulent ignorance. Both KOI and mroberts strike me as conservative Christians (correct me if I'm wrong on the conservative label, KOI), and both have displayed ignorance in their comments on this blog. However, many of KOI's misconceptions (particularly regarding evolution) have gotten cleared up by Ed and others, and what's more, KOI has since come to try to understand our viewpoints, even if he does not fully agree with them. The same cannot be said of mroberts.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 13, 2008 6:49 PM
"It's just upsetting that it passed by such an overwhelming majority."
The Senate bill passed 35-0, with 4 "absents". That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't there. In fact I'm pretty sure they were there, just too scared to vote no. Embarassing.
Posted by: bullet | June 13, 2008 7:05 PM
>> you make unsubstantiated, emotion-based statements that, when shown to be false, you nonetheless still cling to because they support your prejudices; 2) you become distinctly unhinged and make increasingly silly statements the longer a particular thread goes on; >>
Sadie, it doesn't matter what I say. As long as it is something you disagree with - no matter how absurd your reasons for disagreeing are - it will always be lumped into that category.
>> you project onto the members here traits that are not in evidence; >>
There is no evidence that I could give that would make you think any different.
>> your arguments ultimately stem from how you apparently think the world should be, not the way it actually is; >>
LOL. And you don't want to make the world a certain way? Isn't that what politics is all about? What a wierd statement.
>> your positions, if put into place, would deprive a remarkably broad percentage of the population of basic rights. >>
Always remarkable how nobody seems to care about MY rights. Some people are more equal than others apparently. In some countries Christians can get prosecuted for simply criticizing homosexuality. I've have seen too much concern for MY rights when I've raised that issue and pointed out that similar things are happening here in America.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 7:16 PM
"What have people on this blog criticized Obama for?"
what would they have to critize him for? illegal wars? torture? bad economy? not yet anyway... so .. let's see.. saying stupid things about creationism? science? the poor?
how about the whole christ on a stick is the saviour thing? There may have been some comments on that....
Posted by: Kevin | June 13, 2008 7:49 PM
>> what would they have to critize him for? illegal wars? torture? bad economy? not yet anyway... so .. let's see.. saying stupid things about creationism? science? the poor? >>
Your comment just proves my point. Obama apparently can do nothing wrong.
Posted by: mroberts | June 13, 2008 7:54 PM
I would criticize Obama for kowtowing to the anti-vaccination fearmongers. I criticize him for implying that religious legislators are somehow more moral. I criticize him for not taking a firm moral stand in support of gay marriage rights.
On the positive side, I applaud him for facing divisive issues like the role of religion in politics and race in america head-on and seeking consensus. I applaud him for having the guts to tell potential supporters truths they probably don't want to hear (like telling teachers he supports merit pay, or telling the people of Detroit that the auto industry needs to build more fuel-efficient cars). Finally, I respect his ability to express nuanced ideas clearly and eloquently.
For the record, mroberts, I don't assume your opinions are wrong because you're a conservative. I just guessed you were a conservative because you were wrong so often.
Posted by: DaveL | June 13, 2008 8:12 PM
Mroberts, can you recall a single instance of any commenter on this blog-- let alone Ed, who has actively come out repeatedly against such things-- who has endorsed anything resembling this? If not, can you explain how this statement could possibly be relevant?
Probably every single day, Ed and other people comment on this blog supporting your rights. Like the common refrain, we may not support what you say, but will defend your right to say it. Has this completely bypassed your understanding? If so, either you have a reading deficiency or you have simply put up a block in your mind against any possibility of political nuance. That latter move is exactly what "virulent ignorance" means.
Seriously, the strawman you've been constructing is threatening to fall over and crush us all. Nobody cares about your rights? Absolute, complete bullshit. If you have no intention of actually reading what is said here, you might as well spend your time doing something more productive like mowing the lawn.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 13, 2008 8:29 PM
I guess you must have missed Ed's blog post all of 2 days ago where he excoriates the Alberta Human Rights Commission for suppressing the free speech of a Canadian homophobic preacher.
I have never heard of similar things happening in America. Sure, I've heard right-wing scaremongering about hate crimes legislation that only applies to violent crimes, but not anything actually... you know... legitimate.
Posted by: DaveL | June 13, 2008 8:33 PM
I support the right of Fred Phelps, Stormfront, and mroberts to speak their respective minds. I do not support the actual content of the speech of said individuals/organizations. Anyone who truly understands the First Amendment can see the subtle difference.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 13, 2008 8:37 PM
And just to clarify, there is a difference between not leaving someone's comments (i.e. those of mroberts) unchallenged versus actively trying to silence that person. With the possible exception of Priya Lynn, no one here takes the latter position. If Ed set up this blog to silence people with views contrary to his own, he would immediately ban anyone expressing dissenting viewpoints (hey, kind of like Uncommon Descent, Free Republic, etc.).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 13, 2008 9:52 PM
mroberts wrote:
The fact that you made that statement on this blog, of all places, is why your comments are viewed as a joke here. Seriously, how often do I have to condemn hate speech laws on college campuses and in other countries before you stop saying stupid shit like that at least while you're commenting here? I am zealously opposed to censorship of anti-gay statements. I've blasted the governments of Canada, Sweden and the UK literally dozens of times on this blog for their hate speech laws and punishment of anti-gay speech. I've blasted university after university for their oppressive hate speech codes and repeatedly demanded that civil liberties groups begin an all out legal assault on such codes to get rid of them. But yeah, no one cares about your rights.
As for it happening in the US, I think there's very little chance of that happening. The first amendment clearly forbids it and there simply is no significant body of opinion in legal circles to support it. Our courts have so zealously guarded free speech rights over the last 70 years that they have ruled that even burning a cross on someone's lawn cannot be prosecuted as racial harassment. They've so narrowly defined the exceptions to the first amendment that even the already narrowly drawn fighting words exception has essentially disappeared (not once has it ever been upheld since the 1930s). I doubt you could find even 5% of American judges who would take an argument for a hate speech exception to the first amendment seriously, whether they are liberal or conservative. Every single time a hate speech code from a public university has been challenged in court, the university has lost. The only reason they continue to exist is that the universities keep changing the specific language in hopes of getting around the previous rulings and they aren't taken to court often enough to squash the effort (and that's why I want an all out legal assault on such codes nationwide, to do away from them once and for all). The risk of seeing hate speech laws in this country is very, very low. And if it ever happens, I will be in the front of the line demanding an end to them.
And by the way, based on the comments on the literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of posts I've written on this over the last 5 years, it appears that the vast majority of my readers agree with me on this. So perhaps you should find a more appropriate place to strike the "I'm so persecuted and you people don't care" pose next time.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 13, 2008 11:21 PM
It's remarkable, you idiot, that you ignore the folks who do.
You have the right to speak your mind. Others have the right to call you a moron when you do. You don't have the right to keep your widdle feelings unbruised.
Moron.
Posted by: gwangung | June 14, 2008 12:48 AM
mroberts:
You're free to continue being an idiot forever. It would be refreshin if you would just, once, have any sort of underpinnings for the idiotic statements that you puport to be factual. Nobody here, I think, gives a rat's ass about whether you like or dislike the positions that they take, but they sure would like something more than your Pee Wee Hermanesque style of debate.
As for me, I see you as an ignorant troll who loves to stir up the pot and then act as if you somehow have the moral high ground. You're a putz.
Posted by: democommie | June 14, 2008 7:01 AM
As a science teacher on thing really jumps out at me in these stories.
They seem to imply that teachers are forced to slavishly stick to the approved textbook, never bringing in any supplemental material.
They've got to be kidding. Most teachers I know don't particularly like the textbook they use (although it's difficult to get them to say why). Good teachers use articles from magazines and newspapers, web pages, anything to break up the monotony of "Read pages 234-246 and answer the questions on the handout."
Of course I understand that it's a smokescreen to bring in non-science, but I just find the implication amusing.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 14, 2008 9:07 AM
Open Question:
Let's assume that most Evangelical Christians want to take over the schools to promote their religion. I think it is a good assumption and something I am opposed and state to the Christians that I know when they ask me if I am sharing Jesus with my students and football players. It is illegal and should be as teacher and coach in my opinion and the law seems obvious on this.
Ok with that out of the way; any academic discipline can get perverted when people stop questioning things and thinking for themselves. I think it happens all the time and theology has a lot less to do with it than ideology.
So my question is how to we promote critical thinking and teach people to judge matters for themselves without perverting things to the whims of one group? I ask this because we were talking at my school yesterday about adding a Philosophy class and a great conversation came up. They probably have no idea I am an evangelical Christian so they spoke freely.
They talked about how they would go about it. They talked about how the guy who used to do the Philosophy class did it as a comparative religions class. We talk about a lot. They are both anti religious as far as I can tell. But they are brilliant teachers who I look up too. I agree with everything they said.
How can we take the dialouge that you would have on here and have it part of a Public School class? What would be inappropriate and would would not? Who would like to talk about developing a cirriculum that takes all viewpoints into consideration when writing it?
You want to teach kids to examine everything and hold on to what is good thus attacking the number 1 problem with religion in the world? I do and the problem is that people never question what they were born into. Studies show most conversions take place in cosmopolitian societies where people are allowed to question. i say conversions are positive in that it shows that people are at least questioning things in that sense. I am not saying this is Christian conversions either.
I know this is a long comment but I just want to hear what people thought. I have started my own blog and will begin to write about some of this now that school is out. Would any of you like to participate in some sort of effort like this? It would kill the false claims of the Relgious Right that are causing these bills. It would be saying you are right kids need to think for themselves but the way you go about it just to promote your cause and this needs to stop.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 14, 2008 1:51 PM
KOI said:
Isn't that what they (the religious) are afraid of? I mean, as soon as you ask them for evidence, they say "You gotta have faith." IOW, their lack of a decent reason to believe is in fact the reason they believe. And that non sequiter becomes a virtue.
And mroberts said:
I get why some people demonize the NEA, and yes they certainly are liberal-leaning, but they really have just about no power. I don't think anybody really listens to them, and since they won't advocate strikes (teacher strikes are usually from the AFT) they have little or no clout. I do know that a lot of teachers object to the political orientation of the NEA, which is an obstacle to organization in general.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 14, 2008 5:04 PM
Sadie Morrison,
No I am not a Conservative Christian. I do not know what to really call myself. Politically I am a Libertarian. Ideologically, I probably would associate more with Enlightenment thinkers than say John Wesley or George Whitfield. Theologically, I came out on a test as St. Anslem and Martin Luther. One Catholic the other Protestant.
I guess to put me in a box would be unfair. But no I do not associate myself as Conservative unless that definition would include: Jesus is God, He died for mankind to be reconciled to God, He was born of a virgin, Salvation is by faith through grace and requires repentance(change of mind about who God is), that there is a Heaven, and I am not totally sure what I think of Hell anymore.
So some would put me with Fundementalists on some things but not others. I know that I cannot stand the Religious Right for sure and what they convey. So you decide but I am not Conservative at all I do not think.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 15, 2008 4:44 PM
Bald Ape stated:
"Isn't that what they (the religious) are afraid of? I mean, as soon as you ask them for evidence, they say "You gotta have faith." IOW, their lack of a decent reason to believe is in fact the reason they believe. And that non sequiter becomes a virtue."
You are bringing far to narrow of a focus to a broad and complex issue. To answer your question, yes most religions or religious people tend to want freedom where they are in the minority and conformity when they are in the majority. This is almost all religions I have seen and all over the world at least where I have been.
But to say that all religious people say just have faith is not true. It depends on what kind of evidence you are looking for. If it is Scientific evidence I agree with Ed that Science has nothing to say one way or the other for sure about the supernatural in general let alone religious claims. With that said, I think one could see possible evidences in nature from a philosophical point of view. I also think the Bible lines up Historically.
So to make a simple statement like you made about such a complex subject is unfair in my opinion. I am not one of those who is afraid to open things up and let all have their save and let people decide. How can we make good decisions without all viewpoints to consider? I think the supernatural and spirtuality should be discussed to some degree in public schools. It is going to come up in some classes anyway. The idea is to make sure that one or two groups do not use it to promote their cause at the exspense of others.
I think one of the guys who blogs on this site actually suggested that it was good to learn about all the religions in that it is such a hot button issue in our new global world. More education not less or limited education is the key to dialouge in my mind. So while I agree that you perceptions may be right about most religious people in generally and specifically about Evangelical Christians, I would ask you to be careful about labeling all people that way.
I believe in open and fair debate.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 15, 2008 4:55 PM
King of Ireland said:
"It depends on what kind of evidence you are looking for."
Reliable evidence, which revelation clearly is not. I also question your assertion that the Bible is even close to accurate historically.
Should the supernatural be discussed in school? Sure. Every kid should learn that astrology is BS, fortune tellers are either entertainers of liars, if you saw it on Oprah it's superstitious drivel, there are no "lucky numbers"....
Can science show that there is no god? No, but in explaining the universe we line up with LaPlace, who said to Napolean "I have no need of that [God] hypothesis."
Religion explains nothing except the made up ideas of religion itself.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 16, 2008 10:08 AM
So what you are saying is that Bald Ape's opinions on the supernatural should be taught in the schools. Why is revelation not reliable evidence? What problems do you have with the historical accuracy of the Bible?
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 16, 2008 11:49 AM
KOI:
"What problems do you have with the historical accuracy of the Bible?"
"The Deluge" for one. The Bible is not a historic document;
it's a myth story (stories) that are cobbled together from who knows how many oral traditions. Histories written in the last 50 years are rife with revisionism because of biased authors; why would the Bible be any different? Nice stories (some in the NT, at least) but history, not hardly.
Posted by: democommie | June 16, 2008 12:27 PM