Reading, Writing, and Revelation

What does this have to do with science education? Is bigotry now a course offering at the University of Ediacara?

I tend to think I have an OK grasp on the Bible. However, whenever someone tries to use the Bible to justify a certain action or inaction, I tend to toss those arguments and try to get the person to think "outside the book". Even if I happen to agree on the person's political desire of the outcome. Whatever the Bible happens to say about war or homosexuality is entirely indifferent to me. I know this is simply because I don't believe in the divinity of the Bible, but it's a stand I promote in any discussion regardless of my friend or foe.

And the fact that fundamentalist teachers would flock to these classes specifically to inject their dishonest, inaccurate views of the subject. The likelihood of this subject being taught honestly in public schools in the USA would be a bit less than the likelihood of getting a gourmet chef in the cafeteria.

We have a push for these courses here in Arkansas. A few districts have rejected the proposal, but others have enacted it. An objective course on the Bible would be great, but as made crystal clear from the statements of those who are promoting the courses, they represent nothing more than an attempt to put conservative protestant teaching in the schools. There is already tremendous pressure on my kids without the official sanctioning that these courses would provide.

"Bigotry" is not a course offering here, and indirectly it has a lot to do with science education. You have to be living with your head wrapped in lead foil and shoved in a box not to understand that the proselytizers of anti-evolutionary and anti-science "education" are at their core overwhelmingly concerned with ensuring that the public schools do not teach anything in conflict with their narrow sectarian views, and hopefully provide a pulpit for converting others to the faith.

Isn't Prothero one of the bad guys in V for Vendetta?

Indeed, given the difficulty of teaching biology in some schools...

Professor Prothero is the chairman of the religion department at Boston University, and his article

We live in the land of biblical idiots

...Public school courses that promote Bible literacy can enhance our civic life

I think perhaps a sociology course in high school that focuses on multiple religions and how they influence people would be a better idea. I don't buy the "Let's teach about the bible (but just the bible) because other people believe it provides the answer to an issue" argument. Why aren't they calling for a course on Islam in particular because of the "War on Terror?" I agree with Matt in that it would be used by many teachers for something completely different from what this person is saying it should be for.

"We live in a land of social idiots" might be a better quote - there are far too many people just acting on what influences them without thinking about the broader implications of those actions.

As a warning to others: Please don't feed the *cough*chunkdz*cough* Troll.

hmmm. maybe it's a good idea: i doubt that many of the people who cite the bible as their reference for moral behavior actually know what's in it. contradictions (starting with genesis 1 and genesis 2); genocide; rape; fratricide; intolerance. the hierarchy had good reason for keeping the actual text of the bible away from the flock for 1500 years (by this, i mean ensuring that it was written in latin so only the clergy could read it; and not any of the (few) literate people). perhaps when people do analyse the bible, they'll understand that it is certainly not the kind of document that can be used as a guide for ethical living.

Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim --- often incorrectly --- that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.

How does he know what it "often incorrectly" says. The only way to make it "correctly" say something is to selectively pick out whatever you want. Everybody already does that. Give me a break.

While I generally agree with Matt Young that such courses would, in practice, be difficult to staff with adequately objective teachers, I think that it's unfortunate really.

I've personally witnessed how effective a superior knowledge of the bible can be when arguing against some of the more aggressive fundamentalist types. (Mind you that this was not my own (limited) knowledge; I was observing someone else debate.) Specifically, when a person's superior knowledge of biblical verse becomes evident, the cornered opponent inevitably invokes the biblical reference that Satan himself can quote scripture. Of course, this leaves the opponent in an odd philosophical predicament. Since their entire argument is based on biblical verse, how can we, the bystanders, be sure they themselves are not Satan or the Satan analogue? We can't be. In short, once someone has been accused of being Satan, the argument must move away from verse-tossing. This can lead to either silence, which is golden, or a more fruitful line of discussion.

A Bible course? No, this is a bad idea. However, a religion course would be an excellent idea. Students graduating from high school would be much better prepared if they understood the similarities and differences among the world's major religions. They should understand Hindu beliefs, the differences between the Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam, and the common roots of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths.

As long as Emo Phillips gets to teach:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

In principle I think that this is a great idea. Look to the Scandanavian countries and you'll see pretty good education in relgious literacy. I think that the addition needs to be made though to make this about global religious literacy and therefore at least the other major religions of the world - Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism - need to be covered as well. I don't believe this out of a sense of "fairness" per se because fairness can't justify everything. IDiots cry for fairness. It's out of a sense that young people today (and yesterday) in the U.S. are woefully equipped to understand the clashes of culture on the world stage and many of those have to do with the major religions mutual untenability next to one another. By learning about them, students can much more honestly understand the doctrines of individual religions and therefore act accordingly. Simple Biblical literacy is not enough in the face of the massive presence of the global religions. No doubt fundies will go bananas at this suggestion.
And he is making part of the same error as NOMA. In theory this is a nice belief, but in practice it can only work by partitioning your beliefs.
I would actually think that my above suggestion would erode fundamentalism and lead to either more agnosticism and/or ecumenicism.

Nearly half of teens think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.

There is another argument in favor of the type of Bible course described here. Such literacy is indispensible to fully understand and appreciate much of Western art and literature.

When I was in grad school I had a house mate who was in the French department. One day she commented on her struggles to write an essay on some 17th century narrative about a man swallowed by a big fish. When I commented on the similarity to Jonah and the whale, she just looked at me blankly. She had grown up in a religion-free household and had no knowledge of the basic storyline or characters of the Bible. So she went off to the library to fill the gap in her education.

Having said this, though, I agree with other posters that it would be hard to maintain neutrality on this subject in a public school classroom, even if the curriculum was very carefully laid out.

Matt, my thoughts are as follows: Yes, this sort of thing could be done and have salutary results, but you need two things for this to be so:

1) a really, really, REALLY skilled instructor;

2) an explicit contract between the teachers, parents and students that sets limits on the freedom of religious expression for the purposes of the course

I might add that anything that exclusively looks at the Bible is vulnerable to sectarian manipulation or being perceived as the result of same. A general survey in philosophy and comparative religion would be much easier to defend, and to teach, IMO.

He was on the Daily Show last night and made some good points. He wasn't claiming that Biblical literacy doesn't make you a better person, he just says it makes you a more informed one. Whether you like it or not, this is pretty much a Christian society we live in, but even most Christians don't really know the bible very well. The general population often make decisions that are based (or at least they think are based)on the Bible that are flat out wrong. Our elected officials are just as bad, if not worse. They then go on to make decisions about other cultures with other religions that they know absolutely nothing about. His goal isn't so much Biblical literacy, it's religious literacy in general.

A comparative religions class, done properly, would go a long way towards clearing up a lot of misconceptions people in this country have, but that's the last thing fundamentalists of any strip want.

If you want your students to read something, all you have to do is ban it...if you want 'em to ignore it for the most part, assign it as reading.

The author was on The Daily Show last night and he mentioned also learning about Islam and Hinduism.

He noted that most American leaders knew nothing about Sunni and Shi'ite.

In theory, Prothero makes a good point. In practice, however, as others here have already pointed out, such Bible classes would, inevitably, be packed with the very kind of intolerant activists that Prothero thinks would be debunked by the classes. The minute a "Bible class" was offered, every church would scramble to force THEIR interpretation of the Bible into it, because neither one could trust "others" to give the kids a fair and balanced picture of what the Bible is "really" about.

Of course, a skillful and audacious politician could really raise Hell, merely by getting fundie support for a Bible class, then putting a mainstream Catholic, Lutheran, or -- horror of horrors! -- a Unitarian in charge of the class, and watching the class's supporters scream bloody murder and possibly start killing each other.

A "comparative religion" class is a much safer idea (although it does pose many of the same risks): as long as we're dealing with Biblical idiots, why not deal with Koranic, Talmudic, and other idiots as well?

He noted that most American leaders knew nothing about Sunni and Shi'ite.

A comparative religions class, done properly, would go a long way towards clearing up a lot of misconceptions people in this country have, but that's the last thing fundamentalists of any strip want.

The minute a "Bible class" was offered, every church would scramble to force THEIR interpretation of the Bible into it, because neither one could trust "others" to give the kids a fair and balanced picture of what the Bible is "really" about.

Revelation, unfortunately, is exactly what we do not need in the public schools.

Indeed, given the difficulty of teaching biology in some schools...

Can we find enough teachers, especially in the Bible belt, who will not inject their religious or, for that matter, antireligious beliefs into the class?

...despite what we think, they overlap.

A comparative religions class, done properly, would go a long way towards clearing up a lot of misconceptions people in this country have, but that's the last thing fundamentalists of any strip want.

Uh, Prothero wasn't talking about a comparative religions class. He was talking about Bible class. (Notwithstanding the lip service he pays on whatever talk shows. Go read the article.) He thinks not enough people read the Bible and he wants more people to read the Bible. He's afraid that not enough people are reading the Bible. I'm not saying he wants to promote his religion or anything, I'm just saying that he fears that not enough people know enough about his religion and so he would like more people to know lots more about his religion so that they can make the "correct" decisions based upon the religion to which he is religious about.

Prothero: "Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim --- often incorrectly --- that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality."

If they want to know "correctly" what the Bible says about things, then they should ask the experts. For example: Al Sharpton, or the Pope, or Martin Luther, or Calvin, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, are all Biblical experts and so they all know the what the Bible correctly says about a whole lots of stuff.

I think it is a little disingenuous to say you want to teach the bible so your opponents would be better prepared for the debate!

I mean....let's send military equipment and advisers to Iran and China so when we finally go to war with them they are able to prosecute the war in a proper military manner!

If they want to know "correctly" what the Bible says about things, then they should ask the experts. For example: Al Sharpton, or the Pope, or Martin Luther, or Calvin, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, are all Biblical experts and so they all know the what the Bible correctly says about a whole lots of stuff.

"But the Bible is of sufficient importance in Western civilization to merit its own course. Treating it no differently from, say, the Zend-Avesta of the Zoroastrians or Scientology's Dianetics makes no educational sense. I don't think he's being disingenuous at all. Damn it, this is not a Christian proposal, this is a Christian Nation! As one of the previous commenters said: "The author was on The Daily Show last night and he mentioned also learning about Islam and Hinduism." Well, that doesn't sound very disingenuous to me. Treating it no differently from, say, the Zend-Avesta of the Zoroastrians or Scientology's Dianetics makes no educational sense, damn it! One Bible course for every public high school student in the U.S is just good common sense.

One basic problem is, few people study the Bible unless and except their personal faith causes them to see merit in spending the necessary time and effort. Which, we seem to agree, would tend to disqualify them as disinterested instructors of the historical or sociological implications of Biblical-type beliefs.

Maybe we could have a rule that no bible instructor's personal religious faith can use or reference the Bible in any way, since this produces observed guaranteed bias. But how many such people know anything about the Bible at all, or speak English, or understand the history the Bible has influenced, enough to trace that influence without being influenced by it? How many Americans can even identify what Hindu scripture even IS? AND understand Hindu-influenced history, AND speak the primary languages, yet are not Hindus themselves?

Good grief, Matt. You are a respected author. How can you make this assertion that seems to be based on nothing more than a "can't trust those fundies" argument?

The fundies themselves have proven, time and again, that they can't be trusted; so that seems a reasonably strong basis for an argument.

I definitely like the idea of promoting Bible literacy in the schools. There's really nothing that demystifies and de-sacralizes that book so much as a thorough and honest study of it. I'm not actually saying that I want the Bible taught for that reason, per se, more that literary study is never so interesting as when it tackles a book as misunderstood as the Bible is.

I benefited considerably in my own knowledge of the world, literature, understanding of the religious mind, and of the ancient world, by taking quite a few required courses in religion, some of which involved good solid scholarship about the Bible. And this was at a religious school, when I no longer had a religion.

One learns that Paul was indeed writing letters, pretty much just letters by a pastor to his flocks. You learn sources for the Bible's information and stories, and of how Hebrew worship of Yahweh overlapped with "pagan worship" (don't have Carol teach Bible at your school). The histories are just histories, mistakes and all, and the myths are adaptations of the stories that were told in the Middle East.

This is not merely good for those who like deconstructing the Bible, as I did, it brings people to where religious folk were when the parts of the Bible were actually being written. Scholarship is the only way for both the religious and the non-religious to really understand the Bible in the way intended.

Then too, so much of our culture is affected and tinged by the Bible, from law (often by way of getting away from religious law, but even as reaction to it, the Bible had its effects) to expressions used in daily speech. Especially, most older literature is not well understood without a good education in the Bible.

Ideally, the various ancient texts which have substantially influenced our culture ought to be taught in school, the Bible along with Greek literature and philosophy. Even if teaching the Bible can't be done in the lower grades, I would hope that at the end of high school, and especially in college, students would gain a good understanding of such an important (if this was by historical accident) book.

That said, I understand the worry over teaching the Bible in many regions at the lower levels. If taught properly (according to scholarship), parents will be up in arms. If, as more likely in most areas, it is taught improperly and according to teachers' biases, it'll just be unconstitutional religious instruction in the public schools.

I decided that I'd emphasize the many good reasons for teaching the Bible, when it can be done properly. The history of Western Civilization past the fourth century AD is bound up with the influence of the Bible, whether we like it or not. And as such it remains, in principle, a very important subject for Americans to learn.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

"chunkdz":
Get a clue. I went to an episcopal school, and had what I think was an excellent education in both catholic Christian theology and that of the major sects (and a bit of Muslim and other beliefs too). One thing that was clear, though, was that this came about through the rare personal integrity of the teacher and headmaster, who both strove not to proselytize. Even then, the teacher occasionally failed and would start railing against one or the other view.

One reason we do not have a religion department at my University is, apparently, because the local baptists refused to allow it unless they had veto power over who was hired. I am told that it was made crystal clear that they were viewing such a department as a theological training and proselytizing tool. That this would be the case is demonstrated every time there is a public interdenominational meeting. Most famous was about two years back when the local fundies took over a city-wide interfaith meeting, railed against the Jews, and began witnessing and proselytizing even though they had explicitly agreed not to do so before hand.

Without a Bible class, my son and daughter are constantly subjected to pressure from the local Baptists and other allies for not being "Christian." I have never had such a challenge to my faith as when I arrived here, and saw the unethical, demeaning, intolerant, and aggressive proselytization of these people in all walks of life, including those where they should have the common decency and respect to lay off the crap for a couple of hours. My son and daughter have both had teachers allow such proselytization in their classes (as have the children of my colleagues). In one case last year, we (the parents) managed to get a substitute teacher fired over egregious and inappropriate teaching. But still it goes on, and most of the time the administrations just cover for the teachers. Do you honestly think that in this environment, a Bible course could ever be taught objectively? No matter how it was taught, it would be nothing short of explosive.

As for your remark about biology -- it is easy to be smug and ask for evidence that biology is not taught, expecting that such evidence doesn't exist. It does. In our state, an informal survey from the education department (one that has been quietly hushed up), demonstrated that over 60% of high schools do not teach evolutionary biology at all, for the explicit reason that they fear creationist parents and administrators, or because they are creationists themselves. But the real evidence is in our biology classes. Last week I had yet another TA discussing her shock in finding out that students had NEVER been exposed to Hardy-Weinberg, did not know what a cell or DNA was, and knew nothing of population biology, species, and a host of other topics. Why? Well just ask the students -- THEY WERE NEVER TAUGHT. Yes, we have the data, and we know what is going on here.

The objection to teaching evolution is religious. Period. The damage done to science education in our state, in the name of religion, is tremendous. Adding an objective Bible or comparative religion class would be great -- knowledge is power, after all. But all indications are that such classes would be overwhelmingly hijacked by the religious conservatives, and would only exacerbate the science education problem even further. Matt's argument that we "can't trust those fundies" is based on years of grueling experience. I think that ball is in their court to demonstrate that they will behave themselves before we trust them with such a tool as this. I'm not holding my breath.

@ chunkdz -
You know exactly what this has to do with science education - the IDationists will use any crowbar they can to pry their ID/creationist agenda into a science classroom, and teaching the Christian bible in any form is the preferred method.

To inject a bit of empiricism into the debate, such classes have already been found to be vulnerable to the proselytizing whims of individual teachers.

http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/TX%20Bible%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

Yes, we have the data, and we know what is going on here.

One thing that was clear, though, was that this came about through the rare personal integrity of the teacher and headmaster, who both strove not to proselytize.

Without a Bible class, my son and daughter are constantly subjected to pressure from the local Baptists and other allies for not being "Christian."

Last week I had yet another TA discussing her shock in finding out that students had NEVER been exposed to Hardy-Weinberg, did not know what a cell or DNA was, and knew nothing of population biology, species, and a host of other topics. Why? Well just ask the students --- THEY WERE NEVER TAUGHT.

In our state, an informal survey from the education department (one that has been quietly hushed up), demonstrated that over 60% of high schools do not teach evolutionary biology at all, for the explicit reason that they fear creationist parents and administrators, or because they are creationists themselves.

Stephen Prothero is a man with a plan, and a book: (not his first)

Prothero's latest book -
Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't

An earlier comment of mine, just intended to insert some background via links, is held up for too many links - as I should have expected. Search news on Prothero bible quiz. The USA Today story has more on Prothero's plan, which includes a general religion class as well as a Bible class. Prothero has plenty evidence of religious illiteracy and has surely considered the way religion classes might be misused. As in other subjects teacher training is needed. Proselytizers could be weeded out.  It might not work in all communities. But you know that religious ignorance is a vehicle for political and military shenanigans. Give Prothero's suggestion a try I say.  Let's see how it works, and perhaps make adjustments, not just argue that our problem insoluble.

Then why do you only offer anecdotes and personal opinion?

Another anecdote...

And another, and another, and another, from all over the country (including at least one of the former plaintiffs in the Dover trial), not to mention some parts of the Islamic world. They do add up, whether or not you choose to see what's obvious to the rest of us. Do you read newspapers, or is that just another useless bunch of anecdotes to you?

You know exactly what this has to do with science education - the IDationists will use any crowbar they can to pry their ID/creationist agenda into a science classroom, and teaching the Christian bible in any form is the preferred method.

chunkdz shows an instructive example of how people deny or evade atrocities committed by people on their side of a dispute: when specific anecdotes are offered, brush them off as anecdotes and demand numbers; when numbers are offered, brush them off as suspicious and demand specific instances; repeat until everyone else gives up trying to reason with you.

Another anecdote... And another, and another, and another, from all over the country (including at least one of the former plaintiffs in the Dover trial), not to mention some parts of the Islamic world. They do add up, whether or not you choose to see what's obvious to the rest of us. Do you read newspapers, or is that just another useless bunch of anecdotes to you?

And on top of all that, chunkdz also makes up false dichotomies and willfully misrepresents the objectives of his opponents. Who, here or anywhere, wants to "remove the bible from public life?" We're only talking about Bible classes in public schools, remember?

You know, I grew up a second generation atheist on one side and a third or fourth generation Unitarian on the other, and didn't even know who Jesus was until about 7th grade. Yet my biblical literacy is pretty dang good - I've even read large chucks, of more than one translation - precisely because I was raised to be widely read. Learning biblical stories _first_ and then applying those story lines and references to literature and non-fiction is one way to learn the cultural background, but I read _everything else_ first (well, nearly), and probably understood the biblical stories better for having a huge background in how they have been used.

Same thing with the Greek plays, actually: just reading Sophocles all by itself could give you hives... But if you've seen/read/listened to the soundtrack of different Oedipal tales (including, of course, Tom Lehrer's) things are much more interesting.

I teach social studies, so I am considering this from more than a hypothetical situation. I agree with the basic gist of the argument, though I'm not sure about the argument regarding demagogues on the left using the bible? I see three critical problems with this proposal though, not just one:

First, there is the danger of a teacher going beyond the curriculum. I know some teachers who are very devout Christians who, I don't think, would be able to cover the material in a neutral, academic way. I can also see the problem of a teacher with other beliefs, or an atheist potentially having similar difficulties.

Second, in very conservative areas the danger will be equally great that parents push for modifications to the curriculum, or for ignoring the neutral/academic approach. I live in a pretty conservative area and every year we have parents demanding that their son/daughter be allowed to present a creationist "response" to "all these evolution lies."

Finally there are first amendment issues to be concerned. For public schools to teach, as part of their regular curriculum, bible literacy, you have to expect adherents of other religions to have issues with that. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, all would have legitimate concerns about why only the Bible was being taught. Atheists would have legitimate concerns why any religion was being taught.

chunkdz, chunkdz, chunkdz...

[shakes head, sighs]

Teach only creation science: 10%
Do not teach evolution at all: 50%
Attempt to teach a little evolution, but largely fail: 20%
Teach evolution: 20%.

I cannot link you to this survey because the person who conducted it was not ALLOWED to publish it, or carry on any further studies about the issue, or even discuss the subject any further in an official context, and feared for his job as a consequence. (That should tell you something right there.) Yes, we have seen it. Yes it is real. And more importantly, the data are very consistent with what we see in class and hear from the students themselves to an overwhelming degree. You'll just have to take my word. Don't want to? Not my problem. For most people in this forum, the truth of the argument is born out by a great deal of experience, along with survey data, test scores and whatnot, many of which have been vented here, and are abundantly available in archives, and can even be googled with minimal effort (for homework, go get the links yourself, or do you just want to sit in the peanut gallery and make asinine remarks?).

This semantic tactic of yours gets awfully tiresome, because it is childish, silly, and honestly, kind of insulting to our intelligence. It's a common tactic recommended by creationists -- keep questioning the professor by demanding proof for every statement, thereby derailing the lecture and winning by default. I had a student try this last Spring in one of my classes, and she hit at least four other professors that I know of with the same tactic. Let's turn it around. Do you have ANY evidence that any ancient literature teachers are reliable and unbiased? What do you mean by unbiased? Where are the data? How do you know that these teachers won't use the classes for proselytizing? Where are your data? Why should we risk subjecting our students to proselytizing from a narrow sectarian group without solid data that the teachers are competent and have the moral fortitude to consistently teach ideas that they themselves might disagree with? How do you know that my kids aren't subject to religious intolerance -- where are your data? Do you have any proof that religiously based pressure is not negatively impacting biology education in my state? Where is the link to the survey? Do you have any evidence for anything that you say, or is it all just personal opinion and anecdote? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Great idea! Let's teach the Qur'an as well.

And on top of all that, chunkdz also makes up false dichotomies and willfully misrepresents the objectives of his opponents. Who, here or anywhere, wants to "remove the bible from public life?" We're only talking about Bible classes in public schools, remember?

Do you have any evidence for anything that you say, or is it all just personal opinion and anecdote? Huh? Huh? Huh?

But they can only justify that assertion with irrelevant anecdotes.

The relevance of the anecdotes to the proposed policy is as obvious as the Sun in daytime. Your refusal to see -- or admit you see -- the connection, proves that you are knowingly dishonest, and unwilling to engage in adult debate. Your dishonesty is further proven by your refusal to utter even the most perfunctory acknowledgement of the blatant injustices we've described here.

This is standard practice of the faux-Christian right: pretend you're persecuted (in a predominantly Christian country?) while ignoring -- and thus condoning -- the persecution of others.

I was taught parts of the bible as literature in high school. Specifically Genesis and parts of Exodus. It was taught along side other creation myths. Native American, Hindu, Greek, etc... I have no problem with the bible being taught that way in public schools.

The real problem here is that, in most cases, it wouldn't be. The reason: people, like chunkdz, would never allow it to be compared with other religions both modern and ancient... somehow they'd see it was "marginalizing" the bible. I mean once you see it along side stories about life being sculpted out of clay, and the world on the back of a turtle... you pretty much get a firm understanding on exactly where the bible fits in.

I think what is being forgotten here is that not everyone is going to become a scientist!

So much of Western culture and literature has "Bible stories" as their background (see the comment about Jonah and the whale). Surely the kids who are going to study humanities, for example, -- or even not go to college at all -- would find their world views greatly enlarged with a better knowledge of Biblical literary themes, gained outside of trivial Sunday School classes or fundie sermons.

Many writers, contemporary and historical, allude to these themes with an implicit assumption that the reader is "getting the connection". In fact everyone -- including potential scientists -- might find their appreciation of literature, art, and music greatly enhanced by "getting it".

What's wrong with that?

-ignoring all of troll responses and troll feedings--- I think it's a great idea to promote CULTURAL LITERACY (actually this is an idea I believe first popularized by E.D. Hirsch in the mid 80's) - he proposed a curriculum that emphasized the core of western civilization (the classics) plus the myths and cultural icons that are part of western culture. Some schools have a "great books" curriculum that addresses this (and considers Origin of Species as one of the great books!) I believe that a comparative religion class would help support this. (sounds much like the ideal "leberal arts" concept of my undergrad curriculum!)

looks like andy was thinking the same thing - and typing at the same time I was......

chunkdz

You've illustrated made my point perfectly! Thank you!

I nominate chunkdz for the "I'm going to ignore your point, change the question, and attack you for being anti-Biblical bigots" award. chunkdz wants to talk about teaching the Bible as ancient literature, but Prothero wants to teach people "[how to] participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment", and he also wants to make it manditory ("What makes sense is one Bible course for every public high school student in the U.S."). The context is not about ancient literature, as much as chunkdz wants to turn it into a debate about that - because he thinks that would give him the high-ground in the argument. We know when people are attempting to smuggle-in their religious beliefs into the schools. We understand these games. Don't even bother denying it, chunkdz. It doesn't matter how many times you deny it, we're all looking at you like you're either clueless or looking for some lawyeristic way of smuggling in Christian teachings into the public schools.

Whole lot of sniping going on there, chunkdz. Let's get some stuff out in the open. Why make us infer where you are coming from, when you can just set us straight?

What denomination are you?
Have you ever tried to convert someone to your religious beliefs? Successes?
Does some of your money go to missionary work?
Are Christians an oppressed minority in America?
Should evolution be taught to students?
Should Intelligent design be given equal time?
If you could, would you have your religion preached in public schools?
Should Judaism or Islam be preached in public schools?

Me, I'm an atheist and I value the teaching of evolution in schools. I don't want my kids preached to, not even about atheism. Well, maybe a series of guest preachers from each major sect would be ok. I don't trust people who would lie to get their religion taught (wedge document).

Yes, the first objective at PT is to prevent the further erosion of science teaching in America. None of the opponents of evolution are known to be inspired by their atheism or agnosticism. All appear to be theists and most of them are evangelical protestants, at least in America.

The subject of the teaching of the bible as literature and the possibility that it is just a strategy to breach the separation of church and state in schools seems quite germane for PT readers to consider. The nose of the camel isn't the only body part that needs to be watched.

To be bigotted, we would have to be trying to oppress the bible believers. You haven't made a case for that.

I wonder if parts of the Bible are already included in English classes. In my (public) High School World Lit class there was a reading of Genesis alongside other creation myths. The point wasn't "Biblical literacy", but literacy in general. I wonder if this is the exception rather than the rule; at the moment, I only have one data point.

The relevance of the anecdotes to the proposed policy is as obvious as the Sun in daytime. Your refusal to see --- or admit you see --- the connection, proves that you are knowingly dishonest, and unwilling to engage in adult debate. Your dishonesty is further proven by your refusal to utter even the most perfunctory acknowledgement of the blatant injustices we've described here.

I'm not the one making the claims, mplavcan. Look, you are supporting the assertion that teaching the bible as ancient literature is bad for science. To prove your assertion you gave me evidence, anecdotes, stories and opinions.

I never said the anecdotes weren't true.

You said they weren't RELEVANT; and now, when we point out that they are, you're trying to pretend you said something else. Then you misrepresent what we said. Why should we take you seriously?

The reason: people, like chunkdz, would never allow it to be compared with other religions both modern and ancient... somehow they'd see it was "marginalizing" the bible.

chunkdz,

Please show us where anyone has claimed that teaching the bible as ancient literature is harmful to science.

Mostly, I see people claiming that if this course is taught at all it will be misused or misappropriated by people with an agenda. I believe the anecdotal evidence as well as the link given are more than enough to support that argument...don't you?

Being taught comparative religion in school, I can say that it seems to attract religious teachers and that they will not be entirely neutral unless there are some checks and orders applied.

It is however an entirely valid subject, since it clarifies some of the similarities and differences in views from different cultures.

You said they weren't RELEVANT; and now, when we point out that they are, you're trying to pretend you said something else. Then you misrepresent what we said. Why should we take you seriously?

chunkdz,

Does it matter to you that you misrepresent what people are saying, or is it vital to dragging out your trolling strategy? I understand that trolls give themselves brownie points for dragging out an absurdist argument beyond all reason, so I'm just curious.

Most of the posts in this thread concerned the near-certain prospect that a Bible class will be used -- as such classes clearly HAVE been used -- as a means of forcibly indoctrinating kids with SOME PEOPLE'S interpretation of the Bible. You completely ignored this point, and all the anecdotes relevant to it, and are pretending this thread is entirely about something else. Once again, you have proved yourself a liar and a coward.

I expect that the issue of teaching of comparative religion or the Bible as literature will result in a bloody draw. The kind of religious instruction the Fundamentalists want is simply indoctrination and the rest of us won't stand for that without a fight. Meanwhile, serious, non-sectarian education about the Bible would be absolutely anathama to traditionalists because their ideas about scripture are demonstrably false and an objective curriculum would necessarily reflect that fact. Where no compromise is possible, there can be truces but no peace.

Please show us where anyone has claimed that teaching the bible as ancient literature is harmful to science.

Whereas I agree with Professor Prothero in principle, I wonder if he is not making the same mistake as those who believe in nonoverlapping magisteria: despite what we think, they overlap. I am afraid, therefore, that the headwriter at the Daily Camera may have got it right: Reading, Writing, and Revelation. Revelation, unfortunately, is exactly what we do not need in the public schools.

OK, so we can't teach the whats and the whys of some of Western civilization's greatest cultural masterpieces (literature, art. music) because you're afraid the fundies will hijack the course.

I don't have a solution to this problem. Do you? Or is cultural literacy not important?

Again, how does an Ancient Biblical Literature class threaten science?

Please dont feed the Trolls.

During the '60's and '70's as a publisher/editor of K-12 science texts I visited lots (and I mean lots) of secondary schools both public and private in the US. I spent time in the back of the classroom watching and listening to teachers and talking with them and their administrators after class. The stats that mplavcan attributes to the unpublished study are entirely consistent with my experience. Many, many good teachers then---and just as many today in all likelihood---elided over evolution one way or another to avoid grief. And they were often encouraged to do so by the administration. (Keep in mind that the watchword of most bureaucracies, and the public schools are bureaucracies, is avoid trouble at all costs.)

I can't begin to relate the number of teachers who in their idealism taught evolution only to be raked over the coals publicly and privately for such hubris. That's reality in American public schools. Of course not all parts of the country are the same. The worst by far were the states that belonged to the old Confederacy. But not far behind were the plains states, areas in the mountain west and even parts of California or the rural midwest. I even encountered a creationist teaching biology and earth science in one of the best schools, by reputation, in the Philadelphia suburbs!

But things are changing. In the '60's and '70's getting a biology textbook that covered evolution just approved (what's called "adopted") for classroom use in Texas (and the rest of the old south) was close to impossible. Today textbooks that include evolution centrally are found in classrooms in every state in the old south. But that doesn't mean the teachers actually spend time on evolution. But at least a discussion of evolution is there for the students to read, if they're curious.

As for this thread's topic, the Bible as a course in high school, I share the fears, already expressed, that any such effort would be highjacked by the fundamentalists in flash in an attempt to tap into a audience of potential converts heretofore denied them. And they would raise holy hell, if anyone tried to teach about the Bible from anything other than their literalist's perspective. On the other hand, I strongly support the idea in theory. Young adults should have an objective exposure to the Bible and Christianity, along with an inside look at the other major religions and their "holy" books. In America today ignorance of religion---both one's own as well as other's---is manifest from the White House to the outhouse. Given the impact of religion in the past and the present, adults should at least understand it in all its manifestations before making life and death decisions about it or just voting on politicians who cloak themselves in it.

anyhow, there's not a consensus on whether such a class will be useful or harmful (and you shouldn't accuse "Darwinists" of taking any such blanket view).

I just saw an international study that showed that the United States leads the world in scientific literacy. That's data.

Did I accuse "Darwinists" of taking a blanket view?!?

I thought this was what the University of Ediacara wanted - the bible taught as ancient literature and out of science class. Is the University of Ediacara not content to stop at that distinction - now feeling it necessary to advocate removal of the bible from all public education?

Considering the power that religion and fear have over people, how can we honestly think that any teacher who holds their own religion important to them can be trusted to teach such a course objectively.
We can't.
As long as this same religion leads them to kill in their god's name how can we expect them not to think that they don't have the right to force it upon others. Their god commands it. They risk eternal damnation, suffering and the knowledge of never seeing their loved ones long since passed ever again.

And will this class teach about islam? What about the Hindu beliefs and Buddhism? Can we expect a bunch of devoted christians to teach these classes on a neutral playing field? To do so risks lowering the status of their own faith. Can we expect them to do this?

No.

There is only one place where the bible should be the primary reading material and that is a church.

When I was in school we were taught about the affects religion had on the nation as it grew from colonies to today. We read about this in a neutral light. Objective. We saw the part it had to play how the country grew to what it is today. Of course even then I knew from outside reading that the history books are often subjective and often completely biased, but one thing it didn't do was preach. The worse my textbooks could have done was hide the truth by not talking about it rather than lying about it.

But these bible classes should stay the abolute hell away from schools.
If you want to study it. GO TO CHURCH MORE OFTEN.

I do appreciate that you put Darwinism in square quotes, so it would have been more accurate to say U of E instead.

LOL! It was you, GuyeFaux, that put the quotes around "Darwinists", just like it was you who equated "The University of Ediacara" with "Darwinists". LMAO!

Matt believes that religion and science are overlapping magisteria.

He is fearful that if a person injects a religious opinion into a Biblical Literature class, that this will somehow have a detrimental effect on science class.

OK, so we can't teach the whats and the whys of some of Western civilization's greatest cultural masterpieces (literature, art. music) because you're afraid the fundies will hijack the course. I don't have a solution to this problem. Do you?

— andy

Again, how does an Ancient Biblical Literature class threaten science?

— chunkdz

I just saw an international study that showed that the United States leads the world in scientific literacy.

The Christian Bible is a number of great works of literature. It should be studied in schools, along with other books. Students should get a well-rounded understanding of different religious texts, like the Qur'an and the Baghavad Gita (sp?). But I'd suggest that the Bible is perhaps a bit more important scholastically, as it has had a greater influence on literature historically, and therefore, in order to understand the events in myriad novels, the Bible should be studied. If I don't have some knowledge of the Gospels, for instance, I'm going to be lost at even beginning to understand Crime & Punishment.

A religion class is a detriment to a science class when a student goes in and is told that what they learned in the science class is a lie because it conflicts with the Bible. This happened to my daughter already this year (twice, and once last year). It is not a matter of the teacher pointing out a conflict between their interpretation of the Bible and science, it is literally a teacher proselytizing inappropriately about an area outside of their expertise. Sure chunkdz, it's an "anecdote." But the anecdote, in this case, constitutes a valid observation, and a corroborating datum that such behavior happens. Furthermore, when the local paper quotes individuals who are pushing the class as saying that it will "put God back in the classroom" and it will allow children to "learn a Biblical Worldview", then yeah, I think we can safely assume that intent of the class is clear.

Wow. Even though the trees and mountains look exactly the same south of the 49th parallel, it's beginning to look like a different planet down there.

I suppose university is a different story because the courses are electives. I took a "Biblical and Classical Backgrounds to Literature" course at UBC in the late 80's. Excepts from the Pentateuch, New Testament, Ovid, Homer, and a couple others I don't remember. Prof was a former minister, I think. Lots of religious people in the class. The "truth" of the literature was never discussed, just the writing, the sources, and the influence.

Even if it could work in high school without biased interference, what school has the resources, and what courses would get pushed aside? Biology? English? Law?

Even if it could work in high school without biased interference, what school has the resources, and what courses would get pushed aside? Biology? English? Law?

— fnxtr

Of course, Berkeley, CA is pretty much the least likely place in the country to have its public school curriculum hijacked by conservative Christians.

He was on the Daily Show last night and made some good points. He wasn't claiming that Biblical literacy doesn't make you a better person, he just says it makes you a more informed one. Whether you like it or not, this is pretty much a Christian society we live in, but even most Christians don't really know the bible very well.

— Sam Lewis

The general population often make decisions that are based (or at least they think are based)on the Bible that are flat out wrong. Our elected officials are just as bad, if not worse.

They then go on to make decisions about other cultures with other religions that they know absolutely nothing about. His goal isn't so much Biblical literacy, it's religious literacy in general.

gees, speaking of poor oversight (the other thread); never ceases to amaze me that guy got his PhD in the dept. (molecular and cell bio) right next to mine (zoology) while I was there. Evidently, everyobody there except my clueless self (what's a Mooney?) knew what he was on about at the time.

— Sir_Toejam

The faculty I know who are really committed to evolution education, like Kevin Padian and Roy Caldwell, are mostly in the integrative bio department. MCB may just not have any watchdogs.

loudly creationist students and local pressure groups are so rare

I have a degree in biblical studies from a conservative Christian college. I planned to go to seminary and become an Evangelical pastor. I am now a thoroughgoing atheist, and thinking about how to teach the Bible "as literature" (which it certainly is--important literature), I just don't see how it could be done. It would be like teaching "inkblot appreciation." And I'm not talking about debunking the Bible or promoting beliefs from the Bible. I'm talking about identifying simple things like who wrote what, when. And what was the author's real intent. And is a given passage history or poetry (the Creation accounts cry out for that sort of distinction). I suppose this is a case where a person really could "teach the controversy," because a liberal author like Bishop John Shelby Spong, or a skeptical scholar like Bart Ehrman, are going to see in the Bible something very different from what a conservative R.C. Sproul sees in it. It's a huge continuum, and the various interpretations cannot be reconciled. Apart from just handing students a Bible (which translation, by the way? some Christians literally think that only the original King James Version is an "inspired" translation, and the Catholic Bible has books not contained in a Protestant Bible, just to add controversy to controversy)and saying, "Read this and tell me how it strikes you," it's hard to imagine what one could actually teach about the Bible. Any attempt to use the best modern biblical scholarship would be seen as an effort to undermine faith. Frankly, I'm cool with that, but I don't see how that would fly.

I took a "Bible as Literature" course in high school. I enjoyed this course immensely. Now, at the time I was already a committed atheist; it was with trepidation that I signed up for the elective. However, the teacher made it clear on the first day that he was not teaching religion. He was teaching about biblical stories because of the profound influence the Bible has had on Western literature.

I admit that this class worked precisely because we had an excellent teacher. The class was actually funny. I still recall with amusement the "blind pervert" impression the teacher did when we discussed the story of Sodom. "Where are the men? Where are the men!" He shouted with his eyes closed and his hands out, grasping. I rather suspect that quite a few religious students had to rethink their beliefs after the revealing look at some of the downright silly things the Bible says.

Matt believes that religion and science are overlapping magisteria.

Yes.

He is fearful that if a person injects a religious opinion into a Biblical Literature class, that this will somehow have a detrimental effect on science class.

No.

Then why did you invoke overlapping magisteria?

I took a Bible as Literature course in high school. I enjoyed this course immensely.

Thank you because biblical illiteracy is a civic problem with political consequences. Now you can participate in biblically inflected debates.

I rather suspect that quite a few religious students had to rethink their beliefs after the revealing look at some of the downright silly things the Bible says.

Wow, I just read the Sodom story and it says the entire populace of the city, young and old, surrounded the house asking "Where are the men, blah blah blah..." Yes, quite a few religious students would rethink their beliefs after reading silly things like that.

I'm talking about identifying simple things like who wrote what, when. And what was the author's real intent. And is a given passage history or poetry (the Creation accounts cry out for that sort of distinction).

Because Americans lack biblical literacy, they are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim, often incorrectly, that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality, so I don't really see how that would be a problem.

Bishop John Shelby Spong, or a skeptical scholar like Bart Ehrman, are going to see in the Bible something very different from what a conservative R.C. Sproul sees in it. It's a huge continuum, and the various interpretations cannot be reconciled.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. Don't you want to participate in biblically inflected debates? Why do you hate biblically inflected debates?

Oh, he means "Biblical idiots" in the sense that not enough people know their Bibles. (roll eyes)

Why do you hate the Bible? You are instigating a civic problem with political consequences! Please, let us all have a biblically inflected debate. It's good for the American people!

My high school biology teacher didn't teach evolution, this was 1992 in Ohio. I don't know if this was an administrative policy, if she was a creationists, or if she had gotten tired of complaining fundie retards over her 78 or so years.

I no more "invoked" nonoverlapping magisteria than I invoked Hamlet. I did not in any way relate teaching the Bible to teaching science in general or biology in particular.

"Whereas I agree with Professor Prothero in principle, I wonder if he is not making the same mistake as those who believe in nonoverlapping magisteria: despite what we think, they overlap. I am afraid, therefore, that the headwriter at the Daily Camera may have got it right: Reading, Writing, and Revelation. Revelation, unfortunately, is exactly what we do not need in the public schools."

I agree with Professor Prothero in principle

I wonder if he is not making the same mistake as those who believe in nonoverlapping magisteria

despite what we think, they overlap.

I am afraid, therefore, that the headwriter at the Daily Camera may have got it right: Reading, Writing, and Revelation. Revelation, unfortunately, is exactly what we do not need in the public schools

Once again, chunkdz, you are ignoring the central points made in this thread, and pretending we're saying something else entirely, as I already pointed out in Comment #166113 above. You're still a liar and a coward, and there' still no point in arguing with someone who won't respond to what we're saying.

You're not fooling anyone.

Once again, we have the Sodomite Darwinists going beserk upon hearing the suggestion that religions other than their own have a place in their taxpayer-supported propaganda centers. All Christians want is one class period a day to promote the ideas of prophets like Daniel, Eziekiel, and Isaiah. Evolutionists would still have the rest to promote their prophets Marx, Freud, Darwin.

Once again, we have the Sodomite Darwinists going beserk upon hearing the suggestion that religions other than their own have a place in their taxpayer-supported propaganda centers. All Christians want is one class period a day to promote the ideas of prophets like Daniel, Eziekiel, and Isaiah. Evolutionists would still have the rest to promote their prophets Marx, Freud, Darwin.

Once again, chunkdz, you are ignoring the central points made in this thread, and pretending we're saying something else entirely...

You're still a liar and a coward, and there' still no point in arguing with someone who won't respond to what we're saying.

Perhaps you could explain yourself clearly and concisely. It certainly reads as though you don't have a clue but just enjoy having a rant. I hope it made you feel better.

Hmm, it took me all of 2 minutes to find a link that reported the results of the OECD/PISA study that looked at scientific literacy across 31 nations.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002115
Chapter 3: Mathematics and Science Literacy

USA #1? Hardly, try #14, even worse in math.

Like there was any doubt that chunkdz was a liar and a troll? Where's your study extolling the scientific literacy of the American student, chunkdz? All in you head? I though so.

My goodness. What a lot of silliness, and after J.G Cox (a vox clamantis in deserto) was helpful enough back on Tuesday (in #166046) to post a link to a report on the teaching of Bible classes in Texas. Anyone who has read the report will know that it provides plenty of solid reasons to be wary of the value of Bible classes for cultural literacy. Anyone who hasn't read it should shut the *uc* up until they have (goes double for those arguing there's nothing to worry about).

Here's a bit from the executive summary:

"Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in teaching Bible courses in public schools, especially in Texas. If presented within guidelines established by the courts to protect religious freedom, such courses can be an excellent and desirable way to help students understand the unique importance of the Bible in history and literature.

As this new report from the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund shows, however, teaching the Bible in Texas public schools is currently fraught with problems. Reading, Writing and Religion: Teaching the Bible in Texas Public Schools reveals that, with a few notable exceptions, the public school courses currently taught in Texas often fail to meet minimal academic standards for teacher qualifications, curriculum, and academic rigor; promote one faith perspective over all others; and push an ideological agenda that is hostile to religious freedom, science and public education itself."

The faculty I know who are really committed to evolution education, like Kevin Padian and Roy Caldwell, are mostly in the integrative bio department. MCB may just not have any watchdogs.

— Sir_Toejam

heh, Roy was one of my advisors.

I do know that at least several MCB students were getting their degrees by being little more than slaves for the profs there (Wells' thesis work looks pretty much like that's how he muddled through).

it was a long time ago ('91), but I still wonder about Wells from time to time. In fact, you might call Wells the very first real-and-true creationist I ever met - I doubt George ever would have bothered to explain to me what damage these idiots cause if he wasn't around, so in a strange way, one could say Wells contributed to my own education.

well, loudly creationist, maybe, but we certainly had enough local pressure groups to go around, especially the animal rights folks.

got a funny story relating to that, if you're interested.

It seems to me that chunkdz is trying to say that science education isn't related to a literature class, so scientists (and those who seek to prevent it's watering down to protect religious interests) don't have the right to be concerned that a bible class may turn into an opportunity for a religious teacher to proselytize to a captive audience.

Sadly, he doesn't seem to realize that most of the arguments are only drawing parallels to how many Christian groups act when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution in schools. How much more of a fuss will they make when it comes to how schools teach directly about their holy book? Many are going to fight very hard to make sure that children are learning their narrow view of how to interpret scripture.

Hmm, it took me all of 2 minutes to find a link that reported the results of the OECD/PISA study that looked at scientific literacy across 31 nations.

Like there was any doubt that chunkdz was a liar and a troll? Where's your study extolling the scientific literacy of the American student, chunkdz? All in you head? I though so.

It seems to me that chunkdz is trying to say that science education isn't related to a literature class, so scientists (and those who seek to prevent it's watering down to protect religious interests) don't have the right to be concerned that a bible class may turn into an opportunity for a religious teacher to proselytize to a captive audience.

Whereas I agree with Professor Prothero in principle, I wonder if he is not making the same mistake as those who believe in nonoverlapping magisteria: despite what we think, they overlap.

It seems to me that chunkdz is trying to say that science education isn't related to a literature class, so scientists (and those who seek to prevent it's watering down to protect religious interests) don't have the right to be concerned that a bible class may turn into an opportunity for a religious teacher to proselytize to a captive audience.

Sadly, he doesn't seem to realize that most of the arguments are only drawing parallels to how many Christian groups act when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution in schools. How much more of a fuss will they make when it comes to how schools teach directly about their holy book? Many are going to fight very hard to make sure that children are learning their narrow view of how to interpret scripture.

"OTOH, I agree with chunkdz that this isn't about science education and seems out of place at PT (but I don't agree with him on his comments about teaching "literature", as that is not what Prothero is proposing)." - popper's ghost

"Professor Prothero argues in favor of teaching the Bible as literature and the Bible in history." - Matt

"By Bible classes I do not mean classes in which teachers tell students that Jesus loves them or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but academic courses that study the Bible's characters and stories as well as the afterlife of the Bible in literature and history." - Prothero

"...but he (chunkdz)seems to be having a lot of trouble understanding the reason for the concern --- largely a consequence, I think, of his referring to the bible as "ancient literature" as if that were all it is." - Popper's ghost

The only thing I'm having trouble understanding is why Matt finds this to be a threat to science education. Matt has not connected the dots on this, and I'm starting to presume that it is because his assertion is merely impotent fear mongering.

Another thing you have trouble understanding -- or aren't honest enough to admit -- is that the dots have indeed been connected: legitimate concerns have been raised about the possible use of a "Bible class" as a platform for religious indoctrination. And if that indoctrination includes a fundie "Bible-teacher" saying "The Bible says God made the Earth in six days, so don't believe any of that science stuff you'll hear next door" -- as many fundie activists have indeed said -- then there WILL be a threat to science education, from "teachers" deliberately trying to steer kids away from science.

The fact that you keep on repeating the exact same point, despite all of the more-than-satisfactory responses you've got, proves your dishonesty.

PG wrote:

...NOMA hands the keys to religion and locks out non-religious views on morality, metaphysics, and other non-science issues.

This is utter nonsense. NOMA does not "lock" non-religous views of anything out of anywhere.

Another thing you have trouble understanding --- or aren't honest enough to admit --- is that the dots have indeed been connected: legitimate concerns have been raised about the possible use of a "Bible class" as a platform for religious indoctrination.

And if that indoctrination includes a fundie "Bible-teacher" saying "The Bible says God made the Earth in six days, so don't believe any of that science stuff you'll hear next door" --- as many fundie activists have indeed said --- then there WILL be a threat to science education, from "teachers" deliberately trying to steer kids away from science.

No, but cosmology and paleontology and geology and atomic physics certainly have something to say about the supposed six days, wouldn't you agree? Or are you a Last Thursdayist?

No, but cosmology and paleontology and geology and atomic physics certainly have something to say about the supposed six days, wouldn't you agree?

And what exactly does science have to say about how many days it took God to make the earth?

About eighteen billion years from the Big Bang to now, and about six billion for the Earth itself. Which, in case you haven't noticed, is arou8sing a LOT of outright hostility form the (Selective) Biblical Literalist crowd. Not merely disagreement, but hostility, dishonest attacks, and sometimes threats of violence.

Science makes no claim for or against God.

That's not good enough for the theocons, who want "science" to agree with everything they say.

Is your hypothetical student going to drop out of science class in protest?

If his parents, his minister, a gaggle of belligerent religious activists, and a Bible "teacher" within the school organize to allow this -- as I've heard has happened in some places -- yes. The Bible-class is not indospensible for this, of course, but it would help, if led by the "right" kind of Christian teacher.

Is the student going to bring his bible to science class and substitute it as his text book?

Do you even CARE what's been happening lately? If you did, you would know that some very determined and dishonest activists have pressed for laws, policies, and lawsuits to effectively do just that: teach the Bible as "science."

Is the science teacher suddenly going to change his mind and teach creation science?

Many science teachers have been pressured to do just that. Some give in, some stand up to the pressure, some quit.

Will the student write "GODDIDIT" on all of his essay questions?

Yes, if some right-wing activists have their way. And a "Bible class" led by such an activist could give them yet another opportunity to press their narrow sectarian platform.

And what exactly does science have to say about how many days it took God to make the earth? "About eighteen billion years from the Big Bang to now, and about six billion for the Earth itself. Which, in case you haven't noticed, is arou8sing a LOT of outright hostility form the (Selective) Biblical Literalist crowd. Not merely disagreement, but hostility, dishonest attacks, and sometimes threats of violence."

Science makes no claim for or against God. "That's not good enough for the theocons, who want "science" to agree with everything they say."

Is your hypothetical student going to drop out of science class in protest? If his parents, his minister, a gaggle of belligerent religious activists, and a Bible "teacher" within the school organize to allow this --- as I've heard has happened in some places --- yes. The Bible-class is not indospensible for this, of course, but it would help, if led by the "right" kind of Christian teacher.

Is the student going to bring his bible to science class and substitute it as his text book? "Do you even CARE what's been happening lately? If you did, you would know that some very determined and dishonest activists have pressed for laws, policies, and lawsuits to effectively do just that: teach the Bible as "science.""

Is the science teacher suddenly going to change his mind and teach creation science? "Many science teachers have been pressured to do just that. Some give in, some stand up to the pressure, some quit."

Will the student write "GODDIDIT" on all of his essay questions? Yes, if some right-wing activists have their way. And a "Bible class" led by such an activist could give them yet another opportunity to press their narrow sectarian platform.

Once again, we have the Sodomite Darwinists ...

— Pumpkinhead

It may be irrelevant what anyone thinks as this Time article says that many hundreds of schools (perhaps a few thousand within a year or two) are already doing this.
Prothero is featured.

Paul

Where's your evidence that fundie lit teachers threaten science?

If you actually read what's in this blog -- and has been in it for years -- you would not have to ask for evidence of fundie activists threatening honest science or science-education. Would you like me to repost all 100,000+ comments here on this thread to make them easier for you to read?

As for lit teachers specifically, if the creationists can insert a teacher -- in any class -- who then uses the class to bash evolution, then (in addition to threatening the kids with the usual fire-and-brimstone rhetoric) the "cdesign proponentsists'" PR machine could spin that as: "Look, not all teachers support evolution -- there's a raging controversy, and we should teach the controversy!"

Sounds like good old fear mongering to me.

Yeah, I'm sure the people who blame "Darwinism" for eugenics and the Holocaust -- and made death-threats against some of the plaintiffs in the Dover trial -- can tell us a LOT about "good old fear mongering."

Even among one-track creationist trolls, chunkdz, you're monotonous and boring. It must really suck to be you.

"Where's your evidence that fundie lit teachers threaten science?" - chunkdz

"If you actually read what's in this blog --- and has been in it for years --- you would not have to ask for evidence of fundie activists threatening honest science or science-education. Would you like me to repost all 100,000+ comments here on this thread to make them easier for you to read?" - raging bee

As for lit teachers specifically, if the creationists can insert a teacher --- in any class --- who then uses the class to bash evolution, then (in addition to threatening the kids with the usual fire-and-brimstone rhetoric) the "cdesign proponentsists'" PR machine could spin that as: "Look, not all teachers support evolution --- there's a raging controversy, and we should teach the controversy!"

Sounds like good old fear mongering to me. "Yeah, I'm sure the people who blame "Darwinism" for eugenics and the Holocaust --- and made death-threats against some of the plaintiffs in the Dover trial --- can tell us a LOT about "good old fear mongering.""

Even among one-track creationist trolls, chunkdz, you're monotonous and boring. It must really suck to be you.

Chundz:
The concern is with fundamentalist evangelists and their dishonest PR machine.

Some people have a problem with Christianity in general, personally I think there's good and bad in it like any other creed, but the specific concern here is the Liars For Jesus, anti-knowledge camp.

If you don't believe that there is such a thing, and that they have their sights set on elementary schools where you live, you haven't been paying attention.

Are you advocating screening out Christians from teaching positions? Or are you content with simply eliminating bible lit class?

Does anything I've written really make you think I support either position? Or are you just making up assertions and connections out of thin air?

If, as you say, this threat can occur in any classroom, then truly no classroom is safe from the dangers of Christianity.

IS that what I say? Or are you drawing a bogus conclusion from a false premise?

Please clarify your position.

Why should I clarify anything for the "benefit" of someone who is so clearly determined to misrepresent what I say and fog everything up again?

That was hurtful.

Tough shit, Skippy -- if you insist on spewing idiotic and dishonest statements, and misrepresenting what we say, then you're going to get called on it. If you don't like our reaction, change your action.

PS: chunkdz, if what I said was "hurtful," it's probably because, deep down at some level of your conscience, you know my "hurtful" statement was the truth, and can't bring yourself either to admit it or to change your act.