jon_12091 wrote:Made of Stars wrote:But the YECs are right in one thing: An old earth, with evolved life, brings the whole thing down, and so creationism is intertwined with and fundamental to Christianity's narrative.
Ahh' the adoption of the most suspect position of those you are ideologically opposed to as a means of attacking them.
You're familiar with the likes of AiG, right? There's nothing unusual in YECs thinking that an old earth and evolution threatens the entire Christian narrative. If you're in any doubt, or haven't looked for yourself, check out Sections 2 and 3 here. Not so much a 'suspect' as a 'core' position for the avid creationist, dontchathink?
jon_12091 wrote:Given your insistence on picking an interpretation of the Bible that has little historical or theological basis I suspect you might be happier here.
I'm sorry? A literal interpretation of the Bible has 'little historical or theological basis'? Perhaps we're talking across each other here... I have to hope so... You might be happy with a 'nonliteral' interpretation of the Bible, but who are you then to say what is allegory and what is not?
jon_12091 wrote:Quite frankly as far as being a 'stakeholder' in UK science education you're on a par with Byers and I suggest you might want to look up "pluralism" as well.
Nice. I've been on this forum less than ten posts and had remarks like this made on two occasions already. Classy.
I may not be in the UK, granted, but I have kids in primary schools where the local Anglicans think they've a divine right to dictate morality, amongst other things. My point is that these people are trying to inject more than cute creation and flood stories into the curriculum, and taking the position that 'we're just interested in keeping creationism out' is somewhat blinkered, if not frankly naive.
It's somewhat cute, yet disturbing, that people have headed off down rabbit holes about homosexuality/homophobia because I make a point that these guys can inject religion into a myriad of topics on which children deserve rational, evidence-based discourse from adults without a religious barrow.
As to pluralism, how far does your pluralism extend? Are you prepared to 'teach the controversy'? A cold hard reality is that some things are right, and some things are wrong. Evolutionary biology is right, creationism is wrong. What would your 'pluralistic' approach be here? Lay the comfortable lies out with the hard truths and let the little darlings choose for themselves?
jon_12091 wrote:Out of curiosity do you believe that 'God' is scientifically testable?
Define 'God', then we can chat. If said God has any interaction with the physical realm, then those interactions are testable. If not, then said God is irrelevant, if it exists at all. What's your view? Are you a happy deist?
At risk of sending someone off down a rabbit hole here, but do you think that homosexuality is 'scientifically testable', as you put it? What does science suggest should be taught in schools about homosexuality? Or is a rational, evidence-based position on this topic not important for kids to hear? Should they just get street smut, or pious pronouncements from the pulpit?
But back to the topic.
I visited this site on the understanding that it was a discussion board for a Centre for Science Education, perhaps one with some academic standing, or association with formal educational bodies. One that might be prepared to make evidence-based position statements on a range of topics in school curricula.