Evolution question.

[Quahom1]

...Thanks, Tao.

I would have to agree, creationism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of evolutionary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the evolution of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Then censurship is an acceptable paradigm? I mean, after all, the scientifically educated are of the mind that theirs is the correct way, and all other thought is "pagan"? Therefore the errant ignorant thinking must be erradicated?

My word! Just substitute a few words in the above paragraph and what do we have? Let's find out:

I would have to agree, evolutionism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of creationary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the creation of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Sounds eerily familiar...and just as scary...

one more point: "...all of this needs to be "taught" as "fact"."

Says who?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks, Tao.

You are welcome but that was only my synopsis, others may see it differently.


It has been a long time since I have had a post of yours to respond to Andrew. You have a unique approach, and to my mind set of beliefs, that I have always enjoyed. As I am not as active on your favourite topics this rare treat is welcomed.

But I think the conclusions must be left open-ended. And a good teacher knows how to stimulate his students interest, draw out (educare) their innate curiosty and desire to learn, and lead them only toward the search that they must make their own -- and not toward pre-packaged, rote conclusions which substitute for, or negate any real future possibility of say, a proper cosmology or metaphysics, a cosmogensis, an anthropogenesis, or even a theogenesis.

POO went into this eloquently toward the beginning of the thread. I of course concur that a good educator is creating the environment and providing the tools for the pupils self discovery. Far from all see it that way tho. And too often the very best teachers are hampered at every turn by legislative limitations and rigid educational goals. Each of us has had their own unique experience of the education system. And each of us will value it differently. Personally in my education experience about 10% of my teachers cared about their job at all and less than half of them were actually inspirational. I recognise different pupils find different teachers inspirational or even motivated so such a summary statement is not the true picture of teachers ability overall.

Religion, where it intersects with education, should be taught in a college course, either by the religious studies department, or in the philosophy department ... or by a divinity school.

Yes, when the person is old enough to make that as a choice.

World mythologies, on the other hand, both East, West, modern and ancient ... including at least some fragments from as many diverse cultures as possible, ought to be required reading from even as early an age as kindergarten. An entire program of arts & humanities is sorely lacking in the educational system that I remember, and even in the current textbooks what we have is an extremely biased, or at least cursory presentation ... which hardly encourages students to look beyond their own Sunday School lessons, or Buddhist sutras, Koran verses, Torah, etc.

I could go with this for kids over 12 so long as it was 100% unbiased and revealed the many wrongs religion can be held accountable for. I do not think children incapable of thinking deeply far younger, quite the opposite, but as religion throws up such contentious questions that have such wide ramifications a child ought to be able to do a bit of independent learning before approaching such complexity. You might even find if this was enacted that you would have far more people that find true meaning in their religion rather than having been bored into submission as a child and never really understanding, questioning and questing for it for themselves. And it seems to me that any religion that feels obliged to indoctrinate its children into it has very little faith in itself. The "we have a duty to save our children" argument is weak. Children are children and they should be allowed to be children. Starting that facet of education at 12, unbiased and comprehensively looking at all and all aspects of religions, is what we are owe our children. A pre 12 might have some very cute, ingenious and even inspirational things to say about the concept, but they do not possess the experience to make overall value judgements. So I say let them be.

The `either-or' problem is a dead end, however, and I would hope that we'd all be able to see that at this point. Personally, I groan when I hear the term Intelligent Design ... because I happen to believe this phrase beautifully captures the exact point which spiritually-minded (and religiously-minded) people have been trying to make for decades!

I agree the term "Intelligent Design" has been hijacked by a group that does not deserve to use it and that it belongs throughout the gamut of spiritual experience to describe those that have bothered looking and have arrived at that conclusion. I never use the phrase, I always use creationists as I believe to use it is playing into their hands. It is no accident that the phrase is misapplied when you consider creationists employ advertising and PR execs.

Yes, we would all do well to have a look once again, from start to finish, at Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, Harry Morgan and the gang in Inherit the Wind ... if we haven't watched it recently. It is a beautiful testament to the triumph of Truth in our modern world, over superstition, fear, suppression and hate. Many more such triumphs have been won in the name of science ... but I'm afraid the cold, dead fingers of the spectres of 18th and 19th century materialism still haunt our modern mind all too pervasively.

A rather sideways response to this but one that stays firmly linked with education......

Education is all the difference in the world. I am one of those, like most people who would even bother to post on a forum site like this, who has not let their education stop at the formalised variety. We are all here seeking a path through and sharing our thoughts. Diverse as they are. Thoughts are rarely huge edifices carved in Grampian granite but neither are they vacuous strands of gossamer. But the swing toward either extreme is generated by individual circumstance and is informed by our education. Knowing your individual circumstance in a comprehensive self-honest way is not easy and, I think, very rarely even attempted. Religions like Buddhism that are heavy on the introversion then often attach a cartload of baggage, ( obligatory text and ritual), and whilst they can in some cases aid a person to as full a perception of their reality as any of us achieves, they are still largely baggage for the majority of seekers. In my experience wisdom is never complete and so neither should be our education. Too often the adoption of religion means an end to education.

Anyone who takes a little time to investigate -- and this already includes a good number of modern and 20th Century scientists -- cannot but be amazed and impressed, even intrigued, captivated by the extensive astronomical (and astrological) knowledge of the ancient Hindus. A similar knowledge can be demonstrated as being in the possession of dozens of other civilizations or cultures, from the Egyptian, Roman and Greek, to the Babylonian, Chaldean, Azetec, Mayan, Dogon, Nordic, Icelandic and so forth. Only now, in the past few decades of astronomical observation and progress in the various branches of physics, are some of our "cutting edge" discoveries finally catching up with what the ancients knew tens (if not possibly hundred) of thousands of years ago.

I know this touches on some of your more unusual beliefs that I personally find fantastical. None the less from what I have read and find interesting is a body of evidence to support very early intellectual civilisations. I would say we have a bit of a Victorian mindset about man suddenly becoming little more than a stupid cave dweller just before agriculture took hold in Mesopotamia. They had stars to look at back then. Not drowned out by the glare of city lights. The stars were very much more a part of everybody's daily life and we can only expect there to be a rich and diverse body of thought on them and what/how they are. So much so that you could expect every idea we see.

Now ... if modern science, which is revered as gospel and hailed as the new religion by its adherents worldwide, but nowhere so unabashedly as in the west ... if science, could only be understood in the same light as religion, as art, as economics, politics and philosophy -- we might finally be able to get somewhere in our thinking.

I disagree on two fronts. First, with the exception of very few vocal exceptions, I have yet to meet someone who embraces science as a way at answering questions that calls science their religion. I know what science is, I know what religion is and I know they are not the same thing. What science is is, to quote you,
" Science is a method, and not primarily a body of knowledge, or facts."
Second... as "method" or, as I prefer, tool...science is open to every facet of human questing. It should stand alone and independent and that is how I view it and why I refute it can be called a religion. To me religion is a metaphysical philosophy. Science an observational reality philosophy. Religion is not a science and science is not a religion. Religion can use science, however corruptly, and science can describe religion, sometimes scathingly. There are interfaces but they are not the same.

But what does science have to say at this point about additional senses as fully legitimate means of information-gathering ... or with regard to the Intuition as a faculty of consciousness altogether different than, and superior to the Intellect?

Not a lot but there is some research done and very little of it has shown much evidence. Some slight effects have been found but nothing startling. It is hard to get funding for serious studies into this area and so maybe there are realisations to be made, we maybe even be on the verge of opening a new sensory family, but it has not happened yet and so must await its time, if ever.

But that needs to be kept close in check with our greatest understanding of a Divine Plan for Humanity, for other species and for the planet as a whole, inasmuch as we may have thus far discovered -- and understood one.

With the exception of a belief in a Gaia type theory of super organism, in which man is utterly expendable, I see absolutely no evidence anywhere for such a "plan". Where is the evidence?

Some might want to simply toss this bone to the religious-minded, or to the "speculations of philosophers," as we like to say, but this is the kind of buck-passing which the scientist should not be permitted. Science, just as politics, economics and religion, has a responsibility to the greater whole ... and sometimes the hard questions must be addressed head-on. We cannot let vital questions about human origins be kicked back and forth like a soccer ball, each team apparently oblivious to the fact that that little orb actually veils (quite innocently, but necessarily) all the answers to the debate at hand -- plus the potential realization that that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Again I say science is a tool. It does not 'pass the buck'. The four methods of human speculation are Philosophy, Religion, Science and the Arts. Each are tools by which we can study the human condition and our greater environment. There can be many interfaces between them and I have never knowingly seen them all perfectly balanced, there is always a weighting in some direction. To say that something is true it has to have empirical, repeatable proof. It has to have science prove it. Religions try to cop out of it in various ways, but until science proves that there is some real evidence for "Diving Planning", it is only philosophy. And, crucially, should be regarded as such.

The absurdity of what we have heard does make you want to roll your eyes, on the one hand, but what about the indignation which the person of faith (be that Christian, Muslim, Pagan or non-specified) must suffer when the die-hard skeptic, the materialist and reductivist steps into the arena?

With a few choice words, the reverential atmosphere, the very aura of both mystery and knowing, familiarity and awe seems to vanish, parodied and rendered superfluous, childish and absurd, by the oh-so-superior and supposedly obvious conclusions of our senses, and "rational mind."

-- There is no invisible man in the sky, there are no magical winged creatures flitting about doing good deeds as bells ring, and surely when we look at the enormity of it all, the sheer complexity of what nature has produced, and reconcile the many successes with the equally staggering number and variety of failures ... clearly there is no room to entertain an unsupported & undefensible blind faiith in a method to all the madness?

The last, desperate cry of the materialist being the most ironic, as he himself knows, deep down, that he cannot fail to see the ever-present pattern, and Order behind all of nature, anywhere and everywhere he might happen to look!

lol, you mean me dont you!! Right up to the last paragraph it is very me. For the last paragraph I would respond that the human brain is wired to measure its observations by creating patterns. That does not infer a great big pattern maker in the sky.

We are like the residents of the Cave, doin' fine watchin' shadows on the wall ... and the lunatic raving about the Sunlight is mad as a march hare. He's nothing new. They come and go, and disturb our ways ... but eventually they leave us in peace, and let us go on with -- hmmm

Reaching for the light?


tao

 

[Operacast]

I think there is a 10 thousand word maximum per post, so you would have to split into 4.

My suggestion would be to begin a new thread for something so lengthy. I have done that a time or two on CR. By no means do I make this next suggestion as a way to shoo you away, but I think you may have the best opportunity to catch Bananabrain's attention by posting on the Judaism board. If I were you, that is what I would do; split my OP into 4 parts (less than 10 thousand words each) and start a new thread on the Judaism board to get BB's attention.

Best of luck whatever you decide. And please feel free to continue here as well.

Thanks. I took your advice and queried bananabrain as a separate thread on the Judaism board. The thread is at

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/query-to-bananabrain-9420.html

Best to all,

Operacast

 

[juantoo3]

Then censurship is an acceptable paradigm? I mean, after all, the scientifically educated are of the mind that theirs is the correct way, and all other thought is "pagan"? Therefore the errant ignorant thinking must be erradicated?

My word! Just substitute a few words in the above paragraph and what do we have? Let's find out:

I would have to agree, evolutionism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of creationary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the creation of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Sounds eerily familiar...and just as scary...

one more point: "...all of this needs to be "taught" as "fact"."

Says who?

Ah! Someone does understand.

It's kinda hard to take someone seriously who is guilty of the same crime "he" is accusing others of...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't mind if creationism is taught in religion classes, I just don't want it taught as science on the taxpayers dime. I certainly don't mind if Comparative Religion, or World Religions, or Western (eastern, northern southern...) Religion is taught as an elective provided there is a budget for that and it doesn't take resources away from core liberal arts. I'm not so naive that I don't know what religionists actually want, though. They want the government, if not actively indoctrinating our kids, at least introducing them to religion oriented foundational mythology. That way religion always sets the flavor of nationalism.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

I am sorry you do not see the religious indoctrination of children as an issue worthy of some debate.

I am sorry you feel it is your concern how another parent chooses to raise their child. Nosey nellies ruin families. Who are you to tell a Buddhist mother she has no right to teach Buddism to her child? Who are you to tell a Hindu mother she has no right to teach Hinduism to her child? Who are you to tell a Jewish mother she has no right to teach Judaism to her child? Who are you to tell a Christian mother she has no right to teach Christianity to her child?

But at least you have come out and admitted yourself to be a creationist.

In the sense of G-d standing behind it all as the first cause, I will not deny.

But the caricature you paint based on the stereotype you promote, nah. Not even close.

What I write on these threads is my opinion and you are under no duress or compulsion to agree with one word of it.

If what you wrote were reversed back at you, you would call it "hate speech." That is why I disagree.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't mind if creationism is taught in religion classes, I just don't want it taught as science on the taxpayers dime. I certainly don't mind if Comparative Religion, or World Religions, or Western (eastern, northern southern...) Religion is taught as an elective provided there is a budget for that and it doesn't take resources away from core liberal arts. I'm not so naive that I don't know what religionists actually want, though. They want the government, if not actively indoctrinating our kids, at least introducing them to religion oriented foundational mythology. That way religion always sets the flavor of nationalism.

Chris

Agreed on all points, Chris. That is where it becomes imperitive to reinforce the separation of church and state. Secular education will always be at odds with religious education...that can't be helped, it is the nature of the beasts.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I am sorry you feel it is your concern how another parent chooses to raise their child. Nosey nellies ruin families. Who are you to tell a Buddhist mother she has no right to teach Buddism to her child? Who are you to tell a Hindu mother she has no right to teach Hinduism to her child? Who are you to tell a Jewish mother she has no right to teach Judaism to her child? Who are you to tell a Christian mother she has no right to teach Christianity to her child?

I have said that I would like to see those that use deliberate falsification of science, to promote their dogma as fact in our schools, should be prosecuted. If you had a group of paedophiles promoting that every age had its 'innate sexuality' or sexual curiosity was to be encouraged among young children and that it was ok for adults to give them that experience how would you react? They are both groups playing with childrens minds.
What a parent chooses to do I have no real say over. And I do not promote compulsion but an atmosphere where holding of on the religious stuff till the child can fully 'get it' for themselves is seen as the right thing to do. Like i say are the beliefs of the parents so shallow and insecure that they need to indoctrinate their children before they can evaluate it for themselves?

If what you wrote were reversed back at you, you would call it "hate speech." That is why I disagree.

Would I? I am so happy I have you to interpret my thoughts for me And so very Christian of you to deliberately misrepresent my words as something they are not. I have been trying to support a point of view here that has nothing to do with "hate". I believe religious indoctrination of children is very often harmful and on several fronts. Biggest amongst them is that it stunts or even kills the desire toward searching for answers on their own. That the churches deliberately encourage and facilitate a structured indoctrination plan, hijacking the trust the child has in its mother and father, is to me shameful. And I would like the churches themselves to see that and to encourage their flock to just let their children be children. The only prosecution I advocate is to those that truly do promote hate. The racist, supremacist, creationists that deliberately lie and cheat their way into your children's education. I would call that very specific and the opposite of hateful, protecting our children from such people it seems to me is the opposite of hate. But maybe hate means something else to you.


tao

 

[juantoo3]

I have said that I would like to see those that use deliberate falsification of science, to promote their dogma as fact in our schools, should be prosecuted. If you had a group of paedophiles promoting that every age had its 'innate sexuality' or sexual curiosity was to be encouraged among young children and that it was ok for adults to give them that experience how would you react? They are both groups playing with childrens minds.

Elsewhere I got royally lambasted for invoking paedophiles to support my POV, but here it's OK? This is exactly the kind of double standard I am talking about. Granted that was not by you, but I do still feel that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If I am not allowed, neither are you.

What a parent chooses to do I have no real say over. And I do not promote compulsion but an atmosphere where holding of on the religious stuff till the child can fully 'get it' for themselves is seen as the right thing to do. Like i say are the beliefs of the parents so shallow and insecure that they need to indoctrinate their children before they can evaluate it for themselves?

And if the parent chooses otherwise, you want them prosecuted? That contradicts.

Besides, most kids are gonna figure it out anyway, eventually. Haven't we? Most people just don't give a $hit about any of this. Church is a social club to chase next saturday night's date, religion is a myth they stop believing in like Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. But its all fun to lead the kids on while they're still gullible. I'm being a little sarcastic here, but this is essentially what I see play out as the norm all around me. There are so many cynical college age kids...the Catholic church is begging for new priests...I hear talk all the time from church goers who don't really believe, or at least seriously question. This illusion of some mindless collective unquestioningly following every command of the guy behind the pulpit is simply not the reality. There may be a few isolated places where you can point to make your case, but for every one you point to I can point to *at least* 5 that don't fit what you are saying.

Would I? I am so happy I have you to interpret my thoughts for me And so very Christian of you to deliberately misrepresent my words as something they are not.

Just returning the favor. You showed how you wanted to be done unto, I am only obliging you.

I have been trying to support a point of view here that has nothing to do with "hate".

Of course you would say that, your words are not directed to yourself. But you admit to the vitriol towards those you....hate, because they disagree with you.

I believe religious indoctrination of children is very often harmful and on several fronts. Biggest amongst them is that it stunts or even kills the desire toward searching for answers on their own. That the churches deliberately encourage and facilitate a structured indoctrination plan, hijacking the trust the child has in its mother and father, is to me shameful. And I would like the churches themselves to see that and to encourage their flock to just let their children be children. The only prosecution I advocate is to those that truly do promote hate. The racist, supremacist, creationists that deliberately lie and cheat their way into your children's education. I would call that very specific and the opposite of hateful, protecting our children from such people it seems to me is the opposite of hate. But maybe hate means something else to you.

Hating haters is still hate. Justifying your hatred doesn't change what it is.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Elsewhere I got royally lambasted for invoking paedophiles to support my POV, but here it's OK? This is exactly the kind of double standard I am talking about. Granted that was not by you, but I do still feel that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If I am not allowed, neither are you.

It is not who. Substitute the rap artists who glorify guns, knives, drugs and oppression of the female. You want their lyrics taught to your 3 year old?

And if the parent chooses otherwise, you want them prosecuted? That contradicts.

No I bloody well do not. If you cannot be bothered to read what I wrote then please do not try to misrepresent it with your posed and answered words in my mouth.

Besides, most kids are gonna figure it out anyway, eventually. Haven't we? Most people just don't give a $hit about any of this. Church is a social club to chase next saturday night's date, religion is a myth they stop believing in like Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. But its all fun to lead the kids on while they're still gullible. I'm being a little sarcastic here, but this is essentially what I see play out as the norm all around me. There are so many cynical college age kids...the Catholic church is begging for new priests...I hear talk all the time from church goers who don't really believe, or at least seriously question. This illusion of some mindless collective unquestioningly following every command of the guy behind the pulpit is simply not the reality. There may be a few isolated places where you can point to make your case, but for every one you point to I can point to *at least* 5 that don't fit what you are saying.

I am not aloud to address concern about a vocal minority?

Just returning the favor. You showed how you wanted to be done unto, I am only obliging you.

Give it back! Thats my precious. How sad.

Of course you would say that, your words are not directed to yourself. But you admit to the vitriol towards those you....hate, because they disagree with you.

Again "hate" is your insertion here not mine.

Hating haters is still hate. Justifying your hatred doesn't change what it is.

Why is it so important for you to class me as a hateful person? I never say we should hate them, I said we should prosecute them for fraud. And prevent them teaching in any school again. You and you alone introduce hate into that. And I certainly question why you choose to do so.


tao

 

[Dogbrain]

It is not the proper place of government to dictate religion to families--EVEN IF THAT RELIGION IS ATHEISM.

 

[wil]

It is not the proper place of government to dictate religion to families--EVEN IF THAT RELIGION IS ATHEISM.

um...er...that would depend on which gov't one lived in/under.

Governments do this all the time. One of the reasons folks fled to the Americas, one of the reasons for the revolution in the US. But that is the US belief in Gov't, congress shall pass no laws.

Teaching Evolution however is not teaching a religion its premise may oppose other religious creation stories, but it is teaching science, not atheism.

 

[Dogbrain]

um...er...that would depend on which gov't one lived in/under.

Governments can be illegitimate and improper, even when they still cling to power.

Governments do this all the time.

That does not make it proper.

Teaching Evolution however is not teaching a religion

Specifically quote where I wrote it was. I was responding to the fascist who wants the state to destroy families for daring to teach their children religious ideas.

 

[wil]

Namaste Dogbrain,

My statement regarding teaching evolution was a general one, not specifically pointed at you.

There may be good Gov'ts and bad Gov'ts but these are subjective opinions, same as what is proper or improper.

In the US we thought Iraq and Afganistan were improper, we think China, North Korea, and Russia are improper. I say we, the governmental we, the collective we that thinks that way but that is not all the US. And at the same time many in those countries and Gov'ts think our gov't and that of our allies are improper.

Who is right depends on what side of this fence you are.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Specifically quote where I wrote it was. I was responding to the fascist who wants the state to destroy families for daring to teach their children religious ideas.

That can be interpreted as you trying to call me a fascist. So to leave no ambiguity, is that what you are doing?

tao

 

[Operacast]

Hating haters is still hate. Justifying your hatred doesn't change what it is.

I remember an ironic dark-humor joke that may apply to both of you equally -- and me even more, since I fall afoul of the same thing myself more often than anyone I know: The comedian Tom Lehrer once quipped --

"Now I know there are some people in this world who do not love some fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!";-)

Operacast

 

[wil]

I remember an ironic dark-humor joke that may apply to both of you equally -- and me even more, since I fall afoul of the same thing myself more often than anyone I know: The comedian Tom Lehrer once quipped --

"Now I know there are some people in this world who do not love some fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!";-)

Operacast

Yes I am intolerant of intolerant people, judge judgemental people and predjuced agains predjudiced people.

 

[Tao_Equus]

It is not the proper place of government to dictate religion to families--EVEN IF THAT RELIGION IS ATHEISM.

How fascist can you get!! Government should serve the people, all the people, not dictate to them.

tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

I remember an ironic dark-humor joke that may apply to both of you equally -- and me even more, since I fall afoul of the same thing myself more often than anyone I know: The comedian Tom Lehrer once quipped --

"Now I know there are some people in this world who do not love some fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!";-)

Operacast

Yes I am intolerant of intolerant people, judge judgemental people and predjuced agains predjudiced people.

Interesting. I dont quite see it that way. At least not here. But how dare I raise the possibility of religions doing a disservice to our children!! As part of a debate!! Then I am a vile hate filled fascist. I get the picture. Loud and clear and it ain't me that is the hate filled fascist.


tao

 

[taijasi]

Then censurship is an acceptable paradigm? I mean, after all, the scientifically educated are of the mind that theirs is the correct way, and all other thought is "pagan"? Therefore the errant ignorant thinking must be erradicated?

My word! Just substitute a few words in the above paragraph and what do we have? Let's find out:

I would have to agree, evolutionism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of creationary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the creation of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Sounds eerily familiar...and just as scary...

one more point: "...all of this needs to be "taught" as "fact"."

Says who?

I see. Trade a few words around, sure, but I don't quite think you've accomplished what you were after.

Virtue should dictate the choices of the heart, as well as guide the mind along its way ... and even lead our actions.
Excessive vice should be avoided, as too much of this will weaken our character.
​

Now let us turn this around:

Vice should dictate the choices of the heart, as well as guide the mind along its way ... and even lead our actions.
Excessive virtue should be avoided, as too much of this will weaken our character.
​

How is this different? Only because the appeal is to something beyond your mental faculty. Our very Soul knows the difference between virtue and vice, even when there are times that we are in doubt, or confusion, or uncertainty. This is not the same as an argument about the method and nature of the process of evolution ... yet you are back to presenting the oversimplistic and distorted false dichotomy, Q.

But there was certainly an earth, rotating here (granted along a shifting axis, as the fact of precession indicates to us), many billions of years ago, and at one point enormous creatures, the dinosaurs of the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods, inhabited the planet as we do.

This fact is not up for dispute, or question. We may ask questions about when exactly such and such a species lived, or what a particular species ate, where it lived, and so forth. To suggest that our planet is objectively some 6,000 years old, and that all opinions or notions to the contrary are the lies of the devil ... is not rational, it is not correct and it is entirely inappropriate to present this kind of thing to real, live schoolchildren in 21st Century educational institutions.

I think what saddens me is that there are grown adults who feel it is not only their god-given right, but that it may also somehow be their obligation to teach their children such nonsense -- either via homeschooling, through other forms of home education, or even in Sunday School classes and Bible School.

Am I surprised that we are not all on the same page yet, as far as exactly what the symbolism is behind myths like the Garden of Eden story, or the bit about Jonah and the Whale, the Burning Bush, etc.? No, of course not. But I am saddened that we think it is okay, and just "freedom of speech, freedom of religion" when what we are really doing is brainwashing our children.

I am just as saddened by the withholding of information, plain and simple fact for some, but at least tenable, plausable ideas and beliefs for others, regarding the very real, obvious possibility (likelihood, actually) that yes, an Intelligent, Loving Creator (and Guide) is "Directing" this all ... and as best we can tell so far, Evolutionary theory is a very important part of an evolving understanding of how this Creator and Guide Works with us -- or vice versa.

I underscore very important part because there are many ways to understand our relationship with God, but Science is no less valuable and vital a way of approach as art, or politics, or religion. The great lie, is that only in the churches dwells the Divine. Accept for a moment that the Divine dwells in every human heart ... and you have immediately set in motion a transformation of your entire worldview. But how long can you live with this kind of thinking, before it's back to basics ... and god knows, if "that's not what my religion teaches," then heaven forbid we should try to ponder the idea for ourselves and come up with a new realization that can hold ground on its own!

Nevermind that science may be a little smug with its conclusions, and attempt to dictate to us that things are just so based on the limited understanding and presentation of reality which has thus far been gained, or won. Religion is 10 times as guilty with its holy wars, its crusades against those who dare to believe different, and its OPPRESSION of anyone who -- with fervor and in utter harmlessness, even utter privacy -- seeks or sought to practice other forms of prayer, or of honoring the same, Divine Source.

Yes, let us rattle our saber and demand our FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and when the blood stains our sword-hand we will simply wash ourselves free of the inconvenience.

I will not bore you with ideas about the constellations if you are not interested, but do not teach my children (if I ever have any) the tenets of your religion, from your holy books. This is exactly what Creationism is. It is not more than yet another effort to shove Jesus down people's throats, since god only knows, if we just beat them over the head enough with this holy-roller mumbo jumbo, they'll come 'round to our way of thinking sooner or later. I mean, after all, the Bible sez, and in case you haven't noticed lately, it's all about the numbers, getting more folks to bury their head into this here holy book, and warm our pews, and bow down to crucifix, our statue of Shiva, our proscribed direction in which the Holy One abides. We need another clank in the collection plate, or perhaps just a wad that makes a good, solid THUD when it hits the bottom.

If the desire is to make sure children are left to form their own conclusions ... then I am all for educational reform, such that kids are encouraged to ask more questions, and even allowed to discuss the various possibiltiies. Time could be taken for this as early as grade school, so long as teachers are trained in how to lead a discussion without interjecting their own beliefs and religious viewpoint ... or allowing a particularly vocal child in the classroom to dominate. Most teachers are capable of leading this type of discussion, and the opportunity it would provide is something that many students don't see nowadays until the college years.

I have an anecdote that may bring what I'm saying into perspective. It goes back more than 30 years.

When I was in kindergarten, I recall a day when a neighbor of mind visited the classroom. One of daughters was in my class, and the occasion of the visit was to allow students to learn something about Judaism, since most of the students were almost certainly Christian, or of no obvious religious background like Sikh, Muslim, and so forth.

What I remember are songs sung and played on the guitar, learning about a dreidel (and spinning one that was given to each of us), and that's pretty much it in terms of factual content. Yet there was something I learned during this visit that went way beyond so-called fact, and was probably even far more important than anything else I've ever heard specifically about the Jewish religion -- or about any other religion, for that matter.

I learned that my friends up the street were, and are, no different than me. They have a different form of worship, and of honoring the Divine. They believe in the Divine, and I like that. Personally, I think it helps give us a starting point in relating to others, yet not if we labor under the delusion that somehow we are better than others, or that our religion is fundamentally more important, or more deserving of recognition than that of others. If that is what we've been taught, we would be better off as atheists, agnostics or on the swift road of recovery from this unfortunate affliction.

When what is taught is that other religious perspectives are wrong, less valid or in need of removal from our planet ... or even when it is subtly implied that -- it's okay for the religion to stay, just so long as it's "kept in its place" -- then there is nothing but a lie, however subtly veiled, and however we choose to spin it.

Evolution is not a religion. It is science. Christianity is a religion. The latter may inform our choices and actions, but we have no right to PREACH in the schools, and dictate to others (especially impressionable children) what or how they must believe. End of story.

If you want to rail on about the woes of how science does not yet meet with religion and these two do not well integrate with philosophy in our current educational system, thinking, understanding of self, God, other and Cosmos ... or pervade our zeitgest -- then yes, I am QUITE interested in that discussion. As a student of The Secret Doctrine, and of Theosophy, I believe that such integration is not only possible, but has always existed upon our planet ... and that in fact, our understanding is evolving to a point where we will increasingly see the connections.

We are one people, with one history or collective past, and also with one, wonderful Destiny. It would be naive to suggest that there is no diversity within our oneness ... yet grade school is not the place to teach the Abrahamic mythology, or the Hindu, or the Egyptian, or any other -- save AS a mythology, and in the kind of context or scenario as I described above, wherein my neighbors were so kind enough to introduce us all to something different.

Creationism is not just something different. It is not simply another way to see things. It is certainly that, and that is a starting point. But if you cannot see past this starting point, then you will fail to also see how your efforts (whomever you may be, even as the devil's advocate) to advance or defend Creationism in schools is like shoving in a TROJAN HORSE ... with all of the results that inevitably follow.