Are you aware of the new NALT (not all like that) movement in Christian circles?
You might want to check out Patheos, especially Slacktivist, and search for “NALT”.
“And I might turn the question around. Who created God? If you say He has always been, then why not say the same about the Universe (or more properly, the multiverse)?” This argument, borrowed, I think, from Sagan, is nonsense. It’s reasonable enough to say if something has always been then it doesn’t require a cause or explanation (which would be the position of theists in relation to god, and the position Plait seems to encourage in relation to the universe.) But you can’t just “say” the universe has always existed - you would have to provide some strong evidence to support the contention. At present, however, all the evidence suggests the opposite - that the universe of time and space in which we exist in has not existed eternally in the past, but rather has a definite temporal boundary. So Plait’s argument is a bit of a dodge, and he makes it worse by appealing to the multiverse, a hypothetical entity for which we have no more evidence than we have for god’s existence.
I don’t think I’ve met a single christian in the UK who believed in creationism.
If I was religious I could totally be impressed by a god that created all of the richness we see around us just through a few simple rules (eg survival of the fittest). That would be far more impressive than a god that had to come down and build everything by hand (or noodle-y appendage).
[quote=“SpunkyTWS, post:4, topic:22086”]
it speaks volumes about just how poor science education is in the United States,[/quote]
I would think, rather, that it speaks volumes about just how effective religious indoctrination is in the United States… You can have the best teachers in the world, but if you come from a YEC evangelical family, you’re going to keep saying inane things like “why do monkeys exist if we actually came from monkeys?”
[quote=“cbm, post:19, topic:22086, full:true”]
For a start, it should be a rule that creationists may only receive Sulfa; no modern antibiotics.
[/quote]Isn’t this a little generous, since Sulfonamide is the result of “false” science?
Better to restrict them to cowdung poultices and regular bleedings to reduce potential ill humours (after a proper phrenological examination, of course).
Though I don’t have a ton to go on besides vague understandings and a handful of impactful scenes from the FRONTLINE doc “Country Boys” I get the impression that places that have strong, persistent anti-science traditions don’t tend to hire “the best teachers in the world” at least when it comes to science… therefore the rhetorical hypothesis you pose hasn’t really been tested…
1 Like
The whole “literal word of God” thing is tragic. If the whole creation story in the bible was: “And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.” that would be OK with me, as it could be taken as a metaphor for the big bang.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” could be taken to mean that “the word” was the laws of physics. I’m OK with that interpretation.
It’s all the other sentences that get in the way.
I’m really the most comfortable with “Turtles all the way down.”
Speaking from my own personal observations I also know that good teachers tend to get out of places where the overall climate is hostile to what they’re teaching–or to education in general.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
