From: Jay Willingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 12:08:17 EDT
The comparative religion course I took at Duke lo these many moons ago
compared the world's great religions and did not touch on secular humanism
or evolution as the source of life.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Tit for Tat?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Tit for Tat?
> > Is is spiritually dangerous to teach YEC or TE, or some other position
> > origins?
> > This is a very important question. Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins
> > believe that it is *politically* dangerous to teach anything even
> > like traditional religion, on any issue whatever; they have made
> > inflammatory, intolerant statements about this that are well known.
> I am fairly sure Dawkins has written in favor of teaching
> comparative religion, this is routinely done in the UK. I
> can try to dig up the reference if you like. I think the
> context was that this is the appropriate place to teach
> religious origins concepts, but I possibly misremember.
> Although, note, when you teach comparative religion,
> you are simply teaching this is what religion A,B,C
> states about issue X,Y,Z; and in that vein, it isn't
> actually a traditional religious teaching on any given
> issue, so your statement would still be basically correct.
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 12:09:29 EDT