RE: Response to Don P.

From: Donald Perrett (E-mail) <>
Date: Fri Aug 05 2005 - 01:48:16 EDT

In response to Burgy:

I agree with 99% of your comments, except the race issue. Simply because
race is not a choice, religion and sex are. I apologize for going off topic
somewhat, it was my attempt to delve into the examples you gave.

The conclusion is still, it is better to attack such elective courses based
on their lack of accurate scientific basis rather than the religious one.
They may have an agenda but attacking it that way will likely get nowhere
and will play to their hand which is recognition more so than the actual YEC
science they are pushing. A child sometimes cries just to get attention and
the reason he gives for crying is irrelevant even to the child. Prove their
science wrong and even YEC parents will begin to look elsewhere. But in
doing so, you must offer these devoted Christians a form of science with a
Christian perspective. We can't just give the science alone. That is why
there are people pushing against established scientific facts. Science is
seen as atheist. Until someone steps up and can offer these parents sound
biblical understandings that relate to science then they will go where
Christ comes first and science second, even if the science is wrong. Keep
in mind that most parents don't have the scientific background that people
on this list do. Too many Christian scientists do not accept the idea of
presenting "true" factual science with a religious view. So we are where we
are today. Christian scientists playing the atheist's game and Christian
so-called scientists playing the YEC game. So until either the churches are
changed to understand that evolution and other theories are not in
contradiction to the Bible, or schools begin to allow religious perspectives
based on facts, not religious teachings, then nothing will change and the
entire discussion is pointless.

Don P

-----Original Message-----
From: []On
Behalf Of Carol or John Burgeson
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:42
Subject: Response to Don P.

Don P. wrote a lot. A brief comment:

You wrote too much, and the thread exploded into many subjects.

We agree on some things you wrote, although you phrased them as if I did

My original post could have been more narrowly focused; for this I
apologize. According to reports, the authors of the course are using
creationist "science" arguments to promote their particular brand of god.
If this is so, it is a "grievous sin." If it is not so, it is being

For purposes of the record, you wrote the following statements, most of
which I agree with. But none of them are "on topic," and most of them are
not even pertinent.

"In most courses on Greek Mythology it is taught with a
sociological perspective that this was believed to be true at that time."

"Teaching any form of history is done from a certain perspective."

"Once upon a time most people did not know of the scandalous exploits of
many of our
founding fathers, now some "bad" things are taught."

"There are courses that teach history from an African American

"Why not a Mormon one, or do you consider them "inferior"."

(Comment here. Teaching Mormon history dispassionately -- OK. Teaching it
evangelistically -- no. I do not consider Mormons "inferior." I do
consider them wrongly focused and accepting on nonfactual history to
support their belief structure.)

"As for the race issue, that really isn't a comparison, unless you are
trying to infer that evangelicals are racist."

(Comment here. I think it is a valid comparison; you don't. So be it. As
to whether evangelicals are racist, some certainly are, the majority (I
hope) are not. Some liberals are racist too, of course!)

"There are some who object to homosexual literature being offered in
public schools but many schools still do."

(Comment: Really? Literature that promotes TOLERANCE of alternative life
styles certainly is offered. What else?)

"I do agree that it fringes on church-state."

"There are a lot of electives that are either of little value or are
controversial in nature being taught in schools around the country. In
L.A. they were teaching Buddhism, not sure that they still do. It claims
to have been taught as a sort of Eastern philosophy, but it is in fact a
religion. Would this be disqualified under your criteria?"

(Comment: Not if taught dispassionately. BTW< one news source says that
the authors of the material being discussed claim to have course notes
that urge dispassionate (not proselytizing) teaching methods; if true,
this is good.)

"It should be taught from the perspective of those in the school. How
else does one learn?"

(Comment. So if one is a YEC, one should teach YEC?)

"Learning is not just memorizing facts and figures, but also finding
practical applications, including religious ones."

"You cannot detach religion from peoples lives and then wonder why they

"I'm not saying that the government should teach religion, especially a
specific one and only one, WHICH was the objection of our founders. Our
founders had many religious views and wanted everyone to be able to
express their religion as well as their politics (60ish style). "Freedom
of Speech". But they also did not want the
government to instill any one specific ideology (including religious and
nonreligious views). Separation of church-state. '

"The constitution does
not say the government cannot allow religion to be expressed or taught.
does however say that it cannot establish a religion."

"If we began to educate our children about peoples views, be
they religious ones or not, then perhaps people can reach a higher level

"If teaching one view is good then teaching many views is better."

(Comment. Not views which are demonstrably erroneous. Such as YEC, flat
earth, etc.)

"The point is, don't suppress knowledge even if it is the wrong one."

(Comment. I agree, as long as it is identified as a failed view.)

"Creationism in school worries me, but God in school does not. After all
if YOU believe God is everywhere then he's already there,"

(Comment. Agreed)

"it's just that some people want to give him some recognition."

(Comment. Read Phillips YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL. A Classic.)

Received on Fri Aug 5 01:50:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 05 2005 - 01:50:04 EDT