Slashdot Mirror
Texas Textbooks Battle Is Actually an American War
ideonexus writes "I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose. This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution' not subject to change, as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America. The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals."
...which is a good reason not to use it as an arguing point. Besides that, there are seven separate answers listed on that wikipedia page alone, one of which I prefer. You can claim there are no "real answers", but I would respond by pointing out that we come to this problem with a predisposition to a certain answer, and my perception of an answer being real versus your perception of it as lame is largely dependent on baggage we brought to the discussion.
My point is that someone using the problem of evil (with which I've long been familiar) as an argument against the existence of a god is not really a useful contribution to the discussion.
I'm rubber, you're glue. ;P I'm just very tired of people relying on phrasing that makes the other guy feel like an idiot rather than actually offering new ideas. I suppose my response was a bit hypocritical, though.
Perhaps I could have phrased that better: "phrasing designed to make the other guy feel like an idiot". My point is that you offered an old, unsettled question as though it were an answer. The Bible teaches that evil entered into the world because people rebelled against God, who is, and whose intentions were, totally good. You can say you don't believe that to be true, but it is a valid (albeit disputable) perspective. To act as though it were invalid is intellectually dishonest, and to capitalize on a tragedy in order to advance your views is reprehensible. You and Pat Robertson should hang out sometime.
And the reason is...?
You do understand that there are scientific theory in alternate to the current theory of evolution right? There are lots of scientific evidence pointing towards it too.
The problem is seems isn't that science isn't being taught, it's that it's only a certain version of science is being taught and with that, all the benefits of critical thinking that science should instill in people are missing.