| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
This discussion about creationism surprises me, and, to be honest, irritates me terribly. Let the so-called 'christians' believe what they believe, as found in a volume full of fairy tales and let us realistic people believe in isotopes and astrochronology. In long term experience I have learned the only way to deal with such people: say that you agree with them, and stop the discussion, bye bye.Arie W. Janssen, Gozo, Malta
ariewjanssen@waldonet.net.mt
http://sites.waldonet.net.mt/ariewe/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'brighter than glass, and yet, as glass is, brittle'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Message -----From: Amanda BahlsSent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 2:54 AMSubject: Re: paleonet GA-EvolutionHello All,I am new to paleonet and so I will just give myself a brief introduction. My name is Amanda Bahls and I am a graduate student at Indiana State University. I am currently working towards my Master's in geology, with an emphasis in paleoceanography. I saw this article, as well as Dr. Campbell's response to it, and had to respond, because I have just finished reading an excellent book on just this type of problem. "Rocks of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould could not put this so-called "controversy" between science and religion into better perspective. They do not have to be integrated into a single, unified belief. They can co-exist without incorporating one into the other. In fact, they should not be taught as a single entity. Which religion would you choose to integrate with science in order to teach a "creationist" point of view? I'm sure that most would automatically reply that Christianity would be the only answer. But how is that fair to those who aren't Christian? We can take prayer out of schools, because we might offend those with other religious beliefs, but we can teach what one particular dogma of faith says happened in order for the earth (and ourselves) to come into existence, and "water down" the findings of science because they make students think that the Bible may not be a literal document? I guess that I just don't understand the logic.Amanda S. BahlsIndiana State UniversityDepartment of Geography, Geology, and AnthropologyScience Building Room 159Terre Haute, IN 47809A recently published book might be a useful reference in dealing with such things: Miller, Keith (ed.). Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It was published by Eerdmans, but I believe the usual sources like Amazon carry it.
It discusses evolution in an explicitly Christian context while maintaining scientific accuracy (e.g., holding that evolution appears to be the best scientific explanation for biological origins). In fact, I would argue that it provides a more Christian approach than the standard purportedly Christian antievolutionary claims, as the latter generally disregard the many Biblical passages that command truthfulness, quality work, and a peacemaking attitude. (As a co-author of one chapter, my view may not be entirely objective.)
Incidentally, I believe there is currently an attempt to submit legislation favoring teaching alternative views (broadly worded, but creationism and intelligent design are major alternatives in mind of the proposer) here in Alabama, next door to Georgia. Keep an eye on your legislators!
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
Partial index: