Creationism shouldn't be taught

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Not my words but the words of The Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.

Asked if it (creationism) should be taught, he said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching what creation means.

Now if the Arch bishop of Canterbury is stating that Creationism is not a viable theory for the creation of the world and mankind, then where does this leave those fundamentalists who believe in Genesis word for word?

Linkage

[Memorize]

I'd just like to say one thing. Were the fuck did it say anything about taking Genesis word for word?

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 3/21/06 12:29 PM, AccessCode wrote: I'd just like to say one thing. Were the fuck did it say anything about taking Genesis word for word?

It does not have to say anything. TNT was asking where it left people who believed Genesis word for word, not whether the Creation story was a word for word account of Genesis

If you want to play petty semantics games, I will too.

[Ravariel]

At 3/21/06 12:15 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Not my words but the words of The Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.

Asked if it (creationism) should be taught, he said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching what creation means.

Now if the Arch bishop of Canterbury is stating that Creationism is not a viable theory for the creation of the world and mankind, then where does this leave those fundamentalists who believe in Genesis word for word?

Seems to me there's some context left out of this. Was he asked this in reference to schools, or in the churches or in general?

Interpreted one way, it could sound like he disagreed with creationism being taught in schools, possibly as an alternative to the natural sciences. Taken another way, it sounds like he's arguing that the specifics of creation are inconsequential, and that the creation itself is only what should be taught.

Thankfully, you have provided linkeage that explains it, even though you try to take it the other way.

This is about it being taught in schools as an alternate theory to evolution, NOT about not teaching it altogether.

Congratulations on the spin-job.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 3/21/06 12:29 PM, AccessCode wrote: I'd just like to say one thing. Were the fuck did it say anything about taking Genesis word for word?

it doesn't sya anythign about taking it word for word. I was just asking where people thought this would leave fundamentalists who take the bible, and therefore genesis, literally. If I didn't make that clear enough my apologies.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 3/21/06 12:46 PM, Ravariel wrote: This is about it being taught in schools as an alternate theory to evolution, NOT about not teaching it altogether.

And your point is? This still has relevance to the question I asked .Maybe I should have put it in context it didn't cross my mind to. I can assure you I wasn't trying to put spin on this at all.

Either way the question I asked is still relevant when you consider the fact that the sorts of people who take the bible literally will see creationism as a viable alternative and expect it to be taught in schools. If the head honcho of the Church of England is stating that it isn't a credible alternative don't you think that kind of damages their positions in wanting it taught as an alternative?

[Memorize]

Where would it leave them?

Probly the same way they were before this.

[asdfrasdfg]

I doubt any fundamentalist would like to change his mind on the matter, unless he was forced into doing so. I would have to disagree with the Bishop slightly, though, and say that it should be taught as an elective. That way, if someone would like to learn what other theories hold for the creation of the Universe, they could take those classes and learn about it. This way, they could decide for themselves which one seems more believeable (scientific research and theories, or Genesis and all that), and not have to have any ideas forced upon them.

School should be about giving information to students so they can know more about what's around them, and use this to give back to society. It should definately not be about forcing them to be blinded by one idiology.

[Dracul3S]

TRUE! No one is teaching the earth is flat, although this might be next (as the bible states that one, too)! Some things shouldn't be taught in schools and this is one of them. Luckily I'm german and no one here would bother trying to introduce something as idiotic (and it IS stupid) in our schools and universities.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Where is Creatonism taught?

It isn't.

Even if it is, Doesn't mean kids will listen.

Same with Evolution, I don't give a care, I will only remember till the Quiz and then forget it.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 3/21/06 05:09 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: Where is Creatonism taught?

It isn't.

Even if it is, Doesn't mean kids will listen.

Still, it's as if the government sanctions religion if creationism is taught as fact or as science. Which, thankfully, it's not.

[Imperator]

At 3/21/06 12:15 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Not my words but the words of The Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.

Asked if it (creationism) should be taught, he said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching what creation means.

Now if the Arch bishop of Canterbury is stating that Creationism is not a viable theory for the creation of the world and mankind, then where does this leave those fundamentalists who believe in Genesis word for word?

Explain where he said that. BY YOUR QUOTE, he is saying he doesn't think it should be taught, which is DIFFERENT from discussing what it means. NOWHERE in your quote does he say ANYTHING about it not being a viable theory.

"So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories. It's not what it's about."

That's a MUCH better quote. You misinterpreted this guy in a poor attempt to attack Christians (and right here I'm misinterpreting you to make a petty attack against your intelligence.....).

then where does this leave those fundamentalists who believe in Genesis word for word?

The same place they've always been, with the rest of the Extemists and crazies out there.

Lemme fix your statement a bit cause this is just flat out untrue:

Now if the Arch bishop of Canterbury is stating that Creationism is not a viable theory for the creation of the world and mankind

Ugh.....

"Now if the Arch Bishop if Canterbury is stating that Creationism is not a viable scientific theory to be taught on the subject of the creation of the world and mankind in schools"

Notice how he says he thinks it shouldn't be taught, but doesn't dismiss it. He cites it as a category mistake, ie, teaching Calculus as part of the Life Sciences department.
He's saying it shouldn't be put under science, which it shouldn't.

You go too far in assuming he is saying it's straight up not a valid theory. Don't do that again, cause you're borderlining Slander (or Libel? I never remember.....). In any case, it's an unwarranted assumption you are stating as fact, which is somehow illegal.......

[Elfer]

Perhaps he acknowledges that it is a matter of faith rather than facts, which is why it should be left out of say, a science classroom, but should still be open for discussion in a philosophy classroom, or what have you.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 3/21/06 05:45 PM, Imperator wrote: Explain where he said that. BY YOUR QUOTE, he is saying he doesn't think it should be taught, which is DIFFERENT from discussing what it means. NOWHERE in your quote does he say ANYTHING about it not being a viable theory.

I admit I screwed up with the quote and gave a misinterpretation. It wasn't intentional I can assure you of that.

That's a MUCH better quote. You misinterpreted this guy in a poor attempt to attack Christians (and right here I'm misinterpreting you to make a petty attack against your intelligence)

I wasn't trying to attack Christianity, I am a Christian myself so to attack it would be idiotic. This was just me making a thread and giving the wrong quote and giving out the wrong impression. Next time I'll think thigns through a little more but this was jsut be making a mistake, and for that you have my apologies if you though I was attacking your religion or anything of the sort. I can assure you it wasn't my intention.

If I were really trying to attack anything do you think I would give a source that contradicts what I've said? I gather from the comment you just made you think me stupid which is fair enough, I did make a ratehr idiotic cock up, but not even complete idiots give a source that undermines their position if they are trying to attack something.

[Imperator]

At 3/22/06 10:37 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:
I admit I screwed up with the quote and gave a misinterpretation. It wasn't intentional I can assure you of that.

That's fine, ya just wanna be careful with things like this, wars have been started over less.....fuckin Danish cartoons......

I wasn't trying to attack Christianity, I am a Christian myself so to attack it would be idiotic.

Notice how I said I was misinterpreting YOU in the same sentence. I was trying to prove a point that misinterpretations (even when I perfectly stated I was doing so), carry a LOT of weight in a conversation, and are hard to dislodge. You basically wrote 2 nice paragraphsthat were completely unnecessary, again emphasizing my point.....rhetoric is to be handled gingerly, and those well experienced in it can make themselves seem like geniuses, even if they're really not. Just my rant for ze day.....

but not even complete idiots give a source that undermines their position if they are trying to attack something.

This is Newgrounds. If you haven't seen this happen yet, you will......