ITT We Discuss Theology

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

Her name was Sister Mary Bernita, and we called her Sister Bernita. She was pushing 70 back in '95, and I think she's still alive. (shiver) And I think I really do need to see Jesus Pony pictures, will make my Monday much better!

Someday VS, if you're ever in the Greater Cinci area, you and me, we're going to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky!!!!

There is one in Kentucky? I visited one in Indy.

[IrishLake]

Oh yeah, it's only a few years old, but it's insanely popular. http://creationmuseum.org/

[Psi U MC Vito]

My bad. That's the one I went to. I thought it was in Indiana for some reason lol.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

Her name was Sister Mary Bernita, and we called her Sister Bernita. She was pushing 70 back in '95, and I think she's still alive. (shiver) And I think I really do need to see Jesus Pony pictures, will make my Monday much better!

Someday VS, if you're ever in the Greater Cinci area, you and me, we're going to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky!!!!

Can one or both of us wear a gorilla suit? Maybe we could do a chimp and Jane Goodall costume pairing, that'd be awesome. Or I could sport a shirt that says "Archaeologists don't dig up dinosaurs" and you could have one of the Paleontologist/Geologist shirts.

Sometimes I look at those Jesus Pony photos and want to find out who drew them. It wouldn't be that hard, but I think the story behind them makes it even funnier. What a thing to find in a strange place, after living Jesus Pony life in the field.

[AXOmom]

Drollefille – Thanks for your response. Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond . I’m one month into the school year and already drowning in grading and suffering a sinus infection.


In reading through DubaisSis’s response, I didn’t even key in on the web site (I’m less observant in middle age) and focused instead on the books she recommended. Thanks for making the connection. I was aware of the issue in Kansas, but not of the website, so when the professor made the comment (last winter), we were not only annoyed, but baffled. Now it makes sense and yes, your description of her is apt although since I don’t know her personally, I’ll have to go on the evidence I have available, so I suppose that makes her “jackassness” a theory in the general sense of the term (not the scientific sense).

You are entirely correct about the definitions, and my use of theory was not accurate for science. My intent was simply to point out a respectful way to acknowledge different beliefs and that at this point there are very few things in the world (evolution included) that can be proven beyond dispute. I would add that evolution is broad term that generally refers to three different things- well, three primary things, and the typical high school science class deals with two: macro and micro evolution. Of those, my opinion is that only micro evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory and macro doesn’t work within that definition (on a much more minor and completely irrelevant point – gravity can be both a theory and a law depending on its use).

I would disagree with the website's contention that creationism is fudge science. I would add the qualification that creationism, like evolution, is a broad term that can cover many points of view, so I suppose, depending on what curriculum they were specifically proposing it could have been, but if they are talking about it in the general sense, I would see that as an unfair characterization. I know that the majority of the scientific community holds to evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet, but there are scientists who disagree or at least see some flaws in macro evolution, hold to creationism, and who are qualified to know enough about the subject to have credible opinions.

I’m going to leave it at that (although I have a great book recommendation on this as well) because I don’t want this thread to become a discussion of evolution rather than theology. That wasn’t my intent. My point, and I think you and I agree on this, would be that no matter what you think of another person’s beliefs on any subject, you need to treat him or her with civility. Debating ideas is always a good thing and disrespectful side swipes like the professor’s just shut that down. I hold that they are used by those who know very little about opposing viewpoints and are somewhat insecure in their own.

Originally, I understood and somewhat agreed with your point that as long as they weren’t making offensive comments directed at those who hold to creationism, there was no particular reason for a teacher to mention that creationism was another viewpoint students could research on their own. As I gave it some more thought though – I guess my question would be: Why wouldn’t they? I don’t think they HAVE to say that, but if it keeps a substantial group of parents and their children happy, what’s the harm? What concerns would a teacher have about a student doing that?

This isn’t a perfect analogy because English is a more subjective subject than science, but let’s say I’m getting ready to teach Huck Finn. I know that recently there have been controversies surrounding the book, and it’s been pulled in a lot of districts because there are those who feel it has racist undertones. The district and I both disagree with this. I don’t think there is much evidence for that view, and I feel there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Still, there are many who disagree, and I know there are some literature professors who disagree (although they are a decided minority). As a teacher, the first thing I would do when I introduce the book is to acknowledge the controversy. I would explain why I feel the book is anything but racist while acknowledging that there are those who feel differently and have every right to do so. At that point, yes, I would let my students know that while we aren’t going to spend time debating that issue in class, they are more than welcome to read material on their own from those who feel otherwise and draw their own conclusions. Why? Well, my job as a teacher isn’t to determine what they shouldn’t learn or know. My job is to expose them to information, beliefs, and viewpoints as much as I can and to give them the tools (evidence and logic among others) to determine the validity of those beliefs and viewpoints. I can’t mention every idea coming down the pike, but when they know full well there is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding some part of my curriculum I honestly feel I would be irresponsible as a teacher not to at least acknowledge that fact. I can guarantee that someone in that classroom will bring it up, so I might as well be prepared for it and “head it off at the pass” so to speak.

I would say again, you have been a great example throughout this thread of how to debate an issue with reason and respect. That is, no doubt, a by-product of that Jesuit education!

Swerving off topic here, but my husband spent three years as the one and only protestant chaplain in the history of Gonzaga University (proudly Jesuit). We had a lot of lovely evening dinners with the priests, and when we weren’t discussing basketball, we had some great theological discussions. Listening to them discuss their opinions of the Dominicans was entertaining as well, but I admit, not very respectful.

Vandal Squirrel - The monkey thing bothers me as well from those in my own group. If someone is going to disagree with evolution, they shouldn't attribute to it things that it doesn't say. However, on a rather funny side note. This same anthropology class was on human sexuality. Apparently the professor felt actually discussing human sexuality or watching videos of it would be inappropriate for the classroom (this was U of O, so I personally think she could have swung it without much fallout). She decided to focus on monkey sexuality instead because she pointed out that monkeys were our closest relatives. For the next month my daughter was treated to a daily dose of videos showing monkeys well....doing their thing. Her boyfriend started referring to it as her "monkey porn class".

IrishLake - Don't mean to turn you against the Jesuits, but our Gonzaga buddies HATED Notre Dame....with a holy passion. Not sure why. My husband says it has something to do with Digger Phelps.

[IrishLake]

I don't mind Jesuit's, my brother graduated from John Carroll, a Jesuit college

VS, I think you must wear a gorilla suit and I can dress as Diane Fossey (she is a Theta, it only makes sense!). I don't have a "Geology Rocks" t-shirt, but I DO have a shirt that says "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." Either are appropriate.

[Gusteau]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I don't mind Jesuit's, my brother graduated from John Carroll, a Jesuit college

I think the issue is with Notre Dame rather than the Jesuits, but then again many Catholics have some issues with the way Notre Dame does things.

ETA:

This thread is particularly interesting to me because I'm fascinated with how people form their faith, especially in relation to the faith of their parents. My entire family is Catholic, and both my parents are very faithful people - my Dad more so as he gets older. However, faith was never something we talked about much it was kind of just something we did. As a result my sister and I are pretty solid Catholics (or at least trying to be). The same thing happened with political views - my parents NEVER spoke about politics with us, yet we both have political views fairly similar to those of our parents. I often find that the people who are very vocal and strict about faith often have children who move away from the faith of their childhood. So I guess all that rambling is me saying I would love to hear more stories about faith formation - lol.

[IrishLake]

Oh yeah, my grandparents have season football tickets, and my grandma has refused to go ever since Obama spoke there. Football is too important to my grandpa though! (Hey, when your dad played for Rockne, you tend to look past the politics of the college and just focus on football!)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

IrishLake - Don't mean to turn you against the Jesuits, but our Gonzaga buddies HATED Notre Dame....with a holy passion. Not sure why. My husband says it has something to do with Digger Phelps.

No, it's just that, except for the people who went there, everybody hates Notre Dame.

[Gusteau]

And the Obama speech was really just the most prominent of many things people like my Grandma were up in arms about. However, my Dad is a football coach, so I understand that football is an entirely separate religion!

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

1-I don’t know her personally, I’ll have to go on the evidence I have available, so I suppose that makes her “jackassness” a theory in the general sense of the term (not the scientific sense).

2-Vandal Squirrel - The monkey thing bothers me as well from those in my own group. If someone is going to disagree with evolution, they shouldn't attribute to it things that it doesn't say. However, on a rather funny side note. This same anthropology class was on human sexuality. Apparently the professor felt actually discussing human sexuality or watching videos of it would be inappropriate for the classroom (this was U of O, so I personally think she could have swung it without much fallout). She decided to focus on monkey sexuality instead because she pointed out that monkeys were our closest relatives. For the next month my daughter was treated to a daily dose of videos showing monkeys well....doing their thing. Her boyfriend started referring to it as her "monkey porn class".

1-even if a professor THINKS that, what educational benefit is there from saying it? And what the hell does that have to do with human sexuality?
2-Maybe they shouldn't address human sexuality directly for junior high kids or MAYBE high school kids, but a professor who doesn't have the stones to address the topic directly at a public university seriously needs to find a new career field.

At Iowa you could take Sex (Human Sexuality) Drugs (intro to pharmacology) and rock & roll (the history of rock and roll music in America) all in the same semester. And I think a lot of kids did just so they could say they're studying sex, drugs and rock & roll. HA! But that's off topic. That professor is a douchecanoe, my favorite new insult these days, and just inflames the evolution/creation argument.

And yes, I lived in Kansas for awhile and speaking of douchecanoes, these people were nuts, but ID got a lot of play there for awhile.

[AXOmom]

I like the word DubaSis...I'm adding it to my vocabulary bank, but I don't think I'll be teaching it to my 8th graders just yet..Probably pointless anyway. I'm sure they know it already. I agree - being nervous about teaching human sexuality at a university - particularly this university - was odd. Clearly, many things about her were odd. My daughter thinks she just had an unusual attachment to monkeys (LOL).

MysticCat - Yes, you are right about the Notre Dame thing. My father gave me a lot of room to discover my faith and figure out what I believed, but when it came to football teams - not an inch. We were raised to hate Notre Dame and root for ANYONE who played them. I do have to admit that I secretly broke down last year and rooted for them when they played UW (I hate them more), but I never told him.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

You are entirely correct about the definitions, and my use of theory was not accurate for science. My intent was simply to point out a respectful way to acknowledge different beliefs and that at this point there are very few things in the world (evolution included) that can be proven beyond dispute. I would add that evolution is broad term that generally refers to three different things- well, three primary things, and the typical high school science class deals with two: macro and micro evolution. Of those, my opinion is that only micro evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory and macro doesn’t work within that definition (on a much more minor and completely irrelevant point – gravity can be both a theory and a law depending on its use).

I do understand your viewpoint, although scientists in the field disagree and see and show a lot of evidence for evolution as a process that occurs from macro to micro.

I would disagree with the website's contention that creationism is fudge science. I would add the qualification that creationism, like evolution, is a broad term that can cover many points of view, so I suppose, depending on what curriculum they were specifically proposing it could have been, but if they are talking about it in the general sense, I would see that as an unfair characterization. I know that the majority of the scientific community holds to evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet, but there are scientists who disagree or at least see some flaws in macro evolution, hold to creationism, and who are qualified to know enough about the subject to have credible opinions.

Well first, creationism isn't science at all, it's belief. Intelligent Design is the "fudge science" which is basically creationism wrapped up in the trappings of the scientific method without actually being processed through them. People in Kansas, and elsewhere, propose Intelligent Design as an equally plausible scientific alternative to evolution when really, that's not true in any way shape or form. And while there are scientists who support it, we're not talking about a 50/50 split here, we're talking about something the US National Academy of Sciences, The US National Science Teacher's association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all call psuedo or junk science. It's an overwhelming consensus.

The base problem with Intelligent Design is that there is no way to test the theory. Most of its components, irreducible complexity and the fine-tuned universe for example, mostly say "hey this is so unlikely there's no way it could have just happened, right? So someone must have made it!" You can't actually test that. We can't say that life would never have existed under different universal constants for example because we haven't the foggiest idea.

There is, unfortunately for proponents, not a lot of other arguments than that. Most "evidence" comes down to the equivalent of the "hey there are monkeys still around so we couldn't have came from them" quality.

That's not to say that a belief in religious (or alien, or FSM or whatever) creationism is wrong just that it's not science.

I’m going to leave it at that (although I have a great book recommendation on this as well) because I don’t want this thread to become a discussion of evolution rather than theology. That wasn’t my intent. My point, and I think you and I agree on this, would be that no matter what you think of another person’s beliefs on any subject, you need to treat him or her with civility. Debating ideas is always a good thing and disrespectful side swipes like the professor’s just shut that down. I hold that they are used by those who know very little about opposing viewpoints and are somewhat insecure in their own.

Eh this thread will go where it will. And while side swipes are common among 'friendly audiences' they're not conducive to understanding.

Originally, I understood and somewhat agreed with your point that as long as they weren’t making offensive comments directed at those who hold to creationism, there was no particular reason for a teacher to mention that creationism was another viewpoint students could research on their own. As I gave it some more thought though – I guess my question would be: Why wouldn’t they? I don’t think they HAVE to say that, but if it keeps a substantial group of parents and their children happy, what’s the harm? What concerns would a teacher have about a student doing that?

I think of it this way, if you present the "well other people think differently" on every subject where there's dissent, you'd never teach anything. There are people who believe the earth is flat, or hollow (and we're on the inside), there are people who believe we never landed on the moon and so on. It's important to handle the issue if the question is raised, and it's important to teach all widely accepted views of an issue within the field, but I don't see a reason to bring up religion in science class unless a kid asks about it. (And there is no other widely accepted scientific view on evolution.)

This isn’t a perfect analogy because English is a more subjective subject than science, but let’s say I’m getting ready to teach Huck Finn. I know that recently there have been controversies surrounding the book, and it’s been pulled in a lot of districts because there are those who feel it has racist undertones. The district and I both disagree with this. I don’t think there is much evidence for that view, and I feel there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Still, there are many who disagree, and I know there are some literature professors who disagree (although they are a decided minority). As a teacher, the first thing I would do when I introduce the book is to acknowledge the controversy. I would explain why I feel the book is anything but racist while acknowledging that there are those who feel differently and have every right to do so. At that point, yes, I would let my students know that while we aren’t going to spend time debating that issue in class, they are more than welcome to read material on their own from those who feel otherwise and draw their own conclusions. Why? Well, my job as a teacher isn’t to determine what they shouldn’t learn or know. My job is to expose them to information, beliefs, and viewpoints as much as I can and to give them the tools (evidence and logic among others) to determine the validity of those beliefs and viewpoints. I can’t mention every idea coming down the pike, but when they know full well there is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding some part of my curriculum I honestly feel I would be irresponsible as a teacher not to at least acknowledge that fact. I can guarantee that someone in that classroom will bring it up, so I might as well be prepared for it and “head it off at the pass” so to speak.

The difference, in my head, is that you need to address the issue in advance with a book like Huck Finn because there are differing viewpoints that are widely held within the community. And it is inherently difficult because of the language used and the time period it's in. I would encourage you to think particularly of any minority students in your class and how it's going to feel to them to be hearing the N-word repeatedly. Huck Finn has a lot of value, but I'm not so sure it's necessary to be required reading for kids, particularly when their own self image is going to be impacted by the book and probably not addressed well by the teacher.

As a teacher it is your job to decide what they're going to learn in class. You will always have to make decisions about what is appropriate and what is ideal and every subject has its own standards. No one's asking science teachers to tell kids not to read things at home but you know as well as anyone that class time is limited.

I would say again, you have been a great example throughout this thread of how to debate an issue with reason and respect. That is, no doubt, a by-product of that Jesuit education!

Damn them and their reasonableness

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

This thread is particularly interesting to me because I'm fascinated with how people form their faith, especially in relation to the faith of their parents. My entire family is Catholic, and both my parents are very faithful people - my Dad more so as he gets older. However, faith was never something we talked about much it was kind of just something we did. As a result my sister and I are pretty solid Catholics (or at least trying to be). The same thing happened with political views - my parents NEVER spoke about politics with us, yet we both have political views fairly similar to those of our parents. I often find that the people who are very vocal and strict about faith often have children who move away from the faith of their childhood. So I guess all that rambling is me saying I would love to hear more stories about faith formation - lol.

Gusteau, I think you're onto something here.

I was raised in a very strict Catholic family. My father is such a strict Catholic that my mother has told me that she's surprised he didn't become a priest. I was baptized within a month of birth - I'm surprised they didn't just bring the priest and the font into the delivery room. Mass every Sunday (or Saturday vigil), confession every week once I was old enough, no meat on Friday even if it wasn't Lent, Catholic school from pre-K through 5th grade and then CCD until I was confirmed at the end of 8th grade. I was Catholic and that was that.

After having Catholicism rammed down my throat for my entire childhood, I rebelled big time. Long story short, Judaism resonated with me, so I converted.

The same thing happened with politics. I'm left-of-center but not exceedingly so. My parents are so far to the right they make Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin look like screaming liberals.

Sometimes the apple not only falls far from the tree, it falls so far away that it ends up in a different orchard.

[Gusteau]

It's funny because you and I have a similar faith upbringing on paper (add Catholic school to my resume, and subtract weekly confession - eek!) with very different results. I think the difference is that yours may have a had a repressive bend to it where my parents were never super strict, but then again I don't think they had to be with my sister and I. So I always saw Catholicism as a naturally occurring phenomenon in regard to how one lives. Like I said, this fascinates me!