Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC




Date/Time 16 Mar 2014 5:43:00am

Are you assuming by 'believers' (christian theists?) that a) all interpret Genesis literally (as Steely Dan does) and b) that if they are teachers they are all seeking to introduce creationism into science classes?

I found the article full of anecdotes rather than any hard and fast data about chaplains plus the teaching of creationism in sschools except for the oft repeated, out-of-context quote by Yvonne Paddison of Access ministries. Its a shock! Horror! piece that belongs more in the Telegraph. Both sides engage in this and along with the the silliness of the article is why I asked the question above about non theists taking a literal interpretation of Gen 1 to 3. Its just funny if both sides have the same interpretation and accuse each other of evil, dark mind control. Not missing the point more these two sides missing the whole point because of their co-dependent relationship.

Now Stubby I know you are too slippery to answer the question I put, at least Steely had a go at it.

BTW. "So each believers reasoning for wanting creationism taught in a science class must be examined on a case by case basis." - Monthy Python had a good sketch about the idea behind your statement.