Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[Pangloss]

The story of Adam and Eve has no basis in fact, and as unpleasant as it might be to have one's blinders torn off by such a statement, it seems to me like the professor was doing his job.

 

And I don't think he was, because that's an opinion that's irrelevent to the subject matter of the course. Whether Adam and Eve is a true story has no relevence to the fact of their influence on western history.

 

Would we even be having this conversation if he'd told the students to write down 18,000 reasons why religious belief is false, or would we THEN realize that he was wasting their time on irrelevencies?

 

BTW, there's a huge difference between "opening minds" and "tearing blinders off". One has a place in the class on western history; the other belongs in a class on the detrimental effects of religious belief. This was the former, not the latter.

[john5746]

What, so the determination of the law of gravity was impossible without Newton FIRST analyzing Genesis and determining that it couldn't possibly work? Based on WHAT? Nonsense. Realization of religious contradictions FOLLOW scientific discoveries. Not vice-versa.

 

And THAT's a valid reflection on the history of western civilization, but frankly it's an unnecessary one. We're leading horses to water, not forcing them to drink. You show students the path to the answer, you don't bludgeon them over the head with it and smack them in the face if they disagree.

 

Do you want blind followers or critical thinkers? Choose.

 

A critical thinker can be taught something as fact, but still not accept it and research it further. Newton gave up on the effect of other planets' gravitational tug on each other and concluded that god was keeping them in line. Of course, people make assumptions all the time, but assumptions based on nothing leads to nothing. I think most people agree that the scientific method does not include a God.

 

 

And I don't think he was, because that's an opinion that's irrelevant to the subject matter of the course. Whether Adam and Eve is a true story has no relevance to the fact of their influence on western history.

 

I think this teacher was probably being obnoxious, which is not warranted. But if a student expected me to agree that a bible story carries equal scientific weight to evolutionary theory in ANY class, I would correct them. I guess you could say "According to scientific evidence of our observed universe, evolutionary theory fits our observations and the Adam and Eve story does not." Or "The bible is faith based, science is evidence based" If something like this got him fired, then he did the right thing. If he was fired for being an A-hole on a continuous basis, then he did the wrong thing.

[swansont]

And I don't think he was, because that's an opinion that's irrelevent to the subject matter of the course. Whether Adam and Eve is a true story has no relevence to the fact of their influence on western history.

 

Well, that's not really your call, since you aren't teaching the class, and none of the stories I've seen (they all seem to be clones of one or two reports) mentions exactly why the topic came up.

 

Would we even be having this conversation if he'd told the students to write down 18,000 reasons why religious belief is false, or would we THEN realize that he was wasting their time on irrelevencies?

 

No, but then that's a strawman. He didn't say religious belief is false. He said the story wasn't literally true, and there was a lot of meaning to it once you got past that.

[bascule]

Yes, the fact that he made the statement that the Bible must not be literally interpreted. That's not a relevent point for a discussion on the historical context of the Bible. The accuracy of the Bible is not relevent to determining its impact on history.

 

The impact of Darwin's theory had massive consequences. It lead to everything from William Graham Sumner's economic theories which incorporated the idea of evolution by natural selection, to Sir Francis Galton's eugenics theories which would be usurped by the Nazis to form the basis of their "racial biology" and thus provide a "scientific" basis for the Holocaust.

 

If Galileo wasn't the death knell for religion being the most authoritative source of knowledge about the universe, Darwin certainly was.

 

Do you want him to merely gloss over Darwin, or do you think he should espouse a "teach the controversy" sort of position?

 

I don't think you can properly teach the social impact of Darwin's theories without noting that it relegated the Adam and Eve story to, at best, an allegory and instigated a conflict that continues to rage today.

 

Without that historical backdrop, how would you teach about something like the Scopes Monkey Trial?

[pcollins]

By your premise, no public servant would be able to say almost anything at all, since anything contradicts somebody's religion.

 

The distinction is drawn between statements that may lead to an inferred contradiction and statements that endorse a particular view on a religious matter. For example, claiming that evolution is a scientific fact does not require endorsing of the positivist ethic necessary to elevate fact to truth.

[Sisyphus]

The distinction is drawn between statements that may lead to an inferred contradiction and statements that endorse a particular view on a religious matter. For example, claiming that evolution is a scientific fact does not require endorsing of the positivist ethic necessary to elevate fact to truth.

 

It really depends on the context of what was going on. If it's a history class and a student says "it didn't happen that way, because the Bible says this," that really forces the issue, and the teacher has an obligation to set the record straight. I don't know that that's what happened, mind you.

 

More importantly, though, is the issue of what counts as "endorsement by government." There are a number Congressmen who regularly speak explicitly of the Bible being literally true. Is this a government endorsement of Christianity? No, it isn't, because they're not making laws favoring Christians or using government funds to advance it. (Granted most of them would like to, but the point is that it's a separate issue.) That seems to be the consensus threshold for endorsement. Is that threshold crossed here? I don't think so. This professor is guilty of foolishness and insensitivity, perhaps, but no legal or ethical wrongdoing.

[pcollins]

It really depends on the context of what was going on. If it's a history class and a student says "it didn't happen that way, because the Bible says this," that really forces the issue, and the teacher has an obligation to set the record straight.

 

How does presenting some set of facts carry the additional obligation to advocate accepting them on philosophical grounds? Today's legal environment doesn't prevent a teacher on the public payroll from dismissing the issue by giving students the choice to "take it or leave it." After all, the objective is to test student's familiarity with the subject matter, not their belief or lack thereof in its accuracy.

 

I don't know that that's what happened, mind you.

 

That's irrelevant to the facts not in dispute--specifically the comment made.

 

More importantly, though, is the issue of what counts as "endorsement by government." There are a number Congressmen who regularly speak explicitly of the Bible being literally true. Is this a government endorsement of Christianity? No, it isn't, because they're not making laws favoring Christians or using government funds to advance it. (Granted most of them would like to, but the point is that it's a separate issue.) That seems to be the consensus threshold for endorsement. Is that threshold crossed here? I don't think so. This professor is guilty of foolishness and insensitivity, perhaps, but no legal or ethical wrongdoing.

 

This is the argument used precisely by defenders of publicly posting the Ten Commandments. The counter-argument is to point out that Congressmen, as officials drawing a federal salary and who act under and with the privileges contained in the speech and debate clause make such comments at public expense.

[Pangloss]

A critical thinker can be taught something as fact, but still not accept it and research it further.

 

You can't teach people critical thinking without directly attacking insulting their beliefs? Really? I can. In fact I do it *every single day*.

 

 

I think most people agree that the scientific method does not include a God.

 

80% of my population disagrees.

 

Look, I don't like that any more than you do, but you're missing the point completely. Why is it okay to coax and persuade EXCEPT when it comes to science, then we have to bludgeon and coerce? Why can't we lead the horse to water and HOPE it takes a drink? Why is it so g*d d*mn NECESSARY to DESTROY PEOPLE and RECONSTRUCT THEM ACCORDING TO A MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT POINT OF VIEW?

 

Come on. That is not the liberal way. You find the truth. You show it to everyone who will listen. And if they don't listen, you shrug and you move on. That's freedom. It's been a pretty d*mn good deal for scientific advancement so far.

 

 

 

But if a student expected me to agree that a bible story carries equal scientific weight to evolutionary theory in ANY class, I would correct them.

 

No, you don't. You do the same thing you'd do if they asked you for your opinion on abortion or animal rights. You say "well I'm sure you have an interesting opinion on the matter, but it's not germain to this course so let's stick with the subject, please."

 

Or you find a more appropriate line of work, because you have no business being a teacher.

 

 

 

I guess you could say "According to scientific evidence of our observed universe, evolutionary theory fits our observations and the Adam and Eve story does not." Or "The bible is faith based, science is evidence based"

 

IFF the course directly requires such interaction, I support those answers. This course (on western history) did not.

 

-------------------------------

 

You know, I think the abortion analogy I made above is incredibly apt, and an excellent display of how people are being hypocritical in this thread on this issue. None of you who are supporting what this teacher did would have supported him if he had used that platform -- in a class on western history, in which the abortion debate has been a pivotal issue -- had made the SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENT that abortion kills a potential human life.

 

Defend that hypocrisy if you can, folks.

 

------------------

 

The impact of Darwin's theory had massive consequences. It lead to everything from William Graham Sumner's economic theories which incorporated the idea of evolution by natural selection, to Sir Francis Galton's eugenics theories which would be usurped by the Nazis to form the basis of their "racial biology" and thus provide a "scientific" basis for the Holocaust.

 

If Galileo wasn't the death knell for religion being the most authoritative source of knowledge about the universe, Darwin certainly was.

 

Do you want him to merely gloss over Darwin, or do you think he should espouse a "teach the controversy" sort of position?

 

I don't think you can properly teach the social impact of Darwin's theories without noting that it relegated the Adam and Eve story to, at best, an allegory and instigated a conflict that continues to rage today.

 

Without that historical backdrop, how would you teach about something like the Scopes Monkey Trial?

 

What I'm saying is that rounding up all the Christians and sending them to retraining camps, er I mean "universities", with their eyelids firmly clamped open and Beethoven's 9th blaring away, is just not the best way to convince people of the benefits of science. I think that's what supporting this teacher fundamentally amounts to.

[john5746]

You can't teach people critical thinking without directly attacking insulting their beliefs? Really? I can. In fact I do it *every single day*.

 

I never made that claim.

 

80% of my population disagrees.

 

80% believe the scientific method includes God? Maybe that is the problem and not the teacher.

 

 

No, you don't. You do the same thing you'd do if they asked you for your opinion on abortion or animal rights. You say "well I'm sure you have an interesting opinion on the matter, but it's not germain to this course so let's stick with the subject, please."

 

Or you find a more appropriate line of work, because you have no business being a teacher.

 

IFF the course directly requires such interaction, I support those answers. This course (on western history) did not.

 

The guy had been talking about ancient myths for a week, so when he got to the bible, he treated it the same way. That sparked the discussion. Can you call a Religious belief a myth if it is no longer believed by a certain % of the population or must you respect all of them as possibly true? Maybe I still think Pluto is a planet. Maybe Pluto was my favorite planet as a kid and it brings purpose and meaning to my life. Can I sue the teacher if he says it isn't considered a planet now? No, I listen to him and I am still free to think it is a planet and worship it if I like.

 

 

You know, I think the abortion analogy I made above is incredibly apt, and an excellent display of how people are being hypocritical in this thread on this issue. None of you who are supporting what this teacher did would have supported him if he had used that platform -- in a class on western history, in which the abortion debate has been a pivotal issue -- had made the SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENT that abortion kills a potential human life.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I guess some would. That is a fair point.

 

I think the problem is on both sides, but the Teacher is the professional. These are not grade school kids, they are in some type of college. They should be able to handle having their beliefs challenged. So he should be careful about all the popular religious beliefs, fair enough. The students should not threaten to sue, unless their grade might suffer due to their beliefs, IMO. I really am not defending this teacher, because I don't know the full story or why he was really fired. I just don't think a college teacher should be fired for saying a religious belief is a myth. If he is warned not to do so and still does it, then he can be fired, but that doesn't make it morally wrong, IMO.

[bascule]

You know, I think the abortion analogy I made above is incredibly apt, and an excellent display of how people are being hypocritical in this thread on this issue. None of you who are supporting what this teacher did would have supported him if he had used that platform -- in a class on western history, in which the abortion debate has been a pivotal issue -- had made the SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENT that abortion kills a potential human life.

 

What's the context for bringing that up in a history classroom?

 

What I'm saying is that rounding up all the Christians and sending them to retraining camps, er I mean "universities", with their eyelids firmly clamped open and Beethoven's 9th blaring away, is just not the best way to convince people of the benefits of science. I think that's what supporting this teacher fundamentally amounts to.

 

So I don't see you disputing the fact that Darwin and his theories (which demonstrate a literal interpretation of Genesis is scientifically untenable) are integral parts of 19th century western history.

 

Should Copernicus, Galileo, and the discovery of heliocentrism be omitted from the history classroom so as not to step on the toes of any Bible literalists who may still believe that the Sun orbits the earth?

 

Or should we, to use your metaphor, strap them to a chair Clockwork Orange style and blast into their eyes the message THE EARTH GOES ROUND THE SUN

[Pangloss]

(re: abortion) What's the context for bringing that up in a history classroom?

 

Believe it or not, you just stumbled right into my point. Oh my god, somebody finally got it! Thank... uh... the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

 

If it's valid for the teacher to, in the course of discussing the impact of religion on western history, declare that all religion is mere MYTH and insist that the students must AGREE that it's myth in order to pass the course, then it is also valid (and in fact necessary) for the teacher to instruct them that abortion kills a potential human life, and that all students must agree that it is so in order to pass the course. That's because abortion has been a pivotal political development issue in the history of western civilization.

 

The reasoning is exactly the same.

 

And so I reiterate my point -- YOU DON'T NEED TO BROACH THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE TOPICS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THEIR IMPACT ON WESTERN HISTORY!

 

Have I finally made my point?

[bascule]

If it's valid for the teacher to, in the course of discussing the impact of religion on western history, declare that all religion is mere MYTH

 

According to the OP:

 

"A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted."

 

So no, that's not what he did...

 

and insist that the students must AGREE that it's myth in order to pass the course

 

When did he ever do that?

 

That's because abortion has been a pivotal political development issue in the history of western civilization. The reasoning is exactly the same.

 

You're comparing the historical significance of the discovery of evolution by natural selection to the political significance of abortion?

 

And so I reiterate my point -- YOU DON'T NEED TO BROACH THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE TOPICS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THEIR IMPACT ON WESTERN HISTORY!

 

Have I finally made my point?

 

No, and it seems clear to me you simply do not understand the historical significance of Darwin and the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

 

Darwin's writings undermined the concept of an orderly, unchanging universe and with it the belief in the Biblical theory of creation.

 

In the words of historian James Burke, the discovery of evolution by natural selection marks a "day the universe changed," as human reasoning and perception about the universe were forever altered by the discovery.

[Pangloss]

Wow, thank you for illustrating why I won't tolerate RevPrez and his influence on these boards. That post was classic RevPrez, through and through. Please check and make sure he didn't steal your password?

 

According to the OP:

 

"A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted."

 

So no, that's not what he did...

 

Pointless hair-splitting. Calling it a myth and saying it should not be taken literally are, for our current purposes, the same thing, and I was responding to a specific use of that word by someone on YOUR side of the argument. So I don't appreciate this deliberate attempt to make me look bad just to elevate your own faulty logic. Knock it off.

 

 

You're comparing the historical significance of the discovery of evolution by natural selection to the political significance of abortion?

 

What, he's only supposed to discuss natural selection? He can't discuss abortion? Why not?

 

You're dodging the question and you know it. And by the way these pointless, completely off-subject comparisons that you keep making in various threads aren't fooling anybody.

 

 

No, and it seems clear to me you simply do not understand the historical significance of Darwin and the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

 

Again with the logical fallacies that you just hate when other people use. Just because I disagree with you, Bascule, doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying.

 

If you can't argue a point on its merits than don't reply at all.

[bascule]

Pointless hair-splitting. Calling it a myth and saying it should not be taken literally are, for our current purposes, the same thing

 

Pointing out that the "biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted" is not the same thing as "declar[ing] that all religion is mere MYTH"

 

Again with the logical fallacies that you just hate when other people use.

 

What logical fallacy is that?

 

The one you used above is called a strawman.

[Dak]

does 'history of western civilisation' include a summary of pre-historical history? i.e., does it say that we all came from apes and evolved into humans, ice age, blah blah blah, early mud-huts and then pick up properly when it gets interesting? iow, are we just talking about the impact of religion on western civilisation, or does it specifically touch upon wether early western history happened as dictated by the bible or as deduced by science?

 

or -- forgive me -- is this 'the history of western civilisation' in the same vein as 'the world baseball seriese', i.e. it picks up when america was settled and focuses on america? in which case i can't see evolution/validity of the bible being directly relevent.

[Pangloss]

Another Poster: <amusingly refers to China as Manchuria>

Pangloss: Perhaps, but Manchuria has been deliberately manipulating the price of tea.

Bascule: They don't call it Manchuria anymore, they call it China! HAH! YOU LOSE! SLAM-DUNK! BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Pangloss: <lists several other relevent points>

Bascule: <ignores them because he has no answer; reiterates the point about Pangloss referring to China as Manchuria and accuses him of not understanding modern geography, an obvious logical fallacy>

Pangloss: <points out that Bascule has just used a logical fallacy>

Bascule: <asks for a definition of said logical fallacy>

Pangloss: <paraphrases what just happened>

Bascule: <will now politely explain that he has never once mentioned China>

 

Sorry bud, I'm just not interested in this kind of RevPrez-like "debate". You're just obfuscating and leading the topic away from an absolutely valid and logical question that you simply have no answer for.

 

I reiterate my point, which has yet to be refuted:

 

If it's valid for the teacher to, in the course of discussing the impact of religion on western history, declare that all religion is mere MYTH and insist that the students must AGREE that it's myth in order to pass the course, then it is also valid (and in fact necessary) for the teacher to instruct them that abortion kills a potential human life, and that all students must agree that it is so in order to pass the course. That's because abortion has been a pivotal political development issue in the history of western civilization.

 

The reasoning is exactly the same.

 

And so I reiterate my point -- YOU DON'T NEED TO BROACH THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE TOPICS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THEIR IMPACT ON WESTERN HISTORY!

 

Dak the answer to your post #90 above is that if they want to foolishly believe that the story of Adam and Eve was a real event and can still answer their examination questions correctly then they have fulfilled the requirements of the course, end of story. When it comes to understanding truth, you simply CANNOT bludgeon people into submission. You can only show them the logic and hope they will understand. We're talking about the difference between freedom of choice and dictatorial repression. FORCING people to "see the truth" is such an outrageous oxymoron that it begs the question of why we're even discussing it.

 

Education and indoctrination are two very different things. Do you want them to see the truth, or do you want them to repeat your answers back to you and nod obediently like good little drones?

[iNow]

I reiterate my point, which has yet to be refuted:

 

If it's valid for the teacher to, in the course of discussing the impact of religion on western history, declare that all religion is mere MYTH and insist that the students must AGREE that it's myth in order to pass the course, then it is also valid (and in fact necessary) for the teacher to instruct them that abortion kills a potential human life, and that all students must agree that it is so in order to pass the course. That's because abortion has been a pivotal political development issue in the history of western civilization.

 

Now I'm confused. Do you intend to use the above as a "for instance" to further the shared understanding of the topic, or is that your interpretation of how things really happened in that specific class? Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer.

 

Also, peripheral to my question above... what's revprez?

[Dak]

Dak the answer to your post #90 above is that if they want to foolishly believe that the story of Adam and Eve was a real event and can still answer their examination questions correctly then they have fulfilled the requirements of the course, end of story. When it comes to understanding truth, you simply CANNOT bludgeon people into submission. You can only show them the logic and hope they will understand. We're talking about the difference between freedom of choice and dictatorial repression. FORCING people to "see the truth" is such an outrageous oxymoron that it begs the question of why we're even discussing it.

 

that doesn't actually answre my question

 

the reason i'm asking is that i'm wondering wether the validity of the adam&eve story is directly relevent to the history of western civilisation course?

 

e.g., is there going to be a question in the exam that says:

 

----

where do we originally come from:

 

1/ adam and eve

2/ monkeys

----

 

or is the validity of secondary relevence to the course?

[ydoaPs]

where do we originally come from:

 

1/ adam and eve

2/ monkeys

 

Not fair! None of the answers are correct. I demand a regrade!

[Reaper]

Also, peripheral to my question above... what's revprez?

 

 

I was wondering that too. I did a search and apparently he is a banned member, here is his profile: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/member.php?u=2237

[insane_alien]

a very very annoying banned member. he is a troll. he makes crap arguements for no other purpose than to annoy people. he has been permenently banned under several different aliases.

[Pangloss]

Now I'm confused. Do you intend to use the above as a "for instance" to further the shared understanding of the topic, or is that your interpretation of how things really happened in that specific class? Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer.

 

I wasn't there, so I have to keep an open mind about what may have actually taken place (e.g. did the students come in with an agenda and surprise/force the teacher and then deliberately misrepresent what he said). But I am saying that it sounds like what happened here. I see people introducing all sorts of irrelevencies into this thread, essentially asking why they shouldn't be forced to acknowledge a great truth that simply isn't relevent to the course.

 

Someone made the point that it should be relevent to the course because of religion's impact on western civilization, and my point there was that if that's the case then wouldn't he also be forced to expose "truths" that AREN'T acceptable to this particular social group, e.g. abortion causes the loss of potential life. The point being that this position is hypocritical because in fact it is not necessary to convey course material without insulting students in their beliefs.

 

But ultimately my point is that the job of a teacher in a free society isn't to force compliance and eradicate all politically incorrect opinions. It simply is not.

 

The hint of dictatorship in the name of science in this thread is just mind-boggling. It certainly feeds into my long-standing opinion (expressed here many times before) that the self-proclaimed defenders of free speech in this country (the political left) are in fact its greatest deniers and violators.

 

And apparently the best response anyone can come up with for this line of reasoning is "well there's a difference between saying Adam and Eve isn't a literal truth and declaring it to be a myth".

 

that doesn't actually answre my question

 

My apologies.

 

the reason i'm asking is that i'm wondering wether the validity of the adam&eve story is directly relevent to the history of western civilisation course?

 

e.g., is there going to be a question in the exam that says:

 

----

where do we originally come from:

 

1/ adam and eve

2/ monkeys

----

 

or is the validity of secondary relevence to the course?

 

Well, western civilization studies typically begin with Greco-Roman history. It's expressly separated from East Asian or African studies, origins, etc. But okay, if you want to widen the subject to "all history", I've already agreed with what I think you're saying on this point. Let me quote myself:

 

IFF the course directly requires such interaction, I support those answers.

 

The "answers" in that earlier example being requiring the students to learn specific answers supported by science that might contradict their beliefs.

 

But I think even there you can do that without involving yourself in their personal beliefs. When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on. You refuse to engage them in a religious discussion. REFUSE. THAT is how you control the classroom and stay on subject and get the much more important job of learning done.

 

Put it this way: Do you think the uninvolved students in that classroom learned what they were supposed to learn that day? And if not, who's fault is that? What this teacher did was allow some religious zealot dictate what got learned that day. How can that be a good thing?

 

What the heck do you people do when your students ask you whether they should vote for George Bush? I can't believe any of you would engage on THAT subject, but how is it NOT arguably relevent to ANY course you're teaching? Hmm?

 

Come on, this is obvious.

[D H]

I wasn't there, so I have to keep an open mind about what may have actually taken place ...

 

Keeping an open mind is a good thing, as all we have to go on is the instructor's claim that he was fired for the cited cause. The real reasons for his firing must remain a closed record unless he sues the school. The school would risk a lawsuit with good grounds should they publicize why he was fired. Such is the modern world.

 

I agree most with Pangloss in this thread. Bascule and RevPrez are equally cogent -- and I mean wrt each other, not Pangloss.

 

Anyone who has worked with kids (and college students often act more like kids than adults) knows that one of an instructor's principal challenges is to keep the class on course. Kids will do things to intentionally steer the discussion off topic. This instructor lost control.

[bascule]

For an excellent treatment of the historical ramifications of Darwin's theories I highly suggest everyone here watch episode 8 of James Burke's excellent series "The Day the Universe Changed", entitled Fit to Rule: Darwin's Revolution.

 

Burke manages to remain cordial when addressing quite matter-of-factly Darwin's discoveries and the social revolution they kicked off. James Burke has always managed to quite delicately address the interplay between science and religion, and remains quite inoffensive while pointing out that scientific knowledge trumps a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

 

Setting aside a literal interpretation of Genesis is not anti-Christian or anti-religion in any way. You might remember past threads I've posted on the matter:

 

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

 

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

 

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

 

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

 

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

 

You might also remember this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21926

 

The belief that God created the universe in six days is a superstition and a "kind of paganism" that both discredits religious faith and demeans science, Br Guy Consolmagno SJ has declared.

 

Consolmagno, a Jesuit brother who in his scientific work has pioneered the field of gravitoelectrodynamics, said that far from being a Christian viewpoint, creationism harks back to primitive beliefs in "nature gods" who were held responsible for natural events.

 

He said a "destructive myth" has developed in modern societies that religion and science are competing ideologies - and that this is fed by creationism, which scholars say is a distortion of the biblical texts it claims as its own.

 

Br Consolmagno works in the Vatican observatory in Arizona. He is also curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy. In addition to his work in astronomy, he studied philosophy and theology at Loyola University, Chicago, and physics at the University of Chicago. He has spent several terms as a visiting scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Centre.

 

Speaking recently at the Glasgow Science Centre, Consolmagno argued that the distinctive Christian understanding of God's transcendence recognises divine creativity in the unfolding of natural phenomena which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods.

 

He said: "Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which turns God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not necessarily be a good thing to do."

 

What is it this teacher is saying that hasn't already been said by the Vatican?

 

However, by Pangloss's standards this Vatican cardinal and astronomer have decided to "declare that all religion is mere MYTH." To say otherwise is "pointless hair splitting"

[Dak]

Well, western civilization studies typically begin with Greco-Roman history.

 

ah, so wether-or-not the adam and eve story is true isn't directly related to the course. other than making the calim that it was once accepted, but now is not academically accepted i suppose.

 

When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on.

 

yup. I'm thinking it depends on how he did it, mainly, rather than the fact that he did it.

 

anything more on the news over in the US about how he actually said it?