Ohio has gone off the deep end

[Anaxagoras]

OK.... first they officially ban gay marriages, now they're trying to weaken belief in evolution:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1076495549160490.xml


I was born in that state, and used to visit it all the time. Ohio always struck me as painfully sane... so sane that you want to shoot yourself after spending too much time there. What the hell happened?

Yes, I know that they're not actually introducing intelligent design in the curriculum... but it sounds like they're introducing material whose only purpose is to weaken belief in evolution. The South shall rise again indeed. Apparently it's rising up into Ohio.

[Midnight Son]

The State Board of Education gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a 10th-grade biology lesson that scientists say could put "intelligent design" in Ohio classrooms.

Setting aside an impassioned plea from the National Academy of Sciences, the board voted 13-4 to declare its intent to adopt the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson next month.

The academy warned that doing so would give a green light to teaching intelligent design, the idea that life is so complex that a higher being must have created it.

It as if the scientific facts on which our civilization are built are optional!

[MikeSofaer]

Well, I did 5 years at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, and the dorms were quite full of people who were completely convinced that life was a divine creation. People willing to grab any rational-sounding argument to back themselves up. Not stupid people, either, as these things go. Capable of pushing electrons around a molecule, for sure.

It was saddening.

So yeah. Ohio is bible belt, and evolution biology is blasphemy.

[Mark Asher]

Evolution doesn't preclude the belief in a Creator, though, which is what I don't understand. Science is neutral on that point.

If there was some science to back up intelligent design, I wouldn't mind, really. Instead, all intelligent design does is try to poke holes in the theory of evolution and then say it must be intelligent design by default since nothing else fits.

It really is appalling, though. It's nothing more than religion being shoehorned into the schools.

[Anaxagoras]

Evolution doesn't preclude the belief in a Creator, though, which is what I don't understand. Science is neutral on that point.


I think that's the problem. Science is neutral on that point, but fundamentalist Christianity isn't. At heart, that brand of Christianity is anti-rational.... this isn't an insult, it's simply a description. They don't trust rational thought to guide people to Truth. When you throw rationality out of the mix, which doctrines are "important" becomes pretty much random. How they settled on evolution/creationism as one of the important doctrinal splits is beyond me. It's like the Reformation all over again.

"Transubstantiation is a crock!"

"Blasphemer!"

<insert 70's era Batman fistfight here.>

[Duality]

OK.... first they officially ban gay marriages, now they're trying to weaken belief in evolution ...
Ohio. The Georgia of the north.

I do like how they change the term "creationism" to "intelligent design." Nice touch. :roll:

[Qenan]

Unfortunately, there are stupid people everywhere.

[Jason McMaster]

Yes, I agree. I'm to understand, though, that southerners (myself included) are by far the stupidest. We don't want Ohio.

[Jason McCullough]

OK.... first they officially ban gay marriages, now they're trying to weaken belief in evolution ...
Ohio. The Georgia of the north.

I do like how they change the term "creationism" to "intelligent design." Nice touch. :roll:

It's scientific now! It has a name, and people with fake degrees advocating it and everything.

[John Reynolds]

I was once again trying to have a lucid conversation with the fundies at work on this topic since we live in OH. I was explaining how I feel that thousands of years of Biblical interpretation are wrong concerning the first chapter of Genesis. I'll try to keep this short:

The Bible reads that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Second verse reads that the earth was without form and void. It's been years since I researched this but I believe the Aramaic word used in that second verse is tohu, which should be more accurately translanted became. . .i.e. the earth became without form and void, it wasn't created that way. The Aramaic word used for create from the first verse, bara (which means to literally bring something from nothing), is not used again until verse 21 when God "creates the great whales and every living creature that moveth". Last, verse 28 reads "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. . . ."

If the earth had never had life on it before these so-called seven days of creation (seven days in which the Bible never uses the word bara but instead uses other words), why was God saying to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the planet? Basically this should tell Christians that something happened between verses one and two, some cataclysmic event that wiped out all life on the planet (which most scientists agree did occur at some point). This interpretation also moves us away from the claims that God created the earth only 6,000 years ago because it introduces the idea that there's a gap of time, possibly eons, between when God created the heavens and the earth and the time period in which they became without form and void (and why would a God of law and order create them voidless/formless?). And this allows Christians to not bury their heads in the sand when anthropologists unearth skeletal remains which are carbon dated as far older than Biblically recorded history. In short, a huge aspect of how modern science supposedly invalides Biblical history and teachings has instead invalidated only the traditional interpretation of those opening verses. IMO, of course.

This isn't some wild 'n wacky theory I've cooked up to reconcile modern science with faith. I've always challenged people to research the Aramaic for themselves, to watch how and where specific words are used in those opening verses of Genesis.

As an aside, my co-workers unanimously rejected my research. Go figure.

[MikeSofaer]

I'm pretty sure that the line is

Vehaaretzh haita tohu vavohu

And I always understood it like this:

Ve ha aretzh haita toho va vohu
and the earth was formless and empty

[Anaxagoras]

John... the problem is that you're trying to use reason with them. That is *not* part of their world view. Few people are ruled by reason as much as we like to think..... but with fundies it's not even thrown into the equation. They might (emphasis: *might*) give the idea lip service, but it simply isn't important to them.

If you're interested in this, you might want to read about Medieval Philosophy. (If you haven't already.) The famous theologians... St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, William Occam, etc. all tried to reconcile reason with faith. They're collectively known as the Scholastics, although the only thing they have in common is their use of reason. However, there was a very strong current against reason, as evidenced by people like Savanorola. (sp?) The problem is, the counter-reason faction had few leaders (how can you lead such a movement?) and they seem to us like uneducated peasants who wouldn't see reason, so it's hard to get a grip on what they were trying to say. It's not that they just didn't see reason... they actually turned their back on it. It's a whole philosophy unto itself. One that can't be enunciated, and which consists of nothing more than numerous declarative statements. No why's, no explanations, just declarations.

Modern day fundies really are direct continuations of that mindset. It's a very frightening one, and I believe it's one that's more common than we'd like to believe. It seems like most of the Muslim world is caught in its grip as well. Hell, here on this board, Bob Cherub seems to hold this mindset. I honestly don't think he's as stupid as he appears.... he merely believes each and every one of his declarations, even though he can't justify them. And why should he justify them? Reason is extremely limited, according to this viewpoint. So why bother using it when you're trying to discover ultimate truths.

[John Reynolds]

I'm pretty sure that the line is

Vehaaretzh haita tohu vavohu

And I always understood it like this:

Ve ha aretzh haita toho va vohu
and the earth was formless and empty

Mike, I'd forgotten that bohu is also in Genesis 1:2. Check this out: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-November/004926.html

The word _bohu_ occurs in:

-Gen 1:2 (along with _tohu_)
-Isa 34:11 (along with _tohu_)
-Jer 4:23 (along with _tohu_)

The builder's line of "non-existence" will be brought to bear over the towns and the building stones will be knocked down, disordered, disarrayed, made chaotic, featureless, void and vacant. That is the implication of _bohu_.

[MikeSofaer]

Yeah, read the link, and that's possible, but my point is that the verb in the sentence is clearly haita, which means was, not became. I don't see how you can argue that the verse doesn't imply that tohu vavohu is the inaugural state of the earth.

[Gav]

I think Mike's right here, especially if you see v.1 as scene-setting, not a declarative statement. The issue is with the word "b'reishit"--why is it in the construct state, instead of "b'rishonah"? One translation that solves this problem is to say that v. 1 means "In the beginning of God's creation of the heaven and the earth", where v.2 continues the sentence.

Also, I'm not sure why you say v.28 uses the word replenish--the Hebrew is "mil'u", which means to fill.

And this brings up a reason why your colleagues may not have wanted to argue with you--a lot of this can be fairly technical stuff (my copy of the "mikra'ot g'dolot" (thoughts of major Medieval Jewish exegetes) spends 8 pages discussing v.1) and not everyone has the patience, interest, or energy to delve into these things. So you come along and say, "Look, guys, I've got a radical interpretation of vs. 1 & 2, but you need to understand Biblical Hebrew to get it," and they just don't know enough to have a reasonable discussion.

I had a pretty good friend who was like that. Very fundamentalist, and if the topic of evolution ever came up, she would just say something to the effect of, "I don't know enough to talk about it, and it doesn't affect my life one way or the other, so I don't worry about it."

Gav