The new fundamentalists

[G4Z]

Did anybody else see this documentary?

If you didnt I suggest you watch for a repeat or maybe check out *cough* other sources.

For those that missed it, this artice will give some context :

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...664608,00.html

I was really really shocked at what is happening in these schools, one of them is just up the road from me. Its part of this Vardy foundation thing, basicly Peter Vardy gets to influence thousands of school kids for £2mil (10% of the initial cost) with no ongoing costs, all the rest is picked up by the good old taxpayer. his agenda is a Christian fundamentalist one and basicly these kids are actualy being taught that evolution is just a theory and that creationism is an equivilent theory!

This goes against everything I know, even most CoE christians that make up the christian majority would say that the bible is a metaphor and that clearly the earth isnt 6000 years ald. The headmaster of these schools actualy belives this and see's no issue with dinosaurs and humans running round at the same time.

How can our government allow this perversion of education to continue?

I am not even getting into the sleath selection that is alleged to exist either.

So, thoughts?

[fuddam]

LOL

as usual, C4 produced another hit, rich in sloppy journalism and puerile argument. Ho hum. Getting to be quite predictable, they are.

Won't argue about the school angle, since I don't know the full story - all I know is what the 'documentary' showed.

Am not a proponent of a 6000 year old earth myself, though I AM a Christian, and hopefully a fundamentalist one at that. Am surprised the narrator didn't use a Darth Vader-type voice every time he used he term: Fundamentalist Christian - ooooooooooh! aaaaaaaaaaaaah! shivers & horrors!!!!

yep, am a fundamentalist if that means someone who would like to be prepared to die for one's faith. Problem is that in the real deal, would probably chicken out. If someone put a gun to my head, would like to SAY that I would be sterling and brave and true, but when they break out the bone saw, the chain saw and the blow torch, what would I really be squeaking?

likewise, a fundamentalist, in the Christian mode, would be one who would jump in the way of the bullet that is speeding to kill the stranger (not just a friend - that's easy), or sacrifice all one's material wealth if the need arose, etc.

Christ was a fundamentalist. He believed in the infallibility of scripture (which is why He came to fulfil the word, not repeal it), and He died for what He believed in. I only pray I can measure up (with His help, of course)

oh, G4Z, evolution IS a theory. It has never been proven.



see here and here for a start.

of course, am not wishing to start another whole thread on the Creation vs Evolution stuff, since it's been done here before, but is worth knowing the terms one is using in a discussion.

[Kumagoro]

Wasnt the "creationism is an equivalent theory" the contentious point. In that creationism
is just a load of bollocks and not at all a theory in the scientific sense.

[TeePee]

As fuddam likes to repeat, evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. But Creationism IS NOT.

Faith schools are evil. A christian fundamentalist is as bad as a muslim one.

[Woodchuck2000]

likewise, a fundamentalist, in the Christian mode, would be one who would jump in the way of the bullet that is speeding to kill the stranger (not just a friend - that's easy), or sacrifice all one's material wealth if the need arose, etc.

Christ was a fundamentalist. He believed in the infallibility of scripture (which is why He came to fulfil the word, not repeal it), and He died for what He believed in. I only pray I can measure up (with His help, of course).

I think you could do with looking up fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is a return to the (percieved) basic principles of a faith. In Christianity this tends to be characterised by a literal interpretation of the bible and intolerence of other viewpoints by virtue of that. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with taking a bullet or dying for one's faith.

Christ was very definitely not a fundamentalist. As Jews go, he was pretty radical and certainly did not go around imposing the Mosaic laws on people. Nowhere in the Bible will you find any evidence that Christ believed in the infallibility of scripture, and it's questionable that anything in the Bible suggests that scripture is infallible, or literal for that matter.

Back on topic, It's reasonable to say that creation is as valid as evolution in terms of the beliefs of the world's population. After all, evolution is just a theory. You have to remember that these documentaries are created by people who are entirely against the teaching of both theories and the program, as a fair study, is entirely compromised in that respect.

[G4Z]

fuddam, to be honest I find it fairly insulting that you are reminding me evolution is a theory (and it is, with an overwhelming amount of evidence to back it up) and then posting links on the definition. I actualy have some critical reasoning and that is why it is plain as day for me that Creationism is about as valid as me saying that the earth was in fact created one day when a meaball fell off the flying spaghetti monster. There is no evidence for either, and neither is falsifiable nor can you make predictions or observations. Evolution and how the earth is formed on the other hand has stacks of evidence to back it up and is generally accepted by out best critical thinkers, including the pope apparently.

Also as usual for a fundie you are mis interpreting what a scientiffic theory actualy is, I can find you a link if you like.

[Mike Fishcake]

Having beliefs is a bad thing. It's better to have ideas, because you can change an idea.

(to paraphrase a line from Kevin Smith's "Dogma")

[Hans Voralberg]

The headmaster of these schools actualy belives this and see's no issue with dinosaurs and humans running round at the same time.

So, thoughts?

You gotta be kidding me. Says we exist alongside dinosours then where's our bones left-overs ? Did the dinosours get us extinct ? Holy cow, those guys are not worthy being headmaster.

P.S: Evolution is a theory, from the day it was born and still a theory. But mess it up with faith, these guys are no-brainers.

[fuddam]

basicly these kids are actualy being taught that evolution is just a theory and that creationism is an equivilent theory!

LOL - did you or did you not imply that evolution is NOT a theory?
hmmm........

The headmaster of these schools actualy belives this and see's no issue with dinosaurs and humans running round at the same time.

talk about a whitewash! lol again. The 'journalist' pushed the headmaster into a corner, in an effort to discredit him (a very obvious ploy), and the headmaster fell for it. Instead of questioning the greater parameters of the 'journalist's' argument, the headmaster capitulated. IIRC that same headmaster mentioned initially that Genesis could be metaphorical (nice of you to avoid mentioning that. Selective memory?) but under the push of the Arbiter of Truth, gave in. He was visibly embarrassed as he did so.

Anyway, am not writing to defend him - he can do that himself to anyone who cares to actually speak to him, rather than base their opinion solely on the bias of the program.

in fact, it was very apparent that the 'journalist' had an agenda which he then sought to justify, just as Dawkins did before. No investigation. Just find the right targets for justification. LOL.

and he made such facile comments, like trying to put the blame on the Christian woman (who advocated abstinance) for subsequent spread of STDs. PLEASE!!!!!

He also said such programs were largely ineffectual. Well, seeing as he knows so much, I wonder how he reconciles his logic with the very real results seen in places like Uganda, where the rate of AIDS transmission has fallen dramatically as a result of such fundamentalist 'propaganda'. Again his technique was one of intimidation, not investigation. Typical.

oh, for those who didn't see the program, you might save yourself some embarrassment and not comment on it. Comment on the idea of Christian fundamentalism, of course, but not on the program. You just look like a git.

[TeePee]

the blame on the Christian woman (who advocated abstinance) for subsequent spread of STDs. PLEASE!!!!!

They also say contraceptives are a sin. Clear cut it ain't.

He also said such programs were largely ineffectual. Well, seeing as he knows so much, I wonder how he reconciles his logic with the very real results seen in places like Uganda, where the rate of AIDS transmission has fallen dramatically as a result of such fundamentalist 'propaganda'. Again his technique was one of intimidation, not investigation. Typical.

Is it a direct result of the propaganda only? Or maybe the widespread programs that give away free condoms have something to do with it?

[G4Z]

Fuddam, I dont know where to start.

May as well be the begininng, i will be very clear here :

EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not just a theory like "i have a theory that Newcastle are incabale of winning at southhampton" if anything creationism is a hypothesis, it is certainly not a theory in this sense.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method)."


On your second post, Journalists are meant to push interviewees to find thier true feelings, just happens this guy is so dumb and has no reasoning beind his ideas other than it says so in the bible and was easily outfoxed. he did mention that geneisis could be considered metaphorical however shortly after said he thought the bible was litteral after pressing from the Journalist.

What exactly do you think this journalists agenda is?, and in fact can you answer me this more fundamental question, what difference does that make and do you think it is acceptable to teach this stuff to kids in state schools?

The STD thing, to be honest with the AIDS nightmare that is africa thanks in part to church advocacy of abstinance and shunning of contraception I have no idea how you can use 1 example in a continent in the throws of a AIDS pandemic, great reasoning.

[fuddam]

I think you could do with looking up fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is a return to the (percieved) basic principles of a faith. In Christianity this tends to be characterised by a literal interpretation of the bible and intolerence of other viewpoints by virtue of that.

says who? only your blinkered idea of it. anyone who really seeks to understand Christianity might want to look at Christ. Seems logical to look at the main exponent of a belief system rather than what other people claim about it.

So, what was Christ intolerant of? And of who? Well, if the Bible serves as a record of His behaviour, He seemed to be intolerant of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, anger, fear, persecution, hypcocrisy - to name a few.

Fundamentalism has nothing to do with taking a bullet or dying for one's faith.

Christ was very definitely not a fundamentalist.

depends on your definition of the term. Yes, BEFORE your response I had a look at dictionary.com's definition, just to see how some people might view it. It states:

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Christ WAS intolerant of those issues I mentioned above. He rigidly adhered to principles of love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, and charity, and was definitely opposed to secularism.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find any evidence that Christ believed in the infallibility of scripture, and it's questionable that anything in the Bible suggests that scripture is infallible, or literal for that matter.

Well, how about these apples?:

So perfect is His Word that God issued this warning: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it,....." Deuteronomy 4:2.

This warning is further emphasized in the last book of the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" Rev. 22:18-19.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2nd. Tim. 3:16-17).

Also, as far as Christ himself saw it:

"`Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them'" (Matthew 5:17)

and

"Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, `We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.' The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about." (Luke 18:31-34).

and

"Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'" (Luke 24:44).

Likewise when He was being tested by satan in the desert, all of his answers were direct references to scripture. He began His rebuttals each time with "It is written...". The average Jewish boy would have memorized vast tracts of scripture by the time of their barmitzvah.

Of course, every word being sound does NOT imply each word is meant literally. When Christ told stories, did He mean that the stories were true, or stories to illustrate a point?

"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: `I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.'" (Matthew 13:34-35).

So, I am a fundamentalist, believing fundamentally in the truth of the written Word, but also understanding it to be open (necessarily) to interpretation. As context changes, so meaning changes, which is why even within my own experience, reading the same text twice does not necessarily bring forth the same meaning. The Bible is not an old book full of old stories; it is as real, alive and pertinent to modern life as it has ever been.

Back on topic, It's reasonable to say that creation is as valid as evolution in terms of the beliefs of the world's population. After all, evolution is just a theory. You have to remember that these documentaries are created by people who are entirely against the teaching of both theories and the program, as a fair study, is entirely compromised in that respect.

agreed.

[atrull]

I went to a COE school, but nobody there took religion very seriously

Can't say it did me any harm, since I don't think I'm a **** ?

[fuddam]

They also say contraceptives are a sin. Clear cut it ain't.

who is 'THEY? Clarify, please. I am a Evangelical Christian. I have no problem with contraception that does not involve abortion of an embryo.

Is it a direct result of the propaganda only? Or maybe the widespread programs that give away free condoms have something to do with it?

that is what one might think, however there has been a DIRECT correlation between those countries that have been preaching abstinence and the decline of AIDS, vs those countries that simply supply condoms. I come from Africa. I come from a country with one of the highest rates of infection in the world (over 33%). Many of my friends work with AIDS patients there every day, and are involved with AIDS prevention. Believe me, these people WANT to know what the best method is for preventing transmission, for purely practical reasons, not to prove scriptural points.

[G4Z]

Care to link to the study that shows that "DIRECT" correlation?

Also, correlation is not the same as causation.

[fuddam]

Fuddam, I dont know where to start.

May as well be the begininng, i will be very clear here :

EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not just a theory like "i have a theory that Newcastle are incabale of winning at southhampton" if anything creationism is a hypothesis, it is certainly not a theory in this sense.

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method)."

quite right. Did you bother to look up what a hypothesis is? Hope so.

If you're going to go on about evolution, understand that intelligent design is also a SCIENTIFIC explanation of the world, with its own hypotheses illustrating the hypthetico-deductive method. LOL

On your second post, Journalists are meant to push interviewees to find thier true feelings, just happens this guy is so dumb and has no reasoning beind his ideas other than it says so in the bible and was easily outfoxed. he did mention that geneisis could be considered metaphorical however shortly after said he thought the bible was literal after pressing from the Journalist.

he said Genesis COULD be literal. You are not aware of the difference that makes. After all, if there is a God (to work from your point of view), if He truly is capable of making an entire universe, He could also make it to start at any stage. Not my position personally, but it illustrates my point.

What exactly do you think this journalists agenda is?, and in fact can you answer me this more fundamental question, what difference does that make

well, it has a massive effect on
1) the questions asked
2) how they are asked
3) what will be broadcast and what will be left on the editing floor.

As happened with the Dawkins' programmes. I personally know some of the people he conveniently left out. Very predictable.

....and do you think it is acceptable to teach this stuff to kids in state schools?

Totally. My son goes to a state school. It is not a COE school. It has no direct religious affiliation. However, when Christmas comes around, they have very specific discussion of the Christian origins of Christmas, and celebrate it as such. They also mention other religious festivals, including Eid etc, as they should. But no-one is arrogant enough to boldly declare that Christianity is a load of rubbish that should be kicked out of the education system, that despite it being the largest system of organised belief on the planet, it has no place in school.

in fact, in a balanced education system, you would think simple humility would lead a teacher to state that the theories being taught are just that, and open to debate, and open to being over turned in the face of new evidence, and as such, would mention the other possibilities (like creation, like intelligent design).

The STD thing, to be honest with the AIDS nightmare that is africa thanks in part to church advocacy of abstinance and shunning of contraception I have no idea how you can use 1 example in a continent in the throws of a AIDS pandemic, great reasoning.

abstinence promotes STDs? ROTFL!!!
my mention of africa is very pertinent: it illustrates where the precious journalist's precious theories were full of garbage - that's why. Great reasoning.