Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[Elsie]

Why no rule against owning slaves?

Take it up with God, since it's obvious you've never dealt with the IRS!

[Elsie]

I wasn't aware that fundamentalist was a pejorative.

Yeah.... sure.....

[Elsie]

Thumper was Bambi's friend.

Godzilla wasn't...

 

 

 

http://www.robrob8.com/movies/bambi_and_godzilla2.htm

[Always Learning]

I haven't read much of this thread, but I did come across a discussion about this topic on Panda's Thumb, an excerpt of which is:

“But as usual the ‘victory’ of Intelligent Design was mostly smoke and mirrors and short lived as the OCR Exam Board released a clarification. Why is it that Intelligent Design can only be succesful in our ignorance? ...

Indeed, the brits are teaching the controversy and it does not include Intelligent Design and creationism as they are not scientific theories. In case of Intelligent Design I have argued that it is scientifically vacuous more than not scientific because it lacks much of anything relevant to determine if it is scientific...

The British Humanist Association wrote a letter to the Minister for Schools asking 'for a reply that clarified whether it is indeed the government’s view that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are examples of scientific theories based on empirical evidence within the meaning of the national curriculum.'...

The minister Jacqui Smith responded to oral questions about Intelligent Design on Oct 31 2005:

Dr. Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in England teach a course in which intelligent design forms a unit.

Jacqui Smith: Intelligent design does not form part of any programme of study in the national curriculum. In science pupils should be taught at Key Stage 4 “how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin’s theory of evolution]”. Although it is possible that intelligent design could be raised in this context, controversies need to be scientific in order to meet national curriculum requirements.

Intelligent design may be taught in religious education lessons as a religious interpretation of how the world was created. All religious education syllabuses are devised by local authorities, so statistics are not held centrally."

The entire article and thread may be read HERE

[King Prout]

nice!

[King Prout]

that isn't in the King James:
[9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

[King Prout]

Latin Vulgate
1:9 sciens hoc quia iusto lex non est posita sed iniustis et non subditis impiis et peccatoribus sceleratis et contaminatis patricidis et matricidis homicidis
1:10 fornicariis masculorum concubitoribus plagiariis mendacibus periuris et si quid aliud sanae doctrinae adversatur

no mention of slave owners or slave traders there...

[From many - one.]

Most excellent.

I particularly liked this:

"...Although it is possible that intelligent design could be raised in this context, controversies need to be scientific in order to meet national curriculum requirements..."

[From many - one.]

My Latin is basically non-existent, but the 1:10 Latin doesn't look as if it matches up with the English.

Can you enlighten me?

[King Prout]

wow... what I miss for preferring to read the bible in potent KJV verse!
such *diversity* exists for something that is supposed to be the inerrant (literally "non-straying") word of God...

Bible in Basic English
1:10 For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires, for those who take men prisoners, who make false statements and false oaths, and those who do any other things against the right teaching,
(this must be the Bible for Dummies version, as "for those who take men prisoners" could apply to terrorist hostage-takers, kidnappers, slavers, POLICE...)

Darby's English Translation
1:10 fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,
"kidnappers"

Douay Rheims
1:10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,
"menstealers" as in KJV... could be kidnappers, slavers, the Draft Board, home-wreckers...

Noah Webster Bible
1:10 For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
"menstealers" again

Weymouth New Testament
1:10 fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching
ah, finally... "slave-dealers" is close enough

World English Bible
1:10 for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
and here

Young's Literal Translation
1:10 whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,
"men-stealers" again

unfortunately, I never had much schooling in Attic (or any other) Greek, and what little I had has rusted out of existence, so I cannot look at the multiple Greek versions of Tim 1:10 (Alexandrine, Byzantine Majority, Scrivener's, Hort and Wescott, or Stephens) beyond noting that there seems no difference in wording, but some difference in emphasis.

The point is, LC, there is no justice in your "in case you missed it" snarkiness. There are so-many-versions, and it seems that most of them don't have the translation you elected to post.

so...

(yep, here it comes)

[King Prout]

I'm parsed out, after that explanation of the meaning of the Second Amendment a little while ago.

[R. Scott]

Including creationism in the curricula should help the scores. It doesn’t take much thinking ability to accept “Zap – there it is”.

[From many - one.]

One of those not-generally-taken-literally statements.

[From many - one.]

Your post 810 was what I wanted.

Basically, they aren't sure about some of it. Neither am I, but I don't mind, not being an inerrancy, literalist type.

[Always Learning]

You guys obviously need to get this book. ;-)

Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman

Reader’s Comments on the Book

Bible.org’s Commentary on the Book

NPR Story on the Book

[King Prout]

9 - knowing this law is not set forth for the just and ("but", in this case, as it is contrasting the initial statement object "the just") for the impious and the sinnful (sceleratis? dunno) and the soiled/poisoned father-killers (though "patricide" can mean murderes more generally) and mother-killers and murderers
10 - (continues...)(and) f[beep!]ers of men (best guess: sodomites), and the robbers of mates (looks more like homewreckers than slavers), and liars and the perjured, and -if against proper teachings- any other thing.

you *do* know that I'm borderline O-C, ja?

[King Prout]

grrr.....

[King Prout]

in my spare time...

*sardonic laughter*

[From many - one.]

"..you *do* know that I'm borderline O-C, ja?"

Good. (but you shouldn't have told me);->
Now, is that any kind of mate or only males or only females?

BTW, I'm not buying slave-traders, it seems like a wishful thinking translation.

[King Prout]

male only. iirc, were it female it would be "uxoribus" or if both male and female it would be "coniugoribus"