When it comes to cosmology all that can be argued in possibilities - not which one is "correct" (unless you mean politically correct and in that case is it politically correct to pretend Darwinism is the only possible theory)
So where would you teach this course? Science class? Sociology? Comparative religion? Why not teach it in Sunday School?
I certainly have no complaints about such a class, as long as no one is trying to deem it a science class...see, most everything except for evolution is non-scientific, and therefore doesn't belong in the science classroom. Therefore, another forum is required. As near as I can tell, to date each Creationist foray into getting Creation into the classrooms has been to place it in a science classroom, which is not the place for it. Do you agree or disagree?
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.In Galileo's time, those passages were taken very literally. The Joshua episode and the passage from Ecclesiastes were used at his trial. He was found guilty of heresy for teaching that the earth orbited the sun. The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633.1st Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
[I'll skip Job, because it's too long to quote here, but it has more of the same.]
Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [This is a lovely and very clear description of the sun orbiting the Earth.]
Here's two flat-earth passages from the New Testament, written centuries after the Greeks had accurately computed the circumfrence of the earth:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; [Clearly, this high mountain is looking over a flat Earth.]
Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Galileo's book on the solar system was banned, and Galileo was put under house arrest for the remainder of his life (around 6 or 7 years, as he was then in his 70s).
Today, no one reads scripture that literally -- at least not regarding the motion of the earth. There are some very clever reasons now given for this, but the churchmen who prosecuted Galileo were clever too, and the bible hasn't changed. Yet somehow, our understanding of those passages has changed, and we now regard them as metaphorical. Why? Because science has taught us that they can't be literally true. And no one runs around (like they used to do) saying that you can't be a Christian and also believe in the solar system. Nor does anyone run around demanding equal time in classrooms for the geocentric model of the universe. The Church officially pardoned Galileo in the 1960s (about 330 years after his conviction). These things take time.
In my ever-so-humble opinion, it is the same with Genesis and evolution. But it takes time for folks to adjust to the fact that they have been reading some passages too literally. The Pope (for those who care) has recently addressed this issue: Message from the Pope, 1996 (re evolution).
After Galileo, it took generations for our understanding of the bible to be reconciled to the solar system. Today, not only Catholics but also many Protestants have no problem with evolution. I suppose the same reconciliation with evolution will come to all denominations. But not right away. Anyway, we've had this problem before (with Galileo) and we got through the crisis. We'll get through the problem of evolution too.
To be honest that is a good question. Cosmology is a strange beast. It is really more of a philosophy. Truth is cosmology is a teeny tiny part of the science taught. NOTE: evolution in biology is a totally different subject than evolution in cosmology.
I certainly have no complaints about such a class, as long as no one is trying to deem it a science class
I totally agree. (including evolution as cosomology)
As near as I can tell, to date each Creationist foray into getting Creation into the classrooms has been to place it in a science classroom, which is not the place for it. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree.