2 ms·

Just wow. I'm embarrassed for New Zealand. An American analogy would be if the National Academy of Science were taken over by Christian creationists, and the te

by hw-guy 4y ago

Just wow. I'm embarrassed for New Zealand. An American analogy would be if the National Academy of Science were taken over by Christian creationists, and the teaching of evolution were condemned as "hurtful" etc.

sarsway 4y ago
It seems to be the other way around though. Modern scientists getting upset for schools teaching creation myths. To be honest I think it's a bit arrogant to say there's no value in these myth and dismiss them as nothing but fairy tales. Because they tend to delve deep into philosophy, raise questions of what we are, and what it means to be here, and there's definitely value in studying these kind of things. Obviously evolution should be taught as well, but it's a narrow mindset to assume we actually have it all figured out, can proclaim an objective truth about our existence, and everything else is just non-sense. Because you have to admit, there are so many things we don't really know, and we can't be pretentious, like nothing ever could possibly challenge the paradigm of our current understanding. Like for example the picture of the pyramids in the blog post, how did those exactly came to be? Well nobody knows. Another thing that nobody knows, is how exactly atoms and particles work, and it really demonstrate the fragile legs on which we're standing here. It means we don't actually have working model of our reality. Which is pretty big deal if you want to proclaim things as true. Not to come across as too wacky, but some of these old spiritual texts are really interesting, they don't have to be taken at face value, but there's some buried wisdom there that makes them worth mentioning in schools I think.
- hw-guy 4y ago
  I agree about the spiritual part. Many people get wisdom, inspiration, etc. from the Bible. But people who use the Genesis timeline to calculate the age, composition, and shape of the earth, or the emergence of living species, are considered fringe in the U.S. In New Zealand, similar traditions coming from the Maori are considered unassailable dogma, and skeptics are regarded as heretics to be condemned.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Sure we can talk about mythicism and religion in religion class or maybe philosophy class, but keep them out of science classes, because they certainly are not science. And it is not arrogance to say that religion is not an equivalent system for explaining the world.
InitialLastName 4y ago
> An American analogy would be if the National Academy of Science were taken over by Christian creationists, and the teaching of evolution were condemned as "hurtful" etc. The subset of people in the US who would be willing to push that agenda are neither insubstantial nor marginalized from political power (in recent memory they've been within an unhealthy septuagenarian's heartbeat of the presidency).
- hw-guy 4y ago
  Maybe they are not marginalized from political power in the civic realm, but they are certainly considered outliers in the academic world (aside from a few evangelical colleges).

by hw-guy 4y ago

sarsway 4y ago

It seems to be the other way around though. Modern scientists getting upset for schools teaching creation myths. To be honest I think it's a bit arrogant to say there's no value in these myth and dismiss them as nothing but fairy tales. Because they tend to delve deep into philosophy, raise questions of what we are, and what it means to be here, and there's definitely value in studying these kind of things. Obviously evolution should be taught as well, but it's a narrow mindset to assume we actually have it all figured out, can proclaim an objective truth about our existence, and everything else is just non-sense. Because you have to admit, there are so many things we don't really know, and we can't be pretentious, like nothing ever could possibly challenge the paradigm of our current understanding. Like for example the picture of the pyramids in the blog post, how did those exactly came to be? Well nobody knows. Another thing that nobody knows, is how exactly atoms and particles work, and it really demonstrate the fragile legs on which we're standing here. It means we don't actually have working model of our reality. Which is pretty big deal if you want to proclaim things as true. Not to come across as too wacky, but some of these old spiritual texts are really interesting, they don't have to be taken at face value, but there's some buried wisdom there that makes them worth mentioning in schools I think.

hw-guy 4y ago
I agree about the spiritual part. Many people get wisdom, inspiration, etc. from the Bible. But people who use the Genesis timeline to calculate the age, composition, and shape of the earth, or the emergence of living species, are considered fringe in the U.S. In New Zealand, similar traditions coming from the Maori are considered unassailable dogma, and skeptics are regarded as heretics to be condemned.
cycomanic 4y ago
Sure we can talk about mythicism and religion in religion class or maybe philosophy class, but keep them out of science classes, because they certainly are not science. And it is not arrogance to say that religion is not an equivalent system for explaining the world.

InitialLastName 4y ago

> An American analogy would be if the National Academy of Science were taken over by Christian creationists, and the teaching of evolution were condemned as "hurtful" etc. The subset of people in the US who would be willing to push that agenda are neither insubstantial nor marginalized from political power (in recent memory they've been within an unhealthy septuagenarian's heartbeat of the presidency).

hw-guy 4y ago
Maybe they are not marginalized from political power in the civic realm, but they are certainly considered outliers in the academic world (aside from a few evangelical colleges).