[SFRA-L] "Teaching the controversy"
Sue & Bruce Rockwood
clan.rockwood at gmail.com
Thu Oct 27 08:40:31 EDT 2011
Here is a clip fromTom Rush's version of the song:
and here again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsdfGS7S4wc&feature=related
I saw him in Boothbay Harbor, Maine this summer. Still great!
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Kevin Mulcahy
<mulcahy at rulmail.rutgers.edu>wrote:
> Another approach to the issue begins from a critical stance within the
> believing tradition, which in the case of Christianity is hardly
> monolithic. For many Christians, belief in the Bible as literally true is,
> among other things, bad reading. It ignores hundreds of years of
> scholarship pointing out that the Bible is a collection of widely disparate
> books, of varied genres, assembled over centuries. It ignores the
> scholarship showing the complex transmission of original texts, through
> redactions, and collations and translations. It ignores sources and
> parallels in ancient Near Eastern literature, the findings of biblical
> archaeology, the insights of feminist scholarship, linguistic study, etc.,
> etc. Thus, to an extent, the Bible evolved, or at least developed, over a
> substantial period of time.
> I suppose a non-believer who wanted to be kind (or get out of town
> unscathed) might simply point out that fundamentalists/literalists are
> ignoring some of the intellectual resources readily available within their
> own tradition, and that there are many believing Christians who have no
> difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with the Big Bang, evolution,
> quantum, theory, and the other findings of modern science. Of course those
> of us who do combine religious belief with respect for science might not be
> considered real Christians for that very reason.
> *From: *"Ryan Nichols" <ryantatenichols at gmail.com>
> *To: *sfra-l at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:18:09 PM
> *Subject: *[SFRA-L] "Teaching the controversy"
> After following the debate thus far about the SF conference at Oral
> Roberts, creationism/evolution and 'teaching the controversy', allow me to
> weigh in with a few follow-ups:
> Perhaps the following is an appropriate way to bridge somewhat the opinions
> of Joan and Rich. Teach the controversy. Just don't do it in a science
> class. Do it in a history of science, history or philosophy of science
> The biggest hurdle in changing the minds of people who endorse Intelligent
> Design Theory, Creationism and other non-evolutionary accounts of life
> typically goes unrecognized by proponents of evolutionary theory, even by
> prominent, best-selling proponents like Richard Dawkins. Evolution has
> itself selected for psychological modules that inhibit belief in evolution.
> Strange, you might think, but true, as those who have done research in the
> cognitive science of religion will be quick to point out. Research by E.
> Margaret Evans and D. Kelemen shows that children have a bias to explain
> events and states of affairs in nature by appeal to purpose and agency. J.
> Barrett and others have identified a module, called the 'hyper-active agency
> detection device', that produces belief in non-human agency under a variety
> of conditions; Barrett and others argue that this was an adaptation in the
> biological sense of the term. (False positives? Of course. But when an
> ancestral humans hear bumps in the night, would it be best that they return
> to sleep or fear that some agent is on the attack and react accordingly?) D.
> Johnson and others have shown pretty convincingly that human bands acquire
> fitness advantages in ubiquitous between-group competition by being
> religious as opposed to being non-religious. Welcome to the world of
> 'Supernatural Punishment Theory,' an incredibly fascinating
> interdisciplinary pursuit. On top of her early results, Kelemen has now done
> a fascinating experiment that strongly suggests that atheist
> scientists--atheist sciences with Ph.D.'s in the hard sciences no less--she
> wasn't making it easy on herself--will show a bias towards teleological
> explanations for natural states of affairs when those people are placed in
> speeded conditions!
> The upshot is that atheism presents a number of cognitive struggles and
> subjects people to increased cognitive loads. In contrast the ingredients
> for teleological thinking and the transmission of 'minimally
> counterintuitive ideas' is not only natural but is argued to be or to have
> been adaptive. Engaging in deductive or inductive argument with creationists
> or anti-Darwinists is probably not going to convert believers. The
> underlying methodological presupposition behind 'teaching the controversy'
> is that doing so will change minds. Doubt it. I speak from my own limited
> experience thus far teaching philosophy and philosophy of religion. But I
> would suspect there are data about this from education science.
> SFRA-L mailing list
> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> Kevin P. Mulcahy
> Humanities Librarian
> Alexander Library Rutgers University
> 169 College Avenue
> New Brunswick NJ 08901-1163
> mulcahy at rulmail.rutgers.edu
> (732) 932-7129x129
> SFRA-L mailing list
> SFRA-L at wiz.cath.vt.edu
""We believe we teach students before we teach subjects." And then we try to
live that every day."
- Chris Lehmann quoting Nel Noddings.
Operor plures res.
Nunquam trado navis navis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SFRA-L