Many potentially STEM gifted Christian youth (especially girls) are actively discouraged from pursuing their interest in science in homeschool and Christian classical school circles because the entire discipline is considered somehow anti-God or anti-truth or not useful for people who want their lives to be used by God. We need to recover the idea that science can be a Christian vocation.
10 Likes
I was doing volunteer work a few times a month at a botanical garden near me and we , me , other volunteers and even the curator was told by someone that’s in some kind of position of authority in ownership, that we were not allowed to talk about evolution specifically because a few of the girls in that program, and some other one that’s similar, mothers and fathers complained about it. So we could only talk about names, host insects ( which was almost none since many were not native plants and had no real hosted insects in USA), and basic field botany stuff.
2 Likes
I believe it. I’ve experienced pages in textbooks being marked out with sharpie at the private school I went too in middle school. Evolution wasn’t even being taught. Just the mere fact that textbook taught evolution. None the less, parents meet with teachers, lots of anger and confusion. I didn’t even understand what was going on. The reaction was visceral and angry.
4 Likes
Redacting textbooks! This librarian is about to have a stroke!
6 Likes
There was a whole discussion on a homeschool forum I was on between women who drew clothes on the topless Indigenous people in the Usborne book illustrations so their poor young males would not be caused to stumble at the sight of those miniature line-drawn breasts.
5 Likes
I get it.
Back when we did our homework with chisels on slate, I had to have a permission slip to watch the accurate, on site anthropo 16mm films that included real Native Alaskans in real family groups in real igloos. There were some real naked breasts. Good for kids to learn the difference between cultural differences and sensuality. (Yeah. I know there are people who would want to run me out for that statement.) I hope the homeschool group figured out the wonderful teaching opportunity they had in front of them.
And maybe considered the value of sex ed, as well.
Redacting text in a textbook, I guess because ideas are so dangerous they could ruin our kids, is even more sensational. “Honey, that’s not safe for you to learn to evaluate.”
5 Likes
You got chisels! We had to make do with clay tablets and a sharp stick.
My HS biology course never once mentioned evolution and I don’t think it was in the text book. But I did learn of the evil of Darwin from sermons which of course caused to to seek out his Origin which I tried to read (the ink was still fresh), but couldn’t make heads or tails from it. I actually have no clear memory of when I finally came to an understanding of evolution but suspect my understanding kind of evolved. Please, put the tomatoes back down.
7 Likes
Amen. This seems relevant. Just 4% of scientists are evangelicals, compared to 28% of the general public. Why? The most likely explanation is that they were actively discouraged from pursuing such careers, which especially applies to girls.
Source: 2009 Pew survey
3 Likes
Hey, Bill_II!
Nice to meet you. I don’t believe we’ve spoken before.
Yeah. It was an experimental elementary school. We had special grant money for chisels. Had to provide our own blocks or hammers to pound with, though.
No sermons at our church that I remember growing up. Somewhere between 1983 and 1987, though there was a VHS from Henry Morris’s organization shown some evening at church. His description of the intentionality of evolutionary change was so terrible, that was really the last I listened to any of these people. I haven’t followed it. It was entirely unimportant to me until recently, now that it’s exploded in the U.S. As a non-scientist my main concern is the effect YEC, ID and others have on theology and specifically on the Gospel. I am also hugely concerned with the long-term effects this is going to have on church culture, especially in the U.S.
Evolved and still evolving, eh? Aren’t we all?
3 Likes
I’ve done both homework and fieldwork with a chisel on numerous occasions. I also had a sledgehammer, though.
2 Likes
Thanks, Timothy! I needed that.
1 Like
I’ve seen a few spots where that might have been reasonable because the text was factually wrong, rather than due to being objectionable. In most of those cases it would be easier to just write a note saying that it was wrong, and saying what was correct.
2 Likes
Good, and historic maginalia are highly prized in the library world.
2 Likes
A slightly tangential comment, but in the UK for example girls have been encouraged to do maths/science/engineering/technology in schools and universities for the last 3 decades, yet it is the boys who still primarily study such subjects, at least at A-level and degree level. When I started an engineering degree in the late 80s, there were about 5 women in a class of 100. Im sure it’s better now but one wonders why the interest is still low in such subjects given the widespread encouragement in the education sector?
2 Likes
Whilst understanding ‘Adam’ as mankind, or representing mankind, can then make evolutionary theory more compatible with the Bible, I cant say Im convinced that is what Paul etc meant. It seems to me Paul likely viewed all mankind originating from a single couple because that is how humans procreate, and such an understanding fits perfectly with Genesis, ie a literal male & female couple. It would also be odd of Paul to emphasize that just as sin came into the world by one man has sin now been dealt with by one man. It is a compare and contrast example. It is possible that Paul uses Adam as a representative of all of mankind, but again Im not convinced. And of course to be representative still implies an individual. This is one aspect of reconciling evolution with New Testament teaching that I struggle with, even if Im pretty convinced of both!
3 Likes
I would (not emphatically) put Adam and Eve as both a literal couple (though not sole ancestors of all humans), and as representative of all humanity.
Why? When? Where? The original sin gene could have easily bred out by now of course. Like red hair is.
Because that seems to me the best interpretation of the pertinent passages.
Sometime between 10,000 and 70,000 years ago.
In the Near East, somewhere. Maybe what’s now the Persian Gulf?
2 Likes
I think that is a reasonable position, and one I would accept as possible, though I still tend to think the story is solely theologic rather than historic. Just too many contradictions and incompatible things going on in my mind to see early Genesis as anything but a compilation of origin stories gathered to teach theologic lessons.
1 Like
I agree. If Genesis is seen as setting the stage to explain the relationship between God and mankind, then there needs to be a scene in which mankind enters the stage for the first time. The relationship is what matters, not a documentary detailing how matter became cells and acquired souls. Those hearing the story already have souls and know God. The crux is about where to go from there, how to live together in light of who we know God to be.
2 Likes