Questions For Sunday School Teachers Who Encourage Students to Question Evolution

I understand that there is a movement among Intelligent Design to encourage students to ask pertinent questions of their biology teachers about evolution. I can agree with that. I believe that biology teachers need to be able to explain evolutionary biology and argue from more than just authority. It is right that biologists need to explain to the public why their narrative should be accepted, and not simply call the public "anti-science" if they don't accept it.

I also think that Sunday School teachers ought to be able to address some tough questions themselves if they are going to encourage students to question secular teachers. Please allow me to ask serious questions of the very authorities who are asking students to question teachers in the classroom. I want to ask the churches, along with Jewish and Islamic religious bodies, some tough questions. I ask them respectfully, but I believe that if we are going to question authority then by all means let us do so roundly:

1) Is evolution or atheism in the schools the number 1 corrupter of youth? Really? The number one corrupter of young people is sexual abuse. And, good friends, it seems as though such abuse is often reported (or not reported) in religious bodies. Far from coming forward to the police, these religious bodies suppress the information for their own good. This is not simply a Catholic issue. It is a broad issue.

Should this not be the number one issue you should be addressing, in your own house, not gays or evolution?

2) Most of you oppose idolatry, or so you say. Yet, it is in houses of worship that idolatry to militarism is often most taught. War is masked as defeating the infidel. (Manifest Destiny, Jihad, whatever it is called it is all the same) Targeting secular education as the enemy when you yourselves allow idolatry in your places of worship seems inconsistent. I see churches with American flags in the sanctuary. Not wrong, perhaps, but seemingly inconsistent with the idea that no graven object should distract someone from worship. Can you explain?

In particular, do Muslims who are loudest in calls to destroy secular society, and who claim to oppose idolatry, actually believe that killing yourselves will allot you endless sex in heaven? Is that not a manipulation if there ever was one?

3) Coming closer to home here in the US, a lot of Christian conservatives claim to oppose Darwinism. Yet, they vote for politicians from the right side of the aisle who are Social Darwinists. These Social Darwinists believe in the survival of the fittest. Is this not inconsistent? You are encouraging students to "politely" challenge science teachers on Darwinism but you then encourage them to vote for "patriotic" politicians who are themselves Social Darwinists. Often your preferred candidates are atheistic conservatives, by the way, who do not believe in God and who only believe in the bottom line for the One Percent. This is perhaps the most damning inconsistency I have seen.

4) Some of you point to conspiracies promoting evolution. Yet, those same conspiracy theorists you often quote also claim that the Bible is a conspiracy. Often these conspiracists are Anti-Semites who attack the Bible as much as they attack secular leftism. I would be careful about quoting them! Is it not inconsistent to quote sources on conspiracy forums against Darwinists who also claim that religion itself is a conspiracy? (This may not apply to Sunday School teachers, but I thought I'd throw it in)

5) If you are Creationists, then should you not be in favor of environmentalism? It seems like every species that goes extinct offends the Lord your God and if you do nothing to save them then you, dear Christian, are in danger of judgement according to your own belief? (Revelations 11:18) It also speaks in the New Testament about Creation "groaning" and awaiting release from the rule of sin. Release from what sin? The greed of man?

6) Why do Jewish neo-conservatives who have suffered so much with Anti-Semitism sometimes fail to recognize that other minorities have the same aspirations? Liberal Jews traditionally have, but more "religious" Jews seem less empathetic. Should not those who claim to believe in "Tikkun Olam" act according to the principles of Tikkun Olam? If you believe that your actions bring Messiah to the world, then what of New York conservatives, a number of them Jewish, siding with the reactionary "Stop and Frisk" regime of Bloomberg in New York? Is that the way to bring Messiah in to the world?

Don't call me Anti-Semitic. I am Jewish and very devout.

7) If your faith is strong, then how will science class destroy it? Don't most students tune out of science class anyway (just like most students tune out of Sunday school)? Real faith does not need the State to support it. If students are tuning out of Sunday school then it is your duty to question why before directing blame outward.

These are tough questions, asked respectfully of Jewish, Christian and Islamic authorities. I accept tough questions of science teachers. But, those who claim to speak for God should be held to a higher standard and not a lower one.

Interesting posts. I am having trouble understanding your comparisons though. A sunday school teacher's job is is to explain the bible, not opposing views, nor to defend it. That is why it is called faith. Most people who would consider themselves religous are not opposed to science.

Science and religon have a long history together, some of the greatest scientists in the world were monks. The problem occurs when current scientists try to tell someone their faith is wrong and the current scientific "theory" is the only correct outcome. Humans will more than likely never discover how we came into existence, to assume one knows the answer now is narccisistic.

Evolution can be explained in class for what it is, a theory, that cannot be tested, but is suggested by evidence gathered. It is not presented this way though, this is why a backlash occurs. This has little to do with sunday school teachers and alot to do with the arrogance of academia.

reply to post by pyramid head


Very good points pyramidhead,

PS, pyramidhead is one of the coolest video game characters ever

I didnt read the whole op but just the first part ...The most common place for sex abuse is actually in the home and usually perpatrated by the person you would least expect ...and it would be hard to quantify as well as people only talk about when they are older if they ever do ...peace

Originally posted by pyramid head
Interesting posts. I am having trouble understanding your comparisons though. A sunday school teacher's job is is to explain the bible, not opposing views, nor to defend it. That is why it is called faith. Most people who would consider themselves religous are not opposed to science.

Science and religon have a long history together, some of the greatest scientists in the world were monks. The problem occurs when current scientists try to tell someone their faith is wrong and the current scientific "theory" is the only correct outcome. Humans will more than likely never discover how we came into existence, to assume one knows the answer now is narccisistic.

Evolution can be explained in class for what it is, a theory, that cannot be tested, but is suggested by evidence gathered. It is not presented this way though, this is why a backlash occurs. This has little to do with sunday school teachers and alot to do with the arrogance of academia.

Yes, religion and science have a long history together. More scientists have been Christians, Deists and Pantheists than have been atheists. Darwin was some mixture of Deist and Agnostic, not an atheist. Atheism is a philosophy and not a science. Indeed, the very idea of an order to the Universe that is uniform and mathematically designed has religious roots---and seems to be born out in the laboratory!

However, this post was not about atheism. It was also not about evolution. If you read through it carefully you see that it is more about hypocrisy. Some points:

A) Science teachers can be questioned, but Sunday School teachers are above question?

B) We can discuss arrogance in academia, a legitimate issue if there ever was one as seen by anyone who ever went to college and dealt with Professors and their agendas. However, for some strange reason was cannot discuss ecclesiastical arrogance according to what you seem to be saying.

C) Another post says that most sexual abuse occurs in the home. True. Are not most of those homes married heterosexuals? Are not many of them good Republican conservatives who hate secular public education?(PS I am not in favor of gay marriage)

D) You did not actually address the points I made specifically. About idolatry in the place of worship? About the unholy mixture of religion and wealth/power/status? That was actually more of the point than anything to do with evolution.