A perceptive article in today's Higher Education supplement of The Australian newspaper (not online, sorry) brings me to dip my nervous toe into the ID debate. Should the Intelligent Design approach (summary: that irreducible complexity in biological systems is best explained by a Designer) be taught in high schools—either alongside evolution or on its own?
Without being able to comment on the science, my feeling is yes—but only if the teachers have a grasp of both evolutionary theory, creationism and ID. It is rare to find teachers (wonderful people) who have had the time or inclination to stay up to date with scientific developments, let alone new ideas such as ID. These are not simple, static facts that are being passed on to students—they are profound and complex ideas about life's origins and development.
What is needed is a decent ongoing education option for teachers and syllabus directors where they can step back and consider the content of the material. Is it science? Can the theory be explained to high school students or shoudl it be left for uni? Does it require worldview commitments of students and teachers?
In my part of the world, CASE, along with specialised science and religion groups such as ISCAST will need to step up to this challenge.
Send CASE an email
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
Wednesday, 28 September 2005
Sorrypower
A friend in advertising, Matt Andrews, alerted me to an Australia Day speech by Lowitja O'Donoghue where, in relation to the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report (about aboriginal children removed from their families), she talks about the spiritual power of saying sorry:
"I myself was one of five children taken from my mother. And to this day I still do not have a birth certificate. The report was a watershed in Australian history. It ended the silence around these experiences – and told stories that were so important to the thousands of people who have been affected. Many found that this was their first tentative step on a journey of healing. It was the catalyst which drew thousands of Australians from all walks of life to formally express their sorrow, and commit to working towards a just and equitable future. And for me it has been a time of forgiveness and a renewal of my Christian faith."
There's a connection to how I've been talking about the Da Vinci Code—I've been saying how sad and sorry I feel about the way the Church is perceived. It is often the point which shifts people's attitudes towards what I am saying about Jesus.
Sometimes, it seems, an apology can be the best apologia.
Send CASE an email
"I myself was one of five children taken from my mother. And to this day I still do not have a birth certificate. The report was a watershed in Australian history. It ended the silence around these experiences – and told stories that were so important to the thousands of people who have been affected. Many found that this was their first tentative step on a journey of healing. It was the catalyst which drew thousands of Australians from all walks of life to formally express their sorrow, and commit to working towards a just and equitable future. And for me it has been a time of forgiveness and a renewal of my Christian faith."
There's a connection to how I've been talking about the Da Vinci Code—I've been saying how sad and sorry I feel about the way the Church is perceived. It is often the point which shifts people's attitudes towards what I am saying about Jesus.
Sometimes, it seems, an apology can be the best apologia.
Send CASE an email
Winning words
We are thrilled at CASE to have picked up two awards from the Australasian Religious Press Association (ARPA). One was for Tom Frame's feature article on US foreign policy and the reception of the gospel (online at our home page) and one was for my Christmas editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald last year.
Send CASE an email
Send CASE an email
Wednesday, 3 August 2005
Water crisis? Us?
The economists can fry my over this one, but the stats are too upsetting not to mention it. Apparently, the amount of money needed per year beyond current spending to provide clean drinking water to everyone on earth is $1.7 billion. The amount spent around the world on bottled water every year is...$46 billion.
Here's a simple idea. Every time I drink a bottle of water (which I do, because it stops me eating junk food—pathetic, yes, but effective), I'm going to put the same amount of money into a box for a water-based charity (e.g. WaterAid. Otherwise, that Mountain Franklin is going to have a bitter ethical aftertaste.
Source: New York Times
Send CASE an email
Here's a simple idea. Every time I drink a bottle of water (which I do, because it stops me eating junk food—pathetic, yes, but effective), I'm going to put the same amount of money into a box for a water-based charity (e.g. WaterAid. Otherwise, that Mountain Franklin is going to have a bitter ethical aftertaste.
Source: New York Times
Send CASE an email
Sunday, 12 June 2005
Chasing God
I saw this film on the weekend, after reading very positive reviews of its attempt to explore humanity's defining feature—its near universal belief in a god. The film is just an hour long, more like a final year project than a fully-blown documentary. However, the makers did have access to some great footage and some interesting religious leaders. But it is a film with a mission—to persuade the viewer that all religions are one, and that oneness of humanity is the common goal. Bizarrely, there is no mention in the film of the differences between religions, nor any examination at allof religious texts. The only point of discussion about the content of belief is a section on the different experiences of god that people have had.
This really is head-in-the-sand propaganda under the guise of tolerant spirituality. It isn't going to get us anywhere. It would have been more fruitful to explore how people with profoundly different notions of the divine (god as a person, god as a light, god as the laws of physics) can begin to talk about their differences in a meaningful way. Then we might see some progress towards human togetherness, perhaps.
Interestingly, there was no discussion of Jesus Christ at all, and that is where Christianity alpha-s and omega-s.
Send CASE an email
This really is head-in-the-sand propaganda under the guise of tolerant spirituality. It isn't going to get us anywhere. It would have been more fruitful to explore how people with profoundly different notions of the divine (god as a person, god as a light, god as the laws of physics) can begin to talk about their differences in a meaningful way. Then we might see some progress towards human togetherness, perhaps.
Interestingly, there was no discussion of Jesus Christ at all, and that is where Christianity alpha-s and omega-s.
Send CASE an email
Monday, 30 May 2005
Investment and faith
Back after a long hiatus. I heard an interesting paper at UNSW recently arguing that the rise of the Christian Right in America is based on two notions. The first is premillennial eschatology, whereby certain things need to take place in the world (especially in the Middle East) before Christ will return. The second is the strengthened connection between capitalism and Christianity. The speaker summarised this nicely as a shift from the Protestant work ethic to the evangelical investment ethic. Put briefly, debt becomes the tool by which a group can advance its cause in the world. This comes largely from the work of a Catholic economist, Michael Novak (for Novak here...against Novak here...general articles on Christianity and capitalism here and here).
On 15 August, former World Bank economist, Dr Michael Schluter, will give a CASE seminar on "Why the Bible bans interest, and what we can do about it" (more details soon). It should add something to the discussion!
Send CASE an email
On 15 August, former World Bank economist, Dr Michael Schluter, will give a CASE seminar on "Why the Bible bans interest, and what we can do about it" (more details soon). It should add something to the discussion!
Send CASE an email
Sunday, 10 April 2005
Agreeably persuasive
The word of the year at CASE is swasivious. It's a beauty.
According to the OED, it's an obsolete or rare word meaning 'agreeably persuasive'.
That doesn't mean people will always agree with things they read or hear at CASE; but we do hope that the kind of persuasion we are involved in will always seem agreeable. It's a tone thing.
Send CASE an email
According to the OED, it's an obsolete or rare word meaning 'agreeably persuasive'.
That doesn't mean people will always agree with things they read or hear at CASE; but we do hope that the kind of persuasion we are involved in will always seem agreeable. It's a tone thing.
Send CASE an email
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)