Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographBible not an accurate source
By Joel Nordness
Posted: 9/6/07 Section: Letters
- Page 1 of 1
In response to Brenda Kay Zylstras article on Wednesday, Sept. 5, there are MANY reasons the Bible shouldn't be used to teach from in public schools. For one, it is already taught from in church. Honestly, what value would a Hindu or Buddhist get from learning about the Bible? If someone wants to learn about the Bible, they would go to church. The main reason though is because the Bible contradicts science. It would greatly confuse children to learn that bats are birds, hares chew their cud, and some insects have four legs. All of this is just in Leviticus 11, and there are many more factual inaccuracies in the Bible. Because of this, while the Bible may be the best selling book of all time, I hope most would actually consider Principia by Isaac Newton the most influential book of all time. The development of calculus did more to increase our understanding of the universe around us than any passage in the Bible, and to deny this would be to spit in the faces of all of the great intellectual giants of the Enlightenment. Every piece of technology that is in use today is not because of the Bible, but because of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment and beyond. Besides, if the Bible was written by the literal hand of god, as some believe, one would think that he would at least be able to remember how many legs he gave the insects that he created. Heck, I guess even God had brain farts.
Joel Nordness
Senior in Engineering
Joel Nordness
Senior in Engineering
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 8
Mike Anderson
posted 9/06/07 @ 7:28 AM CST
Joel Nordness may be correct if one is trying to use the Bible purely as an encyclopedia, a science text, or a history book. However, he should note that there is far more historical validation of the Bible's writing being authentic than that of Socrates or most ancient philosphers. (Continued…)
Steven Carter
posted 9/06/07 @ 8:41 AM CST
The reason the Bible may be inaccurate is because the nomenclature that we use today is different than what was used in biblical times. We call a bat a mammal because it is warm bloody, they called a bat a bird because it could fly, like all other birds. (Continued…)
Robert Schoonover
posted 9/06/07 @ 10:26 AM CST
Although I agree with you that the article by Ms. Zylstras was, well, a waste of time, you've just got to get a bit of a clue. Science and religion are not things that should be compared. (Continued…)
Joel Nordness
posted 9/06/07 @ 10:31 AM CST
Thanks for your reply Mike. The problem with the combination of a 300 word editorial limit and religious debate is twofold. First, I didn't have enough room to make all of the points that I wanted to. (Continued…)
Steven
posted 9/06/07 @ 1:05 PM CST
Joel: You seem like a smart guy, so I am going to respond to you respectfully.
Your response is terribly unfair. Rather than responding to Zlystra's argument you sidestep it and provide a sort of straw man argument that's easy to puff away. (Continued…)
Joel Nordness
posted 9/06/07 @ 2:01 PM CST
Robert, you are absolutely right. Ms. Zylstra only mentioned the Bible, not any other religios texts. Of course the Bible has had influence on western literature. (Continued…)
Robert Schoonover
posted 9/06/07 @ 2:42 PM CST
Joel,
My major point was more that science and religion should not be compared to one another. This is a fundamental mistake many make when getting into a debate of Intelligent Design, evolution, the big bang, etc. (Continued…)
Drew
Drew
posted 10/15/07 @ 10:42 PM CST
1st: Well said, Steven.
2nd: I cannot let such an egregiously misleading implication pass uncorrected: let it be known that rabbits do in fact chew their cud. (Continued…)
Post a Comment