An unspoken reason why a lot of people support teaching intelligent design in schools is a feeling that something is missing from public education. There is a big difference between teaching the Bible and teaching
ABOUT the Bible. However, I reserve final judgment on this textbook until I see how it deals with minefields like slavery, women's role in the church and
what the Bible really says about homosexuality, for example.
From today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
<< "The Bible and Its Influence" ... delves into biblical references in Shakespeare and "promised land" imagery in the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. It can be used for an elective course or to supplement English or social studies.
Its editors argue that it is impossible to understand Western culture without knowing the Bible. They cite a guide to the Advanced Placement literature exam in which 60 percent of allusions were biblical, including "cast the first stone" and "Lot's wife." >>
More from the article:
<< Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., is often the first person school administrators call for advice on church-state dilemmas. In 2000, he brokered an agreement between groups as diverse as the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Jewish Congress, People for the American Way and the National Education Association on appropriate use of the Bible in public schools. "The Bible and Its Influence" was tailored to those guidelines. >>
Last but not least, I found this part of the article funny -- I guess this is what happens when you spend too much time drilling your congregation with right-wing messages like "gays are bad," etc.:
<< Biblical illiteracy isn't confined to unbelievers, he said. When one of his Wheaton colleagues surveyed evangelical church youth groups, he found "a very low rate of biblical literacy." >>