Why Not Teach Maya Creation Story, Too?

[cleofus1]

yeah!

December 22, 2004 - In the raging debate about teaching Creation as a model of human origin in our public schools, why not include the very story that tells how men were created on this continent? The creation story millions of us know well is in the Popol Vuh, a version of Genesis that explains how people were created in the heartland of Mesoamerica.

It’s the story of the Quiché Maya of Guatemala, a sacred pre-Hispanic text, but versions and elements of it are held close to the heart in communities from north to south. If we’re going to teach one sacred book’s version of creation alongside science, another – especially one that comes from our own part of the world -- deserves at least equal time.

Some of the Popol Vuh will resonate deeply with those familiar with the Bible. A tremendous flood washes away an early race of humans; there is an overarching trinity of life, death and resurrection; good and evil are powerful forces, and man is central to creation. Like the Bible, the Popol Vuh also tells many wonderful stories, besides the one of creation itself, stories that elevate, warn, explain.

http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/Native/dialogue_opinion_letters/pns_maya_creation_1204.asp

[Ian David]

1. washes away an early race of humans

It sounds like they were talking about the Neanderthals.

Very cool.

[Warpy]

5. Or just the end of the last Ice Age

when the continental shelf submerged.

Flood stories are universal, especially with people who are or were coastal dwellers. The Ice Age explanation makes more sense than the Noah story does.

I mean honestly, why did that fool save lice and mosquitoes?

[sinkingfeeling]

2. And the Navajo creation story as well.

[ixion]

3. this is the way I've been addressing this...there are many versions of

creation mythology.

Why stop at 'intelligent design'? If the goal is to be fair and teach different points of view, you would have to include the belief that the Earth was seeded and that we were grown like so much agriculture, or ranching, if you prefer. There are many variations on the alien population theme. Should we teach them all?

I'm not saying that I believe any of those, although I find it a more plausable reason than some bearded dude being bored and deciding to make a humans so that he might be entertained by our idiocy.

[cleofus1]

4. some biblical parrallels

but some differences also...

"Other parts of the Popol Vuh, of course, are different from the Bible. Christians believe humans were created perfect the first time. The Popol Vuh implies that humans weren’t created perfect but went through several permutations—fits and starts, dead ends in a way—until the first real humans evolved. In the Bible humans are made of clay. But here’s what the Popol Vuh says: We are made of corn, the staff of life of the Americas. To think that I’m a man made of corn makes sense to me in more than one way. I am, after all, what I eat.

In the Maya cosmology the creator god is grandfather and grandmother. I like this too, because it indicates an empirical observation—to create life you need both male and female. It gives women a true role in the process, just as in the real world. I can argue that the world I know best is the basis for creation in the Popol Vuh. This is important. How else can I explain how I came to reside on this continent?"

[kispoko]

6. hm

yeah, but most native people, would rather not institutionalize their creation stories in that manner, and force a captive audience to pay attention to them at that, as seems a proper thing for many christians to want to do with their religion, which is a weird thing....

[kodi]

7. and the Bokonon Genesis story too.

Verses 2-4: "In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness.

And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away."

[idiosyncratic]

32. Thanks for that reminder . . . LOL n/t

[cleofus1]

8. egyptian myths on creation

have merit too!!!

"As is the case with most ancient mythologies, the Egyptians created myths to try to explain their place in the cosmos. Their understanding of the cosmic order was from direct observation of nature. Therefore their creation myths concern themselves with gods of nature; the earth, the sky, the sun, the moon, the stars, and of course, the Nile river.

. . . . .Since the Nile river, with its annual floods played a critical role in this cosmic order. It should come as no surprise to find water the fundamental element in the Egyptians ideas of creation. For the Egyptians to watch the inundation of their land would have been like watching a earthly model of their ideas of a watery creation. Allow me to explain.

. . . . .In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began. As with the Nile, each year the inundation no doubt caused chaos to all creatures living on the land, so this represents Nu. eventually the floods would recede and out of the chaos of water would emerge a hill of dry land, one at first, then more. On this first dry hilltop, on the first day came the first sunrise. So that is how the Egyptians explain the beginning of all things."

http://members.aol.com/egyptart/crea.html

[RUDUing2]

9. fine with me..dont understand why they don't just do a short

dialogue at the beginning of the evolution chapter in class in which they say
"there are many theories about how the universe and life began. There are scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and there are numerous religious theories, including christian and other religions creation stories and intelligent design. HOwever this is a science class so we will only be concerned with and covering the scientific based theories in this class. For this purpose we first need to understand what a *theory* means in scientific terms as opposed to non-scientific terms. (insert explanation here). If you are interested in learning more about the different non-scientific religious based beliefs you should take a course in comparative religions."

[sandnsea]

10. To begin with

A scientific theory isn't the same thing as religious doctrine. One's based on emperical study, the other on faith.

Which ought to lead one to the logical conclusion, why do people need to have religious faith taught in science class at all?

[RUDUing2]

11. which is what I said.. reread my post..

acknowledge that there are different theories, both scientific and non-scientific. Explain the difference in meaning of the word theory in science and non-scientific areas. And say only scientific theories of the start of the universe and life will be covered in science class and for other theories the person should take a comparative religion class. Never said to teach non-scientific theories in science class.

[sandnsea]

12. Why in science class?

Science is for science, not religion. When you start with the notion that religious doctrine offers legitimate theory, you open the door for people to disregard science. That's one of the main reasons we're falling behind in science to begin with. We've got hoards of students who laugh at science based on their religious doctrine. What happens when students start believing more in Noah's Ark than dinosaurs? Did dinosaurs really exist or did God really just put those bones here to test our faith? Two legitmate theories on dinosaurs? The Grand Canyon wasn't created from erosion, it was really the flood? Where does it end?

[RUDUing2]

13. Because like it or not people believe differently then you do..by

acknowledging that and by explaining the reason why it is not going to be covered in science class you can stop the problem from occurring. Unless the object is to cause a confrontation and to try and do the same thing to religious believers that the science based are complaining about them trying to do..force your beliefs on someone else? If that is not the goal then there should be no problem w/a quick acknowledgement and teaching opportunity to diffuse the problem.

[sandnsea]

14. Do that at the school board

School is for factual education, not religion. Science is based on emperical study, not one book of beliefs. Teaching facts is not forcing one person's "beliefs" on someone else. Should we give equal weight to penicillin and prayer? Teachers should not be stuck with trying to define yet another moral issue. Church is for religion, school is for independently verified facts. Is it possible you don't know the difference between religious "theory" and scientific theory and are among those who want religion in the classroom?

[RUDUing2]

15. so basically you are saying you want a confrontation and are uninterested

in doing a simple thing to diffuse the problem.

[sandnsea]

19. No confrontation at all

There's nothing confrontational about teachers teaching science to me. Introducing religion into science class, now that's confrontational. I don't understand when religious people stopped understanding the difference between faith and fact. Like I said, there are people who believe in prayer to heal too, but it doesn't take the place of medical fact. Should every medical school have to introduce each class with a dit on the power of prayer as a legitimate healing theory? Too many people are giving these right wing fundamentalists way too much power.

[RUDUing2]

21. you are not introducing it by acknowledging that there are different

theories, and explaining what theory means in scientific terms and why the non-scientific theories will not be taught in science class. the subject itself opens the door to inclusion of non-scientific beliefs..all you are doing is saying that in science class we will only be teaching the science based theories. It is not about a power struggle w/fundies..by acknowledging and teaching you take away the power of them to make it an issue, because you are not commenting on the legitamacy of their beliefs, instead you are saying this is a science class and this is what theory means in science so in science we will only be covering scientific theories of the beginning of life and the universe.

[sandnsea]

23. "non-scientific theories"

They aren't Theories. They're beliefs. I don't see the point in dicussing the "theory" of prayer before every class in medical school, so I don't see the point in discussing the "theory" of the religious doctrine of life in science class. Science class teaches what a scientific Theory is and that ought to be enough for any thinking person to weigh the differences between Theory and religious doctrine. The fact that you contiue to obscure religious doctrine and scientific Theory leads me to believe you don't really want the true differences taught, you really want religious doctrine left in the minds of students to be as scientifically valid as factual Theory.

[RUDUing2]

25. science for science..religion for religion, but that does not

mean that you can not acknowledge that different people believing differently.

It sounds as if you are as intent on exclusion and forcing only your beliefs on others as you are complaining about fundies doing. It is not right when they do so, and it is not right when you do so.

You can believe what you want..but it appears that you are not interested in reading what I am saying, but instead with only spinning it to fit your preconcieved beliefs.

By the way in medical school I would assume at some point they do talk about historical beliefs in medicine don't they and how to deal w/people who believe in prayer over medical treatment? They don't just ignore it do they?

Again nobody has said say it everyday or teach it..acknowledge that different people have different beliefs, explain what a theory is in science and state that since it is a science class only the scientifc theories will be taught.

Remember non-scientific theory is different from scientific theory..religious beliefs do fall under the umbrella of the term theory when used in non-scientific terms.

[sandnsea]

26. Science is NOT a belief

And no, they do not discuss prayer in medical classes. My daughter has never had prayer brought up in her medical classes. You continue to obscure beliefs and theories, which leads me to continue to believe your real agenda is finding a way to get creationism into the classroom. Sorry, we're still out here fighting for factual education and we won't stop.

[RUDUing2]

28. the term theory has two meanings..a scientific one and a non-scientific

one..it is just as wrong of you to try and insist that the scientific meaning of theory be applied to non-scientific theories as it is for religious people to insist that the non-scientific meaning of theory be applied to scientific theories.

You are not fighting for factual education..you are trying to force your beliefs on other and somehow think that by ignoring others beliefs you can make them go away.

Ignoring them only causes this debate to go on and on all over the country. By acknowledging that there are different beliefs and theories..explaining what the difference is in the term theory in relation to scientific beliefs and non-scientific beliefs (which I am not sure at this point you understand) and by then stating that since it is a science class only scientific theories will be taught you have taken the power away and are allowing science to be taught in science class.

If you were fighting for factual education you would welcome the opportunity to put a stop to the confusion and be able to get on w/teaching science in science class..but it appears you are more concerned w/trying to force others to only do what you think is right...kindof like the fundies are trying to do....

[sandnsea]

30. I'm not

Non-scientific beliefs don't belong in science class. Scientific Theories do. Science teachers have always taught what a Theory is, "set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". It was never confusing until religious creationists pretended a Scientific Theory had the same definition as speculative theory or conjecture. It's really not complicated, except to those who want their religious doctrine, beliefs, speculations and conjecture taught as equivalent to Scientific Theory in public schools. You do it every time you say something like this "By acknowledging that there are different beliefs and theories", which is why I don't want your crapola in public schools.

[RUDUing2]

31. so you think by keeping people ignorant of differences that is factual

teaching? Quite a concept there.

btw I don't want you crapola in schools any more then I want fundie religious crapola in schools. I have absolutely no use for people who refuse to compromise and who do not believe that schools are for teaching and learning, but instead only want schools to reflect what ever it is that they deem acceptable.

You have shown in this thread that you do not have the ability to read w/discernment but instead spin what is said to reflect what you *believe*...you have decided that anyone who acknowledeges differences and believes the best way to diffuse problems is by working on solutions is full of crapola..sorry but that doesn't sound very liberal or democratic to me.

[sandnsea]

34. Science

Why should I compromise on science and scientific terminology? You want to teach your kids that we don't know exactly how God created life and go from them, send them to parochial school. That's what it's there for. Public school does not mix religious doctrine with fact and I do absolutely refuse to allow fundamentalists of any religious persuasion to further cloud the truth of the distinction between science and religion. I've had a chance to look at a few of your other posts and I see that I was right all along.

[msmcghee]

16. Where do you get that?

Nothing RUDUing2 said implies that he wants to open the door to creationism in science class.

I think he offers a sound proposal. In fact, many biological textbooks that I have read start off with just such a caveat. But I went to school forty years ago before we started this slide to anti-intellectualism - so I don't know what they say these days.

Science is not a belief system that depends on hiding facts so people will not question the dogma. It is a fact that some people prefer myths to scientific explanations of life.

There's no danger in acknowledging that at the start of a book on science and explaining the difference - and suggesting that the reader go elsewhere if mythology is their interest.

There is the danger of hypocrisy in failing to do so.

[sandnsea]

18. So did I

And I was taught science. The very idea that a teacher has to differentiate religion from science is just ridiculous to me. What facts would science be hiding by not discussing various religious doctrines? But then, I went to school in California, I guess I should be more grateful for not having to put up with this religious nonsense in school.

[msmcghee]

22. And I was taught science . . .

. . in California.

As I understand his post - he is not advocating the discussion of various religious doctrines. He is advocating the acknowledgment that they exist - and are not to be confused with science. Which, I believe, is very good advice.

Failing to discuss this would convince some fundies that the school was afraid to acknowledge that religionists exist and are attacking science.

Step back, take a deep breath and re-read his proposal - or explain to me how that could possibly be encouraging mythology in science class. Seriously, I could have misinterpreted what he said - but I don't see it.

[sandnsea]

24. Read them closer

For starters. The continuous obscuring of religious theory and scientific theory seems like a clue to me. Second, I frankly don't care what fundies think. Third, like I have said repeatedly, if we don't need to discuss the "theory" of prayer before each medical school class, we don't need to discuss religious doctrine on life in high school science class.

[msmcghee]

27. OK - there's no convincing you . .

. . and that's alright.

I don't have a superstitious religious bone in my body. Neither does my doctor of 25 years. I've asked his opinion regarding spritual healing systems and pseudo-scientific medicine like homeopatihic remedies that are very popular.

He says that it's not likely that any of those will hurt anyone - and he acknowledges that a person's belief that they are participating in a cure somehow by going through an extraordinary ritual can sometimes "seem" to help, if not in fact.

So, he tells his patients, that if they wish, they should use those in addition to regular medicine to be sure they've covered all they bases. He tells them, "if it feels good to you, go ahead".

He doesn't tell his patients they are stupid for considering remedies that he does not recommend.

At the end of the day I'll bet his patients, as a whole, achieve somewhat higher cure rates and better outcomes than doctors who resist mythology. I guess it depends on whether you want to believe that you are smarter than someone else and insist on proving it to them - or want to help them.

I think the same principle applies to science education.

[sandnsea]

29. That's not the same thing

I really don't care what your doctor tells you, unless he tells you to go pray instead of getting medical treatment. Teaching that known medical treatment is the same as prayer would be malpractice. So as far as I'm concerned, teaching that religious doctrine is as good as scientific THEORY is not education. There's a difference between appeasing people's mythical beliefs and a doctor practicing medicine based on scientific facts. He learned those facts in a science class that taught facts, not by pretending you throw everything into a pot and hope for the best. Doctors have enough to learn about scientific fact without having to worry about 100 different mythologies as well, same as students in a high school science class. You want to light candles or meditate or have hands laid on, fine. It doesn't change the science of medical treatment and there's no reason for a teacher to stand up in a medical classroom and discuss it. I bet if it came down to it, if people had to make a choice, they would rather have a highly trained doctor than a poorly trained one who understands their religious beliefs. That starts in high school science.

[manic expression]

17. Don't forget the Zoroastrian creation model! n/t

[leesa]

20. This is exactly what progressives need to do...insist to the schoolboards

that they want their version taught as well. They would HAVE to deal with it.

[selmo7]

33. Amen and A-Woman!

I think it would be great if the Judeo-Christian creation is taught in school, but as MYTH, STORY and LITERATURE for what it is. But not only that, let's teach SO MANY creation myths from all the different cultures of our planet. This would be delightful for teaching about diversity and our multi-culturalness.

People sadly don't seem to even understand that the creation stories are myths and not to be taken literally. The "Bible" is a collection of stories/history/literature/poems. It must be shared in that context and certainly not as science. It boggles my mind when I meet ignorance about this.