Should the BSA promote creationism?

[stlscouter]

So then the task at hand becomes one of opening the can of spaghettios and pouring them onto the table, arrange them by size, sauce coverage and count them and once this is completed put them back in the can in their original place. Am I close?

[Fuzzy Bear]

We want to explore the words, "flying feely". This is an oft used phrase implying that birds don't go anywhere but in reality they are more like homing pigeons than one would like to believe. Birds must eat 10 times their weight in bugs per day and then feed the nest before they rest. It isn't easy being a bird which is a reality based on the numerous difficulties of birddom. It is also how foul language was first developed.

 

If Scouting ever cut it's moorings from anything it was attached, then most likely it would just come home to roost, much like birds.

 

Being bird brained is no small feet when one is pigeon toed.

 

[packsaddle]

stlscouter, your real name is Adrian Monk, right?

 

Bob White, madkins007 was correct...it was me (or rather NJCubScouter even earlier in the thread) that raised the 501c3 issue (I goofed and called it a 503c, sorry. This is why I hire an accountant to do all that tax stuff:) ).

 

But to answer your question, NJ seemed to imply that BSA was limited, in a sense, by their 501c3 status as a charity, in that certain conduct (endorsement of political parties or candidates) could jeopardize that status and the ability to accept tax-deductible contributions.

To lose that status would, indeed, be a problem precisely because anyone whose decision to contribute depended on tax-deductible status would likely not contribute if BSA no longer had that status.

However, as a private club without the special 503c (rather, 501c3, there I go again ) status, BSA could truly pursue any behavior (except criminal, of course) they wanted, including political endorsements or outright campaigning for that matter. They would be free of the limitations that come with the status. They could spread their wings and fly. I guess the metaphor was too obscure.

[Bob White]

Packsaddle you are right, it was you who made the peculiar comment about spreading wings, with all the misinformation that was flying throughout this thread it was tough remebering who said what wrong.

 

Madkins, I apologize, you are off the hook on the 501c3 but you still have a major misconception of how things are done at the national level. Mmost program decisions are made by volunteer committees of scout leaders gathered from across the country. Each committee has a professional or professional team who are responsible for implementing the decisions and programs developed by the volunteers. Just as in your council and district, the majority of program at the national level is done by volunteers.

 

Packsaddle. You were given misleading information by NJ scouter. While all Charities are 501c3's not all 501c3's are charities per se (it's one of those...all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares kind of thing). The BSA being an example. Is not a charity per se, it is a not-for-profit corporation.

 

The 501 classification identifies it as not for profit. The c3 identifies it as an organiztion to which donations are tax deductable for the donor. There are many types of 501 corporations. The BSA happens to be a 501c3 classification.

 

So how would dropping its not-for profit status be a benifit to the program? How would removing the ability of donors from claiming tax deductions be a benefit to the BSR or the donor?

To say that doing these things would allow the BSA to "spread its wings and fly freely" just doesn't make any sense.

 

As far as the original topic as usually some posters try to make this far more difficult than it is. The BSA refers to "God" as the "creator" of the world around us. That's creationism. If you give a supernatural power the credit over random or evolved events of science then that is creationaism at its core. The BSA allows for both.

 

So the original query offered by Merlyn in the first post is flawed to begin with. As I said the misinformation was so thick throughout this thread that it was hard to keep up with any of the myriad of topics that wandered about.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob White writes:

As far as the original topic as usually some posters try to make this far more difficult than it is. The BSA refers to "God" as the "creator" of the world around us. That's creationism. If you give a supernatural power the credit over random or evolved events of science then that is creationaism at its core. The BSA allows for both.

 

So the original query offered by Merlyn in the first post is flawed to begin with.

 

No Bob, you just have your own definition of "creationism", as you seem to have with many other words. Since I asked the question, you have to read it using "creationism" in the sense I was using it, or it simply isn't the same question I asked. I use it in the sense that Philip Johnson and the Institute for Creation Research use the term.

[Bob White]

OK Merlyn so where am I off here. I say that the BSA in some resources identify God as having created the world and heavens around us. In Phillip Johnson's definition of creationism what force does he say creationaism recognizes as having created everything?

 

Is it someone or something other than a supreme being?

[evmori]

The BSA refers to "God" as the "creator" of the world around us. That's creationism.

 

Creationism - Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

 

If Bob is correct, then the BSA does support creationism. Do they promote it? Not really.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, there are several definitions available for "creationism" if you take a look around.

 

Common to them is a general belief that a God created the Earth through some unique event. There are "new earth creationists", who take the literal interpretation that the Earth was created in 6, 24 hour days. There are "old earth creationists" that believe that a God created the Earth, but that the Earth is very old. Old earth creationists can find a somewhat comfortable fit in some aspects of the theory of evolution and the Big Bang. New earth creationists have something of a problem in that the word for "day" in the Bible, from what I've read, has several different meanings, including "day", "week", and "a long time"; also the geologic evidence does not seem to support a "new earth" theory.

 

Further, some definitions of Creationism assert that the Biblical interpretation of creation can be verified through scientific evidence.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Scouting should not and does not take responsibility for protecting Scouts from being atheists. If a person reads a Godless evolutionary theory and is awash in the universal acid,, then it is up to that persons own judgment as to how they wish to live their life and understand their world. They simply are asked to leave if they dont believe, per the God rule in Scouting. As an American, they can continue living and doing any number of things that are far more important, like making a living or preparing themselves through education. Scouting has never been the central activity for youth and most likely never will, so it is a mystery as to why anyone would focus their life, spend their time to change it into something else when we are awash in freedom.

 

It has been an age old problem not just confronting Scouts today but Christians. The Church held strong Aristotelian beliefs for centuries while scientists discovered that the earth circled the sun, the planets and the earth circled the sun, and the solar system circled the universe. As earth receded in scientific importance, so receded Gods creation from being of central importance, as many good Churchmen believed. Why would God not make Earth the Center of the Universe, since he saw fit to stock it with his creation? Where else could it possibly be but in the center? The Church acted time and again with harsh measures to realign peoples poisoned minds. The Church eventually drank the poison and declared the alignment of Science and Religion but the fight never ended and apologies were too few and too late.

 

How one makes sense of Religion is a key to unlocking this puzzle. If one wants to accept the Bible literally verse by verse, then one is doomed to paint their belief system into a blind corner with no exit with every little scientific experiment. If one wants to use a balanced approach and try to understand Gods message, then it becomes crystal clear that science interferes little with ones understanding of God. The message as I understand it is that mankind is central to God and all the universe circles however it wishes. Religion is independent of Science and always will be. It is the responsibility of the individual to make their choices in life but all choices lead someplace.

 

FB

[johndaigler]

Since it's Merlyn's thread, it only makes sense to live with his definition of "Creationism". A definition that seems clearly based on Biblical fundamentalism. Let's not spend too many more brain cells on defining that definition.

 

It doesn't seem to me that BSA promotes "Creationism", but it does seem to wish it could. Given the interests of boys, there seems to be an apalling lack of dinosaurs in the program . . .

 

jd

 

PS>> we were playing a bit rough earlier. It looks like we're past it, but let's remember to target each other's words, not each other.

[packsaddle]

Somewhat related, I just found this and there are some interesting observations:

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050812/OPINION/50812001/1008

 

A teaser: While scientists are essentially unanimous in rejection of intelligent design and creationism as science, ID also does not agree with creationism. Gotcha!

[Fuzzy Bear]

ID does not claim that God was the creator either. So they must not be Boy Scouts or from Kansas but they probably are Republicans with a political agenda. I doubt God would recognize them either. It is good that they didn't pin this mess on God; so that really could make it an intelligent design.

 

FB

[firstpusk]

The article points to the obvious fact that Prof. Johnson does not understand the ideals of the scouting movement.

 

"...the Scouts have to be concerned about youths who are being taught a way of thinking that undermines biblical theism at a fundamental level..."

 

The job of a scoutmaster is to train boy leaders not to teach biblical theism. Beyond that, the majority of Christians do not accept his view of the Bible. For that matter, he fails to understand that scouting is not a Christian movement.

 

Johnson and his ilk throw the stumbling block in front of the boys. It is all or nothing. Either accept that Genesis is a work of natural history or deny God.

 

If my scouts ask me a question about the geological history of Minnesota, I give him a valid geological answer. This answer does not deny God's existence, meaning in life or the brotherhood of man.

 

I don't beleive in evolution. However, I do accept that it is scientifically valid. The theory has been established to the point that it requires extreme feats of logical gymnastics to deny it.

 

One last point, creationism is not a theory in any kind of valid scientific sense. In my book, it is dishonest to claim creationism is scientific.

[evmori]

Hey is "flying freely" the same as "going commando"?

[Trevorum]

Regarding jd's "apalling lack of dinosaurs" in the BSA program, I seem to remember a nascent effort somewhere to develop a Paleontology merit badge. Does anyone have any info on that?