It's interesting speculating whether in 50 years time science will have moved on, debunking AGW and no doubt many other beliefs they hold dearly now, and still be attacking Christianity for being inconsistent to the assured results of science.
The spoof was meant to ridicule the idea of the bible being taken seriously in the science class. But it made me wonder the opposite - perhaps AGW should be taught in religious studies.
Si
I think it was intended to poke fun of both sides - they made the AGW-guy sound intolerant, and more irrational than the Armageddon-women.
I think they were ridiculing the debate on biblical teachings in school, rather than the bible in school. They were also ridiculing both 'Armageddon' and 'cataclysmic AGW' views. I think it may have been an aim to make you wonder "should AGW be taught in religious studies?"
It's interesting speculating whether in 50 years time science will have moved on, debunking AGW and no doubt many other beliefs they hold dearly now, and still be attacking Christianity for being inconsistent to the assured results of science.
Indeed Josh.
The spoof was meant to ridicule the idea of the bible being taken seriously in the science class. But it made me wonder the opposite - perhaps AGW should be taught in religious studies.
I think it was intended to poke fun of both sides - they made the AGW-guy sound intolerant, and more irrational than the Armageddon-women.
I think they were ridiculing the debate on biblical teachings in school, rather than the bible in school. They were also ridiculing both 'Armageddon' and 'cataclysmic AGW' views. I think it may have been an aim to make you wonder "should AGW be taught in religious studies?"
You're probably right Si - it was remarkably even-handed in the ridicule it dished out.