This article was on yahoo.."Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution"

[Lovedtodeath]

:iagree: I look at the grandeur of the universe and find it impossible to think it is only 6,000 years old. I also would rather consult theologians on the matter as well. I also do not think it matters to Jesus if we take the book of Genesis literally or not. I think what matters to Jesus is whether we love one another IMHO. Jesus broke many of the religious rules back then and treated others with love IMO.

While it probably doesn't matter to God whether we believe in 6 literal days for creation or thousands of years, what does matter is if people lose faith in God over this issue. Some who have been deep into science will not believe in the Bible at all because of YE views. Some who have been taught YE views have a crisis of faith when they get deep into science. I just want all to know that one can believe in a literal historical narrative in Genesis without believing in a YE.

[Tracy in Ky]

what does matter is if people lose faith in God over this issue.

 

I agree completely. Well said.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

While it probably doesn't matter to God whether we believe in 6 literal days for creation or thousands of years, what does matter is if people lose faith in God over this issue. Some who have been deep into science will not believe in the Bible at all because of YE views. Some who have been taught YE views have a crisis of faith when they get deep into science. I just want all to know that one can believe in a literal historical narrative in Genesis without believing in a YE.

 

:iagree: I do agree that YE beliefs may cause many to turn away and to miss the point of loving one another IMHO:(

[mommyrooch]

Thanks Mrs. Mungo. I somehow missed that question. I said in my post that this was basically what I was trying to say, so yeah, I agree with him on that point.

 

There is very much a YE or evolution theme going on and there are those of us that don't go along with either of those ideas. IMO scientific evidence does not back up 7 24 hour creative days, so when people including scientists assume that all creationists believe in YE they throw creationism and all those who believe it out the window.

 

:iagree: I am a Christian and I belive in Creationism but I do NOT believe in YE Creationism. I believe that God created everything. I just don't think he did it in a literally 7 days. I believe in secular science as a whole but I have no doubt (at least in my mind ;)) that it is a result of intelligent design and God was the designer.

 

It seems that on both sides of the fence that it has to be one or the other. Why is this so? Believing in intelligent design and a creator AND believing in secular scientific evidence really is a cumbersome place to be.

 

In my experience you can find curriculum that promotes YE creationism and you can find curriculum that promotes evolution but I have yet to find curriculum that promotes secular scientific discovery while at the same time giving the credit for it to God. Now that is a curriculum I could buy. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

In my experience you can find curriculum that promotes YE creationism and you can find curriculum that promotes evolution but I have yet to find curriculum that promotes secular scientific discovery while at the same time giving the credit for it to God. Now that is a curriculum I could buy. :D

:iagree::hurray:

[mommyrooch]

Where in the Bible does it say that the ancient Hebrews intended Genesis to be read literally as a scientific & historical text rather than in an allegorical sense? God exists outside the human conception of time, and 2 Peter 3:8 discusses this: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I see this passage and find it confirmation that the six days of Creation may very well represent some time frame other than 144 modern hours.

 

:iagree:

[MissKNG]

I'm not sure what the hub-bub about this article is. A Christian publisher disputing evolution? That makes sense to me. Just like I would expect a secular publisher to dispute the Bible.

[hornblower]

I have yet to find curriculum that promotes secular scientific discovery while at the same time giving the credit for it to God. Now that is a curriculum I could buy. :D

 

I'm certain this is what you would find in Catholic schools so I'd suggest looking at Catholic science materials.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks for the suggestion Hornblower.

[hornblower]

I'm not sure what the hub-bub about this article is. A Christian publisher disputing evolution? That makes sense to me.

 

Why would it make sense to you? Catholicism is the most populous branch of Christianity globally and does not dispute evolution.

[MSNative]

I think this sums up my thoughts nicely - though I'm not Catholic. Replace Catholic with Christian and it works for me. This article is discussing creationism vs. evolution. As far as what I teach my kids - if it's fact, it's taught as fact. If it's theory, faith or hypothesis, then it is taught as such.

 

" There are shrill voices on all sides. I'm not going to attempt to solve everything in this article.

 

 

 

Catholics are free to believe in Creationism. Some faithful Catholics believe that God created the universe and all that is in it exactly word for word as it is laid out in Genesis - a young earth. Other good Catholics believe in an old earth. The Church has no defined Dogma regarding the specifics of how the earth and the human body were created. Nor does it think that we have to nail that down to be saved.

In fact, if someone believes the world is flat, they can still be a faithful Catholic. In the early days many Catholics believed the world was flat, and they still went to heaven. God is in search of a faithful heart, not a degree in science. Jesus said "become as children." (Mat 18:3) Most children don't know how old the earth is and don't care"

[Just Me]

I haven't read all the replies as of yet, but I will once I finish this post. I just have a question to ask. Has anyone here who believes in creationism ever entertained the idea that God created an 'aged earth'? I mean, God created MAN, not a child. The plants that grew would have had to sustain the life that was created just a day later. I believe in Creation, not evolution. I also believe in a Young Earth in regards to years; however, I also believe that God could create that earth with an appearance of age. In my mind, He would have had to in order to sustain the life He was creating. Does this make sense?

 

Just my .02

[LittleIzumi]

Lol, Little Izumi :)

 

From what I understand, every time yom (day) is used with a number outside of Genesis 1, it refers to a 24 hour day. Therefore within Genesis 1, when yom is used with a number, there is no reason to change the meaning.

 

But without a number, day (yom) can refer to not only a 24 hour day but also other lenths of time. Just like in our language, day can mean 24 hours, or a time period "Back in the day," etc.

 

The point is that being used with a number is very strong evidence that the yom/days in Genesis 1 were intended by the author to be understood as ordinary days, not indefinite lengths of time.

 

Does that make sense? :) I think I've got it all straight. :D

 

That is a wonderful question. From my research I have learned that the yom construction in Hebrew in this verse is the same as in 2:4 and refers not to a particular day, but to an indefinite amount of time, so to speak.

 

Dr Terry Morton (whose work I consulted on this matter) concludes:

 

...from all this we conclude that the construction “dying you shall die†and beyom in Genesis 2:17 do not require us to conclude that God was warning that “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.†The Hebrew wording of Genesis 2:17 allows for a time lapse between the instantaneous spiritual death on that sad day of disobedience and the later physical death (which certainly did happen, just as God said, but for Adam it was 930 years later). As Scripture consistently teaches, both kinds of death (spiritual and physical) are the consequence of Adam’s rebellion.

 

So the word yom is used, but with a construction that does not signify that Adam would necessarily die a physical death in the same 24 hour day that he ate.

 

I find all of this so fascinating :)

 

Thanks for explaining!

 

I'm trying to find a link that someone posted on another such thread, by I believe a Jewish rabbi writing about how it could be literally both 6 24-hour days AND billions of years, and explained it scientifically (with time relativity and such). But I can't find it! Oh well. It was a very interesting read.

[MissKNG]

Why would it make sense to you? Catholicism is the most populous branch of Christianity globally and does not dispute evolution.

 

It makes sense to me because that's my opinion.

[Lovedtodeath]

I haven't read all the replies as of yet, but I will once I finish this post. I just have a question to ask. Has anyone here who believes in creationism ever entertained the idea that God created an 'aged earth'? I mean, God created MAN, not a child. The plants that grew would have had to sustain the life that was created just a day later. I believe in Creation, not evolution. I also believe in a Young Earth in regards to years; however, I also believe that God could create that earth with an appearance of age. In my mind, He would have had to in order to sustain the life He was creating. Does this make sense?

 

Just my .02

I am honestly open-minded and these are not rhetorical. Why then are the plants found in layers of earth as fossils, with some plants coming first and others later?

 

As far as what I teach my kids - if it's fact, it's taught as fact. If it's theory, faith or hypothesis, then it is taught as such.

 

" There are shrill voices on all sides. I'm not going to attempt to solve everything in this article.

.... God is in search of a faithful heart, not a degree in science. Jesus said "become as children." (Mat 18:3) Most children don't know how old the earth is and don't care"

Nicely stated.

[mommyrooch]

I'm certain this is what you would find in Catholic schools so I'd suggest looking at Catholic science materials.

 

But that too is a problem. I am not Catholic (far from it) so buying a curriculum just because it supports this one view but isn't in line with my spirtual beliefs really isn't an option. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. :tongue_smilie:The end doesn't justify the means for me.

 

Now if any of these materials could present the information without promoting a specific belief system but used a general belief system then perhaps I could give it a whirl.

 

There really isn't a good solution for me and I would guess many others like me. Like I said, a cumbersome place to be to say the least. :lol:

 

Thanks for the recomendation. I will take a peak in that direction and see if perhaps there might be an option out there that promotes secular science and intelligent design while at the same time not promote any specific belief system.

 

Seems like a tall order. I'm not hard to please in the lease little bit am I. :D

[TravelingChris]

Tracy in KY said "I personally believe that the days in Gen 1 are literal 24 hour days" and wanted to know why others don;t.

 

I have so many reasons and not enough time to explain it. But I will start with a few- an earth day is not the same as a Venus day or a Mars Day or any other day. Furthermore, our days on Earth are not the exact length of time from one time to another. Our day became shorter just a few weeks ago with the Chilean earthquake. Furthermore, we cannot have a day without the sun and it wouldn;t be a 24 hour day without the right distance and rotation. Therefore I do not read Genesis 1 the same way that you do. Basically I see the first three days to be a general description of creation and day 4-6 to be the same pattern but more specific.

 

I specifically don't believe in a 6000 yo earth because there are human civilizations older than that. I also don't think that God played tricks on us to fool us and take us away from Him. As the Bible says, all creation points to Him.

 

Could God have made an old earth and just made it appear that all the stars came from one place and have been travelling a long, long time? Absolutely and since he is all powerful, he can do anything we imagine in our small brains. But I don't think he created the Universe to confound and confuse us and trick us. That is what I dislike about the young earth explanations I have read.

 

While I have never come across any old earth believers who felt that their view was a salvation issue, I have run across young earth believers who do feel it is a salvation issue. I don't understand it and think it is a harmful idea to the Christian church.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I specifically don't believe in a 6000 yo earth because there are human civilizations older than that.

I don't buy that. I think that dating systems are woefully inaccurate.

[Haiku]

I don't see why Apologia or even Bob Jones would be unusable.

 

I can't speak to Apologia, but I would never bring a BJU text into my home because of their ban on interracial dating. I realize that they lifted the ban 10 years ago, but that was the year 2000. THE YEAR 2000! In the year 2000 these people still thought there was something wrong with interracial dating!!

 

The ban was lifted because W's visit to BJU brought negative scrutiny to the school. But when the ban was lifted, Bob Jones III spoke with Larry King (whom I don't like, btw) and said,

the university first implemented the dating ban more than five decades ago, "because we were trying ... to enforce something, a principle, that is much greater than this. We stand against the one world government, against the coming world of the antichrist.

 

:confused:

 

:001_huh:

 

WTF?

 

He went on to say, "We realize that an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means."

 

And he needed to clarify that ... why??

 

Not for one second would I ever consider supporting that institution, either financially or in practice.

 

Tara

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Tracy in KY said "I personally believe that the days in Gen 1 are literal 24 hour days" and wanted to know why others don;t.

 

I have so many reasons and not enough time to explain it. But I will start with a few- an earth day is not the same as a Venus day or a Mars Day or any other day. Furthermore, our days on Earth are not the exact length of time from one time to another. Our day became shorter just a few weeks ago with the Chilean earthquake. Furthermore, we cannot have a day without the sun and it wouldn;t be a 24 hour day without the right distance and rotation. Therefore I do not read Genesis 1 the same way that you do. Basically I see the first three days to be a general description of creation and day 4-6 to be the same pattern but more specific.

 

I specifically don't believe in a 6000 yo earth because there are human civilizations older than that. I also don't think that God played tricks on us to fool us and take us away from Him. As the Bible says, all creation points to Him.

 

Could God have made an old earth and just made it appear that all the stars came from one place and have been travelling a long, long time? Absolutely and since he is all powerful, he can do anything we imagine in our small brains. But I don't think he created the Universe to confound and confuse us and trick us. That is what I dislike about the young earth explanations I have read.

 

While I have never come across any old earth believers who felt that their view was a salvation issue, I have run across young earth believers who do feel it is a salvation issue. I don't understand it and think it is a harmful idea to the Christian church.

 

:iagree::iagree: IMHO YE is saying that God is a trickster:confused: I also think that believing in YE requires one to believe unbelievable and convoluted ideas IMHO. Lastly, by focusing on minutia instead of focusing on loving one another, I truly believe that YE misses the mark that Jesus intended IMHO.

 

My 2 cents:)

[Just Me]

I am honestly open-minded and these are not rhetorical. Why then are the plants found in layers of earth as fossils, with some plants coming first and others later?

 

I can't answer this, because honestly, I just don't know. I do believe that there were plants 'buried' in the Great Flood that occurred during Noah's time. I also believe that there were animals that were allowed to become extinct during the flood. I do believe in micro-evolution - for instance, the changes we can observe in dogs. I do not, however believe in macro-evolution. I just don't think there is evidence to support it. How do evolutionists explain the lack of the thousands of 'missing links' that would have to be out there? If you think about the hundreds, if not thousands, of small steps that would have to take place in order to evolve, there would have to be innumerable fossils of the transition stages. They just can't be found.

 

My problem with this debate is the fact that it takes faith on both sides, but those who are on the creation side are often looked upon as undereducated. If either side presents an argument, the other is quick to 'poo-poo' that thinking. There are a lot of things that I don't know, but I do know what I believe - that there is a God, that He created the world I live in, that He created it using an imagination that I can't even begin to understand, and that He can do absolutely anything He wants to with it, because it belongs to Him!

[LittleIzumi]

Tracy in KY said "I personally believe that the days in Gen 1 are literal 24 hour days" and wanted to know why others don;t.

 

I have so many reasons and not enough time to explain it. But I will start with a few- an earth day is not the same as a Venus day or a Mars Day or any other day. Furthermore, our days on Earth are not the exact length of time from one time to another. Our day became shorter just a few weeks ago with the Chilean earthquake. Furthermore, we cannot have a day without the sun and it wouldn;t be a 24 hour day without the right distance and rotation. Therefore I do not read Genesis 1 the same way that you do. Basically I see the first three days to be a general description of creation and day 4-6 to be the same pattern but more specific.

 

And there was no Earth to rotate and sun to rotate around on the first day. That always confused me, why God would use 24-hour days when it's only 24-hour days on Earth rotating around the sun, and that didn't exist yet. I know many people are okay with that but that is one of the things that I always wondered with taking it completely literally. There was no day yet.

 

Of course, back on the original subject, I have no idea why people would care what other people are teaching their own kids??? I am teaching mine what I believe and everyone else is teaching their kids what they believe. That's their right as parents....

[mommyrooch]

Could God have made an old earth and just made it appear that all the stars came from one place and have been travelling a long, long time? Absolutely and since he is all powerful, he can do anything we imagine in our small brains. But I don't think he created the Universe to confound and confuse us and trick us. That is what I dislike about the young earth explanations I have read.

 

While I have never come across any old earth believers who felt that their view was a salvation issue, I have run across young earth believers who do feel it is a salvation issue. I don't understand it and think it is a harmful idea to the Christian church.

 

:iagree: I couldn't have said this better myself. Especially the bolded part. Not all YE believers see this as a salvation issue but many do and it IS harmful to the Christian church.

 

I just don't think that this is a salvation issue and to treat it as such is harmful to all Christians. Anything that causes divisions among fellow Christians is harmful. Titus 3:9 says it best. "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." (NIV) If we are warned not to argue about the law (which is often times salvation issues) then don't you think it is safe to say we shouldn't argue about the specifics of creation which isn't a salvation issue.

 

BTW, I an old earth believer. Can you tell? :tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

I can't answer this, because honestly, I just don't know. I do believe that there were plants 'buried' in the Great Flood that occurred during Noah's time. I also believe that there were animals that were allowed to become extinct during the flood. I do believe in micro-evolution - for instance, the changes we can observe in dogs. I do not, however believe in macro-evolution. I just don't think there is evidence to support it. How do evolutionists explain the lack of the thousands of 'missing links' that would have to be out there? If you think about the hundreds, if not thousands, of small steps that would have to take place in order to evolve, there would have to be innumerable fossils of the transition stages. They just can't be found.

 

My problem with this debate is the fact that it takes faith on both sides, but those who are on the creation side are often looked upon as undereducated. If either side presents an argument, the other is quick to 'poo-poo' that thinking. There are a lot of things that I don't know, but I do know what I believe - that there is a God, that He created the world I live in, that He created it using an imagination that I can't even begin to understand, and that He can do absolutely anything He wants to with it, because it belongs to Him!

I completely agree. I don't believe in macro-evolution either. There is a good discussion explaining what that means on the other thread.

[Lovedtodeath]

And there was no Earth to rotate and sun to rotate around on the first day. That always confused me, why God would use 24-hour days when it's only 24-hour days on Earth rotating around the sun, and that didn't exist yet. I know many people are okay with that but that is one of the things that I always wondered with taking it completely literally. There was no day yet.

 

Of course, back on the original subject, I have no idea why people would care what other people are teaching their own kids??? I am teaching mine what I believe and everyone else is teaching their kids what they believe. That's their right as parents....

Actually, the earth was there... it was just a dark waste. I believe the sun was most likely there as well, but it was changed in relation to the earth when it is mentioned in Genesis.

[LittleIzumi]

Actually, the earth was there... it was just a dark waste. I believe the sun was most likely there as well, but it was changed in relation to the earth when it is mentioned in Genesis.

 

For the sun part I agree in a way--I believe that something happened like the atmosphere cleared of all the gases & such that were there when the earth was formed so the sun could really be *seen* and help things to grow much faster. But going with a 100% literal interpretation, it doesn't seem to come across that way, so that part always confused me with taking it at face value. (Maybe it is taken that way in the literal interpretation too; I have just never heard it presented that way.):)

[Lovedtodeath]

My encyclpopedia says that the creation account is written from the point of view of someone on earth observing the happenings. When read that way things are taken differently, even if it is still a literal reporting of events, instead of an allegory.

[TXMary2]

I can't speak to Apologia, but I would never bring a BJU text into my home because of their ban on interracial dating. I realize that they lifted the ban 10 years ago, but that was the year 2000. THE YEAR 2000! In the year 2000 these people still thought there was something wrong with interracial dating!!

 

The ban was lifted because W's visit to BJU brought negative scrutiny to the school. But when the ban was lifted, Bob Jones III spoke with Larry King (whom I don't like, btw) and said,

 

:confused:

 

:001_huh:

 

WTF?

 

He went on to say, "We realize that an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means."

 

And he needed to clarify that ... why??

 

Not for one second would I ever consider supporting that institution, either financially or in practice.

 

Tara

 

That's a little extreme, but it is your right to choose. I think if they have changed their stance then they should be given the benefit of doubt. Are you this unforgiving with every person or institution that changes their position on something? Do they have a right to be wrong, admit it and move on? Just curious. I understand standing on principle, but if Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream stopped donating to organizations I don't support I would buy their ice cream again.

[justamouse]

I just don't think that this is a salvation issue and to treat it as such is harmful to all Christians. Anything that causes divisions among fellow Christians is harmful. Titus 3:9 says it best. "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." (NIV) If we are warned not to argue about the law (which is often times salvation issues) then don't you think it is safe to say we shouldn't argue about the specifics of creation which isn't a salvation issue.

 

 

 

 

Amen.

[Cindy in NY]

This book

 

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Firmament-Understanding-Theology-Creation/dp/0978718615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268159099&sr=8-1

 

has been helpful to me in taking a fresh look at the creation account. The author has a website with a few videos as well.

 

http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/does-science-contradict-the-bible/

 

As hesitant as I am to get involved in a creation/evolution thread, this book was somewhat eye-opening for me.

[Diane in NH]

How do evolutionists explain the lack of the thousands of 'missing links' that would have to be out there? If you think about the hundreds, if not thousands, of small steps that would have to take place in order to evolve, there would have to be innumerable fossils of the transition stages. They just can't be found.

 

There are quite a few transitional forms, though. Just a few years ago they found Tktaalik roseae for example that looks to be the first fish to come on to land. Some, such as Gould, also would explain that evolution isn't just a bunch of small little steps. He argued for the case of punctuated equilibrium where there is branching evolution. Therefore, you wouldn't have all the small changes between species. They have found archaeopteryx, to start them off on the link between dinosaurs and birds. Since then, however, in China they have found other feathered dinosaurs, Sinornithosaurus milleni,and have found fossils showing they have sat on eggs similar to birds, etc. They think one of these could be the cousin of the "missing link" to birds. I have a book that shows the transition from land animals to whales: indophyus, pakicetur, ambulocetus, rodhocetus, dorudon, and Balaena (Baleen whale).

 

Anyway, this topic comes up just as I'm trying to learn more myself since we are doing high school biology next year. I think the problem for some of the debate, is that you can't go to scientists who talk about evolution and understand the creationists argument from them, any more than you can go to a creationist and understand the scientists arguments from them. They both set out to prove the other as a moron and can mis-represent their views.

 

Personally, I am going to teach science with a secular textbook. I don't believe that the earth was created in the last few thousand years. I do believe that God created the world, and that human souls are indeed unique and don't have anything to do with evolution. I don't have any problems reconciling what I teach in science with what I teach in religion using the Bible.

[Haiku]

That's a little extreme, but it is your right to choose. I think if they have changed their stance then they should be given the benefit of doubt.

 

They had this policy for fifty years and never thought to question it. It took national public disapproval before they "suddenly" saw the error of their ways. Probably in 20 years, when none of the people who were in leadership there when this ban was still in effect are still there, I will feel comfortable believing that this was just a sad chapter in their past. But not this soon. Nope.

 

If Ben and Jerry's stopped giving money to causes you don't believe in because their bottom line was threatened, would you really believe that they had a change of heart, or would you think they were just concerned with their image?

 

He said he met with administrators earlier in the day and decided to end the policy, because "I don't want to hurt the church of Jesus Christ."

 

Besides, Jones said, the policy "is meaningless to us."

 

"Our concern for the school's broader usefulness is greater to us than a rule we never talk about," he said.

 

At another point, Jones said, "We can't back it up with a verse in the Bible."

 

Did I miss where he said that he realized that the ban was racist and that it was wrong to have had it? He said the Bible didn't give them fodder to defend the rule. Not exactly what I'd call a mea culpa.

 

And if the ban were really meaningless to them, why were they willing to lose their tax-exmpt status over it in 1983, when BJIII was president?

 

Tara

Edited March 9, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[lionfamily1999]

Just wondering who "they" are? Is it a board of directors, or what? I'm going to throw it out there that "they" who are running the show today are not the same "they" who were there when this policy was still valid, and even that "they" would encompass so many people it might be a tad difficult to say that "they" who write the texts for BJU Press have much if anything to do with the "they" that write dating policies for BJU. Just a thought ;)

[TXMary2]

They had this policy for fifty years and never thought to question it. It took national public disapproval before they "suddenly" saw the error of their ways. Probably in 20 years, when none of the people who were in leadership there when this ban was still in effect are still there, I will feel comfortable believing that this was just a sad chapter in their past. But not this soon. Nope.

 

If Ben and Jerry's stopped giving money to causes you don't believe in because their bottom line was threatened, would you really believe that they had a change of heart, or would you think they were just concerned with their image?

 

 

 

Did I miss where he said that he realized that the ban was racist and that it was wrong to have had it? He said the Bible didn't give them fodder to defend the rule. Not exactly what I'd call a mea culpa.

 

And if the ban were really meaningless to them, why were they willing to lose their tax-exmpt status over it in 1983, when BJIII was president?

 

Tara

 

 

I wouldn't much care why they were doing it, only that they were no longer doing it. So, yes, I would buy B&J's ice cream no matter what reason they stopped doing it.

 

As for BJU, I don't know much about them except that I like their Grammar program and I don't feel the least bit guilty for buying it. The old racist guy isn't in charge anymore and clearly the company is trying to get away from the past wrongdoing and for me, that is all that matters.

[TXMary2]

Just wondering who "they" are? Is it a board of directors, or what? I'm going to throw it out there that "they" who are running the show today are not the same "they" who were there when this policy was still valid, and even that "they" would encompass so many people it might be a tad difficult to say that "they" who write the texts for BJU Press have much if anything to do with the "they" that write dating policies for BJU. Just a thought ;)

 

 

Hehe. But "they" work for BJU so "they" must be evil and not worthy of forgiveness.

 

Yes, that was snarky.:tongue_smilie:

[Haiku]

 

Yes, that was snarky.:tongue_smilie:

 

Yeah, and there's no reason to be snarky. I gave my opinion. You asked questions, and I answered them and clarified why I felt the way I do. You feel differently. Fine. No need for snark.

 

Just wondering who "they" are? Is it a board of directors, or what? I'm going to throw it out there that "they" who are running the show today are not the same "they" who were there when this policy was still valid,

 

University presidents are not, that I am aware of, unquestioned dictators. They generally have boards to whom the are responsible, so I doubt that one person enacted (ETA: or continued) their racist policy single-handedly. BJIII retired five years ago. Has everyone who served in a position of authority with him left?

 

But "they" work for BJU so "they" must be evil and not worthy of forgiveness.

 

If you choose to interpret what I said that way, so be it. Do I question why someone would choose to work for a company with a very recent racist history? Yes. Did I presume to know what everyone who works there thinks or feels? Of course not. Did I ever say that you should feel guilty for buying BJU materials? Nope. I answered your questions in good faith, not to present myself as a target for your snark.

 

Tara

Edited March 9, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[stripe]

It's not as if Tara, or any of us, can buy every homeschooling curriculum out there. And the point of freedom of choice in the marketplace is SO that, if you don't want to support something or don't like something, you don't have to send your money in that direction! Why is it now anti-democratic to refuse to give your money to companies you don't support?

 

I support Tara's leeriness of supporting companies that are in direct opposition to her own. As a person in an ethnically mixed family myself, I too find racism an important cause to oppose. I also won't buy from a certain company that sent me emails denigrating people of various faiths, including my own. I am sure they find that that helps their bottom line, but I don't think I need participate.

[MissKNG]

See, here's the problem...secular does not mean "anti religion"; a secular publisher would just omit the Bible from certain areas of study, not denigrate it. I see that mistake here often; people assuming secular to be "hostile to religion".

 

That is interesting because public school (secular) is hostile towards the Bible, which is why we are home schooling. But this is quite off topic...so PM me if you want to discuss more;)!

[mom31257]

 

As hesitant as I am to get involved in a creation/evolution thread, this book was somewhat eye-opening for me.

 

Hmm...after looking at this article I expected to come in here and read about curriculum choices for non-creationists, but it is an interesting thread. I love that people get really passionate about their beliefs. I'm grateful that we live in a free country where we can disagree.

 

I believe in creation and the Big Bang, God spoke and "bang" the whole universe went forward from His mouth. Maybe that accounts for the universe expanding since sound travels! I have not done extensive research on creation, but I am a product of a public school education. I never believed evolution as fact.

 

We have the IL Usborne World History book. The first 100 pages or so are pre-history. How that much belongs in a history book, I'll never understand, but that's another discussion. We were looking through some of the pages about humans and apes. My 1st grade son told me today, "Even if I was not a Christian I would not believe that." When I asked him why, he said, "because it's soooo ridiculous." Out of the mouths of babes!

[TXMary2]

Yeah, and there's no reason to be snarky. I gave my opinion. You asked questions, and I answered them and clarified why I felt the way I do. You feel differently. Fine. No need for snark.

 

 

 

University presidents are not, that I am aware of, unquestioned dictators. They generally have boards to whom the are responsible, so I doubt that one person enacted (ETA: or continued) their racist policy single-handedly. BJIII retired five years ago. Has everyone who served in a position of authority with him left?

 

 

 

If you choose to interpret what I said that way, so be it. Do I question why someone would choose to work for a company with a very recent racist history? Yes. Did I presume to know what everyone who works there thinks or feels? Of course not. Did I ever say that you should feel guilty for buying BJU materials? Nope. I answered your questions in good faith, not to present myself as a target for your snark.

 

Tara

 

Tara, I apologize. I wasn't actually directing my snark *at* you. I was just being sarcastic about "they." I support your right to not buy from BJU I was just wondering why if they changed their policy you wouldn't change your mind about buying from them. It wasn't personal.

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe in creation and the Big Bang, God spoke and "bang" the whole universe went forward from His mouth. Maybe that accounts for the universe expanding

:iagree:

 

We have the IL Usborne World History book. The first 100 pages or so are pre-history.

I love looking at the illustrations of prehistoric creatures. I could do without the commentary. I would also love these books to prove in some way that their illustrations are accurate. How do they know what the outside of the body looked like based on the fossil? I want them to tell me why they are drawn that way.

[LittleIzumi]

:iagree:

 

I love looking at the illustrations of prehistoric creatures. I could do without the commentary. I would also love these books to prove in some way that their illustrations are accurate. How do they know what the outside of the body looked like based on the fossil? I want them to tell me why they are drawn that way.

 

I think they extrapolate based on markings on the bones that show where muscles were attached, plus skin impressions that are fossilized, plus the skeleton itself, possibly footprints (when we have them), and our knowledge of biology in general.

[Haiku]

How do they know what the outside of the body looked like based on the fossil? I want them to tell me why they are drawn that way.

 

I always tell my kids that this is just some artist's idea of what these things looked like.

 

I know that, when they (there's that pesky "they" again!) made the Lord of the Rings movies, they hired people who recreate face and body structures to build the templates and masks for the orcs and goblins, etc. They used computer simulations and then built, layer by layer, muscle by muscle, the faces and bodies.

 

Tara

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I think they extrapolate based on markings on the bones that show where muscles were attached, plus skin impressions that are fossilized, plus the skeleton itself, possibly footprints (when we have them), and our knowledge of biology in general.

I know that. lol. I want specifics given for the illustrations. This fossil was found with an impression of hair... this one was found with an impression of scales, etc. Of course if they are going off of fossils, they had no idea of the color.

[justamouse]

This book

 

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Firmament-Understanding-Theology-Creation/dp/0978718615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268159099&sr=8-1

 

has been helpful to me in taking a fresh look at the creation account. The author has a website with a few videos as well.

 

http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/does-science-contradict-the-bible/

 

As hesitant as I am to get involved in a creation/evolution thread, this book was somewhat eye-opening for me.

 

I've been dying to read that!

 

WOW! I just watched the movie--and I had to order the book right away. That is just brilliant. Apparently this argument has been going on a LOOONNGGGG time. :D

Edited March 10, 2010 by justamouse