Associated Press Article on Homeschool Science Texts-CC

[Greta]

What are some of these lies that you have seen?

 

*I* have made the mistake before of getting too heavy-handed and too emotional on this topic. I don't want to do that again, so I am going to take some time to think about how I should handle this, and if I should continue. I'm sorry, maybe it was inappropriate for me to bring that up at all. I was only trying to answer the OP's question, but maybe I shouldn't have brought it up at all if I wasn't prepared to fully dive in. But fully diving in at times in the past has made me regretful later. So I'm just dipping one foot in this time. :) I apologize, and ask that you bear with me.

[Tracy in Ky]

*I* have made the mistake before of getting too heavy-handed and too emotional on this topic. I don't want to do that again, so I am going to take some time to think about how I should handle this, and if I should continue. I'm sorry, maybe it was inappropriate for me to bring that up at all. I was only trying to answer the OP's question, but maybe I shouldn't have brought it up at all if I wasn't prepared to fully dive in. But fully diving in at times in the past has made me regretful later. So I'm just dipping one foot in this time. :) I apologize, and ask that you bear with me.

 

I understand, GretaLynne. Don't feel pressured at all. I know how it feels to dive in and then regret it too. :)

 

Hugs,

Tracy

[Erica in PA]

 

The explanation that is both far more reasonable, and far more faithful, to me, is to understand that the purpose of the Genesis account was that the "credit" and the glory for all of creation goes to God - it's not about whether He did it in six days or fifteen billion years, the point is He did it. Genesis is meant to teach us about our relationship with God, not to be a science text.

 

 

I appreciated your post, but I have to vent a little here: when people make the comment that Genesis is not a "science text," it really bugs me. (And I have seen it all over the place, in just about every conversation on this topic, so I'm not aiming this at you personally, GretaLynne.) To me, that elevates science as being *the ultimate* in terms of reality, and relegates the Bible to a mere story that is to be disbelieved if at any point it seems to contradict what science tells us. If God is who the Bible claims He is, and if He did in fact send His message to mankind in one book, the Bible, He and the Bible itself are far above any science book written by a fallible man. If the two contradict, it is not the Bible that is wrong, it is SCIENCE.

 

So, no the Bible is not a science text, and I praise the Lord that it is not! It is imminently more reliable and more trustworthy than any science text could ever be. I trust the perspective of the Creator far more than any of the insights of even the most intelligent products of his Creation.

[Hedgehogs4]

What I find frustrating about the entire mess is that the Creationists expect to have their theology treated as a scientific theory without having any evidence to back that up. I'm certainly not threatened by people teaching their children whatever they like, but when extremist groups try to push their specific beliefs onto an entire state's curriculum, that bothers me.

 

 

so glad to be identified as an extremist. so weird. i thought that believing in god was the norm in mankind, not the exception. Oh yes, and there is tons of evidence that evolutionists use to "prove" their theory which creationists just say "proves" their um...theology? or is god a theory? I just don't get it.

[creekland]

And lastly, on a more pragmatic note, there are critically important reasons to understand how evolution works. Just think how many lives might be saved through an understanding of the evolution of infectious bacteria and viruses. That's my short answer, because I am attempting to answer your question, but in a non-combative, non-argumentative way. I hope I succeeded at least a little.

 

But see, this IS one of the lies evolutionists use. Both creation and evolution believing scientists believe in the "evolution" of bacteria and viruses. Only evolutionists who are misinformed or those purposely trying to malign the view say creation scientists don't believe in it. One "type" of anything "evolving" through natural selection into something different of the same type (even different species of the same type) definitely happens. It's something Bible believing creationists NEED to have happened (and happen as quickly as it does) to get the diversity we have today. Where we disagree is saying that any number of mutations will turn the bacteria into mammals (or anything else that they are not). They remain bacteria or virus.

 

To be honest, if you're going to complain about the misinformation from one side, be certain to get the facts correct on the other side first. Otherwise, it's just spreading more lies that people believe since most people don't care enough (not that they should) to look up what is stated to be certain it is true.

 

It's a good reminder NOT to believe everything one reads - whether on the net or in a book or newspaper or wherever. When curious about something, look to the source of those supporting it - not dissenters. Dissenters (both sides) often portray the other side incorrectly.

[TXMary2]

That's interesting, because from the same basic viewpoint, that God cannot be a liar and a deceiver, I must conclude that the Universe is billions of years old, and that evolution is true. The Bible is not God's only revelation to us. Creation itself is God's revelation. And creation reveals that it is billions of years old.

 

I've heard some creationists argue that God created this universe "fully mature", to *appear* billions of years old. But I can't believe in a God that would deceive us that way. The explanation that is both far more reasonable, and far more faithful, to me, is to understand that the purpose of the Genesis account was that the "credit" and the glory for all of creation goes to God - it's not about whether He did it in six days or fifteen billion years, the point is He did it. Genesis is meant to teach us about our relationship with God, not to be a science text. And I say, that does not diminish it's importance at all, but emphasizes it. Trying to reduce it to a science text is what diminishes it, in my opinion.

 

As to why evolutionists care what creationists think, I will try to speak only briefly and only for myself. I am saddened by the tactics that *some* Creationists use to promote their beliefs, though I don't know if this applies to the homeschooling materials being mentioned (Apologia), because I haven't viewed them. I do not wish to cast blame or point fingers, but I have seen so many lies told to support creationism: lies of omission, lies of outright fabrication, lies where the truth was twisted beyond recognition. Needless to say, I don't think we honor Christ when we resort to that. Furthermore, I believe God intended us to be reasonable, rational, curious, inquisitive beings. We honor Him when we endeavor to learn about and understand His creation. And lastly, on a more pragmatic note, there are critically important reasons to understand how evolution works. Just think how many lives might be saved through an understanding of the evolution of infectious bacteria and viruses. That's my short answer, because I am attempting to answer your question, but in a non-combative, non-argumentative way. I hope I succeeded at least a little.

 

 

I don't believe it has been proven that the earth is billions or millions of years old. Scientists are but mere men and there are lots of problems with dating techniques. From a YE creationist perspective, God is not a liar or a deceiver.

[Tracy in Ky]

It only matters if you believe it's literal. I don't, so it doesn't matter to me.

 

Why do you not believe it is literal?

 

 

I agree with what GretaLynne says:

 

I've heard some creationists argue that God created this universe "fully mature", to *appear* billions of years old. But I can't believe in a God that would deceive us that way. The explanation that is both far more reasonable, and far more faithful, to me, is to understand that the purpose of the Genesis account was that the "credit" and the glory for all of creation goes to God - it's not about whether He did it in six days or fifteen billion years, the point is He did it.

 

I agree with this. IMO, both creation stories are symbolic, not literal at all.

 

Why do you believe that the universe appears billions of years old? Which evidence convinced you?

 

Thanks for the discussion. This thread is so informative! :)

[Tracy in Ky]

Double post!

[Mrs Mungo]

Why do you think there are two creation stories?

 

Because there are.

 

Why do you not believe it is literal?

 

Reason.

 

Why do you believe that the universe appears billions of years old? Which evidence convinced you?

 

I didn't mean to imply I was convinced of any exact age of the universe. I do think it's older than 6,000 years or so. A thousand years is as a day, right? I think the days are a symbolic period, not a literal 24 hour day.

[Tracy in Ky]

Because there are.

 

Which verses make you believe this? I'd like to talk about it with you, since you have brought it up. It was only last night that I learned that some people believe there are 2 creation stories. Which verses in particular cause you to think this?

 

 

Reason.

 

 

 

Well, yes :) We want to use rationality. But what I would like to know is on what basis do you believe that Genesis is not literal? Upon what reasons do you base your belief?

 

 

I didn't mean to imply I was convinced of any exact age of the universe. I do think it's older than 6,000 years or so. A thousand years is as a day, right? I think the days are a symbolic period, not a literal 24 hour day.

 

I see. Why do you believe that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Why do you believe that the days are a symbolic period rather than 24 hour days?

 

My son and I have been studying this lately, and I have so much to learn. Thanks for talking it through with me :)

Edited March 8, 2010 by Tracy in Ky

[Mrs Mungo]

Tracy, I have to go pick up eldest but I'll come back to this.

[Greta]

Both creation and evolution believing scientists believe in the "evolution" of bacteria and viruses.

 

You are partially right. This was a poorly chosen example on my part, and for that I apologize. It popped into my head as the most obvious example of why it is so important to understand how and why evolution works. It simply didn't occur to me that the example was still within species, and therefore creationists would agree with it. I find the creationist position that evolution can happen to x extent, but not x + 1 extend to be . . . illogical. But this position does exist and I did not mean to imply otherwise. What drives evolution, the processes by which it happens, are much the same whether within species or between species. This distinction is one that creationists emphasize but evolutionists generally do not (or at least did not when I was getting my B.S.). I assure you it was not deliberate on my part. I am just unaccustomed to thinking of them as something so profoundly different . . . because they really aren't.

 

You are wrong however in implying that I get my information about creationism from evolutionists. First of all, I was raised in a creationist religion and a creationist home. It is all I knew for the first 20 or so years of my life. And furthermore while I have not made it a personal endeavor to do so, some of my friends have encouraged me to read creationist articles or websites, and I have done so from time to time. I do not get information about creationism from evolutionists. I also do not get information about evolution from creationists.

[LittleIzumi]

Thank you for bringing up this aspect of the discussion, Tracy. I think it is a crucial point. I think it is almost impossible to conceive that physical death (for all creatures, plant, animal and human) has been God's plan from the beginning. That the death of all of His Creation was part of what God considered "good"?? If not, what did cause death, if not Adam's sin? It's not a point to just toss out the window, or reply with a "gotcha" question of one's own...I think this is a point that people should honestly consider.

 

I think it was indeed part of the plan--and that was part of why Jesus Christ coming to earth was also always part of His plan. He knew we would physically die, and He knew we would sin and therefore spiritually die. If you believe that there was no death before Adam, an all-knowing God would still know that Eve was going to choose to partake of the fruit, right? (At least that is what I understand of God, that He is all-knowing as well as all-powerful and that He knows our hearts perfectly too and would know that Eve and Adam would choose this from the beginning. If you believe something else sorry that I assumed.)

[Tracy in Ky]

I find the creationist position that evolution can happen to x extent, but not x + 1 extend to be . . . illogical. But this position does exist and I did not mean to imply otherwise.

 

Are you talking about the difference between microevolution (to x extent) and macroevolution (x + 1)? Or am I totally missing your point?

[Greta]

I understand, GretaLynne. Don't feel pressured at all. I know how it feels to dive in and then regret it too. :)

 

Hugs,

Tracy

 

Thank you so much! Could I pm you about this?

[Tracy in Ky]

Thank you so much! Could I pm you about this?

 

 

Sure, at your convenience :)

[Dana]

Why do you not believe it is literal?

 

 

Tracy -

 

You seem to be honestly interested and that's why I'm responding.

 

I've never understood how people take the Bible as the literal word of God simply due to translation issues. Both of my parents are ministers and to get their MDiv, they had to learn Greek in order to read the New Testament. My mother learned Hebrew as well for the Old Testament, but my father didn't.

 

My mother has a version of the Bible that has four different translations on a page. It's fascinating to see the differences and how one verse can be translated one way in one translation and a different way in a different translation.

 

I've seen the people who use the Bible as the literal, inerrant word of God get too caught up in legalism and some seem to miss the overall message of grace.

 

I don't know if this helps with the other point of view. It isn't meant in a nasty way at all. I do recall when I was young, discussing this with my mother and asking how it was possible for the 7-day-creation to square with science. She asked me what made me think that my day was the same as God's day.

 

I'm going to stay out of the thread otherwise (because I get too frustrated with these discussions) but the biggie for me on the Bible as non-literal is the translation issue.

[Greta]

Are you talking about the difference between microevolution (to x extent) and macroevolution (x + 1)? Or am I totally missing your point?

 

That's correct - if I understand how these terms are defined! :D In my four years getting my B.S. in Zoology and taking many classes about evolution, I don't remember this distinction being made. The first time I heard these terms was from a creationist. But I think the idea is that microevolution is change, but not enough change to produce a new species. While macroevolution means the production of a new species. The distinction seems very arbitrary to me. The ways in which these changes happen are the same. It's only a matter of degree.

[Greta]

Which verses make you believe this? I'd like to talk about it with you, since you have brought it up. It was only last night that I learned that some people believe there are 2 creation stories. Which verses in particular cause you to think this?

 

Don't mean to answer for Mrs Mungo, but this is my understanding as well. We even talked about it in my Bible study class. The teacher of my class said that there were two source documents for Genesis, and that's why there are two creation accounts. He also said that the decision to start Chapter 2 where they did (the original had no chapter distinctions, as I'm sure you know) made it confusing. The first account is all of chapter 1 plus versus 1-3 of chapter 2. Then the second account starts anew at chapter 2 verse 4. In the first account, plants and animals are created before Adam and Eve. In the second account, Adam is created first, then the plants and animals, then Eve.

[Jenny in GA]

the purpose of the Genesis account was that the "credit" and the glory for all of creation goes to God - it's not about whether He did it in six days or fifteen billion years, the point is He did it. Genesis is meant to teach us about our relationship with God, not to be a science text. And I say, that does not diminish it's importance at all, but emphasizes it. Trying to reduce it to a science text is what diminishes it, in my opinion.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Thank you! I rarely hear this viewpoint, which sums up very well how I see it. It's refreshing to hear another Christian with the same thoughts.

 

Just curious ... is that a denominational thing? What I mean is, are certain denominations more or less likely to agree with the above (and/or to believe TY or OE?)

[Tracy in Ky]

Don't mean to answer for Mrs Mungo, but this is my understanding as well. We even talked about it in my Bible study class. The teacher of my class said that there were two source documents for Genesis, and that's why there are two creation accounts. He also said that the decision to start Chapter 2 where they did (the original had no chapter distinctions, as I'm sure you know) made it confusing. The first account is all of chapter 1 plus versus 1-3 of chapter 2. Then the second account starts anew at chapter 2 verse 4. In the first account, plants and animals are created before Adam and Eve. In the second account, Adam is created first, then the plants and animals, then Eve.

 

Thank you for the verses and explanation! We may have covered the '2 accounts' material when I was in seminary, but I have no recollection of it :blushing:

 

I see what you are saying. But ch 2 starting in v.4 simply expounds on the events of day 6 and gives more detail--a commentary of sorts. The order isn't changed; details are provided.

 

For example, after repeating that God made Adam (with more detail provided), he mentions again that God had made the animals ("Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them."), and adds the detail that on day 6 Adam named the animals. Then, based on the new detail in ch. 2, we see that Eve was created after Adam named the animals--still on day 6.

 

The plants mentioned in ch. 2 are cultivated plants--those plants needed a man to tend them (v. 5), rather than plants in general. Evidently, God waited to sprout the plants that need cultivation as well as the garden trees until Adam was created to tend to them (ie. and there was no man to cultivate the groud v.5).

 

So the order isn't different, and it isn't a different account. It simply gives more detail for day 6.

 

I'm curious, is there any other reason why people don't take Genesis literally? Or is this the only one that you know of?

[Tracy in Ky]

:iagree:

 

Thank you! I rarely hear this viewpoint, which sums up very well how I see it. It's refreshing to hear another Christian with the same thoughts.

 

Just curious ... is that a denominational thing? What I mean is, are certain denominations more or less likely to agree with the above (and/or to believe TY or OE?)

 

Do you consider the whole book of Genesis to be non-literal, so that none of it is considered to be actual events?

[Diane in NH]

Going back to the original question, it was asked why do some people care what a bunch of homeschoolers teach... Not getting into what I believe, or what I teach, this would be my guess...

 

I think many are passionate about their field of study. It would be like any of us, when we are well versed on a subject and see something that we feel is blatantly wrong. Let's say a group of homeschoolers were insisting that 4 + 8 = 15. They were writing this in all their books and giving proofs. Most of us would respond in astonishment and wonder what they were doing and tell them they had to "teach it right." Well, to the scientists, that is what they are doing. The bottom line is 98%+ of scientists in the fields that have to do with evolution do believe in evolution though there is debate on how exactly it all happens. They simply don't want their field misrepresented.

 

I think another issue, is that it isn't just a group of homeschoolers. Many people have tried to get creationism taught in the public schools. From the scienctists perspective, it simply isn't science. Answers in Genesis aside, the science community simply doesn't accept in any way shape or form the idea of a 7 day creation. Evolution is simply the accepted scientific model. We can't say that the Christian creation from the Bible should be taught in schools, as they don't use the Bible as their basis of study. Can you imagine what would happen if every group, in the public school system were allowed to have an equal say in the science class. There are people who still insist that the earth is flat. There are people who insist that aliens are living among us and visit regularly. Therefore, in schools, for each subject, really the best prevailing scientific data should be presented. Scientists have refuted most of the science brought on by people who are creationists. I don't have the science background to study either as an authority, so my opinion would be rather limited on this.

 

There is also an issue with colleges. If colleges and professors assume that every homeschooler, which is what is getting implied by some of these articles, is taught creationism and doesn't believe in what they consider "real" science, then it will be harder for homeschoolers, regardless of their education to be accepted into top universities.

 

Anyway, those would be my guesses as to why the people who believe in evolution get so upset with those that want to teach creation.

[rockermom]

:) I am a Christian that believes the Earth is OLD and that GOD made it and that he may well have used Evolution. Your statement I bolded above seems to indicate that Christians cannot believe in an Old Earth, Creation - as in God made it - and Evolution.

 

You want to know why Evolutionists care what Creationists believe? I care because I believe in both and quite frankly, I'm tired of all the Young Earth, Literal 7-24 hour Day Creationists telling me how I have to teach my children.

 

If nothing else convinces me Creationism is bull, the arrogance of those who believe it will convince me. :)

 

:iagree:

[hornblower]

To me, that elevates science as being *the ultimate* in terms of reality, and relegates the Bible to a mere story that is to be disbelieved if at any point it seems to contradict what science tells us.

 

Yes, that's right.

 

I believe it IS just a story. And I believe reason, applied in a scientific manner, is the ultimate way we have of understanding reality.

[justamouse]

:) I am a Christian that believes the Earth is OLD and that GOD made it and that he may well have used Evolution. Your statement I bolded above seems to indicate that Christians cannot believe in an Old Earth, Creation - as in God made it - and Evolution.

 

You want to know why Evolutionists care what Creationists believe? I care because I believe in both and quite frankly, I'm tired of all the Young Earth, Literal 7-24 hour Day Creationists telling me how I have to teach my children.

 

If nothing else convinces me Creationism is bull, the arrogance of those who believe it will convince me. :)

 

:iagree:

[Greta]

:iagree:

 

Thank you! I rarely hear this viewpoint, which sums up very well how I see it. It's refreshing to hear another Christian with the same thoughts.

 

Just curious ... is that a denominational thing? What I mean is, are certain denominations more or less likely to agree with the above (and/or to believe TY or OE?)

 

:001_smile: I appreciate your kind words. I'm an Orthodox Christian, and the Church is not dogmatic on this issue, at least to my knowledge and in my experience. You can take the account literally or allegorically as you wish, as far as I know. My priest sees it as allegory. I honestly don't know how common that is. It actually doesn't come up much!

[msjones]

You know, this is turning into something I didn't intend. My question was why do evolutionists even CARE what creationists believe. If it is all hoky science and we are all a bunch of religious idiots then why the passionate defense of evolution? Instead of answering that, the evolutionists in this thread instead try to debate the facts or lack of facts. I put CC in the thread and yet here are several of you passionately defending evolution. Again, I ask, why do you care? Does it hurt you in some way that someone sees it dfferently? What's the big deal? Enough of the "clearly you are an idiot - here's a link for you that you probably won't read" responses. If nothing else convinces me evolution is bull, the arrogance of those who believe it will convince me.

 

I think I have an answer to your question.

 

The first time I heard of 'young earth' was in a Christian home-school co-op science class. I have been a Christian my whole life and had never heard of such a belief. I was stunned.

 

This woman may as well have begun teaching that the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth, or that witches sink if you throw them into a lake.

 

I'm not trying to be offensive with these examples -- just trying to explain my perspective. The idea of a young earth sounded positively medieval to me. I don't think I'm able to fully answer your question without some examples to illustrate my reaction.

 

So, it didn't hurt me, or anger me, or threaten my beliefs. But, the young earth perspective seemed cultish and extremely ignorant to me at that time. It was worrisome to me the same way any cult would be. I think the general non-YE public respond out of stunned concern-- like I did.

 

Since then, I've tried to learn a little about the young earth perspective. I still don't accept that perspective, but I do understand more about it and those who do accept it.

 

I see that most homeschoolers who teach YE also teach about evolution. That seems reasonable to me. I believe that evolution is correct, but also teach about YE, so my kids can some day interact with YE believers respectfully.

[Greta]

I see what you are saying. But ch 2 starting in v.4 simply expounds on the events of day 6 and gives more detail--a commentary of sorts. The order isn't changed; details are provided.

 

For example, after repeating that God made Adam (with more detail provided), he mentions again that God had made the animals ("Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them."), and adds the detail that on day 6 Adam named the animals. Then, based on the new detail in ch. 2, we see that Eve was created after Adam named the animals--still on day 6.

 

The plants mentioned in ch. 2 are cultivated plants--those plants needed a man to tend them (v. 5), rather than plants in general. Evidently, God waited to sprout the plants that need cultivation as well as the garden trees until Adam was created to tend to them (ie. and there was no man to cultivate the groud v.5).

 

So the order isn't different, and it isn't a different account. It simply gives more detail for day 6.

 

Thanks for explaining this. I will go back and read it again with this in mind. I remember thinking it read very much like two different accounts. But I could certainly be wrong. I'll ask my Bible study teacher too, and see if I can dig out my notes.

 

I'm curious, is there any other reason why people don't take Genesis literally? Or is this the only one that you know of?

 

I think just the general idea that it was done in such a short amount of time, when all the scientific evidence points to a very old universe.

 

Oh, and I think a fair number of us have . . . issues with the story of Noah's ark.

 

Honestly, I'm not always sure where I stand with the OT - I'm still praying, learning, and working it out. I do know I take the gospels literally, and I believe Jesus to have been born of the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, that He died willingly for our salvation and rose on the third day, and that the things he taught during his life are meant to be a "guidebook" for us in how to live our lives. I also believe that's the heart of what it means to be Christian, and I try to make that my primary focus.

 

Gotta run, but I will check in again tomorrow. Have a great evening!

[justamouse]

That's interesting, because from the same basic viewpoint, that God cannot be a liar and a deceiver, I must conclude that the Universe is billions of years old, and that evolution is true. The Bible is not God's only revelation to us. Creation itself is God's revelation. And creation reveals that it is billions of years old.

 

I've heard some creationists argue that God created this universe "fully mature", to *appear* billions of years old. But I can't believe in a God that would deceive us that way. The explanation that is both far more reasonable, and far more faithful, to me, is to understand that the purpose of the Genesis account was that the "credit" and the glory for all of creation goes to God - it's not about whether He did it in six days or fifteen billion years, the point is He did it. Genesis is meant to teach us about our relationship with God, not to be a science text. And I say, that does not diminish it's importance at all, but emphasizes it. Trying to reduce it to a science text is what diminishes it, in my opinion.

 

As to why evolutionists care what creationists think, I will try to speak only briefly and only for myself. I am saddened by the tactics that *some* Creationists use to promote their beliefs, though I don't know if this applies to the homeschooling materials being mentioned (Apologia), because I haven't viewed them. I do not wish to cast blame or point fingers, but I have seen so many lies told to support creationism: lies of omission, lies of outright fabrication, lies where the truth was twisted beyond recognition. Needless to say, I don't think we honor Christ when we resort to that. Furthermore, I believe God intended us to be reasonable, rational, curious, inquisitive beings. We honor Him when we endeavor to learn about and understand His creation. And lastly, on a more pragmatic note, there are critically important reasons to understand how evolution works. Just think how many lives might be saved through an understanding of the evolution of infectious bacteria and viruses. That's my short answer, because I am attempting to answer your question, but in a non-combative, non-argumentative way. I hope I succeeded at least a little.

 

 

That is just such an amazing reply. Thank you. I totally agree.

[justamouse]

I think what bothers me most about militant creationists being such vocal homeschoolers are that *any* group is normally measured by it's extremes. I have so many hits against me already. I'm a homeschooler, I have a huge family, I'm a Christian, ---and the logical conclusion of society is that I'm a fundamentalist and teaching my children YEC. I hate being measured by the yardstick of the extremes. I hate having to defend my faith becuase of its most fringe elements.

 

My daughter is going into the sciences. I can't imagine what a disservice I'd do her -to her faith and her career - if I taught her the bible as a literal interpretation of how the earth came into being.

 

I'm trying to remain neutral in this, but I come from a very strict Evangelical creation 7 day upbringing, and I know the damage it did my faith. There is no dichotomy with God and science. I don't ahve to choose, and I don't have to make my children choose. My faith in God is not measured by my belief in an exact interpretation of Genesis and I get so resentful that others measure my faith that way.

Edited March 9, 2010 by justamouse

[Mrs Mungo]

Tracy, examples:

 

Genesis 1:25-27

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

 

v.

 

Genesis 2:18-19

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

v.

 

Genesis 2:18-22

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Humans created before/after the other animals.

 

Man and woman created together/at different times.

 

*Hundreds* of authors have written upon this subject. I don't think it's something we're going to iron out here. If you're truly interested in an Old Earth Creationist POV, there is a lot of information out there. There's no need to reproduce it here. There are lots of very good OEC websites that are easy to google.

 

That all said, I don't believe in abiogenesis as described by evolutionists, either. I don't believe it's logical that the earth, proteins and life appeared without catalyst. I don't believe that you could start with a single-celled organism and through a series of spontaneous, beneficial generic mutations wind up with all life on earth from bacteria to tulips to whales. Even over millions of years, I find that statistically impossible.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Mrs Mungo
fixing quote box

[RegGuheert]

You are partially right. This was a poorly chosen example on my part, and for that I apologize. It popped into my head as the most obvious example of why it is so important to understand how and why evolution works. It simply didn't occur to me that the example was still within species, and therefore creationists would agree with it. I find the creationist position that evolution can happen to x extent, but not x + 1 extend to be . . . illogical. But this position does exist and I did not mean to imply otherwise. What drives evolution, the processes by which it happens, are much the same whether within species or between species. This distinction is one that creationists emphasize but evolutionists generally do not (or at least did not when I was getting my B.S.). I assure you it was not deliberate on my part. I am just unaccustomed to thinking of them as something so profoundly different . . . because they really aren't.

I agree that this is the major point in the disagreement between the creationist position and the the evolutionist position. While it is easy to *say* that macroevolution is really just microevolution done many times over, it is quite another to make a scientific cases for it. I think everyone agrees that natural selection cannot, under any circumstances, add any information to a genome. It is, by its very nature, a winnowing process. As such, it can only destroy information. That leaves the question of whether random mutations can ADD any new structures or functions into an existing genome. (Please note that it is NOT enough to simply create a functional advantage to enable macroevolution, you must BOTH add new information to the genome AND create a functional advantage.) The creationist view is that it cannot. There are several main arguments leveled against the idea that mutations followed by natural selection can add new structures or new functions to a genome:

 

- Firstly, and most importantly, it has *never* been observed. Not a single experiment has ever produced a result where a mutation has added new information to a genome and also provided a functional advantage to allow for selection to occur. As such, you must believe on faith that this can happen.

- Secondly, information is fundamentally different than either matter or energy. As such, it is illogical to believe that coded information can arise from random material processes. This belief agrees with all scientific observations. I understand that this is where natural selection comes into play in evolutionary theory: to make the random process not so random. Still, the burden of proof is on evolutionists to observe that new structures of functions can be created through this process.

- Thirdly, even if you have the faith to believe that useful information can be created through random material processes followed by selection, it seems that many biological structures do not have useful intermediate steps. This is the concept of "irreducible complexity" that Michael Behe introduced in "Darwin's Black Box". This is another direct attack on the method of macroevolution proposed by Darwin and it seems to be the one most vehemently attacked by evolutionists.

 

There are other important arguments against the idea that microevolution + time = macroevolution, but to me these are the most significant.

 

IMO, what is most significant is that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the idea that mutation plus natural selection can produce a more complex being. It is this complete lack of evidence which causes me to conclude that the belief in evolution is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

[Tracy in Ky]

Tracy, examples:

 

 

Thanks, Mrs Mungo. This is basically what Gretalynne suggested and the same verses that she referred to. I responded to her above--take a look at my response and why ch2 doesn't contradict or change the order of ch 1.

 

Thanks again!

Tracy

[Erica in PA]

Yes, that's right.

 

I believe it IS just a story. And I believe reason, applied in a scientific manner, is the ultimate way we have of understanding reality.

 

For the person who has no faith in the Bible as God's Word, that makes sense. I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise. However, it seems to me to be preaching to the choir to use arguments like, "The Bible is not a science text." To the person who believes the Bible, the answer to that is... "True, and....?" It only appeals to those who do hold science texts as being superior to the Bible in terms of accurately expressing reality.

[RegGuheert]

I appreciated your post, but I have to vent a little here: when people make the comment that Genesis is not a "science text," it really bugs me. (And I have seen it all over the place, in just about every conversation on this topic, so I'm not aiming this at you personally, GretaLynne.) To me, that elevates science as being *the ultimate* in terms of reality, and relegates the Bible to a mere story that is to be disbelieved if at any point it seems to contradict what science tells us. If God is who the Bible claims He is, and if He did in fact send His message to mankind in one book, the Bible, He and the Bible itself are far above any science book written by a fallible man. If the two contradict, it is not the Bible that is wrong, it is SCIENCE.

 

So, no the Bible is not a science text, and I praise the Lord that it is not! It is imminently more reliable and more trustworthy than any science text could ever be. I trust the perspective of the Creator far more than any of the insights of even the most intelligent products of his Creation.

:iagree:

 

Well said!

 

I also do not consider the bible a science text, but rather I consider it a history text. And when I want to learn things about history such as "When was the Declaration of Independence signed?" I do not consult a science text. A history text which details eyewitness accounts of the event is much more useful and credible for answering such a question than any science textbook ever could be.

[_io]

I find the creationist position that evolution can happen to x extent, but not x + 1 extend to be . . . illogical. But this position does exist and I did not mean to imply otherwise. What drives evolution, the processes by which it happens, are much the same whether within species or between species.

That MAY be true. But only microevolution has been directly observed. Macroevolution can only be inferred from the available evidence.

 

I am just unaccustomed to thinking of them as something so profoundly different . . . because they really aren't.

That's the assumption.

[Mergath]

so glad to be identified as an extremist. so weird. i thought that believing in god was the norm in mankind, not the exception. Oh yes, and there is tons of evidence that evolutionists use to "prove" their theory which creationists just say "proves" their um...theology? or is god a theory? I just don't get it.

 

I haven't singled out anyone here as an extremist, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, I do believe that if a person tries to impose their religious beliefs onto large groups of people, they are an extremist. If someone of a different faith than you, a Pagan or a Muslim, for example, was trying to force an entire state to teach their creation story in science classes, would you not view that person as an extremist?

 

God is theology. A scientific theory requires the ability to gather evidence, which is obviously impossible for any deity.

[bnneale]

Thanks for posting this article. I was interested and horrified by it. It almost sounded as if the "feel" of the article was that Christian science publishers shouldn't be allowed to print these texts because they don't fit with the current scientific theory. The quote that these texts are "promulgating lies to kids" is exactly what I feel about secular texts. I am with you. Why should they care what the Christian publishers are doing?!

[JESSICAinMD]

Thanks for posting this article. I was interested and horrified by it. It almost sounded as if the "feel" of the article was that Christian science publishers shouldn't be allowed to print these texts because they don't fit with the current scientific theory. The quote that these texts are "promulgating lies to kids" is exactly what I feel about secular texts. I am with you. Why should they care what the Christian publishers are doing?!

 

I don't understand either. If you don't agree, don't use it. The comments after the article were even worse. Live and let live and butt out of my homeschool. :)

[creekland]

That's correct - if I understand how these terms are defined! :D In my four years getting my B.S. in Zoology and taking many classes about evolution, I don't remember this distinction being made. The first time I heard these terms was from a creationist. But I think the idea is that microevolution is change, but not enough change to produce a new species. While macroevolution means the production of a new species. The distinction seems very arbitrary to me. The ways in which these changes happen are the same. It's only a matter of degree.

 

Sorry that I haven't had the time to read any posts beyond this, but I have to get ready to go to work. First, however, I just feel the need to correct another incorrect assumption.

 

Creation SCIENTISTS do believe in "evolution" changing species (biological term, "species"). That is included in the "x." A wolf and a dog had the same ancestor even though they are different species. All the finches had the same ancestor (perhaps even other birds) even though they are different species. All cats from lions to Felix had the same ancestor. These are all types of evolution that result from natural selection, are seen today, and can be reproduced to some extent. No scientist disagrees with them.

 

The "x+1" factor is a higher level of that which is purely conjecture - the cow turned into a whale over time. There are disputed fossils - many of which are far more complete in books than in reality. There is no firm evidence for this extrapolation of what is seen and therein lies the difference in evolutionary belief.

 

That's macro vs micro-evolution, and yes, the term is used solely by creationists merely because evolutionists don't want to believe there is a difference. Everyone without a closed mind can see it (whether they believe in a god or not), but the truly adamant evolution preacher pretends it doesn't exist and preaches that way. Some still believe in x+1 without having a closed mind. That's their choice of plausibility. They still admit it exists because it does. I used to believe it happened and was God directed.

 

I'm also not saying all creation believers have the correct info. Many have their own thoughts and/or misconceptions. However, I do get "pet peeved" when people say what Creation SCIENTISTS believe incorrectly. There's a difference (sometimes) between what lay people and science people know/believe. The same can happen with evolution.

[Diane in NH]

That's macro vs micro-evolution, and yes, the term is used solely by creationists merely because evolutionists don't want to believe there is a difference. Everyone without a closed mind can see it (whether they believe in a god or not), but the truly adamant evolution preacher pretends it doesn't exist and preaches that way. Some still believe in x+1 without having a closed mind.

 

Someone earlier posted a link to a lesson in evolution from Berkeley. They do talk about micro and macro evolution.... http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_01

[RegGuheert]

Someone earlier posted a link to a lesson in evolution from Berkeley. They do talk about micro and macro evolution.... http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_01

Thanks for the link. I think Berkeley very clearly makes the point we have been trying to make. The presentation provided starts out by discussing microevolution, defining it in the following way:

 

Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population.

They then give examples of microevolution including "The size of the sparrow" and "Evolving resistance". I will note that there is no mention of the fact that the strains that are more resistant to the extreme environments have *lost* genetic information in order to gain this resistance. IMO, this omission is the important deception in this type of presentation.

 

Then comes the next slide entitled "Accumulating Change" with the statement of faith in evolutionism:

 

Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

 

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.

 

Mutation

Gene Flow ------> 3.8 Billion Years ------> Macroevolution

Genetic Drift

Natural Selection

Then, on the slide entitled "What is Macroevolution" we find this statement:

 

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

In other words, we do not have any scientific evidence for macroevolution, so we believe it on faith, and make up stories to use this belief to try to explain the diversity of life that we see in the present.

 

Finally, there is a slide showing a couple of "trees of life". Again, this is a form of deception, since the fossil record does not record *any* connections between the various vertical branches. Only the branches are included in the fossil record. Any connections between the branches are purely imagined and are based on the faith-based beliefs of the evolutionists.

Edited March 9, 2010 by RegGuheert

[TXMary2]

Thanks for the link. I think Berkeley very clearly makes the point we have been trying to make. The presentation provided starts out by discussing microevolution, defining it in the following way:

 

They then give examples of microevolution including "The size of the sparrow" and "Evolving resistance". I will note that there is no mention of the fact that the strains that are more resistant to the extreme environments have *lost* genetic information in order to gain this resistance. IMO, this omission is the important deception in this type of presentation.

 

Then comes the next slide entitled "Accumulating Change" with the statement of faith in evolutionism:

 

Then, on the slide entitled "What is Macroevolution" we find this statement:

 

In other words, we do not have any scientific evidence for macroevolution, so we believe it on faith, and make up stories to use this belief to try to explain the diversity of life that we see in the present.

 

Finally, there is a slide showing a couple of "trees of life". Again, this is a form of deception, since the fossil record does not record *any* connections between the various vertical branches. Only the branches are included in the fossil record. Any connections between the branches are purely imagined and are based on the faith-based beliefs of the evolutionists.

 

Thank you for all your excellent posts.

[Greta]

That's macro vs micro-evolution, and yes, the term is used solely by creationists merely because evolutionists don't want to believe there is a difference.

 

I never said there was no difference. I said it was a difference of quantity. Now you are doing exactly what you're accusing me of.

 

Everyone without a closed mind can see it

 

You have crossed the line from casual disagreement into personal insults. This doesn't do your cause any good. I know because I've committed the same mistake before.

[Greta]

For the person who has no faith in the Bible as God's Word, that makes sense. I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise. However, it seems to me to be preaching to the choir to use arguments like, "The Bible is not a science text." To the person who believes the Bible, the answer to that is... "True, and....?" It only appeals to those who do hold science texts as being superior to the Bible in terms of accurately expressing reality.

 

Erica, thank you for this. I actually understand better what you're getting at now than I did from your first post on this topic. I'm slow, sometimes it takes restating for it to click. :001_smile: I guess what I was trying to get at, and did not express well, is that I think it diminishes the importance of the Bible when people insist on a literal interpretation (in essence if not in words, holding it up as a science text), because that places the scientific facts about the creation story on the same footing as the spiritual truths concerning the creation story (while I believe that they are not on the same footing, but the latter is far, far more important than the former). As I said before, I believe the point of the story is that the glory for all creation goes to God. And I fear that this message actually gets muddled, not amplified, by insisting on a literal YE interpretation of the story. I hope that makes sense.

[hornblower]

Then, on the slide entitled "What is Macroevolution" we find this statement:

 

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

 

In other words, we do not have any scientific evidence for macroevolution, so we believe it on faith, and make up stories to use this belief to try to explain the diversity of life that we see in the present.

 

 

I think your 'in other words' is grossly off the mark.

No, not faith. EVIDENCE. Multiple lines of evidence + reason.

 

I know your position on this subject & I will not debate with you but I needed to point this out. It is an extreme distortion & if one of my students paraphrased text in this manner, they'd get sent back to the desk to re-do it.

 

And one last thing - even if it was faith, you know what? You have nothing to stand on either except faith and an old book written by a bunch of people who had very limited understandings of biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, geology and translated a bunch of times by a bunch of other people - with similar little knowledge of the sciences. If you're accusing scientists of supporting evolution as a matter of faith (which as I've said is wrong; it's evidence+reason) - that seems to me the pot calling the kettle black.

[creekland]

I never said there was no difference. I said it was a difference of quantity. Now you are doing exactly what you're accusing me of.

 

You have crossed the line from casual disagreement into personal insults. This doesn't do your cause any good. I know because I've committed the same mistake before.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean any of those specifically AT anyone. I was just typing too quickly to interpret how my post could be taken by someone not thinking along the lines my brain was using.

 

The way I see it, there are 2 extremes.

 

There are those that say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" and they are done. They look for proof to support their thoughts (maybe they look) and end there. Anything else can be ignored. Some preach their thoughts to anyone who will listen.

 

Then there are those that say "Evolution did it, I believe it, and that settles it." They look for proof to support their thoughts (maybe - not everyone cares enough to look in either camp) and end there. Anything else can be ignored. Some preach their thoughts to anyone who will listen. And, it is in this camp that those that often refuse to differentiate between the seen (microevolution) and unseen (macroevolution) exist.

 

In between these two extremes lie most people. They are curious (maybe - although most probably do NOT care). If they are, hopefully they will look logically at the explanation of the evidence as presented by SCIENTISTS from both sides - not just the church - not just lay people - not just their neighbor - and definitely not the opposing side as they will incorrectly present the other side in many cases. People from this camp will come to their own conclusion based on which explanation they feel is more plausible. Intelligent people and scientists can be on either side (even though both types of extreme camp folks will say otherwise).

 

I am not putting anyone into any camp - extreme or otherwise. I am merely stating what I see in the general public and in our public school (from kids).

 

Then I just want to clear up misinformation when it is being put out there as fact (same thing you're doing - and we're both right there!). I'm sorry my post came across incorrectly.

 

I teach my own kids both ways of looking at things and will not look down on them no matter which way they choose to believe. I do not consider it a salvation issue. One of my sons plans to go into science research (not this topic). He won't be hindered in the least by knowing both thoughts. He does know he'll have to write the party line to get through certain classes - whether he believes it or not (and I've told him I don't mind which way he believes).

 

For myself, I came from believing in theistic evolution to believing in creation - due to the explanation I believe is more plausible. I don't even know if it was 6 days in a garden (that part is faith, not science, maybe it's literal, maybe not). However, solely due to the science part, I can not believe in macro-evolution unless MAYBE God directed it, but if so, I think we'd have a lot more evidence showing it.

Edited March 9, 2010 by creekland

[hornblower]

For the person who has no faith in the Bible as God's Word, that makes sense. I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise. However, it seems to me to be preaching to the choir to use arguments like, "The Bible is not a science text." To the person who believes the Bible, the answer to that is... "True, and....?" It only appeals to those who do hold science texts as being superior to the Bible in terms of accurately expressing reality.

 

I see. Thanks for clarifying. So if I'm understanding correctly, your objection is with people who self identify as Christian and yet don't take the bible literally as truth on every matter, including as it relates to what is now commonly called scientific knowledge?

 

That is an interesting issue, and for an outsider, is interesting to observe this controversy in the Christian church.

 

I think esp of the Catholic church which does not find evolution to contradict the bible. IIRC, while Catholicism accounts for a bit less than a quarter of US Christians, it is the most populous church globally. From this I gather that the majority of the world's Christians do not take the bible's creation stories literally. My sense is that this is particularly a US phenomenon.

[RegGuheert]

If you're accusing scientists of supporting evolution as a matter of faith (which as I've said is wrong; it's evidence+reason) - that seems to me the pot calling the kettle black.

Absolutely that is what I am doing. I am the pot calling the kettle black. It's just that the kettle has been claiming that it was white!

 

Note that I have not been saying that evolution is incorrect. I am saying that belief in macroevolution is a faith-based religion based upon an a priori commitment to materialism. Don't believe this is a creationist-only viewpoint. Prominent evolutionists have also stated as much.