Creation Science that is NOT Young Earth?

[...................]

Is there such a thing?

 

I was really getting into the idea of using Apoligya elementary but the author, unlike Jay Wile, believes the Bible necessitates a Young Earth view. It's interesting to note that her very views expressed on her personal blog are obliterated by Jay Wile's far more scholarly approach on the same subject on his own personal blog. In fact, he says that the people who arrive at Young Earth Science based on the Bible have "shoddy theology.". And I agree.

 

So while I look forward to using his texts, though he believes in Young Earth, Iit seems his appruach is far more scholarly...I can't use the elementary texts.

 

 

Right Now we teach Science on our own but I'm just wondering if there is anything good out there for Creationists who are not specifically Young Earth. It doesn't have to be old earth either.

[Lovedtodeath]

:bigear: That would be great wouldn't it?

[SophiaH]

My go-to website is Krista Bontrager's blog at Old Earth Creation Homeschool. She has lists of Old-Earth Creation-friendly homeschool material divided by age group (links at the top of her blog). Here is her K-5th grade page. Many of the things listed are neutral rather than specifically Old Earth, but they are listed because they do not subscribe to a specifically Young Earth view. I really like the God's Creation Series books she has listed there to use as supplements.

 

She has also written a handbook called Teaching Science from a Christian Worldview that looks really interesting, but I haven't yet bought it.

 

There is also an Old Earth Creationism google group if you're interested.

 

The most important thing I've done since my dd is only 8 is to inform myself as much as possible--mostly by reading articles and listening to podcasts on the Reasons.org site. I've used the Apologia Astronomy book, but we're still at the stage where I read the material out loud, so I can easily skip over what I want.

[8filltheheart]

Is there such a thing?

 

I was really getting into the idea of using Apoligya elementary but the author, unlike Jay Wile, believes the Bible necessitates a Young Earth view. It's interesting to note that her very views expressed on her personal blog are obliterated by Jay Wile's far more scholarly approach on the same subject on his own personal blog. In fact, he says that the people who arrive at Young Earth Science based on the Bible have "shoddy theology.". And I agree.

 

So while I look forward to using his texts, though he believes in Young Earth, Iit seems his appruach is far more scholarly...I can't use the elementary texts.

 

 

 

I about choked on my drink when I read your post!:lol:

 

Wiles is anything but scholarly in his approach to the topic in his books. It comes across as "you are stupid if you can't see that this is the only possible truth." :tongue_smilie:

 

We do not use the Apologia texts b/c of it.

 

I don't use science texts in elementary school, so I can't offer any suggestions, sorry.

[Smithie]

OK, I am SO not a creationist of any stripe (maybe I'm a theistic evolutionist?), and I still think that Old Earth Creation Homeschool website is an awesome resource :) Thanks, mommahawk!

[...................]

Thank you mamahawk, that website looks awesome, I've read it for the past hour and it looks like a good resource to have.

 

I like the science resources she recommended at Classical homeschool. Very CM-ish too.

 

8FilltheHert- lol!!! I haven't read any of his books, but I see I'm likely to be disappointed. The blog seems to have a pretty good feel of scientific investigation rather than dogmatic assertions based on poor Bibkical exegesis ( which is what I find on Fulbright's blog and in her books.)

 

I'm kinda surprised at how the homeschool movemegt has sort of just laid down and accepted Ken Ham. It seems that any person willing to do 2 hours of Greek and Hebrew look-ups and some Internet reasearch should see that the Bible does NOT NeCESSITATE a young earth view. In fact it may even support an old earth view.

 

Anyway, I'm with Augustine on this.

[Laura W.]

The God's Creation series mentioned by another poster is really nice. The author, Michael Carroll, has also written other books, including

Dinosaurs!

Volcanoes and Earthquakes

Lightning and Rainbows

Oceans and Rivers

Deserts and Jungles

 

I've also found the books by Jean Henri Fabre are written from a creationist viewpoint. However, because they were written before the current debate of young earth/old earth, there is not much emphasis on age of the earth in them. (I recall one sentence). I have Story Book of Science and Animal Life in Field and Garden. They are excellent. You can find a number of other books he wrote on amazon.

 

Blessings,

 

Laura

[Susie in MS]

CT, You and I have disagreed on other occasions, but I find your post here quite ugly. To say that "any body willing to do 2 hours of research "..... "YE is shoddy theology" .... is just down right ugly, and makes you to be the end of all knowledge. Just because MANY Christians believe in YE, as OE is a pretty new thought, does not mean we lay down and just blindly believe in Mr. Ham. It happens to be that he believes what we have ALREADY gathered from SCRIPTURE. Maybe you ought to think about how you say things sometimes. I have never caught OE in Wile's books. We have used many. But rest assured I will read his blog, and if his statements are as ugly as your's we will no longer support him in the future.

[Susie in MS]

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=139#more-139 snip from Dr Jay, So if you have suffered through all six of the posts on this issue, you now know my philosophy and “top five†reasons for believing in a young earth. I don’t think the earth is young because Scripture says it is young – I don’t think Scripture necessarily says that. However, I do think that science is best understood in a young-earth framework. Sure…you can dream up scenarios to get away from the inconvenient facts provided by the five things I discussed in this series (as well as other things) that indicate a young earth. Nevertheless, the bulk of the scientific evidence points to a young earth, so you must ignore the bulk of the scientific evidence if you want to believe the earth is billions of years old. Now don’t get me wrong. There IS evidence that the earth is billions of years old. However, the majority of it comes from processes that have not been studied long and are poorly understood. Thus, while the evidence does exist, I find it less reliable than evidence like what has been presented in this series. For now, then, I think the most reasonable scientific conclusion is that the earth is young, most likely on the order of 10,000 years old. ~~~~~ I found the shoddy theology thing, but I don't know how he can say the above and still call it shoddy. I have to read more. Basically I see him relying more on science than the Word. Sad. YOM = 24 hour days.

[...................]

Source?

Edited April 13, 2010 by Calming Tea

[Susie in MS]

I am totally confused. In your previous post it seems you lean more toward OE. That you agree YE theology is shoddy. But now you say you lean toward YE.

[...................]

You are confused for good reason. I was disciplinig kids, getting them to bed and totally just thought you were saying something completely different. I edited my last post.

 

I lean in neither direction because my Biblical study shows that neither view is necessitated by Scripture. At this time I need to spend time reading plain old Science to see which view is more supported- but honestly- it doesn't matter that much to me. What dies matter is that I don't teach my children to dogmatically hold to a view which the Bible does not necessarily support. And I KNOW it doesn't necessiate a young earth. It might be a young earth after all. But the Bible does not clearly say that.

 

I do not want to debate in public, if you want to IM me I know you and I can talk amicably without upsetting people.

 

And I do owe everyone an apology.

 

And yes I was wrong to assume that people hadn't done their research. I happen to have 4 IRL friends that admitted to accepting Ken Ham without having done so.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Calming Tea

[Lovedtodeath]

Calming Tea, that is completely how I feel on the matter. I just got a creation science book in one of the Sonlight programs. I think it did mention six days... I will have a look. :)

[Susie in MS]

I have to apologize as the computer I am on is not allowing me to place thoughts in paragraphs. The above post, and this one are all running together. I will put ~~~ between thoughts.~~~This website basically tells how I come to my conclusions: http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html I let scripture interpret scripture. I don't believe in relying on man made resources, only the God breathed Word.~~~ Here is a snip: We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening†and “morning†together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening†or “morning†(23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night†(52 times) always indicates an ordinary day. The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,†makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to “evening†and “morning†make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time. ~~~I have found that when you look to Greek and Hebrew sources you will find that they differ in their interpretations. I rely only on the Word.

[Susie in MS]

You edited out your question to me about where I got my info from while I was typing up the answer. Do you want me to remove it?

[TracyP]

You are confused for good reason. I was disciplinig kids, getting them to bed and totally just thought you were saying something completely different. I edited my last post.

 

I lean in neither direction because my Biblical study shows that neither view is necessitated by Scripture. At this time I need to spend time reading plain old Science to see which view is more supported- but honestly- it doesn't matter that much to me. What dies matter is that I don't teach my children to dogmatically hold to a view which the Bible does not necessarily support. And I KNOW it doesn't necessiate a young earth. It might be a young earth after all. But the Bible does not clearly say that.

 

I do not want to debate in public, if you want to IM me I know you and I can talk amicably without upsetting people.

 

And I do owe everyone an apology.

 

And yes I was wrong to assume that people hadn't done their research. I happen to have 4 IRL friends that admitted to accepting Ken Ham without having done so.

 

No apologies. I thank you. I do not know how old the Earth is and I frankly don't think it matters. However, I would love to find a science curriculum that gave the glory to God w/o insisting they know the answer. I'll check the blog linked above.

[Jean in Wisc]

Is there such a thing?

 

I was really getting into the idea of using Apoligya elementary but the author, unlike Jay Wile, believes the Bible necessitates a Young Earth view. It's interesting to note that her very views expressed on her personal blog are obliterated by Jay Wile's far more scholarly approach on the same subject on his own personal blog. In fact, he says that the people who arrive at Young Earth Science based on the Bible have "shoddy theology.". And I agree.

 

So while I look forward to using his texts, though he believes in Young Earth, Iit seems his appruach is far more scholarly...I can't use the elementary texts.

 

 

Right Now we teach Science on our own but I'm just wondering if there is anything good out there for Creationists who are not specifically Young Earth. It doesn't have to be old earth either.

 

In a conversation with Christian Schools International, I was told they were creationist that gave perspective on both sides without weighing in on either. I always wanted to try them, but never did.

That was a number of years ago, so I'd call and talk to them before ordering...but it always peaked my curiosity.

 

https://store.csionline.org/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=35_18

 

Jean

[Susie in MS]

Source?

 

The link is on the very first line of post #9. It was the words of Dr. Jay himself.

[jg_puppy]

I do not know how old the Earth is and I frankly don't think it matters. However, I would love to find a science curriculum that gave the glory to God w/o insisting they know the answer. I'll check the blog linked above.

 

:iagree: I would buy a science curriculum like that.

 

Jan

[...................]

I use only scripture to interpret scripture as well..but it was written in Greek and Hebrew and you are referencing Hebrew with the word YOM...so your last statement confuses me.

 

Anyway, Strong's concordance shows that yom can mean 24 hour day, or, general time, or a point in time, or an age.

 

Morning and evening was often used to show, figuratively, the beginning and end to something. The fact that that is included is not conclusive. And God uses evening and morning to talk about the first three days, but the sun was not created until the 4th day. Morning and Evening are also used in the Psalms to show a beginning and an end- look at Psalm 30:5.

 

I can see why you believe what you do, and I think is valid. What I don't agree with is people like Ken Ham who insist a young earth is the only possible reading of scripture, and much worse, insist that I am not a believer if I don't agree, going so far as to call the Reasons.org people heretics.

 

 

 

I

[...................]

TracyP- amen. Agreed!

 

Jean, I will check that out. Thanks.

[...................]

You can leave it, I think by no you might see that I don't think your belief is invalid or impossible biblically. My issue is with people Like Ken Ham who assert that a young earth is the only valid reading, and worse that I am an unbeliever, and that the guys from Reasons are heretics.

 

But my aim in all of this is to glorify Christ and this is why I want to be careful how we discuss these things. I meant my apology. I would like that if I meet you in heaven we would look back and be glad that we glorified Christ.

[Susie in MS]

Agreed, CT, and I would give you a big hug!

 

I have to admit that I have not heard Mr. Ham call anyone a heritec, and I have no knowledge of Reasons.org to know if I, in any way, feel he is justified in his thinking. I would have to do some research.

 

Thanks for explaining how you feel! I am glad that I misunderstood what you were saying! :D

[SophiaH]

OK, I am SO not a creationist of any stripe (maybe I'm a theistic evolutionist?), and I still think that Old Earth Creation Homeschool website is an awesome resource :) Thanks, mommahawk!

 

You're welcome! :) I need to get over there more often b/c I think she's got some great stuff on there!

[Hedgehogs4]

i have come to the conclusion that i don't care how old the earth is, nor do i think it really matters. it doesn't change ANYTHING.

 

so i use Apologia, we love it, and appreciate that it gives all the glory to God for the magnificent creations on this earth. i have never had to explain to my kids anything about old / young earth theories. they really just present things at face value, and the kids seem to take it at that. what their underlying philosophy is doesn't affect how i teach my kids...

 

but i disagree that someone who arrives at a young earth conclusion has shoddy theology. the argument could be made both ways, but really, what difference does it make in the eternal scheme of things?

[blessedmom3]

It's funny, I was just arguing with my husband about that. I am YE , he is OE .

 

So I was looking for links to show him more .

 

Here are some interesting links I found if someone is interested :

 

http://www.christianbook.com/the-battle-for-the-beginning/john-macarthur/9780785271598/pd/71597

The battle for a true view of the beginning is not optional. Our faith and the future of our world hang on the truth about creation. Dr. MacArthur insists that when naturalistic and atheistic presuppositions are being aggressively peddled as if they were established scientific fact, Bible-believing Christians "ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them vigorously."

Do you know what you believe about creation? Could you defend your views to those who deny the Genesis account? Battle for the Beginning tackles the tough issues of creation versus evolution by taking an in-depth look at Genesis 1 and comparing it to scientific evidence. In this book find answers to the challenging questions. Learn what the Bible says about how our universe began.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=139#more-139

[applesing]

I do not know how old the Earth is and I frankly don't think it matters. However, I would love to find a science curriculum that gave the glory to God w/o insisting they know the answer.

 

This is exactly how dh and I feel. I have spent countless hours looking for a curriculum like this!

 

Lynne

[Happy2BaMom]

Do you remember that little flap of a few weeks back, about how homeschoolers were coming under fire for using Creationist texts? And there were some zinging comments from evolutionary scientists and from the spokesman for Bob Jones University.

 

On another e-mail list I was on, someone had gotten a clarification e-mail from BJU and I LOVED what he had to say about the whole creationist/evolutionary 'think'. Unfortunately, I have to paraphrase (he was far more articulate than I hope to be at this hour), but this is the gist:

 

'I want to distinguish between a Christian worldview and what is necessary for salvation. Having a Christian worldview is not necessary for salvation, which, based on Scripture, we know to be based solely on the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior.'

 

And then he went on to expound upon that further (I should note that, of course, BJU strongly supports a Christian worldview). And I thought that was such a hugely important point, in this day when so many Christians can only see dogma and will only insist that their dogma is the TRUTH (e.g. if you are anything other than YE, you are WRONG and EVIL and one of THEM...and I have been attacked when I have said I don't know and don't much care), and the point from the Bible is that....it's not the point.

 

Jesus is the point. Period. Whether you're YE or OE or IBE (in-between Earth):lol:.

 

Thanks for the Creationist OE web links, BTW! I guess I might as well come out of the closet and announce myself as one of these now. At least I now know that I am not alone!

Edited April 13, 2010 by Happy2BaMom
clarification

[...................]

Please re-read My original post and every single post since.

 

The shoddy theology is when someone arrives at the fact that Scripture *necessitates* a YE view. Scripture is not clear on this subject. Ken Ham's theology is even shoddier in that he makes it an issue of salvation.

 

That word necessitate is really important.

 

As for Apologia, I was told by the Dr. Wile that the elementary books themselves take a very strong young earth stance. I'm confused now. Either you haven't noticed it or dr. Wile is wrong about the books he himself published originally before the Apologia Press buyout last summer.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[songbirdie]

Source?

Her source is the blog - she's quoting it. Read the link she posted - it is the source she's quoting in the post here. She didn't use quotation marks so you can't really see where her quote starts, but if you click on the link you will find that her post is a directly quoted paragraph with some introductory words at the beginning and a couple of closing sentences that she added at the end. Read what he says in that link.

[Susie in MS]

I was having problems with the computer I was on. I had his quote off from my words, separated with paragraphs and ~~~~ marks. But when I posted it all squished together. I did provide the link so that all of his words could be read. :) Sorry about the confusion.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

I really tried to stay out of this, please, don't let this start a huge arugment, This is MY view and I havent seen this brough up yet but I really felt I had to add this, I really didnt read all the posts, maybe half of them, but, if you take the creation account out of genesis, if you cant believe creation as genesis states it, how do you know what other parts of the bible are "true" and what isnt true? <---- that was a reallllly long run-on sentence.. sorry :blushing: The author of Genesis was challeneged to write, and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.

 

Like I said, I mean NO disrespect to ANYBODY and their views, Just a thought that came into my mind as reading some of these.

 

 

Again, everybody certainly is allowed their view of things, that is just something that kept coming up in my head as reading this!

Edited April 13, 2010 by wy_kid_wrangler04

[Laura W.]

I if you take the creation account out of genesis, if you cant believe creation as genesis states it, how do you know what other parts of the bible are "true" and what isnt true? <---- that was a reallllly long run-on sentence.. sorry :blushing: The author of Genesis was challeneged to write, and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.

 

I think you've hit on the heart of the disagreement here. Generally speaking, Christians are not interested in taking the creation account out of Genesis. Most would say Genesis is true - that's not the question here. Rather, the argument centers on the question:

 

What is Genesis really stating?

 

The Hebrew word translated into "day" had several literal meanings. The words translated as "evening" and "morning" had a couple of different meanings, depending on the context. The most common use of "day", "morning", and "evening" may be the correct one, but it is appropriate to explore whether a less-common meaning might be the correct one here (or anywhere else in Scripture - it is God's Word and we want to understand it as well as possible). Therefore, people study the Hebrew grammar used in Genesis 1, the context of the rest of Genesis 1, and the broader context of other Scripture that makes statements about creation to try to figure out what God is telling us in Genesis 1.

 

Blessings,

 

Laura

 

 

 

[6packofun]

I just finished reading God Said It and Bang! It Happened by Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz and it was a great intro to the old-earth theist view. Written for upper elementary/jr. high level and above, I thought it was so good and we're going to be using it along with other science resources for our kids. It was nice to find a concisely written book that explains what dh and I believe. Our kids can read it along with everything else we offer and make their own conclusions. :) Right now, we use Apologia, but I'm trying to find an alternative if we can.

[Lovedtodeath]

Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.

I usually describe myself as an old earth creationist but I definitely believe in Noah's Flood, and I believe it was only a few thousand years ago, as the Bible states. I just wanted to point out that old dirt does not equal anti-flood, or evolution, or cavemen.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

One more thing-- sorry, then I am done!!! It truly has no affect on salvation, so this is just one thing we as Christians can disagree on (as well as the MULTITUDE of other things) and hug and get along :grouphug:. I think this is one (of many) things that the devil uses as a way to try to cause division in the church. We just have to NOT allow that to happen!!!

 

:grouphug:

[melmichigan]

As for Apologia, I was told by the Dr. Wile that the elementary books themselves take a very strong young earth stance. I'm confused now. Either you haven't noticed it or dr. Wile is wrong about the books he himself published originally before the Apologia Press buyout last summer.

 

I have found them to be YEC, definately.

[...................]

MelMichigan, do you think Apologia elementary pushes young earth often, or could it easily be skipped? I was originally looking into Zoology 1 when I started wondering if there was anything else.

 

I've spent some time since I started this thread looking around, and I like the layout of Apologia.

[tadbhoward]

MelMichigan, do you think Apologia elementary pushes young earth often, or could it easily be skipped? I was originally looking into Zoology 1 when I started wondering if there was anything else.

 

I've spent some time since I started this thread looking around, and I like the layout of Apologia.

 

We have the Astronomy book and there is at least one "fact" (put in quotes b/c it is not a fact for everybody), in every chapter to prove YE. I suppose you could just not read those sentences out loud but then what to do when your kids are reading it themselves.

[applesing]

We have the Astronomy book and there is at least one "fact" (put in quotes b/c it is not a fact for everybody), in every chapter to prove YE. I suppose you could just not read those sentences out loud but then what to do when your kids are reading it themselves.

 

So are the Wile books less blatant in promoting YE?

 

All of the information in this thread has been very helpful.

[Daisy]

I have the same issues as the OP. I find it troubling that AIG mixes the Gospel into every single one of it's dinosaur/creation books. Hear me out. I'm YE, but after reading enough of these books I was shocked to discover my daughter actually believed that if you are not a YE, you cannot be a Christian. WHAT? We have absolutely never taught her that but I went back and reread the AIG books and I can see where she would have come to that conclusion.

 

YE is not a primary doctrine. It is not vital to salvation.

 

The Genesis creation account COULD be taken poetically or figuratively just as other areas of Scripture are taken to be Hebrew poetry.

 

There are other acceptable ways of interpreting Scripture on this particular topic that fall well within mainstream Christianity.

 

So I too, have looked for more balanced books that don't make the mistake of thinking that creationism & soteriology are the same thing. I took much time to explain to my daughter that many fine Christians believe in OE and theistic evolution and the bottom line is that God is Creator over all.

 

The attitudes in some creationist materials are more damaging in my opinion than the outright hostility found in evolution texts. At least in an evolution text we are on our guard against things that undermine our faith. In YE texts our children may be picking up things we don't even recognize until we need to go back and do damage control.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Daisy

[Lovedtodeath]

I appreciate the warning Daisy.

[Daisy]

I appreciate the warning Daisy.

 

And that is all it is. I'm not suggesting anyone should dump YE beliefs, refuse to use YE materials, etc. I'm just saying we need to take care what our children are understanding, even with books that we feel align with our beliefs.

[Hedgehogs4]

 

As for Apologia, I was told by the Dr. Wile that the elementary books themselves take a very strong young earth stance. I'm confused now. Either you haven't noticed it or dr. Wile is wrong about the books he himself published originally before the Apologia Press buyout last summer.

 

as for apologia, what their underlying philosophy is may be young earth, but it's not something that comes through in their every day lessons, though we have only done zoology at this point, and i don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. i just don't let it bother me. i'm capable of telling my son, "we just don't really know, and no one really does. they're making an educated guess which is what science is about" and then move on to focusing on what is known. i guess it's just not the thing that irks me. now if they were talking about predestination...then i might get squirmy. :lol:

 

i was planning on doing astronomy in the fall...i'm going to be looking at how this is expressed.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Hedgehogs4

[8filltheheart]

So are the Wile books less blatant in promoting YE?

 

All of the information in this thread has been very helpful.

 

I have never seen the elementary books, but Wiles' books are very blatant. He will give his "evidence" supporting YE and then basically lay it out like if you can't accept this evidence as superior to all other data, then you are stupid.

[melmichigan]

I have the same issues as the OP. I find it troubling that AIG mixes the Gospel into every single one of it's dinosaur/creation books. Hear me out. I'm YE, but after reading enough of these books I was shocked to discover my daughter actually believed that if you are not a YE, you cannot be a Christian. WHAT? We have absolutely never taught her that but I went back and reread the AIG books and I can see where she would have come to that conclusion.

 

YE is not a primary doctrine. It is not vital to salvation.

 

The Genesis creation account COULD be taken poetically or figuratively just as other areas of Scripture are taken to be Hebrew poetry.

 

There are other acceptable ways of interpreting Scripture on this particular topic that fall well within mainstream Christianity.

 

So I too, have looked for more balanced books that don't make the mistake of thinking that creationism & soteriology are the same thing. I took much time to explain to my daughter that many fine Christians believe in OE and theistic evolution and the bottom line is that God is Creator over all.

 

The attitudes in some creationist materials are more damaging in my opinion than the outright hostility found in evolution texts. At least in an evolution text we are on our guard against things that undermine our faith. In YE texts our children may be picking up things we don't even recognize until we need to go back and do damage control.

 

Very well said.

[melmichigan]

MelMichigan, do you think Apologia elementary pushes young earth often, or could it easily be skipped? I was originally looking into Zoology 1 when I started wondering if there was anything else.

 

I've spent some time since I started this thread looking around, and I like the layout of Apologia.

 

My daughter had trouble from the point where dinosaurs where created along with all the other "flying creatures" on the fifth day and that there were young dinosaurs on Noah's ark. It quickly went downhill from there for us. Exploring Creation is just that, like a long story of creation, for us more like something to be used in Sunday school than for science, and my kids are into science. If you'd like more detailed information PM.

[GWOB]

To Daisy- Yep! I love Jesus with all my heart, but I think maybe, just MAYBE, the Earth may be slightly more than 6,000-10,000 years old. I don't think Jesus is gonna kick me out of heaven for that.

 

Op- We are OEC/Theistic evolutionists here. We are open to the fact that God could have created the world in 6 literal days. I am open with my kids about our feelings. I think the most important thing I can teach my kids is that "God created." Who really cares how He created? He is the architect of all. That is good enough for me.

 

Anyway. I tried to use Apologia's Young Explorers series with my kids, but found the science to be shoddy at best. (Dh is a dual major Nuclear Engineer/Engineering Physics. He still loves God.) I tried to use MFW, but the strict YEC science turned me off. We finally settled on RS4K. It is YEC/OEC neutral.

 

BTW, thanks mommahawk for those links! I will definitely look into those.

[Liza Q]

Daisy, you nailed it!