Was I born under a rock?(CC)(Young earth vs. old earth)

[Lovedtodeath]

Ok, but when I read answersingenesis or other pro-Creationist literature it makes me question if I want to share a religion with those people. Trying to force science to fit a narrow interpretation of the Bible just leaves me shaking my head. It pushes me away from Christianity to be told by Christians that a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story fits with science. :001_huh: Apparently, the destruction of faith goes both ways. Just sayin'. :tongue_smilie:

Yes, I can see that.

 

How come everyone who isn't a Christian (excepting the Catholics) doesn't argue about evolution intruding on their faith / being a bunch of hooey?

http://www.kolbecenter.org/resources/q-and-a/116-the-theory-of-evolution-is-completely-compatible-with-the-catholic-faith.html

 

The Magisterium of the Church has permitted debate among Catholics on the subject of evolution within certain defined constraints of revealed truth. These constraints are not widely known because they are either suppressed or ignored by those who favor evolution.

 

Re: science intruding on their faith-again, they believe that it SHOULD intrude on your faith and if it doesn't, u'r doin it rong. You have committed the sin of compromise and heaven forbid that happen. You've lowered your beliefs to fit science, you heretic.

 

And, they also tie their salvation into believing in a literal interpretation, which never ceases to amaze me.

I do agree here. That type of thing is what annoys me when I read some of their materials. I could do with less dogmatism, that is for sure.

[susankenny]

Certain fundamentalist readings of the Bible seem to support ID theologically, and so apologists have gone to incredible effort to prop it up scientifically.

 

Actually, most YEC don't embrace ID at all. It's a completely different explanation & is a much better suited theory for Christians that may embrace an old earth creationist pov. I assume you think anyone believing in creation though is grasping at straws and would be categorized as fundamentalists though. It seems the pendulum swings both ways here, and dare anyone believe outside of your box, they are pushed aside as unintelligent individuals.

[susankenny]

Having been raised in very Christian fundamental churches...why? they believe Catholics are a cult. There is a list as to why Catholics aren't the 'right' way according to them, and won't follow anything the RCC does. To them, it's probably just cause to oppose evolution.

 

Re: science intruding on their faith-again, they believe that it SHOULD intrude on your faith and if it doesn't, u'r doin it rong. You have committed the sin of compromise and heaven forbid that happen. You've lowered your beliefs to fit science, you heretic.

 

And, they also tie their salvation into believing in a literal interpretation, which never ceases to amaze me.

 

Cognitive Dissonance as far as I'm concerned.

 

Obviously you grew up in an incredibly strict home. I'm sorry for that. Your posts have indicated that several times. However, not all conservative Christians feel this way in any shape or form , and this sentiment certainly has not been vocalized on this board (which is where Asta's comment was directed...to the people posting here).

 

Susan

[asta]

Having been raised in very Christian fundamental churches...why? they believe Catholics are a cult. There is a list as to why Catholics aren't the 'right' way according to them, and won't follow anything the RCC does. To them, it's probably just cause to oppose evolution.

 

Re: science intruding on their faith-again, they believe that it SHOULD intrude on your faith and if it doesn't, u'r doin it rong. You have committed the sin of compromise and heaven forbid that happen. You've lowered your beliefs to fit science, you heretic.

 

And, they also tie their salvation into believing in a literal interpretation, which never ceases to amaze me.

 

Cognitive Dissonance as far as I'm concerned.

 

That actually makes sense. Thank you.

 

http://www.kolbecenter.org/resources/q-and-a/116-the-theory-of-evolution-is-completely-compatible-with-the-catholic-faith.html

 

The Magisterium of the Church has permitted debate among Catholics on the subject of evolution within certain defined constraints of revealed truth. These constraints are not widely known because they are either suppressed or ignored by those who favor evolution.

 

Sorta. As in, the Kolbe center sorta got it right. What the Magisterium actually says is:

 

The reply of the Magisterium was offered in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII in 1950. In it we read: "The magisterium of the Church is not opposed to the theory of evolution being the object of investigation and discussion among experts. Here the theory of evolution is understood as an investigation of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter, for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are created immediately by God..." (DS 3896).

 

It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.

(this is from "Man is a Spiritual and Corporeal Being" by JPII in 1986)

 

The Vatican's website is just so darn handy.

 

 

asta

[asta]

Obviously you grew up in an incredibly strict home. I'm sorry for that. Your posts have indicated that several times. However, not all conservative Christians feel this way in any shape or form , and this sentiment certainly has not been vocalized on this board (which is where Asta's comment was directed...to the people posting here).

 

Susan

 

Actually, it was more of a rhetorical rant than anything else. I get fed up just like everyone else does.

 

 

a

[KingM]

Actually, most YEC don't embrace ID at all. It's a completely different explanation & is a much better suited theory for Christians that may embrace an old earth creationist pov. I assume you think anyone believing in creation though is grasping at straws and would be categorized as fundamentalists though.

 

I think one can reasonably argue that God created the earth. I've stated before that creating humans "from the dust of the earth," is a reasonable primitive lay explanation of evolution. I don't think there is any evidence to indicate that the earth is only a few thousand years old and there is clear evidence that humans evolved from earlier life forms.

 

It seems the pendulum swings both ways here, and dare anyone believe outside of your box, they are pushed aside as unintelligent individuals.

I have explicitly said that people who believe in a young earth are not necessarily unintelligent. They are, however, wrong about the science.

[susankenny]

I think one can reasonably argue that God created the earth. I've stated before that creating humans "from the dust of the earth," is a reasonable primitive lay explanation of evolution. I don't think there is any evidence to indicate that the earth is only a few thousand years old and there is clear evidence that humans evolved from earlier life forms.

 

I have explicitly said that people who believe in a young earth are not necessarily unintelligent. They are, however, wrong about the science.

 

I never even insinuated that science should attempt to draw an explanation out of Genesis. I clearly said most YEC do NOT embrace ID because it doesn't rely on the creation story in any shape or form. You seemed to imply otherwise with you comment about fundamentalists trying to use ID as a gateway into the science community, so I was clarifying.

[KingM]

I never even insinuated that science should attempt to draw an explanation out of Genesis. I clearly said most YEC do NOT embrace ID because it doesn't rely on the creation story in any shape or form. You seemed to imply otherwise with you comment about fundamentalists trying to use ID as a gateway into the science community, so I was clarifying.

 

And I never said that all creationists are using ID to undermine legitimate science or shore up an literal interpretation of the Bible. But I do believe that ID is a new tactic that some creationists are using to attack legitimate science by applying a patina of pseudoscience to a theological construct.

[susankenny]

And I never said that all creationists are using ID to undermine legitimate science or shore up an literal interpretation of the Bible. But I do believe that ID is a new tactic that some creationists are using to attack legitimate science by applying a patina of pseudoscience to a theological construct.

 

But most ID scientist (honestly, I believe it's all ID scientist, but I dare not use that word since I'm not fully certain) do not believe in the idea of a young earth & most ascribe to some form of evolution. That in and of itself goes against the grain of a creation story. How do you believe in a literal Adam & Eve and embrace the idea of evolution? Most ID proponents do not interpret Genesis as literal, but as allegorical. Furthermore, not all ID scientist are Christian. They're are significant differences between ID and YEC. And for what it's worth, I'm unashamedly a YEC. I have no issues with putting my faith in God and not science, and I fully recognize that my beliefs cannot (nor do I feel that they need to be) "proven".

[Lovedtodeath]

That actually makes sense. Thank you.

 

 

 

Sorta. As in, the Kolbe center sorta got it right. What the Magisterium actually says is:

 

 

(this is from "Man is a Spiritual and Corporeal Being" by JPII in 1986)

 

The Vatican's website is just so darn handy.

 

 

asta

Thanks Asta. This explanation certainly seems to be theistic evolution.

 

Actually, it was more of a rhetorical rant than anything else. I get fed up just like everyone else does.

 

 

a

:001_smile: Don't we all.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I have explicitly said that people who believe in a young earth are not necessarily unintelligent. They are, however, wrong about the science.

I think that the scientific explanations on both sides make sense to a degree. I am quite sure that everyone is wrong.:tongue_smilie:I quite enjoy learning about it and debating it though. In debates, I typically "side" with the underdog. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

They also are working with a definition of natural selection that only includes completely random mutations, whereas the main idea of natural selection is survival of the fittest. That those mutations that are most beneficial will survive. I also was not able to find that quote on the National Association of Biology Teachers site. Their current Statement on Teaching Evolution is here and was actually adopted over ten years ago. Um, the bolded is correct, right?

 

"However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution)."

 

Did you go to the link? Neo-Darwinism isn't mentioned and the actual part of that statement that is being attributed to the NABT is the part about "has no discernible direction or goal, including survival of a species" which is not stated anywhere on the link (and actual is counter to the definition of natural selection). What the link does say (among other things but not any of the above):

 

"The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory."

 

So, no the NABT is not contributing evolution solely to completely random mutations that serve no purpose.

Okay thanks, I must have skimmed and missed where the NABT was the one doing the defining. I thought it was a quote from an ID group?

 

This is what I found: If what you mean by evolution is loosely defined as “change,” then there is little reason to object. However, a more precise definition from the National Association of Biology Teachers reads this way: "The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

 

Quoted from http://www.kolbecenter.org/resources/q-and...olic-faith.html emphasis my own.

 

I could not find the definition on their site. Here is an article all about the definition: www.nabt.org/websites/institution/File/pdfs/.../067-01-0007.pdf

Edited November 16, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Melissa in CA]

Take a glimpse in the mirror. You belong to a species undergoing rapid evolutionary change.

 

Yes, but I will always be a person, a 'Homosapien' if you will. I will not someday grow wings like an eagle and a beak like a hummingbird and find myself flying around slurping up nectar. ;)

 

Which brings me back to the very minimal evidence of transitional forms. With all the millions of years, and millions of people living and dying during those said years, there should be PLENTY of unequivocal transitional proofs for human transformation from...well, whatever scientists now think we started out as. :)

[Melissa in CA]

How can there be a morning and evening when the sun was not created until the fourth day? That doesn't even make sense. It makes more sense that they are symbolic.

 

Symbolic for what? That's what I don't understand. Why would God try to confuse us by clarifying morning and evening, when He didn't really mean morning and evening? Plus, from my understanding of Hebrew, and I admit it is very limited, 'day' with numerical adjectives always refers to a 24 hour period. Also, please look at Exodus 20:8-11:

 

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. "

[Greta]

This is what I found: If what you mean by evolution is loosely defined as “change,†then there is little reason to object. However, a more precise definition from the National Association of Biology Teachers reads this way: "The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

 

Saying this lightly and with humor, but I believe this is muddling evolution and Evolution a bit. :D What I mean by that is that biologists define evolution as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". This isn't a loose definition, this is THE definition, precisely and carefully chosen by those who are experts in the field. Furthermore, this phenomenon of evolution is a directly observable, measurable, quantifiable, established, inarguable fact.

 

Now, Evolutionary Theory is that theory which explains how and why evolution occurs, and shows how it can account for the biodiversity of life on earth today.

 

I'm not a physicist. But I think an analogy in physics would go something like this. gravity (little g) is that force by which objects of mass are attracted to one another. This phenomenon is directly observable, measurable, quantifiable, etc. and is established fact. Gravitational Theory claims that gravitons, massless elementary particles, are the mediators of this force.

 

Scientists observe the facts, and then explain the whys and wherefores with theories. Atoms are a fact. Atomic Theory explains what they are and how they behave. That sort of thing. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

Did I make it better or worse? :lol:

[Melissa in CA]

What offends me is the insistence that one must choose to believe in "secular science" (which does not exist) or "Christian science" (which does not exist). Science is science.

 

It's interesting that you say that. Considering all the threads I have seen with people looking for a 'secular science' (opposed to Christian) program for their children. :confused:

 

My limited, and admittingly uneducated, understanding is this:

 

Christian scientists look for God in science, it's all about His amazing creation, the glory of Him as the Creator.

 

Secular Scientists dismiss any mention of God and/or His creating anything. They are not looking for the Creator's hand in their science studies at all.

 

[ETA In my, again uneducated, understanding the only reason ID is now being thrown around so much is because many scientists are discovering an 'intelligence' behind what that are observing. Some can no longer deny it without jeapordizing their integrity as a true scientist. I truly believe more and more scientists will get behind the ID bandwagon as time goes on...but, on a whole, they will still not come to the conclusion that God created.:)]

Edited November 16, 2010 by Melissa in CA

[Melissa in CA]

Any links, etc. to back up this?

 

Books on Bible apologetics are helpful. You can find many to choose from if you're willing to look. If you are serious in wanting to read info I can recommend some. Here is a simple link though, with info that is not hard to weed through:

 

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

[Greta]

GretaLynne, I had him in mind, too. I recall a debate he did with someone and I swear that his goal was not only to disprove God but also to wipe all the religious people off the face of the earth. I dislike him very much and consider him scary,

 

He's not the only evangelical atheist I know of, but he is a very vocal and public one. :)

 

but I keep a little open mind in my brain just because YOU do!

 

It's just that one of the first books that I read on evolution was his The Selfish Gene, and I just loved it and found it truly fascinating. It did not have that effect on everyone in my class, though. I remember one student complaining that she couldn't follow his train of thought, that it just seemed to randomly change directions. But to me it flowed very naturally, and I found the book an easy and fun read. Wow, that's been many years ago now. I should re-read it and see what I think of it now. (I have read several of his others since then, though, and I like the way he teaches biology. I just don't care for his views on faith!)

 

And when I get a breather and can stop defending myself, I plan to go back and read ALL your comments and soak up their pleasant tone and common sense! And hopefully it will make me a better person and better WTM poster! ;)

 

Wait, were you still talking to me in this part? Ha! Every time this subject comes up here, which is regularly, I think to myself "okay, this time I will be cool, intelligent, and eloquent." Maybe one of these days I actually will! :lol:

 

I do enjoy your posts so much. I thought about what you said regarding materialism, and I realized that at the point in my life when I thought I was a materialist, deep down there was always part of me that believed there was something more, and was searching for it. When I was too hurt by a misrepresentation of God to believe in God, I believed in a vague "force" which was supernatural and connecting all living things. (I know, it sounds like something out of Star Wars, and I have to admit it was a bit like that.) When the idea of heaven seemed like silly wishful thinking, I could get behind the idea of reincarnation. That really spoke to me, because I guess I felt that if heaven was too good to be true, pure materialism was just too horrible to be true. It is an interesting and somewhat scary thought experiment to see where true materialism will take you. I don't want to go there. If Richard Dawkins is right and my faith is just a delusion, then I'll take my delusion because it keeps me sane, functioning, and alive. But it doesn't matter, because he's wrong. ;)

 

I understood what you meant about the blessings, too. I am sorry that it was largely misunderstood. I got to that part of the conversation late.

[Veritaserum]

It's interesting that you say that. Considering all the threads I have seen with people looking for a 'secular science' (opposed to Christian) program for their children. :confused:

 

My limited, and admittingly uneducated, understanding is this:

 

Christian scientists look for God in science, it's all about His amazing creation, the glory of Him as the Creator.

 

Secular Scientists dismiss any mention of God and/or His creating anything. They are not looking for the Creator's hand in their science studies at all.

 

The reason I will not use "Christian science programs" is because I want science that isn't doctored to fit into a very limited interpretation of the Bible. But I think you probably already know that that is why so many of us ask for a "secular science program". ;) I'd be ok with talking about God during science if the course ALSO taught the widely accepted body of current scientific theories. Trouble is, programs with a God focus don't tend to teach mainstream science and are therefore unusable by my family.

[Lovedtodeath]

Symbolic for what? That's what I don't understand. Why would God try to confuse us by clarifying morning and evening, when He didn't really mean morning and evening? Plus, from my understanding of Hebrew, and I admit it is very limited, 'day' with numerical adjectives always refers to a 24 hour period. Also, please look at Exodus 20:8-11:

 

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. "

This is what I have been taught: The Hebrews began their day in the evening, after sunset, and ended it the next day at sunset. The day, therefore, ran from evening to evening. “From evening to evening you should observe your sabbath.†(Le 23:32)

 

 

In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning†a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began.

 

Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,†or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,†God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning†arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.—Compare Pr 4:18.

 

 

 

Saying this lightly and with humor, but I believe this is muddling evolution and Evolution a bit. :D

 

Did I make it better or worse? :lol:

Hey, that helped! Yay!

[SailorMom]

Secular Scientists dismiss any mention of God and/or His creating anything. They are not looking for the Creator's hand in their science studies at all.

 

]

 

Wow - that's offensive and inaccurate. I consider myself am a secular scientist, and I am friends with MANY scientists who are considered secular. However - these same scientists do believe in a Creator. Many feel the two are completely compatible (including myself). Many of us feel that God started everything - he just did it in a way that we are discovering through science.

[Greta]

The reason I will not use "Christian science programs" is because I want science that isn't doctored to fit into a very limited interpretation of the Bible. But I think you probably already know that that is why so many of us ask for a "secular science program". ;) I'd be ok with talking about God during science if the course ALSO taught the widely accepted body of current scientific theories. Trouble is, programs with a God focus don't tend to teach mainstream science and are therefore unusable by my family.

 

How I would love a Christian science curriculum that taught "biologos" or "theistic evolution". That would be a true gem. ::sighs wistfully::

[Lovedtodeath]

Any links, etc. to back up this?

 

 

• It is estimated that more than 4.7 billion Bibles (in whole or in part) have been printed. That is more than five times the number of copies of the next most widely distributed publication, Quotations From Chairman Mao.

• More than 50 million copies of the Bible or portions of it were distributed recently in one year alone. “The Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year,” says a report in The New Yorker magazine.

• In whole or in part, the Bible has been translated into more than 2,400 languages. At least some of the Bible is available in the languages spoken by over 90 percent of the human family.

• About half the Bible writers finished their writings before the birth of both Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, and Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.

• The Bible has had a profound influence on the arts, including some of the world’s greatest paintings, music, and literature.

• The Bible has endured bans by governments, burnings by religious opposers, and attacks by critics. No other book in history has faced greater opposition—and survived.

 

from http://www.watchtower.org/e/200711/article_02.htm

 

Reasons to trust the Bible: Historical Soundness, Honesty and Candor, Fulfilled Prophecy, Internal Harmony, Scientific Accuracy.

from: http://www.watchtower.org/e/200711/article_03.htm

 

 

I greatly enjoyed the book The Bible-- God's Word or Man's which has more details on all of this and more.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

How I would love a Christian science curriculum that taught "biologos" or "theistic evolution". That would be a true gem. ::sighs wistfully::

 

The reason I will not use "Christian science programs" is because I want science that isn't doctored to fit into a very limited interpretation of the Bible. But I think you probably already know that that is why so many of us ask for a "secular science program". ;) I'd be ok with talking about God during science if the course ALSO taught the widely accepted body of current scientific theories. Trouble is, programs with a God focus don't tend to teach mainstream science and are therefore unusable by my family.

 

I am not sure what these Christian programs are leaving out. I have learned way more about how evolution works by reading Creation.com than I ever did in my 14 years of school. There was absolutely no details on evolution in any of my secular science courses.

 

I also got some books by evolutionists of course, but it turns out that I didn't learn anything new from them.

 

I have a God's Design book on plants, and it doesn't push Young Earth views at all. It includes everything an elementary science program on plants would include, it just leaves out the terms evolution and billions of years and includes the terms God and design.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Melissa in CA]

This is what I have been taught: The Hebrews began their day in the evening, after sunset, and ended it the next day at sunset. The day, therefore, ran from evening to evening. “From evening to evening you should observe your sabbath.†(Le 23:32)

 

 

In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning†a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began.

 

Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,†or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,†God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning†arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.—Compare Pr 4:18.

 

 

OK, so God rested on the 7th day...meaning that His work of creation was complete. I agree! :D But, that doesn't explain the jump from 6 literal evening and morning creation days, to thousands and/or millions of years days.

 

Also, I think one is REALLY reaching to use Proverbs 4:18 to explain the use of day in Genesis! Wow. I'm actually quite shocked by the complete lack of proper biblical exegesis used [by whoever taught you this]. :confused:

[Veritaserum]

I am not sure what these Christian programs are leaving out. I have learned way more about how evolution works by reading Creation.com than I ever did in my 14 years of school. There was absolutely no details on evolution in any of my secular science courses.

 

I have a God's Design book on plants, and it doesn't push Young Earth views at all. It includes everything an elementary science program on plants would include, it just leaves out the terms evolution and billions of years and includes the terms God and design.

 

I cannot and will not trust a publisher of science text that denies evolution. How can I trust the other facts if the fact of the earth's old age is omitted? I agree that elementary secular texts generally don't talk much about evolution. However, I am far more comfortable trusting these sources because I know that they have no agenda to alter or omit scientific facts in order to fit a certain subset of Christian beliefs. The only agenda of the secular texts is to teach science. Real science. Period. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

OK, so God rested on the 7th day...meaning that His work of creation was complete. I agree! :D But, that doesn't explain the jump from 6 literal evening and morning creation days, to thousands and/or millions of years days.

 

Also, I think one is REALLY reaching to use Proverbs 4:18 to explain the use of day in Genesis! Wow. I'm actually quite shocked by the complete lack of proper biblical exegesis used [by whoever taught you this]. :confused:

Proverbs 4:18 shows the figurative use of dawn, pointing to a figurative use of the terms evening and morning in Genesis. "During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible."

 

 

New International Version (©1984)

The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.

 

It is interesting to note that a 24 hour period in the Bible was not evening and morning, but rather evening to evening.

 

You asked how evening and morning would not indicate 24 hours, but instead be figurative, so I answered. :) I could have made it shorter, though. Sigh. I need to think about things before I post an essay.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

 

However, I am far more comfortable trusting these sources because I know that they have no agenda to alter or omit scientific facts in order to fit a certain subset of Christian beliefs. The only agenda of the secular texts is to teach science. Real science. Period. :)

I see.

[Melissa in CA]

Wow - that's offensive and inaccurate. I consider myself am a secular scientist, and I am friends with MANY scientists who are considered secular. However - these same scientists do believe in a Creator. Many feel the two are completely compatible (including myself). Many of us feel that God started everything - he just did it in a way that we are discovering through science.

 

I did say it was my uneducated understanding of the two. I'm sorry, I truly didn't mean to offend.

 

Can you explain why you consider yourself a secular scientist, when in fact you believe God created? Is it because you believe in a different God than the one in the bible? I say that because many here on the boards believe in a god, but not the biblical account one. I'm not being snarky at all...truly....just trying to understand your position as a scientist.

[Greta]

I am not sure what these Christian programs are leaving out. I have learned way more about how evolution works by reading Creation.com than I ever did in my 14 years of school. There was absolutely no details on evolution in any of my secular science courses.

 

I can, in a way, relate to this. I never learned anything about evolution until I got to college, and then only because I chose courses in biology. The public schools that I attended never so much as mentioned it. Not once. That's why I'm always surprised to hear the accusation that public schools "indoctrinate" children with evolution. I wonder which ones.

 

 

I have a God's Design book on plants, and it doesn't push Young Earth views at all. It includes everything an elementary science program on plants would include, it just leaves out the terms evolution and billions of years and includes the terms God and design.

 

At the elementary level, I don't have a problem with that. But my daughter is in middle school (well, 5th grade) and is somewhat ahead in science. At the level she is at, avoiding evolution and time scales would not make sense. I would love a program that actively teaches evolution from a solid scientific base, with a Christian worldview. I'm not aware of any such thing, but if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me!!!

[Melissa in CA]

Proverbs 4:18 shows the figurative use of dawn, pointing to a figurative use of the terms evening and morning in Genesis. "During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible."

 

 

New International Version (©1984)

The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.

 

You asked how evening and morning would not indicate 24 hours, but instead be figurative, so I answered. :)

 

Still unconvinced. I see absolutely no reason why one would/could/should use that verse when speaking of Creation. But thanks for the info! Very interesting. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I would love a program that actively teaches evolution from a solid scientific base, with a Christian worldview.

Okay, just to make it stand out so someone sees it! I am sure that you are not the only one!

[Lovedtodeath]

Still unconvinced. I see absolutely no reason why one would/could/should use that verse when speaking of Creation. But thanks for the info! Very interesting. :001_smile:

I added to the post after you quoted it. :D

 

But I will not stop hounding you until you are convinced! And furthermore, you are completely wrong and therefore not a Christian!

 

 

 

Kidding, kidding!:tongue_smilie:

[Amy loves Bud]

I broke out the ice cream.

 

Call me a hopeless humanist, but I can't for the life of me understand why faith is trying to be put in the mold of science. Will science convince you of your faith? It seems very, very odd to me, like (to quote SG) "being in a Wallace Steven's poem with food poisoning". :)

 

I agree with you, but from the Christian side of things. Science is a man-made convention that we use to understand the natural world as best we can. God is supernatural. Why try to limit the supernatural Creator of the Universe with human constraints? I will not ever understand that. It doesn't challenge my faith at all to look at accepted theory in science and run with it, but still know that God is God, Creator of the universe.

[Wheres Toto]

I can, in a way, relate to this. I never learned anything about evolution until I got to college, and then only because I chose courses in biology. The public schools that I attended never so much as mentioned it. Not once. That's why I'm always surprised to hear the accusation that public schools "indoctrinate" children with evolution. I wonder which ones.

 

 

At the elementary level, I don't have a problem with that. But my daughter is in middle school (well, 5th grade) and is somewhat ahead in science. At the level she is at, avoiding evolution and time scales would not make sense. I would love a program that actively teaches evolution from a solid scientific base, with a Christian worldview. I'm not aware of any such thing, but if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me!!!

 

I agree, I had very little exposure to evolution until I was in college. Some of the things I've seen listed as "evidence" of indoctrination into the concept of evolution have more to do with the proof of an old earth - everything from mentioning the age of rocks/rock layers, to studying dinosaurs as something that became extinct millions of years ago, to plate tectonics, to ice ages, to Native Americans crossing the land bridge, to astronomy and light year designations.... There are so many scientific concepts where understanding that the earth/universe has been around for a very long time is a basic premise.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It's interesting that you say that. Considering all the threads I have seen with people looking for a 'secular science' (opposed to Christian) program for their children. :confused:

 

 

 

Those looking for secular science here are simply looking for science without the interjection of religion from what I understand.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I agree with you, but from the Christian side of things. Science is a man-made convention that we use to understand the natural world as best we can. God is supernatural. Why try to limit the supernatural Creator of the Universe with human constraints? I will not ever understand that. It doesn't challenge my faith at all to look at accepted theory in science and run with it, but still know that God is God, Creator of the universe.

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

Saying this lightly and with humor, but I believe this is muddling evolution and Evolution a bit. :D What I mean by that is that biologists define evolution as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". This isn't a loose definition, this is THE definition, precisely and carefully chosen by those who are experts in the field. Furthermore, this phenomenon of evolution is a directly observable, measurable, quantifiable, established, inarguable fact.

 

Now, Evolutionary Theory is that theory which explains how and why evolution occurs, and shows how it can account for the biodiversity of life on earth today.

 

I'm not a physicist. But I think an analogy in physics would go something like this. gravity (little g) is that force by which objects of mass are attracted to one another. This phenomenon is directly observable, measurable, quantifiable, etc. and is established fact. Gravitational Theory claims that gravitons, massless elementary particles, are the mediators of this force.

 

Scientists observe the facts, and then explain the whys and wherefores with theories. Atoms are a fact. Atomic Theory explains what they are and how they behave. That sort of thing. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

Did I make it better or worse? :lol:

I have a friend taking a University course in evolution and he says this:

 

"The definition of evolution, change in allele frequency has been defined in class using populations, for example...

 

differing coloured eyes 80% blue 20% brown becomes 50% blue and 50% brown ina population over 10 years is (technically) evolution. [This is] the example they gave to illustrate it."

[lionfamily1999]

I can, in a way, relate to this. I never learned anything about evolution until I got to college, and then only because I chose courses in biology. The public schools that I attended never so much as mentioned it. Not once. That's why I'm always surprised to hear the accusation that public schools "indoctrinate" children with evolution. I wonder which ones.

 

 

 

I would not say that what I was taught about evolution was thorough or honest, but we were taught it. Sort of like teaching how our government started. George Washington and the founding fathers thought it sounded like a good idea, so they chose democracy. They thought we should have checks and balances so they made the government in three branches. None of the why or historical backgroung, just the basics. Those basics, though, were pounded into my head. Evolution is how a species changes over time. The founding fathers thought it was good. Evolution is how we all grew from one organism and how that organism was formed. Three branches are fair and balanced. Ad naseum, year after year.

 

So, that, imo, is indoctrination. It's like some of the religious study for children. Adam and Eve sinned, now we all die. Jesus died, now we're all forgiven. Noah built a boat and it was good. None of the whys, none of the meat.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I agree, I had very little exposure to evolution until I was in college. Some of the things I've seen listed as "evidence" of indoctrination into the concept of evolution have more to do with the proof of an old earth - everything from mentioning the age of rocks/rock layers, to studying dinosaurs as something that became extinct millions of years ago, to plate tectonics, to ice ages, to Native Americans crossing the land bridge, to astronomy and light year designations.... There are so many scientific concepts where understanding that the earth/universe has been around for a very long time is a basic premise.

I remember diagrams of apes to cavemen to white men in my textbooks, as well as the pictures of embryos that were found to be a fraud. I am also aware of the term evolved used quite a bit.

[Lovedtodeath]

I would not say that what I was taught about evolution was thorough or honest, but we were taught it. Sort of like teaching how our government started. George Washington and the founding fathers thought it sounded like a good idea, so they chose democracy. They thought we should have checks and balances so they made the government in three branches. None of the why or historical backgroung, just the basics. Those basics, though, were pounded into my head. Evolution is how a species changes over time. The founding fathers thought it was good. Evolution is how we all grew from one organism and how that organism was formed. Three branches are fair and balanced. Ad naseum, year after year.

 

So, that, imo, is indoctrination. It's like some of the religious study for children. Adam and Eve sinned, now we all die. Jesus died, now we're all forgiven. Noah built a boat and it was good. None of the whys, none of the meat.

That is it!:thumbup::thumbup1::hurray:

[Greta]

I would not say that what I was taught about evolution was thorough or honest, but we were taught it. Sort of like teaching how our government started. George Washington and the founding fathers thought it sounded like a good idea, so they chose democracy. They thought we should have checks and balances so they made the government in three branches. None of the why or historical backgroung, just the basics. Those basics, though, were pounded into my head. Evolution is how a species changes over time. The founding fathers thought it was good. Evolution is how we all grew from one organism and how that organism was formed. Three branches are fair and balanced. Ad naseum, year after year.

 

So, that, imo, is indoctrination. It's like some of the religious study for children. Adam and Eve sinned, now we all die. Jesus died, now we're all forgiven. Noah built a boat and it was good. None of the whys, none of the meat.

 

That's interesting. Now I wonder if a poor education on a topic is worse than no education on that topic at all. When I graduated, I knew that I knew nothing about evolution. But if I'd had that sort of superficial exposure to it, I might have mistakenly believed that I knew something about it. It's probably worse if you think you know something when you really don't, than to simply know that you don't know anything. :D I guess this explains (in part) why so many people don't understand evolution, even though the public schools are "teaching" it.

 

I thought I understood the basics of American history and government when I graduated. I have since learned just enough to realize that I am clueless. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

Symbolic for what? That's what I don't understand. Why would God try to confuse us by clarifying morning and evening, when He didn't really mean morning and evening? Plus, from my understanding of Hebrew, and I admit it is very limited, 'day' with numerical adjectives always refers to a 24 hour period.

 

Because the this word is used over and over and over in The Bible to mean an undetermined amount of time. I gave the link that showed many such uses. The problem is not God trying to confuse us. The problem is the limitations of translations and the fact that modern Christians often ignore thousands of years of interpretation of the The Scriptures. Ancient Jewish scholars believed that the six days were six symbolic days. They believed that without trying to fit dinosaurs or cosmology into the picture.

 

It's interesting that you say that. Considering all the threads I have seen with people looking for a 'secular science' (opposed to Christian) program for their children. :confused:

 

Because the science programs that label themselves as Christian have a definite agenda that I disagree with. I want the science, I will teach my kids the theology.

 

I am not sure what these Christian programs are leaving out.

 

In some cases the problem is more what they are adding in than what they are leaving out. Here is a quote from one such catalog:

The author especially concentrates on the myths generated by the hysterical environmentalist movement.

 

I cannot and will not trust a publisher of science text that denies evolution. How can I trust the other facts if the fact of the earth's old age is omitted? I agree that elementary secular texts generally don't talk much about evolution. However, I am far more comfortable trusting these sources because I know that they have no agenda to alter or omit scientific facts in order to fit a certain subset of Christian beliefs. The only agenda of the secular texts is to teach science. Real science. Period. :)

 

:iagree:

 

Can you explain why you consider yourself a secular scientist, when in fact you believe God created? Is it because you believe in a different God than the one in the bible? I say that because many here on the boards believe in a god, but not the biblical account one. I'm not being snarky at all...truly....just trying to understand your position as a scientist.

 

Believing in the God of The Bible doesn't make one a Christian scientist because in the *real world* there is no such thing. They are scientists, they don't need a modifier.

 

Still unconvinced. I see absolutely no reason why one would/could/should use that verse when speaking of Creation. But thanks for the info! Very interesting. :001_smile:

 

Nobody is trying to convince you; you asked people to explain why they believe as they believe.

 

I agree with you, but from the Christian side of things. Science is a man-made convention that we use to understand the natural world as best we can. God is supernatural. Why try to limit the supernatural Creator of the Universe with human constraints? I will not ever understand that. It doesn't challenge my faith at all to look at accepted theory in science and run with it, but still know that God is God, Creator of the universe.

 

:iagree:

 

How I would love a Christian science curriculum that taught "biologos" or "theistic evolution". That would be a true gem. ::sighs wistfully::

 

I just don't think I believe it's necessary. As a homeschooler, it's my prerogative and duty to teach my kids the theology of what we believe. There is plenty of good information out there to use for that purpose.

[lionfamily1999]

That's interesting. Now I wonder if a poor education on a topic is worse than no education on that topic at all. When I graduated, I knew that I knew nothing about evolution. But if I'd had that sort of superficial exposure to it, I might have mistakenly believed that I knew something about it. It's probably worse if you think you know something when you really don't, than to simply know that you don't know anything. :D I guess this explains (in part) why so many people don't understand evolution, even though the public schools are "teaching" it.

 

I thought I understood the basics of American history and government when I graduated. I have since learned just enough to realize that I am clueless. :lol:

I'm right there with you. History has been very humbling for me :p

 

It's strange, because in some things our science teacher went above and beyond and we had access to really great resources. We are on the Potomac, so Marine Biology (once you got past the refresher on where all life came from) was great. We did a lot of active science for that as well Human Bio. Human Bio was great, once we did our evolution refresher, we ended up licensed EMTs. We got to shadow in the ER for 10 hours. We even had a fully stocked retired ambulance. It didn't hurt that our teacher was a Cardio Tech and had another degree in Sports Medicine. Our Principal and the girls' PE/Health teacher were both Paramedics. So, HB was everyone's baby :p

 

Where evolution was concerned, it was very much like the American History we were taught. There were points that were pounded in, but never well explained and very little time was actually spent on them. It made them seem like strict facts without any need for background or explanation.

[Lovedtodeath]

Because the this word is used over and over and over in The Bible to mean an undetermined amount of time. I gave the link that showed many such uses. The problem is not God trying to confuse us. The problem is the limitations of translations and the fact that modern Christians often ignore thousands of years of interpretation of the The Scriptures. Ancient Jewish scholars believed that the six days were six symbolic days. They believed that without trying to fit dinosaurs or cosmology into the picture.

 

 

 

Because the science programs that label themselves as Christian have a definite agenda that I disagree with. I want the science, I will teach my kids the theology.

 

 

 

In some cases the problem is more what they are adding in than what they are leaving out. Here is a quote from one such catalog:

 

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

 

Believing in the God of The Bible doesn't make one a Christian scientist because in the *real world* there is no such thing. They are scientists, they don't need a modifier.

 

 

 

Nobody is trying to convince you; you asked people to explain why they believe as they believe.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

 

I just don't think I believe it's necessary. As a homeschooler, it's my prerogative and duty to teach my kids the theology of what we believe. There is plenty of good information out there to use for that purpose.

Well, I was only going to quote the one sentence, but wow. Great post all around. You rock!

[Greta]

I just don't think I believe it's necessary. As a homeschooler, it's my prerogative and duty to teach my kids the theology of what we believe. There is plenty of good information out there to use for that purpose.

 

Sure, I understand that, and I do that too. I don't think it's "necessary" either, I just think it would be really great! :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

Sure, I understand that, and I do that too. I don't think it's "necessary" either, I just think it would be really great! :001_smile:

 

It would be great to have a book explaining the reasons behind various beliefs on the topic. Explaining why I believe what I do is one thing, explaining why other people believe as they do is something else.

[Greta]

I'm right there with you. History has been very humbling for me :p

 

Yes, homeschooling in general has been for me. No better way to shine a light on the gaps in your own education than to take on responsibility for the education of another. :D

 

It's strange, because in some things our science teacher went above and beyond

 

It's possible that your science teacher(s) didn't know any more about evolution than what was in the textbook. The first time I ever heard a truly good explanation of the most basic ideas about evolution was in my Introduction to Zoology course at university. I took an introductory Microbiology course, and it was not explained well. I took intro to Botany, and it was not explained well. I took Human Anatomy and it was not mentioned at all. And that Zoology 101 class was just the basics. I don't think I understood it well until I had taken an entire course on evolution, one in animal behavior, and one in comparative vertebrate anatomy.

 

How many students, even science education students, get through college without a really good understanding of evolution? Sadly, I suspect it's quite a few.

[Sputterduck]

I went around and around with this before I was a Christian.

 

Then I became a Christian and when I did, I realized that it doesn't matter.

[Melissa in CA]

Because the this word is used over and over and over in The Bible to mean an undetermined amount of time.

 

AND it is also used as a 24 hour day. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. ;)

 

Believing in the God of The Bible doesn't make one a Christian scientist because in the *real world* there is no such thing. They are scientists, they don't need a modifier.

 

So are you then implying that those who do label themselves Christian scientists are, in fact, nonexistant, not true scientists, or perhaps not living in the "real world?" I happen to be close friends with a Christian scientist...and yes, he calls himself that...who used to believe in old earth, but now totally believes in young and staunchly defends it. He works for NASA. I'm trying to decide now if he really exists. :lol:

 

 

Nobody is trying to convince you; you asked people to explain why they believe as they believe.

 

This seems somewhat snarky. What I said did not beg to be answered. I asked for info. She kindly gave it to me. I enjoyed reading it, but the info did not in any way convince me that it was a good interpretation of scripture. I said so. Period. :blink: