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

[Greta]

of course. i agree with you completely. but my viewpoint of a spiritual death is supported throughout the bible....it's not as if it's an opinion with no backing. i also understand viewpoints vary greatly here. that's obvious.

 

Oh, I'm sorry I missed this reply! I certainly never meant to imply that it was simply an opinion with no backing. I apologize if it came across that way - truly not what I intended. I only meant that scripture doesn't always mean what any one of us might think it means upon first reading, without background knowledge or the context of the wisdom of the entire Bible. I'm sorry if I caused offense.

[Melissa in CA]

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:

 

:lol::lol: (Just saw this) Hound away my friend!! :D

[Mercy_Me]

You're correct. My point is that the scientific community doesn't want to talk about anything other than Darwinism. That's why she hasn't come across the information she was referring to.

 

This is untrue, though. Scientists are very willing to change the original theory when better evidence comes along to support it. They would drop Darwin in a skinny minute if another theory could be supported with enough eveidence to outweigh his theory. Thus far, nothing has come close. Where science is willing to change based on evidence, religion is not.

[Mrs Mungo]

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

 

In no way did I believe we would reach a consensus. You asked for specifics on why people believed the way they did. People answered. I have nothing invested in convincing you that my position is correct.

 

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:

 

I'm not sure how to answer this. He is a scientist. Whether or not he's a Christian is a side issue. I know people who are Christians and scientists. Their views vary. I'm a Christian who believes in the God of The Bible *and* in a more secular view of science. I don't think they are in conflict.

 

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:

 

I am not being snarky, I am being direct, but that isn't snarky. People answered your questions, but they weren't trying to convince you of anything. Did you investigate the many articles and links people offered? Did you investigate the answersincreation.org website at length? There are some fascinating articles. It may not convince you, but if you are *honestly* interested in learning more about this view point, you would at least read the information people offered.

[lionfamily1999]

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 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.

:iagree:

Oh, I'm sorry I missed this reply! I certainly never meant to imply that it was simply an opinion with no backing. I apologize if it came across that way - truly not what I intended. I only meant that scripture doesn't always mean what any one of us might think it means upon first reading, without background knowledge or the context of the wisdom of the entire Bible. I'm sorry if I caused offense.

Or divine intervention ;) I think we forget that at times. There are things that are impossible to understand without the Spirit's guidance.

 

Not that it changes what you said, I'm just feeling a little nitpicky and you're such a good sport :D

This is untrue, though. Scientists are very willing to change the original theory when better evidence comes along to support it. They would drop Darwin in a skinny minute if another theory could be supported with enough eveidence to outweigh his theory. Thus far, nothing has come close. Where science is willing to change based on evidence, religion is not.

But not when it's found that the evidence they have falls short. I think that's a problem too. Sometimes, you just have to admit you barked up the wrong tree. You don't wait for another tree to pop up with something worth barking at.

 

ETA, how religious bodies (churches &tc) behave and the rules or their interpretations do change. The Word of God does not. So, God is constant, but how we understand Him, His creation and even His Word does. We change, religion changes all the time, but God does not.

[Mercy_Me]

ETA, how religious bodies (churches &tc) behave and the rules or their interpretations do change. The Word of God does not. So, God is constant, but how we understand Him, His creation and even His Word does. We change, religion changes all the time, but God does not.

How do you know this? The only reason you believe god doesn't change is based on readings from a book that you admit, does. What you say is very articulate and you make believing in god sound almost poetic, but it simply doesn't make it true.

You believe what you believe based on faith, and that is great, it is what brings you peace. Knowing that science is always open to what we can find, what we can examine, what we can test until we have a reasonable conclusion is what gives me mine.

[Mercy_Me]

But not when it's found that the evidence they have falls short. I think that's a problem too. Sometimes, you just have to admit you barked up the wrong tree. You don't wait for another tree to pop up with something worth barking at.

QUOTE]

 

They DO admit that Darwin's theory has holes, but as of now, it's what we have. You can't throw god into every gap.

[susankenny]

ETA, how religious bodies behave and the rules or their interpretations do change. The Word of God does not. So, God is constant, but how we understand Him, His creation and even His Word does. We change, religion changes all the time, but God does not.

 

I totally agree with you. My previous pastor (president of the SBC now) always said "Never changing gospel with ever-changing methodologies". I loved that.

[Melissa in CA]

Did you investigate the many articles and links people offered? Did you investigate the answersincreation.org website at length? There are some fascinating articles. It may not convince you, but if you are *honestly* interested in learning more about this view point, you would at least read the information people offered.

 

Yes, I have looked at each article that was sent to me, in reference to my specific questions. I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to follow each and every link posted. To be *honest* I really don't care that much...as I previously mentioned in one of my very first posts. I have good IRL Christians friends who believe old earth, and millions of years...I still consider them Christians...it's not a deal breaker for me.

 

I do find it very fascinating how they, and other people, translate the creation record in Genesis though. No matter how much I read about it, I have yet to see anything convincing. Anything to make me stop and pause with regards to my belief of a literal 6 day interpretation. One of the principles of Hermenuetics is "Authorial Intent" meaning the author determines the meaning of Scripture, not the reader. When the author specifically qualifies His meaning by the use of additional words (evening, morning, day one) I personally find it hard to make that symbolic in any way. The author was not using, in my opinion, symbolic wording when He penned Genesis chapter 1. And to make it symbolic to fit what *I* think it should mean would not be proper exegesis. So, even though it is a fascinating study, and I truly do understand how the different interpretations come about, and respect the believers of them...I, so far, stand unconvinced of the validity of the interpretation. ;)

[susankenny]

I have good IRL Christians friends who believe old earth, and millions of years...I still consider them Christians...it's not a deal breaker for me.

 

I do find it very fascinating how they, and other people, translate the creation record in Genesis though. No matter how much I read about it, I have yet to see anything convincing. Anything to make me stop and pause with regards to my belief of a literal 6 day interpretation.

 

This is me exactly. I have no issues with friends and family members that believe differently. In fact, I didn't even become a Christian until my mid 20's and believed in evolution previously. Creation vs. Evolution is simply not part of a normal everyday discussion & it's not a point of contention ever. I believe the biblical account is accurate though. I'm comfortable being around people that disagree.

Edited November 16, 2010 by susankenny

[elfgivas]

This is me exactly. I have no issues with friends and family members that believe differently. In fact, I didn't even become a Christian until my mid 20's and believed in evolution previously. Creation vs. Evolution is simply not part of a normal everyday discussion & it's not a point of contention ever. I believe the biblical account is accurate though. I'm comfortable being around people that disagree.

 

which biblical account do you think is accurate, genesis one or two?

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

[Greta]

Or divine intervention ;) I think we forget that at times. There are things that are impossible to understand without the Spirit's guidance.

 

Very, very true! :001_smile:

[susankenny]

which biblical account do you think is accurate, genesis one or two?

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

 

oh, definitely biblical account number 1. isn't that obvious from my previous posts.;)

[Melissa in CA]

which biblical account do you think is accurate, genesis one or two?

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

 

Both!

 

http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

 

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/162-critical-theory-attacks-genesis-1-and-2

[Lovedtodeath]

Both!

 

http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

 

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/162-critical-theory-attacks-genesis-1-and-2

Sigh. Thank you for answering that. The question got me irritated.

[Tea Time]

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!)

Thanks for yet another book suggestion! Although I don't really need anymore convincing about evolution. I am convinced enough of the process and not too interested in the particulars (You may recall when we have talked before, I am more of a big picture gal,). I may use it with my ds though, so I'll check it out.

 

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 was talking to you, and I do think you are cool (both kinds!) and eloquent. It impresses and humbles me. Thank you for the excellent example!

 

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 didn't really spend too much time worrying about heaven. Later, after I believed, I do recall thinking, "Wow, that is 'good news'!" :lol:

 

But for me it was more that I could not be a materialist without being a hypocrite. I was relieved at first when I decided to commit to atheism, but then I found myself still thinking much the same way. This is kind of what I was trying to say about the blessings. I could not stop behaving like a religious person, especially a Christian. I still cared about the same things, went about my day with the same priorities. I still felt deeply committed to truth, for example. But why? I mean I could not really say it was just "eat/good not eat/bad". To me that was just ignoring an awful lot. I know atheists think theist want to ignore things to believe, but they have to ignore things to get along as well. At least that was what happened to me. I decided that I would just be myself. I was a Christian, and that was the truth. :lol:

 

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.

I know my train of thought is sometimes hard to follow. It isn't that it is difficult but it just is not the way most people think, apparently. :001_huh:

 

C.S. Lewis gives the most amazing (and honest) description of the materialist universe in the first chapter of The Problem of Pain. He is so articulate that the account is truly chilling. But I also love the quote that he gives at the beginning. It reminds me that the fundamental idea of this debate has gone on for a long, long time.

 

"I wonder at the hardihood with which such persons undertake to talk about God. In a treatise addressed to infidels they begin with a chapter proving the existence of God from the works of Nature.... this only gives their readers grounds for thinking that the proofs of our religion are very weak.... It is a remarkable fact that no canonical writer has ever used Nature to prove God."

Pascal

[Melissa in CA]

Another article I found interesting in regards to a literal 6-day translation...for anyone who might be interested. :)

 

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/327-the-creation-week-reflections-on-genesis

[Tea Time]

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. :)

 

It certainly makes sense that you would not want a science text that does not teach evolution if you want it taught. That is understandable.

 

However, I do not see why there is a complete lack of any skepticism where science and secular science text books are concerned. Christian texts may have an agenda, but it is a clear agenda. They are pretty up front about it.

 

Haven't you ever wondered if scientists and their text books omit facts or focus extensively on some things for their own reasons? Why are you so confident that secular scientist do not ever have any agenda? Have you never heard of any fraudulent data being reported? Have you noticed that there might be a growing trend toward that as the stakes for funding and other incentives become more and more of an issue? In addition, I can see subtle uses of language and little things that could go beyond teaching science concepts and give "impressions" to students that might not be totally necessary to teaching science. Language has that capability. It is not much of an issue for homeschoolers who will see for themselves, but in public education, agendas might be missed by parents.

 

I do not mean to be snarky, but I got into this thread (besides wanting to thank GretaLynne for the book suggestion) because someone's post sounded a little excessively "agog" (their word) about science. As a method it is great and all, but scientists still have human failings, and sometimes they can be influenced by other forces. It is worth remembering, isn't it?

 

I guess my point is that scientists can certainly have agendas and may not be as trustworthy as you think in some cases. They are not all saints. :tongue_smilie:

[lionfamily1999]

ETA, how religious bodies (churches &tc) behave and the rules or their interpretations do change. The Word of God does not. So, God is constant, but how we understand Him, His creation and even His Word does. We change, religion changes all the time, but God does not.

How do you know this? The only reason you believe god doesn't change is based on readings from a book that you admit, does. What you say is very articulate and you make believing in god sound almost poetic, but it simply doesn't make it true.

You believe what you believe based on faith, and that is great, it is what brings you peace. Knowing that science is always open to what we can find, what we can examine, what we can test until we have a reasonable conclusion is what gives me mine.

I did not say that God's Word changes, I said HOW WE UNDERSTAND IT does. There's bit of difference there. I believe God does not change, because if God was in a state of change then he could not be infinite.

 

But not when it's found that the evidence they have falls short. I think that's a problem too. Sometimes, you just have to admit you barked up the wrong tree. You don't wait for another tree to pop up with something worth barking at.

 

They DO admit that Darwin's theory has holes, but as of now, it's what we have. You can't throw god into every gap.

? No one said to throw God into gaps. I'm pretty sure no one would get far in throwing Him any where. Makes me think of that old joke, where does a hundred pound gorilla sit? Anywhere he wants.

 

Then why do people pass off Darwin's origins as 'fact' and why would they say people that do not believe it's the truth are uneducated or misunderstanding? It's a sieve, yet we're all supposed to support and parrot it?

Another article I found interesting in regards to a literal 6-day translation...for anyone who might be interested. :)

 

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/327-the-creation-week-reflections-on-genesis

Thank you :)

[lionfamily1999]

What you say is very articulate and you make believing in god sound almost poetic...

I forgot to say thank you. :blush: That was very kind of you.

[Veritaserum]

It certainly makes sense that you would not want a science text that does not teach evolution if you want it taught. That is understandable.

 

However, I do not see why there is a complete lack of any skepticism where science and secular science text books are concerned. Christian texts may have an agenda, but it is a clear agenda. They are pretty up front about it.

 

Haven't you ever wondered if scientists and their text books omit facts or focus extensively on some things for their own reasons? Why are you so confident that secular scientist do not ever have any agenda? Have you never heard of any fraudulent data being reported? Have you noticed that there might be a growing trend toward that as the stakes for funding and other incentives become more and more of an issue? In addition, I can see subtle uses of language and little things that could go beyond teaching science concepts and give "impressions" to students that might not be totally necessary to teaching science. Language has that capability. It is not much of an issue for homeschoolers who will see for themselves, but in public education, agendas might be missed by parents.

 

I do not mean to be snarky, but I got into this thread (besides wanting to thank GretaLynne for the book suggestion) because someone's post sounded a little excessively "agog" (their word) about science. As a method it is great and all, but scientists still have human failings, and sometimes they can be influenced by other forces. It is worth remembering, isn't it?

 

I guess my point is that scientists can certainly have agendas and may not be as trustworthy as you think in some cases. They are not all saints. :tongue_smilie:

 

That's a fair question. It's a reason I prefer not to use one source of information. :) Honestly, I'm not very concerned about mainstream science publishers pushing the kind of anti-God agenda that they are often accused of doing by some in the YE camp. ;) Richard Dawkins aside, I think most authors of secular science texts tend to really only be interested in sharing what they know about science. Everyone has subtle biases and agendas (some of which they may not even be aware of), but I haven't encountered anything truly alarming in the secular science books we have used. :)

 

My kids and I have been discussing this topic lately (creationism/6-day vs. evolution, etc.). They know that people disagree and that no one knows for sure since no one was an eye witness to the event. They also know that the data indicates a very, very, very old earth in which evolution played a vital role but that God could certainly still have been orchestrating everything. They know that this issue is NOT an important one when it comes to salvation and that there are a variety of opinions on the subject. They also know that scientific theories evolve (ha!) over time as scientists learn more information.

 

In the end, I do not want to risk crippling my children academically by teaching them something so contrary to what is widely accepted within the scientific community as fact. My second dd in particular LOVES science and I could definitely see her pursuing a career in a scientific field (geology has been her longest-lived love, so the age of the earth is kinda important). If I had any inklings toward a YE POV personally (I don't), I would still teach using mainstream science texts so that my children would be prepared for more advanced study within the sciences. :)

[lionfamily1999]

In the end, I do not want to risk crippling my children academically by teaching them something so contrary to what is widely accepted within the scientific community as fact. My second dd in particular LOVES science and I could definitely see her pursuing a career in a scientific field (geology has been her longest-lived love, so the age of the earth is kinda important). If I had any inklings toward a YE POV personally (I don't), I would still teach using mainstream science texts so that my children would be prepared for more advanced study within the sciences. :)

I agree with you towards the end, but I think if you knew that what was being taught in the mainstream was wrong you might feel differently about teaching your children what was a "fact" even if it's not widely accepted.

 

I have to wonder, did those that believed the earth was round teach their children what all the other children were learning and keep mum on where they disagreed? Or would they teach their children the earth was round, but that other people didn't know that yet? And then teach them what was widely accepted, not as truth, but as a preparation for working amid the majority.

[Veritaserum]

I agree with you towards the end, but I think if you knew that what was being taught in the mainstream was wrong you might feel differently about teaching your children what was a "fact" even if it's not widely accepted.

 

I have to wonder, did those that believed the earth was round teach their children what all the other children were learning and keep mum on where they disagreed? Or would they teach their children the earth was round, but that other people didn't know that yet? And then teach them what was widely accepted, not as truth, but as a preparation for working amid the majority.

 

The way I handle things I disagree with when we're reading is to say, "I understand why they are saying this, but I think...." That's probably what I would have done. :)

[lionfamily1999]

The way I handle things I disagree with when we're reading is to say, "I understand why they are saying this, but I think...." That's probably what I would have done. :)

Yes, but I think it's different when you come to science. I could see doing that with history, hey I've DONE that with history ;) In science, though, you're teaching your child (who trusts you to tell them the truth) about how the world around them works, where it came from, how it changes. These are things they depend on (many of them anyway).

 

Let's flip it around then. Let's say that the whole country holds to creationism, strict YE style. Now, the majority of people believe it, most of the text books teach it, but let's say, for the sake of conversation, that you are an athiest. You've read the little research that's been done outside of the idea of God/YE/creationism. Would you teach your children YE/creationsim out of those textbooks and just correct it constantly, or would you try to find a science book that taught what you knew was the truth and then teach them the YE/creationism with all the rebuttals from your pov?

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with you towards the end, but I think if you knew that what was being taught in the mainstream was wrong you might feel differently about teaching your children what was a "fact" even if it's not widely accepted.

 

I'm really not sure what this means. What is not widely accepted that you find in mainstream science books?

 

I have to wonder, did those that believed the earth was round teach their children what all the other children were learning and keep mum on where they disagreed? Or would they teach their children the earth was round, but that other people didn't know that yet? And then teach them what was widely accepted, not as truth, but as a preparation for working amid the majority.

The Ancient Greeks post-Pythagoras believed that the world was round. Medieval scholars believed that the earth was round. The idea that scholars once believed the earth to be flat is a myth (pardon me, Spycar, I know you don't like that particular use of the word). Washington Irving is mainly to blame. He's to blame for quite a few myths-the cherry tree, etc.

[SailorMom]

Re: Secular Scientists -

 

"Secular: Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body"

 

Almost everyone I know believes in a God of some sort - a higher power, shall we say. Some are Christians, some are not. Many of these people are also scientists.

I am not Christian, as a matter of fact, but that is not why I am "secular".

What makes them (and myself) "secular" scientists is that we do not allow our religious beliefs to affect scientific study. Science is what it is. I actually think God gave us Reason and Intelligence so that we can better understand the universe. The more I learn of science - the more I am amazed by what He (she,,,, it) created.

But let me explain that again: Believing God created our universe does not equate to believing in the Bible (or any other book). When I (or others I know) study science, our religious or spiritual beliefs are left at the door.

[susankenny]

In the end, I do not want to risk crippling my children academically by teaching them something so contrary to what is widely accepted within the scientific community as fact. My second dd in particular LOVES science and I could definitely see her pursuing a career in a scientific field (geology has been her longest-lived love, so the age of the earth is kinda important). If I had any inklings toward a YE POV personally (I don't), I would still teach using mainstream science texts so that my children would be prepared for more advanced study within the sciences. :)

 

FWIW, I am a YEC but I have no intention of shielding my children from the world. How could I even possibly without living in a bubble? We currently use a lot of secular science materials along with Christian Liberty press nature readers. With my children being so young (only 9 & 6) creation and evolution aren't even a part of the topics being discussed in their textbooks though. As they get older, we will use Apologia, which does introduce the idea of evolution. When they're in middle school, we will then begin to delve into the topic in greater lengths, and we will look at the argument from both perspectives. In the end, they will have to find their own way and faith...just as I did.

[Veritaserum]

Yes, but I think it's different when you come to science. I could see doing that with history, hey I've DONE that with history ;) In science, though, you're teaching your child (who trusts you to tell them the truth) about how the world around them works, where it came from, how it changes. These are things they depend on (many of them anyway).

 

Let's flip it around then. Let's say that the whole country holds to creationism, strict YE style. Now, the majority of people believe it, most of the text books teach it, but let's say, for the sake of conversation, that you are an athiest. You've read the little research that's been done outside of the idea of God/YE/creationism. Would you teach your children YE/creationsim out of those textbooks and just correct it constantly, or would you try to find a science book that taught what you knew was the truth and then teach them the YE/creationism with all the rebuttals from your pov?

 

It's hard to imagine, but I would probably try to find books that gave my children a functional knowledge of the mainstream beliefs while also teaching them my understanding of the situation. I understand that this is what some YE families do and it is a reasonable option. It's more reasonable, imo, than the choice to omit any teaching of mainstream science.

 

When it comes to homeschooling and science education, I have experienced much frustration in locating homeschool-friendly secular science materials. Not frustrated enough, however, to use the easy-to-implement homeschool YE resources. ;)

[lionfamily1999]

I agree with you towards the end, but I think if you knew that what was being taught in the mainstream was wrong you might feel differently about teaching your children what was a "fact" even if it's not widely accepted.

 

I'm really not sure what this means. What is not widely accepted that you find in mainstream science books?

 

First, sorry to insert my quote, but this is hard to answer without seeing what I said ;)

 

Okay, I was responding to a post that had said that they found the idea of someone teaching contrary to the mainstream views crippling to the child's education. What I was attempting to say was, if you knew that the mainstream view was wrong, then you might feel differently about teaching your children what you believed was a fact even if it's not widely accepted.

 

Clear as mud?

 

:lol: IOW, a YEC, believing that the earth is young and that the mainstream is wrong may feel like they MUST teach their children the truth, regardless of what the mainstream has to say about it. Because for YECs, those are the "facts."

The Ancient Greeks post-Pythagoras believed that the world was round. Medieval scholars believed that the earth was round. The idea that scholars once believed the earth to be flat is a myth (pardon me, Spycar, I know you don't like that particular use of the word). Washington Irving is mainly to blame. He's to blame for quite a few myths-the cherry tree, etc.

Ah, well I was just using it to try and clarify the earlier point.

 

A parent knowing the mainstream was wrong, how would they teach their child. In that case, I just wanted to use something that most people are familiar with (flat earthers vs round earthers).

[lionfamily1999]

It's hard to imagine, but I would probably try to find books that gave my children a functional knowledge of the mainstream beliefs while also teaching them my understanding of the situation. I understand that this is what some YE families do and it is a reasonable option. It's more reasonable, imo, than the choice to omit any teaching of mainstream science.

 

When it comes to homeschooling and science education, I have experienced much frustration in locating homeschool-friendly secular science materials. Not frustrated enough, however, to use the easy-to-implement homeschool YE resources. ;)

That's what I'm hoping to find. I want something that has the mainstream views in it (because it is important to know what everyone else views as truth, I mean we study religions and world history for the same reasons) while teaching creationism. I'm not sure if I'm fully on board with YEC or not, for now I'd just like a science curriculum that does not cut God out completely.

 

I'm not sure that I've heard of anyone who expected their children to live a life outside of their family or closely knit community who doesn't at least try to teach the mainstream views. They might wait till high school, but there are topics I'm putting off till high school too ;)

 

I think Christians that are in the middle (not YEC, but not happy with straight secular) are in the same situation. Why isn't there a "fair and balanced" science curriculum?!? :lol:

[Tea Time]

That's a fair question. It's a reason I prefer not to use one source of information. :) Honestly, I'm not very concerned about mainstream science publishers pushing the kind of anti-God agenda that they are often accused of doing by some in the YE camp. ;) Richard Dawkins aside, I think most authors of secular science texts tend to really only be interested in sharing what they know about science. Everyone has subtle biases and agendas (some of which they may not even be aware of), but I haven't encountered anything truly alarming in the secular science books we have used. :)

I agree with you on that, but I am thinking more of the future, the way I have seen things going over the years. I do think that there are other forces working on scientists that might be much more of a concern than Richard Dawkins or his kind who are actually too loud to make much progress on their agenda. The scientist do not control the economics that keep research and textbooks going. There are people who profit from the anti-God agenda, and I don't really think it has a thing to do with belief/non-belief. Just the politics of power. I like to think that the truth will win out, but that would definitely be an example of my Christian thinking NOT my materialist side! ;)

 

My kids and I have been discussing this topic lately (creationism/6-day vs. evolution, etc.). They know that people disagree and that no one knows for sure since no one was an eye witness to the event. They also know that the data indicates a very, very, very old earth in which evolution played a vital role but that God could certainly still have been orchestrating everything. They know that this issue is NOT an important one when it comes to salvation and that there are a variety of opinions on the subject. They also know that scientific theories evolve (ha!) over time as scientists learn more information.

It sounds like you are doing a great job there in the trenches. Keep up the good fight!

 

In the end, I do not want to risk crippling my children academically by teaching them something so contrary to what is widely accepted within the scientific community as fact. My second dd in particular LOVES science and I could definitely see her pursuing a career in a scientific field (geology has been her longest-lived love, so the age of the earth is kinda important). If I had any inklings toward a YE POV personally (I don't), I would still teach using mainstream science texts so that my children would be prepared for more advanced study within the sciences. :)

I don't think you have to worry about YE kids being crippled by a lack of exposure to these concepts - at least through high school. There might be a few select places out there where a YE kid hits college and is not familiar with some of the science concepts they are expected to know, but they will do just fine academically. Naturally they will need to be prepared to be a minority, but I would expect that they would know that and be able to deal with it.

 

I have made this argument before, but the old earth and evolution concepts at this level are not hard to learn, especially for a scientifically inclined student. What mostly cripples students in science in high school and the early years of college is poor math skills, IMO.

 

To me there is a little too much fretting over YE students and not enough worrying about students with generally poor critical thinking and math skills. Students who cannot locate fallacies in written material and/or have weak math skills are crippled, even the ones who believe in an old earth but do so for no other reason than it being drummed into them. Students who have had YE drummed into them, but can generally do excellent algebra and calculus and read very well, will sort it out just fine as it become required of them, or else they will self select out of the sciences. Most likely they will just be in a field of science where it is not an issue. And if they have also been drilled to have character traits that encourage honesty and hard work (which is very common in those circles), they will be a valuable asset. We can't expect the struggle over ideas to go away. We must be patient with each other.

 

BTW, my brother is a geologist, and he LOVES his work. He works in a gold mine. And that is not a metaphor! :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

I would like to give you a couple of great quotes:

Some are not as closed minded as others. They see through the mistakes of both sides.

 

"We have to stop treating all creationist claims as being equally valuable."

--Todd Wood

 

Have you never heard of any fraudulent data being reported?

There is a lot of it. Some are honest mistakes (like Darwin claiming that an inland sea carved out a valley over thousands of years when if he had gone further up stream he would have seen the glacier and catastrophic flooding as the cause). Some is outdated (like the evolutionary chart of the horse). Some are a bit "creative" (like the statue of Lucy with human hands and feet). Some are repeats of fraud from previous books (the pictures of the embryos that are all very similar)... the list goes on, but you get the point.

 

It's hard to imagine, but I would probably try to find books that gave my children a functional knowledge of the mainstream beliefs while also teaching them my understanding of the situation. I understand that this is what some YE families do and it is a reasonable option. It's more reasonable, imo, than the choice to omit any teaching of mainstream science.

:iagree:Our curriculum on plants that I mentioned earlier has a God's Design book paired with a mainstream encyclopedia that is scheduled to be read along with it. The encyclopedia has the evolutionary story of plants. Many of Sonlight's science packages do something similar before they switch to Apologia. I don't think those Apologia books are YE though?

 

I think Christians that are in the middle (not YEC, but not happy with straight secular) are in the same situation. Why isn't there a "fair and balanced" science curriculum?!? :lol:

:iagree:I don't like YEC dogmatism in science texts.

[lionfamily1999]

Carmen, is Apologia YEC?

 

I just found this from the Christian Research Journal and it's very much YEC...

 

ETA, what about Bob Jones?

[Lovedtodeath]

Carmen, is Apologia YEC?

 

I just found this from the Christian Research Journal and it's very much YEC...

 

ETA, what about Bob Jones?

I was under the impression that Bob Jones is YEC. For Apologia, my understanding is that if Jay Wile wrote it, then it is not YEC, and Apologia wants YEC so he broke off his association with them. (my memory may be off though)

[lionfamily1999]

I was under the impression that Bob Jones is YEC. For Apologia, my understanding is that if Jay Wile wrote it, then it is not YEC, and Apologia wants YEC so he broke off his association with them. (my memory may be off though)

So........ if it's not yet it will be soon?

 

Is there Christian science that isn't YEC?

 

ETA, oops, sorry for the derail!

Edited November 17, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[Lovedtodeath]

So........ if it's not yet it will be soon?

 

Is there Christian science that isn't YEC?

I think maybe we should have a new thread... but I am not sure where to put it.

[susankenny]

I would like to give you a couple of great quotes:

 

--Todd Wood

 

There is a lot of it. Some are honest mistakes (like Darwin claiming that an inland sea carved out a valley over thousands of years when if he had gone further up stream he would have seen the glacier and catastrophic flooding as the cause). Some is outdated (like the evolutionary chart of the horse). Some are a bit "creative" (like the statue of Lucy with human hands and feet). Some are repeats of fraud from previous books (the pictures of the embryos that are all very similar)... the list goes on, but you get the point.

 

:iagree:Our curriculum on plants that I mentioned earlier has a God's Design book paired with a mainstream encyclopedia that is scheduled to be read along with it. The encyclopedia has the evolutionary story of plants. Many of Sonlight's science packages do something similar before they switch to Apologia. I don't think those Apologia books are YE though?

 

:iagree:I don't like YEC dogmatism in science texts.

 

love the quotes you shared. and yes, apologia is YEC.

[susankenny]

I was under the impression that Bob Jones is YEC. For Apologia, my understanding is that if Jay Wile wrote it, then it is not YEC, and Apologia wants YEC so he broke off his association with them. (my memory may be off though)

 

jeannie fullbright addressed this on the apologia yahoo loop when it happened. it's at her blog or the apologia website as well (i don't remeber where). i'm sure you can google her explanation though. hth.

[monk17]

The big problem with trying to draw evolution equal with creationism, ID or whatever it's going under this week is "peer review". You've got a handful of scientists spouting out theories with no credible peer review. Until the weight of scientific evidence for a creationism reaches anywhere near a critical mass it will be a discussion for a philosophy or religious class and not a science class. I have not seen one solid argument or reference to a scientific journal in this entire thread that backs ID.

 

I would take exception to evolution being taught in public schools. Texas has made sure it's a very tiny watered down fraction of what is taught in any science class in this country.

 

Get thine self published in a credible scientific peer reviewed journal and you can be taken seriously by the scientific community!

[justamouse]

 

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!!!

 

http://www.biologos.org/ is making one. Dr Francis Collins (Author of THE LANGUAGE OF GOD) is a founder and was also homeschooled.

 

I cannot *wait!*

[Lovedtodeath]

Get thine self published in a credible scientific peer reviewed journal and you can be taken seriously by the scientific community!

Started in 1984, Journal of Creation brings you in-depth, peer-reviewed comment, reviews and the latest research findings that relate to origins and the biblical account of Creation, the Flood and the Fall.

 

OH! Credible.... well you got me there, I think.

[asta]

Evolution is a scientific theory (see see definition of a scientific theory post 52 ). I honestly don't know why it keeps being referred to as "fact".

 

Normal, respected scientists know this, and are completely open to having the theory disproven via the scientific method. This has not been done, so the theory stands. When new information presents itself that is *not* based on FAITH (because, as I've stated before, faith cannot be empirically proven), the theory will adjust accordingly. As do ALL theories. That is why they are considered theories, not facts.

 

 

a

[Tea Time]

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:

 

Excellent post! :001_smile:

[Marylou]

http://www.biologos.org/ is making one. Dr Francis Collins (Author of THE LANGUAGE OF GOD) is a founder and was also homeschooled.

 

I cannot *wait!*

 

 

Biologos was addressed in a recent Albert Mohler blog post if anyone is interested.

[susankenny]

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.

 

I don't know where you originally posted this, so I can't quote it, and I apologize. I just wanted to echo that I completely agree.

 

To add my opinion to it though, I believe intelligent design scientists do the exact same thing you've described. They observe the same facts & their conclusion (the why) is different. However, they're research isn't flippant remarks, but they have an amazing argument and backing worth reading.

 

What's crazy is the ID movement do not want their theory or conclusions to even be taught in public schools. The only thing they propose is a presentation of evolution that allows for scrutiny.

 

Teachers also should have the freedom to discuss ID, should they choose too. If ID is such a weak explanation, the students will certainly scrutinize it and will walk away even more informed of why evolution is the best theory.

 

Susan

Edited November 17, 2010 by susankenny

[Marylou]

OP (and perhaps a few others), you might enjoy this comparison between God's miracles of Creation and the Flood and Theistic Evolution.

 

I personally don't think there will be a "turning back to God" if Biblical flood theory is taught. As a PP mentioned (I hope I'm in the right thread!), Global Flood=Ark, and Ark=Noah, and Noah=God. There is a verse in the NT about suppressing the truth about certain things. I will not quote it here, but if you're interested you can google it or PM me.

 

Isn't it enjoyable to have a do-ever for 5th grade? I'm enjoying it much more the second time around!

[Lovedtodeath]

Evolution is a scientific theory (see see definition of a scientific theory post 52 ). I honestly don't know why it keeps being referred to as "fact".

 

Normal, respected scientists know this, and are completely open to having the theory disproven via the scientific method. This has not been done, so the theory stands. When new information presents itself that is *not* based on FAITH (because, as I've stated before, faith cannot be empirically proven), the theory will adjust accordingly. As do ALL theories. That is why they are considered theories, not facts.

 

 

a

Because it is treated as a fact.

 

Actually, the theory has had adjustments in several areas already. If something is wrong, they adjust what needs adjusting, but the theory stands.

[lionfamily1999]

Get thineself published in a credible scientific peer reviewed journal and you can be taken seriously by the scientific community!

But if they refuse to take you seriously how can you accomplish that?

[SailorMom]

Evolution is a fact.

Natural selection is the theory.

[KingM]

What's crazy is the ID movement do not want their theory or conclusions to even be taught in public schools. The only thing they propose is a presentation of evolution that allows for scrutiny.

 

 

I don't believe that. I believe that it's a camel's nose in the tent sort of thing. They will start by casting doubt on evolution, then they'll get ID taught side by side with evolution, then evolution will be cast aside and eventually kids will be looking at diagrams of Noah's Ark with convoluted theories explaining how it held all the species on earth.

 

I don't think this is what they'll achieve, but I think this is what they want.