Evolution, creation, young earth... Aaaack!

[rgrin]

I'm sure I'm opening up can of worms here, but I really am lost! I know what I learned in school (evolution). I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro. I know what I learned in Sunday School (Creation in 6 "days"). Then later on, I heard about the "day is a thousand years" argument and the "gap theory". In actuality, I really don't see the need to push the issue one way or the other. God did what he did. Regardless of the time it took, it was "good" and amazing and often under-appreciated. So why do we have to dissect every Biblical issue to the point of confusion and anger from those on either side?

 

But now, I'm expected to teach science to my children. Right now, we're using Heart of Dakota, which (next year) teaches a literal 6-day creation and dinosaurs living with people. I don't know how DH is going to feel about that when he finds out. I don't know how I feel about that. I can't afford to buy the science textbooks, read them, then decide I don't like them and have to buy something else. And I can't get them from my library to preview, either. I really feel like I need more information. Does anyone have some good websites that address this issue from both sides?

 

If I don't make a definite decision one way or the other, I suppose I could teach both views and let the boys discuss and decide for themselves, but I don't know what books I would use for the old earth perspective. Can you recommend some of those, as well?

[ChandlerMom]

Basically, any science textbook is going to present a 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution is true position. You can take any secular material, including CPO which you can access for free of Kingfisher or DK WOrld History encyclopedias.

 

I know it seems confusing, but it really isn't.

 

Among scientists (especially those in the biologies) there is no uncertainty on this: evolution is true. Period. Scientifically there is more evidence and "proof" than there is for gravity. Note that GOD or a "Designer" cannot be included in any scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

 

Among fundamentalists there is no uncertainty: the bible says 6-days of creation, that is truth.

 

Some people try to shoehorn the two together, which is fine, but IMO, it is disingenuous to teach SCIENCE as being uncertain of evolution. I think it is fine to teach evolution and then say, "this is what science has to say, but we believe something different because the bible says X." You can explain WHY you believe differently. You may believe that since the scientific method misses the boat because it cannot consider a GOd hypothesis.

 

Put another way, science is about testable theories supported by observations. Religion is about Faith. IMO they should be kept separate, and THEN you can discuss their intersection: what YOU believe.

Edited October 3, 2011 by ChandlerMom

[SonshineLearner]

.....

Put another way, science is about theories and observations. Religion is about Faith. IMO they should be kept separate, and THEN you can discuss their intersection: what YOU believe.

Unless you believe that God created it all, he is the Author of Science and so... it cannot be kept separate. Creation and all that is in it, is God's. Scientists may believe one way, and change their "finds" later, but what and how God did things is not changeable.

I believe in a literal "6-Day" Creation, but know that however God did it... is how He did it.

I believe that God is much bigger and he is able to do what He chooses, without me necessarily being able to explain it.

Our co-op is using "God's Design for Science" and I think we'll use it.... It's for grades 1-8.

[laughing lioness]

"Education is never complete if it ignores the verity that all truth is an integrated whole. Education that separates facts from faith, head from heart, and science from religion ultimatly falls short. The best education teaches us to confront the false dichotomies of our day. Good education becomes great when it emboldens us as a community of learners to demand that our faith informs our facts and our facts inform our faith."

~ Everett Piper, Ph.d.

I doubt very much that you'll find a web-site that addresses these issues from all sides. I would recommend Reasons to Believe

[justamouse]

Read THE LANGUAGE OF GOD by Francis Collins and see if that helps any.

 

From Publishers Weekly

 

Collins, a pioneering medical geneticist who once headed the Human Genome Project, adapts his title from President Clinton's remarks announcing completion of the first phase of the project in 2000: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life." Collins explains that as a Christian believer, "the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship." This marvelous book combines a personal account of Collins's faith and experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of more general topics of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution. Following the lead of C.S. Lewis, whose Mere Christianity was influential in Collins's conversion from atheism, the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God. (July 17)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

 

All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

 

[Beth in SW WA]

I doubt very much that you'll find a web-site that addresses these issues from all sides. I would recommend Reasons to Believe

 

:iagree:

 

I am a fan of Dr. Hugh Ross. Good stuff.

[TracyP]

Basically, any science textbook is going to present a 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution is true position. You can take any secular material, including CPO which you can access for free of Kingfisher or DK WOrld History encyclopedias.

 

I know it seems confusing, but it really isn't.

 

Among scientists (especially those in the biologies) there is no uncertainty on this: evolution is true. Period. Scientifically there is more evidence and "proof" than there is for gravity. Note that GOD or a "Designer" cannot be included in any scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

 

Among fundamentalists there is no uncertainty: the bible says 6-days of creation, that is truth.

 

Some people try to shoehorn the two together, which is fine, but IMO, it is disingenuous to teach SCIENCE as being uncertain of evolution. I think it is fine to teach evolution and then say, "this is what science has to say, but we believe something different because the bible says X." You can explain WHY you believe differently. You may believe that the scientific method misses the boat because it cannot consider a GOd hypothesis.

Put another way, science is about testable theories supported by observations. Religion is about Faith. IMO they should be kept separate, and THEN you can discuss their intersection: what YOU believe.

 

:iagree: especially with the bolded.

 

Read THE LANGUAGE OF GOD by Francis Collins and see if that helps any.

 

This book is WONDERFUL.

 

Here is a conversation with two Christian scientists debating evolution on MN public radio. One of the speakers is VP of Reasons to Believe. Very good, thought provoking discussion.

[caedmyn]

Basically, any science textbook is going to present a 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution is true position. You can take any secular material, including CPO which you can access for free of Kingfisher or DK WOrld History encyclopedias.

 

I know it seems confusing, but it really isn't.

 

Among scientists (especially those in the biologies) there is no uncertainty on this: evolution is true. Period. Scientifically there is more evidence and "proof" than there is for gravity. Note that GOD or a "Designer" cannot be included in any scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

 

Among fundamentalists there is no uncertainty: the bible says 6-days of creation, that is truth.

 

Some people try to shoehorn the two together, which is fine, but IMO, it is disingenuous to teach SCIENCE as being uncertain of evolution. I think it is fine to teach evolution and then say, "this is what science has to say, but we believe something different because the bible says X." You can explain WHY you believe differently. You may believe that since the scientific method misses the boat because it cannot consider a GOd hypothesis.

 

Put another way, science is about testable theories supported by observations. Religion is about Faith. IMO they should be kept separate, and THEN you can discuss their intersection: what YOU believe.

 

Evolution is just as faith-based as belief in creation. The origins of the world and in fact all history up to a few thousand years ago are not observable. The scientific evidence is interpreted in light of one's belief system. If you believe in evolution, you interpret the evidence according to the belief that things evolved and the earth is billions of years ago. If you believe in creation you interpret the evidence according to the belief that God created the earth and the earth is very young.

 

There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports creation and flat out does not fit in with the theory of evolution. It is impossible to scientifically prove either creation or evolution...in the end everyone makes a leap of faith.

 

And there are quite a number of scientists who do not believe in evolution and/or realize that it has significant problems. It is not accurate to say that there is no uncertainty among scientists about whether evolution is true. It would be more accurate to say that the general PERCEPTION is that there is no uncertainty, but that's not based on fact.

 

I truly don't understand how those who believe in an "old earth" view of creation get around the fact that the Bible says plants were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. If each day was in fact thousands of years, how did the plants survive until the sun was created? IMO it is important to decide whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation or a thousands-of-years one, because if you don't believe that Genesis is accurate the way it is written, it opens the door to disbelieving any other part of the Bible if it become convenient to do so.

[acurtis75]

I would recommend reading materials from Answers in Genesis also. Everyone on here has their own opinions about the topic but if you want to educate yourself you have to read materials on both sides of the fence. It is true that virtually all texbooks and/or library books you are going to read as part of a good education will reference billions of years. The AIG website has materials which clearly explain the ye thinking. If you find yourself unsure about what to believe at the very least it will help you present both sides to your children. I think it's important to be able to discuss these issues with children when they are young. I personally never heard of ye until I was an adult and there are a lot of children who have only heard of ye who will be quite confused when they get to college. I would also be careful about setting up the idea of science vs God. There are talented, well-educated scientists who believe in ye and there are talented, well-educated scientists who believe in billions of years.

[WishboneDawn]

Basically, any science textbook is going to present a 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution is true position. You can take any secular material, including CPO which you can access for free of Kingfisher or DK WOrld History encyclopedias.

 

Evolution is the only theory that explains the evidence. But it's inaccurate to claim it's truth because science doesn't make truth claims.

[mytwomonkeys]

Evolution is just as faith-based as belief in creation. The origins of the world and in fact all history up to a few thousand years ago are not observable. The scientific evidence is interpreted in light of one's belief system. If you believe in evolution, you interpret the evidence according to the belief that things evolved and the earth is billions of years ago. If you believe in creation you interpret the evidence according to the belief that God created the earth and the earth is very young.

 

There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports creation and flat out does not fit in with the theory of evolution. It is impossible to scientifically prove either creation or evolution...in the end everyone makes a leap of faith.

 

And there are quite a number of scientists who do not believe in evolution and/or realize that it has significant problems. It is not accurate to say that there is no uncertainty among scientists about whether evolution is true. It would be more accurate to say that the general PERCEPTION is that there is no uncertainty, but that's not based on fact.

 

I truly don't understand how those who believe in an "old earth" view of creation get around the fact that the Bible says plants were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. If each day was in fact thousands of years, how did the plants survive until the sun was created? IMO it is important to decide whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation or a thousands-of-years one, because if you don't believe that Genesis is accurate the way it is written, it opens the door to disbelieving any other part of the Bible if it become convenient to do so.

 

if no one else appreciates your post, i wanted to say i do! i agree completely.:)

[Georgiana Daniels]

:lurk5:

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

Note that GOD or a "Designer" cannot be included in any scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

 

Among fundamentalists there is no uncertainty: the bible says 6-days of creation, that is truth.

 

 

Creation can be no more tested and proven than can the evolutionary big bang- molecules to man theory that is taught as truth in public schools.

 

Scientific theories must be testable and capable of being proven false. Neither evolution nor biblical creation qualifies as a scientific theory in this sense, because each deals with historical events that cannot be repeated. Both evolution and creation are based on unobserved assumptions about past events. It is inconsistent to say that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory while creation does not. Both have scientific character by attempting to correlate scientific data within a certain framework (model).

No theory of origins can avoid using philosophical statements as a foundation. Creationists use a supernatural act by an Intelligent Designer to explain the origin of the universe and the life we see on earth. Evolutionists do not allow any supernatural explanation as a foundation but insist that only natural laws and processes can be used as explanations. Both are worldviews used to interpret the data. The data is the same; the interpretations arrive at different conclusions based on the starting assumptions.

 

 

Macro evolution has never been observed, micro evolution has. No creationist that knows what they are talking about and truly knows the difference between micro and macro evolution will ever deny the fact that micro evolution exists. Its observable and its true. Noah did not take 5,000 different kinds/breeds of dogs on the ark. He took 1 male dog and 1 female dog- micro evolution has changed dogs into so many different breeds but the fact remains a dog is still a dog. It will not nor has ever evolved from something else or into something else.

Edited October 3, 2011 by wy_kid_wrangler04

[TracyP]

And there are quite a number of scientists who do not believe in evolution and/or realize that it has significant problems. It is not accurate to say that there is no uncertainty among scientists about whether evolution is true. It would be more accurate to say that the general PERCEPTION is that there is no uncertainty, but that's not based on fact.

 

 

Do you have names? BTW, I don't mean to be snarky. I have researched this for ages and always hear that "lots of scientists" have doubts about evolution but out of the thousands of scientists in the world there seem to be very, very few who question evolution. If you could give me some names I would be hugely appreciative.:)

[justamouse]

I truly don't understand how those who believe in an "old earth" view of creation get around the fact that the Bible says plants were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. If each day was in fact thousands of years, how did the plants survive until the sun was created? IMO it is important to decide whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation or a thousands-of-years one, because if you don't believe that Genesis is accurate the way it is written, it opens the door to disbelieving any other part of the Bible if it become convenient to do so.

 

Many people don't believe that the 'days' of Genesis are literal. Many people believe that Genesis is a literary book, and not a science text.

 

Many people, who are Christian, don't believe in Sola Scriptura, and therefore have no beef with Genesis being a literary book and don't disbelieve the rest of the bible because of that.

 

You just joined in March. I don't think we've had a YE/OE dustup since the early spring, maybe? You may want to check old threads-this has been hashed out ad nauseum before.

Edited October 3, 2011 by justamouse

[mytwomonkeys]

Do you have names? BTW, I don't mean to be snarky. I have researched this for ages and always hear that "lots of scientists" have doubts about evolution but out of the thousands of scientists in the world there seem to be very, very few who question evolution. If you could give me some names I would be hugely appreciative.:)

 

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

 

lots here:)

[Daisy]

Look, none of what we believe on this forum matters.

 

You need to sit down with your husband and hash out how YOUR family wants to present it. You don't want to leave him in the dark. That isn't fair to him.

 

I like to say our family is young earth, but old earth-friendly. Bottom line...

 

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

I'll add that at some point unless you decide to divide your life into neat little compartments of faith and science, you are going to have to decide which of those things has greater authority in your life. Scripture or Science? I consider only ONE of those areas infallible so it makes it pretty easy for me to decide from what direction I tackle the issue of origins. It may look more like old earth or young earth but doctrinally it really should be "God created."

 

BTW, young earth creationists believe in micro-evolution also.

[boscopup]

Look, none of what we believe on this forum matters.

 

You need to sit down with your husband and hash out how YOUR family wants to present it.

 

:iagree: Figure out what you and your DH believe and what you want to teach your children. For now, I present mostly texts that are friendly to my and my DH's POV, but I do mention to my 7 year old that some people believe something different. When he gets to logic stage, we'll go more in depth. In the end, he'll know a lot about both sides, but he'll have had the foundation of what we believe.

 

It's easy to present OE ideas with library books. YE ideas are harder to find at the library, but you said you're using HOD and already have the books for that? So pick which way you want to go. You shouldn't need to spend any money. The issue also doesn't come up in *everything*. In fact, there are plenty of curricula that just don't talk about origins in the grammar stage (RSO, ES, RS4K, etc.), so they're considered "neutral".

[TracyP]

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

 

lots here:)

 

 

Thank you. This is the problem I keep running into. Here is their list of "scientists and scholars". There are 10 people named here but only 1 is a scientist. Even if all 10 were scientists that would be a tiny number but only 1? (sigh) Thanks for the site though. I haven't ever been to that one so I will poke around some more.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

Evolution is just as faith-based as belief in creation. The origins of the world and in fact all history up to a few thousand years ago are not observable. The scientific evidence is interpreted in light of one's belief system. If you believe in evolution, you interpret the evidence according to the belief that things evolved and the earth is billions of years ago. If you believe in creation you interpret the evidence according to the belief that God created the earth and the earth is very young.

 

There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports creation and flat out does not fit in with the theory of evolution. It is impossible to scientifically prove either creation or evolution...in the end everyone makes a leap of faith.

 

And there are quite a number of scientists who do not believe in evolution and/or realize that it has significant problems. It is not accurate to say that there is no uncertainty among scientists about whether evolution is true. It would be more accurate to say that the general PERCEPTION is that there is no uncertainty, but that's not based on fact.

 

I truly don't understand how those who believe in an "old earth" view of creation get around the fact that the Bible says plants were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. If each day was in fact thousands of years, how did the plants survive until the sun was created? IMO it is important to decide whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation or a thousands-of-years one, because if you don't believe that Genesis is accurate the way it is written, it opens the door to disbelieving any other part of the Bible if it become convenient to do so.

 

 

:lol: I think had I read posts before posting I would have saw that we posted nearly the same thing. I almost put in the part of plants being created on day 3, the sun on day 4 and the flying birds/insects to pollinate them on day 5. I too wonder how any old earth creationist explains that :001_huh: Also the author of Genesis put in11 little words that makes a huge difference on every day of creation- 'and there was evening, and there was morning, the ________ day' That was done because God knew that there would be questions after the evolutionary theory became (in the 1800's) about creation being a literal 6 days or a figurative 6 days.

[Five More Minutes]

 

If I don't make a definite decision one way or the other, I suppose I could teach both views and let the boys discuss and decide for themselves, but I don't know what books I would use for the old earth perspective. Can you recommend some of those, as well?

 

Another source for you to look at might be the RS4K materials, which are designed to be as "worldview-netural" as possible. Basically Keller leaves out discussion of origins in the texts, allowing you as the parent to add in the particular slant you want to take.

 

The Meeting House did a sermon series in 2007 Titled "The God Debate." The sermon on Darwin was a quick, helpful summary of different perspectives on the issue and the questions that each group has yet to answer. (If you want to see it, you can get it via their vodcast.) They leave it pretty open-ended.

[mytwomonkeys]

Thank you. This is the problem I keep running into. Here is their list of "scientists and scholars". There are 10 people named here but only 1 is a scientist. Even if all 10 were scientists that would be a tiny number but only 1? (sigh) Thanks for the site though. I haven't ever been to that one so I will poke around some more.

 

 

you're welcome:) fwiw, i believe in a literal 6 day creation, so it's not a site i frequent, nor do i have a list of scientists to share with you. i fully understand my beliefs require faith & i'm really okay with that. my kids will learn about evolution though; i don't plan to shelter them from that at all.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

Do you have names?

 

 

This is just a partial list of creation scientists

 

 

 

 

• Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry

• Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

• Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist

• Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist

• Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist

• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

• Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist

• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

• Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

• Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

• Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

• Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology

• Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology

• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

• Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

• Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

• Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

• Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

• Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

• Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist

• Dr. Bob Compton, DVM

• Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist

• Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist

 

[Free]

Note that GOD or a "Designer" cannot be included in any scientific theory, because it isn't testable.

.

.

.

Some people try to shoehorn the two together, which is fine, but IMO, it is disingenuous to teach SCIENCE as being uncertain of evolution. I think it is fine to teach evolution and then say, "this is what science has to say, but we believe something different because the bible says X." You can explain WHY you believe differently. You may believe that since the scientific method misses the boat because it cannot consider a GOd hypothesis.

 

Put another way, science is about testable theories supported by observations. Religion is about Faith. IMO they should be kept separate, and THEN you can discuss their intersection: what YOU believe.

 

IMO, this describes exactly how one could approach the topic in a way that does not misrepresent either religion or science (which is unfortunately what many tend to do). Agree especially with the bolded parts.

[sarahli]

Creation can be no more tested and proven than can the evolutionary big bang- molecules to ma theory that is taught as truth in public schools.

 

Scientific theories must be testable and capable of being proven false. Neither evolution nor biblical creation qualifies as a scientific theory in this sense, because each deals with historical events that cannot be repeated. Both evolution and creation are based on unobserved assumptions about past events. It is inconsistent to say that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory while creation does not. Both have scientific character by attempting to correlate scientific data within a certain framework (model).

No theory of origins can avoid using philosophical statements as a foundation. Creationists use a supernatural act by an Intelligent Designer to explain the origin of the universe and the life we see on earth. Evolutionists do not allow any supernatural explanation as a foundation but insist that only natural laws and processes can be used as explanations. Both are worldviews used to interpret the data. The data is the same; the interpretations arrive at different conclusions based on the starting assumptions.

 

 

Macro evolution has never been observed, micro evolution has. No creationist that knows what they are talking about and truly knows the difference between micro and macro evolution will ever deny the fact that micro evolution exists. Its observable and its true. Noah did not take 5,000 different kinds/breeds of dogs on the ark. He took 1 male dog and 1 female dog- micro evolution has changed dogs into so many different breeds but the fact remains a dog is still a dog. It will not nor has ever evolved from something else or into something else.

 

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution, which only deals with life-forms adapting and mutating. The Theory of Evolution by natural selection also does not answer questions about the origins of life.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory, and it is testable. It has not been falsified, and there is overwhelming evidence.

 

Macroevolution- The creationists arguments are outdated.

 

Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[13] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.

 

Evolution and faith can be compatible, if someone puts their hope in the promises that Jesus makes in the Bible (or whatever religious book they choose). If someone's faith rests in the hope that more than 99% of scientists are wrong, that battle has already been lost. Just look at Martin Luther's words "insisting" the Earth is flat. It sounds the same way when clergy attempt to outsmart scientists.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

• Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
  
• Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
  
• Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
  
• Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
  
• Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
  
• Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
  
• Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
  
• Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
  
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
  
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
  
• Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
  
• Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
  
• Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
  
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
  
• Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
  
• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
  
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
  
• Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
  
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
  
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
  
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
  
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
  
• Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
  
• Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
  
• Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
  
• Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
  
• Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
  
• Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
  
• Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
  
• Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
  
• Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
  
• Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
  
• Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
  
• Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
  
• Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
  
• Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
  
• Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
  
• Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
  
• Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
  
• Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
  
• Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
  
• Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
  
• Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
  
• Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
  
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
  
• Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
  
• Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
  
• Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
  
• Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
  
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
  
• Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
  
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
  
• George T. Javor, Biochemistry
  
• Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
  
• Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
  
• Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
  
• Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
  
• Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
  
• Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
  
• Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
  
• Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
  
• Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
  
• Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
  
• Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
  
• Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
  
• Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
  
• Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
  
• Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
  
• Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
  
• Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
  
• Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
  
• Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
  
• Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
  
• Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
  
• Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
  
• Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
  
• Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
  
• Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
  
• Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
  
• Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
  
• Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
  
• Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
  
• Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
  
• Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
  
• Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
  
• Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
  
• Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
  
• Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
  
• Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
  
• Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
  
• Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
  
• Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
  
• Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
  
• Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
  
• Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
  
• Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
  
• Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
  
• Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
  
• Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
  
• Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
  
• Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
  

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

There is no way to put all of them in a post on here. There are to many

 

 

• Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
  
• Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
  
• Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
  
• Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
  
• Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
  
• Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
  
• Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
  
• Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
  
• Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
  
• Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
  
• Prof. Richard Porter
  
• Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
  
• Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
  
• Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
  
• Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
  
• Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
  
• Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
  
• Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
  
• Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
  
• Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
  
• Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
  
• Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
  
• Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
  
• Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
  
• Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
  
• Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
  
• Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
  
• Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
  
• Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
  
• Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
  
• Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
  
• Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
  
• Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
  
• Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
  
• Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
  
• Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
  
• Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
  
• Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
  
• Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
  
• Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
  
• Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
  
• Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
  
• Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
  
• Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
  
• Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
  
• Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
  
• Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
  
• Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
  
• Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
  
• Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
  
• Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
  
• Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
  
• Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
  
• Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
  
• Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
  
• Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
  
• Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
  
• Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
  
• Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
  
• Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
  
• Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
  
• Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
  
• Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
  
• Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
  

[Blossom'sGirl]

I found this funny because I have been tempted to post this same sort of question on the high school board concerning 9th grade biology. It seems that science curriculums either go one way or the other, with the beginning of the universe, and never the two shall meet. I like the idea of Apologia because it is written with the home educator in mind. I like public school texts because they seem more visually interesting and scientifically accepted, but the evolution presented as an absolute fact seems too agenda orientated for me. I have yet to see how Apologia, BJU, and Abeka present both sides, if they even do.

[rgrin]

Wow, great resources, everyone! And those are some impressive lists, Wrangler! This is what makes this forum so great. Thanks to all! :thumbup1:

[Ray]

"Evolution is just as faith-based as belief in creation."

No, I disagree.

 

" A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it " - Jacques Monod

This, I agree.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Ray
added Monod quote

[Beth in SW WA]

 

I truly don't understand how those who believe in an "old earth" view of creation get around the fact that the Bible says plants were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. If each day was in fact thousands of years, how did the plants survive until the sun was created? IMO it is important to decide whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation or a thousands-of-years one, because if you don't believe that Genesis is accurate the way it is written, it opens the door to disbelieving any other part of the Bible if it become convenient to do so.

 

Exegesis and Hermeneutics. Please google these terms.

 

"A text cannot mean what it never meant. Or to put it in a positive way, the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken." -- Dr. Gordon Fee

 

The ancient Hebrews (the intended audience of the Genesis narrative) weren't concerned with times/days/specifics. They were simply concerned with the fact that GOD created, He is separate from His creation (in contrast to the creation-worshiping & idol-worshiping tribes), and He loves them. They didn't interpret the Genesis creation narrative as a scientific thesis.

 

How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth by Dr. Gordon Fee is an excellent resource.

[warneral]

To me it comes down to whether I believe the bible is true and literal. I *could* see how the argument that Genesis was written in story form (seeing how much later it was written). However the rest of scripture and Jesus Himself points to the truth of Genesis.

 

I personally choose to believe that God speaks the truth through his Word and he provides us with what we need to know. I believe that science is the study of God's creation and therefore what the bible says is completely authoritative in understanding what I need to know about the creation of our world. Do I understand it? Nope! But will I believe God's word over man's limited understanding of things he cannot and will never actually see? Yup!

 

Here is some answers about what the New Testament and Jesus said about creation:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/jesus-say-six-days

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/jesus-on-creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture

 

Now is the time to decide for yourself how you want to present these questions to your kids. Best wishes!

[TracyP]

Wy_kid, thank you! I will spend some more time looking at this list later. You are going to find me horribly nitpicky but I googled a few. Maybe this is not representative of the whole list but some of these are not scientists and those that are are very old...possibly not even alive?

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

I am gonna leave this thread before it gets any deeper. I generally stay away from these threads- but here is my last thought before I do not open this thread again :lol:

 

If you are a Christian who believes the Bible is infallible, how can you question the validity of Genesis as literal days as the wording in the creation says? If you question the validity of Genesis, how can you say the Bible is the Infallible Word of God?

 

 

Now, I am out of this thread, and won't be back. I said my piece :D Its been a good discussion so far and so that is why I want to leave now, before any bashing may or may not occur. Anyways-- I have a math lesson to teach :glare:

[Free]

Scientific theories must be testable and capable of being proven false. Neither evolution nor biblical creation qualifies as a scientific theory in this sense, because each deals with historical events that cannot be repeated. Both evolution and creation are based on unobserved assumptions about past events. It is inconsistent to say that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory while creation does not.

 

Evolution makes testable and falsifiable predictions. For example, it predicts the layers in which a particular fossil should be found.

 

Neil Shubin and his team were able to accurately predict not only which geological layer the transitional form between fishes and amphibians could be found but also where on earth they would have the highest chance of finding one. Their expedition led to the discovery of the Tiktaalik. Shubin has written Your Inner Fish (which I highly recommend) explaining the methodology used for this discovery. It is also an excellent treatise on common descent.

 

There are other predictions which the theory makes such as for example the tree of life which can be confirmed (or falsified) by DNA evidence.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Free

[Free]

Since you are looking for websites I will post this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. It is however very extensive and will require quite a bit of study.

 

If you have access to a library and would like to check out some books I recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It is brief, concise and well written. Your Inner Fish, which I mentioned in an earlier post is also very very good.

[Daisy]

Never mind.

[Happy2BaMom]

Look, none of what we believe on this forum matters.

 

You need to sit down with your husband and hash out how YOUR family wants to present it. You don't want to leave him in the dark. That isn't fair to him.

 

I agree with Daisy.

 

 

Good grief, this thread has devolved into another creation-evolution argument. No one has ever convinced anyone else by throwing "facts" around. Really, posting a list of scientists believing in creation? What's next, someone else posting umpteen pages of scientists believing in evolution? Get off of it, and return to the question of the OP.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Happy2BaMom
clarity

[AimeeM]

My husband is one :o)

He has a degree in Physics (although that isn't what he does now, as a career). We are theistic evolutionists; but do not agree with the literal Darwin based evolution theory. He (my husband) could, of course, explain our objections much better than I can. Lol.

Do you have names? BTW, I don't mean to be snarky. I have researched this for ages and always hear that "lots of scientists" have doubts about evolution but out of the thousands of scientists in the world there seem to be very, very few who question evolution. If you could give me some names I would be hugely appreciative.:)

[susankenny]

Good grief. These threads repeat every quarter. Just do a search & you will find 50 page threads of the same people saying the same things with the same recommendations.

 

I'm curious though. Heart of Dakota is very clearly a YE Christ-centered curriculum. Why choose it if it rubs you the wrong way??

 

Susan

[susankenny]

Good grief, this thread has devolved into another creation-evolution argument.

 

LOL. My thoughts precisely!

[silliness7]

Creation can be no more tested and proven than can the evolutionary big bang- molecules to man theory that is taught as truth in public schools.

 

Scientific theories must be testable and capable of being proven false. Neither evolution nor biblical creation qualifies as a scientific theory in this sense, because each deals with historical events that cannot be repeated. Both evolution and creation are based on unobserved assumptions about past events. It is inconsistent to say that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory while creation does not. Both have scientific character by attempting to correlate scientific data within a certain framework (model).

No theory of origins can avoid using philosophical statements as a foundation. Creationists use a supernatural act by an Intelligent Designer to explain the origin of the universe and the life we see on earth. Evolutionists do not allow any supernatural explanation as a foundation but insist that only natural laws and processes can be used as explanations. Both are worldviews used to interpret the data. The data is the same; the interpretations arrive at different conclusions based on the starting assumptions.

 

 

Macro evolution has never been observed, micro evolution has. No creationist that knows what they are talking about and truly knows the difference between micro and macro evolution will ever deny the fact that micro evolution exists. Its observable and its true. Noah did not take 5,000 different kinds/breeds of dogs on the ark. He took 1 male dog and 1 female dog- micro evolution has changed dogs into so many different breeds but the fact remains a dog is still a dog. It will not nor has ever evolved from something else or into something else.

 

:iagree::iagree: Love this!! Thank you. :)

[TracyP]

Good grief. These threads repeat every quarter. Just do a search & you will find 50 page threads of the same people saying the same things with the same recommendations.

 

I'm curious though. Heart of Dakota is very clearly a YE Christ-centered curriculum. Why choose it if it rubs you the wrong way??

 

Susan

 

I have found HOD to be very kind toward folks who are not YE. Maybe this changes in later levels?

 

Ya know, you don't have to participate if you are tired of the conversation.;)

[susankenny]

I have found HOD to be very kind toward folks who are not YE. Maybe this changes in later levels?

 

Ya know, you don't have to participate if you are tired of the conversation.;)

 

Well, if you research HOD, you will find that it indeed incorporates the YE perspective.

 

It's not the conversation of asking questions here, it's the predictability of these threads where it becomes very black and white. Rinse. Repeat.

 

 

Susan

[abacus2]

We actually just attended a symposium on this topic put on by the Bryan Center for Critical Thought and Practice. This is very important to us because we are Christians who believe that the Bible is reliable and we take academic study and science very seriously. There are reasonable and serious interpretations of Genesis which allow for long periods of time and evolution as mechanisms of God's creation. As Christians, I do not believe that we need to be afraid of truth. The Bible can lead us to question scientific interpretations and science can lead us to question our interpretation of the Bible. I also think humility is a very good idea.

 

I also think sometimes people believe that the Bible and science are in conflict when really they could be describing the same event with different language. Doesn't the big bang theory fit well with the Biblical idea that God spoke the universe into existence? I think so. Christians will sometimes suggest that God created the world with the appearance of age. Isn't that scienifically that same as the earth actually being old? It is also possible that some missing piece of information could resolve apparent conflict. One possible theory reconciling the six days of creation and billions of years involves the theory of relativity. Six literal days from God's perspective at creation could be billions of years from our perspective.

Edited October 3, 2011 by abacus2

[momto2blessings]

Didn't have a chance to read all responses. I just wanted to add that we know a retired physics professor who believes it's inconclusive whether the earth is young or old. He's also a strong, evangelical Christian. He said that if he had to pick, he'd pick old...only because that's where the research has been done. If more research is done on young that could change. I strongly disagree with oranizations who come across that you HAVE to be young earth to be a Christian. Simply not true and very divisive, IMHO:) We just teach our kids that there's evidence both ways and it really doesn't matter....we just know that God did it! Blessings, Gina

[justamouse]

To me it comes down to whether I believe the bible is true and literal. I *could* see how the argument that Genesis was written in story form (seeing how much later it was written). However the rest of scripture and Jesus Himself points to the truth of Genesis.

 

I personally choose to believe that God speaks the truth through his Word and he provides us with what we need to know. I believe that science is the study of God's creation and therefore what the bible says is completely authoritative in understanding what I need to know about the creation of our world. Do I understand it? Nope! But will I believe God's word over man's limited understanding of things he cannot and will never actually see? Yup!

 

Here is some answers about what the New Testament and Jesus said about creation:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/jesus-say-six-days

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/jesus-on-creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture

 

Now is the time to decide for yourself how you want to present these questions to your kids. Best wishes!

 

 

Do yourself a favor and search the hive for Ken Ham threads. I think the last thread on AIG happened before May, when you joined.

[TracyP]

Well, if you research HOD, you will find that it indeed incorporates the YE perspective.

 

Susan

 

Every Christian curric out there seems to ascribe to the YE philosophy. There are some that actually go so far as to teach that if you don't your faith in Christ is not valid. I DO NOT see HOD as being one of these. I think this is an issue that can be worked around with HOD. The problem lies in figuring out my own beliefs.:tongue_smilie:

 

OP, sorry if I am derailing your thread. I just have the same questions as you. Good luck!

[rgrin]

I'm curious though. Heart of Dakota is very clearly a YE Christ-centered curriculum. Why choose it if it rubs you the wrong way??

 

We have loved the methods and Bible-based teaching of HOD. It's worked very well for my boys so far. If you don't love one part of a curriculum, is that a good reason to toss the rest of the great stuff out in search of another that MAY work for you? Based on comments from this board, there IS no "perfect curriculum." I'm also not anti-YE. I just don't know much about it, and I need to learn more before I try to have an in-depth discussion about it with DH. It's best to be informed before going into that type of decision making process! And I'm not sure about only one "side" being presented, either. I'm basically looking for resources, here.

[serendipitous journey]

RE the OP:

 

Schlessinger Library videos assume standard (ie, old earth/evolutionary) information, and their "All About ... " series is aimed at K-4. We liked All About Earth's History and All About Land Formations, and haven't seen All About Fossils or All About the Planets. There's a sale at the site I linked to, but I don't think I'd buy them if I were you; you might be able to find them through your library, or an online rental. And Neal Layton's pop-up "The Story of Everything" has been a hit here, on the book end.

 

I wish the board was generally more encouraging of an inquisitive, not-having-all-the-answers-yet approach. Believing that a person can know all about the history of the world and the intentions of it's Creator from reading the available text seems, to me, to border on idolatry; on replacing faith in a Creator with a trust in human abilities to correctly interpret/read a physical object, which itself was created by persons who are not perfect.

 

The above is not to condemn people with the most literal views, but to try and open space for other, legitimate, faith-based beliefs.

 

The separation of Creator from science is both necessary and an utter illusion. Necessary, because modern science is defined as testing theories that are falsifiable: a theory is not scientific if there is no way to test it's truth against the measurable, empirical world. The Christian Creator is not a part of nature to be measured, observed, or otherwise quantified; in fact, one Christian thinker (Eliade??) said that to say one Believes in God is to be further from Him than to say one Does Not Believe in God, because it makes the Creator a thing in a universe of other things.

 

On the other hand of course faith informs all aspects of our lives, including how we practice science, literary analysis, child-raising, etc., so of course a person's faith will have a strong effect on the science they do, and the science they perceive, and their whole interaction with the natural world. A person of faith will see that faith manifest in the observable world around her.

 

-- I will try to find some good resources on this from a scientist, Christian friend of mine. The best resources on combining the two sides seem to be from the intelligent design folks, so far as I know.

 

best of luck and blessings to all on this thread.

 

ps- am toddlerized, so this post is even more flawed than it would be otherwise! I do Mean Well, and not to condemn anyone.

Edited October 3, 2011 by serendipitous journey