If your family has a young earth view (or not)....

[Bluegoat]

I said I was getting off of here, but I had to add a couple of comments to this post:

 

 

 

We as Christians need to stop trying to force the Bible to agree with the evolutionary "evidence". The Bible already tells us how it happened! AIG is a great resource for explaining the scientific evidence in light of the Bible. (Which is how we should do it. Don't try to explain the Bible in light of the scientific evidence. Science can make mistakes. The Bible is infallible and inerrant.)

 

The idea that the only thing meant by "truth" is a kind of factual, historical play by play is of recent origin. In fact it comes from the very same historical ideas that leads a few scientists to say that science is the only kind of sure knowledge that is possible. They are two sides of the same modern approach.

 

People in the ancient world did not think that way. The understood that there were different kinds of ways of expressing things that could be truthful. Sometimes they used theater, or poetry, or myth-type stories, parables, pithy sayings... there are any number. They were also very much interested in layers of meaning, deeper symbolic meanings, and things like that. (God's creation of light, for example, was often understood as meaning the angels.)

 

They wrote histories that were meant to be largely factual, for sure, and the Gospels fall into that category. Although even in those cases they sometimes were less interested in getting each individual fact correct and more interested in presenting things in such a way that their meaning was clear. That is why when the gospels and acts - which are meant to be understood as real histories - sometimes have details that don't seem quite right or to fit together, they weren't worried. Each presentation was meant to bring out particular important ideas. (You can compare that to some ancient or medieval art work where the more important people were large and the less important and buildings and animals were small. The picture was made toconvey meaning of the story, where people are more important than castles, it is not trying to tell us that humans are actually larger than castles.)

 

And in the case of the OT, the accounts also represent a relationship with God that deepened over time, and it is an account of that relationship as experiences by human beings rather than as experienced by God.

 

You have to read the text keeping in mind the way the writers meant it to be understood. If they write a poem meant to convey important truths, and you insist on treating it as a scientific account, there is a good chance you will misunderstand.

 

Trying to teach kids that the whole thing is meant literally as history (the parables, the Song of Solomon, the Psalms? How to teach those as literal history in any case?) is very likely to make them scratch their heads as adults and conclude it is not all that believable. In fact I have never heard anyone take that all the way and say the Song of Solomon is a literal history. Everyone understands it is a kind of poem using symbolism and allegory and metaphor.

 

Genesis has over the years since it was written been less clearly that kind of story. It has always been understood to be a kind of spiritual poetry, but many also have believed it to be historical narrative. There is nothing wrong with that from the perspective of Christian history. But there have been those from early in Christian history and in the Jewish tradition who pointed out that there were indications that the story was not a literal history - that is not a new idea from evolution but they surmised it based on the text itself, and because of how they understood the way those books express truth, that wasn't a problem for them.

 

If kids can understand that parables are true but not real history, or the Song of Solomon is true but not literally, I don't see why they can't understand that the creation account may not be literal history. That should not be a threat to their faith.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

 

Regardless of whether you teach evolution or creationism, it is even more critical to fully understand and teach the scientific method and process. This is the fundamental basis for all scientific understanding. If no other science is ever taught again, every child (and adult) needs to at least understand this process.

 

A bit OT, but I think a major problem schools run into with this is they try and teach it too early, before children are able to really understand some of the subtleties. Learning the language is important but it has to be supported by a discussing of how we know things and can investigate things.

 

I know when I was a child we learned how to an experiment in elementary school, and supposedly about the theory behind the scientific method in jr high. But 12 - 15 year olds are often not able to really grasp questions of epistemology. And many people never revisit the topic again. Even many people I know who went on to study science as an undergraduate never really looked at those questions again, even in a brief way.

[sbgrace]

OP, I would just study and pray on this and come to your own conclusions. Beyond that I personally would avoid die hard teaching of anything specific to your kids unless you are absolutely convinced it is 100% certain. It's ok to just say God made the world and everything in it and not come down hard on specifics that just aren't sure things.

 

A couple of, probably, the most thorough Christian resources for both sides would be:

 

Old Earth: Reasons to Believe

http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

Young Earth: Answers in Genesis

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

Correctly done science will never contradict truth. Therefore, solid science will never contradict God. It can't. It can, however, contradict wrong interpretations of God's word or incorrect belief systems. "We see in part" as the bible says. We're fallable. That's 's why I would caution you to not be dogmatic about things that we just can't know 100%. Edited September 3, 2012 by sbgrace

[Tabrett]

 

So, here are my questions....

1) If you teach young earth view to your children, why....

I teach both.

2) If you do not, what view do you teach and why....I teach that God created the universe and there are many theories as to how He created the earth, literal 7 day, gap theory, and the view that the creation story in Genesis is a story about the first temple creation. I don't teach that one species evolved into another, but thst God gave species the ability to adapt and change to their environment over time. IMHO, as long as you believe God made everything how He did it is irrelevant. The point is to believe God made it all.

3) What resources would be a good way to learn more about young earth / old earth philosphies, or Christian evolution theory in an unbiased way so that I can think about what view I would teach in the future?Most Christian homeschool material teach YE. I do not like Ken Ham, so personally, I avoid all AIG material. I would also be interested in a Christian OE homeschool material, but I don't know of any for elementary aged dc.

4) If you were raised with the secular view of evolution, how did you come to believe young earth theory?I was raised with Creation view.

5) If you have a strong background in science, is their enough evidence to make young earth theory a plausable theory?No science background.

.

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

Ok, yes you are correct in that the common vernacular for the word theory, is not the same as the Scientific term. Point taken.

 

To be honest, I don't want to engage in a debate, because I am not a Christisn who really believes this stuff is worth fighting over. I believe in A creation by God, and I do think there was a specific literal man named Adam but I just don't want to further polarize those Christians who (I think inacurately) state that the Bible necessitates a YE view.

 

To the OP: read the Biblw for yourself. As a brand new believer, you have so many things to study. The search for Truth is always ongoing and it's ok if you never arrive at a specific belief on the age of the earth. Doctrinally, what matters is that God did create, and that He created a real man named Adam who represented the sinful hearts of all people, and that He sent Jesus Christ to live a sinless life and die so that all those who would believe would receive eternal life through Jesus Christ.

 

Know the basics and hold fast to them. God will show you the rest if and when He desires.

[Syndeyjg]

I am YE. I teach both evolution and creation in my homeschool though. I don't do this because we believe evolution but so my kids will not be caught off guard when they hear about it later. I love, love, love our new science curriculum this year, Truth in Science. It teaches both models (neither qualifies as a true theory) side by side and exposes the holes in the evolution model. It tackles a lot of tough questions. And the use of scripture throughout is amazingly well thought out with a heavy emphasis on worldviews. and the science is not watered down in anyway. I love science, but for me it has always been a way of exploring God's creation and to feel blessed that He gives us glimpses into the how and whys of this world. It has never been a place for me to seek answers to the 'big' questions. I use the bible for that.

I did grow up being taught evolution. Becoming a Christian changed that. I do feel that there is scientific evidence to support YE.

[PeacefulChaos]

1) If you teach young earth view to your children, why....

Because it's what we believe and it's what our faith tells us (we/us = my family). I didn't read the other responses and I have no intention to, so the thread may have gone to another topic by this point - but I just wanted to throw out there that for me it's my job as a Christian and the mom of my kids to steer them in the correct way - Jesus - first. (sorry, I don't usually sound so Christian-y or like I'm proselytizing, and I hate to, but it's the fact for our family) Some people may say that doing that is indoctrinating my children. Whatever they want to think - that really isn't my problem. :) It's my problem if I expose my children to everything I find but never show them the truth as what it is - the truth.

I'm not raising ignorant kids. But I think that, as parents, we need to know what we believe and, if it's something we're passionate about/serious about, we need to teach our kids that. We can still show them other points of view in more depth as they get older, but as young children they don't need all that input that could end up skewing their perspective or confusing them in the future. JMO. And I already know it isn't popular. :)

[Esse Quam Videri]

I've studied it extensively and I don't believe the Bible supports evolution. But I don't believe the Bible necessitates a young earth.

 

Or, it could be a young earth that God created to seem old (just like He created Adam as a grown man rather than an infant.)

 

I think standing on Biblical Creation, is super important, because of the imputation of the sin of Adam. There had to be a real Adam.

 

But making a big deal about the age of the earth is not that important to Christians, historically. I get concerned when Christians like Ken Ham act like there's only one view on the age of the earth. It's poor Biblical scholarship.

 

Lastly, on a purely Scientific standpoint, there is not enough evidence for evolution. Evolution is a THEORY. And it has not been proven. There is also not enough evidence for me to accept it as fact, even aside from my Biblical concerns.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[acreecav]

Hi, lea_lpz,

 

I'm wrapping my answers into a story.

 

Although my evangelical parents never felt their faith threatened by mainstream science, somehow by the time I reached AP Bio in high school, I had already rejected evolution on my own.  I think I must have absorbed anti-evolutionism from Christian radio.  In my experience, most Christians have no worries about evolution or origins when they first come to faith, and they only get concerned when, like you, they encounter anti-evolutionism in church, homeschool groups, or other evangelical subcultures like radio.  It's like a contagious illness, and the main symptom is fear: We start to worry that our children won't have faith unless we reject mainstream science, even though science didn't stop us from coming to faith in the first place. 

 

In college I planned a speech for my speech class on the virtues of young earth creationism, but unfortunately I procrastinated my research until the last minute, when I found to my dismay that the creationist claims weren't as solid as I'd supposed.  When I stood up to give my speech, I knew that my statements weren't convincing even to me.  For the next thirty years, I muddled along in the middle, reading arguments from both extremes, feeling that neither the creationism side nor the evolutionary side was completely convincing.

 

From the creationist standpoint, I'd been told that the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) made evolution impossible. I puzzled over this for many years, and I even went through the library stacks at Cornell University trying to find an explanation of how entropy and evolution could both be true. If the second law really meant what I'd been told, how could so many scientists see no contradiction?   I found nothing in the library, and I now know why:  entropy applies only to closed systems, and the earth is not a closed system because the sun pours energy into it around the clock. We don't even know if the universe itself is a completely closed system.

 

From the evolutionary standpoint, I wondered how to understand Christianity's teaching about death as a result of sin.  If death of any kind can result only from human sin, I didn't see how Adam and Eve could even eat fruit (which kills the fruit) and digest it, which involves eventually excreting it, which means there will be waste that must decay, and decay requires microorganisms that live only a few minutes.  Even inside the gut of Eve and Adam there had to be bacteria which have a short life cycle keeping their systems going.  And if their bodies were perfect and immortal, why would they even get hungry and need to eat?  Why would Eden include a Tree of Life if they were immortal right from the start, especially since God warns that they shouldn't touch the tree "lest they eat of it and live forever"?  So the idea that there could not even be plant or animal death before human sin never made sense to me.  I now believe that Creation wasn't perfect, it was Very Good; that mortality was built in from the start; and that the "death" that comes through sin has to be spiritual death, not physical death.

 

After feeling at odds with both the church and the world for decades, a couple of years ago I stumbled upon a book (in a Big Lots of all places) that changed my life. Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl Giberson addressed all my questions in more than shallow ways, and when I finished I felt like I'd found 4-D glasses that helped me see the fantastic marvels of the universe and human beings and blades of grass for the first time.  I've had faith as a young earth/anti-evolutionist, as a confused-in-the-middle uncommitted person, and as a dazzled evolutionary creationist, and I find the last to be the only kind that makes sense both of God's word and God's world, allows me to answer my kids' questions with integrity and confidence, and gives me immense joy in the beauty and power of Christ as Creator.  

 

When we--and I'm including my own former self--are committed to anti-evolutionism, including evolution of the universe and the earth, we can look at details of nature and admire them, but we can't happily dive in to the why's and how's.  This rock has crystals in it because God made it that way.  This volcano is here because God wanted it here.  Poisonous snakes and frogs often have flashy colors because God likes them that way.  Male mammals, including humans, have nipples that are useless because God wanted them there.  Cats torture their prey before eating it because God designed them to do that.  No wonder so many Christians struggle with or even dread teaching science.  It's both fearful and boring at the same time.

 

If we accept evolution as belonging to God, we can investigate how Christ has created all things and peek into the mind of God.  Rocks have different characteristics because God made them in different ways using a host of surprising processes.  Volcanoes are found in strings along tectonic plates because God created a dynamic earth that is still in motion, and we are responsible for taking care of it!  Poisonous snakes and frogs have bright colors because these colors warn other animals not to eat them, and this helps the poisonous animals survive; if they live where they have few or no natural predators, they're more likely to have ordinary colors so they don't stand out.  

 

God has made all of creation with free will, and most of us creatures focus on preserving our own skin, filling our own bellies, seeking our own happiness. We are driven by instinct to be self-centered: it's our "sin nature."  Meanwhile God in love for both the just and the unjust keeps providing what we need to make less selfish choices if we are willing to receive an abundant life that is anti-instinctual: instead of seeking to save our life, we must lose it; instead of hoarding wealth and oppressing others to protect it, we must stop hoarding and start sharing with the "least of these"; instead of killing our enemies, we must love and bless them.   Evolution makes sense of the gospel, because the gospel reveals that our instinctive way of living keeps us thinking like animals.  Gospel living allows us to think like God and reflect God's image.

 

For a wonderful overview of different Christian viewpoints, including various ways of understanding Adam and Eve, I recommend the following book and website, which has videos that can be viewed online:  Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, and http://origins.faithaliveresources.org.  Both are written by wife-and-husband scientists who are professors at Calvin College, Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma.

 

I'm working on a list of resources that help me understand and teach how evolution supports and deepens faith, which you can find (free) at http://teachingscienceandfaith.net if you're looking for such.  If you know of others, or if there's a thread here somewhere where someone else has already listed some, please point me to it or send me an email at carol@tsandf.net.

 

 

 

[redsquirrel]

Zombie thread.  And a wiff of spam...? dredging up an old thread to promote a blog?

[dbaeimers]

After reading all the commits and planing out just what I was going to say, I see that this is an old thread.  If you all don't mind, I am going to say it anyway :)

 

In my humble opinion, God created Adam and Eve as adults not babies.  God created all of the animals as adults, not as babies.  God created the trees and grass as mature trees and grass fully mature not as seedlings.  Why does it not make sense that God could have created the earth fully mature, looking millions of years old even though it was just created?  In the same way, I am sure the day after Adam was created he looked (I don't know, lets guess 30) like an adult not one day old.  So it is possible (and I think likely), that the earth looks millions of years old when in actuality was not created that long ago.

 

I also agree with the above thoughts that no one really knows for sure because we were not around at the time.  It takes just as much faith to believe either way.  

[acreecav]

I didn't notice it was an old thread. I just thought it was an interesting discussion.  And I don't have a blog, just a list of resources. :)

[kristi26]

 

 

I'm working on a list of other resources for understanding how evolution supports and deepens faith, which you can find (free) at http://teachingscienceandfaith.net if you're interested.

 

But this says YOU are working on a list? That's yours, isn't it? ;)

[Wheres Toto]

For anyone interested in learning more about evolution, in a very understandable way - this thread:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/  has some amazing posts from Ruth in NZ - lewelma.

 

It's really really worth reading.

[acreecav]

To Where's Toto,

 

Thanks for this link to the post from lewelma.  I'm only half way through, but it is very helpful so far.

[Reefgazer]

I do think Joshin hit the nail on the head, scientifically-speaking.
 
For myself, I teach old earth solely because that is the only scientifically-supported evidence out there.  Not to say there aren't other ideas out there, but they are not scientifically-supported theories.  Since I do have a strong background in science (my graduate degree was in evolutionary systematics), and there are no other scientifically-supported theories out there that show young earth evidence, that is why creationism/YEC is not scientifically plausible to me. 
 
I think an excellent book for you to read and help understand both poins of view is "Only A Theory" by Ken Miller.  There was an excellent discussion of resources for each point of view here: 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/512901-creation-and-evolution/?hl=evolution

 

ETA:  You can teach solid, legitimate science, including evolutionary science, and still take the Bible as true, as long as you can accept that creationism is faith and science is theory.  The two stances are not mutually exclusive.

 
 

I am currently using MFW K for my dd, 5, and am going to be starting a dinosaur unit next week. I am conflicted about whether or not to read the book, What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs, which is scheduled for reading next week along with the unit.

I am a new Christian. I was raised Catholic, although we seldom attended Mass and I never made conformation, and didn't attend church again until about 2 years ago. We've been attending a non denominational Christian church for the last two years. I went to public school, all the way up through public university at the graduate school level. I have very limited information about the young earth / creationist view of science and was taught the standard evolution theory. I am by no means a science buff. I took only the required science classes to fullfill my general education requirements in college and took the classes which are typically taken by humanity and social sciences students.

So, here are my questions....
1) If you teach young earth view to your children, why....
2) If you do not, what view do you teach and why....
3) What resources would be a good way to learn more about young earth / old earth philosphies, or Christian evolution theory in an unbiased way so that I can think about what view I would teach in the future?
4) If you were raised with the secular view of evolution, how did you come to believe young earth theory?
5) If you have a strong background in science, is their enough evidence to make young earth theory a plausable theory?

I know she is in kindergarten, so reading the book and saying, this is a creationist view point that some people believe, etc, would be fine, or just skipping the book would be fine, too. After all my child is 5, so I don't really have to make this decision quite yet. But, I would personally like to learn more about this so that I can make a solid choice when I do have to begin teaching this.

[Reefgazer]

The key to whether something is a legitimate scientific theory hasn't got anything to do with bias, it has to do with the ability of a hypothesis to be disproven.  If it can be disproven (and evolution can be disproven) it is scientific.  If it cannot be disproven (such as YEC), then it cannot be science.

Reading a unbiased view is not an option. All scientists whether they are young earth or old earth are biased. There actually are many scientific theories in ye. According to the above definition evolution also would not be a theory. But there are many theories from an evolutionary perspective.

basically you need to learn the biased information from both sides in order to truly make a decision.

Since you have learned the basics of evolutionary viewpoint. I would suggest reading lots of the young earth books for kids as a start. Then you can delve deeper. Answers in Genesis is admittedly very biased. They will tell you this themselves, but they have lots of scientific information available. I am not sure where to find a good source on the evolutionary viewpoint, since I studied biology heavily at a secular university I have not felt a great need to review the basics.

As far as teaching I would just tell your son, that you don't know, if he asks. You can let him know both sides if you want. I would probably just wait until you are better able to address it.

Btw, I have studied science more than the average person, I definitely find ye plausible. I was raised in a Christian home, but my parents did not start to consider the ye position until about the time I did in high school, so I don't feel my bias came from childhood. Though I do have th bias of always believing in God and the Bible.

 

[Reefgazer]

And it will never be proven, because no scientific theory in any scientific field is ever proven.  Scientific theories are only disproven; that is how scientific knowledge advances.  If one cannot accept this basic scientific stance, then you must reject the legitimacy of every other scientific advancement ever made (antibiotics, transistors, chemotherapy), because they all stand on the same procedural ground. 

I've studied it extensively and I don't believe the Bible supports evolution. But I don't believe the Bible necessitates a young earth.

Or, it could be a young earth that God created to seem old (just like He created Adam as a grown man rather than an infant.)

I think standing on Biblical Creation, is super important, because of the imputation of the sin of Adam. There had to be a real Adam.

But making a big deal about the age of the earth is not that important to Christians, historically. I get concerned when Christians like Ken Ham act like there's only one view on the age of the earth. It's poor Biblical scholarship.

Lastly, on a purely Scientific standpoint, there is not enough evidence for evolution. Evolution is a THEORY. And it has not been proven. There is also not enough evidence for me to accept it as fact, even aside from my Biblical concerns.

 

[kolamum]

I'd use the old, "When in doubt go without.." theory on this one. You're going to find that this is an incredibly hot topic amongst people right now & which way they feel depends on their own beliefs. Each belief will feel their opinions are right due to the reasons they believe it. As others have said, You won't find an unbiased opinion on the whole YE OE front, which can be really frustrating if you it's not a debate you're interested in.

[lewelma]

I just want to preface this post by saying that I *never* get involved in YE threads, however the OP requested both sides.
 

on a purely Scientific standpoint, there is not enough evidence for evolution.

 
This is false. 
 
 
I have a PhD in evolutionary ecology, and there are 100s of journals throughout the world that have been publishing evolutionary research for decades.  Here is the abstract of the first article that I clicked on from Genome Biology and Evolution from the UK.
 
The A1 family of eukaryotic aspartic proteinases (APs) forms one of 16 aspartic proteinase families. Although one of the best characterized families, the recent increase in genome sequence data has revealed many fungal AP homologues with novel sequence characteristics. The present study was performed to explore the fungal AP sequence space and to obtain an in-depth understanding of fungal AP evolution.
Using a comprehensive phylogeny of ~700 AP sequences from the complete proteomes of 87 fungi and 20 non-fungal eukaryotes, eleven major clades of APs were defined of which clade I largely corresponds to the A1A subfamily of pepsin-archetype APs. Clade II largely corresponds to the A1B subfamily of nepenthesin-archetype APs. Remarkably, the nine other clades contain only fungal APs, thus indicating fungal APs have undergone a large sequence diversification. The topology of the tree indicates fungal APs have been subject to both ‘birth and death’ evolution and 'functional redundancy and diversification'. This is substantiated by co-clustering of certain functional sequence characteristics. A meta-analysis towards the identification of Cluster Determining Positions (CDPs) was performed in order to investigate the structural and biochemical basis for diversification. Seven CDPs contribute to the secondary structure of the enzyme. Three other CDPs are found in the vicinity of the substrate binding cleft.
Tree topology, the large sequence variation among fungal APs and the apparent functional diversification suggest that an amendment to update the current A1 AP classification based on a comprehensive phylogenetic clustering might contribute to refinement of the classification in the MEROPS peptidase database.
 
 
 
Here is an example abstract from the American journal, Journal of Evolutionary Biology
 
Many taxa use conspicuous colouration to attract mates, signal chemical defences (aposematism) or for thermoregulation. Conspicuousness is a key feature of aposematic signals, and experimental evidence suggests that predators avoid conspicuous prey more readily when they exhibit larger body size and/or pattern elements. Aposematic prey species may therefore evolve a larger body size due to predatory selection pressures, or alternatively, larger prey species may be more likely to evolve aposematic colouration. Therefore, a positive correlation between conspicuousness and body size should exist. Here, we investigated whether there was a phylogenetic correlation between the conspicuousness of animal patterns and body size using an intriguing, understudied model system to examine questions on the evolution of animal signals, namely nudibranchs (opisthobranch molluscs). We also used new ways to compare animal patterns quantitatively with their background habitat in terms of intensity variance and spatial frequency power spectra. In studies of aposematism, conspicuousness is usually quantified using the spectral contrast of animal colour patches against its background; however, other components of visual signals, such as pattern, luminance and spectral sensitivities of potential observers, are largely ignored. Contrary to our prediction, we found that the conspicuousness of body patterns in over 70 nudibranch species decreased as body size increased, indicating that crypsis was not limited to a smaller body size. Therefore, alternative selective pressures on body size and development of colour patterns, other than those inflicted by visual hunting predators, may act more strongly on the evolution of aposematism in nudibranch molluscs.
 
++++
 
I have written extensively on the subject of Evolution in this thread if you want a bit of light reading. :001_smile:
 
Ruth in NZ

[IsabelC]

Zombie thread!

 

 

I'd be interested to know what the OP concluded though.

[lewelma]

sigh.  I hate it when that happens!

[HappyClassical]

I was raised christian but we did not attend church or discuss religion. It came later in life. Prior to really becoming a christian and accepting Jesus Christ into my life, I doubted evolution theories.

 

I'm an old Earth Creationist. I also find Big Bang to be highly plausible and don't believe Big Bang to be exclusive of God is creator. I do not believe man evolved from apes.

 

I try to choose neutral curriculum choices. I do not use Apologia because it is so heavily YE. I also avoid texts which push evolution. Otherwise, I just address controversial topics or omit them because my children are very young.

 

I'd likely fall under the Baptist and conservative denomination- not all baptists are YE, not all people who believe in the bible literally are YE. And quite frankly- I know a great many wonderful christians who believe YE or OE; this topic really was not such a hot button until the 1900s when leaders in the Seventh Day Adventist movement made it so. The major creeds and doctrine prior to that didn't state any explicit YE statements.

 

In formulating your own beliefs, answersingenesis.org (YE) and reasons.org (OE) are good places to start. There are also resources in evolutionary theism out there as well, however; that reasoning is very far off from my religious beliefs and scientific beliefs so I don't have a great website for you.

[Jasperstone]

I disagree. We are forming our children's worldviews, and I want for mine to believe that the Bible is 100% true. That includes creation in 6 literal days. If we tell our dc that Genesis isn't completely true, then why should they believe the parts about Jesus and salvation?

That's right! Totally believe that too. But I'm not a YEC.

 

Yep, an old earth creationist can still believe in six literal days of creation. It doesn't automatically mean that we hold an Evolutionary belief etc....

[Jasperstone]

After reading all the commits and planing out just what I was going to say, I see that this is an old thread. If you all don't mind, I am going to say it anyway :)

 

In my humble opinion, God created Adam and Eve as adults not babies. God created all of the animals as adults, not as babies. God created the trees and grass as mature trees and grass fully mature not as seedlings. Why does it not make sense that God could have created the earth fully mature, looking millions of years old even though it was just created? In the same way, I am sure the day after Adam was created he looked (I don't know, lets guess 30) like an adult not one day old. So it is possible (and I think likely), that the earth looks millions of years old when in actuality was not created that long ago.

 

I also agree with the above thoughts that no one really knows for sure because we were not around at the time. It takes just as much faith to believe either way.

Yeah, another way of looking at it. Great reasoning!

 

I used to be a YEC, but can see now that the Bible speaks of it being old.

[Jasperstone]

I get concerned when Christians like Ken Ham act like there's only one view on the age of the earth. It's poor Biblical scholarship.

With you there totally. On my phone otherwise would have the* I agree* pic up. :-D

[Heathermomster]

nm

[momto2blessings]

In conservative homeschool circles/curriculum it seems that everyone is young earth. My husband and I are conservative evangelicals(hubby has a nearly completed PhD in theology) and we believe/teach that God created the world but there is no way to know how old the earth is. We have a friend who is a physicist(retired professor from Univ. of Chicago). He's a conservative evangelical, very studied in science/physics and says there's no way to know. If you pinned him to a wall he would choose old earth just because more science has been done in that area...but says it could very well be young earth if more science was studied w/out the old earth bias. It's not popular to be a young earth creationist in a university...you could lose your job. 

 

This article is long but VERY helpful. It's by Sonlight Curriculum's former owner(spouse of current owner). He explains in some detail how you can believe old earth and be a Christian and how that is still supported by the Bible:

 

http://www.sonlight.com/young-or-old-earth.html.

 

Also, though we are very conservative in our evangelical views and Ken Ham(Answers in Genesis) is a popular figure in conservative circles I will not read his materials to my kids. Ken Ham has no advanced studies in theology OR science, but is condescending of people who view old earth as a plausible option. We visited his creation museum and thought there is no way we could ever bring a non-Christian there. Anybody who is studied in science and is told that you HAVE to believe young earth to be a Christian is most likely going to rebel against the idea of the plausibility of Christianity. Very sad that people are probably drawn AWAY from the Lord by views from an 'expert' that are not even necessarily biblical. Just my .O2:) Blessings, Gina

[nature girl]

I'm a (former) scientist, and I find this discussion fascinating, seeing the range of viewpoints and reasons behind them. This is probably a naive question but for my own understanding, since I don't have much of a religious background--and I don't mean this in a goading way at all, so I hope it's not taken that way...Those of you who believe in YE, what are the reasons God would have for planting all the evidence of an old earth? What was He trying to teach?

 

Also, since there is so much symbolism in the Bible, how is it decided which of the narrative is literal and which is symbolic?

[albeto.]

Zombie thread.

Zombie thread!

sigh.  I hate it when that happens!

 

Stupid question, but... why?

 

Why the negative reaction (in general) to older threads being resurrected? The question is timeless, in my opinion anyway, and the board constantly has new members wondering these things for the first time. I mean, I can understand a heads-up that a particular thread is old and the OP may have moved on and is no longer participating here, but I don't understand the negative reaction. Can someone explain?

[Saddlemomma]

I haven't read the other posts, but here is what I do with my DD.

 

I now hold a view that is "we have no way of knowing exactly how old the earth is, but it's probably older rather than younger (10,000 years), previously I was YE.  I realize I cannot dictate my child's views on this subject, nor do I want to.  She needs to formulate her own ideas based upon her review of the evidences.  After all, that's what real scientists do.  Unfortunately, biases in EVERY worldview get in the way.  The best I can do, is provide examples from each worldview.

 

Therefore, when we are learning about things such as age of the earth or evolution, I try to incorporate media from each of the different perspectives and we discuss their evidences.  This gives DD perspective in all worldviews and biases.  It enables her to clearly see various biases and filter what makes sense to her and what doesn't by measuring each worldview against the others and the evidence for each. 

 

I, obviously, like everyone else on this board, carry my own biases, and if I'm completely honest with myself, struggle not to influence my own DD.  That is why I employ the method mentioned above.  Do I succeed?  Not always.  Like most others, I'm passionate about my worldview.  However, I try....that's the main thing.  If nothing else, at least DD will understand other views and how they arrived at their conclusions.  It is my sincere hope that by doing this, she will not be so confrontational, dismissive, or intolerant of others who hold a different opinion based upon the same facts, but rather be gracious and willing to engage in a confident, winsome and respectful manner.  There is too much animosity regarding worldviews and differing opinions in the world and, at times, on these boards.

 

I know there is a plethora of information and resources for the YE and evolutionary worldviews.  Therefore I'm limiting my suggestions to resources for the OE perspective.  Most of this information is at the JH/HS/Adult level, so if you use any of them, you will need to read and understand (not subscribe to--just understand) the material so you can explain it to your kids on their level.

 

• http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=age+of+the+earth
• http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-sixth-creation-day-biblical-support-for-old-earth-creationism
• http://www.str.org/Search?q=age+of+the+earth
• http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html
• http://www.oldearth.org/
• http://shop.reasons.org/product-p/s1401.htm  (Inductive Bible study integrating science and art and integrates an old-earth creation perspective of science with the Bible)
• http://www.reasons.org/ttl
• http://www.reasons.org/education/reasons-academy/course-description (This is for HS students, but I plan to purchase it ahead of time to go through myself and then use for DD as her Bible curriculum while studying a separate science topic.  It is presented from an OE perspective)
• http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401458518&sr=1-1&keywords=7+days+that+divide+the+world

Hopefully, this list will help to give you an overview of the OE perspective that you can relate to your kids, if you choose to do so.

 

In addition, for anyone else out there who is looking for some MP3 audios regarding Christian apologetics, philosophy, and logic you can find an exhausting list here: http://www.apologetics315.com/2008/03/ultimate-apologetics-mp3-audio-page.html

These could be incorporated into any science, philosophy, logic, or Bible class pretty easily.

 

Blessings!

[Walking-Iris]

I am currently using MFW K for my dd, 5, and am going to be starting a dinosaur unit next week. I am conflicted about whether or not to read the book, What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs, which is scheduled for reading next week along with the unit.

 

I am a new Christian. I was raised Catholic, although we seldom attended Mass and I never made conformation, and didn't attend church again until about 2 years ago. We've been attending a non denominational Christian church for the last two years. I went to public school, all the way up through public university at the graduate school level. I have very limited information about the young earth / creationist view of science and was taught the standard evolution theory. I am by no means a science buff. I took only the required science classes to fullfill my general education requirements in college and took the classes which are typically taken by humanity and social sciences students.

 

So, here are my questions....

1) If you teach young earth view to your children, why....

2) If you do not, what view do you teach and why....

3) What resources would be a good way to learn more about young earth / old earth philosphies, or Christian evolution theory in an unbiased way so that I can think about what view I would teach in the future?

4) If you were raised with the secular view of evolution, how did you come to believe young earth theory?

5) If you have a strong background in science, is their enough evidence to make young earth theory a plausable theory?

 

I know she is in kindergarten, so reading the book and saying, this is a creationist view point that some people believe, etc, would be fine, or just skipping the book would be fine, too. After all my child is 5, so I don't really have to make this decision quite yet. But, I would personally like to learn more about this so that I can make a solid choice when I do have to begin teaching this.

I want to read other posts in this thread more closely, but real quick I want to answer your questions, and share my ideas on this. I come from a Christian background, although at present I do not attend a church nor do I plan to. However, I still believe quite a bit, and I still feel the Bible is the most wonderful book ever written, and I still believe in a Creator.

 

Having said that, I think all of this YEC and dinosaur/age of the Earth stuff is very detrimental to the Christian theology as a whole. Everywhere I turn, online and off here in my small town, Christians seem unable to discuss anything else. I left a co-op because of this. People are leaving churches because of it. I've had talks with Christians who are either confused or just plain annoyed with it. I get extremely twitchy when I hear people declaring as truth the timetable and means that G-d created this universe. I also get twitchy when they declare that other Christians need to believe this as well. 

 

I personally do NOT believe, never have believed, that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, beyond the historical facts that have been verified. I also do not believe the Bible is a science book or was meant to be a science book. There is no basis in the Bible for YEC or evolution.  I can also think of quite a few passages that pretty much tell the believer that they should not lean on their own understanding, and that the ways of G-d are unknowable and so on...I do not feel it's my place, spiritually, to confine the Creator into the tight, limited parameters that the YEC movement has done. IMHO YEC has tied up the ways and means and even the dates of Creation into a nice little package with a bow on it and have presented it as Truth. Such hubris. The Creator I believe in is not as limiting as that.

 

IMHO what they have done is to basically call a G-d a deceiver. Why would the universe be screaming out at us with all these Laws of Nature, Laws of Physics, and so on that I feel make evolution and an Old Earth the only possibility, and yet that's not how the Creator did it? Why would "he" present us with a world that obviously works in one way, but that not be the actual truth? What is the purpose of a G-d who lies to majority of the world through science? It's as though a clockmaker made a beautiful piece with very complicated gears and yet suddenly declares that it runs on magic.

 

Now science hasn't done this. In fact the more you were to study science, the more you will see that scientists readily admit that there is so MUCH that they DON'T know, that they are still learning, discovering. And they are excited by that possibility of learning more. And I find that more fascinating. When I think about that first group of dividing cells ~3.8 billion years ago, that is awe inspiring to me. Honestly, the science of evolution and geology and astronomy are so fascinating and endless, whereas the "science" of YEC is so minute, limiting, bordering on the comical ( dinosaur work animals, medieval dragons, or whatever they get into) at times that it takes no real crisis of faith for me. Humans are so insignificant in that old universe, and that's humbling, and I think that may be at the heart of YEC. Maybe they want a universe where they are G-d's chosen species and ultimately the most important thing on the planet---and that is not so humbling at all. Just the opposite. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: didn't realize this was an old post. But I agree with the pp who basically said "who cares." It's still an interesting discussion. I also don't see why others have to act as though the poster who revived this is going for spam. 7 posts from a new member? I think we can forgive them not noticing the time stamp when even veteran posters don't notice it. And I don't see how linking to a list of resources is any different than other members here who link to their blogs, their resources, their phonics lessons, even their websites with ebooks for sale.

[redsquirrel]

I want to read other posts in this thread more closely, but real quick I want to answer your questions, and share my ideas on this. I come from a Christian background, although at present I do not attend a church nor do I plan to. However, I still believe quite a bit, and I still feel the Bible is the most wonderful book ever written, and I still believe in a Creator.

 

Having said that, I think all of this YEC and dinosaur/age of the Earth stuff is very detrimental to the Christian theology as a whole. Everywhere I turn, online and off here in my small town, Christians seem unable to discuss anything else. I left a co-op because of this. People are leaving churches because of it. I've had talks with Christians who are either confused or just plain annoyed with it. I get extremely twitchy when I hear people declaring as truth the timetable and means that G-d created this universe. I also get twitchy when they declare that other Christians need to believe this as well. 

 

I personally do NOT believe, never have believed, that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, beyond the historical facts that have been verified. I also do not believe the Bible is a science book or was meant to be a science book. There is no basis in the Bible for YEC or evolution.  I can also think of quite a few passages that pretty much tell the believer that they should not lean on their own understanding, and that the ways of G-d are unknowable and so on...I do not feel it's my place, spiritually, to confine the Creator into the tight, limited parameters that the YEC movement has done. IMHO YEC has tied up the ways and means and even the dates of Creation into a nice little package with a bow on it and have presented it as Truth. Such hubris. The Creator I believe in is not as limiting as that.

 

IMHO what they have done is to basically call a G-d a deceiver. Why would the universe be screaming out at us with all these Laws of Nature, Laws of Physics, and so on that I feel make evolution and an Old Earth the only possibility, and yet that's not how the Creator did it? Why would "he" present us with a world that obviously works in one way, but that not be the actual truth? What is the purpose of a G-d who lies to majority of the world through science? It's as though a clockmaker made a beautiful piece with very complicated gears and yet suddenly declares that it runs on magic.

 

Now science hasn't done this. In fact the more you were to study science, the more you will see that scientists readily admit that there is so MUCH that they DON'T know, that they are still learning, discovering. And they are excited by that possibility of learning more. And I find that more fascinating. When I think about that first group of dividing cells ~3.8 billion years ago, that is awe inspiring to me. Honestly, the science of evolution and geology and astronomy are so fascinating and endless, whereas the "science" of YEC is so minute, limiting, bordering on the comical ( dinosaur work animals, medieval dragons, or whatever they get into) at times that it takes no real crisis of faith for me. Humans are so insignificant in that old universe, and that's humbling, and I think that may be at the heart of YEC. Maybe they want a universe where they are G-d's chosen species and ultimately the most important thing on the planet---and that is not so humbling at all. Just the opposite. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: didn't realize this was an old post. But I agree with the pp who basically said "who cares." It's still an interesting discussion. I also don't see why others have to act as though the poster who revived this is going for spam. 7 posts from a new member? I think we can forgive them not noticing the time stamp when even veteran posters don't notice it. And I don't see how linking to a list of resources is any different than other members here who link to their blogs, their resources, their phonics lessons, even their websites with ebooks for sale.

 

First of all, I noted it as a zombie thread because that is generally what I have seen others do. I happened upon it late at night and was halfway through when someone mentioned picking apples. That is when I checked the date. I have often seen resurrected thread warnings, so I did what I have seen done in the past.

 

I did not report the poster for spam. I simply pointed out that he/she just happened to resurrect an old thread on a controversial topic and just happened to have a blog/website etc to link to for exactly that purpose.

 

I do think it is spammy when someone opens an account for what appears to be the sole purpose of posting to a long dead thread on a controversial topic to drum up views to their website. It looks like click bait, nothing more.

[MomintheMountains]

As a Christian, we should always look to see if the Bible supports a theory

The Bible is not a science book, it is our salvation story.

 

Edit: oops, sorry. Didn't notice that this thread is old.

[Guest classical and more]

For great insights to OE Creationism, explore http://www.magiscenter.com/  Among the topics they cover: 

 

1. The false conflict between Faith and Science.

2. The false conflict between Suffering and the Love of God.
3. The false conflict between Virtue and Freedom.
4. The false conflict between the historical Jesus and “the Jesus of the Gospels.â€

[dereksurfs]

In conservative homeschool circles/curriculum it seems that everyone is young earth. My husband and I are conservative evangelicals(hubby has a nearly completed PhD in theology) and we believe/teach that God created the world but there is no way to know how old the earth is. We have a friend who is a physicist(retired professor from Univ. of Chicago). He's a conservative evangelical, very studied in science/physics and says there's no way to know. If you pinned him to a wall he would choose old earth just because more science has been done in that area...but says it could very well be young earth if more science was studied w/out the old earth bias. It's not popular to be a young earth creationist in a university...you could lose your job. 

 

This article is long but VERY helpful. It's by Sonlight Curriculum's former owner(spouse of current owner). He explains in some detail how you can believe old earth and be a Christian and how that is still supported by the Bible:

 

http://www.sonlight.com/young-or-old-earth.html.

 

Also, though we are very conservative in our evangelical views and Ken Ham(Answers in Genesis) is a popular figure in conservative circles I will not read his materials to my kids. Ken Ham has no advanced studies in theology OR science, but is condescending of people who view old earth as a plausible option. We visited his creation museum and thought there is no way we could ever bring a non-Christian there. Anybody who is studied in science and is told that you HAVE to believe young earth to be a Christian is most likely going to rebel against the idea of the plausibility of Christianity. Very sad that people are probably drawn AWAY from the Lord by views from an 'expert' that are not even necessarily biblical. Just my .O2:) Blessings, Gina

 

:iagree:

 

Yes, and even though this is an old thread these issues are still relevant.  I see 'age of the earth' as a non-essential in light of one's belief in God and overall Christian faith. It is debatable at best with a variety of interpretations even from a conservative evangelical perspective.  

 

I find it unfortunate when YE creation 'experts' like Ken Ham try to paint YE as the only legitimate biblical viewpoint.  I've watched Ken debate OE creationists and find him very condescending in his interactions.  There is an unwillingness to respectfully agree to disagree with other Christian scientists and theologians.  I find this attitude much more problematic than the debate itself.  The reason for that is that it misleads others into thinking they need to hold to this very limited view of creation to be 'true' Christians.  Then when they doubt some of the weaker YEC arguments they end up questioning their entire faith.  That is totally unnecessary and avoidable as one is absolutely 'not' dependent upon the other.  

 

This also causes those evaluating Christianity to think believing in this non-sense (for some) is an integral part of the faith.  For me that is a much greater problem than whether one holds to an OE or YE view of creation.  There is plenty of room for YEC, OEC, ID and Theistic Evolutionists among Christians without this dogmatic perspective of 'I've got all the answers and everyone else just needs to agree with me' approach.  IMO, that attitude also unnecessarily sets up children for numerous problems in both school and life in general.  Consequently I prefer to present a variety of perspectives and then allow them to think through these in light of their faith and the scientific record.  

[Jasperstone]

 

Stupid question, but... why?

 

Why the negative reaction (in general) to older threads being resurrected? The question is timeless, in my opinion anyway, and the board constantly has new members wondering these things for the first time. I mean, I can understand a heads-up that a particular thread is old and the OP may have moved on and is no longer participating here, but I don't understand the negative reaction. Can someone explain?

 

I didn't even know it was an old thread- as I'm on my phone.

 

Yeah, I found it odd that it got a 'zombie thread' reaction, lol! No one is forcing anyone to read it. If it's boring to you, then skip it. As its fresh and interesting to some. :-)

[Walking-Iris]

For great insights to OE Creationism, explore http://www.magiscenter.com/  Among the topics they cover: 

 

1. The false conflict between Faith and Science.

2. The false conflict between Suffering and the Love of God.

3. The false conflict between Virtue and Freedom.

4. The false conflict between the historical Jesus and “the Jesus of the Gospels.â€

Maybe this is what RedSquirrel is talking about---and in this light I can see her point.

 

It can be an interesting topic. And this one didn't devolve into rudeness like so many others typically do.

[TracyP]

 

Stupid question, but... why?

 

Why the negative reaction (in general) to older threads being resurrected? The question is timeless, in my opinion anyway, and the board constantly has new members wondering these things for the first time. I mean, I can understand a heads-up that a particular thread is old and the OP may have moved on and is no longer participating here, but I don't understand the negative reaction. Can someone explain?

 

 

I didn't even know it was an old thread- as I'm on my phone.

 

Yeah, I found it odd that it got a 'zombie thread' reaction, lol! No one is forcing anyone to read it. If it's boring to you, then skip it. As its fresh and interesting to some. :-)

 

I truly appreciate it when somebody raises the 'zombie thread' alert. I do not see it as a negative. I don't care At. All. if others want to carry on the conversation. I may even join the conversation. But there are days when it is helpful to me - a busy mom - when it is noted that it is an older thread. I don't always notice the date and depending on the topic, it may save me the time of posting. I see it as a notice to others who may feel the same as me - not a put down to those who do want to continue the conversation. :)

[Wheres Toto]

I like the warning about zombie threads just so I can check and see if I already answered.  Then I can at least try to not contradict myself.   :tongue_smilie:

 

Other than that I don't care and, obviously, will occasionally answer if I feel I have something to add.  I do agree that we have many new people here all the time and sometimes an old thread is a great way to bring them up to speed on some of the big discussions.  I think the thread with Ruth's comments that I linked has been  resurrected a few times.  It gets linked as a great resource whenever this topic comes up, and usually someone adds a new post to it.

[Jasperstone]

I like the warning about zombie threads just so I can check and see if I already answered. Then I can at least try to not contradict myself. :tongue_smilie:

Lol, I hate when that happens! ;-)

[IsabelC]

I truly appreciate it when somebody raises the 'zombie thread' alert. I do not see it as a negative. I don't care At. All. if others want to carry on the conversation. I may even join the conversation. But there are days when it is helpful to me - a busy mom - when it is noted that it is an older thread. I don't always notice the date and depending on the topic, it may save me the time of posting. I see it as a notice to others who may feel the same as me - not a put down to those who do want to continue the conversation. :)

 

Yes! Zombie threads are great, and yes, there are always newer members who wouldn't have read them originally. But I like to know because if the thread is three years old and I only have 5 minutes on the computer, II'm not going to drop everything to try and come up with suggestions for the poor desperate original poster! 

[pehp]

I am an old-earth Christian.  I don't have time to write much now or to read others' responses, but I will come back to it when I do. 

[Pen]

I am currently using MFW K for my dd, 5, and am going to be starting a dinosaur unit next week. I am conflicted about whether or not to read the book, What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs, which is scheduled for reading next week along with the unit.

 

I am a new Christian. I was raised Catholic, although we seldom attended Mass and I never made conformation, and didn't attend church again until about 2 years ago. We've been attending a non denominational Christian church for the last two years. I went to public school, all the way up through public university at the graduate school level. I have very limited information about the young earth / creationist view of science and was taught the standard evolution theory. I am by no means a science buff. I took only the required science classes to fullfill my general education requirements in college and took the classes which are typically taken by humanity and social sciences students.

 

So, here are my questions....

1) If you teach young earth view to your children, why....

 

We have friends/neighbors who are EO and believe in YE/Creationism. I teach what it is they believe so my ds will understand where they are coming from more or less.  I think we may also have a set of relative who believe in YE, though I am not sure.  Also, I teach to try to avoid discussing it so as to avoid dissent where there is no need since friendship need not depend on views about how the world began and when.

2) If you do not, what view do you teach and why....

 

I mainly teach (or use material that teaches) what is presently believed about the age of the world from geological and other evidence and what the basis for that understanding is.

 

 

3) What resources would be a good way to learn more about young earth / old earth philosphies, or Christian evolution theory in an unbiased way so that I can think about what view I would teach in the future?

 

 I do not know of an "unbiased" way to do this. 

 

 

4) If you were raised with the secular view of evolution, how did you come to believe young earth theory?

 

NA

5) If you have a strong background in science, is their enough evidence to make young earth theory a plausable theory?

 

No, I do not believe that it is plausible. The current views may not be totally right, and are likely to change and be refined over time, much as Newtonian physics has been given new perspective from Einstein on. But the YE/Creationism view taken literally is not within the reasonable ballpark of credibility as science. It works, perhaps, as a beautiful myth, or as a parable. But looking at the earth with the tools we now have to do that, one would not come up with a Biblical Creation story to account for what there is.  That story may have made sense based on what was known several thousand years ago (ETA, or maybe even a couple hundred years ago)--but the geological, fossil, spectroscopy, etc., evidence does not support it.  IMO, You (I do not mean "you" literally, but just in the sense of people generally, or "one" would have to do this, IMO) either have to somewhat twist the story to fit--allow for an idea that Genesis was not meant literally and not exactly in the order given and so on, but rather was a sort of general way that things happened over billions of years...   or you have to distort the facts to try to make it fit into a faith based belief.

 

In other threads I have seen people write that since we do not know for sure that the current Big Bang view etc is correct, that makes it equally likely that the Biblical view is correct. But that is not good logic.  One thing not being beyond any reasonable doubt, does not make another thing which is not possible according to the evidence suddenly become likely. The not possible or highly unlikely according to the evidence thing stays that way independently. 

I know she is in kindergarten, so reading the book and saying, this is a creationist view point that some people believe, etc, would be fine, or just skipping the book would be fine, too. After all my child is 5, so I don't really have to make this decision quite yet. But, I would personally like to learn more about this so that I can make a solid choice when I do have to begin teaching this.

 

 

We sometimes have used materials that have a creationist viewpoint (particularly Draw Right Now or some title like that where it showed people and dinosaurs together). My son had enough science to understand that people and dinosaurs did not live together to the best of our knowledge. That no credible fossil evidence shows human and dinosaur remains from the same level. But usually I choose materials that are "secular," at least if they relate to subjects involving science related learning.

 

We had seen a lot of movies like Iain Stewart's Earth, ( and the Attenborough BBC series on life our Planet and other things along those lines) which showed things like a visit with someone at a fossil site and views of the geological layers at a cliff edge and how you can tell things about what happened in the past from the various layers, and so on, creation from a current geological point of view, and life from a zoological point of view, as well as other films that showed a cosmological view of the universe.

 

ETA: It looks like you also have older children. What was your approach in this area with them? Are you thinking to take a different approach with your 5 year old than you did with the older children? Why?

[Smithie]

"I personally do NOT believe, never have believed, that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, beyond the historical facts that have been verified. I also do not believe the Bible is a science book or was meant to be a science book. There is no basis in the Bible for YEC or evolution.  I can also think of quite a few passages that pretty much tell the believer that they should not lean on their own understanding, and that the ways of G-d are unknowable and so on...I do not feel it's my place, spiritually, to confine the Creator into the tight, limited parameters that the YEC movement has done. IMHO YEC has tied up the ways and means and even the dates of Creation into a nice little package with a bow on it and have presented it as Truth. Such hubris. The Creator I believe in is not as limiting as that."

 

 

This has been a huge topic of discussion at my house lately. My religion has a saying: "the Torah is neither a history book not a science book. It is a handbook on how to be Jewish." 

 

We have been watching Cosmos, and my kids, living in the Bible Belt and having spent a couple of years in public school, are aware of the YEC viewpoint and how strongly some people hold it. The question they ask over and over again, when Dr. Tyson is discussing the grand scale of the universe, is "why don't people think this is something God could have done?" I have no answer. It seems to me EXACTLY the kind of blow-your-tiny-mind thing that an omniscient Creator would have done. 

[Pen]

"I personally do NOT believe, never have believed, that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, beyond the historical facts that have been verified. I also do not believe the Bible is a science book or was meant to be a science book. There is no basis in the Bible for YEC or evolution.  I can also think of quite a few passages that pretty much tell the believer that they should not lean on their own understanding, and that the ways of G-d are unknowable and so on...I do not feel it's my place, spiritually, to confine the Creator into the tight, limited parameters that the YEC movement has done. IMHO YEC has tied up the ways and means and even the dates of Creation into a nice little package with a bow on it and have presented it as Truth. Such hubris. The Creator I believe in is not as limiting as that."

 

 

This has been a huge topic of discussion at my house lately. My religion has a saying: "the Torah is neither a history book not a science book. It is a handbook on how to be Jewish." 

 

We have been watching Cosmos, and my kids, living in the Bible Belt and having spent a couple of years in public school, are aware of the YEC viewpoint and how strongly some people hold it. The question they ask over and over again, when Dr. Tyson is discussing the grand scale of the universe, is "why don't people think this is something God could have done?" I have no answer. It seems to me EXACTLY the kind of blow-your-tiny-mind thing that an omniscient Creator would have done. 

 

Some people (including scientists) do think so!  What lies beyond and before an event horizon? What lies beyond or before the universe?

 

Have you watched Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman?  Your children might enjoy it.