Evangelist hs-ers embracing evolution science materials (Atlantic article)

[Halcyon]

Tought others might find this interesting

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/old-earth-young-minds-evangelical-homeschoolers-embrace-evolution/273844/

[*Lulu*]

Thanks for posting this; I'm adding it to my reading list for the night!

[kitten18]

Nice article, thanks for sharing.

[SarahW]

SWB gets an honorable mention...

 

Interesting. Thanks.

[Kim in Appalachia]

I just read it and wondered if anyone had posted about it here. :)

[JumpyTheFrog]

I cheer any publishers that sell books to increase scientific literacy in homeschoolers. At my previous church, every family homeschooled, and neither DH nor I were impressed with a single student's math or science education. The students had more history knowledge than us, and probably more writing experience, but they seemed far behind my public school math and science education. (Their foreign language skills were also sub-par, and I don't think my school did well in this area.)

 

We see some of the results of this "scientists can't be trusted because they are evil atheists that believe in evolution" mindset. One of the current fads sweeping through that church is using these radioactive rocks to "cure" everything from thyroid problems to insomnia, to epilepsy. Several of the moms who probably think scientists can't be trusted to accurately and objectively determine the age of the earth are spending hundreds of dollars to buy from a snake oil salesmen because he has one "scientist" who will back his claims. A first year college chemistry and biology course should be enough to get them to seriously question the safety and effectiveness of these products.

 

DH and I are determined to do better with our kids. As Christians, we should strive to be the best scientists (if we choose that as a career), not settle for a third rate education because we are scared.

[justamouse]

In 2012, the BioLogos organization received a multimillion-dollar grant from the John Templeton Foundation to fund its Evolution and Christian Faith project, which disburses money to Christians who reconcile theology with evolutionary biology.

 

Woot!

[mommymilkies]

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be a freshman in Bio 101 and reveal your belief that the earth is 6000 or 7000 years old?

 

I don't believe the majority of homeschoolers are evangelical. At least I hope not.

 

I was raised with some Baptist family, but largely Jewish-Conservative, Reform, and Orthodox. I attended PS and went to friends' churches on occasion. Then I attended a large state university and was Pre-med. I NEVER once heard any sort of YE beliefs. Ever. It wasn't until about 1.5 years ago when I looked into joining the co-op here that I heard people believed that. To me, it was like them saying they believed in a flat earth. No offense to YE people, but it was totally not on my radar. I had NEVER heard that belief. I still don't understand it, so I'm just always amazed that every hs material I can find (barring a couple more recently developed ones like RSO) is YE and all of the hs conventions I can find force YE down your throat. Dh teaches college and all of his hs students (so far) were very intelligent and great students, but he has stories of them arguing against evolution in his classes where it's totally irrelevant (chemistry). This was totally new to him, too. He never encountered this in his previous teaching jobs.

 

It's this whole other culture I had never even known existed. I would say, IME, most homeschoolers are evangelical YE believers. But I am rural. When I lived in a more progressive and larger area, I did not know any, but we moved before I became more engrained.

[8circles]

 

It is nice to see a subset of evangelicals embracing science; I've read there are big numbers of them who label themselves as environmentalists, too.

 

Yes. We are quite common around here. I never knew we were considered so scarce until we started homeschooling.

 

Will read the article tonight. Thanks!

[Alessandra]

Fascinating article. Thanks for posting!

[Elinor Everywhere]

Whu? Sorry, is this even true? Where is the proof of that? I don't believe it.

 

 

 

I don't believe it either. I think things are circling around again - didn't the movement originally start with hippy-types and then swing towards Christian Right, and now settling somewhere in the middle? At least, that's what I hope. I don't like extremes on either end.

[mommymilkies]

I don't believe it either. I think things are circling around again - didn't the movement originally start with hippy-types and then swing towards Christian Right, and now settling somewhere in the middle? At least, that's what I hope. I don't like extremes on either end.

http://www.usnews.co...cal-share-drops

 

FWIW, when I was researching the topic, a lot of really nasty anti-homeschooling articles pop up. I would avoid them if you don't feel like punching anyone soon.

[melmichigan]

I hadn't even heard of YEC until I started homeschooling and looking at curriculum.

 

Since 46% of the population polled here believe in creationism defined as

God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

I guess I can see where they might have drawn the conclusion that majority of homeschooled children in America belong to families that also believe in YEC. I don't think that it is necessarily true though.

 

The assumption that this is true today was certainly evident in the genetics course I took with Coursera the end of last year. They apologized to everyone outside of the US for having to take an entire week to discuss evolution.

[Joker]

I'm glad someone is trying to bridge this gap. It was the hardest part of homeschooling for us (regarding local groups and texts available). It's also one of the big reasons we started looking into the Catholic church. If I was basing my information on where we currently live, I would totally agree about the majority of homeschoolers being of a certain type.

[Corraleno]

Great article, thanks for linking it!

 

And yay for the shout out to SWB! :thumbup1:

 

Jackie

[justamouse]

It is nice to see a subset of evangelicals embracing science; I've read there are big numbers of them who label themselves as environmentalists, too.

 

I never knew there was a YE subset and I was in those circles for 30 years. I'm another than never heard of it until I came here.

 

Most Christians I know are environmentalists. CCD curric even has a whole chapter on environmental responsibility ( Catholic teaching of stewardship/solidarity is very old, and we have St Francis, who was a vegan, even). Most Catholic homeschoolers I know also have never heard of YE teaching.

[mommymilkies]

I hadn't even heard of YEC until I started homeschooling and looking at curriculum.

 

Since 46% of the population polled here believe in creationism defined as I guess I can see where they might have drawn the conclusion that majority of homeschooled children in America belong to families that also believe in YEC. I don't think that it is necessarily true though.

 

The assumption that this is true today was certainly evident in the genetics course I took with Coursera the end of last year. They apologized to everyone outside of the US for having to take an entire week to discuss evolution.

Weird. I want to know where they ask people these things! I don't know anyone who has ever been polled for political or religious questions, etc. Must be "our kind" aren't wanted. ;) Until this co-op, I never knew a single person who did. And I talk religion a lot with people I meet. I was raised in a Baptist/Jewish/Catholic mix family, so it's kind of a hobby. :laugh:

[Crimson Wife]

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be a freshman in Bio 101 and reveal your belief that the earth is 6000 or 7000 years old?

 

 

So long as the student understands the theory of evolution and knows what the consensus of mainstream scientists believe the age of the universe is, who cares whether the student chooses to accept it or not?

 

While I personally lean towards theistic evolution and an age of the universe in the billions, I also believe that an omnipotent God could have chosen to create a seemingly "old" universe much more recently. God is beyond science and there is no way that science could distinguish between the two possibilities. I "teach the controversy" and let my kids decide for themselves. They know which way I lean, and so far my oldest two agree.

[newlifemom]

Glad that the discussion is happening and people are discussing rather than assuming. KWIM? That said, I am one of those crazy YE Christians. I am the opposite of Crimson Wife. I tend to believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but hey, God can do anything so He could very well have done it in a longer time frame. I don't think it diminishes His ability and honestly we humans know so very little. I imagine there will come a day when I will see things clearly and apologize to God for all my silly misconceptions. :)

[Elinor Everywhere]

http://www.usnews.co...cal-share-drops

 

FWIW, when I was researching the topic, a lot of really nasty anti-homeschooling articles pop up. I would avoid them if you don't feel like punching anyone soon.

 

Ooo, no, I don't want to read anything that will get my blood boiling. That would result in another sleepless night. Ick.

[Mergath]

I'm so glad to see that hsing science curricula are finally beginning to move back toward actual science. We're planning to start BFSU next year, and when we're done with that, hopefully there will be a decent selection of science stuff out there.

[WishboneDawn]

 

So long as the student understands the theory of evolution and knows what the consensus of mainstream scientists believe the age of the universe is, who cares whether the student chooses to accept it or not?

 

While I personally lean towards theistic evolution and an age of the universe in the billions, I also believe that an omnipotent God could have chosen to create a seemingly "old" universe much more recently. God is beyond science and there is no way that science could distinguish between the two possibilities. I "teach the controversy" and let my kids decide for themselves. They know which way I lean, and so far my oldest two agree.

 

God may be beyond science but the natural world certainly isn't and yes, of course, science can study the natural world and so distinguish between the two possibilities. Science can not tell us about God but it can tell Him about his work and it's simply anti-scientific to imply, "there is no way".

[Crimson Wife]

 

God may be beyond science but the natural world certainly isn't and yes, of course, science can study the natural world and so distinguish between the two possibilities. Science can not tell us about God but it can tell Him about his work and it's simply anti-scientific to imply, "there is no way".

 

How could science distinguish between a universe that was created 4.5 billion years ago and a universe that was created a few thousand years ago with fossils already in the ground and light en route from distant places and so on? If God created an "old"-appearing universe recently, it would have the exact same scientific properties as a universe that actually is old. Only God knows for sure the truth of the matter. I have my beliefs about the likelihood of the former possibility vs. the latter, but it's just a conjecture on my part.

[fraidycat]

It is here, on the WTM forums that I learned there were YE believers. I was completely ignorant before that.

[Garga]

 

 

How could science distinguish between a universe that was created 4.5 billion years ago and a universe that was created a few thousand years ago with fossils already in the ground and light en route from distant places and so on? If God created an "old"-appearing universe recently, it would have the exact same scientific properties as a universe that actually is old. Only God knows for sure the truth of the matter. I have my beliefs about the likelihood of the former possibility vs. the latter, but it's just a conjecture on my part.

 

But why would God want to trick us into thinking it's old? That sounds strange to me.

 

He either made it only 10,000 years ago and our science isn't measuring accurately, or it really is as old as it looks. No tricks. It is difficult to imagine God setting out to deceive us on purpose.

 

Just so you know, I am not sure which is correct. I've heard convincing arguments for both ways. i teach my kids both ways and tell them, "We might not know for sure now, but maybe if the scientists keep studying, someone will figure it out once and for all. Until then, let's see what both sides have to offer."

 

My DH has a masters in geosciences and studies about this stuff non-stop. From what he can tell each side has persuasive arguments, and each side has some goofy arguments. Most people who haven't heard of YE immediately reject it, because it's new to them. But when you look into it, it's not as far fetched as you'd think.

 

But I dunno! And frankly, I don't really care. I'm making sure the kids know what both sides think.

[Mergath]

 

How could science distinguish between a universe that was created 4.5 billion years ago and a universe that was created a few thousand years ago with fossils already in the ground and light en route from distant places and so on? If God created an "old"-appearing universe recently, it would have the exact same scientific properties as a universe that actually is old. Only God knows for sure the truth of the matter. I have my beliefs about the likelihood of the former possibility vs. the latter, but it's just a conjecture on my part.

 

I think most people who believe in some kind of deity take it as a matter of faith that God (however you view him) wouldn't create a world with the specific purpose of misleading people about the nature of the universe and of God. Honestly, I've never understood that whole idea. As if God was like, "Well, I could create the universe so that it lines up with the bible and thus reinforces people's ideas about me, but... nahhhh. Let's toss in a few T. Rex and screw around with the speed of light. That'll really mess with their heads."

 

If God created beings that rely on their senses to gather data about the world, and then intentionally altered that data to be untrustworthy and to lie about the nature of its creator, God must be a few french fries short of a happy meal.

[Crimson Wife]

The argument I've heard for God creating an "old"-appearing universe is as a test of faith. Do we actually believe in God's omnipotence and the truth of the Bible? The possibility of that being the case is why I do not reject YEC outright. I lean towards an allegorical reading of Genesis where the 6 days of Creation represent something other than 144 modern hours, but I am open to the possibility that a literal reading is, in fact, the correct one. Theologians have been arguing over the proper interpretation of Genesis for ages, and I think it would be rather presumptuous of me to claim that I knew for 100% certain which one is true.

[kiwik]

I never met anyone who didn't believe in evolution until I got to university. I don't think it would be embarassing going to college believing YE but it would be embarassing if you weren't aware that there were other views and yours was not the majority one.

[thebacabunch]

I don't care how God did it, how long it took God to do it, how God may have evolved or not the human body. I only care that HE did it. I have no problem reconciling an OE view of the world or evolution with my faith. I am also open to future science that says everything we thought was right, was wrong. I feel like, until God reveals how He did things for Himself, the argument for or against modern science is a distraction, and a divisive distraction at that.

[albeto]

 

So long as the student understands the theory of evolution and knows what the consensus of mainstream scientists believe the age of the universe is, who cares whether the student chooses to accept it or not?

 

I care. I care for the same reasons I want every generation of Americans to know how to read and write, not just understand how reading and writing works. I care for the same reasons I want the policy that shapes, and the laws that govern my society to be motivated by logical reasoning, rational thought, and inspired by actual information, not based on beliefs and feelings and deep desires and fears. I care for the same reasons I see the change in Iraq in my lifetime and lament the loss of empowerment to half the population due to nothing more than religious domination in public policy. I care because ignorance doesn't just affect the student, and when ignorance is honored and personal belief is taught as fact, it changes the culture significantly in such a way that is detrimental to everyone, including those kids who are simply raised to believe mythology-as-fact because they trust their parents and teachers to be knowledgeable.

 

It's not a matter of simply understanding the theory of evolution of plants and animals, it's a matter of understanding how the natural world works, how the scientific method works, and having critical thinking skills to address new mysteries. These things affect everything else, from believing the earth is 6000 years old, to believing women can't get pregnant from rape, to believing tin-foil hats will prevent unwanted access to brainwaves.

 

When the United States was founded and a new system of government experiment was set up for the first time, it was thought that the general population ought to have a say in public policy, rather than those few born into privileged families (yes, I know this was a very limited population included at first). The support for public education was built on the fact that ignorant people voting for public policy don't contribute positively to society as much as an educated public, and so it became clear that education is a worthwhile investment for the public. That hasn't changed. Ignorant people shouldn't be contributing to wide-spread public policy, but suppressing that voice isn't the best answer - educating the person who has that voice is. Why would anyone want to suppress knowledge? Maybe that's something to think about - why would someone's religious group encourage ignorance and blind obedience when knowledge is available to us as a society?

 

While I personally lean towards theistic evolution and an age of the universe in the billions, I also believe that an omnipotent God could have chosen to create a seemingly "old" universe much more recently. God is beyond science and there is no way that science could distinguish between the two possibilities. I "teach the controversy" and let my kids decide for themselves. They know which way I lean, and so far my oldest two agree.

 

 

The explanation for earth's natural world is no more a controversy any than witchcraft and astrology are a controversy. It's a knowledge-based conclusion based on facts and rational thought, and blind faith in any religion or "worldview" is not required to understand the mechanics of the natural world. It's one thing to have been raised to not know how the world works, it's quite another to deny a child that knowledge in today's society. We have the means necessary to educate each and every child, at the public expense, privately obtained, or at home, but information shouldn't be suppressed from children raised in one religion any more than it should be for another.

[thebacabunch]

I care. I care for the same reasons I want every generation of Americans to know how to read and write, not just understand how reading and writing works. I care for the same reasons I want the policy that shapes, and the laws that govern my society to be motivated by logical reasoning, rational thought, and inspired by actual information, not based on beliefs and feelings and deep desires and fears. I care for the same reasons I see the change in Iraq in my lifetime and lament the loss of empowerment to half the population due to nothing more than religious domination in public policy. I care because ignorance doesn't just affect the student, and when ignorance is honored and personal belief is taught as fact, it changes the culture significantly in such a way that is detrimental to everyone, including those kids who are simply raised to believe mythology-as-fact because they trust their parents and teachers to be knowledgeable.

 

It's not a matter of simply understanding the theory of evolution of plants and animals, it's a matter of understanding how the natural world works, how the scientific method works, and having critical thinking skills to address new mysteries. These things affect everything else, from believing the earth is 6000 years old, to believing women can't get pregnant from rape, to believing tin-foil hats will prevent unwanted access to brainwaves.

 

When the United States was founded and a new system of government experiment was set up for the first time, it was thought that the general population ought to have a say in public policy, rather than those few born into privileged families (yes, I know this was a very limited population included at first). The support for public education was built on the fact that ignorant people voting for public policy don't contribute positively to society as much as an educated public, and so it became clear that education is a worthwhile investment for the public. That hasn't changed. Ignorant people shouldn't be contributing to wide-spread public policy, but suppressing that voice isn't the best answer - educating the person who has that voice is. Why would anyone want to suppress knowledge? Maybe that's something to think about - why would someone's religious group encourage ignorance and blind obedience when knowledge is available to us as a society?

 

 

 

The explanation for earth's natural world is no more a controversy any than witchcraft and astrology are a controversy. It's a knowledge-based conclusion based on facts and rational thought, and blind faith in any religion or "worldview" is not required to understand the mechanics of the natural world. It's one thing to have been raised to not know how the world works, it's quite another to deny a child that knowledge in today's society. We have the means necessary to educate each and every child, at the public expense, privately obtained, or at home, but information shouldn't be suppressed from children raised in one religion any more than it should be for another.

OH my, this is rough! I am not sure you understood Crimsonwifes position. I did not get from her posts that she was not teaching her kids what is considered the latest and greatest in scientific fact or how those facts were found. Quite the contrary imo. She said she teaches her kids the pervailing scientific ideas, shares her beliefs in the context of those facts, and gives her kids the tools to decide for themselves. It is the right of parents to bring up their children with their beliefs. It gets murky with homeschoolers (to the outside) because parents teach both. Why sneer at someone because they don't share your "worldview"?

[albeto]

OH my, this is rough! I am not sure you understood Crimsonwifes position. I did not get from her posts that she was not teaching her kids what is considered the latest and greatest in scientific fact or how those facts were found. Quite the contrary imo. She said she teaches her kids the pervailing scientific ideas, shares her beliefs in the context of those facts, and gives her kids the tools to decide for themselves. It is the right of parents to bring up their children with their beliefs. It gets murky with homeschoolers (to the outside) because parents teach both. Why sneer at someone because they don't share your "worldview"?

 

I'm not sneering. She asked "who cares." I answered, "I do." I took a moment to explain why. Science isn't a democratic concept. Something isn't true because more people believe it. To teach a child that's the case is to suppress available knowledge from the child, and that negatively affects that child, the local community, and our nation as a whole. I hope you don't misinterpret my comment as being inspired by anger or contempt. I'm simply trying to offer reasons why I think it's not as benign a deal as presented (in general, I don't mean to pick on Crimson Wife).

[WishboneDawn]

 

How could science distinguish between a universe that was created 4.5 billion years ago and a universe that was created a few thousand years ago with fossils already in the ground and light en route from distant places and so on? If God created an "old"-appearing universe recently, it would have the exact same scientific properties as a universe that actually is old. Only God knows for sure the truth of the matter. I have my beliefs about the likelihood of the former possibility vs. the latter, but it's just a conjecture on my part.

 

 

But now the argument is that we can know nothing about God or his character? That he's a trickster god set out to deceive us into a false belief?

 

The end point of this thinking is that we can know nothing, nothing at all, so why bother why scientific inquiry OR faith? Why bother?

[WishboneDawn]

The argument I've heard for God creating an "old"-appearing universe is as a test of faith. Do we actually believe in God's omnipotence and the truth of the Bible? The possibility of that being the case is why I do not reject YEC outright. I lean towards an allegorical reading of Genesis where the 6 days of Creation represent something other than 144 modern hours, but I am open to the possibility that a literal reading is, in fact, the correct one. Theologians have been arguing over the proper interpretation of Genesis for ages, and I think it would be rather presumptuous of me to claim that I knew for 100% certain which one is true.

 

 

Idolatry. It's placing the Bible before God, making our idea of God fit with our interpretation of the Bible and therefore making Him less important then the Bible. Even if it can be argued it's not somehow idolatry, it's an extraordinarily extra-Biblical argument to support something so rooted in literalism. It's bizarre.

 

As for knowing 100% - of course no one knows that. But we can be 99% sure on many if not most things and should not pretend we can't be.

[GSOchristie]

I hold to neither YE or evolutionary theory concerning man, but I there is something I don't understand, I could probably google it, but I'll just ask here :). If you are an evangelical Christian, who believes God sent his Son to die for our sin, how do you pinpoint the point at which man became man, the man that God loved and chose to play out the plan of redemption? This is obviously not an important point for non-Christians, but for Christians it is kind of critical. The beginnings of the universe are not that important to me, God could have created it in six literal days, six literal seconds, 600,000,000 years, through natural selection, through his spoken word, or with his hand. Those things aren't are critical to me as God created Adam to be a companion and for his glory, Adam sinned and broke the covenant with God, thereby introducing the need for a savior. So how is that reconciled through the evolution of man? At what point do you think man became "Adam" if you hold to an evolutionary theory of HUMAN origins? I'm honestly curious, I just can't figure it out.

[Chris in VA]

I never hear this interpretation of Genesis--that perhaps people were a special creation, but that ancient geneologies were not written the same way as modern ones, so one does not figure the years the same. Therefore the earth can be very, very old, along with people being created in a special way, involving some microevolutionary processes after the basic model was designed.

FWIW, I am willing to let some of it be mystery, because I think Genesis is more about a people's understanding of God than about their understanding of the creation.

[J-rap]

I liked the article. I had never heard of the YE theory until we started homeschooling. We were the only family in the homeschool community here that didn't support it. I got tired of getting homeschool science curriculum and then needing to have a special talk every day about why I thought they were wrong. I am reading C.S. Lewis right now, and I thought it interesting that he believed in the OE theory. It seems like the YE theory is a relatively new phenomenon among Christians??

[mommymilkies]

 

 

I think most people who believe in some kind of deity take it as a matter of faith that God (however you view him) wouldn't create a world with the specific purpose of misleading people about the nature of the universe and of God. Honestly, I've never understood that whole idea. As if God was like, "Well, I could create the universe so that it lines up with the bible and thus reinforces people's ideas about me, but... nahhhh. Let's toss in a few T. Rex and screw around with the speed of light. That'll really mess with their heads."

 

If God created beings that rely on their senses to gather data about the world, and then intentionally altered that data to be untrustworthy and to lie about the nature of its creator, God must be a few french fries short of a happy meal.

 

 

Exactly. It completely goes against my belief on the divine. Sounds more like Loki to me! I was raised Jewish. And to be honest, y'all, they had the OT first. Genesis was never meant to be literal by days, etc. at the very least, maybe then it wouldn't have differences in the order and placement of days. I think my family would be highly offended that G-d would be portrayed as someone trying to trick us into believing YE as a test of faith. I just can not possibly grasp that line of thought.

[Cinder]

. . . didn't the movement originally start with hippy-types and then swing towards Christian Right, and now settling somewhere in the middle?

 

I remember reading somewhere that the homeschooling movement started at both ends around the same time.

[Muttichen]

But why would God want to trick us into thinking it's old? That sounds strange to me.

 

 

 

 

It's not that God tricked us -- He created a universe that is mature, so it appears older than it is. The trees in the Garden of Eden were bearing fruit, and Adam and Eve were adults. It was a universe that was ready for life.

 

I am YE. I believe the Bible is God's word and the account in Genesis is to be understood literally. And by the way, I do teach my kids about evolution. I don't use Apologia or any other homeschool science curriculum. My kids take biology 101 and 102 at the community college in 9th grade. They've all rejected evolution on their own by looking at the evidence. Ds 22 is about to graduate from Harvard with a minor in biology. He showed me a paper where his professor gave him an A and praised his thoughtful and well-written critique of an article attacking intelligent design.

[Parrothead]

I hold to neither YE or evolutionary theory concerning man, but I there is something I don't understand, I could probably google it, but I'll just ask here :). If you are an evangelical Christian, who believes God sent his Son to die for our sin, how do you pinpoint the point at which man became man, the man that God loved and chose to play out the plan of redemption? This is obviously not an important point for non-Christians, but for Christians it is kind of critical. The beginnings of the universe are not that important to me, God could have created it in six literal days, six literal seconds, 600,000,000 years, through natural selection, through his spoken word, or with his hand. Those things aren't are critical to me as God created Adam to be a companion and for his glory, Adam sinned and broke the covenant with God, thereby introducing the need for a savior. So how is that reconciled through the evolution of man? At what point do you think man became "Adam" if you hold to an evolutionary theory of HUMAN origins? I'm honestly curious, I just can't figure it out.

 

My personal belief is in theistic evolution. It is the only way I can reconcile the accounts in the Bible with what we know of the origins of man. But I don't think Adam was the beginning of the species. I think the species evolved to the point of modern man (under Gods guidance), then God created Adam special for the Garden. I think (and this is all my own opinion, not backed by any religious or scientific evidence) that essentially God tried twice to produce a chosen people. But Adam was no Abraham. Adam's free will got in the way of God's production plans.

 

My little scenario explains how Cain ended up with a wife that was not his mother, and who the others were that Cain was so afraid of after killing Abel.

 

Like I said, it is my own theory and the only way I can make the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

[Parrothead]

 

 

I don't believe it either. I think things are circling around again - didn't the movement originally start with hippy-types and then swing towards Christian Right, and now settling somewhere in the middle? At least, that's what I hope. I don't like extremes on either end.

That is the way I've always understood it.

[Truscifi]

I think most people who believe in some kind of deity take it as a matter of faith that God (however you view him) wouldn't create a world with the specific purpose of misleading people about the nature of the universe and of God. Honestly, I've never understood that whole idea. As if God was like, "Well, I could create the universe so that it lines up with the bible and thus reinforces people's ideas about me, but... nahhhh. Let's toss in a few T. Rex and screw around with the speed of light. That'll really mess with their heads."

 

 

:iagree: and :lol:

[Trish]

I never met anyone who didn't believe in evolution until I got to university. I don't think it would be embarassing going to college believing YE but it would be embarassing if you weren't aware that there were other views and yours was not the majority one.

 

Do you mean macro evolution, micro evolution, or both? I don't think just because the earth is old (in my view) that that necessarily means macro evolution is true. Darwin also had some doubts about his own theory that have not been resolved. And aren't we still in search of more than a few " missing links?"

[JumpyTheFrog]

It's not that God tricked us -- He created a universe that is mature, so it appears older than it is.

 

Creating a universe that looks old and bears the evidence of disasters (such as the asteroid thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs) when those things didn't happen would be like if God making Adam and Eve covered with scars and broken bones from injuries that never actually occurred. That's why so many people recoil at the thought. It does strongly imply that he set out to decieve us.

 

Also, even if the light was already on it's way, that can't explain how people have observed stars millions of light years away go supernova (or whatever changes are visible with the naked eye). Unless, of course, you think God set it up to look like a star changed millions of years ago but didn't arrange to have that arrive at earth until a few hundred years ago. In which case, he would once again, be lying to us.

 

God is not a liar. As a Christian, I need to account for both scientific evidence, and the character evidence ascribed to him on the Bible. IMO, YE doesn't account for either well.

[*Michelle*]

I go with this. I heard about YE when I was a kid. Our neighbor was the youth minister for a very large Protestant church and he invited our family to a "play" there. It was about a student who argued YE theory with his biology teacher and converted her. I was perplexed.

[LittleIzumi]

So how is that reconciled through the evolution of man? At what point do you think man became "Adam" if you hold to an evolutionary theory of HUMAN origins? I'm honestly curious, I just can't figure it out.

 

 

Personally, I think God used evolution to create the many species on earth, aiming at creating man in the end, and that once he had finally evolved homo sapiens to the point where their bodies and minds were truly "in the image of God," that is when we have the "first" man and woman, when Adam was placed in the Garden, etc, etc. (Our denomination leaves those details up to us to decide, as they are not important to salvation. I had no idea YE existed until I started homeschooling. It's so interesting.)

[TracyP]

Thanks! Great article. :thumbup1:

 

Ironically, I was raised evangelical (though I know longer am) but never heard of YE until I came to this board. It just wasn't that big a deal in the circles I ran in.

[WishboneDawn]

Exactly. It completely goes against my belief on the divine. Sounds more like Loki to me! I was raised Jewish. And to be honest, y'all, they had the OT first. Genesis was never meant to be literal by days, etc. at the very least, maybe then it wouldn't have differences in the order and placement of days. I think my family would be highly offended that G-d would be portrayed as someone trying to trick us into believing YE as a test of faith. I just can not possibly grasp that line of thought.

 

Ha! I was thinking exactly that but didn't write it. :D

[Crimson Wife]

OH my, this is rough! I am not sure you understood Crimsonwifes position. I did not get from her posts that she was not teaching her kids what is considered the latest and greatest in scientific fact or how those facts were found. Quite the contrary imo. She said she teaches her kids the pervailing scientific ideas, shares her beliefs in the context of those facts, and gives her kids the tools to decide for themselves.

 

 

I use ONLY secular science curricula as my DH has banned YEC materials in our HS. We start the 4 year history cycle with a unit on hominid evolution . I just frame it as "this is what most scientists believe happened based on their interpretation of the current evidence".

 

I reject the claim that reason and faith are contradictory. They are complementary ways of knowing about the world. One isn't "true" and the other "false". When materialists reject faith, it strikes me as akin to someone on the X,Y plane is denying the existence of something that exists on the Y, Z plane. It is their prerogative to, but just because something is on a different plane does not mean it isn't real. :001_cool: