Young Earth Questions

[albeto.]

Hello!  I was reading about evidence for a young earth... and it kind of got me considering the idea that the earth could be young.  (And I'm not even Christian!!)

 

SO I was wondering-- why is it such a big deal?  Why do people care so much whether the earth is young or old?  Both mainstream science (anti YE) and YE people.  Why do YE people tend to weave it as the core theme in their curricula, is it really that significant?  (Now I get that creationism is important and somewhat central to a worldview, but why YE?)

Humans are curious creatures. We're also social creatures. We are inspired to satisfy our curiosity, and we are inspired to live together, to seek the best care and security of ourselves and our loved ones, to find and nurture reciprocal social bonds. To this end, a lot of our curiosity (all of it?) is aimed towards making our lives and the lives of our loved ones more enjoyable, to maximize pleasant experiences and minimize antagonizing experiences. As we are naturally social creatures, we cooperate, sharing our curiosities and knowledge with one another. We pass on these "life hacks" to each other and subsequent generations. This is roughly what culture is. 

 

Because we are inherently curious, we seek to understand the world around us. We naturally see the relationship between cause and effect, and naturally see patterns (even when they don't exist - but that's another topic).  Hundreds and thousands of generations of study, debate, and experimentation has established that the best of all methods of obtaining and originating reliable knowledge in all fields is the scientific method. The alternative solutions throughout history include attempting to decipher patterns in the stars, dreams, nature, random chance, and most respected traditionally, religion, just to name a few. After centuries of putting these methods to the test, the scientific method has been found to be the most reliable guide we have to reliably help us live together securely, with a maximization of pleasure and minimization of antagonizing experiences.

 

The reason YEC is a "big deal" in my opinion, is because it directly teaches a faulty and dangerous epistemology. That epistemology affects all of us. Earlier in the thread someone (Free? Florida Lady?) mentioned global competition. That's a huge factor to be considered. So too are domestic factors like health care including mental health, poverty, physical abuse of children and adults, agricultural problems (like the mysteries like the disappearance of the bees), clean, renewable energy sources, the justice system and its horrifying prison reality, etc. etc. etc. These affect not only individuals but the entire society. It behooves us to have an accurate understanding of the world around us, make accurate predictions, and devise successful solutions. 

 

Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?

 

 It matters because the scientific method reliable, because the alternatives are not, and because the consequences of trusting a notably unreliable methodology is arguably unethical and unjustifiable. We can no more predict and protect ourselves from weather storms by adhering to religious ritual than we can pray away mental ill health. Yet we end up utilizing precious time and resources to chase proverbial rainbows when reliable, dependable methods could be devised to actually support our goal - maximize pleasure and minimize antagonistic experiences. Instead of finding a way to identify the components of clean energy and affordable healthcare for example, things that would greatly increase all our well-being and minimize avoidable suffering, we're spending money (to the tune of billions of dollars per year) on trying to convince people that a supernatural being's opinion about human sexual behavior is somehow related to crime, weather, and rates of autism. This is detrimental to all of us, not just those of us with loved ones who are brutally punished for their "sins," but to the relative security and well-being of an entire society.  

 

When science is the rationalization for such conceptual witch hunts, scientists tend to defend themselves, their research, and the noble work science has to offer. But here's the thing - this knowledge is there for the taking! There is no patent on the scientific method. It's available for the asking, heck, it's natural (all toddlers are natural scientists)!  Yours isn't a question about evolution vs creationism, it's a question about reliable methods of understanding the world and making accurate predictions vs. misunderstanding the world and trusting a methodology with a history of inaccurate predictions, a history of disastrous solutions and missed opportunities. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We are watching the original Planet of the Apes and younger ds observed that the "Keeper of the Faith" in the trial scene looks and sounds a bit like Ken Ham. 

[albeto.]

I don't think this is a case of Young Earthers being incapable of understanding this at all.  Surely, some don't get the idea of scientific disproof and don't have the imagination to comprehend millions of years.  But there are plenty who I've debated in academia who know full well when they are misleading someone, and intentionally do so.  They are not rare, either.  When called out on their deception and backed into an intellectual corner, they privately laugh at their dishonesty.

 

I ran across an article yesterday that quickly introduces this idea with regard to what kind of information is shared, and the context in which evidence is taught. A Fascinating Study of How Creationists Understand Early Human Fossils shows this illustration, with the following explanation:

 

 

 

[Paleoanthropologist blogger Adam Benton] decided to examine how prominent creationist websites are representing the hominin fossil record. Benton searched for mentions of five other hominid species that accrued a similar number of citations to Lucy, demonstrating that they are just as scientifically important and so should be receiving a significant amount of coverage.

 

One example is, Sahelanthropus tchadensis (photo at top of page), which Benton says "is notable for being the oldest known hominin, dating to 6–7 million years ago….Its age places it shortly after the chimp and human lineages diverged…. so it can provide valuable insight into what some of the first members of the human family looked like."

 

The results of his study are produced in the table below, which quantifies the number of web pages discussing each of the fossils under consideration.

 

 

 

 

His conclusion:

 

 

It is apparent that Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Creation Ministries International (CMI) are presenting a distorted view of human evolution, glossing over critical fossils and creating the false impression that there is little evidence for human evolution. In fact, the evidence is voluminous.

 

I do not mean to argue that this distortion is intentional deception; writers at these organizations may simply be unaware of the vast majority of paleoanthropological literature, or perhaps prefer to discuss Lucy, as it is the example with which they are most familiar.

 

Regardless of the ultimate cause, the end result is clear: people who rely on AiG, CMI, and/ or the ICR for information on human evolution will wind up woefully underestimating the hominin fossil record.

 

 

 

There are certainly unethical creationists who are blatantly lying, like you mention with the misleading censorship of information (omitting facts). The most notable smoking gun is cdesign proponentsists, in which it was exposed that drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People had systematically replaced "creationism" and "creationist" with "design proponent." This was apparently done with word processor, and one example of an incomplete search/replace function left the word "cdesign proponentsists." The rest of the books were otherwise unchanged. It was clear and objective evidence the publishers were using religious material as scientific, lying about it when asked. 

 

I think home educators are not the ones intentionally lying to their children. I get the impression they believe very genuinely the information they've received is valid and credible. I think, sadly, they're the ones being lied to and in their genuine desire to teach their children well, are passing on erroneous information. 

[jhschool]

this topic is pretty interesting...

I tend to change my mind back and forth...

(Christian here.)

[Guest]

Not all creationists are YE.

[MercyA]

Something I should have mentioned. The evolution of a single celled organism to a human would take millions of years. The belief in evolution and the belief in an old earth are closely linked.  

 

Yes, they are linked in that evolution requires millions of years, and creationism does not.  However, believing that there is evidence for an old earth does not necessarily mean one is an evolutionist.  They are two separate issues.  I lean old-earth, but am not an evolutionist.  

 

I missed most of this thread yesterday.  Some of the comments here are just plain nasty.  I'm bowing out.

 

Peace. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not all creationists are YE.

 

Agreed, and I would say the vast majority are not.

[Reefgazer]

These were interesting links with an interesting perspective.  I agree with the idea that there is massive misunderstanding/misinterpretation among creationists, though.  That misunderstanding stems from a lack of background in the sciences, because evolutionary science does not stand on just one branch of science, but on many (geology, comparative anatomy, genetics, population biology, biochemistry, etc..), and that is an extremely complex body of knowledge that takes years of work to integrate and assimilate. 

 

For sure, I think most homeschoolers are not intentionally lying; I think they are in the category of people who genuinely misunderstand.  However, most people I know who are professionals/working in a field do not pretend expertise in other fields, such as telling their surgeon how to operate, their lawyer how to defend them in court, their HVAC tech how to install an AC unit, or their plumber how to re-fit the plumbing in their bathroom; they recognize they are not trained in the subject.  That is, they let the professionals do their job without interference.  So why are professionals in the science field considered open game?  It's absurd, especially since science, more than most professional fields, is self-correcting over time.  By that I mean that erroneous conclusions, misinterpretation of data, and even the rare downright intentional falsehoods (autism related to vaccines, the Piltdown man) were schussed out by the scientists themselves, not by amateurs.  The conclusion I make from this is that it is too painful for people to separate their faith from scientific fact, and accepting scientific evidence requires that one search lifelong beliefs they have held, and then come to grips with the discrepancies.  Some people are unable to do that; it is easier to attack the scientific messenger than to self-search and reconcile scientific facts with faith.  Faith and science are compatible; but that is a journey for each individual and has zilch to do with actual science. 

 

As for those professional scientists who know better (usually those trained in a scientific discipline, but not specifically evolution), I have nothing but contempt for them.  I have personally interacted with several who, when professionally backed into a corner on the topic, admitted as such, smirked, and continued to peddle their falsehoods intentionally. 

I ran across an article yesterday that quickly introduces this idea with regard to what kind of information is shared, and the context in which evidence is taught. A Fascinating Study of How Creationists Understand Early Human Fossils shows this illustration, with the following explanation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

His conclusion:

 

 

 

 

There are certainly unethical creationists who are blatantly lying, like you mention with the misleading censorship of information (omitting facts). The most notable smoking gun is cdesign proponentsists, in which it was exposed that drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People had systematically replaced "creationism" and "creationist" with "design proponent." This was apparently done with word processor, and one example of an incomplete search/replace function left the word "cdesign proponentsists." The rest of the books were otherwise unchanged. It was clear and objective evidence the publishers were using religious material as scientific, lying about it when asked. 

 

I think home educators are not the ones intentionally lying to their children. I get the impression they believe very genuinely the information they've received is valid and credible. I think, sadly, they're the ones being lied to and in their genuine desire to teach their children well, are passing on erroneous information. 

 

 

[acreecav]

The original question was, Why does it matter whether the earth is old or young?  Does it really matter to faith?  This is a great question, and one I struggled with for 30 years before “converting†to old earth and evolutionary creationism.  The main reason I couldn’t accept an old earth was that it presents a huge theological problem related to sin and death. 

 

In evangelical traditions such as mine, it’s understood from Romans (“the wages of sin is deathâ€) and elsewhere in the New Testament that all death is the consequence of human sin.  If there wasn’t even animal death before human sin, then all fossils, including dinosaurs, have to come from within the timespan of human existence, because until humans appeared on the scene there was no one capable of sinning and “bringing death into the world.â€

 

I accepted this as “gospel†for a long time, along with the idea that everything before Sin was perfect, although in the back of my mind it didn’t fit with other parts of the Genesis story.  For example, the tree of life gives the ability to “live forever,†but such a tree would have no purpose if Adam and Eve were immortal from the start. 

 

And the fact that both the animals and people were expected to eat presents several problems if they’re already perfect and immortal.  Even in Eden, they needed food; they got hungry.  The plants they ate would die when eaten.  As soon as animals or humans ate food, they’d have to digest it, which requires microbes with short life spans and produces waste that decays.

 

Old earth creationists (such as the Reasons to Believe people), although they reject human evolution, accept that there was at least animal death before human sin, so they can tolerate a long fossil record and the geological evidence for an ancient earth. 

 

The whole field of geology came into being because Christian naturalists in the 17^th and 18^th centuries kept bumping into rock formations that didn’t fit their young-earth expectations, such as eroded, extinct volcanoes in France or stacked sedimentary layers in Scotland that are upended or folded into “M’s†(look at photos of Siccar Point near Edinburgh, for instance). 

 

Since the original poster asked about young earth vs. old earth, I won’t get into my reasons for accepting evolution as God’s amazing design.  But the reason that the old earth question matters a lot to me is that I want my kids to know they can plunge into science without fear, that God’s Word and God’s World make sense together, and that they already know the Author of any stories the earth has to tell.

[jar7709]

To the original question, just a few very practical reasons why OE vs. YE matters, and setting theology aside:

 

Our modern society runs on fossil fuels and many different minerals and earth materials.  Your car is made of steel and plastic and runs on petroleum.  Your computer and smartphone are filled with rare metals.  The deposits where these fossil fuels, minerals, and metals are found are always found where modern geology (OE) predicts them to be, and it is OE science that geologists use to find these deposits.  I have heard some YE people state that maybe the creator just put them there that way, and I'm not going to tell anyone what to believe, but I will insist that modern OE science is needed to keep our civilization running as we are accustomed.

 

OE science also informs the basis of our understanding to what has happened to earth environments in the past and what could happen in the future.  For example, what could happen if we burn up all those fossil fuels.  Regardless of what politics may say about it, a thorough understanding to global systems and cycles is imperative in understanding and preparing for any future needs.

 

OE science is also key in understanding earthquake threats and designing appropriate building codes... understanding subsidence, coastal erosion, and similar effects for sea level and coastal areas... predicting earthquake hazards... the list really goes on and on. 

 

Geology is kind of an unsung "little brother" to the big three sciences in my opinion. For some reason it is easily overlooked by many as unimportant or uninteresting or idiotic, I don't know why.  But OE science is real and important and running in the background of most people's lives, even if they don't recognize it.  

 

 

[goldberry]

I never heard of YE before homeschooling, and I was raised in Texas!

 

Now that I homeschool, however, there are several in my circle who are YE.

 

 

 

(Personally old Earth creationist...and used to think all creationists were OE...I am also of the opinion that YE can drive educated people away from religion...)

[Luanne]

Key word there: believe. Belief =/= scientific evidence/fact.

 

There isn't absolute prove that the world is old either.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There isn't absolute prove that the world is old either.

 

 

There is actual scientific evidence though.

[Mrs Mungo]

There isn't absolute prove that the world is old either.

 

There is whole lot of evidence that indicates the earth is billions of years old. There is zero evidence that indicates the earth is 6,000 years old, not is that a Biblical stand in any way. See my former link earlier in the thread for rebuttals of common (and misleading) YEC claims.

 

Example:

http://m.space.com/25579-cosmos-recap-earth-age-lead-poisoning.html

 

Shouldn't the Judaic history, tradition and interpretations inform us, since they likely match the beliefs of Jesus? Jewish scholars do not in any way believe nor has there ever been a Jewish belief that those verses were to be taken as 7 literal days.

 

I am a Christian. I believe God created everything. I believe science informs us of the process. Science cannot prove the existence of God and religion doesn't belong in science class.

[Laura Corin]

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

 

It is definitely fringe in the UK, but must exist enough to cause teaching creationism of any kind to be specifically outlawed in UK state (i.e. 'public') school science lessons.  It could still be taught in private schools, but YE would not allow you to pass the university entrance exams.

 

The Christians I know in the UK believe (I think) that their god was present in the world as life evolved, but no more than that.  I think that a child who asked about their god's place in a biology class would receive the reply, 'We leave religion for the RE class - here we discuss how not who.'

 

L

[maize]

It is definitely fringe in the UK, but must exist enough to cause teaching creationism of any kind to be specifically outlawed in UK state (i.e. 'public') school science lessons.  It could still be taught in private schools, but YE would not allow you to pass the university entrance exams.

 

The Christians I know in the UK believe (I think) that their god was present in the world as life evolved, but no more than that.  I think that a child who asked about their god's place in a biology class would receive the reply, 'We leave religion for the RE class - here we discuss how not who.'

 

L

 

 

This makes me wonder: if Religious Education classes were permitted in public schools in the US, would people feel less need to insert religion into the science curriculum? Are people trying to get it in through the back door because it is not permitted through the front door?

 

Interesting thought.

[mommymilkies]

 

Shouldn't the Judaic history, tradition and interpretations inform us, since they likely match the beliefs of Jesus? Jewish scholars do not in any way believe nor has there ever been a Jewish belief that those verses were to be taken as 7 literal days.

 

 

:iagree:  I was raised Jewish and not even my most Orthodox family ever put forth the belief that there were literally 7 days to creation.  I will admit that I had never heard that opinion until I started homeschooling.  I still find it odd that this is even a "thing". 

[poppy]

This makes me wonder: if Religious Education classes were permitted in public schools in the US, would people feel less need to insert religion into the science curriculum? Are people trying to get it in through the back door because it is not permitted through the front door?

 

Interesting thought.

 

I remember learning the creation stories from a variety of religions in high school social studies. Do public schools not teach that anymore? 

[livetoread]

I remember learning the creation stories from a variety of religions in high school social studies. Do public schools not teach that anymore?

Schools are able to teach comparative religions, including creation stories, in classes other than science classes, as long as they don't privilege one religion over the other. The lawsuits etc. come from either trying to teach creationism as science or teaching one religion as being the correct one over others.

 

I don't know though how many teachers actually teach religious stories now. Speaking as a rabid separation of church and state advocate, I hope they are because they are a part of understanding art, literature, and history.

[kiana]

Almost every Christian I know and am close to believes in YEC, and several have become so in more recent years. It's not that much of a minority of actual Christians, as opposed to those just culturally identifying themselves as Protestants.

 

That is both harsh and unnecessary.

 

[poppy]

Yeah, I think the only way to read that is "people who think like me think like me". 

[Jane in NC]

Almost every Christian I know and am close to believes in YEC, and several have become so in more recent years. It's not that much of a minority of actual Christians, as opposed to those just culturally identifying themselves as Protestants.

 

Hold on now.  How are you identifying these "actual Christians"? 

[maize]

I remember learning the creation stories from a variety of religions in high school social studies. Do public schools not teach that anymore?

My understanding is that schools in the UK offer actual Religious Education classes at all grade levels, that would be something different than brief coverage in a social studies class.

[Jane in NC]

Please ladies, rather than jump to conclusions can you not assume the very best intent of a fellow poster?

 

Actual Christians as opposed to those identifying as culturally Protestant means exactly what it says - someone who professes the name of Christ, believes in and loves the Holy Scripture, attends church or a fellowship at least somewhat regularly, etc. You know, basic biblical hallmarks of those who are regenerated?

 

I usually do assume the best intent of a fellow poster but found your previous comment to be offensive.  It said to me that you are judging who is a Christian--dismissing Catholics and the Orthodox in the process.

 

To be honest, most Christians whom I know do not accept the young earth hypothesis. May we assume your intent is not to dismiss those whose beliefs are divergent from your own as non-Christian?

 

[albeto.]

This makes me wonder: if Religious Education classes were permitted in public schools in the US, would people feel less need to insert religion into the science curriculum? Are people trying to get it in through the back door because it is not permitted through the front door?

 

Interesting thought.

 

I don't think that would work out so well as planned. For instance, whose version of Christian "education" would suffice? Catholic? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon? Methodist? Southern Baptist? There are so many doctrines, some in diametric opposition to others, and everyone's idea of what is a "salvation issue" and what isn't differs. So, there's a very good reason the United States Constitution guarantees that the government will not act as an agency of any god, and public schools are included in this for practical reasons - there is no reliable way to do so accurately as religion is a matter of personal faith, so there is no method by which accuracy can be achieved. 

[albeto.]

Almost every Christian I know and am close to believes in YEC, and several have become so in more recent years. It's not that much of a minority of actual Christians, as opposed to those just culturally identifying themselves as Protestants.

 

Would you consider starting an "Ask an Actual Christian" thread for those of us who have questions?

[maize]

I don't think that would work out so well as planned. For instance, whose version of Christian "education" would suffice? Catholic? Jehovah's Witness? Mormon? Methodist? Southern Baptist? There are so many doctrines, some in diametric opposition to others, and everyone's idea of what is a "salvation issue" and what isn't differs. So, there's a very good reason the United States Constitution guarantees that the government will not act as an agency of any god, and public schools are included in this for practical reasons - there is no reliable way to do so accurately as religion is a matter of personal faith, so there is no method by which accuracy can be achieved.

I think multiple religions are covered, with an emphasis on Christianity as culturally important. I don't know how it is actually presented, but it would at least provide an appropriate forum for discussion of things like religious perspectives on the origins of life.

[poppy]

I think multiple religions are covered, with an emphasis on Christianity as culturally important. I don't know how it is actually presented, but it would at least provide an appropriate forum for discussion of things like religious perspectives on the origins of life.

 

I think this is pretty much what I got in high school in the late 80s / early 90s and it was educationally useful. I imagine it might play out differently in the Bible Belt. I was in a predominantly Catholic town so no one was  "actually Christian" [/sarcasm]. 

 

We did a reading of Inherit the Wind, which I thought was appropriate coverage of the evolution debate.

 

[albeto.]

I think multiple religions are covered, with an emphasis on Christianity as culturally important. I don't know how it is actually presented, but it would at least provide an appropriate forum for discussion of things like religious perspectives on the origins of life.

 

In the United States, Christianity is the majority culture. People are familiar with it simply by being immersed in it.

 

In what way is it culturally important that would inspire specific lessons? 

 

Things like religious perspectives on the origins of life are irrelevant in science, so are you thinking language arts? Literature? It's not historical, so it wouldn't be in a history class. I'm drawing a blank about where it might be applied. And again, how would one make sure the tens of thousands of legitimate Christian denominations are accurately represented? Who decides what's actually Christian? Someone with Arctic Mama's beliefs? Mormon's? JW's? Catholic? What about an atheist? Would that work with regard to teaching cultural relevance? 

 

See the problem with implementing an idea like this? It's impossible, really. 

[albeto.]

I think some knowledge about the bible is useful to have in literature.

 

Would religion classes be warranted? Do we consider Greek Religion and Roman Religion classes so we can teach the classics? Or do we explain things as they are relevant? 

[justasque]

Almost every Christian I know and am close to believes in YEC, and several have become so in more recent years. It's not that much of a minority of actual Christians, as opposed to those just culturally identifying themselves as Protestants.

 

But is your social group a random selection of the wide range of Christian believers in this country, or is it more limited because of other factors, like belonging to a homeschooling group with a statement of faith that would exclude those Christians who are less likely to be YE, even though they profess the name of Christ, believe in and love the Holy Scripture, and attend church regularly?  If most of your friendships come from church and from a Christian SOF homeschooling group, they are likely to have similar beliefs as to YE.  

 

Sometimes it's a good "reality check" to look at what our friends believe, and sometimes we are in a bubble of those with similar beliefs without quite realizing it.  Most of my friends have homeschooled their children, but most families in this country do not; the fact that many of my friendships were made through the context of homeschooling skews my sample group.  It would be inaccurate for me to assume that most American families homeschool, just because most of my friends do. 

 

Also - Did you mean to exclude non-Protestant Christians from being "actual Christians"?  Devout Catholics, for example, profess the name of Christ, believe in and love the Holy Scripture, and attend mass every week.; they are clearly Christians, are they not?

 

[albeto.]

No, I'd just explain allusions in class. It's the only class I could see knowledge of the bible coming up.

 

 

This is my thinking as well. It simply doesn't justify a religion class, and to do so for science or history would be factually wrong and should have no place in a public education setting. In my opinion, it shouldn't be supported in a non public education setting either. 

[kiana]

Hmm, courses such as "survey of world religions" or "classical mythology" seem like totally reasonable electives at a high school or college level, although of course not required courses.

[poppy]

Would religion classes be warranted? Do we consider Greek Religion and Roman Religion classes so we can teach the classics? Or do we explain things as they are relevant? 

 

I can't imagine studying literature and language without some background on the Bible and world religions. Are the basics not covered in standard HS curricula? (My oldest is 5...)

[Renaissance Mom]

Would religion classes be warranted? Do we consider Greek Religion and Roman Religion classes so we can teach the classics? Or do we explain things as they are relevant?

Of course we do -- there is no way we can do justice to Greek and Roman classic literature without a reasonable familiarity with their mythologies...that's religion. One cannot understand, analyze, or interpret classic literature without understanding the many allusions to many types of religious beliefs.

 

We also spend a good bit of our time in educating our children in history. If you delve into the history of modern science and the multitude of scientific disciplines, you will find that history steeped in religion as well. Wishing it weren't so doesn't remove it from being a part of a well-rounded education even when you disagree with the specific beliefs.

 

Finally, everything we encounter is filtered through our own particular world views. When we read and analyze litrature, it is extremely helpful to determine the author's worldview in order to properly discern what he/she wants to communicate to us. When we study history, it is enormously helpful to have at least a basic understanding of the cultural/temporal worldview to understand how that history came to be. All scientists have a worldview, too. I'm not saying they share the same worldview, but each one has a worldview that does shape his/her perspective. I know they diligently strive to let the data drive the conclusions...but there is no such thing as complete impartiality.

[albeto.]

I can't imagine studying literature and language without some background on the Bible and world religions. Are the basics not covered in standard HS curricula? (My oldest is 5...)

 

This little bunny trail started in reply to the question about potential benefit for religion education classes in public schools. I am not advocating keeping children ignorant of the bible or the most pervasive religious belief in the United States. My point is that dedicated classes to teach the Christian religion is irrelevant to education, and would be impossible to implement anyway. 

[albeto.]

Of course we do -- there is no way we can do justice to Greek and Roman classic literature without a reasonable familiarity with their mythologies...that's religion. One cannot understand, analyze, or interpret classic literature without understanding the many allusions to many types of religious beliefs.

 

We also spend a good bit of our time in educating our children in history. If you delve into the history of modern science and the multitude of scientific disciplines, you will find that history steeped in religion as well. Wishing it weren't so doesn't remove it from being a part of a well-rounded education even when you disagree with the specific beliefs.

 

Finally, everything we encounter is filtered through our own particular world views. When we read and analyze litrature, it is extremely helpful to determine the author's worldview in order to properly discern what he/she wants to communicate to us. When we study history, it is enormously helpful to have at least a basic understanding of the cultural/temporal worldview to understand how that history came to be. All scientists have a worldview, too. I'm not saying they share the same worldview, but each one has a worldview that does shape his/her perspective. I know they diligently strive to let the data drive the conclusions...but there is no such thing as complete impartiality.

 

Are you speaking as a home educator, or on behalf of education provided free of charge for the public? As a dedicated home educator, your points are understandable. I don't think they are relevant for public education, however, because these goals can be met without formal religious education classes. . The fact that you relate science and worldview suggests to me a significant lack of understanding about the scientific methodology, what it is, and how it works. It speaks to the importance of OP's question, Why is teaching YEC a big deal? I think it's a big deal because it is necessary if one is to consider this particular religious belief to be a legitimate explanation when one takes into consideration the knowledge we have about the natural world today. 

[maize]

This little bunny trail started in reply to the question about potential benefit for religion education classes in public schools. I am not advocating keeping children ignorant of the bible or the most pervasive religious belief in the United States. My point is that dedicated classes to teach the Christian religion is irrelevant to education, and would be impossible to implement anyway.

I was responding to Laura Corin's post indicating that a child questioning the place of God in biology would be referred to their Religious Education class as the appropriate place to discuss such questions. Made me wonder if that might be a better way to handle the issue than either insisting either that religious ideas be incorporated into science classes or alternatively insisting such questions never be addressed in school at all. Not sure why religious education of some kind would be impossible to implement since other countries manage just fine.

[Wheres Toto]

My daughters high school offered World Mythology as an elective (she took it, she LOVES Mythology).  Her college (an extremely liberal state university) offers a ton of Mythology and Religion electives.  I had World Religions and Mythology as elective options back in the 80's.

 

NJ is barely Christian majority.  It's actual Catholic majority, with None coming in second.  In some counties/towns you will find very large Jewish, Muslim or Hindu populations.   Maybe that's why this seems like such a foreign idea to me? 

 

My oldest was public schooled so I don't have the selection bias of homeschoolers being my core group.  Although the first IRL young earthers I've met are homeschoolers, I've met far more homeschoolers who are NOT young earth.  But, I also don't join groups that require a SOF.

 

ETA:  I realized the way I worded that may sound like I don't think Catholics are Christian.  That is NOT my view.  My mothers whole family is Catholic.  But without the Catholic portion, I don't believe Christian is the majority here.

[kiana]

I was responding to Laura Corin's post indicating that a child questioning the place of God in biology would be referred to their Religious Education class as the appropriate place to discuss such questions. Made me wonder if that might be a better way to handle the issue than either insisting either that religious ideas be incorporated into science classes or alternatively insisting such questions never be addressed in school at all. Not sure why religious education of some kind would be impossible to implement since other countries manage just fine.

 

It would seem to me reasonable to suggest that they consult with their religious leader the next time they attend worship/Sunday School or equivalent for the theological implications.

 

I just don't see how it could work otherwise. I would be pretty ticked, for example, if I found that my kid's religious studies class was teaching them that (for example) people who didn't believe that Genesis was a literal account of Creation were all going to Hell, but someone who believes that would probably be pretty ticked to have the opposite taught.

[albeto.]

I was responding to Laura Corin's post indicating that a child questioning the place of God in biology would be referred to their Religious Education class as the appropriate place to discuss such questions. Made me wonder if that might be a better way to handle the issue than either insisting either that religious ideas be incorporated into science classes or alternatively insisting such questions never be addressed in school at all. Not sure why religious education of some kind would be impossible to implement since other countries manage just fine.

 

Religious beliefs have no value in science, just like they have no value in math, spelling, or geography. Their value in history is equal to the value of the religious beliefs of ancient Mesopotamia, the Americas, Asia, Africa. That is to say, as they are relevant to the subjects at hand, they are introduced and discussed. I don't understand why a dedicated religious education class would be considered a better idea than our current plan.

 

Look to the Joel Osteen thread to see how impossible it is to define what Real Christians believe. They refer to the exact same text and yet come away with different ideas about what the Christian faith "really" is, and that's not even including the Mormons, JWs, and Messianic Christians who probably know where the conversation would delve should they include their opinions. How would an accurate representation of the Christian faith be found? How would the classes be taught? Who would be trusted to teach them? In what way would this be better than the current system?

 

A child questioning their faith ought to be directed to the teachers of the faith - parents and faith-based communities. A child questioning scientific knowledge should be answered in science class. 

 

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just confused about how you think a religious education class would play out in practical terms in the United States. 

[kiana]

When my sister was in Primary school she pretended to be Anglican for a while because the Anglican teacher gave out treats at the end of the lesson. Eventually, after a number of weeks, they realised she wasn't on the roll and made her go back to Catholic scripture..

 

Haha!

 

A friend of mine convinced the cooks at his boarding school that he was Jewish, because if they were serving mystery meat it usually had pork in it and the Jewish kids got an alternative.

[J-rap]

Please ladies, rather than jump to conclusions can you not assume the very best intent of a fellow poster?

 

Actual Christians as opposed to those identifying as culturally Protestant means exactly what it says - someone who professes the name of Christ, believes in and loves the Holy Scripture, attends church or a fellowship at least somewhat regularly, etc. You know, basic biblical hallmarks of those who are regenerated?

 

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what you said in your other post.  Most of my closest friends and family are people who profess the name of Christ, believe in and love the Holy Scripture, and attend church or a fellowship regularly, but are NOT YE Christians.  I even went to Bible School for a year during my college years, but never heard of the YE theory until I was in my 30's and began homeschooling.

[Caroline]

Nm, don't care enough to respond.

I read your post before you deleted it.

 

I went to an amazing Coming Home Service today for the AP Biology teacher from my school. She died from a pulmonary embolism last Monday. The preacher talked about time, and using it wisely. He talked about when time started and the billions of years that have passed. So I was in a church full of Christians today who clearly believe in an old earth. (Really figured out why my church has been referred to as The Frozen Chosen, as opposed to these demonstrative, faith expressing Jamaicans.)

[albeto.]

nm 

 

Edited July 6, 2014 by Moderator
This is now moving towards fight-picking. Stay on topic, please.

[mommymilkies]

Haha!

 

A friend of mine convinced the cooks at his boarding school that he was Jewish, because if they were serving mystery meat it usually had pork in it and the Jewish kids got an alternative.

:lol: My high school art teacher (and friend's mom) used to go way out of her way to buy me my own pizza without pepperoni when I was around.  I told her not to and I didn't care-I could pick it off.  It took me a long time to realize she thought I was violating my Jewish beliefs.  At least she was thoughtful!

[Caroline]

It's not about thinking he is right or wrong. It is about your saying that it isn't a small minority of actual Christians who believe in young earth. It truly is a small minority of Christians who believe it.

 

Well I think he is wrong and contradicts scripture. Obviously. But debating the specifics is completely pointless here, which is why I thought the better of doing it. I like to respond thoroughly but it becomes a time sink and takes me away from my family to do so, and thus I have to be very judicious about what I say and how far I can go in batting it around. Better to do these things in person.

 

I'm sorry for the passing of your friend and I hope she was saved and is rejoicing with her Lord in Heaven. It's always hard to lose someone here, even knowing you will see them again :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I disagree. Of the true church of a Christ globally, I think the vast majority believe the creation account to be true. This has certainly been my experience.

 

One of us will be right about this, and we won't be finding out this side of heaven ;)

 

Believing in creation /= YEC.

 

[poppy]

I disagree. Of the true church of a Christ globally, I think the vast majority believe the creation account to be true. This has certainly been my experience.

 

One of us will be right about this, and we won't be finding out this side of heaven ;)

 

Would you please stop insinuating that everyone who disagrees with you isn't a true Christian? For starters, the 1 billions Catholics on earth.  It's incredibly insulting.

[J-rap]

Okay, that's fine. But your experience doesn't invalidate my experience in this. They're just different.

 

I agree.  :)  I wasn't trying to invalidate your experience.  I was just implying that your experience doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that you stated:

 

"It's not that much of a minority of actual Christians, as opposed to those just culturally identifying themselves as Protestants."