Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kahlanne

Why the need to know?

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the info.

 

I agree that such things as HSLDA affect me and my kids. I was confused because I was only speaking about what I would do differently if I were suddenly YE, and the answer was "nothing" because I think it's possible to teach something you don't personally believe in and to teach it objectively.  :)

The evidence I have seen shows that the vast majority of YECs do teach science differently than everyone else. They rely on texts that inaccurately portray scientific evidence, beliefs and principles. They generally do not teach it in an objective manner. To be fair, I don't teach YEC in an objective manner because I don't believe in it and believe *all* of the evidence is against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew a lot of people who lost their faith because their church or parents emphasized this belief:

"It isn't necessarily a salvation issue in and of itself, but the outflow of how differing views on this affect the rest of one's theology isn't to be underestimated. Especially in the areas of death before sin and biblical inerrancy."

 

It is sad when young people are told that they have to choose between religion and science and religion loses. :( I don't think you have to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be important if evolution was a known fact, but it is still just a theory.  

 

This is a perfect example of science not being taught properly. No one would say "It's just a theory" if they actually understood what a scientific theory is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example of science not being taught properly. No one would say "It's just a theory" if they actually understood what a scientific theory is.

At 1:20, a scientist explains what a theory means:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence I have seen shows that the vast majority of YECs do teach science differently than everyone else. They rely on texts that inaccurately portray scientific evidence, beliefs and principles. They generally do not teach it in an objective manner. To be fair, I don't teach YEC in an objective manner because I don't believe in it and believe *all* of the evidence is against it.

I agree with you BUT I have felt very weak in teaching science to my kids, because of my upbringing. I know there are OE and/or Theistic Evolution-believing Christians, but I never did see how those beliefs can co-exist without cognitive dissonance. I mean, I never did see how a person can be completely comfortable with the thematic story of Redemption of the Bible, but also rationally acknowledge that the story of creation, the specific stories of Adam & eve, Noah, etc. are allegorical stories, while still believing that all the doctrinal message of Christ is correct. Forgive my run-ons. Anyway, I avoid theological study with my kids because my beliefs have changed so substantially, but I'm not keen to inform them, nor do I have a well-formulated, down-pat concept of just what I do and don't believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be important if evolution was a known fact, but it is still just a theory. 

 

Gravity is just a theory too, but I bet you don't grab a valuable antique vase and drop it just to check.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you BUT I have felt very weak in teaching science to my kids, because of my upbringing. I know there are OE and/or Theistic Evolution-believing Christians, but I never did see how those beliefs can co-exist without cognitive dissonance. I mean, I never did see how a person can be completely comfortable with the thematic story of Redemption of the Bible, but also rationally acknowledge that the story of creation, the specific stories of Adam & eve, Noah, etc. are allegorical stories, while still believing that all the doctrinal message of Christ is correct. Forgive my run-ons. Anyway, I avoid theological study with my kids because my beliefs have changed so substantially, but I'm not keen to inform them, nor do I have a well-formulated, down-pat concept of just what I do and don't believe.

Well, I don't think the Old Testament was designed or intended to convey FACTS but to convey TRUTHS. Those are different things to me. [ETA: I'm sure if you are never exposed to the idea that you have to believe both or neither that it is easier to accept one and not the other as literal fact]

 

Are you interested in exploring this idea? The link I posted earlier and many articles on pathos (just google patheos old earth) are good places to start. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think the Old Testament was designed or intended to convey FACTS but to convey TRUTHS. Those are different things to me.

 

Are you interested in exploring this idea? The link I posted earlier and many articles on pathos (just google patheos old earth) are good places to start. :)

That link does look fascinating. I do want to peruse it. I don't think my faith can be brought back at this point, but I have wondered about this for a long time (how one holds those ideas together.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity is just a theory too, but I bet you don't grab a valuable antique vase and drop it just to check.  ;)

And the Theory of Gravity is a good comparison. The Theory of Gravity is an explanation as to how gravity works, it isn't a theory of whether it exists. Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is an explanation as to how evolution works, it isn't a theory in terms of whether scientists believe (again, for lack of better word) whether it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing the age of the earth is necessary to develop any scientific theory that deals with long term processes - be it geological or biological. Without an idea of the time scales it is impossible to explain the formation of rocks, mineral deposits, oil, mountains, continental drift. Any large scale process requires a long time scale.

Any scientist who wants to find scientific explanations for natural processes happening on such scales must have an approximate idea of the age of the Earth, because the time scale of a phenomenon is vital for any dynamic process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you BUT I have felt very weak in teaching science to my kids, because of my upbringing. I know there are OE and/or Theistic Evolution-believing Christians, but I never did see how those beliefs can co-exist without cognitive dissonance. I mean, I never did see how a person can be completely comfortable with the thematic story of Redemption of the Bible, but also rationally acknowledge that the story of creation, the specific stories of Adam & eve, Noah, etc. are allegorical stories, while still believing that all the doctrinal message of Christ is correct. Forgive my run-ons. Anyway, I avoid theological study with my kids because my beliefs have changed so substantially, but I'm not keen to inform them, nor do I have a well-formulated, down-pat concept of just what I do and don't believe.

This is a good example of how we are all so different :)

 

I didn't flesh out my own YE beliefs until AFTER five years of biology from high school through into college. My husband and his father love science (husband was physics and engineering, FIL was engineering/MAT and ended up teaching high school math and science for part of his career). We have zero cognitive dissonance in approaching science - especially the hard sciences, microbiology, seismology, etc - none of these conflict in any way with our biblical worldview.

 

I guess this is one of those areas like the trinity, where we can understand and agree with it completely while accepting it isn't something that you can reason someone *else* into. Working from a biblical framework and observing the evidences presented by the observable world just gels beautifully to us - for me, they make much more sense than the years I spent trying to square theistic evolution.

 

I may be a minority, that I worked my way *to* YEC instead of coming from it as a presupposition and changing my mind to supported OE/TE perspectives. But for me, at least, YEC was a comfortable way of harmonizing cognitive dissonance and not an inducer of it. That's just how The Lord worked in my life through scripture and applied theology.

 

It's clear there are very different schools of thought on this in the church. Fortunately there are numerous congregations that fit believers who differ in their opinion on origins and the out working of it, so we don't all bludgeon each other to death in annoyance ;)

 

I firmly believe denominations exist so we don't commit murder in our hearts over preference issues :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My DH is an OE creationist. He believes in the Day-Age theory. He was one who needed to know. This all happened before we met, but he wrestled and studied and read.... and finally has peace with what he believes to be true. I suppose I am a YE creationist, but I am not dogmatic about it. I haven't done a ton of studying, but I'm not one who "needs" to know. My theological interests lie more in the direction of studying the finer points of Calvinism. :) So, we generally don't discuss the topic of origins. He knows that arguing with me would be like trying to argue with a wet noodle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you BUT I have felt very weak in teaching science to my kids, because of my upbringing. I know there are OE and/or Theistic Evolution-believing Christians, but I never did see how those beliefs can co-exist without cognitive dissonance. I mean, I never did see how a person can be completely comfortable with the thematic story of Redemption of the Bible, but also rationally acknowledge that the story of creation, the specific stories of Adam & eve, Noah, etc. are allegorical stories, while still believing that all the doctrinal message of Christ is correct. Forgive my run-ons. Anyway, I avoid theological study with my kids because my beliefs have changed so substantially, but I'm not keen to inform them, nor do I have a well-formulated, down-pat concept of just what I do and don't believe.

I would be very interested in discussing this further, since I am someone who believes in theistic evolution, and also believes absolutely in the resurrection, redemption, and other traditional, orthodox doctrines of the church. I'm not aware of any cognitive dissonance on my part, but I guess no one ever is aware when they themselves are suffering from it, only when others are! :) Can you tell me more about where you believe the conflict arises? I suspect (but don't let me put words in your mouth) that it is because you view the Bible in more monolithic terms than I do. I see it not as one book, but as a collection of books, inspired by God but penned by different people at very different times, with different passages having VERY different purposes, importance, and relevance. Is that where and why our views diverge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a most excellent summary. Day to day it doesn't make much difference to me - but creation and the timeline of the bible is foundstionally important to many doctrines. It isn't necessarily a salvation issue in and of itself, but the outflow of how differing views on this affect the rest of one's theology isn't to be underestimated. Especially in the areas of death before sin and biblical inerrancy.

 

Not to pick on you personally, AM, because this idea [it doesn't make much difference one way or another], is common enough and not limited to you. It is, however, quite misleading. It's like saying it doesn't make any difference if bacteria are understood to explain staph infections or demons are, doctors administer antibiotics anyway. Well, it does make a difference. It makes an enormous difference, one that would be undeniably obvious should we find ourselves without the conveniences that we rely on because this information is understood and utilized accurately. Without an understanding of microbiology, there would be no antibiotics. Without an understanding of the natural world, including the age of the earth, we would lack all kinds of things we take for granted. The planning and construction of larger bridges, many roads, tunnels, dams, and even landfills are dependent upon accurate information gleaned by trained geologists.  Engineering geologists are experts in rock strength, slope stability, and soil mechanics. Environmental geologists are involved with pollution control. They may test soil, air, and/or water for pollution and conduct clean-up of contaminants. They search and help mine and exploit earth’s resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, precious metals, and gemstones. There are so many things we tend to take for granted with regard to scientific discovery, things that have direct impacts on how we live and how we can effectively plan for future generations. To say that it doesn't make a difference is to illustrate a lack of understanding about how this information does benefit us individually and as a society. What matters most, I think, is not recognizing the details of geography as a field of science, but in recognizing the value and mechanics of the scientific method, and how it is used to understand our natural world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe one cannot practice or enjoy science and proper methodology therein while maintaining a 6 day creation worldview.

 

We will not agree on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very interested in discussing this further, since I am someone who believes in theistic evolution, and also believes absolutely in the resurrection, redemption, and other traditional, orthodox doctrines of the church. I'm not aware of any cognitive dissonance on my part, but I guess no one ever is aware when they themselves are suffering from it, only when others are! :) Can you tell me more about where you believe the conflict arises? I suspect (but don't let me put words in your mouth) that it is because you view the Bible in more monolithic terms than I do. I see it not as one book, but as a collection of books, inspired by God but penned by different people at very different times, with different passages having VERY different purposes, importance, and relevance. Is that where and why our views diverge?

Okay, I'll try, but be aware that I find this topic a quagmire and seem to possess no ability to outline my thoughts on the subject systematically!

 

First, the stories in Genesis, whether they are literal facts, or allegorical truths, undergird the entire concept of why there is mankind, what our nature is meant to be, why we are unable to live up to our own ideals, and why redemption would be necessary. This has become difficult for me because I no longer believe any of those doctrinal concepts, regardless of whether the stories are literal or allegorical.

 

For example, God was lonely and kinda bored, hanging out in a void and formless space, so he thought he would make some things. He made some stuff (setting aside for a moment dinosaurs, etc.), thought it was good, but really thought a being who was more similar to a god would be much better. So he made a) *A* man; or b.) mankind. God comes belatedly upon the idea that a biological pair of genders would be wise for humans. (If he made a whole bunch of men before he realized this, he had to make a whole bunch of chicks, too.) obviously, I'm being a bit facetious, because i find it strange that God's activities in Genesis are always described as if things just occurred to him. So anyway, either mankind, or one individual pair of humans turn out to choose poorly (yet another very elementary outcome; where two choices exist, the probability is eventually, the quarter comes up Tails. God should know that.) Somehow this obvious outcome of choosing one of two possible choices separates man from God forever. Now our sins must be "paid for." (Why? God is the Landlord, yet he cannot cancel the debt.) Anyway, we must work in toil and atone for sins with the blood of an innocent. (Again, why? How did Cain and Able learn this? Cain gave up what he had, but god deemed it inadequate because it wasn't a dead lamb.)

 

Moving on, God realizes people are all messed up and he totally must get a do-over. (Why didn't he foresee this? Who are the giants? Bizarre mythology borrowing in that story.) God "needs" one family to save all the animals (though clearly he could make them from scratch) on a ship that takes a hundred years (or whatev) to build. Does he save viruses? Gnats? Mosquitoes (not a good call, IMO)? Logistical problems with the flood story abound, yet even if one says it may not have been literally world-wide, the question remains - why? What does it tell us? That we suck and God might just scrap Project Earth at any given time? Is the story lieral, plus horrifying, not to mention implausible? Or is it allegorical, but if so, what is the point?

 

So, anyway, the whole point of Jesus is a way to fix this messed-up world, yet a) i don't believe the story of how it got messed up, nor how to fix it, and b.) it isn't fixed in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does he save viruses? Gnats? Mosquitoes (not a good call, IMO)?

 

If Noah had been truly wise

He would've swatted those two flies.

 

Of course, aren't there two accounts of what ended up on the ark?

 

Edit: Of course, ark is the word!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Noah had been truly wise

He would've swatted those two flies.

 

Of course, aren't there two accounts of what ended up on the ark?

 

Edit: Of course, ark is the word!

 

Maybe this planet is the ark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll try, but be aware that I find this topic a quagmire and seem to possess no ability to outline my thoughts on the subject systematically!

No worries! I really appreciate you taking the time to answer. It is complicated and difficult, and I'm not sure I'm up to the task of replying to you tonight. You went in a somewhat different direction and covered a lot more territory than what I was thinking about! I apologize for begging off after you went to so much trouble. But if there's any hope of me having a coherent conversation, it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I guess I'd like my sphere of influence to be greater than people who think like me. Granted, I occasionally have to go back and do some re-teaching with my kids or explore a concept more. But, that's just an opportunity to emphasize what they have already been taught. There are other reasons people want to hang out with me. :D

 

Maybe. But I have children who dream of careers in science. My son wants to be a paleontologist. So hanging out with people who either think Satan put dinosaur bones around the earth as some sort of trick for atheists or that Adam rode to work on a T-Rex is going to work for him.

 

My daughter wants to be an astrophysicist. So hanging out with people who think space exploration is stupid because god created just the earth isn't going to work for us either.

 

And YE families also tend to be more socially conservative. I've managed to shield my kids from people who think women cannot be scientists for more than 10 years. I'm not going to add them into my life to prove I accept diversity.

 

It's ok to shield yourself from people who do not add anything positive or productive to your life. And I've never met a YE person who would do that for anyone in our family. Nor do I particularly care if they feel the same about my family. They are on their own walk through this life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries! I really appreciate you taking the time to answer. It is complicated and difficult, and I'm not sure I'm up to the task of replying to you tonight. You went in a somewhat different direction and covered a lot more territory than what I was thinking about! I apologize for begging off after you went to so much trouble. But if there's any hope of me having a coherent conversation, it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. I'm sorry.

No biggie. I've been bothered for a decade; what's another day or two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. But I have children who dream of careers in science. My son wants to be a paleontologist. So hanging out with people who either think Satan put dinosaur bones around the earth as some sort of trick for atheists or that Adam rode to work on a T-Rex is going to work for him.

 

My daughter wants to be an astrophysicist. So hanging out with people who think space exploration is stupid because god created just the earth isn't going to work for us either.

 

And YE families also tend to be more socially conservative. I've managed to shield my kids from people who think women cannot be scientists for more than 10 years. I'm not going to add them into my life to prove I accept diversity.

 

It's ok to shield yourself from people who do not add anything positive or productive to your life. And I've never met a YE person who would do that for anyone in our family. Nor do I particularly care if they feel the same about my family. They are on their own walk through this life.

You might not realize that these are insulting assumptions. I don't know a single YEC who believes Adam rode dinosaurs or that they didn't exist at all and are a satanic trick. I also don't know any who think woman cannot be scientists, or shun space exploration.

 

I love creation and find if very beautiful and compelling, hence my interest in theologically and as a hobby these days. My spouse finds the natural laws to be fascinating and affirming, and has spent his life since boyhood seeking mastery of them in practical use. None of this is science or logic shunning, and none of it need deny a creator.

 

You don't have to agree with the concept, but I don't think you need to be using insulting and demeaning language toward whole swaths of people based on a set of - frankly wrongheaded - assumptions. You can choose who you want your family to hang out with, we all do that. But I think it can be done without misrepresenting the views of others. We don't have to agree with or like something to speak plainly or truthfully about it, and I certainly hope as a religious parent I don't get caught in the trap of dehumanizing and broad brushing those I disagree with just to pad my ideological points.

 

It's such an easy thing to be hypocritical about, but a very important thing to strive for nonetheless - I am being honest in thanking you for the reminder of that :)

 

We can believe things with conviction and defend them with passion and all the intellect we possess, yet be respectful and engage rightly with others, trying best to understand their positions even as we might disagree. We don't need to misrepresent something to make a strawman.

 

I don't know if that's what your post was doing intentionally, but it did come across that way to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you BUT I have felt very weak in teaching science to my kids, because of my upbringing. I know there are OE and/or Theistic Evolution-believing Christians, but I never did see how those beliefs can co-exist without cognitive dissonance. I mean, I never did see how a person can be completely comfortable with the thematic story of Redemption of the Bible, but also rationally acknowledge that the story of creation, the specific stories of Adam & eve, Noah, etc. are allegorical stories, while still believing that all the doctrinal message of Christ is correct. Forgive my run-ons. Anyway, I avoid theological study with my kids because my beliefs have changed so substantially, but I'm not keen to inform them, nor do I have a well-formulated, down-pat concept of just what I do and don't believe.

 

If you're interested, I like Fr. Longenecker, a Catholic priest who blogs on the patheos website.  He has some good articles about how he views OT stories and events.  I would try to explain more, but I don't think I'd do a good job of it. :-)

 

ETA: I found the link to one of the articles I was thinking of.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/02/is-the-adam-and-eve-story-a-myth.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think anyone really knows how old the earth (or the universe) is and I don't think it says anything about how educated I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might not realize that these are insulting assumptions. I don't know a single YEC who believes Adam rode dinosaurs or that they didn't exist at all and are a satanic trick. I also don't know any who think woman cannot be scientists, or shun space exploration.

Then why does the Creation Museum feature dinosaurs and humans co-existing? Why do the Chick tracts claiming dinosaur bones are tricks continue to sell? Obviously, people do believe those things. True, it isn't my experience that all YECs believe them, but clearly many do and wouldn't find the assumption insulting. I don't hang out with people who shun space exploration, but Ken Ham *just recently* made statements about that and some of the people *here* agreed with him. There are plenty of fringe Christians who don't think women should be scientists. Some of them give talks *at homeschooling conventions*. Don't you think that *you* are insulting *those* people by assuming that Jennifer is trying to insult you?

 

You haven't posted any reasons for believing what you believe. You haven't posted anything that refutes the common belief (again, for lack of a better word) about the age of the earth. At what point *does* not accepting the science become indefensible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I believe dinosaurs co-existed with humans, which accounts for all sorts of mythology from hydras to dragons. But that doesn't mean they were beasts of burden any more than a gila monster or crocodile would be a farm animal these days.

 

I accept the science - if by science you mean the data. I fit it to a different hypothesis. I don't agree with the majority academic premise undergirding the interpretation of that evidence. Important difference, I think.

 

I'm not going to take the time to explain or defend what I believe. Or the specific ways I harmonize the evidence available to us with a historical interpretation of the whole of Genesis. My goal isn't to make people agree with me, but to assert that one doesn't need to be a moron, backward, anti science, anti woman, or anything else to hold those views. I think that's a gross oversimplification.

 

My point on this thread was that the creation views do matter, but that they aren't necessarily defining of the individual's worldview or theology in the way some assume. And I don't ever think it's a good idea to take the worst example in a given field and use that as a type by which to dismiss everyone else identified, however loosely, with that tag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone who is taking the time to answer without causing a debate. I find it very informative. I understood why scientist needed to know but wondered how it would factor into daily life of an every day person. A couple of responses above addressed this very question. Thank you.

 

I am sure y'all wonder how I could successfully homeschool, possibly feeling sorry for my children. :blushing:

 

Not at all! And in a sense you are right. There are lots of questions for which we don't have the answers, Christians or scientists.

Some things we may never fully understand while we are here on earth. On other fronts, new discoveries are made daily; some may prove to be indeed innovative game changers, other will be disproven again...and so it goes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I believe dinosaurs co-existed with humans, which accounts for all sorts of mythology from hydras to dragons. But that doesn't mean they were beasts of burden any more than a gila monster or crocodile would be a farm animal these days.

OR large bones/fossils account for those stories, just as elephant skulls may have inspired stories about the Cyclops.

 

I accept the science - if by science you mean the data.

There are zero indicators that man co-existed with dinosaurs. So, you are accepting a different data set than science is working with.

 

I fit it to a different hypothesis.

Only one is a hypothesis.

 

I don't agree with the majority academic premise undergirding the interpretation of that evidence. Important difference, I think.

I think you need to say that you disagree with science or disagree with mainstream science, not just a majority of scientists.

 

My goal isn't to make people agree with me, but to assert that one doesn't need to be a moron, backward, anti science, anti woman, or anything else to hold those views. I think that's a gross oversimplification.

I think she is strictly speaking from her own experience with specific people. I didn't take it as a generalization. Some people *do* believe those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This exactly. As a parent who is picky about her children's friends... knowing someone is YE enables me to weed out people I do not want in my children's lives because we are a logical, fact based family. As homeschoolers, we do a lot of science. If I know you do not follow commonly accepted scientific principles, then I also know you aren't going to want to hang around us.

I can see how it would affect a friendship in a broader sense. I don't think I'd ever not be friends with someone for the yec/one beliefs, but many of the other viewpoints that seem to go along with yec would be and are incompatible with my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know someone believed in "young earth"?  I have been around a lot and can't recall any conversation in which the age of the earth ever came up in a friendly social context.

 

If you can't be friends with someone who isn't a slave to cold logic, that's your prerogative, but maybe your kids are different.  Personally I don't think it hurts kids to be friends with someone whose beliefs are very different, as long as they don't think they have to think like their friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slave to cold logic ? That's what science is now ? Logic slavery ?

 

I've heard it all now.

 

Nope, I love science a lot.  I just can't imagine screening my friends based on whether they apply the scientific method to every thought in their brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jennifer explained her situation. It's not mine, but it made sense for hers.

 

I'm pretty sure someone who believed in YEC wouldn't be hanging out to spend time with my heathen lot either.

 

In real life though, I don't know anyone who believes this stuff. It's very, very fringe over here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to me to be an extreme and intolerant POV. Perhaps you could meet a very kind and humble YE person who might set a good example for you.

 

This goes way too far beyond rejecting an anti scientific stance and rejects a whole group of people based on one facet of their belief system. I believe we call that bigotry.

I don't think it is intolerant. Jennifer is correct. Suppose I knew someone who adhered to White Supremacy. Am I going to be friendly with this person? No way. Not a remote chance. They might have other, unrelated ideas that are fine, but I do not want that poison around myself or my children. *I* do not feel this way about YEC; good thing, because I would have to shun my parents, but I think it is perfectly normal to conclude that a particular ideology is so opposed to yours that you do not wish to be around a person with that ideology any more than necessary.

 

There have clearly been times in my life when I intially thought a particular mom might turn into a mom-friend, and our kids got along, but on discovering more about their philosophy of parenting, or hsing, or whatever, I didn't continue to make an effort towards friendship. I was *cordial* towards them - no need to be nasty - but I saw that they were not compatible with me in an area that was going to keep coming up if we hung together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know someone believed in "young earth"?  I have been around a lot and can't recall any conversation in which the age of the earth ever came up in a friendly social context.

 

If you can't be friends with someone who isn't a slave to cold logic, that's your prerogative, but maybe your kids are different.  Personally I don't think it hurts kids to be friends with someone whose beliefs are very different, as long as they don't think they have to think like their friends.

You don't know my friends!  Have dinner with a group of microbiologists and the conversation quickly turns to the microbial processes that are involved in the cheese, the wine, the vinegar or whatever is on the table. DNA analysis of some microbe in something's gut is another topic--which often leads to evolutionary discussions. 

 

Hang out with scientists and you'll also have chats on science education in this country or the latest article in Nature.  As evolution is the primary motivator in biology, it is often mentioned not as the main topic but indirectly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone who is taking the time to answer without causing a debate. I find it very informative. I understood why scientist needed to know but wondered how it would factor into daily life of an every day person. A couple of responses above addressed this very question. Thank you.

 

I am sure y'all wonder how I could successfully homeschool, possibly feeling sorry for my children. :blushing:

No, not at all! There are things we all don't understand! The fact that you are asking the questions is what's important. Just keep doing that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally OT.... I can't believe it. One of my topics  got  one...no  two...nope... 91 replies. :party:  It hasn't become a locked thread either. Wohoo! :hurray:

 

Sorry...just had to celebrate. Resume your discussion so I can learn even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know my friends!  Have dinner with a group of microbiologists and the conversation quickly turns to the microbial processes that are involved in the cheese, the wine, the vinegar or whatever is on the table. DNA analysis of some microbe in something's gut is another topic--which often leads to evolutionary discussions. 

 

Hang out with scientists and you'll also have chats on science education in this country or the latest article in Nature.  As evolution is the primary motivator in biology, it is often mentioned not as the main topic but indirectly.

 

This reminds me of the time I was at a dinner party with a group of gastroenterologists.  They were discussing nightmare colonoscopies while we were eating.

 

It is great to have intellectual discussions.  I do that a lot.  It is also good to be able to discuss things of interest to people different from you.  But again, if you personally hate that sort of thing, that's your business.  However, "shielding" your kids from the experience is not the choice I would make as a parent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it doesn't matter if God created an old-appearing universe (with fossils already in the ground and light already en route, etc.) vs. one that is actually old. I lean towards the latter, but no human actually knows. From a scientific perspective, there is no way to distinguish between the two possibilities because God's actions are beyond science.

 

From a theological perspective, I believe in an omnipotent Creator who exists outside of the human conception of time. So while the 7 days of Creation could represent a time period equivalent to 144 modern hours, I don't think that it contradicts the truth of Scripture for it to represent some other time frame. There's another quote in the Bible talking about how a thousand years are like a day to God and a day a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8) so it's clear that God's time is not necessarily equivalent to human time.

 

I think people worry FAR too much about the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White supremacy is a bad example but I agree with Quill's point and understand where 4#Jen is coming from. There are definitely points of view that I shelter my kids from in the sense that I don't want to be hanging out with them or setting up a situation where those viewpoints might appear "normal" to my kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to me to be an extreme and intolerant POV.  Perhaps you could meet a very kind and humble YE person who might set a good example for you.

 

This goes way too far beyond rejecting an anti scientific stance and rejects a whole group of people based on one facet of their belief system. I believe we call that bigotry.

 

Except that that, "one" facet of their belief system is trying to negate our entire belief system. I don't particularly care if you think it's intolerant. And humbleness is not a trait I specifically search for in people if I think they are also stupid. And in my life, kind people can also be intelligent so I don't need to go looking for kind people who are YE. I already have kindness in my life in spades without them.

 

There's an entire, "museum" dedicated to the idea that dinosaurs and humans somehow peacefully co-existed. If you think that's an insulting idea, take it up with them. I fail to see how saying they believe Adam rode one is somehow insulting. I live on a farm in a farming community. People ride a heck of a lot more than horses. And if you think the T-Rex was a vegetarian who hung out with man and man did NOT ride him, then you are incredibly naïve. I can guarantee at least his kids did. My kids have ridden a cow and a pig in just the last week. The goat would have no part of it. The ostriches were downright rude about it.

 

And apparently, you live in an area that doesn't get JW stuff crammed in your door in a regular basis because YES, they do print these little paper thingies that say that dinosaur bones and Halloween are Satan's trick. And yes, my son has been approached at homeschooling park days and had other kids tell him he's going to hell for playing with fossils. Again, if you find that insulting contact your local JW church.

 

I'm trying to figure out how I wouldn't know if someone was YE in our lives?? We talk about science and school all.the.time. We attend homeschool science events more than anything else. The kids have a "lizard" club where they discuss evolutionary changes all the time. Our house is littered with kid and adult science journals and magazines. Our Netflix is full of Star Trek, Dr. Who. and a ton of science documentaries. And most of my dinner parties end with all of us with the telescope in the back yard. Science is so much a part of our lives that we cannot, or would not, separate it out for anyone else's comfort. ALL of DH's friends are scientists themselves. Last week, we ended up at a French restaurant with 4 other couples discussing multiverse and string theories as a result of an old Dr. Who episode and we had a rollicking good time doing it.

 

I don't want to hang out with people who don't apply the scientific method to much of their lives. And neither do my kids. And I'm very well aware that those who don't believe in science would not want to hang out with us. We're perfectly happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, anyway, the whole point of Jesus is a way to fix this messed-up world, yet a) i don't believe the story of how it got messed up, nor how to fix it, and b.) it isn't fixed in any case.

 

 

Want to blow your mind? here's an alternative point of view as to how/why. A different article, explaining the same idea, is how I fell in love with the Church. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/12/for-mind-blowing-franciscan-thoughts-on-the-incarnation-by-bl-john-duns-scotus.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it doesn't matter if God created an old-appearing universe (with fossils already in the ground and light already en route, etc.) vs. one that is actually old. I lean towards the latter, but no human actually knows. From a scientific perspective, there is no way to distinguish between the two possibilities because God's actions are beyond science.

 

From a theological perspective, I believe in an omnipotent Creator who exists outside of the human conception of time. So while the 7 days of Creation could represent a time period equivalent to 144 modern hours, I don't think that it contradicts the truth of Scripture for it to represent some other time frame. There's another quote in the Bible talking about how a thousand years are like a day to God and a day a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8) so it's clear that God's time is not necessarily equivalent to human time.

 

I think people worry FAR too much about the issue.

 

Perhaps they do, but not without reason. The one state homeschool convention I went to had a keynote speaker from AiG who talked very passionately about the importance of trusting the bible to say what it means, and mean what it says. If you can't trust the bible about one part, how can you trust the bible about another? He gave statistic after statistic of people leaving the faith, leaving the church, embracing secularist ideologies and not trusting God with their very souls. It was meant to be a very sobering talk, a detailed reason for making sure that in all a parent does, they are conveying the importance of having a real faith in Jesus. A very integral part of having a real faith in Jesus is, according to this keynote speaker, believing the "word of God" to be right, even if the world around doesn't seem to confirm it. Walk by faith, not by sight, right? This talk isn't limited to this keynote speaker, and it's not limited to AiG's organization, either. It's a frightening prospect for someone who is under the sincere belief that a lack of faith in Jesus as a savior will result in an eternity of torture. I wouldn't wish an eternity of torture on the evilest person in the world, I think that's beyond cruel and horrifying. I would be absolutely determined to do everything in my power to help my kids avoid that. If that means believing the creation myth as told in the book of Genesis is a historical record of events, then believe it I will encourage them to do. I think this, ultimately, is why those who believe it "need to know" - eternity is a long time to say "whoops."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to hang out with people who don't apply the scientific method to much of their lives. And neither do my kids.

 

People who talk like this usually end up with a DIL/SIL who is the exact type of person they can't stand.  LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jennifer explained her situation. It's not mine, but it made sense for hers.

 

I'm pretty sure someone who believed in YEC wouldn't be hanging out to spend time with my heathen lot either.

 

In real life though, I don't know anyone who believes this stuff. It's very, very fringe over here.

 

For what it's worth, it's very, very fringe where I am too, and I'm in the US! lol  Definitely a regional thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm married to a scientist and I can't think of a time when we focused on evolution while out with friends.

 

 

Comparing YE to white supremacy goes way too far.

It might go to far, but I could give dozens of similar examples. When a person is YEC, it influences SO MUCH of how they view many subjects. Is gay marriage acceptable? It is the YECs I know who say, " God made Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE." The YECs whom I know are focused on "sin nature," even in their small kids, perhaps even their babies. Fussy babies are "bad," content babies are "good." If one believes the Bible accounts for a literal creation several thousand years ago, chances are good this same person believes other things written in the Bible, just exactly as they are penned, such as, "he who spares the rod hates his son...beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from hell." I could go on. My point is that it is reasonable to conclude, upon learning that this new potential friend ascribes to YEC, that you are very unlikely to agree on matters of substantial importance.

 

Once, in a playgroup, one child who came from a "no magic, no fairy tales" family was playing in the dress-up basket and came out to model to her mother her marvelous full witch regalia from head-to-toe. The horrified mother left in a huff. I can easily see something like this going down in Jen's house, say, if she had a playgroup an a YEC family came. Are they going to have a stroke when the kids come out with a Ranger Rick article about how modern birds are related to dinosaurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know my friends! Have dinner with a group of microbiologists and the conversation quickly turns to the microbial processes that are involved in the cheese, the wine, the vinegar or whatever is on the table. DNA analysis of some microbe in something's gut is another topic--which often leads to evolutionary discussions.

 

Hang out with scientists and you'll also have chats on science education in this country or the latest article in Nature. As evolution is the primary motivator in biology, it is often mentioned not as the main topic but indirectly.

I really wish I could go to dinner with you and your friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, it's very, very fringe where I am too, and I'm in the US! lol  Definitely a regional thing.

 

There may be lots of people in the US (and elsewhere) who would be YE if they had to choose a side, but they have no interest in the controversy.  That is to say, they've been raised to generally believe the Bible, but don't really give the earth's age a lot of thought, because it is not important in their daily lives.

 

I would say it is "fringe" to label oneself YE or make a production about being YE.

 

It goes back to the OP - for most individuals it doesn't matter enough to debate it or take a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view on being well-educated is this:

 

Someone can be very knowledgable about all sorts of subjects, but if they think science can support a YEC or YLC view if you just interpret the data differently, then they are not well-educated in those pertinent fields of science. They can be well-educated in all sorts of things, but not that.

 

If they understand science, properly done, does not support their view and they understand why, but still believe in a YEC or YLC view because of theological reasons, then I could consider them well-educated in those areas of science too.

 

I know people whose amount of knowledge in things blows me out of the water, but are YEC/YLC and show their ignorance about those areas every time they open their mouths. They know so much more than I do about all sorts of things, but not that.

 

It's just my opinion.

 

I would add too, that I know people who are educated about science in general, but they get their information about the science/creationist controversy from untrustworthy sources and so are misinformed. They might understand how science works etc., but they are basically being lied to and they don't realize it because they think their sources are reliable. It is hard to get educated when you are being lied to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...