No such thing as prehistoric people? This is a thing? Also, how to respond when I'm not allowed to respond.

[MercyA]

I taught an art history class to early elementary kids at my co-op today. It went really well.

Part of class was a Powerpoint presentation on the Lascaux caves in France and other cave art. The discussion was lively and fun. 🙂 

At one point, I asked the kids if anyone knew what "prehistoric" meant. I was told confidently by one student that "there are no such thing as prehistoric people." Another boy interjected, "Yes, there are! They lived with the dinosaurs!"

Everyone is welcome in our co-op. No one has to agree with a statement of faith to join. However, teachers are not allowed to teach anything contrary to young earth creationism. So I didn't respond directly to either of those comments and moved the discussion along by saying something like "Prehistoric means long ago, before people could read and write. They didn't have towns or buildings like we do now." 

My husband tells me this is a thing--that some people do not believe in "prehistory." I've never heard of this. Has anyone else?

Also, what would be a good stock response to comments like these? I am not good at thinking on my feet. In some contexts I might say, "That is something to talk to your parents about" but it didn't seem to fit here.

[KungFuPanda]

Could you just say that people had to exist for a while before they could have a chance to invent an alphabet and think how to record their activities?

Edited September 13, 2022 by KungFuPanda

[Drama Llama]

Prehistory would be the time before any recorded stories.  If you believe that Genesis is the written story of the first people, then there wouldn't be prehistorical people.  

[kbutton]

I would like to think this sounds like a definition problem, but I am too jaded to think so any more.

It could be that they are thinking if you mean pre-history, you mean that Neanderthals and such are not human. That's one possibility. I think the view of prehistorical peoples has changed a lot from when I was a kid (at that time, I got the impression that they were seen as non-intelligent, not having culture, etc.). 

[kbutton]

3 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Prehistory would be the time before any recorded stories.  If you believe that Genesis is the written story of the first people, then there wouldn't be prehistorical people.  

Except that most people believe that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses and were likely oral before that. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Prehistory would be the time before any recorded stories.  If you believe that Genesis is the written story of the first people, then there wouldn't be prehistorical people.  

Not technically true. Moses wrote Genesis. It wasn’t written at the time of Adam and Eve. Those stories were passed down orally. (I realize that not everyone agrees with me. And I do recognize that there is “prehistory “. ). 

[Drama Llama]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Except that most people believe that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses and were likely oral before that. 

Oral history is still history.  

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Oral history is still history.  

You were saying this in response to the suggested answer, and you said, "recorded stories." That's not oral history, and I was responding directly to that. 

Generally, I otherwise agree. 🙂 

[itsheresomewhere]

This is a thing along with the dinosaurs were not real but fake and planted by the officials.  I accidentally stepped into this in a homeschool group before.  
 

To this day, I have no idea how I kept a straight face when I stepped into this weird realm. 

[Rosie_0801]

"I have heard that some people think that."

[Drama Llama]

1 minute ago, kbutton said:

You were saying this in response to the suggested answer, and you said, "recorded stories." That's not oral history, and I was responding directly to that. 

Generally, I otherwise agree. 🙂 

I guess in my mind, a story that got passed down through oral tradition, and then recorded later, is still history, it's recorded now.  I didn't mean they weren't originally passed down orally.  

To be clear, that's not what I believe about Genesis.  But I don't see how someone could believe Genesis was an accurate recounting of events that happened (aka history) and also that there were people pre-history.  

 

[MercyA]

@Rosie_0801, that's a great response. Thank you.

[kbutton]

2 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I guess in my mind, a story that got passed down through oral tradition, and then recorded later, is still history, it's recorded now.  I didn't mean they weren't originally passed down orally.  

To be clear, that's not what I believe about Genesis.  But I don't see how someone could believe Genesis was an accurate recounting of events that happened (aka history) and also that there were people pre-history.  

I know that's not what you believe about Genesis. No worries I will try to spin that some other way. 🙂 

[maize]

Given that flat earth beliefs are an actual thing (I have interacted with a few flat-earth-believing homeschoolers) I am not surprised that not believing in prehistory is a thing.

Prehistory isn't a super useful term though. Do we refer only to the era before the very first surviving written records? If so, does that apply to the entire world and why? Many groups of people lived into modern times without making written records.

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by maize

[Clarita]

1 hour ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I guess in my mind, a story that got passed down through oral tradition, and then recorded later, is still history, it's recorded now.  I didn't mean they weren't originally passed down orally.  

To be clear, that's not what I believe about Genesis.  But I don't see how someone could believe Genesis was an accurate recounting of events that happened (aka history) and also that there were people pre-history.  

I believe pre-historic to be "relating to or denoting the period before written language," as defined by Oxford dictionary according to Google. So, having only an oral history still would make it "pre-historic" period of time. The oral history is still history, but the people living in the times before the written records are made are pre-historical. 

[Clarita]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Also, what would be a good stock response to comments like these? I am not good at thinking on my feet. In some contexts I might say, "That is something to talk to your parents about" but it didn't seem to fit here.

I would define what pre-historic is or what people/person who wrote book or curriculum meant when they say pre-historic people. Sometimes after I realize something might be controversial I may preface it with a "according to XYZ" or "some people speculate/think" then make the statement.

[Eos]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

Lascaux caves in France and other cave art.

Do you tell the kids these paintings are 15,000 - 17,000 years old?  Do they ask?  Not trying to be obnoxious, I'm genuinely curious.

[MercyA]

4 minutes ago, Eos said:

Do you tell the kids these paintings are 15,000 - 17,000 years old?  Do they ask?  Not trying to be obnoxious, I'm genuinely curious.

I said scientists discovered that they were  "thousands and thousands of years old." No one asked exactly how old they were. They were 1st and 2nd graders.

[hshibley]

Honestly having taught in a young earth co-op I would not show them those paintings. It goes against the covenant in my experience. It’s similar to discussing other hominids. It’s not appropriate for you to bring up given the rules you agreed to. 
 

I ran a science Olympiad team where most of my participants were evangelical young earth families. I let the families know from the beginning which events (ie fossils, earth science, biology topics which include evolution etc) they would be incompatible with a young earth belief.

There’s literally no point in discussing prehistory with students who are taught that the Bible is literal history. 

[bolt.]

34 minutes ago, hshibley said:

Honestly having taught in a young earth co-op I would not show them those paintings. It goes against the covenant in my experience. It’s similar to discussing other hominids. It’s not appropriate for you to bring up given the rules you agreed to. 
 

I ran a science Olympiad team where most of my participants were evangelical young earth families. I let the families know from the beginning which events (ie fossils, earth science, biology topics which include evolution etc) they would be incompatible with a young earth belief.

There’s literally no point in discussing prehistory with students who are taught that the Bible is literal history. 

Surely sharing the existence of the paintings themselves doesn't go against any such covenant? The paintings exist here and now. They have various physical and artistic attributes. One does not need to believe that they are older than a young earth perspective in order to believe that the paintings themselves exist?

[MercyA]

31 minutes ago, hshibley said:

Honestly having taught in a young earth co-op I would not show them those paintings. It goes against the covenant in my experience. It’s similar to discussing other hominids. It’s not appropriate for you to bring up given the rules you agreed to. 
 

I ran a science Olympiad team where most of my participants were evangelical young earth families. I let the families know from the beginning which events (ie fossils, earth science, biology topics which include evolution etc) they would be incompatible with a young earth belief.

There’s literally no point in discussing prehistory with students who are taught that the Bible is literal history. 

That's an interesting perspective. 

I should have been more clear. I'm not allowed to teach anything contrary to this portion of the co-op's statement of faith: "We believe that God created the earth and everything in it in six literal days, thereby rejecting the theory of evolution."

I don't think there was anything in my cave art lesson that contradicted the statement of faith. I just told the story of the discovery of the paintings and we talked about how they were very old, what they could teach us about the people who painted them, what materials were used, etc.

I don't deny your personal experiences, but it boggles my mind that I could not show my students examples of some of the oldest existing art in an art history class. 

I am an old earth creationist and I believe some of the Bible is literal history (and some poetry, some prophecy, some doctrine, etc.). I also believe in prehistory. No conflict there for me. 

[BusyMom5]

I try to avoid confrontation as much as possible.  Prehistoric means before the written word to record events as they happened, and oral history is included in that, so I think you are good!  With 1st and 2nd graders I would just let them comment amongst themselves and not worry about correcting them. 

[EKS]

11 hours ago, MercyA said:

"We believe that God created the earth and everything in it in six literal days, thereby rejecting the theory of evolution."

I wonder if they also reject the theory of gravity and the role it played in the formation of the universe. 

I'm not merely being flippant.  Forgetting about the rest of the universe, the way the earth was formed was by accretion of matter over a period of...more than six days. 

[maize]

2 minutes ago, EKS said:

I wonder if they also reject the theory of gravity and the role it played in the formation of the universe. 

I'm not merely being flippant.  Forgetting about the rest of the universe, the way the earth was formed was by accretion of matter over a period of...more than six days. 

I think most who hold young earth beliefs do absolutely reject the idea that it was gravity alone that formed the earth. The belief is rather that God used miraculous processes to form the earth.

The (much, much smaller) set of people who believe that Biblical cosmology requires a belief in a flat earth on the other hand reject gravity explicitly and completely. At least, those I have discussed this with do.

[Momto6inIN]

1st and 2nd graders aren't known for their ability to appreciate nuance 😉 so I'd take what they say their parents say with a large dose of salt.

It is very, very possible that a young elementary student might confuse what their YE parents said about prehistoric people not being any different from modern people and come up with "prehistoric people don't exist".

[EKS]

3 minutes ago, maize said:

I think most who hold young earth beliefs do absolutely reject the idea that it was gravity alone that formed the earth. The belief is rather that God used miraculous processes to form the earth.

The (much, much smaller) set of people who believe that Biblical cosmology requires a belief in a flat earth on the other hand reject gravity explicitly and completely. At least, those I have discussed this with do.

So why do they call out evolution specifically?

[mellifera33]

2 hours ago, EKS said:

So why do they call out evolution specifically?

Not OP, but I think this is for a few reasons. I think the biggest is that evolution in particular has become the "big issue" in the science vs. religion debate that somehow became so prominent in evangelical culture. It's become the buzzword that encompasses not only what biologists understand as evolution, but all of the background science that provides evidence of an old earth and a changing universe. Another is that biological evolution in particular is seen as assigning humans the status of just another animal, not a special being with an intimate connection to a creator god. Finally, I suspect that our usual sequence of science courses for high school has a lot to do with it. Most students last study earth science or geology in elementary or middle school, before the age when students are really digging into the meat of the subject. But biology is the "easy" lab science that everyone takes, and since evolution is foundational, everyone encounters it at some point. 

[MercyA]

3 hours ago, EKS said:

So why do they call out evolution specifically?

Two reasons come to mind immediately. One, I think many YEC's have a low view of animals and would rather not view themselves as one. 

Secondly, I have heard it argued many times that if you don't accept that the seven days of Creation were seven, literal, 24-hour days, you undermine the authority of Scripture. This is ridiculous to me, since the Hebrew word used for day in Genesis can also mean a time or a period. Also, the language used in those chapters is poetic in structure.

I *do* believe God created the world. It only increases my awe to consider how He likely used evolution for His purposes. And the more I learn about animals the more I discover how similar they are to us. That doesn't make us somehow "less" (but should, I think, make us value them more).

[EKS]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

I *do* believe God created the world. It only increases my awe to consider how He likely used evolution for His purposes.

Exactly.  The literal interpretation is essentially how a human would create the universe.  The story science is discovering is what I would expect of a god.