The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

all plant, cultivated or otherwise, require water to grow i.e. Rain

Water, Yes, but not necessarily rain. The point seems to be that cultivated plants were in view.

So once again Moses got the sequence wrong?

No, Moses wrote the Hebrew - our translators made the choice of options. Perhaps they saw no need to use had.

No, they are two different interpretations, a) he made them together, b) he made Eve later from a spare rib.

Can't see why you think so. Day 6: God makes man, male and female. Genesis 2 tells us how He did so- man from the earth, woman from the man. All on Day 6.

No, it says dry land was made to appear from a water covered world, nothing about rain here.

Gen.1 tells of the formation of dry land. In Gen.2 we have the already formed dry land being watered by mist.

I am having problem with theses terms, General account and detailed account. How do you know which is detailed and which is general. There are no references to these terms in the Bible as far as I know? Who decided which is considered to be general or detailed?

Detail surely is seen in an elaboration on the previous account. God made them male and female -> God made Adam of the earth, Eve from Adam's rib.

That is exactly my problem; they are side-by-side and are starkly different.

Unless you write-off the author as utterly incompetent, surely you should consider first of all that he would have seen such a glaring discrepancy? We would do that with most writings. We look for a way both can be made to stand. The Christian interpretation seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Why did he feel the need to explain it twice? If he felt it was that important he would have used the same sequence and expanded on each segment as he went. Instead, we now have confusion.

Granted. That applies to a lot of the issues that even Christians disagree on: baptism of infants or believers only; the End Times, etc. If God had given us the truth in unmistakeable terms, there would be less error. But He has His purposes - making us depend on Him for increasing light, rather than our intellects; giving scope for those who are approved to be set out from those who are not. A bit like the purpose of the parables: enlightenment for those who are truly seeking Him; darkness for the rest:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

J C

Quote JustHalf
Are you serious? You insist that Genesis be taken literally to suit your world-view, and then decide that a part of the Genesis story -- one of the most crucial parts, the Fall of Man -- is allegory?

You, sir, have given me a headache.

Quote Asiaprod
Hello, I thought you were the one who was all on for taking the Bible literally
Have you now changed direction and decided that there are now indeed non-literal sections. That is very convenient for your argument. Either you take it literally or non-literally, you cannot have it both ways

I can confirm that Creationists in general DO accept that metaphors, poetry and allegories ARE employed in the Bible – but they also believe that there are many passages that describe LITERAL EVENTS and they believe that these accounts SHOULD be taken literally.

Can I refer you to a previous posting by me on this thread when I said:-

“The only Book of the Bible that Theistic Evolutionists and Creationists substantially disagree about is Genesis. Theistic Evolutionists believe that the early chapters of Genesis are largely an ALLEGORICAL account of the evolution of life by God – while Creationists believe them to be SUBSTANTIALLY literal accounts of Special Divine Creation.”

Please note that I used the words “SUBSTANTIALLY literal” in my description of the Creationist position on Genesis 1 and 2. By this I meant that all PHYSICAL EVENTS recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 are thought to be literal or semi-literal descriptions of literal events.

However, the Fall of Man was a SPIRITUAL EVENT – and God has deliberately cloaked it in a very obvious ALLEGORY, presumably for very good reasons, that are best not pursued because God doesn’t want them discussed, or else He wouldn’t have used an allegory in the first place.

The Fall of Man was a spiritual event of such enormous magnitude and such a horrific nature that God condemned Adam, Eve and all of their descendants to spiritual and temporal death for it.

The nature of the Fall was also such that all of rest of Creation was also seriously afflicted by it as well.

The fact that the only way that it could be ameliorated was for God Himself to come down on Earth as a man to suffer the most horrible death imaginable to atone for the Fall and it’s results says something very profound about the spiritual magnitude of the Fall.

I’m not surprised that God wishes to protect us from the full horror of this event by using an allegory to describe the Fall.


Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by JC
The “water canopy” is believed to have collapsed onto the Earth during Noah’s Flood. This collapse is described in Gen 7:11 as “the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (NIV).
Ah, how convenient, that explains where all the water came from. Just out of curiosity, why on earth (oops a pun) have a canopy of water held up in the sky.

It isn’t convenient, it is true – the Bible says that The Canopy was created on the Second Day and Creation Science has modelled various aspects of it.

The Canopy provided SOME of the water in Noah’s Flood – but MOST of the water is thought to have been sub-terranean water that burst through the Earth’s surface as well as seawater that inundated the land through tsunamis and the sinking of the land masses under sea level. These great water movements created and sorted the material that eventually formed the sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that we observe today.

In this regard if there were no mountains or ocean troughs and the surface of the Earth was smooth , there is enough seawater today to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).

The Canopy is thought to explain many ante-Diluvian phenomena including (in part) the longevity of Humans before the Flood. It is also thought that it acted as a great insulating blanket around the Earth thereby cancelling out temperature extremes.
It absorbed heat during the day and in the tropics. It then released the heat in higher latitudes and at night so that there were much smaller diurnal temperature fluctuations and the temperature differences between different places on Earth were much more modest than at present. This is thought to account for example, for the fossilised tropical vegetation that has been recovered in Antarctic coal seams.

The Canopy would also have stabilised air movements and therefore severe storms would have been unknown before the Flood. Light penetration seems to have been relatively unaffected and incident sunlight appears to have been well above the compensation point of plants. Luxuriant all year round plant growth seems to have been the norm as proven by the huge coal measures that were formed through the burial of vast quantities of trees and other vegetation by the Flood.

Today’s clouds are but a wispy and insignificant remnant of the Water Canopy – it’s collapse was complete and irreversible – and probably the greatest long-term environmental disaster on Earth so far.

Every frosty cold night or scorching hot sunny day reminds us of the loss of the protection originally provided by the Water Canopy.

The presence of the Canopy may also explain why a rainbow was apparently not seen on Earth before the Flood – it is thought that the ground was watered from massive underground water stores and rainfall was unknown before the Flood – although not fully conclusive, Gen 2:5-6, indicates that this may have been the case.

The explosive release of the underground water stores during Noah’s Flood are described in Gen 7:11 as “the springs of the great deep bursting forth”. Remnants of these massive underground waters are still found in the great artesian basins of the Australian and the Middle Eastern deserts as well as at oases in many of the hot deserts of the World.


Quote Asiaprod
Was God anticipating he would need this (the Canopy) for the flood? Do you imply that he pre-planned the whole thing in advance?

I don’t think that God PLANNED it. He says that He wants to save sinners – and not to destroy them. However, He does allow free will to mankind – and the flip side to free-will is the ability of each person to choose death instead of life.

God didn’t call His work on the Second Day of Creation ‘good’ – and He was correct because the collapse of the Canopy was a disaster for nearly all land-based life on Earth.

As an omniscient God, He would certainly have KNOWN about it in advance.


Quote Asiaprod
Original Quote J C The fact that ‘timing’ isn’t an issue in Genesis 2 is confirmed by the fact that it STARTS with the LAST Day of Creation in Gen 2:1-3
I am sorry, you have lost me here. What is your point?

My point was that Genesis 2 isn’t in any particular Chronological Order and therefore what is often suggested to be mixed up events in Genesis 2 (for example, the supposed creation of animals after man) is due to the fact Genesis 2 is in Subject Order.
As proof of my point that Genesis 2 ISN’T in Chronological Order, I drew attention to the fact that Genesis 2 STARTS with an account of the LAST day of Creation.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
JC, here is another puzzle in one on your favorite topics, the flood.
Genesis 6:19-20
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive."

Now, same writer, same book, same subject, completely contradictory

Genesis 7:2-3
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth. "

The general command of God was to take two of EVERY kind of animal. He refined this general command to taking seven pairs of the CLEAN (Human Food) animals and birds – possibly because of the importance of these particular animals as meat producing animals after the Flood, when Man was given permission to eat the flesh of animals for the first time (in Gen 9:3).


Quote Asiaprod
can (you) justify the building of an Ark capable of performing the task. as laid down in the Bible, which for you is infallible, cause I cannot conceive of how a vessel big enough could have been built unless there were not that many animals to start with.
Gen 6:15 confirms the size of the Ark to be 300x50x30 Cubits – which was 137x23x13.7 metres or 43,160 cubic metres.
To put it into perspective, The Ark was equivalent to the volume of 522 standard railway stock wagons, each of which can hold 250 sheep i.e. over 130,000 ‘sheep spaces’ so to speak. The Ark was a truly massive vessel, unmatched in size by modern shipping until the building of The Great Eastern Liner by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1858.

Taking young semi-mature animals on board would greatly reduce the space and feed requirements as well as minimising any mortality risk.

Examples of every KIND were commanded by God to be taken on board. Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.
For example a single pair of the Dog Kind could have given rise to Domestic Dogs, Wolves, Wolverines, Cape Hunting Dogs, Hyenas, Jackals, Foxes, etc.

The vast majority of Kinds would be small animals such as young lizards and mice that would literally fit into a match box. Other animals such as lambs, calves and baby elephants would require somewhat more space. However, if we assume 32,000 animals (including birds) on the Ark each with a generous average space requirement of 50x50x50 cm (0.125 cubic metres), then all 32,000 animals could be accommodated in about 10% of the space in the Ark – leaving plenty of room for feed, straw bedding and access.

In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark, unlike what “wild” animals would be like nowadays. They may also have gone into a type of hibernation during the flood, which would have saved on feed as well as making management even easier.


Quote Asiaprod
This Bible is a confusing book JC when you try to interpret it word for word.
The Bible is an amazing book and every word is the Word of God and true.

It is a spiritually discerned book and it represents an unending treasure trove of God’s wisdom for Christians.

Asiaprod

Wolfsbane wrote:

Water, Yes, but not necessarily rain. The point seems to be that cultivated plants were in view. Gen.1 tells of the formation of dry land. In Gen.2 we have the already formed dry land being watered by mist.

By mist, from where? I don`t find any reference to mist!

But He has His purposes - making us depend on Him for increasing light, rather than our intellects; giving scope for those who are approved to be set out from those who are not. A bit like the purpose of the parables: enlightenment for those who are truly seeking Him; darkness for the rest:

Wonderful stuff, gave us intellect which we could not depend on because he wanted us to depend on him, that sounds very like selfishness.

“Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him"

Based on the context in which you see this phrase one can only assume that favoritism was also alive and well at the very beginning. Not a very benign God to my way of thinking. So why did he bother making us, why not just stick with those to whom the mysteries were given?

Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

How very enlightening I must say, and again how benign.

Asiaprod

JC wrote:

However, the Fall of Man was a SPIRITUAL EVENT – and God has deliberately cloaked it in a very obvious ALLEGORY, presumably for very good reasons, that are best not pursued because God doesn’t want them discussed, or else He wouldn’t have used an allegory in the first place.

That is an amazingly inept way of trying to avoid this issue, shame on you JC. As a scientist you cannot pick and choose like that. God does not want it discussed, really! When did you become God`s Public Relations interface.

The Fall of Man was a spiritual event of such enormous magnitude and such a horrific nature that God condemned Adam, Eve and all of their descendants to spiritual and temporal death for it.

Make you wonder where the phrase " An apple a day keeps the Doctor away " ever came from. JC, the fear and terror that the Catholic church used in primitive days no longer applies in the 21st century. We stopped fearing the dark a long time ago. Blame it on Edison if you like.

asiaprod=

Ah, how convenient, that explains where all the water came from. Just out of curiosity, why on earth (oops a pun) have a canopy of water held up in the sky.

JC=It isn’t convenient, it is true – the Bible says that The Canopy was created on the Second Day and Creation Science has modeled various aspects of it.

It is only true for you. By the way, what laws of science worked against gravity to keep all that water up there, not to mention alll that water co existing with all that very hot magma inside the earth

I don’t think that God PLANNED it. He says that He wants to save sinners – and not to destroy them. However, He does allow free will to mankind

Eh! free will, I don`t think anybody was in favor of the deluge you propose.
If you will grant me the play on words, that sounds like the greatest mass Baptismal event of ALL times.

The general command of God was to take two of EVERY kind of animal. He refined this general command to taking seven pairs of the CLEAN (Human Food) animals and birds – possibly because of the importance of these particular animals as meat producing animals after the Flood, when Man was given permission to eat the flesh of animals for the first time (in Gen 9:3).

Oh come on, now we were suddenly allowed to eat meat. What did the previous protected animals do to deserve that punishment. And if your calculations are correct Noah and co must have spent the next couple of hundred years as vegetarians. Fourteen clean animals would have been scoffed up in what 2 month at the outside.

Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.

I think that has already been satisfactorily been proven to not be possible, we could not have this much diversity from such a limited breeding stock

In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark.

Until we made them angry by getting permission to start eat them

It is a spiritually discerned book and it represents an unending treasure trove of God’s wisdom for Christians.

I think Christian possibly can get a lot from it, but I don`t think it it should become an unending treasure trove for you to continue to twist things to suit your purpose.

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

By mist, from where? I don`t find any reference to mist!

Genesis 2:6, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

that sounds very like selfishness.

It would be, had it been another mere mortal. But this is the infinitely holy, wise, majestic God - His desire that we know Him is pure mercy and grace, not selfishness.

Based on the context in which you see this phrase one can only assume that favoritism was also alive and well at the very beginning. Not a very benign God to my way of thinking. So why did he bother making us, why not just stick with those to whom the mysteries were given?

I know where you are coming from, and you make sense if your presuppositions were right. But man is not essentially good, nor even neutral. He is essentially wicked, in rebellion agaist God. Not one of us deserve His mercy. But He has promised free pardon to all who will repent of their evil and trust in Him. He has even predestined countless millions of these rebels to do just that, giving them a new heart to repent and believe: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:31-33%20;&version=50; The rest are left to their own desires, to reject Him and refuse His offer of salvation. Every one of us will be judged according to our own choices.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by JC
However, the Fall of Man was a SPIRITUAL EVENT – and God has deliberately cloaked it in a very obvious ALLEGORY, presumably for very good reasons, that are best not pursued because God doesn’t want them discussed, or else He wouldn’t have used an allegory in the first place.

As a scientist you cannot pick and choose like that. God does not want it discussed, really!

When did you become God`s Public Relations interface.

I wasn’t speaking as a scientist about the Fall of Man, which was a spiritual event and therefore a matter of Bible Scholarship and NOT science.

I became God’s interface with the World when I became indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God upon becoming a Christian.


Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by JC
The Fall of Man was a spiritual event of such enormous magnitude and such a horrific nature that God condemned Adam, Eve and all of their descendants to spiritual and temporal death for it.

Make you wonder where the phrase " An apple a day keeps the Doctor away " ever came from.

JC, the fear and terror that the Catholic church used in primitive days no longer applies in the 21st century. We stopped fearing the dark a long time ago. Blame it on Edison if you like.

An Apple is obviously a very healthy and wholesome food packed with vitamins – and that is why “an apple a day DOES keep the Doctor away ".

I have the height of respect for Tomas Edison as the great scientist and inventor that he was. However, there is ONE fear that Thomas Edison didn’t eliminate – and that is the fear of death – and spiritual death is vastly more to be feared than physical death.
There is no need to become morbid about it however, because Jesus Christ has defeated death – and He came that we might have life and have it in the abundance that only God can provide.


Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by JC
It isn’t convenient, it is true – the Bible says that The Canopy was created on the Second Day and Creation Science has modeled various aspects of it.

It is only true for you. By the way, what laws of science worked against gravity to keep all that water up there,
not to mention all that water co existing with all that very hot magma inside the earth

Water is an amazing chemical, probably one of the most amazing molecules known to science – but we take it for granted because it is so common. The Laws of Science that held up this water are the same laws that hold water vapour and ice crystals in the clouds at present, however Clouds don’t blanket the entire Earth at present and they are therefore very unstable. You can still see the remnant effects of clouds in reducing temperatures on a hot day and in preventing frost on cold nights.

The hot magma reaching the surface of the Earth seems to have (in part) CAUSED the Flood. Prior to the flood the magma wasn’t in contact with the water that was under the surface of the Earth – otherwise the “the springs of the great deep” would have “burst forth” a lot sooner!!!

Equally, today the water in the great artesian aquifers of Australia, the Sahara and the Arabian Deserts continues to remain separated from the magma deep within the Earth at these locations


Quote Asiaprod
Eh! Free will, I don`t think anybody was in favor of the deluge you propose.

Agreed, but God has told us that there are consequences to the exercise of our free will – but He has also given us a way to avoid the negative spiritual consequences from past misuse of our free will – if we believe on Him and repent of these past mistakes ALL will be forgiven.


Quote Asiaprod
Oh come on, now we were suddenly allowed to eat meat. What did the previous protected animals do to deserve that punishment. And if your calculations are correct Noah and co must have spent the next couple of hundred years as vegetarians. Fourteen clean animals would have been scoffed up in what 2 month at the outside.

Meat became a dietary necessity for Mankind, because of the harsh environmental conditions post-flood.
It wasn’t a punishment on the animals concerned – the killing was humane and the domestic animals concerned, in general, lead happy and healthy lives up to the point of death. Their ‘wild’ comrades lived in continual fear of predation from other wild animals and they often suffered lingering deaths from hunger, disease or injury.

God specified that “seven pairs of ALL clean animals” be taken on board the Ark. As there were well in excess of 100 “clean” animal Kinds – this was at least 1,000 clean animals to start off with after the flood – and animals do have a habit of reproducing very rapidly. Equally, meat would only have made up a fraction of Noah’s post-flood diet – and he didn’t start a wholesale slaughter of animals immediately upon leaving the Ark – in fact great reverence and care was shown when killing animals – and this was further under-scored by the fact that animals were the only sacrifice acceptable to God.


Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by JC
Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.

I think that has already been satisfactorily been proven to not be possible, we could not have this much diversity from such a limited breeding stock

Try mating two mongrel dogs – and see all of the variety that shows up in the litter – and this is only a tiny fraction of the original genetic diversity that was present in the ‘Founder’ dogs on the Ark.

Many creatures that are assumed to be completely separate species today are descended from the one original Kind. Lions and Tigers are cross-fertile, for example as are Pheasants and Domestic Poultry.


Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by JC
In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark.

Until we made them angry by getting permission to start eat them

You are correct to a degree – survival of the fittest, which is a post-flood phenomenon, DOES tend to select more wary and aggressive ‘wild’ creatures.

However, I don’t think that this selection pressure is predominantly Human-generated, since we don’t eat many ‘wild’ animals. The wariness and aggression is most commonly generated by reproductive competition within these species themselves (e.g. the rutting behaviour of stags) or by predation by other species (e.g. the wariness of rabbits of their numerous ‘wild’ predators).

Domestic animals, even though they are eventually killed for food, have a relatively harmonious and mutually respectful existence with the farmers who care for them.


Quote Asiaprod
I think Christian possibly can get a lot from it (The Bible), but I don`t think it it should become an unending treasure trove for you to continue to twist things to suit your purpose.

The Word of God cuts like a two edged sword – and it will show up anybody who tries to twist it to suit their own purposes!!
I pray that I never will do so.

robindch

> [wolfsbane] But man is not essentially good, nor even neutral. He is essentially wicked

We atheists don't believe that we're evil, but it's interesting and a bit disturbing to see that you believe you are.

> [JC] The Word of God will show up anybody who tries to twist it to
> suit their own purposes!! I became God’s interface with the World

JC: you are insane. Wildly, inescapably, joyously, ludicrously and entirely *insane* -- keep it coming! :rolleyes:

samb

JC Agreed, but God has told us that there are consequences to the exercise of our free will – but He has also given us a way to avoid the negative spiritual consequences from past misuse of our free will – if we believe on Him and repent of these past mistakes ALL will be forgiven.

What about people that never here this stuff, never read the bible, and therefore do not believe it. Do they deserve be murdered if they do not convert immediately to what to them are alien concepts.

Asiaprod

JC wrote:

in fact great reverence and care was shown when killing animals – and this was further under-scored by the fact that animals were the only sacrifice acceptable to God.

Well, what else could they have sacrificed. The only other thing left was a very limited stock of humans.

robindch

Not sure if anybody's seen this one, but a religious studies professor at the University of Kansas who'd slagged off fundamentalists and who wanted to teach a course on "Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" (subsequently cancelled), claims to have been assaulted by a couple of guys in a pickup truck:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/06/tech/main1099028.shtml

Dades

"One of the men was described as wearing a red visor-like ball cap"

No doubt sponsored by John Deere. Tragic.

robindch

Just came across this link to Ken Ham's finances:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/5214.htm

A nine million dollar organization, with Ham on EUR140,000 per year? (that's a good bit more than tenured professors in Trinity college make).

Looks like there's some damn fine money in that there Creationism!

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Looks like there's some damn fine money in that there Creationism!

Damn, I'm in the wrong business. Also got to love their mission statement

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

robindch

Good news in from Dover, Pennsylvania, where m'lud delivered his judgement in the case where a local school board voted to teach creationism in their biology classes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm

He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Aw, you beat me to it, bummer. Yes, a great win for humanity.

robindch

> a great win for humanity.

Indeed The 139-page judgement is available from:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

...and is well worth reading to get a good understanding of an intelligent and indepent person's viewpoint of the merits of both sides of the conflict.

Needless to say, the ID crew went on the offensive immediately:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News

...from where we learn that the judge, having "got on his soapbox", is an "activist" with "delusions of grandeur" responsible for imposing "government-controlled censorship", while forgetting to mention that he was appointed by President Bush (see article on wikipedia here). It must be all very confusing.

I wonder what JC thinks of all of this judicial dismissal. JC?

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

I wonder what JC thinks of all of this judicial dismissal. JC?

We had JC then we had wiseone, rest assured we will have another anyday now;) In the immortal words of A.C. Doyle (Holmes to Watson: The game is a foot.

Excelsior

Is there an award for clarity that can be given to that Judge? Excellent summation. That is one to save.

BrianCalgary

It would have to be green to be a John Deere cap.

What is the objection to teaching Creationism in class? I have yet to hear a good reason for not teaching it. The only reason that is implied is that evolution is theory and creation is a myth. I do not consider it a good reason.

Are our schools not in the business of teaching independant thought? If they are then they have to present the view points at hand, otherwise our kids will never find out others views, which leads to ignorance and bigotry. I see it in our church among fundamentalist types who have an ignorant skewed opinion of Catholicism which causes them to actually hate RC's. We actually had a family leave our church because we prayed for the RC church when they cose the most recent pope. They left because of prejudicial bigotry against a particular group. If they had the opportunity then maybe they could have just loved the people who attend the RC church.

Let's get our schools to a place where they are a place where ideas and thoughts can be freely exchanged.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is the objection to teaching Creationism in class? I have yet to hear a good reason for not teaching it. The only reason that is implied is that evolution is theory and creation is a myth. I do not consider it a good reason.

The issue is with teaching it as science.

If you want to teach it in a religion class, or social studies or whatever, thats fine. It's not science though, and shouldn't be taught as such.

robindch

> What is the objection to teaching Creationism in class? I have yet
> to hear a good reason for not teaching it.

The point turns on whether you teach it as fact, or teach about it as a cautionary tale illustrating the gullibility of people trained from birth to follow without question. The ID crew want creationism taught as a valid *scientific* alternative to evolution, which, as the judge pointed out as clearly as anyone else who's ever studied both sides of the argument in an even-handed way, it most certainly is not.

The endless kerfuffle around creationism has far more to do with religion and religious leaders evolving elaborate defence mechanisms against the corrosive acid of knowledge-based belief, as distinct from authority-based belief. What better way of doing this than picking something that doesn't make any real difference to anybody not involved in genetics, zoology, botany or medical research, something which aggrandizes the believer, belittles the non-believer, creates an enormous and enormously fake moral crusade based upon the secure knowledge that none of your followers is ever going to open a book on biology and find out that they're being lied to? And of course, it's got the added benefit that it brings in huge amounts of money too

As I said elsewhere recently, it's a superb and elegant example of how cultural institutions evolve to protect and promote themselves.

Interestingly, the judgement also contained the following observation:

It is ironic that several of these individuals [the ID proponents], who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

...which would suggest to many that the people who promote ID seem curiously uninterested in doing much to encourage the decency and moral fibre they claim that geneticists, zoologists and botanists lack.

Of course, one could turn the argument on its head -- how would you feel if I demanded time at your religious sessions to tell people that it's ok to believe that religion is nonsense, that all the stuff that everybody tells them is true is actually just a belief, that you won't burn in hell if you don't believe what you're told to believe, that the galaxy of religions known collectively as "christianity" comes in ten thousand forms, each claiming perfection for itself and varying degrees of damnation for everybody else, that religion itself is one of the most rapidly evolving cultural institutions?

I'd probably be lynched.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is the objection to teaching Creationism in class? I have yet to hear a good reason for not teaching it. The only reason that is implied is that evolution is theory and creation is a myth. I do not consider it a good reason.

That's funny, here we are on post 321# of this topic and you have not see one good reason in all those post?
IMHO, its not the issue of Theory vs. Myth. There are two issues, the first is the divine aspect that is causing problems. In particular, the way in which the Bible has been twisted and abused in an effort to support creationism, there by attempting to make creationism legitimate. And then wrapping it up in a crisp new layer of scientific fact, which I might add, has not been accepted in the scientific community. And that's the MAJOR issue, trying to teach creationism as a science.

In short, I think it is seen as nothing more than an attempt to push the Christian religion via the school system under the guise of being a science subject to individuals who are at a very impressionable stage of their development. Since you cannot possibly teach creationism in school without teaching Christianity, as they are both inseparable, you end up having to also teach a religion in support of the scientific facts that creationism depends on to a bunch of kids who may/may not want to learn about it. In addition to that aspect, you will also need to have the subject endorsed by the Government for inclusion in the school curriculum. What happens then to the separation between Church and State? People have spent centuries fighting for this separation, which I believe is the way it should be, and teaching Creationism in school would put us back to where we started. Also, why favor Christianity, we could teach the Nordic and Celtic myths of creation. The aborigines have a great one about creation. In your own stomping ground, the American Indian have some amazing accounts of creation. Why not teach them too. Since creationism has not been, despite what its adherents try to say, validated through the sciences creationists claim attest to its authenticity, these other views of creation are just as valid.

I feel that the only way to handle this type of situation is to have religion taught in a religion class only, and this class can be either a chosen subject, or an accepted part of a school curriculum that the parent agree to when they select a school for their offspring.

Excelsior

Brian, it shouldn't be taught because it is not science. Indeed, education should develop inquisitive and open minds and provide the skills to further grow knowledge and capability. But science class has to be about science. The way we teach it, not what we teach, encourages the independent thinker.

On top of that, as an evangelical Christian with an interest in what the early Christians believed, I think the modern (initially 7th Day Adventist) reading of Genesis 1-3 is a dreadful misreading of the text and an example of how a lack of vigilance can lead to the Bible being taken on crusades.

Finally, evolution or any other strand of modern science, poses no threat to a mature Christian faith. The motivation behind the ID crowd is to uproot the "godless" atheism of evolution theory. Why are they not equally uprooting every other theory including gravitation? I am off to being a lobby group to uproot the godless atheism of modern soccer. God is never mentioned at soccer games!

If Satan can't convince us to do wrong, he'll happily settle for us wasting our time. That is what this "Creation Science" thing is.

pH

Excelsior wrote:

Finally, evolution or any other strand of modern science, poses no threat to a mature Christian faith.

Do you really believe that?

Are you saying you're comfortable with the fact that life was created in a primordial soup ( a very simple replicating molecule of some sort), and 4.5 Billion years later here we are, a product of evolution with *NO* design or input from God?

Do you believe that we have souls? Did they evolve or did God as some stage inject the soul into a group of proto-humans (or indeed just one)?

I cannot see how undirected evolution is in any way compatible with Christian teachings or belief.

Excelsior

It isn't even a question of "believing that" in the sense that it is my personal opinion that evolution and Christianity don't clash. They simply don't clash. Nothing in the Bible is contradicted by evolution theory. Mad crazy arch-Calvinists and pogonotrophists like BB Warfield can be cited from the early 1900s as examples of orthodox Christian thought on this issue before the Creation Science brigade jumped in and distorted Scripture.

Augustine back in the day taught that Genesis 1-3 is allegory. The principal and founder of his school, by the way, was no less than John, the Beloved Apostle. God created the universe. Living things in the universe evolve. Nothing clashes there unless you bring an unBiblical literalism into the Biblical account.

Of course, as a Christian, I believe we have souls. Souls however, like the love I have for my wife and many other valuable and obviously existing things, are not objects subject to empirical testing. Evolution has nothing to say about souls.

Now that the Trojan Horse of ID has been defeated, maybe its time for people to advocate the teaching of Philosophy of Science in classrooms?

pH

Of course, as a Christian, I believe we have souls. Souls however, like the love I have for my wife and many other valuable and obviously existing things, are not objects subject to empirical testing. Evolution has nothing to say about souls.

But it has much to say about love!

Also ... back to Souls - you therefore believe that either :
A) Everything from the first self replicating molecule (possibly a bit of RNA) has a soul.
or
A child was given a soul who's parent(s) didn't have souls.

which? or something completely different perhaps?

Excelsior

It can speak about processes from which the physical effects of love can be felt but it has absolutely nothing to say about the devotion and loyalty I have for my spouse.

The two options you gave me are a great materialists' response to the question of the soul ph! "Souls are not organic things", said the crazy Christian. "Well does every strand of RNA have one or did someone just get born with one?" said the frustrated skeptic.

In truth, I think that humans were made in the image of God distinct from other creatures. As such I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that the first human had the first human soul!

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

As such I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that the first human had the first human soul!

*runs for shelter*

pH

Excelsior wrote:

It can speak about processes from which the physical effects of love can be felt but it has absolutely nothing to say about the devotion and loyalty I have for my spouse.

I'm afraid it does have a lot of explantory power about feelings of love, loyalty and devotion you feel for your spouse.

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

The two options you gave me are a great materialists' response to the question of the soul ph! "Souls are not organic things", said the crazy Christian. "Well does every strand of RNA have one or did someone just get born with one?" said the frustrated skeptic.

In truth, I think that humans were made in the image of God distinct from other creatures. As such I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that the first human had the first human soul!

You see here is the problem. There was never a first human, and to say you accept evolution, and also say that there was (a 1st human) is a huge contradiction. Every generation is slightly different from their parents, there was never a "first human" any more different from his/her parents as you are from yours.

This is an extremely important point, humans didn't spring fully formed from the womb of an ape, and a no stage did a first human ever exist, just a population of hominids drifting slowly from say home erectus (1.8 million years ago) to us today.

But you now seem say that to are in fact a Creationist (Humans made by God distinct from other animals), whereas evolution says this did not happen. It now seems you too admit that evolution and Christianity are not compatible.