Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Narrative Summary
4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
(Click excerpt link for responses)
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
That's not science.
In what way is scripture compromised by a moving Earth?
A stationary Earth would be the simplistic literal interpretation of not just that Psalm, but also Joshua 10:12-4 was taken to mean the Sun moved around a stationary Earth.
Psalm 93:1 was used by Calvin in a defense of Geocentricity.
It is not a “compromise” of the Bible to be Geocentric, nor did the Christian world change its opinion on the matter to have it be more in line with a literal interpretation of scripture.
==And being so serious about chronology that the two accounts differ?...If Genesis is literal then which one?
by Don Batten
Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.
The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.
Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.
‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.
Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]
The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heaven’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:la).
Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.
Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.
The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’
Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.
==A stationary Earth would be the simplistic literal interpretation of not just that Psalm, but also Joshua 10:12-4 was taken to mean the Sun moved around a stationary Earth.
Nope, Joshua 10:12-14 can just as easily be understood from Joshua’s perspective. When you talk about a beautiful sunrise, you are making reference to the sun based on the way its movement appears to you. It doesn’t mean the sun is literally rising.
I have complete and total faith that the account in Genesis is allegorical, that “morning” and “evening” of a “day” without a Sun was not, as a matter of necessity, exactly 24 hours or any nearby variation; not when a day to the Lord is “as a thousand years” (once again poetic, not literal).
My faith is in no way dependent upon the wrongness of any scientific theory, as such, my faith is never lessened by the advancement of knowledge within that field.
And once again, I am NOT saying that the scripture absolutely implies a Geocentric system at any time any where any how. Please get that out of your system.
What I am REPEATING again and again is that there was once a system of thought in the Christian world that the simple reading of scripture insisted upon a Geocentric world. At some point the Christian world abandoned this perception.
What do you suggest was the mechanism that changed the majority opinion of the Christian world from one that the Bible supported Geocentricity, to one that scripture did not insist upon Geocentricity?
What was the mechanism of change?
The Law of Contrarian Polling states: Given a choice of two positions, at least 10-20% of those polled will agree with either one of them, no matter how illogical it is.
“That’s not science.”
But presupposing something ISN’T true isn’t science either, is it? We bend ourselves like Gumby trying to be neutral, but we never are.
I agree, I do not believe I am “entitled.”
Except that. . .
I am forced to pay tax dollars for public education.
Just as we conservatives may agree, we do not want our taxpayer funding to teach Keynesian economics at our public schools!
The solution, for me, is to stop public education. I simply don’t support it, in principle, although I do wish all the little schoolkids and teachers well. I just don’t approve of the entire idea.
However, in the meantime, asking for creation science to be presented as an alternative theory is not asking for affirmative action, I don’t think. Particularly since Gallup polls etc. show that less than half of Americans believe in evolution, even after all this time.
“PRINCETON, NJ — On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don’t have an opinion either way.”
‘I’m NOT trying to be a jerk here, “ I appreciate that, but do understand, the journals, textbooks, web sites and other information I digest and disseminate are indeed products of degreed scientists, mostly PhDs.
I have mentioned in other creation/evolution threads, my son has a BS in Physics from UCLA, homeschooled K-10 by me (went to college early), and is a six day creationist as we taught him. Science and creation need not conflict.
“Which “evolution scientist[s]” do you use, and what writings of theirs do you incorporate into your lessons?”
We use Apologia textbooks in the later grades, written by PhD Jay Wile - General Science, Physical Science, and Biology, so far. A brief glance through his texts shows quotes/examples from Darwin, Albright (archaeology, Neils Bohr, Einstein, W.H. Burr, Stephen Hawking, Sir Charles Lyell, Max Planck, Ivan Pavlov. . .many many more.
More tellingly, we learn of great Christian scientists as well, who had no problem (apparently) reconciling creation with their field of endeavor: oldies like Bradwardine, Nicholas of Cusa, Copernicus, also Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, and Sir Isaac Newton. Robert Boyle, van Leeuwenhoek, John Dalton, and Linnaeus who gave us our basic classification system, Biology, no less. James Joule of the First Law of Thermodynamics!! Roger Bacon, Grosseteste. . .
I’d have to read all the textbooks through to give you everybody, but you get the general idea.
Evolutionist and Creationist scientists side by side, no fear, and that is where I really respect the Creation Scientists. They will tell you, with reasonable honesty, the opinion of the Evolutionists. I can attest to the honesty because I was taught evolution throughout my school years. Yet Evolutionists will not mention Creation Science even as a theory, even as something they oppose.
Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...
Do you think, based on the irrefutable evidence of this the emphasis should be, in a truly scientific analysis, that anything homosexual should be completely removed from public schools?
Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...
Do you think, based on the irrefutable evidence of this the emphasis should be, in a truly scientific analysis, that anything homosexual should be completely removed from public schools?
Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...
Do you think, based on the irrefutable evidence of this the emphasis should be, in a truly scientific analysis, that anything homosexual should be completely removed from public schools?
See # 172... consider the question...
>>
Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...<<
I should mention, I’m a physicist not a biologist... but my understanding is that non-reproducing members can still have some effect on the survival and development of a species... that said, I don’t remember Genesis covering the effect of homosexuality on evolution.
>>Do you think, based on the irrefutable evidence of this the emphasis should be, in a truly scientific analysis, that anything homosexual should be completely removed from public schools?<<
I don’t really follow you. If you are saying that homosexuality should not be a part of teaching science - I would agree. Its not a big topic at the high school level except it does present a biological question - why does it continue if they don’t reproduce? The other question that comes up is whether there is a biological basis.
Your "understanding" is bull-shiite...
There is no evolutionary viability at all with homosexuals, that is a concrete scientific reality.
You want to avoid the question with equivocation.
Homosexuality is a fetish like religion.
The same reason why religion continues...
Evo-cultists are on a mission to erase Genesis from the public sphere. It’s about being able to do anything they want, especially homo behavior. That’s why they have to ignore the fact that all reproduction is between a male and a female. Their homo fetish doesn’t fit with their *science* yet they never have an answer as to how homos can exist with it. If the evo-cult were true, than homos would have long gone extinct. That’s almost reason to wish it were true. Almost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.