Post Reply
Page 6 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Creation and Bible in the School.
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 8:32PM #51
DGMelby
Posts: 970

Jul 16, 2011 -- 11:33AM, anidominus wrote:


 

In World History would be fine, along with other religious creation myths, not as World History.  It isn't history any more than it is science.



There is no diffrence between the "In" and the "As".  Anything taught in World History is being taught as World History regardless if only a particular culture believes the history.  It's World History according to that group.  Since no one knows exactly how World History started then each group should be allowed the freedom to teach as little or as much as the diffrent opinions that are available.  It's no diffrence when there is a diffrence of opionion on other issues related to world history.  You may teach the dominating opinion along with several other opinions.





Actually, there is a world of difference between "in" and "as".


For example, it would be appropriate to teach, in world History, that ancient people believed that the Universe looked like this:



This is a fact.  This is what ancient people used to believe the whole universe was like.  Somewhere along the line (about 200 BCE, IIRC) ancient philosophers (especially the Greeks) starting noticing certain facts about the natural world that lead them to the conclusion that at the very least, the world was round, not flat.  Over time, flat-earth cosmology was replaced by geo-centrism; geo-centrism was replaced by heliocentrism; heliocentrism was replaced by steady-state cosmology; and stead-state cosmology was replaced by big-bang cosmology.


It is appropriate to teach flat-earth cosmology in World History class, as an explanation of what ancient people used to be.  What ancient people used to believe is a part of history, after all.  It would be a mistake to teach flat-earth cosmology as if was as valid as the modern understanding of cosmology.  And it would be downright negligent to teach flat-earth cosmology as if this is the way the world really looked.


The same is true of creation myths.  Creation myths are what ancient people used to believe about the nature, origin, and history of the world.  Over the last 2500 years, our understanding of the natural world, especially through such diverse modern disciplines including (but not limited to) biology, geology, chemistry, physics, archeology, genetics, paleontology, and astronomy, has refined our understanding about the nature of the world, its origins and history.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 11:12PM #52
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jul 19, 2011 -- 8:32PM, DGMelby wrote:


Jul 16, 2011 -- 11:33AM, anidominus wrote:


 

In World History would be fine, along with other religious creation myths, not as World History.  It isn't history any more than it is science.



There is no diffrence between the "In" and the "As".  Anything taught in World History is being taught as World History regardless if only a particular culture believes the history.  It's World History according to that group.  Since no one knows exactly how World History started then each group should be allowed the freedom to teach as little or as much as the diffrent opinions that are available.  It's no diffrence when there is a diffrence of opionion on other issues related to world history.  You may teach the dominating opinion along with several other opinions.





Actually, there is a world of difference between "in" and "as".


For example, it would be appropriate to teach, in world History, that ancient people believed that the Universe looked like this:


 


This is a fact.  This is what ancient people used to believe the whole universe was like.  Somewhere along the line (about 200 BCE, IIRC) ancient philosophers (especially the Greeks) starting noticing certain facts about the natural world that lead them to the conclusion that at the very least, the world was round, not flat.  Over time, flat-earth cosmology was replaced by geo-centrism; geo-centrism was replaced by heliocentrism; heliocentrism was replaced by steady-state cosmology; and stead-state cosmology was replaced by big-bang cosmology.


It is appropriate to teach flat-earth cosmology in World History class, as an explanation of what ancient people used to be.  What ancient people used to believe is a part of history, after all.  It would be a mistake to teach flat-earth cosmology as if was as valid as the modern understanding of cosmology.  And it would be downright negligent to teach flat-earth cosmology as if this is the way the world really looked.


The same is true of creation myths.  Creation myths are what ancient people used to believe about the nature, origin, and history of the world.  Over the last 2500 years, our understanding of the natural world, especially through such diverse modern disciplines including (but not limited to) biology, geology, chemistry, physics, archeology, genetics, paleontology, and astronomy, has refined our understanding about the nature of the world, its origins and history.





Two Things...


1)  I understand what you are attempting to say.  However, the ancients beliving the cosmos looked like "something" is World History.  It's a fact, that's what they believed.  It is the History of those people so in fact it can be taught as World History.  World History has nothing to do with the validity of what people believed, it has everything to do with what they believed and what they did. What they believed affected what they did. 


2)  Regarldess of whatever understanding scientist may have come up with we still don't know how it all got here.  You may be able to rule out some "Creation Myths" as you like to call them but you can not rule them all out and you definatly can't rule out the biblical version.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 11:31PM #53
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:12PM, anidominus wrote:


2)  Regarldess of whatever understanding scientist may have come up with we still don't know how it all got here.  You may be able to rule out some "Creation Myths" as you like to call them but you can not rule them all out and you definatly can't rule out the biblical version.


 


 




 


The Biblical version is the easiest to rule out,if people are intelligent enough to understand the science.The fact that the universe is something like 13 billion years old,with the Earth being about 4 billion years old,destroys the biblical account.As does the fact that humans and apes share the same DEFECTIVE mutated gene that causes scurvy.Along with many other reasons.


 


Hinduism,now that's a different story.I'm not a Hindu,but when you deal with a myth that has the age of the universe at something like 711 TRILLION years,with it in a constant state of destruction and rebirth every 1422 TRILLION years,then you have your work cut out disproving that one.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 7:21AM #54
amcolph
Posts: 17,692

Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:12PM, anidominus wrote:

 Regarldess of whatever understanding scientist may have come up with we still don't know how it all got here.  You may be able to rule out some "Creation Myths" as you like to call them but you can not rule them all out and you definatly can't rule out the biblical version.


 



The "biblical version" has been decisively ruled out these past two hundred years and more.  The evidence against it is overwhelming.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 12:43PM #55
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:31PM, christzen wrote:


 


The Biblical version is the easiest to rule out,if people are intelligent enough to understand the science.The fact that the universe is something like 13 billion years old,with the Earth being about 4 billion years old,destroys the biblical account.






not really, there is a physicist in Israel who says from inside the big bang the process would appear to take about a week; while from without it take billions of years

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 1:26PM #56
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:31PM, christzen wrote:

.As does the fact that humans and apes share the same DEFECTIVE mutated gene that causes scurvy.





design flaws; but no design?

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 2:08PM #57
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

No. Just flaws. (Some folk DO have 'em, ya know.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2011 - 8:53PM #58
DGMelby
Posts: 970

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:31PM, christzen wrote:


 


The Biblical version is the easiest to rule out,if people are intelligent enough to understand the science.The fact that the universe is something like 13 billion years old,with the Earth being about 4 billion years old,destroys the biblical account.






not really, there is a physicist in Israel who says from inside the big bang the process would appear to take about a week; while from without it take billions of years




o_O  Yeah... I've heard a lot of hand waving in trying to preserve the "six day" creation idea in the light of modern physics.  But the fact remains that even such simple concepts like trigonometry makes the idea of a literal reading of Genesis problematic when faced with what we see in the natural world.


Personally, I think such efforts just cheapens the meaning behind the Bible's Creation Myths.  Genesis 1 speaks of God creating an orderly Universe:  there is literally a place for everything in the first chapter of Genesis, and everything has its place.  Genesis 2-4 speaks far more eloquantly about the transition from childhood to adulthood, the loss of innocence, and transistion to the arrogant self-centeredness common to adolescents and adults alike, than insisting that "Adam must've ate from the Fruit of Knowledge, otherwise humans aren't sinners, and have no need for Christ."


The whole point of Creation Myths isn't to tell us how we got here.  That is just the vehicle used to convey the real message.  The real message, the whole point of Creation Myths, is to tell us where we are now.  They are about the human condition, and our place in the world around us.


 Does it really matter whether or not we got our knowledge of morality from some guy eating some fruit 6000 years ago, as opposed to six million years of evolution?  The fact remains that as human beings, we do know the difference between Good and Evil.  We do disobey God because we think we know better.  We do try to hide our sinfullness from God.  And we don't succeed in doing so.


That being said, if one does believe that God is the Creator, then IMO that makes nature as much Scripture as the Bible.  It is the Word of God writ large across the heavens, and in the bones of the Earth, and in the genome of every living thing.  And unlike the Bible, it has had no human writer, nor has it had a human editor.  And unlike the Bible, if you're skeptical about another human beings interpretation, you can do the experiment yourself.


 If you don't accept that the Large Magellanic Cloud is 168,000 light years away (and thus the Universe is at least 168,000 years old), then you can point your own telescope into the sky and (if it's powerful enough) directly measure the radius of supernova 1987A's circumstellar rings in arc seconds (the angle they make in the sky... about 0.808 arc seconds, FYI).  And if you're willing to keep that telescope pointed at the sky for a year, you can see yourself that flucuations in the luminosity of the stellar remnant takes about 8 months to be reflected in those circumstellar rings.  With those two figures, a little trigonometry will tell you how far away it is.


I think it was Saint Augustine who cautioned Christians making false statements about the natural world, especially to non-Christians.  Because if we get such easily verifiable facts wrong, why on Earth should they believe we get the nature of God and Salvation right?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 24, 2011 - 11:40AM #59
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:43PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:31PM, christzen wrote:


 


The Biblical version is the easiest to rule out,if people are intelligent enough to understand the science.The fact that the universe is something like 13 billion years old,with the Earth being about 4 billion years old,destroys the biblical account.






not really, there is a physicist in Israel who says from inside the big bang the process would appear to take about a week; while from without it take billions of years




 


It isn't about ones perspective.The Bible,as used by fundies trying to refute science,has the start of creation no further back than 13,000 years at the most,from the same perspective that science tells us took billions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 24, 2011 - 11:47AM #60
christzen
Posts: 6,569

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:26PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Jul 19, 2011 -- 11:31PM, christzen wrote:

.As does the fact that humans and apes share the same DEFECTIVE mutated gene that causes scurvy.





design flaws; but no design?




 


Nobody claimed design.It is only those who cannot bear the thought of adaptive evolution without a god directing it who insist upon a designer.Evolution,btw,does not disprove God.Only the evangelical view of creation .But you miss the point.We share the same defectively mutated gene as the apes.So then,either


a)God deliberately created this defective gene,for whatever reason He would do that,or


b) both apes and men somehow both developed this defective gene independently and the fact that the animals that seem even to the casual glance to be almost humanlike are also the same ones that share this defective gene is all just an astronomically high coincidence,or


c)humans and apes share a common ancestor that passed this gene on to both,which indicates evolutionary development from earlier life forms for us humans

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook