Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You learned two things which are not on their face contradictory but which have contradictory implications.
For example, the Bible doesn't state that some organisms were created which evolved into other organisms, it simply states that terrestrial plant life and sea, air, and land animals were created, in this order(!!!). We know that some organisms didn't exist at the same time as other organisms. Not only does it not specify that some evolved into others, but it omits entire domains of life. It doesn't tell us that Archaea and Bacteria were created. The biblical creation myth only details the creation of organisms that can be called Eukaryotes. This would be consistent with humans writing the Bible as humans didn't know about these organisms until very recently.
Also, how could terrestrial plants such as grasses and fruit trees be the first to exist? We know that the first organisms lived in water as the Ozone layer had not yet formed and nothing could live on the surface of the land. In fact, footprints have been found which are older than terrestrial plant life itself! Pretty glaring contradictions there.
I applaud the move from biblical literalism, but even then there are still irreconcilable contradictions between what the bible says and what is known to be true. The book is riddled with human error.
Of course there are plants in the water as well...
But in any case, there's two creation stories in the Bible from two different perspectives. There's a more significant point/message to them than the details of creation that some literalist, Bible-only Protestants seem to pay too little attention to. It's not contradictory to study the scientific theory of evolution and to also study the Bible's creation story for the message it gives (though admittedly this is harder for the hardcore Bible-only Protestants than for a Catholic or Orthodox Christian who doesn't use the Bible alone).
So you are basically saying you're right and everyone else is wrong because they are too lazy because, as YOU say, you believe evolution is real and Genisis version isn't. That IS what you are saying you know.
I know exactly what I am saying and do not appreciate you butchering it.
Let me paraphrase: As humans we have the skill of reason to decide which beliefs WE think to be true. If we CHOOSE not to use our skills of reason and instead believe two CONTRADICTORY beliefs at the same time, I would call it lazy.
If you don't like my choice of words I'm sorry. I cannot think of any other way to describe it.
I made no claim that I know everything or that you know nothing, so please keep your emotions in check so that we can have an intellectual conversation.
Evolutionary biology contradicts a literal interpretation of genesis, so a biology book that says anything about evolution effectively already says that creationism is a myth.
And if you see genesis as just a metaphor, that means you already see it as a myth too.
Either way, it makes perfect sense to have that sentence in a biology textbook.
Evolutionary biology contradicts a literal interpretation of genesis, so a biology book that says anything about evolution effectively already says that creationism is a myth.
And if you see genesis as just a metaphor, that means you already see it as a myth too.
Either way, it makes perfect sense to have that sentence in a biology textbook.
No it makes no sense to mention it. Did it mention other religions too? It makes most sense to say nothing about religion in a science textbook.
Of course there are plants in the water as well...
But in any case, there's two creation stories in the Bible from two different perspectives. There's a more significant point/message to them than the details of creation that some literalist, Bible-only Protestants seem to pay too little attention to. It's not contradictory to study the scientific theory of evolution and to also study the Bible's creation story for the message it gives (though admittedly this is harder for the hardcore Bible-only Protestants than for a Catholic or Orthodox Christian who doesn't use the Bible alone).
That's why I qualify the difference between those plants and terrestrial plants. Even then, "plants", on land or in sea, were most certainly not the first organisms to exist.
The second account is even more ridiculous than the first. It doesn't mention sea creatures at all yet clings to the idea that land plants were first. This one even says that Adam existed before any other land animal! As a person with at least a rudimentary understanding of the evolutionary time line, I am incredulous to read such things.
If you believe it's some sort of allegory, then have you not already submitted to the idea that it is on the same level of creation myths from all other religions? Yet you don't see anyone advocating for those to be considered.
I don't care what people believe. Well, that isn't entirely true. I occasionally am dumbfounded by the things people can come up with. But people need to stop with their theological penis measuring, as none of the mainstream creation myths or creation myths that have ever existed have any basis in reality.
Nevertheless, the science book should have never stooped to mentioning such things. High school science texts don't take the time to consider people who believe in alchemy or geomancy, so religion is no special.
Now that is a textbook worthy of a honors biology curriculum.
Now if we can only get the OP into a remedial reading program...
"the honors biology course book used at Farragut High School describes creationism as a "biblical myth."
Now where in the quote does it state that Christianity is a myth as implied by your title.
You should have read on where the paper said, "He said it could "mislead, belittle and discourage students in believing in creationism and pointedly calls the Bible a myth."
Those are just the words that mean the most. Progs try to mislead, belittle and discourage anyone who believes anything in the Bible.
You should have read on where the paper said, "He said it could "mislead, belittle and discourage students in believing in creationism and pointedly calls the Bible a myth."
Those are just the words that mean the most. Progs try to mislead, belittle and discourage anyone who believes anything in the Bible.
It bears repeating that if seeing the phrase 'biblical myth' causes a creationist to rethink his position then the position isn't very solid.
There are all sorts of 'biblical myths' that people believe and don't believe, depending on their mindset. This is honors biology, let's give some credit where credit is due and assume these kids have some intelligence and some ability to think for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
amn, I was wrong. Apparently the Qu'ran extends and revises on Genesis. Mea culpa.
