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.
Sure it is...The ancients had to put things in simple understandable terms when they described creation....they put the process in the terms of days. There is a tell tale line in scripture..."A second is a thousand years and a thousand years is but a second to God"..
Evolution - adaptation - creation is the same thing. All things have an origin...all things come into being through some sort of creation. Creation may have been a process that lasted a billion years...but was just a blip in time to God. As for intelligent design in nature...nature is highly intelligent- right from the common seed to the strangest creatures yet to be discovered in the depths of the sea.
It is all about how human beings measure time...at present through the Hubble telescope you can look back a few billion years in time....time has no limit...in reality it does not exist. The possibility that this thing we live in has a point of origin or a creator...or the point maybe that the God factor...is something without origin..something that has always existed...prior the big bang and prior to that...there is no proof that there what we live in is NOT a creation ...or proof that it is a spontaneous accident...we don't know....Intelligent versions of creation should be mentioned.....The universe is so vast that anything is possible...even God.
To teach children that God is impossible and could and never did exist would be a disservice...we don't know...and what we do not know for sure should not be taught as fact.
English teachers ought appreciate the Bible as the epic of the present Western Culture, irregardless of its religious application.
Genesis is the story people have understood for 2000 year as the foundation for our civilization and it seems useful as a teaching tool is so many ways.
Not only can it be shown correspond with what Science teaches, but it also gives a long historical perspective in regard to how man only gradually developed the general knowledge of the Universe that would enable him to understand the real story of creation.
The Bible is an excellent example of having explained creation in a way that was not ever wrong, but never exactly clear enough that earlier generations would have discarded the book as unbelievable.
As the real truth of creation has been exposed to us, in this generation, we can look back and understand how the Reading comprehension of earlier generations twisted the actual correspondences with the truth in order to suit the particular paradigm of their own time.
For example, people somehow managed to get the Bible to seem in agree,ant with the idea that the Sun went around the Earth, because that was the Science from Aristotle forward.
As we read that the Sun and Moon were made time keepers for earth, we can see that the readers who assumed the seven "days" were 24 hours could not have been correct before that had been stated.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 09-24-2013 at 07:34 AM..
Reason: fixed typos for clarity
THIS is what you teach at church and in your home. What you do not know for sure, what you take on faith, should be taught at church and in the home, not at school.
You assume that reading a book upon which many religions are founded is teaching the religion, itself, as opposed to merely literary criticism of the actual writings.
In China, just before the current times, the same Bible was used in schools as a way of teaching english to children who had no religion when the class started and had no rligion when the term ended.
We do not need confuse using a copmparison between what people have thopught bout the unfolding of the Cosmos before the Age of enlighten ment with teaching their ignorance of the scientific events understood today.
That so much interest has been generated in America about whether Genesis corresponds, or does not correspond, to the Facts seems to me to be a great, if not singularly invaluable tool to galvanize a little (lot) of student interest.
English teachers ought appreciate the Bible as the epic of the present Western Culture, regardedless of its religious applications otherwise.
Genesis is the story people have understood for 2000 year as the foundation for our civilization, and it seems useful as a teaching tool is so many ways.
Not only can it be shown correspond with what Science teaches, but it also gives a long historical perspective in regard to how man only gradually developed the general knowledge of the Universe that would enable him to understand the real story of creation.
And, the Bible is an excellent example of having explained creation in a way that was not ever wrong, but never exactly clear enough, so that earlier geneations would have discarded the book as unbelievable.
As the real truth of creation has been exposed to us, in this generation, we can look back and understand how the Reading Comprehension of earlier generations twisted the actual correspondences with the truth in order to suit the particular paradigm of their own time. But, had they been aware of the Facts, they might very well have understood Genesis to be absolutely correct.
For example, people somehow managed to get the Bible to seem in agreement with the idea that the Sun went around the Earth, because that was the Science from Aristotle forward.
People twisted the Bible to cpnform with that view, simply by 'reading into it" things that seemsed implied.
As we read NOW, more correctly, that the Sun and Moon were "made" time keepers for earth, (NOT PHYSICALLY CREATED), we can see that the readers who assumed the seven "days" were 24 hours could not have been correct before that had been stated.
Since the 24 hour Earth day did not exist "in the beginning," we can reasonably conclude that the seven "days" might well have been as long as the seven different major layers of Rock whic, in fact, keep the evidence of the History of the Earth.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 09-24-2013 at 07:35 AM..
Reason: removed copyrighted graphic - post links instead
If you wish to know how our natural world probably functions based upon evidence, you'll learn from science. If you wish to know about human nature and how believing in things without evidence effects our social structure, you'll learn from religion.
"Importance" is merely a matter or perspective, but the differences between the two worldviews are not.
?
Are you suggesting that Public Edication is teaching science, as opposed to the History and evolution of science as a discipline?
Thee is very little taught but a description of what has become the body of science which is aceptable to us.
The idea seems an important topic, for instance, that teachers begin Chemistry by recognizing that, previous to the modern discoveries and ideas, the same discipline was called Alchemy.
That is not a bad word.
Teachersd do admit that most all the Laboratory Glassware and apparati of today is a result of those early efforts, Alchemists.
Teachers discuss the rational, goals, evolution of the science, and the thinking that set men/women in search of rules that implied men could image Reality in their own minds correctly.
And, by developing a mental picture of the Truth, men could /have come to know this mysterious companion.
Reality has made itself known to us at our birth,i.e.; the "world" and cosmos that holds almighty power over our existence and our death.
With every one of our seven senses, the appearance of this "Entity," after leaving our mother's womb, cries out the warning and the blessing, "I am," too, you are not alone.
Are you suggesting that Public Edication is teaching science, as opposed to the History and evolution of science as a discipline?
No, I was suggesting (very plainly, or so I thought) that religion is belief based on lack of evidence, and science is just the opposite. Suggesting the two are equal is a false equivocation. I was also intimating that accepting things without evidence makes one more likely to be gullible in other aspects of life.
I've no problem with a school teaching religion or even creationism, as long as it is not presented as science. Science and religion, even though their histories might intermix, are not equivalent and should not be presented that way.
Quote:
With every one of our seven senses, the appearance of this "Entity," after leaving our mother's womb, cries out the warning and the blessing, "I am," too, you are not alone.
True?
False. No such sense or perception has led me to feel this way (assuming you're talking about the biblical "I am"). We're taught to believe this "entity" exists. It's not part of our innate biology as you suggest. The only cries of warnings and blessing I hear are coming from other humans who are attempting to indoctrinate.
No, I was suggesting (very plainly, or so I thought) that religion is belief based on lack of evidence, and science is just the opposite. Suggesting the two are equal is a false equivocation. I was also intimating that accepting things without evidence makes one more likely to be gullible in other aspects of life.
I've no problem with a school teaching religion or even creationism, as long as it is not presented as science. Science and religion, even though their histories might intermix, are not equivalent and should not be presented that way.
Dave: How is reading Genesis teaching either religion or that Genesis is science?????
Comparing our Science Books to what one ancient book says about the beginning of this Reality we are all experiencing is hardly teaching the belief in one (science) or the other (a religion).
What we have on the one hand is a book banning by educated people and, on the other, a fear that Science might support what ancient people wrote long before we became convinced of the same things.
These are books, Genesis and Science texts.
A comparison only teaches whether they compare favorably or not.
False.
No such sense or perception has led me to feel this way (assuming you're talking about the biblical "I am").
We're taught to believe this "entity" exists. It's not part of our innate biology as you suggest. The only cries of warnings and blessing I hear are coming from other humans who are attempting to indoctrinate.
Of course you went through the same rationale as Rene Descartes did, when he concluded that "I am," because the evidence to him/you is that, by thinking, he/you must exist.
You may not be aware of the rationale which might be subliminal now, of course.
That is the fundamental foundation for the modern philosophical "proof," that we each exist.
You may deny it, but since birth, you have been constructing a view of what is not you, and what exists around you, by using the incoming data of your seven senses to make a model of existence and whatever is in it, (i.e.; Reality).
You have no direct connection with Reality, but must experience it through your senses and figure out what the incoming impulse mean.
This is called Empirical Science, which you began using at birth.
You have learned that whatever is not you is almoghty and powerful enough to burn your hand if you foolishly put it into fire.
Your whole life is an effort to cope with Reality and live compatibily with it, using the facts of Life to your advantage when possible. Science is just a formal expression of this exact same process we all have been using, however poorly for many, to accomplish the insight of recognizing what is true about what is real.
Everything including the people you have perceived as surrounding you is a merely a figment of your imagination used to assume existence is what you belive it is.
The one fact which supports all this the belief that Reality is the same for us all.
Whether we agree on what is real or not, we all agree only one thing is real for is all.
The only thing I can say is that evolution should be taught in science class because evolution is based on science. Intelligent design or whatever it is called can be taught in theology class, but it should be kept out of science classes.
The only thing I can say is that evolution should be taught in science class because evolution is based on science. Intelligent design or whatever it is called can be taught in theology class, but it should be kept out of science classes.
This makes complete sense.
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.
