Intelligent design

[catbooster]

In any case, the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1 is defined by the context there. There is no simile, so the days are meant to be literal. The meaning of the days of creation as ordinary days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because God had made all things in six days and rested on the seventh.

Even with a literal interpretation, a day does not have to be defined as one rotation of our planet on it's axis. The theory of relativity can be used to show that time in one reference frame can be immensely different from time in another reference frame. A day to God can be millions of years to us here on earth, and during most of creation in Genesis, there was no Man to relate to (there wasn't even an earth initially). Maybe God told the story in his time frame until he had created men, then converted to their time frame for the rest of the story. I have read that post creation, the timeline of the bible tracks well with scientific evidence.

Forthermore, I have read that each of the actions in the genesis acoount of creation corresponds to a problematic portion of the scientific theories.

Either way, science classes are for teaching science, as currently understood. Despite my belief that God created everything, I know that my understanding is not perfect (of either the bible or science). I accept the scientific evidence and have my religious beliefs, and am sure that somehow both can be correct, even if I'm not bright enough to figure out how.

[hokeyfine]

amen cat booster

[iaafan]

http://members.aol.com/bkdonnclass/EarlyMan.html#LUCY

This is easy to follow and probably a good starting point for those interested in studying evolution.

['93HonoluluCat]

i never said we evolved from an animal. man was made different from animals, i believe that was always the plan. Since then we've gotten a little taller, a little smarter, a little older, etc. i'm sure he thought it was good, and i'm sure he didn't think that everything would stay the same. i'm sure he knew that animals would die out and others would take their place.

Okay--my misunderstanding...sorry 'bout that. I misunderstood the perspective from which you were coming.

[iaafan]

Interestingly many early educators came from religious backgrounds, which begat (I love using that word in this context ) parochial schools and colleges. At Carroll College (Roman Catholic) there is a prof that theorizes that there are still ‘Neanderthals among us’ (I believe he has a paper/book/class called just that). He isn’t the only one and I doubt it’s his theory. But the story goes that people with swept brows may have inherited that from the Neanderthals. There is also a prof (Perkins) at CC that is one of the main contributors in the study of homosexuality being genetic. She has worked with a team that has studied this in sheep and has found a genetic correlation.

This all goes on with school's "blessing."

[SonomaCat]

It just had to be posted ... it just had to:

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

[iaafan]

Hopefully they are correct. Imagine how easy life would be. Alas, they are just taking the easy way out. Why wrack your brain, when this answer (God) is available. This is how it all started in the first place. We had to have an answer and since it was much too difficult to explain logically, we "found" God.

[info197176]

BAC: I don't care who youare..that's funny..

[hokeyfine]

i agree with 1aa fan: our kids have already become brain dead from video games and tv, now they don't have to explore or discover, oh my god. eventhough i'm someone who believes in a higher being and evolution, i can't believe we are going down this road of becoming brain dead. God must be scratching his head and thinking "why did i give these people on earth brains. all the other people in the universe are doing ok."

['93HonoluluCat]

Maybe God told the story in his time frame until he had created men, then converted to their time frame for the rest of the story.

I believe if that were the case, there would have been a narrative explanation of that shift of point-of-reference.

Either way, science classes are for teaching science, as currently understood. Despite my belief that God created everything, I know that my understanding is not perfect (of either the bible or science). I accept the scientific evidence and have my religious beliefs, and am sure that somehow both can be correct, even if I'm not bright enough to figure out how.

Teaching science is one thing, but promoting evolution as a proven fact ("science") is another. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. I believe science classes should not just promote the unproven theories of Evolution, but also the equally viable (from a proof standpoint) Creation.

Even though I still have things I find a hard time believing, I trust God and His Word and ultimately know that He made it all. How the world developed from Creation to the Here-And-Now is really just icing on the cake.

The important message of the Bible is not how the world was made--it is how we are loved by our Creator, to the point that He sent his Son to die for our imperfections. It is that Good News that is really the most important peice of the Bible.

[SonomaCat]

Hitchens takes a break from his pro-war pieces and writes a social issue column with his usual tone and biting sarcasm:



http://www.slate.com/id/2124952/

[SonomaCat]

As Springsteen says, "Part man part monkey, looks like to me."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... EG8JL1.DTL

[Ponycat]

Isn't like 75% of our DNA identical to grass.

[SonomaCat]

It always comes back to drugs, doesn't it?

[Ponycat]

[catbooster]

Sorry for such a late response. I haven't checked in much lately and missed your comments.

Teaching science is one thing, but promoting evolution as a proven fact ("science") is another. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. I believe science classes should not just promote the unproven theories of Evolution, but also the equally viable (from a proof standpoint) Creation.

I suspect that any good science teacher would not teach evolution as fact. It is the best (most widely supported and accepted by the experts) scientific theory available to explain the evidence. If science can only teach things that are proven fact, we can save a lot of money on science classes, since a great deal of what is taught is considered theory, and relatively little is fact, using the scientific definitions. IMO, a good science teacher would not be teaching it "dogmatically", but would discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

Perhaps part of what I don't understand is the semantics or definition of ID. I thought it largely accepts that species evolve(i.e lions and tiger have a common ancestor), and simply says that due to the complexity of life and some other things, an intelligent designer must have been involved and providing some help here and there (i.e. creating separate ancestors for cats and elephants). It sounds to me as if what you are talking about is what I've heard referred to as Young Earth Creationist, who maintains that everything was created in six revolutions of Earth on its axis, and doesn't accept evolution at all, except perhaps, small changes such as coloration, etc.

If my definitions are correct, then teaching ID is a fairly short lesson - "You know the shakier parts of the theory of evolution we talked about earlier? Well, one hypothesis is that a higher power provided some input at those points."

I also have a hard time agreeing with your last statement above that there is equal scientific proof of creation. I don't intend to belittle your beliefs, since I also believe God created everything. But my belief in creation is faith based, and my acceptance of evolution is scientifically (evidence) based.

The important message of the Bible is not how the world was made--it is how we are loved by our Creator, to the point that He sent his Son to die for our imperfections. It is that Good News that is really the most important peice of the Bible.

And here we agree. I don't consider acceptance or not of evolution to be a central tenet of my religious faith, so it is relatively unimportant to me how God chose to use it (or not) in the act or process of creation. Similarly, I'm not that concerned whether someone else agrees with me about it or not. I don't want to be anyone's stumbling block, nonetheless I think that many non-believers are turned off by the stereotypical (but I suspect minority) Christian creation beliefs.

[hokeyfine]

catbooster: that was a great statement, congratulations and thanks.

[iaafan]

Yes, nice post catbooster. I needed that after listening to a talk show host agreeing with his caller that Hurrican Katrina is 'another sign' that the world is coming to an end. They even had the never to refer to the 5.2 quake in southwestern Montana as being a 'sign.' It would be funny, but so many people buy into that.

['93HonoluluCat]

Catbootster, your last post was a good one--I enjoy the dialogue. I would, however, like to clear up a couple of things :

If science can only teach things that are proven fact, we can save a lot of money on science classes, since a great deal of what is taught is considered theory, and relatively little is fact, using the scientific definitions. IMO, a good science teacher would not be teaching it "dogmatically", but would discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

You must have had a better series of science teachers than I had in Great Falls, Helena and Bozeman, because none of them offered an alternative to evolution, and none of them pointed out the shortcomings of the evolutionary theory. It is that "evolution or bust" dogma that doesn't belong in our schools. If evolution is a theory, fine; but the the alternative theories should be covered to they same extent.

Perhaps part of what I don't understand is the semantics or definition of ID. I thought it largely accepts that species evolve(i.e lions and tiger have a common ancestor), and simply says that due to the complexity of life and some other things, an intelligent designer must have been involved and providing some help here and there (i.e. creating separate ancestors for cats and elephants). It sounds to me as if what you are talking about is what I've heard referred to as Young Earth Creationist, who maintains that everything was created in six revolutions of Earth on its axis, and doesn't accept evolution at all, except perhaps, small changes such as coloration, etc.

Here, it's important to note the difference in definitions. Evolution/evolving involves (sorry about the wording) genetic change from within--in other words, new genetic code is needed for evolution to be truly evolutionary. On the other hand, different species mating with other species from the same genetic family (i.e. dogs with other dogs, etc.) merely rearranges the chromosomes within the organism. That is not evolution. So, over the thousnads of years simple inbreeding within the species have led to the diverse amount of species we find today. (Since I'm not a geneticist nor a biologist, I had to find the information for this paragraph here.)

I also have a hard time agreeing with your last statement above that there is equal scientific proof of creation. I don't intend to belittle your beliefs, since I also believe God created everything. But my belief in creation is faith based, and my acceptance of evolution is scientifically (evidence) based.

The eruption of Mount St Helens was a great geologic event with which to study the forces of natural events acting on a very short span of time. Around the area that was formerly Spirit Lake, today we can find fossilized, upright trees, that are identical to trees that have been fossilized for (supposedly) millions of years. Also, the water that rushed down the volcano as the snow caps melted, carved a canyon several hundred feet deep--again, creating something in a few hours what should (supposedly) take millions of years. These are bu two of the items in a growing catalog of scientific evidence that supports a much younger Earth than we are being instructed.

(Author's note: please forgive any egregious spelling/grammatical errors; I've been recovering from PRK surgery this week, and my vision's not up to par yet.)

[SonomaCat]

Interesting history lesson about the Scopes trial. I had never read too much about the actual events surrounding it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2125492/