toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[Alate_One]

I do not like calling you a liar, Alate, but this is another example of how completely dishonest your conversation tactics are.

You calling me dishonest is like Donald Trump accusing someone of having bad hair . . .

IK said that men could be excluded, expelled and barred from secular institutions for showing any inkling toward creationism.

And that's not necessarily true. As I said, at a secular college, you can certainly talk about ID and creationism. Some professors can even hold those positions, provided they are not teaching such things in the classroom. What you cannot do is present them as legitimate science. So your statement is just as wrong as mine.

You counter that men can be kicked out of Christian schools for talking about evolution.

I did overstate by saying "talking about". But many (but certainly not all) Christian schools do not like their professors promoting evolution as accurate science or compatible with Christianity. And in the case I linked, a man was nearly fired for doing just that.

And now you're shifting the goalposts talking about up-front and honest contracts that are enforced.

That is how the "we don't want to present evolution as legitimate" is enforced at fundamentalist colleges. They generally make sure they don't hire someone that would present the truth about evolution. They might claim they do, but reading between the lines shows a gross caricature of the science.

Here's Liberty University

And a video clip of them

 

[Alate_One]

Reading Genesis 1 is very reliant upon one's preconceptions. If you have a model of the universe set out already then it is pretty easy to trick yourself into believing that the language in Genesis 1 supports what you think when you're able to use concepts like "interpretation", translation, culture, intention and authorship to mould the simple concepts presented.

When it comes to evolutionists, they are already well trained to bend definitions and descriptions to fit their presuppositions.

:rotfl: You sir, are the definition of irony . . .

But what happens when we just look at Genesis? Just open your bible and read the first chapter verse-by-verse and see what it says.

After all you just said about preconceptions. You can't actually remove your own prejudices without considerable effort. Remember the text wasn't written in English, and it was written thousands of years ago. Ever tried to just read Shakespeare in the original language? Getting the nuances of the text can be tough given the language differences in only a few hundred years. And yet you think you can do nothing but read the English text and get everything out of it.

Of course it is very clear that there is no way Genesis can be describing evolution.

Duh. Although in many instances, God simply commands "the earth to bring forth". Kinda sounds . . .evolutionary. :think:

Nor is there any indication that what is plainly said is not intended to be a simple recount of pre-history (before humans).

Except for there being light before the sun, the rhyme (tohu and bohu) and repetition of "evening and morning" which are rather different from other narratives in the Bible, especially the second creation story that follows the six days.

There are a couple of concepts that are difficult to understand because the terms used are not easily parsed.The two important terms are "Firmament" (raqiya) and "Heaven" (shamayim).

Gee maybe they're in another, ancient language? ::chuckle:

If History were to be taught then it should be done by concentrating on exactly what these terms might reasonably refer to.

And you don't do that by assuming a modern understanding of the cosmos first. You look at word meanings, roots, uses in similar languages etc.

And the key point should be that they must be correctly parsed as both terms can well refer to very different things. Indeed, in Genesis 1, there are very good reasons to believe that both terms refer to different things in different verses by only reading that chapter.

Except that the actual text (in NASB) says "the firmament was CALLED 'heaven'". Of course, we should do an actual word study of the original words and look at many translations to get a feel for the arrangement.

Mind you, Genesis 1 is only one of two different creation accounts.

 

[Stripe]

I can't see

We know.

You calling me dishonest is like Donald Trump accusing someone of having bad hair . . .

What's wrong with the Don mocking someone's hair? :idunno:

And that's not necessarily true. As I said, at a secular college, you can certainly talk about ID and creationism.

And at Christian colleges you can talk about evolution.

Some professors can even hold those positions, provided they are not teaching such things in the classroom. What you cannot do is present them as legitimate science. So your statement is just as wrong as mine.

So you're wrong and I didn't say what you have said I did.

I did overstate by saying "talking about".

Okay.

They generally make sure they don't hire someone that would present the truth about evolution.

Or they go out of their way to do so. Depends on your perspective.

After all you just said about preconceptions. You can't actually remove your own prejudices without considerable effort.

I have no problem with being a presuppositionalist.

Remember the text wasn't written in English, and it was written thousands of years ago. Ever tried to just read Shakespeare in the original language? Getting the nuances of the text can be tough given the language differences in only a few hundred years. And yet you think you can do nothing but read the English text and get everything out of it.

And yet we can still come to understand Shakespeare pretty well. :idunno:

Duh. Although in many instances, God simply commands "the earth to bring forth". Kinda sounds . . .evolutionary.

Only if you ignore everything else, Barbie.

Don't tell me you now believe that God spoke scientific facts into His word. Most of the time you're dead set against that idea railing on about domes in the sky and flat Earths. :chuckle:

Except for there being light before the sun

The text plainly says there was light before the sun.

the rhyme (tohu and bohu) and repetition of "evening and morning" which are rather different from other narratives in the Bible, especially the second creation story that follows the six days.

Styles and rhymes do not make the text mean other than what it plainly says.

And you don't do that by assuming a modern understanding of the cosmos first. You look at word meanings, roots, uses in similar languages etc.

You are free to assume whatever you like. There is nothing wrong with assuming the bible speaks of how the Earth was in ancient times and looking at the Earth today to get clues as to that condition. And one does not begin an investigation by looking at minute details and other sources. One starts by understanding the simple facts presented in Genesis. Looking at details can help with a few difficult concepts, but those investigations should never change the meaning of what is plainly written.

Except that the actual text (in NASB) says "the firmament was CALLED 'heaven'".

How is that an exception to what I said?

Of course, we should do an actual word study of the original words and look at many translations to get a feel for the arrangement.

Done.

Mind you, Genesis 1 is only one of two different creation accounts.

And there are four different accounts of Jesus' life on Earth. :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

What's wrong with the Don mocking someone's hair? :idunno:

Well, people in glasses houses and all that? It would be like Yul Brynner making fun of the bald....

lain:

 

[eameece]

Creationism is a religious concept so, if taught or discussed, should be in a religion or philosophy class, not science. Similarly, no science teacher should teach a lack of god.

However, if you want to discuss young earth science or science that challenges evolution/old earth, I don't see a problem with that.

Someone making some sense. Thank you kmoney. Did any of you guys catch this? Something besides the usual battle?

:thumb:

 

[Squishes]

Someone making some sense. Thank you kmoney. Did any of you guys catch this? Something besides the usual battle?

:thumb:

For one, schools typically do not offer a philosophy class. Second, I see no connection between what philosophers do and what creationism is. A glance through the largest philosophical database reveals that there are only 98 sources (out of around 375,000) that contain the word "creationism", and most of those are about ID and not YEC. Philosophers don't discuss creationism.

 

[Stripe]

Philosophers don't discuss creationism.

So? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

 

[Squishes]

So? :idunno:

It wasn't in response to you. It was in response to those who think teaching creationism should be relegated to philosophy classes.

I expect you and I are in fundamental agreement about some of these issues; for example, I think the amount of exegetical maneuvering required to avoid the creationist reading of the Bible is unacceptable.

 

[Alate_One]

v. 8 and God called the firmament heaven. How is it on the earth then? You and Walt Brown are nuts.

 

[Selaphiel]

I expect you and I are in fundamental agreement about some of these issues; for example, I think the amount of exegetical maneuvering required to avoid the creationist reading of the Bible is unacceptable.

I agree with you that the Bible is not secretly conveying a modern understanding of the origins of the universe. Then again I do not think the main point of Genesis is to convey an account for the origin of the world at all (not account in the sense of a literal explanation at least).
I think the text is best understood as a temple text mediating an ordained order to creation analogous to the ordination of temples.
A lot of studies have been done on Genesis 1 and the research of among others, Ellen Van Wolde suggests that Genesis 1 is not even a creation (in the sense of creatio ex nihilo. It is based on linguistic studies on the verb "bara" (traditionally translated as create), which is shown to mean to form rather than to create. The idea presented in Genesis 1 is thus the idea that the world is shaped out of some form of primeval matter, and not appearing out of nowhere.

Then again, even if read literally the Bible does not mediate the picture of the world that YECs hold to. They do mix in modern worldviews as well when they accept that earth is round and so forth. The worldview you are left with with a completely literal reading of the Bible is a disc shaped flat earth resting on pillars in a chaos sea, with the underworld under it, the firmament above with stars, sun and moon lodged into it, with water above that again before you reach the heavenly realm.

I think the text must be understood as what it is, a mythical text. A text using imagery to convey theological ideas rather than being a literal recipe for how the world came into being. The climax of the story is Gen 2:2-3. Read in the ancient context, resting means to assume power, it was what kings did when after they had assumed power, they rested in their own power and accomplishment, then seated themselves at the throne.

 

[Stripe]

I expect you and I are in fundamental agreement about some of these issues; for example, I think the amount of exegetical maneuvering required to avoid the creationist reading of the Bible is unacceptable.

v. 8 and God called the firmament heaven. How is it on the earth then?

How is it not on Earth?

You and Walt Brown are nuts.

And instead of constantly assaulting me and my sources, perhaps you could come up with something rational in response to the plain reading of the bible.

Oh, wait. No .. you won't be able to do that. Mockery and obfuscation is all you will ever have.

 

[Squishes]

I agree with you that the Bible is not secretly conveying a modern understanding of the origins of the universe.

I don't know if that's what my position is. At least, it wasn't what I was saying here.

Then again I do not think the main point of Genesis is to convey an account for the origin of the world at all (not account in the sense of a literal explanation at least).

I don't buy the "it's not the point of the passage" argument, for the simple fact that I don't care whether or not it is a scientific treatise. What the authors of Genesis were trying to say in the long-run is a different question of what they commit to on the way there.

I think the text is best understood as a temple text mediating an ordained order to creation analogous to the ordination of temples.
A lot of studies have been done on Genesis 1 and the research of among others, Ellen Van Wolde suggests that Genesis 1 is not even a creation (in the sense of creatio ex nihilo. It is based on linguistic studies on the verb "bara" (traditionally translated as create), which is shown to mean to form rather than to create. The idea presented in Genesis 1 is thus the idea that the world is shaped out of some form of primeval matter, and not appearing out of nowhere.

And how long did it take to create animals out of this primeval matter? And what about the flood which was supposed to wipe out all the animals and humans on the earth?

Then again, even if read literally the Bible does not mediate the picture of the world that YECs hold to. They do mix in modern worldviews as well when they accept that earth is round and so forth. The worldview you are left with with a completely literal reading of the Bible is a disc shaped flat earth resting on pillars in a chaos sea, with the underworld under it, the firmament above with stars, sun and moon lodged into it, with water above that again before you reach the heavenly realm.

I agree; the Bible does seem to teach those things.

I think the text must be understood as what it is, a mythical text. A text using imagery to convey theological ideas rather than being a literal recipe for how the world came into being. The climax of the story is Gen 2:2-3. Read in the ancient context, resting means to assume power, it was what kings did when after they had assumed power, they rested in their own power and accomplishment, then seated themselves at the throne.

I'm alright with reading the Bible as a mythical text. I just don't limit it to the OT; I think liberal reinterpretations of the NT and the acts of Jesus can be read just as faithfully as mythical interpretations of the old.

 

[Alate_One]

How is it not on Earth?

I'm talking about earth as in on the soil, the surface of the earth. The surface of the earth isn't heaven it doesn't make sense being called heaven. Anyone with a plain understanding of the words knows that the ground (which is what you're talking about) isn't called heaven by anyone that is rational.

And instead of constantly assaulting me and my sources, perhaps you could come up with something rational in response to the plain reading of the bible.

I AM talking about the plain meaning! What you and Brown are promoting is nonsense even with respect to a 3rd grade understanding of just the English translation.

Whatever the firmament is, it's far enough up to be CALLED "heaven". Your layer of rock on the surface of the earth isn't heaven. This is exactly what you finally conceded a long time ago. If I had time I'd look up the thread again and prove it to you. This is honestly one of the, if not the dumbest things you've ever proposed on ToL.

 

[Stripe]

I'm talking about earth as in on the soil, the surface of the earth. The surface of the earth isn't heaven it doesn't make sense being called heaven. Anyone with a plain understanding of the words knows that the ground (which is what you're talking about) isn't called heaven by anyone that is rational.

You've got everything here but a reason.

I AM talking about the plain meaning!

Of course you're not.

Whatever the firmament is, it's far enough up to be CALLED "heaven".

Why does Heaven have to be "up"? :idunno:

Genesis quite clearly describes it as being "on".

Your layer of rock on the surface of the earth isn't heaven.

Strange. That's what God called it. And that's where God planned to spend His time with people. Do you know what they call the place God is?

This is exactly what you finally conceded a long time ago. If I had time I'd look up the thread again and prove it to you. This is honestly one of the, if not the dumbest things you've ever proposed on ToL.

Perhaps it is. Feel free to look up that thread. I like it when people look up my threads.

 

[Alate_One]

Of course you're not.

Yes, I am. You are trying to make scripture fit your nonsensical ideas.

Why does Heaven have to be "up"? :idunno:

Now, Stripe the purveyor of "the plain meaning" is trying to redefine words.

Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky.

Gee, lofty and "the sky" obviously means a crust of earth covering water. Other translations even translate shamayim as "sky". But for Stripe, sky is earth and earth is sky apparently. Is black, white too?

"Shamayim" is a crucial concept in the Bible. There are at least three different shamayim or "heavens" in the bible: 1) The atmosphere where birds fly and clouds wander above the earth; 2) The heaven where the celestial bodies wander (wandering stars = planets) and stars reside; 3) The heaven where God and "the hosts of heaven" reside (Psalm 90:4; 2Peter 3:8; Isaiah 57:15), also called "paradise," the "heaven of heavens," or in Hebrew shamayi h'shamayim (ם‎שמי‎ה‎ שמי) in scripture (cf. Deut 10:14; 1Ki 8:27; 2Ch 2:6, 6:18; Neh 9:6).

Source

Can you possibly be more obstinate over something that is just plain obvious?

Genesis quite clearly describes it as being "on".

No, it doesn't. It says the firmament was created to separate the waters below from the waters above. Everyone else that has interpreted this passage has put the firmament in the sky or surrounding the earth in space, or something like that.

I can't believe even you are still arguing something this moronic.

Strange. That's what God called it. And that's where God planned to spend His time with people. Do you know what they call the place God is?

You're on dangerous ground claiming your silly ideas are the same as God's.

Perhaps it is. Feel free to look up that thread. I like it when people look up my threads.

It's a waste of my time.

 

[Stripe]

Now, Stripe the purveyor of "the plain meaning" is trying to redefine words.

Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky.

Gee, lofty and "the sky" obviously means a crust of earth covering water. Other translations even translate shamayim as "sky". But for Stripe, sky is earth and earth is sky apparently. Is black, white too?

And, like you already know, there are multiple meanings for this one word. Thanks for listing them, but why can you not acknowledge the meaning that most obviously applies?

"Shamayim" is a crucial concept in the Bible. There are at least three different shamayim or "heavens" in the bible: 1) The atmosphere where birds fly and clouds wander above the earth; 2) The heaven where the celestial bodies wander (wandering stars = planets) and stars reside; 3) The heaven where God and "the hosts of heaven" reside

Where did God plan to spend His time with people?

Can you possibly be more obstinate over something that is just plain obvious?

:chuckle:

No, it doesn't. It says the firmament was created to separate the waters below from the waters above.

Above and below that which was being created. The water was on Earth. The firmament was created within the water. Thus the firmament was on Earth.

Simple.

Everyone else that has interpreted this passage has put the firmament in the sky or surrounding the earth in space, or something like that.

Ah, the definitive atheist argument raises its head again. How might I ever argue against this one? :noid:

I can't believe even you are still arguing something this moronic.

I'm not.

You're on dangerous ground claiming your silly ideas are the same as God's.

I'll take my chances.

It's a waste of my time.

Yeah.

Again, Alate, you've got a great big, long post with nothing in the way of reason. The one reference to any evidence contains the exact reason why my explanation is perfectly reasonable. Why not quit with the name-calling, ad hominem, appeals to popularity or authority and general fluff and discuss this with some honesty?

 

[voltaire]

I expect you and I are in fundamental agreement about some of these issues; for example, I think the amount of exegetical maneuvering required to avoid the creationist reading of the Bible is unacceptable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes squishes, creationism is clearly taught in the bible. It takes all kinds of mental smoke and mirrors to distort that.

 

[Stuu]

We know.

So I'll assume your lack of willingness to "help me see" the argument for teaching creation / creationism is a tacit acknowledgment that there isn't one.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I'll assume

Of course you will.