toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[Alate_One]

I don't assume that; I assume that verses that present themselves as metaphorical-- "God is like x"-- should be taken as metaphorical, and verses that are straightforward-- "In the beginning..."-- shouldn't.

Again, you're using the assumptions based on your own cultural background. What is standard "code" for symbolism in English won't always come through from a language like ancient Hebrew.

I can't imagine anyone reading Genesis for the first time and think that it wasn't a cosmogony.

I'm not saying it isn't however, the emphasis and meaning isn't what you think it is. It is, in my view, an "anti-myth" specifically written in an ANE mythological style (mind you I mean myth in the literary sense, not the sense of falsehood) such that the point of it isn't to tell you, *how* God created the earth, but why and for what purpose. And yes it's counterintuitive, but you're dealing with a different culture that's from thousands of years ago.

And why in the world would you do that? I can make sense out of anything if I look for a pattern and rearrange text like this.

These are cultural differences. Out western culture expects ordered lists. This may look like an ordered list, but in fact probably isn't one.

Ok, but the stars are placed in the firmament on day 2, correct? That seems messy.

No the stars are a bit of an afterthought in the making of the sun and moon "He made the stars also".

And on day three God separates the seas, so fish would seem to correspond to day 3 and not day 2.

It makes sense with the waters of the earth vs. the waters of the sky. Fish are not only found in the sea.

It just seems too artificial and contrived. Further, it requires you to throw out any chronological element to the Genesis story, which seems, on the face of it, absurd. What do we do with all the days? Why number them?

There have been quite a number of scholars looking at the original language that have pointed out the days are actually not listed as ordinal numbers, but cardinal. Rather than being ordered, they're simply named. So instead of evening and morning you get one day, day two etc. Unfortunately westerners are culturally programmed to look for ordered lists, which can lead to misunderstanding. The Bible is full of numbers that aren't simply numbers to be precise, but numbers for symbolic purposes. Look at the description of the temple of Solomon of animals going into the ark and you'll see the number 7 all over the place. This is why atheists complain about the Bible "saying" Pi is three. The greek mindset looks for precision. Whereas the writers of the Bible were looking for the symbolism of a round, and symbolic number like "3".

Why does all of Judaism through the time of Christ treat it as a creation story (and arguably, Jesus himself does).

I'm not saying it isn't a creation story . . . why would you think that? I'm saying it's got symbolic aspects to it which make it, while an account, a mythic account rather than a step by step "this is how the earth was made".

 

[eameece]

Of course philosophers CAN do that; but what exactly does teaching students about, say, the problem of induction, have to do with creationism? It'd be wildly inappropriate to delve into creationism during a class on inferential logic.

True enough. My point here is that scientific accounts can be challenged philosophically. Not by creationism or intelligent design, but by inquiry into the methods and meanings of scientific terms. That's why I brought up philosophy. I didn't say philosophy should teach creationism.

I don't care what you think the best way to view Genesis is. I'm trying to figure out what public school class it would be appropriate for. So far nothing you describe leads me to believe it would be responsible to do so. It certainly doesn't belong in a philosophy class, and if the only way to teach the Bible is to dive in full-on mystic, then it would be appropriate only in religious schools or in graduate religious studies.

I agree, or maybe undergraduate religious studies, when it comes to creationism. It is not too advanced as a subject of study.

 

[Stuu]

Stuu. The light spoken of on day 1 is light that reaches the earth and can be seen with human sight. The light that is necessary for matter to exist could have existed in the very first verse. That is electromagnetic energy. But, matter could have existed in a plasma state with no electromagnetic force being created yet.

No it couldn't. And the second verse states very clearly that the earth was in darkness. That means no light, with light yet to be invented, so I think you still have all your work ahead of you here.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

I'm a YEC,

And you admit it in public, no less.

What excuse do you provide? The only sane one I can think of is that the entire observable universe is an illusion.

Is that your argument? Otherwise you must be a crackpot.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Again, you're using the assumptions based on your own cultural background. What is standard "code" for symbolism in English won't always come through from a language like ancient Hebrew. I'm not saying it isn't however, the emphasis and meaning isn't what you think it is. It is, in my view, an "anti-myth" specifically written in an ANE mythological style (mind you I mean myth in the literary sense, not the sense of falsehood) such that the point of it isn't to tell you, *how* God created the earth, but why and for what purpose. And yes it's counterintuitive, but you're dealing with a different culture that's from thousands of years ago. These are cultural differences. Out western culture expects ordered lists. This may look like an ordered list, but in fact probably isn't one. No the stars are a bit of an afterthought in the making of the sun and moon "He made the stars also". It makes sense with the waters of the earth vs. the waters of the sky. Fish are not only found in the sea. There have been quite a number of scholars looking at the original language that have pointed out the days are actually not listed as ordinal numbers, but cardinal. Rather than being ordered, they're simply named. So instead of evening and morning you get one day, day two etc. Unfortunately westerners are culturally programmed to look for ordered lists, which can lead to misunderstanding. The Bible is full of numbers that aren't simply numbers to be precise, but numbers for symbolic purposes. Look at the description of the temple of Solomon of animals going into the ark and you'll see the number 7 all over the place. This is why atheists complain about the Bible "saying" Pi is three. The greek mindset looks for precision. Whereas the writers of the Bible were looking for the symbolism of a round, and symbolic number like "3". I'm not saying it isn't a creation story . . . why would you think that? I'm saying it's got symbolic aspects to it which make it, while an account, a mythic account rather than a step by step "this is how the earth was made".

Or you can just read it at face value and understand the events described at historical facts supported endlessly by physical evidence.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Or you can just read it at face value and understand the events described at historical facts supported endlessly by physical evidence.

What 'physical evidence'? If 'creationism' were true do you seriously believe there wouldn't be at least one peer reviewed article supporting such never mind "endless" amounts of such 'proof'?! :squint:

Science isn't about suppressing theories, it never has been. If there were evidence to show the earth is only 6000 years old we'd have it Stripe! It would be asserted by the scientific community in general!

:doh: :hammer:

 

[Persephone66]

What 'physical evidence'? If 'creationism' were true do you seriously believe there wouldn't be at least one peer reviewed article supporting such never mind "endless" amounts of such 'proof'?! :squint:

Science isn't about suppressing theories, it never has been. If there were evidence to show the earth is only 6000 years old we'd have it Stripe! It would be asserted by the scientific community in general!

:doh: :hammer:

Now Arthur, don't you know that what we know as science is all a global atheist conspiracy?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now Arthur, don't you know that what we know as science is all a global atheist conspiracy?

Do the Illuminati know about all this?

:shocked:

:noid:

 

[Stuu]

What 'physical evidence'? If 'creationism' were true do you seriously believe there wouldn't be at least one peer reviewed article supporting such never mind "endless" amounts of such 'proof'?! :squint:

Science isn't about suppressing theories, it never has been. If there were evidence to show the earth is only 6000 years old we'd have it Stripe! It would be asserted by the scientific community in general!

:doh: :hammer:

Don't forget Stripe's Law that the possibility of something happening is evidence in favour of it having happened.

All you need is to believe...

...and add pixie dust...

...and all your fantasies can describe reality.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

What 'physical evidence'?

The Earth is extensively covered with sedimentary deposits which were laid down in water. Compelling evidence that the Earth was under water in ancient times.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

And you admit it in public, no less.

I've never really felt compelled to go along with the crowd.

What excuse do you provide? The only sane one I can think of is that the entire observable universe is an illusion.

You call that sane? I invoke general relativity.

Is that your argument?

What -- the illusion thing? I'm not a Hindu.

 

[voltaire]

Alatone. The following portion of an article from earthhistory.org gives a very plausible interpretation of the second day of creation. The important point is that the biblical author takes time to point out that on the second day of creation, heaven and the firmament were equivalent. This i believe was done on purpose to make it clear that firmament was not what the ancient mind thought it was. There was no other word to use so raqah was used and it was said to be equivalent to heaven to further clarify the meaning. Article here: God issues a command to
separate the waters around
the earth so that in the
midst of them there is a
firmament, called
‘heaven’ (‘sky’ or ‘vault’ are
misleading translations).
Previously‘heaven’ referred
to the entire universe, just
as‘earth’ referred to the
whole planet; here it refers
to an outer space bounded
by terrestrial waters below
and celestial waters above.
There was also, in the
Hebrew world-view, a
further region, called ‘the
heaven of heavens’, the
universe beyond the
firmament (Deut 10:14, I Ki
8:27). Thus the heavens in
their totality consisted of
two regions, the immediate
neighbourhood delimited
by an envelope of water,
and the region of outer
space where the stars
shone. In Psalm 148 the
singer cries:
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you stars
of light!
Praise him, you heaven of
heavens
and you waters above the
heavens!

 

[voltaire]

Stuu. You are going to have to tell me why a formless mass of protons and neutrons cannot exist in complete darkness by themselves.

 

[voltaire]

Alateone. You tell squishes on page 14 that the purpose of genesis is to tell us the why of creation. There is not a single verse anywhere in genesis that tells us why God created the universe. What we find is several verses describing form coming into existence in response to a supernatural voice.

 

[Alate_One]

The Earth is extensively covered with sedimentary deposits which wer laid down in water. Compelling evidence that the Earth was under water in ancient times.

Except that not all of the deposits were laid under water. Nor should it be surprising that many are, considering the earth is still covered by 70% water. The water deposited materials are interspersed with desert sediments and volcanic sediments. Some were under freshwater some under salt. And many were under conditions calm enough to preserve footprints. So attributing the rocks on the earth to a single global cataclysm is simplistic and based on your own ignorance of the evidence.

At one point in history, flood geology was mainstream geology. Do you know why it fell out of favor? Evidence.

Naturalists of the early nineteenth century accumulated a great deal of information that led to changes in their view of earth's history and the role of the Noachic deluge in it. They all paid scrupulous attention to the full spectrum of available geological information and adjusted their ideas in response to that information. Many of them were orthodox Christians, and yet they felt no need to distort the evidence they encountered in order to sustain their belief in the biblical deluge. One finds no appeal to miracle on the part of even the most ardent advocate of the deluge, William Buckland. The premier geologists were persuaded that existing geological evidence supported the notion of a global or at least continental deluge. Every one of them rejected the old diluvialism which attributed the deposition of fossiliferous secondary and tertiary strata to the flood, however. They identified only surface deposits as the effects of the deluge. Even that view collapsed, however, because of the importance that these men placed on extrabiblical evidence. Buckland, Sedgwick, and others ultimately abandoned nineteenth-century diluvialism when it became clear that gravels, valleys, polished rocks, cave deposits, and the like could no longer be satisfactorily understood as the result of a giant deluge. Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation. Biblical expositors of the period were more reluctant to grapple with extrabiblical data in so forthright a manner, as we will see.

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology

You may as well be arguing phlogiston theory, Stripe.

 

[Alate_One]

Alateone. You tell squishes on page 14 that the purpose of genesis is to tell us the why of creation. There is not a single verse anywhere in genesis that tells us why God created the universe. What we find is several verses describing form coming into existence in response to a supernatural voice.

Genesis describes the ordering of the individual components of the universe. The purpose of the components in the universe is mentioned, not the overall purpose of the universe. The account really isn't focused on the act of creation itself (it's already been pointed out that the "creation" may actually just be ordering of preexisting matter). In many instances the earth "brings forth".

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Earth is extensively covered with sedimentary deposits which wer laid down in water. Compelling evidence that the Earth was under water in ancient times.

This has been addressed ad nauseam in your 'beloved' global flood thread as well as elsewhere. If there were such "compelling evidence" there would be a scientific consensus on it Stripe, except there isn't is there? Alate One has just pointed out why...

Seriously, do you think there is some sort of conspiracy to deny evidence for a young earth?

 

[voltaire]

Alateone. That is the definition of biblical creation........... The ordering of pre-existing matter through the agency of supernatural intelligence and pOwer. Even bringing the pre existing matter into being is an act of creation. Matter has special properties and behaves according to laws. Bringing that into existence is certainly an act of creation as the bible states........... In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......pre existing matter.

 

[voltaire]

Regarding alates and arthurbrains conversation with stripe concerning flood geology........ The evidence is overwhelming against the sediments being laid down in one year. However, the evidence does not show them being laid down over 4 billion years either, other than radiometric dating. All of it could have been laid down within 200,000 years. One thing to consider is the possibility of an ancient crust reduced to gravel, sand, and silt and a few small boulders. Todays crust and sediments could simply be the result of reworking those sediments with the help of water, tectonics and extensive volcanism.

 

[alwight]

The Earth is extensively covered with sedimentary deposits which wer laid down in water. Compelling evidence that the Earth was under water in ancient times.

Strange then that a supposed global flood would produce quite different local results in terms of what was in the sedimentary "deposits".
However, referring only to "deposits" imo rather tries to avoid the fact that these deposits are in fact found in multiple sedimentary layers, which usually shows multiple alternating diverse periods of marine, land and climatic types. Never one consistent global flood though for some reason, probably because there wasn't one.