I don't really get upset if you do. I'm not freaking out that the evolutionist "cooks" are teaching their children something I don't agree with (Yes, the people who made this video should have written "kooks" in their video description instead of implying that these are the people who make souffles). Let's pretend for a second that there really is no GOD, but I'm teaching my children about Him anyway. Last I checked, you could teach your children about Santa and the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy and there's no great public outcry against that. Do you know people even discuss parents teaching their own children to follow Jesus as "abuse?" Abuse? You know, I'm not going to participate in your indoctrination of your kid. If Joey asks me about Santa coming to my house, I'm going to tell him straight up that we don't believe in Santa at our house. But wow, I'm not going to call you a child abuser for doing that to your kid... even though I KNOW that you know you are lying to your child. On the other hand, I really *do* believe in God and am trying to teach my children what I feel to be the Truth. Well, whatever. I guess I am a "cook."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Look Out, Dad!!
My father is the purple dot above the blue weather station. He's juuust outside Milton's evacuation zone. Well! My brother and I jus...
Well, I guess I'm a "cook" too then. Boy, those were some pretty strong responses to the video too!
ReplyDelete"Strong" is a mild word in this case LOL!
ReplyDeleteI have no idea where I stand on this - I haven't really done much research on it. I do know that whoever created us was one heck of an Intelligent Designer.
ReplyDeleteI happen to think most scientists are completely nutty & lacking in common sense...not that I expect anyone to agree with me, especially scientists but too often I see science coming full circle back to something God stated aeons ago. Could be something in that you ya think?
ReplyDeleteJust finished The Map That Changed the World by Simon Winchester.
ReplyDeleteI guess I have to say that this book has altered forever my opinions on the subject of evolution.
It's not fluff, but serious work. I recommend it.
Ugh. I've started looking at what people are saying about all this again, and, well... I'm mostly seeing strawmen get burned. I don't see much true science in either camp, and that's distressing.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides say they have a lot of good science to back them up, and I haven't see much of either.
Ugh.
~Luke
A and Betty, I'm pretty sold on the idea that God created the world in six literal days. Were those days *exactly* 24 hours in length before the sun was even created on the fourth day? It would be silly of me to say that I could be sure. (The fact that He created trees and grass BEFORE the sun is a little odd. What's up with that??)
ReplyDeleteI suppose you could trace the history of the age of the world from Adam on through the "begets" and come up pretty close... but... whether the world is 5500 years old or 6002 years old, I couldn't really care too much.
Luke, to continue with this thought, either the Bible is correct or it isn't. Or it's mistranslated or misinterpreted. I'm ok with anyone and any ideas they may have. But I don't want unnecessarily controversial ideas *forced* on my own children with my taxpayer money and I don't care how good the "science" may be.
Maybe my definition of "science" is different from other people's. I start with God's word and work out. Other people who don't believe in God obviously have a different starting point, and that's ok.
I just hate the hate and words on both sides of the "issue" which are mean-spirited.
BTW, Luke, we will be attending a homeschool convention in Kansas City soon and looking at Sonlight stuff in person. D has been very adamant that we need to teach "both sides" of issues, and it sounds like Sonlight *sounds like* it would do a good job of that without indoctrinating my kids into evolution (on the young earth... I can do that part myself LOL). I am concerned that Elf will literally have a freak-out session if it doesn't quote the King James constantly, though. I'll have to see. We'd be buying for fifth grade... looking way ahead...
The strawman thing, though, Luke, I think is because we like to make the other side out to be the BAD GUY. If you're a believer in evolution, you must be demonic and against God. Well, mayyyybe, but maybe this person just hasn't been convicted yet or isn't convinced. And with other disagreements about speaking in tongues and election, etc. I want to be very careful before degrading my brother in Christ. BUT I want to teach my kids the "right" way as I see it.
Which means that my children will never enter a Catholic church except for family weddings and funerals unless they choose to as adults. Make sense?
Ganeida, I'm looking at the HOW of science and thinking it's strange. You start with a "hypothesis" and then try to prove it. Which... what if you discover something out of the blue? You can't stick God in a test tube, as he has "reacted" to different people in different ways through history.
We Christians also err in thinking God is in our little box as well. I think, anyway.
:]
I have a few Christian friends who believe that evolution and Christianity need not be mutually exclusive. I begged to differ with them on that point simply because the whole purpose of evolutionary science is to dismiss God as creator.
ReplyDeleteSuppose the earth wasn't created in 6 literal 24 hour days. Though I believe it was since the Bible says "and the morning and the evening were the first day"...and so on. Evolution is rarely argued from that perspective. It's chief aim is to dispute God as the creator and origin of life. So much so that evolutionists will reject sound scientific evidence that casts any kind of doubt on the conclusion they've reached. Even though they have no real evidence to justify their conclusions!
I just finished a book by a Chrisitian writer called "What's So Great About Christianity". It did a good job of answering the most prominent athiests of our day. The one thing that bothered me was that he did it from the vantage point of conceding to them on almost all points concerning evolution. Though that really, really, bothered me, I was impressed that even with saying "okay, the earth was formed over billions of years, etc.", he was still able to shoot earth sized holes into their arguments against the existence of God. Using their own immutable scientific laws and "logic".
YES, Terry, quite true. I wouldn't want "God as creator" detached from the creation. I just mean that... well, for example, the first year or so I was a Christian, I took Patrick out for Halloween and still believed in a woman's "right to choose." My opinions evolved (ha ha) from there as I spent time getting to know God and the reasonings of His people.
ReplyDelete:]
I also discount the idea of "millions of years" because it is directly contrary to scripture IMO. BUT... Can I say someone is not a Christian because they have an unbiblical viewpoint on an issue? Touchy subject I guess, as I have been proved wrong many times. I have probably still some ideas that are unbiblical.
AND...
Well, you know a tree by its fruit, but some trees are still baby trees and the blossoms aren't there yet. :]
We agree insofar as God is the only creator, and I do believe that the earth was created in six literal days. Were those days in the very beginning 23 or 18 hours long? Would the earth have moved at all in its orbit... well, I am not studied enough to say all these things, or even count all the possibilities that are "out there."
I am willing to admit there is much unknown, and much guessed at and presented as fact. :]
My kids have a CD with that guy singing about creationism. We are creationists, but I do think the CD is hilarious!
ReplyDeleteAnyone who teaches or suggests that teaching students only creationism is unaware of what science and the evidence actually demonstrates regarding evolution, and cheating those students out of a real education. The science and evidence is there for evolution, and anyone who says it isn't is either ignorant of the evidence or dishonest. The theory of evolution is only controversial because religious fundamentalists refuse to actually look at the evidence.
ReplyDeleteLet's try a simple thought experiment step away from any bias you have on the issue. Now let us examine 5 pieces of evidence and attempt to draw a conclusion from those 5 pieces of evidence.
1. The Fossil Record
Fossils of organisms which appear morphologically similar, are found within different rock strata which can be dated to different time periods based on argon dating, thorium dating, uranium dating, and in the extreme case lead isotope dating. These organisms appear to have changed morphologically over time, as certain traits became less prevalent in favor of other traits.
2. Mitochondrial DNA
Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA is the DNA found within the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells, this DNA is remarkably similar in all species of eukaryotic life. We know that mtDNA is passed from mother to offspring in species which reproduce sexually, and in species that reproduce asexually the mtDNA is passed on from the parent to the offspring. mtDNA is very resistant to change because it is isolated from changes caused by sexual reproduction and isolated from any mutagenic events that would affect the organisms nuclear DNA (DNA in the nucleus of the cell). Basically all eukaryotic organisms look like they had the same ancestor based on mtDNA.
3. Endogenous Retroviruses
When an organism is infected with a retrovirus the organism in question's DNA is changed by this retrovirus. These changes can then enter the germ line and be passed on from parent organism to offspring. The offspring who was never infected with the retrovirus now shares the genetic scar it's parent endured from the infection. Since changes caused by retroviruses are different and in different locations in the hosts genome from host to host the only way two organisms would have the exact same retroviral genetic scar would be if it were passed on. Many species actually share these scars, particularly humans, chimps and bonobos.
4. Nuclear DNA
This is the DNA that controls how a cell, and entire organism functions. This DNA is passed on through reproduction, and this DNA is exceptionally similar in all life, and even more similar in in organisms which share more endogenous retroviruses, and are more similar morphologically.
5. Observed and Documented Cases of Speciation
It has been observed and documented that species with exceptionally fast gestational periods with small genomes will, when separated into daughter populations for a number of generations, cease breeding with members of other daughter populations upon reintroduction, and in many cases show changes in morphology, and in all cases show genetic changes. Since they no longer will breed with members of the other daughter populations they are now considered a separate species.
So without any bias what can we say about these pieces of evidence? What can connect these 5 pieces of evidence? Since we can not demonstrate through science a deity exists, as if we could they would no longer be a deity and there would be no need for faith we must say that the only scientific thing we can say based on this evidence is that much, if not all of life on Earth shares a common ancestor or ancestoral population.
Now I could really care less what people want to believe, if people want to laugh in the face of modern science so be it, just don't stand in it's way and don't try to hide modern science from your children because you choose to believe it is wrong because your religion says so. I have yet to hear a scientific argument from a creationist that actually made sense. Seriously if a retail manager, college drop out can out science these "yec scientists" then something is seriously wrong with their "science" If any yec out there can come up with a scientific argument I'd be willing to examine it and share it with a friend of mine who actualy is a scientist. (please no Dr. Dino stuff...I have already had an email debate back and forth with Dr. Hovind and he simply couldn't come up with anything that made sense except that seemed to really want to believe what he was saying)