Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your views!

Our theologies are obviously quite different, your being Catholic and my being Southern Baptist, so I do not expect us to agree on everything, nor am I asking you to change. But for the sake of Lurkers following our discussion, I would like to elaborate on some of the issues you raised:

As I've said before, maybe not on this thread, I think that in order to really understand the Bible you need to be able to read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin, at a minimum, plus understand the historical contexts in which each book was written, plus be thoroughly conversant with the entire Bible, not just picking out verses here and there.

In a previous post, 2068 to bondserv, I offered my personal testimony on reading the Bible. In sum, my eyes read the Bible, but the Spirit within me reads the Word.

We Christian Fundamentalists emphasize strongly the importance of being born again, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is that Spirit which brings revelation and understanding of the Word.

Being alive, the Word far exceeds any understanding that can be garnered through mental study of the text and associated reference materials. Not that we should ignore these things.

For instance, when the issue of Jesus’ part in Creation came up, I read the original Greek and seven translations and checked the usage of the Greek word in the lexicon. I found no significant difference in the interpretation of these passages:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. – John 1:3

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. – John 1:10

I didn’t check this one in the same fashion, but I would expect the same result:

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; - Hebrews 1:2

You continued…

Using logic, I find it strains my own credibility to believe that Jesus created Himself, created His mother, and made her pregnant. If so, he'd simultaneously be His own father and his own grandpa. Such things may happen in parts of Appalachia, but are mighty unseemly to me.

Here’s how the event is described:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. – Luke 1:35

You continued…

For Catholics, Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal and co-equal, but of a different nature. "I am in the Father and the Father in me" does NOT mean "I am the Father and the Father is me."

And again, we would disagree in that I aver they are One:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: - John 17:20-23

The bottom line to me is one of surrender of self-will to God's will. Jesus is so surrendered to the Father, so utterly devoted to Him, that I cannot see a bright line showing where the one ends and the other begins. Likewise, we should abide in Jesus:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

[Lurking Libertarian]

All of the Conventions attendees's respective States had laws on the books with religious qualifications for State office, both before the Constitution was drafted and long long after until around the time the 14th amendment was passed.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, many states had already abolished all religious qualifications for office; all of the remining ones were gone by the 1830s.

[Junior]

I'm not sure I was even part of that exchange...

[HalfFull]

Thank you so very much for your post and for sharing your views!

Hi Alamo-girl...thanks for taking the time with your long response....enjoyed reading it.

****************

However, I do not believe God would have had the creation account written from a perspective of time He only understands. Clearly the context of Gen makes it clear to me the the writer was talking 24 hour days. -me

I understand from the following passage that God is the speaker of Scripture and that He expects us to apply logic to what He says.

Totally agree with this statement. I believe God never meant for us to suspend logic when trying to determine what is written in scripture.

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. – Matthew 22:31-32

The same passage makes it clear that God is outside of our space/time, i.e. I am. The sentence, I am, is also one of God's names.

I absolutely agree that God lives outside of time. He created Time and we can use time as a frame of reference, as I am painfully aware of everyday as I advance toward the big Six O in age.

So by applying logic to Genesis, with regard to 24 hour days, I deduce that since God had not created solar system until day 4, that He is not speaking of actual solar days at our space/time coordinates --- but the equivalent of solar days from the space/time coordinate of inception - as the Creator, the only observer and revealer of the creation process

Here is something to consider....the plants were created in day 3, but the sun in day 4. Both days are bounded by evening and morning, a term the author of Gen 1 seems to go out of his way to use. Just wondering about your views about the survival of plants if the gap between these two days were longer than 24 hours?

As an aside, Here is what Barnes notes says about the day recorded in Gen 1:

Gen 1:3-5
The days of this creation are natural days of twenty-four hours each. We may not depart from the ordinary meaning of the word without a sufficient warrant either in the text of Scripture or in the law of nature. But we have not yet found any such warrant. Only necessity can force us to such an expedient. Scripture, on the other hand, warrants us in retaining the common meaning by yielding no hint of another, and by introducing "evening, night, morning, day," as its ordinary divisions. Nature favors the same interpretation. All geological changes are of course subsequent to the great event recorded in the first verse, which is the beginning of things. All such changes, except the one recorded in the six days' creation, are with equal certainty antecedent to the state of things described in the second verse. Hence, no lengthened period is required for this last creative interposition.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

Also, the underlying meaning of the Hebrew words goes to this interpretation as well, showing the evening and the morning are a bringing of order. As Schroeder explains in Age of the Universe

I have also read where many scholars of Hebrew say that, given the total context, the days used in the Gen passages can only be understood as 24 hour days.

***********

Additionally, why would God have something written that had a totally different meaning then what is read in the text? If God wanted to say a billion years, I strongly believe He would have had the writer clearly state a billion years.. -me

I have two observations. First, God obscures meaning intentionally:

Assuming what you say is true (which I have trouble buying), why would he do so in the context of Gen 1? Is it so we can have these threads? (just kidding :-))

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. – I Corinthians 1:19

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. I Corinthians 1:27-29

and

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matthew 13:10-13

Why would you use this passage to make your point? Seems out of context as to our discussion here. Please explain further, as I don't see these teachings as discounting how we should read plain scriptural writings.

Secondly, there are secrets in the Word which are to be revealed in the final days. Perhaps this aspect of Creation is one of them, since the age of the universe is so frequently used to debunk the Word of God:

Yes, but not in a way that glorifies our Creator. Don't see how this fosters the argument of the day-age theory.

*************

Not only that, Jesus makes it clear how the time frames should be understood by his own statement on the subject.-me

I’m not aware of the Scripture you are speaking about. Would you please give me a reference?

Sure:

Matt 19:4-5
"Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
NAS

Blessings, Alamo girl!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing that observation! It is very troubling to me when officials do not take the oaths solemnly - as for instance the oath taken in the Senate before the trial of Clinton:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ------ ------, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.'' …”

[HalfFull]

A "science doesn't need to study anything as God will tell us all about it one day" placemarker.

a Junior is as about as clever as typical evolutionist placemarker

[f.Christian]

Isn't "brainwashed" a bit of a strong term? I mean, c'mon. Brainwashing occurs on a much lower scale... it's simply impossible to "brainwash" 99% of actual scientists, isn't it?

All those children in preschools were testifying to things that never happened ... were planted in their heads ---

a lot of innocent people were persecuted and still are being punished by witch justice --- mass hysteria --- just like evolution perverting and attacking science like a career criminal enterprise that it is !

[HalfFull]

A, Back to about 6 days of accumulated work placemarker...

[Stultis]

Except in the realm of math and pure logic, test is a synonym for proof.

Fine, but in the context of Virginia-American's exchange with HalfFull, "test" was used in the sense of a theory successfully surviving repeated possiblities of falsification (e.g. consistently failing to find fossil bunnies along with stem reptiles, or angiosperm pollen along with trilobites), and that sense of "test" is different from the common sense of "proof" as a positive demonstration that some claim must be true on the basis of given axioms or premises.

[whattajoke]

comparing 4 and 5 year olds who were manipulated is a tad unfair to the phd's who work with evolutionary theory.

even you know that.

[Stultis]

Actually JS1138, the Wiccans have NO problem with Evolution, as a matter of fact, evolution fits into their worldview quite easily.

I don't know about Wiccans specifically, but many new age types are fairly sympathetic to creationism. The first antievolution book I encountered was written by a new-ager: Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe, and it cited ICR type creationist material heavily. Most new-agers aren't actually anti-evolution, but they do tend to be anti-darwinism (e.g. Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny) or as opposed to "mechanistic" naturalism as any ID'er (e.g. Rupert Sheldrake with his "morphic resonance," and various writers on the "hundreth monkey" "phenomena").

[VadeRetro]

I do believe that is your most visually stunning post ever.

I would say "forbidding." I stared at it and thought, "Oh, no! An unusually dense and wordy effdot post!"

[f.Christian]

I read a book on the reliability of eyewitnesses ... once the idea is planted --- their testimony is unshakeable !

In one experiment a teacher visited a class speaking for 5 - 10 minutes and the class was asked after he left ...what the color of his tie was ---

pretty much it split to two colors ...

and then they were told he had no tie on at all .

What is going on here ... weak minds - perceptions --- dupes !

[whattajoke]

I read a book on the reliability of eyewitnesses ... once the idea is planted --- their testimony is unshakeable !

In one experiment a teacher visited a class speaking for 5 - 10 minutes and the class was asked after he left ...what the color of his tie was ---

pretty much it split to two colors ...

and then they were told he had no tie on at all .

*** Yeah, that stuff is pretty cool. So if it works on a classroom of people, we can assume it's much easier to happen on just a couple people, right?

How many saw the empty tomb? Whoops.

[js1138]

DIMENSIO RESPONDED: "Actually, this is often used as a point of attack by creationists. Science, they say, is so inadequate that it must constantly revise itself to account for newly discovered data. ..."

As in the lineage of the platypus, for example? Actually, both religion and science get revised from time to time -- science on a daily basis, and religion every millennium or two.

[f.Christian]

The level for what I can see daily on the FR for atheist intelligence - maturity is really low -- crushed - infantile !!

[js1138]

You're just jealous because it wasn't addressed to you. But the fonts could have been done in a mauvier shade of puce, don'tcha think?

[VadeRetro]

mauvier shade of puce

Procul Harem should have hired you. Clear as the eyes between your nose!

[Concerned]

WHATAJOKE WROTE: "Isn't "brainwashed" a bit of a strong term? I mean, c'mon. Brainwashing occurs on a much lower scale... it's simply impossible to "brainwash" 99% of actual scientists, isn't it?"

I AM RESPONDING: I used the term "brainwashing" to empahsize the fact that a CHILD does not get to CHOOSE what he/she learns in school, but is FORCED to hear---and LEARN---what some pre-determined "all-knowing" ADULT on the government schools' school board gets to CHOOSE for him/her to be taught.

WHATAJOKE ADDED: "Your scientific terms like "Zillions and zillions" and your borrowed opinions like "IT WOULD TAKE MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ISN'T A SUPREME BEING THAN TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SUPREME BEING!" are very compelling, but hardly the stuff of science."

I AM RESPONDING: I used the term "zillions and zillions" to indicate an unknown, yet incomprehensably large, number.

I AM ADDING: As far as the borrowed "take more faith" comment is concerned, I actually used to disagree with it---until I began to FAIRLY examine what was then the opposite side to mine. Now, I agree with it, BECAUSE I have FAIRLY examined the "other" side.

WHATAJOKE WROTE: "And yes, mammals reproduce through heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex. I'll agree with you on that point, however I fail to see how that is somehow an argument for a designer. Oops, I mean, "Designer.""

Glad to see you agree with the obvious. Incredibly, some people still try to argue against the hetero/homo point. The point I was making was that it is uniformly via HETEROsexual union that animals mate and reproduce (and it is with THEIR OWN KIND).

SOMEBODY had to PLAN for mating and reproduction to uniformly take place that way.

For instance, animals don't just LOOK at each other and reproduce. It takes CONTACT---and a CERTAIN TYPE of contact---and then a LOT of other things to happen---IN A CERTAIN ORDER prior to a birth---for reproduction to happen.

SOMEBODY--some Supreme Being---HAD to have FIGURED it out and PLANNED it. The probability that such ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX sequences of events would just HAPPEN to happen---over and over again throughout history---is virtually ZERO.

WHATAJOKE WROTE: "I'll also agree that human dna is different from other animals'. "From conception" even. But again, I fail to see how that is somehow an argument for a designer. Oops, I mean, "Designer.""

I AM RESPONDING: Again, SOMEBODY--some Supreme Being---HAD to have FIGURED it out and PLANNED it. The probability that such ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX sequences of events would just HAPPEN to happen---over and over again throughout history---is virtually ZERO.

WHATAJOKE WROTE: "At any rate, your failure to be able to grasp the tenets of evolution hardly give enough reason for the world to discard a readily accepted fact of biology."

I guess you probably still believe (like I used to believe in 1974, before FAIRLY examining the "other" side) that preborn babies are just a "mass of tissue."

I've got to run right now, but here is a short list of eyeopening websites to start your journey to examine the "other" side:

http://www.michaelclancy.com/
http://members.aol.com/dfjoseph/babysamuel.html
http://members.aol.com/dfjoseph/babysamuel2.html
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/99/09/07/fetus07.shtml
http://www.prolife.org.uk/abortionThumbnails.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/768683/posts
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12262420&method=full&sit

[Dataman]

Jesus is so surrendered to the Father...

In case you haven't seen this transfixing 2 minutes.