Posted on 01/19/2005 8:52:24 AM PST by FeeinTennessee
"Things are so complex, only an invisible sky-god preexistent chemicals and energy could have made them." Some theory!
I'm not sure that any translation of any work, from any language to any other, can be said to be literal. Individual languages have their own shadings and concepts that don't easily translate, if at all.
In the case of the Bible, the problem is the words in Hebrew hold certain implications, some of which may not even be known to modern Bible scholars.
One that I've mentioned on other threads is that Genesis 2: refers to God "forming" Adam. Only the Hebrew word translated as "formed" specifically refers to pottery-making. Thus, I read it as man was formed, as pottery is formed, through intermediate forms to a final state. My reading of that is that the Bible says evolution occurred.
Larger point is the Bible may be literally true. But the Bible in English -- King James, NIV, JPS, Kaplan, whatever -- is not literally true, because translations from Hebrew to English cannot maintain all the implications in the original language. Commentary helps, but still...
Regardless of what has been discussed on other threads....I am speaking to someone that has grip on scripture and the details. Again go to www.answersingenesis.com or take a precepts course on THE BOOK OF GENESIS. I guess it would be easier for those that don't take the time to study to just accept that it is "parable like" even though the two have nothing to do with each other. What do you do with the rest of Genesis.....like the GLOBAL FLOOD, I suppose God meant a local flood, not a world wide flood.
>>"Things are so complex, only an invisible sky-god could have made them." Some theory!<<
But what if it is, in fact, the truth?
Spelling mistakes are from typing too fast so I can get my work done.
Thank you Savagemom...the whole point is not to promote religion in schools, but to offer an alternative look at how we got here. Science is always evolving and scientists are always finding out more and more about our universe. Something as complex as how we got here shouldn't be resigned to evolution...it's called "being open-minded". And it's asking students to explore other possibilities.
Narby: Well, the students discussions about the conflicts in Genesis should be interesting. I'm just amazed that Christians actually want government schools to teach their children about religion.
Fee: It's about giving students an alternative Narby..not teaching religion.
Well, I imagine you've been properly ridiculed already, so I will go ahead and give you the answers you seek:
Does the fossil record show that evolution occurs within the plant kingdom too?
Of course it does. Very clearly.
Or, that plants can evolve into animals?
No, although they could.
I just wonder how so many Christian's can be so dishonest. Employ such subterfuge.
The people pushing "ID" in schools are overwhelmingly evangelical Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and a Young Earth.
The "Intelligent Designer" is God.
The term ID gained popularity after they failed to get creationism taught in schools because it was a religious view. They simply came up with a euphemism.
How can any honest evangelical deny this is about teaching a religious viewpoint?
" ID has nothing. "
ID has an old book, written when the earth was thought to be flat and when thunder and lightning were thought to be God's judgement.
And to IDers, there's absolutely nothing incorrect about anything found in this book.
Well, the students discussions about the conflicts in Genesis should be interesting. I'm just amazed that Christians actually want government schools to teach their children about religion.
Yep, well the whole point is to give students the option of hearing something other than evolution is responsible for our beginning. :)
I just would like to note some reservations about that term, imo.
They are thus: The world and all things in it are FAR TOO COMPLEX for ANY amount of intelligence to maintain, much less create. The power both to (1) create the universe and (2) maintain it are beyond the bounds of ANY possible intelligence. That's my theory.
This is stupid. If the objection to evolution concerns lack of evidence, how is intelligent design any better? At least evolution has the fossil record to back its claims; ID has nothing.
"Things are so complex, only an invisible sky-god could have made them." Some theory!
Well it keeps options open. If we as a nation are supposed to be mostly Christian and belive in God, and we are "ONE NATION UNDER GOD", then why wouldn't be leave the door open to discuss whether or not the universe was created by intelligent design? Why wouldn't we be open to that? It's not promoting a religion, it's asking you to think differently about where we come from.
Second, it is inacurate because evolution does not deal with the beginings of life, but the "evolution" of simple forms into complex ones.
God is responsible for my origins. Evolution describes the tool he used.
Just out of idle curiosity, how many of these students would you estimate haven't heard something like that before 9th grade biology?
Our children in the classroom are expected to learn what you did not: that animals did not evolve from plants. After one is beyond that point, a question such as yours would hardly qualify as "legitimate"...
Here's my advice, if you want to stand a chance at refuting evolution with even a modicum of credibility, try learning the very most basic facts about it first.
I home school my children. If they were in a government school, I would not want a teacher to teach them Darwinism, creationism, ID or any other view, no matter what you call it or how "scientific" it may seem to you or anyone else.
Every view has religious implications and conveys its own worldview. Every view has moral and ehtical implications. Hence, it would be inappropriate to teach any view in a public classroom, especially to young children.
"A lot of us don't think it is stupid. "
Well, which sect of Christianity do you propose shoving down students' throats?
Catholicism? Southern Baptism? Church of Mormon?
That too is a religious viewpoint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.