Denying science in the classroom

[commando]

These billboards were put up in Amarillo, TX. Two of them went up, apparently.

 

the lack of vaccines can cause pandemics

[NUance]

I have two issues with this thread. First, why is it that people who don't believe in creationism always pick the low hanging fruit of Christianity to attack? They always seem to paint all Christians as fundamentalists who believe in a six day creation. A lot of Christians--myself included--suspect that creationism took place over billions of years under the guiding hand of God, rather than in six days. I suspect that there are misinterpretations in our current understanding of the bible story due to our lack of familiarity with the written language of 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, and due to the limits of written language back then.

 

The second issue I have is our own conceit in being so certain of our answers for these things. I mean, imagine the concept of omniscience. Or if you don't believe in God-like omniscience, imagine the amount of knowledge it would take to create and maintain the universe and all life in it. If you label a graph of intelligence from 0 to 100, with 100 being omniscience, how far along that graph do you think humanity is? I'll tell you what, we are an awful lot closer to 0 than we are to 100. I seriously doubt if we are even 1% of the way towards the omniscience it would take to create and maintain the universe. I mean, with all the technology in the world today, we cannot even build a butterfly. Shoot, we only yesterday discovered that the earth isn't the center of the universe, and instead orbits around the sun. Okay, it was 500 years ago, not yesterday. But you get the point: We are not remotely close to knowing for ourselves the specifics of how the universe was created. Or who, if anyone, created it. Despite this, there are quite a few people in this thread who seem certain of themselves.

 

Finally, I think if you were able to contemplate the origin of the universe with no preconceived notions one way or the other (as if that's even possible), both possibilities seem equally implausible:

• The universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly. Conditions were just right on some planets for life to spark into existence. Somehow that simple lifeform developed DNA and became able to reproduce as plants and simple one celled organisms. Over a long period of time the lifeforms continued to reproduce, and eventually evolved into mankind and complex system of life we have on earth.

• The universe was created by an omniscient, all powerful God. He designed the universe, including the earth and mankind. Although He is apparently very large and ever present people cannot see him, and He doesn’t talk to just anyone. He wants us to worship him.

 

 

Now I can get off my

[NM11046]

 

These billboards were put up in Amarillo, TX. Two of them went up, apparently.

 

the lack of vaccines can cause pandemics

 

Pandemics are gods way of killing off the sinners and liberals.

[knapplc]

I have two issues with this thread. First, why is it that people who don't believe in creationism always pick the low hanging fruit of Christianity to attack? They always seem to paint all Christians as fundamentalists who believe in a six day creation. A lot of Christians--myself included--suspect that creationism took place over billions of years under the guiding hand of God, rather than in six days. I suspect that there are misinterpretations in our current understanding of the bible story due to our lack of familiarity with the written language of 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, and due to the limits of written language back then.

 

The second issue I have is our own conceit in being so certain of our answers for these things. I mean, imagine the concept of omniscience. Or if you don't believe in God-like omniscience, imagine the amount of knowledge it would take to create and maintain the universe and all life in it. If you label a graph of intelligence from 0 to 100, with 100 being omniscience, how far along that graph do you think humanity is? I'll tell you what, we are an awful lot closer to 0 than we are to 100. I seriously doubt if we are even 1% of the way towards the omniscience it would take to create and maintain the universe. I mean, with all the technology in the world today, we cannot even build a butterfly. Shoot, we only yesterday discovered that the earth isn't the center of the universe, and instead orbits around the sun. Okay, it was 500 years ago, not yesterday. But you get the point: We are not remotely close to knowing for ourselves the specifics of how the universe was created. Or who, if anyone, created it. Despite this, there are quite a few people in this thread who seem certain of themselves.

 

Finally, I think if you were able to contemplate the origin of the universe with no preconceived notions one way or the other (as if that's even possible), both possibilities seem equally implausible:

• The universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly. Conditions were just right on some planets for life to spark into existence. Somehow that simple lifeform developed DNA and became able to reproduce as plants and simple one celled organisms. Over a long period of time the lifeforms continued to reproduce, and eventually evolved into mankind and complex system of life we have on earth.

• The universe was created by an omniscient, all powerful God. He designed the universe, including the earth and mankind. Although He is apparently very large and ever present people cannot see him, and He doesn’t talk to just anyone. He wants us to worship him.

 

 

Now I can get off my

 

 

 

 

Christianity claims to be certain of the origins of the universe. I don't know if this is the "conceit" you're talking about, but of the two (science and religion), only one claims certainty.

 

Of the two, (science and religion) we have more evidence of one being the more likely source of the universe. If there were sufficient evidence for a better hypothesis, science would teach that evidence.

[zoogs]

You will find humility in the limits of our knowledge in science and empiricism. Asking equal deference for ideas supported only by belief and not by evidence is many things, but humility for human limits is not one of them. It asks us to suspend inquiry and reason even when it comes to physical claims about the world.

[Landlord]

First, why is it that people who don't believe in creationism always pick the low hanging fruit of Christianity to attack? They always seem to paint all Christians as fundamentalists who believe in a six day creation. A lot of Christians--myself included--suspect that creationism took place over billions of years under the guiding hand of God, rather than in six days.

 

We've talked about this before, zoogs. First of all, nobody is picking the low hanging fruit of Christianity (nobody you should take seriously, at least). Only the low hanging fruit of creationism. Second of all, creationism is defined by a literal interpretation of Genesis, thus, you are not a creationist.

 

 

 

 

Finally, I think if you were able to contemplate the origin of the universe with no preconceived notions one way or the other (as if that's even possible), both possibilities seem equally implausible:

• The universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly. Conditions were just right on some planets for life to spark into existence. Somehow that simple lifeform developed DNA and became able to reproduce as plants and simple one celled organisms. Over a long period of time the lifeforms continued to reproduce, and eventually evolved into mankind and complex system of life we have on earth.

• The universe was created by an omniscient, all powerful God. He designed the universe, including the earth and mankind. Although He is apparently very large and ever present people cannot see him, and He doesn’t talk to just anyone. He wants us to worship him.

 

 

These two ideas are not in conflict with each other and nobody is saying they are. I believe both are true. The difference is that one is scientific, and one is not.

[Ratt Mhule]

I have two issues with this thread. First, why is it that people who don't believe in creationism always pick the low hanging fruit of Christianity to attack? They always seem to paint all Christians as fundamentalists who believe in a six day creation. A lot of Christians--myself included--suspect that creationism took place over billions of years under the guiding hand of God, rather than in six days. I suspect that there are misinterpretations in our current understanding of the bible story due to our lack of familiarity with the written language of 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, and due to the limits of written language back then.

 

The second issue I have is our own conceit in being so certain of our answers for these things. I mean, imagine the concept of omniscience. Or if you don't believe in God-like omniscience, imagine the amount of knowledge it would take to create and maintain the universe and all life in it. If you label a graph of intelligence from 0 to 100, with 100 being omniscience, how far along that graph do you think humanity is? I'll tell you what, we are an awful lot closer to 0 than we are to 100. I seriously doubt if we are even 1% of the way towards the omniscience it would take to create and maintain the universe. I mean, with all the technology in the world today, we cannot even build a butterfly. Shoot, we only yesterday discovered that the earth isn't the center of the universe, and instead orbits around the sun. Okay, it was 500 years ago, not yesterday. But you get the point: We are not remotely close to knowing for ourselves the specifics of how the universe was created. Or who, if anyone, created it. Despite this, there are quite a few people in this thread who seem certain of themselves.

 

Finally, I think if you were able to contemplate the origin of the universe with no preconceived notions one way or the other (as if that's even possible), both possibilities seem equally implausible:

 

• The universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly. Conditions were just right on some planets for life to spark into existence. Somehow that simple lifeform developed DNA and became able to reproduce as plants and simple one celled organisms. Over a long period of time the lifeforms continued to reproduce, and eventually evolved into mankind and complex system of life we have on earth.

• The universe was created by an omniscient, all powerful God. He designed the universe, including the earth and mankind. Although He is apparently very large and ever present people cannot see him, and He doesnt talk to just anyone. He wants us to worship him.

 

Now I can get off my

This is one of my problems with Christianity and not just Christianity, religion in general. People pick and choose things out of the bible and change it to fit their belief. I know in my post above, I threw in some satire, but all in all, that is what the bible says. The bible says God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Boom. Thats it. As a Christian you are told to believe in everything the bible says and does. So you saying the world was created over billions of years is going against what the bible says. Thats fine, you, like many Christians interpret it for your individual beliefs. But creationsits are the ones following the bibles teachings the way they are written. Language barriers aside, thats how its written in the modern day bible.

 

In my opinion, that is no different than the person who breaks laws in Leviticus on a daily, but only focuses on homosexuality passage. Or the person who says the Old testament doesnt count anymore because belief in Jesus is the only law we need to follow, but in the same breath condemns homosexuality, which was a passage in the Old testament. Now, I could be wrong, so forgive me, but I dont remember homosexuality being mentioned by Jesus.

[Landlord]

'Following the bibles teachings the way they are written' is a non-distinct and ambiguous proposition which presupposes the entirety of the bible was meant to be read through literal interpretation.

[Ratt Mhule]

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

[zoogs]

I feel scolded

[knapplc]

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

 

The Bible has to be the "literal word of God" without the ability to interpret it, because if you can interpret this or that part, every part is interpretable. That includes the virgin birth, Jesus' godhead, basically the entire New Testament.

[Making Chimichangas]

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

As a former catholic, I concur that christians are instructed to read the bible and take it literally.

[DrunkOffPunch]

 

 

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

As a former catholic, I concur that christians are instructed to read the bible and take it literally.

I wasn't. I'm Lutheran and we were taught in Sunday school that the Bible was not to be taken literally.

[knapplc]

 

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

As a former catholic, I concur that christians are instructed to read the bible and take it literally.

 

 

So are Lutherans. The Bible is the "divinely inspired Word of God," which, while it was written by men, was written from knowledge obtained ONLY from God. The men who wrote those books were no more the author of them than the pen they used to write it down - it ALL came from God.

[knapplc]

 

 

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

As a former catholic, I concur that christians are instructed to read the bible and take it literally.

I wasn't. I'm Lutheran and we were taught in Sunday school that the Bible was not to be taken literally.

 

 

ELCA? Because I've had decades of Lutheran theology and I've done Lay preaching, taught Sunday school and adult worship classes, and I've never heard this in a Lutheran setting. My flavor of Lutheran is Missouri Synod, so results may differ.