Evolution v. Creationism v. ID

[wil]

I think you'll find that it does...

Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism | Science | The Guardian

s.

WOW for those of you that haven't read it, 20% of science teachers polled in the UK think Creationism should be taught in state schools.


That's a little way from no argument here...

 

[seattlegal]

WOW for those of you that haven't read it, 20% of science teachers polled in the UK think Creationism should be taught in state schools.


That's a little way from no argument here...

From the article:

"Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson,"​

Like macro evolution?

more from the article:

Higgins said creationism as an alternative to Darwin's theory had been "thoroughly discredited".​

Really? I'd like to see the empirical evidence demonstrating this.

He added: "If a pupil raises it as a hypothesis then a brief discussion as to why creationism is wrong might be appropriate ... But it would undermine any educational system to purposefully teach discredited ideas which are now only perpetuated through ignorance or flawed thinking - one might as well teach astrology, flat Earthism, alchemy or a geocentric universe."​

Where is the empirical evidence to support macro evolution and to discredit creationism? Where is the empirical evidence to support abiogenesis?

 

[WizardDevil]

oh, it works all right. it just doesn't work like evangelists and the ID/creationist lobby think it does, let alone in english translation. which is why there is nothing wrong with evolution at all from a traditional religious jewish standpoint.

I really don't see how, but, perhaps, if it says something different in another language, you are correct. Would you mind presenting your info?

Hi, WizardDevil, and welcome to IO.

Regarding your question regarding a 'day' being the division of the light from the dark, in conjunction with the scripture from Luke 10, you might want to check out John chapter 1.

I don't understand the Luke reference. Perhaps you mean the scripture I quoted? Otherwise, I find nothing that really relates to this subject within the chapter. Perhaps I did not read thoroughly enough.

As to John, the light in question is regarded as life in verse 4. If you look in Genesis, if you want to argue from a scientific point of view, life first started to appear on the third day - days after the light was created. It cannot, therefore, refer to life. I personally don't believe that everytime the word 'light' appears in the Bible it is in reference to the same light, however, if the light is day and the dark is night, and the sun is in the SKY during the DAY, then I really don't see what's so incorrect about a literal translation of these passages.

Before trying to understand day and night, what do you think is meant by the "light?" It exists before the creation of suns so what is this light. Day and night refer to how it is continually created and how it eventually becomes light as we perceive it.

Can you support the idea that the light was created before suns? In what part of the chapter appears the word sun? Star?

Is your conclusion inferred?

WizardDevil,

If Genesis is not symbolic, please show me what a tree of knowlege of 'good' and 'evil' looks like. And while you are at it, how about a serpent who talks and numerous other statements that make no sense when viewed literally.

Perhaps I'm the only one that views the transfiguration of Satan into a snake as a possibility. As to the tree, again, I would take it literally - You eat for the tree of knowledge of good and evil and then you know what's good and evil - Or, as the snake put it, you become like God(Well, not exactly, but I'm sure you understand).

I think we've misunderstood something - Not everything in a symbolic or unsymbolic book will be such. I think you'll find at least one symbol in every book of the Bible. It doesn't mean everything in that book is symbolic.
And we need to understand that all things are possible through God. (Matthew 19:24-26)

 

[seattlegal]

I don't understand the Luke reference. Perhaps you mean the scripture I quoted? Otherwise, I find nothing that really relates to this subject within the chapter. Perhaps I did not read thoroughly enough.

Yes, the scripture you referred to at Luke 10:22.

As to John, the light in question is regarded as life in verse 4. If you look in Genesis, if you want to argue from a scientific point of view, life first started to appear on the third day - days after the light was created. It cannot, therefore, refer to life. I personally don't believe that everytime the word 'light' appears in the Bible it is in reference to the same light, however, if the light is day and the dark is night, and the sun is in the SKY during the DAY, then I really don't see what's so incorrect about a literal translation of these passages.

Check out 2 Corinthians 4:1-6
and compare to
Romans 1:18-21

18 For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, 19 since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. 20 From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. 21 For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.​

There's that Intelligent Design thing.

Can you support the idea that the light was created before suns? In what part of the chapter appears the word sun? Star?

If you take the perspective from the above scripture our being able investigate and understand from studying creation, then there being scientific evidence to explore and understand the universe before the creation of the stars and the sun would constitute light (in the form of understanding) from before the creation of the stars, no?